Endangered and Threatened Species, Designation of Critical Habitat for Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon, 515-536 [2010-33314]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 515-536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33314]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 101027536-0540-02]
RIN 0648-BA38


Endangered and Threatened Species, Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the southern Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS) of Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), which was recently 
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have 
proposed 12 specific areas for designation as critical habitat within 
the states of California, Oregon, and Washington. The proposed areas 
are a combination of freshwater creeks and rivers and their associated 
estuaries which comprise approximately 470 km (292 mi) of habitat. 
Three particular areas are proposed for exclusion after evaluating the 
impacts and benefits associated with tribal land ownership and 
management by Indian tribes, but no areas are proposed for exclusion 
based on economic impacts.
    We are soliciting comments from the public on all aspects of the 
proposal, including information on the economic, national security, and 
other relevant impacts of the proposed designation, as well as the 
benefits to the southern DPS of eulachon from designation. We will 
consider additional information received prior to making a final 
designation.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by close of 
business on March 7, 2011. A public meeting has been scheduled for 
January 26, 2011 from 3:30-5:30 p.m. and 6-8 p.m. at the Doubletree 
Hotel, 1000 NE Multnomah Street, Portland, OR 97232. Requests for 
additional public hearings should be made in writing by February 22, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by 
RIN 0648-BA38, by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 503-230-5441, Attn: Marc Romano.
     Mail: Chief, Protected Resources Division, Northwest 
Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 Lloyd Blvd, Suite 1201, 
Portland, OR 97232.
    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 https://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. The proposed rule, list of references and supporting 
documents (including the Draft Eulachon Biological Report (NMFS 2010b); 
the Draft Eulachon Economic Analysis (NMFS 2010c); and, the Draft 
Eulachon Section 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS, 2010d)) are also available 
electronically at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Romano, NMFS, Northwest Region, 
Protected Resources Division, at the address above or at 503-231-2200, 
or Jim Simondet, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division, 
Arcata, CA 707-825-5171, or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources, Silver Spring, MD 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 18, 2010, we listed the southern DPS of Pacific eulachon 
as threatened under the ESA (75 FR 13012). During the public comment 
period on the proposed rule to list the southern DPS of eulachon, we 
requested and received some information on the quality and extent of 
eulachon freshwater and estuarine habitat (73 FR 13185; March 12, 
2008). However, at the time of listing, we concluded that critical 
habitat was not determinable because sufficient information was not 
available to: (1) Determine the geographical area occupied by the 
species; (2) identify the physical and biological features essential to 
conservation; and (3) assess the impacts of a designation. During 
promulgation of the final rule to list eulachon, we were working to 
compile the best available information necessary to consider a critical 
habitat designation. We have now researched, reviewed and summarized 
this best available information on eulachon, including recent 
biological surveys and reports, peer-reviewed literature, the NMFS 
status report for eulachon (NMFS 2010a), the proposed rule to list 
eulachon (74 FR 10857; March 13, 2009), and the final listing 
determination for eulachon (75 FR 13012; March 18, 2010) and had 
discussions with and considered recommendations by State, Federal, and 
tribal biologists familiar with eulachon. We used this information to 
identify the geographical area occupied, specific areas that may 
qualify as critical habitat for the southern DPS, as well as potential 
impacts associated with the designation and proposed exclusions.
    We considered various alternatives to the critical habitat 
designation for

[[Page 516]]

southern DPS eulachon. The alternative of not designating critical 
habitat for southern DPS eulachon would impose no economic, national 
security, or other relevant impacts, but would not provide any 
conservation benefit to the species. This alternative was considered 
and rejected because such an approach does not meet the legal 
requirements of the ESA and would not provide for the conservation of 
southern DPS eulachon. The alternative of designating all of the areas 
considered for designation (i.e., no areas excluded) was also 
considered and rejected because, for three areas, the benefits of 
exclusion outweighed the benefits of designation, and NMFS did not 
determine that exclusion of these areas would significantly impede 
conservation of the species or result in extinction of the species. The 
total estimated annualized economic impact associated with the 
designation of all of the areas considered would be $500,000 
(discounted at 7 percent) or $520,000 (discounted at 3 percent).
    An alternative to designating critical habitat within all of the 
areas considered for designation is the designation of critical habitat 
within a subset of these areas. Under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, NMFS 
must consider the economic impacts, impacts to national security, and 
other relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical 
habitat. NMFS has the discretion to exclude an area from designation as 
critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion (i.e., the impacts that 
would be avoided if an area were excluded from the designation) 
outweigh the benefits of designation (i.e., the conservation benefits 
to southern DPS eulachon if an area were designated), so long as 
exclusion of the area will not result in extinction of the species. 
Exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA of one or more of the areas 
considered for designation would reduce the total impacts of 
designation. The determination of which units to exclude depends on 
NMFS' ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, which is conducted for each area 
and described in detail in the draft ESA 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2010b). 
Under the preferred alternative we propose to exclude three of the 14 
areas considered (we propose to exclude two of the areas completely and 
part of the third area). The total estimated economic impact associated 
with this preferred alternative is $460,500 (discounted at 7 percent) 
or $479,000 (discounted at 3 percent). We determined that the exclusion 
of these areas would not significantly impede the conservation of 
southern DPS eulachon nor result in extinction of the species. We 
selected this as the preferred alternative because it results in a 
critical habitat designation that provides for the conservation of 
southern DPS eulachon while reducing other relevant impacts. This 
alternative also meets the requirements under the ESA and our joint 
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations concerning 
critical habitat.
    Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat 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 that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.'' Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the 
terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to mean: ``to 
use, and 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 chapter are no longer 
necessary.'' Critical habitat cannot be designated in areas outside of 
U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12h). Section 4 of the ESA requires that, 
before designating critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, 
impacts on national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, 
unless excluding an area from critical habitat will result in the 
extinction of the species concerned. Once critical habitat is 
designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each Federal 
agency, in consultation with NMFS and with our assistance, ensure that 
any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This 
requirement is additional to the section 7 requirement that Federal 
agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of listed species.

Eulachon Natural History

    Eulachon are an anadromous fish, meaning adults migrate from the 
ocean to spawn in freshwater creeks and rivers where their offspring 
hatch and migrate back to the ocean to forage until maturity. Although 
they spend 95 to 98 percent of their lives at sea (Hay and McCarter 
2000), little is known concerning the saltwater existence of eulachon. 
The species is endemic to the northeastern Pacific Ocean, ranging from 
northern California to the southeastern Bering Sea in Bristol Bay, 
Alaska (McAllister, 1963; Scott and Crossman, 1973; Willson et al., 
2006). This distribution coincides closely with the distribution of the 
coastal temperate rain forest ecosystem on the west coast of North 
America (with the exception of populations spawning west of Cook Inlet, 
Alaska).
    In the portion of the species' range that lies south of the U.S.-
Canada border, most eulachon production originates in the Columbia 
River basin. Within the Columbia River basin, the major and most 
consistent spawning runs return to the mainstem of the Columbia River 
and the Cowlitz River. Spawning also occurs in other tributaries to the 
Columbia River, including the Grays, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and 
Sandy Rivers (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). Historically, the only other large 
river basins in the contiguous United States where large, consistent 
spawning runs of eulachon have been documented are the Klamath River in 
northern California and the Umpqua River in Oregon. Eulachon have been 
found in numerous coastal rivers in northern California (including the 
Mad River and Redwood Creek), Oregon (including Tenmile Creek south of 
Yachats, OR) and Washington (including the Quinault and Elwha Rivers) 
(Emmett et al., 1991; Willson et al., 2006).
    Major eulachon production areas in Canada are the Fraser and Nass 
rivers (Willson et al., 2006). Numerous other river systems in central 
British Columbia and Alaska have consistent yearly runs of eulachon and 
historically supported significant levels of harvest (Willson et al., 
2006; NMFS, 2010a). Many sources note that runs occasionally occur in 
other rivers and streams, although these tend to be sporadic, appearing 
in some years but not others, and appearing only rarely in some river 
systems (Hay and McCarter, 2000; Willson et al., 2006).

Early Life History and Maturation

    Eulachon eggs can vary considerably in size but typically are 
approximately 1 mm (0.04 in) in diameter and average about 43 mg (0.002 
oz) in weight (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eggs are enclosed in a double 
membrane; after fertilization in the water, the outer membrane breaks 
and turns inside out, creating a sticky stalk which acts to anchor the 
eggs to

[[Page 517]]

the substrate (Hart and McHugh, 1944; Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eulachon 
eggs hatch in 20 to 40 days with incubation time dependent on water 
temperature (Howell, 2001). Shortly after hatching, the larvae are 
carried downstream and dispersed by estuarine, tidal, and ocean 
currents. Larval eulachon may be retained in low salinity, surface 
waters of estuaries for several weeks or longer (Hay and McCarter, 
2000) before entering the ocean. Similar to salmon, juvenile eulachon 
are thought to imprint on the chemical signature of their natal river 
basin. However, because juvenile eulachon spend less time in freshwater 
environments than do juvenile salmon, researchers believe that this 
short freshwater residence time may cause returning eulachon to stray 
between spawning sites at higher rates than salmon (Hay and McCarter, 
2000).
    Once juvenile eulachon enter the ocean, they move from shallow 
nearshore areas to deeper areas over the continental shelf. Larvae and 
young juveniles become widely distributed in coastal waters, where they 
are typically found near the ocean bottom in waters 20 to 150 m deep 
(66 to 292 ft) (Hay and McCarter, 2000) and sometimes as deep as 182 m 
(597 ft) (Barraclough, 1964). There is currently little information 
available about eulachon movements in nearshore marine areas and the 
open ocean. However, eulachon occur as bycatch in the ocean shrimp 
(Pandalus jordani) fishery (Hay et al., 1999; Olsen et al., 2000; 
NWFSC, 2008; Hannah and Jones, 2009), which seems to indicate that the 
distribution of these organisms may overlap in the ocean.

Spawning Behavior

    Eulachon typically spend several years in salt water before 
returning to fresh water to spawn from late winter through early 
summer. Eulachon are semelparous, meaning that they spawn once and then 
die. Spawning grounds are typically in the lower reaches of larger 
rivers fed by snowmelt (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Willson et al. (2006) 
concluded that the age distribution of eulachon in a spawning run 
varies considerably, but typically consists of fish that are 2 to 5 
years old. Eulachon eggs commonly adhere to sand (Langer et al., 1977) 
or pea-sized gravel (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955), though eggs have been 
found on silt, gravel to cobble sized rock, and organic detritus (Smith 
and Saalfeld 1955, Langer et al., 1977, Lewis et al., 2002). Eggs found 
in areas of silt or organic debris reportedly suffer much higher 
mortality than those found in sand or gravel (Langer et al., 1977).
    In many rivers, spawning is limited to the part of the river that 
is influenced by tides (Lewis et al., 2002), but some exceptions exist. 
In the Berners Bay system of Alaska, the greatest abundance of eulachon 
are observed in tidally-influenced reaches, but some fish ascend well 
beyond the tidal influence (Willson et al., 2006). In the Kemano River, 
Canada, water velocity greater than 0.4 meters/second begins to limit 
the upstream movements of eulachon (Lewis et al., 2002).
    Entry into the spawning rivers appears to be related to water 
temperature and the occurrence of high tides (Ricker et al., 1954; 
Smith and Saalfeld, 1955; Spangler, 2002). Spawning generally occurs in 
January, February, and March in the Columbia River, the Klamath River, 
and the coastal rivers of Washington and Oregon, and April and May in 
the Fraser River (NMFS, 2010a). Eulachon runs in central and northern 
British Columbia typically occur in late February and March or late 
March and early April. Attempts to characterize eulachon run timing are 
complicated by marked annual variation in timing. Willson et al. (2006) 
give several examples of spawning run timing varying by a month or more 
in rivers in British Columbia and Alaska. Climate change, especially in 
regards to ocean conditions, is considered a significant threat to 
eulachon and their habitats and may also be a factor in run timing 
(NMFS, 2010a). Most eulachon rivers are fed by extensive snowmelt or 
glacial runoff, so elevated temperatures and changes in snow pack and 
the timing and intensity of stream flows will likely impact eulachon 
run timing. There are already indications, perhaps in response to 
warming conditions and/or altered stream flow timing, that adult 
eulachon are returning earlier in the season to several rivers within 
the range of the southern DPS (Moody, 2008).
    Water temperature at the time of spawning varies across the 
distribution of the species. Although spawning generally occurs at 
temperatures from 4 to 7 [deg]C (39 to 45 [deg]F) in the Cowlitz River 
(Smith and Saalfeld, 1955), and at a mean temperature of 3.1 [deg]C 
(37.6 [deg]F) in the Kemano and Wahoo Rivers, peak eulachon runs occur 
at noticeably colder temperatures (between 0 and 2 [deg]C [32 and 36 
[deg]F]) in the Nass River. The Nass River run is also earlier than the 
eulachon run that occurs in the Fraser River, which typically has 
warmer temperatures than the Nass River (Langer et al., 1977).

Prey

    Eulachon adults feed on zooplankton, chiefly eating crustaceans 
such as copepods and euphausiids, including Thysanoessa spp. (Hay and 
McCarter, 2000; WDFW and ODFW, 2001), unidentified malacostracans 
(Sturdevant 1999), and cumaceans (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955). Eulachon 
larvae and juveniles eat a variety of prey items, including 
phytoplankton, copepods, copepod eggs, mysids, barnacle larvae, and 
worm larvae (WDFW and ODFW 2001). Adults and juveniles commonly forage 
at moderate depths (20-150 m [66-292 ft]) in nearshore marine waters 
(Hay and McCarter 2000). Eulachon adults do not feed during spawning 
(McHugh 1939, Hart and McHugh 1944).

Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In the following sections, we describe the relevant definitions and 
requirements in the ESA and our implementing regulations and the key 
methods and criteria used to prepare this proposed critical habitat 
designation. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), this proposed rule is based 
on the best scientific information available concerning the southern 
DPS's present and historical range, habitat, and biology, as well as 
threats to its habitat. In preparing this rule, we reviewed and 
summarized current information on eulachon, including recent biological 
surveys and reports, peer-reviewed literature, NMFS status reviews for 
southern DPS eulachon (NMFS 2010), the proposed rule to list eulachon 
(74 FR 10857; March 13, 2009), and the final listing determination for 
eulachon (75 FR 13012; March 18, 2010). All of the information gathered 
to create this proposed rule has been collated and analyzed in three 
supporting documents: The Draft Eulachon Biological Report (NMFS 
2010b); the Draft Eulachon Economic Analysis (NMFS 2010c); and, the 
Draft Eulachon Section 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2010d).
    We used this information to identify specific areas that may 
qualify as critical habitat for the southern DPS. We followed a five-
step process in order to identify these specific areas: (1) Determine 
the geographical area occupied by the species, (2) identify physical or 
biological habitat features essential to the conservation of the 
species, (3) delineate specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species on which are found the physical or biological 
features, (4) determine whether the features in a specific area may 
require special management considerations or protections, and (5) 
determine whether any unoccupied areas are essential for conservation. 
Our evaluation and

[[Page 518]]

conclusions are described in detail in the following sections.

Geographical Area Occupied by the Species

    We relied on the best available data from commercial and 
recreational harvest, published literature, field observations 
(including river sampling with a variety of net types and research 
trawls), opportunistic sightings, and anecdotal information to 
determine the geographical area occupied by the southern DPS of 
eulachon at the time it was listed. The southern DPS ranges from the 
Skeena River in British Columbia, Canada, to the Mad River in 
California (NMFS 2010a). We cannot designate areas outside U.S. 
jurisdiction as critical habitat (see above). Thus, the geographical 
area under consideration for this designation is limited to areas under 
the jurisdiction of the United States, south of the international 
border with Canada, to the Mad River in California. At the time of 
listing, we had information indicating that the geographical area 
occupied consists of at least 42 river systems between the 
international border and the Mad River (NMFS, 2010b). Although eulachon 
presence has been documented in these systems, most river systems have 
limited or irregular sampling for eulachon and many other river systems 
within the range of the DPS have never been sampled. In addition, given 
the highly migratory nature of eulachon and the lack of published 
records, we do not know how far offshore southern DPS eulachon are 
distributed and thus how far offshore the geographical area occupied by 
the species extends.

Physical or Biological Features Essential for Conservation

    Joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations at 50 
CFR 424.12(b) state that in determining what areas are critical 
habitat, the agencies ``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''. 
These include, but are not limited to: ``(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: (5) Habitats 
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the 
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.''
    Based on the best available scientific information, we developed a 
list of physical and biological features essential to the conservation 
of eulachon and relevant to determining whether occupied areas are 
consistent with the above regulations and the ESA section (3)(5)(A) 
definition of ``critical habitat.'' The physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the southern DPS fall into three major 
categories reflecting key life history phases of eulachon:
    (1) Freshwater spawning and incubation sites with water flow, 
quality and temperature conditions and substrate supporting spawning 
and incubation. These features are essential to conservation because 
without them the species cannot successfully spawn and produce 
offspring.
    (2) Freshwater and estuarine migration corridors free of 
obstruction and with water flow, quality and temperature conditions 
supporting larval and adult mobility, and with abundant prey items 
supporting larval feeding after the yolk sac is depleted. These 
features are essential to conservation because they allow adult fish to 
swim upstream to reach spawning areas and they allow larval fish to 
proceed downstream and reach the ocean.
    (3) Nearshore and offshore marine foraging habitat with water 
quality and available prey, supporting juveniles and adult survival. 
Juveniles eat phytoplankton, copepod eggs, copepods and other small 
zooplanktons (including euphausiids; Barraclough, 1964), and adults eat 
euphausiids and copepods (Hart, 1973). These features are essential to 
conservation because they allow juvenile fish to survive, grow, and 
reach maturity, and they allow adult fish to survive and return to 
freshwater systems to spawn.
    The components of the freshwater spawning and incubation essential 
features include:
    Flow: A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
seasonality, and rate-of-change of freshwater discharge over time) that 
supports spawning, and survival of all life stages. Most spawning 
rivers experience a spring freshet characteristic of rivers draining 
large snow packs or glaciers (Hay and McCarter, 2000). In general, 
eulachon spawn at lower water levels before spring freshets (Lewis et 
al., 2002). In the Kemano River, Canada, water velocity greater than 
0.4 m/s (1.3 ft/s) begins to limit upstream movements (Lewis et al., 
2002). Sufficient flow may also be needed to flush silt and debris from 
spawning substrate surfaces to prevent suffocation of developing eggs.
    Water Quality: Water quality suitable for spawning and viability of 
all eulachon life stages. Sublethal concentrations of contaminants 
affect the survival of aquatic species by increasing stress, 
predisposing organisms to disease, delaying development, and disrupting 
physiological processes, including reproduction. Adult eulachon can 
take up and store pollutants from their spawning rivers, despite the 
fact that they do not feed in fresh water and remain there only a few 
weeks (Rogers et al., 1990; WDFW and ODFW, 2001). Eulachon have also 
been shown to avoid polluted waters when possible (Smith and Saalfeld 
1955).
    Water Temperature: Suitable water temperatures, within natural 
ranges, in eulachon spawning reaches. Water temperature between 4 
[deg]C and 10 [deg]C (39 [deg]F and 50 [deg]F) in the Columbia River is 
preferred for spawning (WDFW and ODFW, 2001) although temperatures 
during spawning can be much colder in northern rivers (e.g., 0 [deg]C 
to 2 [deg]C [32 [deg]F to 36 [deg]F] in the Nass River; Willson et al., 
2006). High water temperatures can lead to adult mortality and spawning 
failure (Blahm and McConnell, 1971).
    Substrate: Spawning substrates for eulachon egg deposition and 
development. Spawning substrates typically consist of silt, sand, 
gravel, cobble, or detritus (NMFS 2010a). However, pea sized gravel 
(Smith and Saalfeld, 1955) and coarse sand (Langer et al., 1977) are 
the most commonly used. Water depth for spawning can range from 8 cm (3 
in) to at least 7.6 m (25 ft) (Willson et al., 2006).
    The components of the freshwater and estuarine migration corridor 
essential feature include:
    Migratory Corridor: Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways for 
eulachon adults to pass from the ocean through estuarine areas to 
riverine habitats in order to spawn, and for larval eulachon to access 
rearing habitats within the estuaries and juvenile and adults to access 
habitats in the ocean. Lower reaches of larger river systems (e.g., the 
Columbia River) are used as migration routes to upriver or tributary 
spawning areas. Out-migrating larval eulachon are distributed 
throughout the water column in some rivers (e.g., the Fraser River) but 
are more abundant in mid-water and bottom portions of the water column 
in others (e.g., the Columbia River; Howell et al., 2001).
    Flow: A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, 
seasonality, and rate-of-change of

[[Page 519]]

freshwater discharge over time) that supports spawning migration of 
adults and outmigration of larval eulachon from spawning sites. Most 
eulachon spawning rivers experience a spring freshet (Hay and McCarter, 
2000) that may influence the timing of spawning adult migration. In 
general, eulachon spawn at low water levels before spring freshets 
(Lewis et al., 2002). In the Kemano River water velocity greater than 
0.4 m/s (1.3 ft/s) begins to limit upstream movements (Lewis et al., 
2002).
    Water Quality: Water quality suitable for survival and migration of 
spawning adults and larval eulachon. Adult eulachon can take up and 
store pollutants from their spawning rivers, despite the fact that they 
do not feed in fresh water and remain there only a few weeks (Rogers et 
al., 1990; WDFW and ODFW, 2001). Eulachon avoid polluted waters when 
possible (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955).
    Water Temperature: Water temperature suitable for survival and 
migration. Eulachon run timing may be influenced by water temperature 
(Willson et al., 2006), and high water temperatures can increase adult 
mortality (Blahm and McConnell, 1971). Given the range of temperatures 
in which eulachon spawn, Langer et al. (1977) suggested that the 
contrast between ocean and river temperatures might be more critical 
than absolute river or ocean temperatures.
    Food: Prey resources to support larval eulachon survival. Eulachon 
larvae need abundant prey items (especially copepod larvae; Hart, 1973) 
when they begin exogenous feeding after the yolk sac is depleted. 
Eulachon yolk sac can be depleted between 6 and 21 days after hatching 
(Howell, 2001), and larvae may be retained in low salinity, surface 
waters of the natal estuary for several weeks or longer (Hay and 
McCarter, 2000), making this an important component in migratory 
corridor habitat.
    The components of the nearshore and offshore marine foraging 
essential feature include:
    Food: Prey items, in a concentration that supports foraging leading 
to adequate growth and reproductive development for juveniles and 
adults in the marine environment. Juveniles eat phytoplankton, copepod 
eggs, copepods and other small zooplankton (including euphausiids; 
Barraclough, 1964), and adults eat euphausiids and copepods (Hart, 
1973).
    Water Quality: Water quality suitable for adequate growth and 
reproductive development. The water quality requirements for eulachon 
in marine habitats are largely unknown, but they would likely include 
adequate dissolved oxygen levels, adequate temperature, and lack of 
contaminants (such as pesticides, organochlorines, elevated levels of 
heavy metals) that may disrupt behavior, growth, and viability of 
eulachon and their prey.

Specific Areas Within the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species

    After determining the geographical area occupied by the southern 
DPS of eulachon, and the physical and biological features essential to 
their conservation, we next identified the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species that contain the essential 
features. All of the essential physical and biological features we 
identified within the freshwater and estuarine environment are within 
specific areas associated with spawning, or with migrations related to 
spawning events. In order to delineate specific areas where the 
spawning sites and migration corridors occur, we relied on evidence of 
eulachon spawning and migration. To ensure that our selection of the 
specific areas was based on the best available information we developed 
two criteria to identify areas where spawning, and spawning migration, 
occurs. These criteria are sites that contain: (1) Larval fish or pre-/
post-spawn adults that have been positively identified and documented; 
or (2) commercial or recreational catches that have been documented 
over multiple years. Within the geographic area occupied by the 
southern DPS, there are 42 creeks and rivers with documented presence 
of eulachon (NMFS, 2010a). Of these, we identified 14 that meet at 
least one of the criteria for spawning.
    We next considered the distribution of the essential features 
within these creeks or rivers. We again used evidence of eulachon 
spawning and spawning migration to delineate the extent of the specific 
areas where the spawning sites and spawning migration corridors are 
found. We relied on data from published literature, field observations 
(including river sampling with a variety of net types), opportunistic 
sightings, commercial and recreational harvest, and anecdotal 
information. Given the extremely limited sampling done for this 
species, we chose to rely on the most recent information available to 
us to determine which areas were eligible for designation. For some 
creeks and rivers, opportunistic sightings are the only information 
that is available to identify the distribution of the essential 
features, and in these cases we relied on the best professional 
judgment of agency and tribal biologists familiar with the area to 
identify the extent of the essential features.
    The 14 specific freshwater and estuarine areas which contain one or 
more of the essential physical or biological features are described 
below and summarized in Table 1, which appears at the end of the 
Special Management Considerations section. The draft biological report 
(available via the internet and by contacting NMFS; see ADDRESSES) 
provides more detailed information on each specific area, including a 
description of the essential physical and biological features, special 
management considerations or protection that may be needed, and the 
presence and distribution of southern DPS eulachon.
    (1) Mad River, CA: The Mad River is located in northwestern 
California. It flows for 150 km (95 mi) in a roughly northwest 
direction through Trinity and Humboldt Counties, draining a 1,290 km\2\ 
(497 mi\2\) basin into the Pacific Ocean near McKinleyville, 
California. The river's headwaters are in the Coast Range mountains 
near South Kelsey Ridge.
    Eulachon consistently spawned in large numbers in the Mad River as 
recently as the 1960s and 1970s (Moyle et al., 1995; Moyle, 2002; NMFS, 
2010a). However, in recent years eulachon numbers have declined, and 
they are now considered rare (Sweetnam et al., 2001). Based on 
observations by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 
spawning occurs as far upstream as the confluence with the North Fork 
of the Mad River (CDFG, 2009). The river below this point contains 
overlapping spawning and incubation sites and migration corridor 
features.
    (2) Redwood Creek, CA: Redwood Creek is located entirely in 
Humboldt County, in northwestern California. The basin is approximately 
105 km (65 mi) long, and drains approximately 738 km\2\ (285 mi\2\), 
most of which is forested and mountainous terrain (Cannata et al., 
2006).
    Eulachon have been reported from Redwood Creek by a variety of 
sources (Young, 1984; Ridenhour and Hofstra, 1994; Moyle et al., 1995; 
Larson and Belchik, 1998), and runs large enough to be noted in 
available local newspaper accounts occurred in 1963 and 1967. Eulachon 
returns to Redwood Creek have declined drastically in recent years, and 
they are now considered rare (Sweetnam et al., 2001). Although the 
species is not currently targeted in sampling efforts, CDFG reported 
that during the early 1970s eulachon regularly spawned between the 
ocean and the mouth of Prairie Creek (the first

[[Page 520]]

major tributary on Redwood Creek; Moyle et al., 1995) indicating that 
this area contains the spawning and incubation, and migration corridor 
essential features. Spawning also occurred in the lower 0.5 km (0.3 mi) 
of Prairie Creek (Moyle et al., 1995), however eulachon have not been 
seen in Prairie Creek since the 1970s.
    The lower reach of Redwood Creek alternates between an open estuary 
and a closed coastal lagoon depending on the season. During early 
summer a sand bar typically forms across the river mouth creating a 
lagoon. Rains during the fall typically clear the sand bar away and 
open up the river mouth to the ocean (Cannata et al., 2006).
    (3) Klamath River, CA: The Klamath River basin drains approximately 
25,100 km\2\ (9,690 mi\2\) in southern Oregon and northern California, 
making it the second largest river in California (after the Sacramento 
River). Historically, the Klamath River has been a major producer of 
anadromous fish, and once was the third most productive salmon and 
steelhead fishery in the continental United States, prior to recent 
significant declines (Powers et al., 2005).
    Historically, large aggregations of eulachon consistently spawned 
in the Klamath River, and a commercial fishery occurred there in 1963. 
During the spawning run, fish were regularly caught from the mouth of 
the river upstream to Brooks Riffle, near the confluence with Omogar 
Creek (Larson and Belchik, 1998), indicating that this area contains 
the spawning and incubation, and migration corridor essential features.
    The only reported commercial catch of eulachon in Northern 
California occurred in 1963 when a combined total of 25 metric tons 
(56,000 lbs) was landed from the Klamath River, the Mad River, and 
Redwood Creek (Odemar, 1964). Since 1963, the run size has declined to 
the point that only a few individual fish have been caught in recent 
years. According to accounts of Yurok Tribal elders, the last 
noticeable runs of eulachon were observed in the Klamath River in 1988 
and 1989 by tribal fishers (Larson and Belchik, 1998). However, in 
January 2007, six eulachon were reportedly caught by tribal fishers on 
the Klamath River (Yurok Tribe, 2008). Larson and Belchik (1998) report 
that eulachon have not been of commercial importance in the Klamath in 
recent years and are unstudied as to their current run strengths.
    Approximately 68 km (42 mi) of the lower Klamath River is bordered 
by the Yurok Indian Reservation. The lower Klamath River is listed as a 
National Wild and Scenic River from the mouth, upstream to just below 
Iron Gate Dam, for a total of 460 km (286 mi). Of these, 19 km (12 mi) 
are designated Wild, 39 km (24 mi) are designated Scenic, and 402 km 
(250 mi) are designated Recreational.
    (4) Umpqua River/Winchester Bay, OR: The Umpqua River Basin 
consists of a 10,925 km\2\ (4,220 mi\2\) drainage area comprised of the 
main Umpqua River, the North Umpqua River, the South Umpqua River, and 
associated tributary streams (Snyder et al. 2006). The Umpqua River 
drains a varied landscape, from steep-sloped uplands, to low gradient 
broad floodplains. Upstream, the Umpqua River collects water from 
tributaries as far east as the Cascade Mountains.
    Historically, a large and consistent run of eulachon returned to 
the Umpqua River, and both recreational and commercial fisheries 
occurred. The Umpqua River eulachon sport fishery was active for many 
years during the 1970s and 1980s, with the majority of fishing activity 
centered near the town of Scottsburg. A commercial fishery also 
harvested eulachon during that time. The Oregon Fish Commission (1970) 
reported that from four to five thousand pounds of eulachon were landed 
by two commercial fishermen in the Umpqua River during 31 days of drift 
gill net fishing from late December 1966 to mid-March 1967. Numbers of 
fish returning to the Umpqua seem to have declined in the 1980s and do 
not appear to have rebounded to previous levels. Johnson et al. (1986) 
list eulachon as occurring in trace amounts in their trawl and beach-
seine samples from April 1977 to January 1986. Williams (2009) reported 
on the results of seine collections conducted during March to November 
from 1995 to 2003 in Winchester Bay estuary on the Lower Umpqua River, 
which confirmed the presence of eulachon in four of the years in which 
sampling occurred.
    Eulachon have been documented in the lower Umpqua River during 
spawning, from the mouth upstream to the confluence of Mill Creek, just 
below Scottsburg (Williams, 2009). This indicates that the area 
downstream from this confluence contains the spawning and incubation, 
and migration corridor essential features.
    (5) Tenmile Creek, OR: The Tenmile Creek watershed lies entirely 
within Lane County, Oregon and encompasses approximately 60 km\2\ (23 
mi\2\) on the central Oregon Coast (Johnson, 1999). The watershed is in 
a unique location, between the Cummins Creek and Rock Creek wilderness 
areas. Together, this area is part of the largest remaining contiguous 
coastal temperate forest in the Pacific Northwest.
    Eulachon are regularly caught in salmonid smolt traps operated in 
the lower reaches of Tenmile Creek by the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW). During previous sampling efforts, 80-90 percent of the 
eulachon captured in the traps were spawned out and several fish were 
found dead (Williams, 2009). Given the timing of the sampling (February 
to May), it is very likely that spawning occurs regularly in Tenmile 
Creek. It is not known how far adult eulachon ascend the creek to 
spawn, but the location of the ODFW trap (just upstream of the Highway 
101 bridge) is the confirmed upstream extent of adult eulachon in 
spawning condition, and we conclude that the specific area containing 
spawning and incubation sites extends upstream at least to this point 
(ODFW, 2009).
    (6) Sandy River, OR: The Sandy River and its tributaries drain 
1,316 km\2\ (508 mi\2\). Most of the headwaters of the Sandy River are 
within Clackamas County, while the lower mainstem of the river lies 
within Multnomah County. The Sandy River originates from glaciers on 
Mount Hood and flows for 90 km (56 mi) to join the Columbia River near 
the City of Troutdale (Sandy River Basin Watershed Council, 1999). The 
segment of the Sandy River from Dodge Park to Dabney State Park was 
designated as a National Wild and Scenic River in October 1988.
    Large commercial and recreational fisheries have occurred in the 
Sandy River in the past. The most recent commercial harvest in the 
Sandy River was in 2003 and resulted in a catch of 10,400 kg (23,000 
lbs) (JCRMS 2009). During spawning, eulachon extent in the Sandy River 
is typically upstream to the confluence with Gordon Creek at river km 
21 (river mi 13) (Anderson 2009), indicating that this area contains 
the spawning and incubation, and migration corridor essential features.
    (7) Lower Columbia River, OR and WA: The lower Columbia River and 
its tributaries support the largest known spawning run of eulachon. The 
mainstem of the lower Columbia River provides spawning and incubation 
sites, and a large migratory corridor to spawning areas in the 
tributaries. Major tributaries of the Columbia River that have 
supported eulachon runs in the past include the Grays, Elochoman, 
Cowlitz, Kalama and Lewis Rivers in Washington and the Sandy River in 
Oregon (the Columbia River tributaries in Washington State are 
discussed below as separate specific areas).

[[Page 521]]

    Although direct estimates of adult spawning stock abundance in the 
Columbia River are unavailable, records of commercial fishery landings 
begin in 1888 and continue as a nearly uninterrupted data set to 
present (NMFS, 2010a). A large recreational dipnet fishery, for which 
catch records have not been maintained, has taken place concurrent with 
the commercial fishery (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). However, the dipnet 
fishery takes place almost entirely within the tributaries. During 
spawning, adult eulachon are found in the lower Columbia River from the 
mouth of the river to immediately downstream of Bonneville Dam (WDFW 
and ODFW, 2008), indicating that the area contains the essential 
feature of migration corridors. Eulachon eggs have been collected, and 
spawning presumed, from river km 56 (river mi 35) to river km 117 
(river mi 73) (Romano et al., 2002) indicating that this area contains 
the spawning and incubation essential feature. However, due to the 
limited range of the study, the entire range of eulachon spawning in 
the mainstem of the Columbia River remains unknown (Romano et al., 
2002). Prior to the construction of Bonneville Dam, eulachon ascended 
the Columbia River as far as Hood River, Oregon (Smith and Saalfeld, 
1955). An extensive fish passage facility is installed at the dam, 
however eulachon have not been reported upstream of Bonneville Dam 
since 1953 (FCO, 1953), and it is uncertain whether they can navigate 
the facility.
    The Columbia River, estimated to have historically represented half 
of the species' abundance, experienced a sudden decline in its 
commercial eulachon fishery landings in 1993-1994 (WDFW and ODFW, 2001; 
JCRMS, 2009). Commercial catch levels were consistently high (usually 
greater than 500 metric tons [550 tons] and often greater than 1,000 
metric tons [1,100 tons]) for the three quarters of a century from 
about 1915 to 1992. In 1993, catches declined greatly to 233 metric 
tons (257 tons) and to an average of less than 40 metric tons (44 tons) 
between 1994 and 2000. From 2001 to 2004, the catches increased to an 
average of 266 metric tons (293 tons), before falling to an average of 
less than 5 metric tons (5.5 tons) from 2005 to 2008. Some of this 
pattern is due to fishery restrictions put in place in response to the 
apparent sharp declines in the species abundance. Persistent low 
returns and landings of eulachon in the Columbia River from 1993 to 
2000 prompted the states of Oregon and Washington to adopt a Joint 
State Eulachon Management Plan in 2001 that provides for restricted 
harvest management when parental run strength, juvenile production, and 
ocean productivity forecast a poor return (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). 
Despite a brief period of improved returns in 2001-2003, the returns 
and associated commercial landings have again declined to the very low 
levels observed in the mid-1990s (JCRMS, 2009), and since 2005, the 
fishery has operated at the most conservative level allowed in the 
Joint State Eulachon Management Plan (JCRMS, 2009).
    (8) Grays River, WA: The Grays River watershed is located in 
Pacific and Wahkiakum counties, in Washington State. The Grays River is 
a tributary of the Columbia River, which it enters near the town of 
Oneida, Washington. The Grays River watershed encompasses 322 km\2\ 
(124 mi\2\) (May and Geist, 2007).
    From 1980 to 1989 the annual commercial harvest of eulachon in the 
Grays River varied from 0 to16 metric tons (0 to 35,000 lbs.). No 
commercial harvest has been recorded for the Grays River from 1990 to 
the present but larval sampling has confirmed successful spawning in 
recent years (e.g., 2009; JCRMS, 2009). During spawning, eulachon 
typically ascend the river as far as 17.3 km (10.8 miles), to the 
covered bridge near the unincorporated town of Grays River, WA 
(Anderson, 2009), indicating that this area contains the spawning and 
incubation, and migration corridor essential features.
    (9) Elochoman River, WA: The Elochoman River is a tributary of the 
Columbia River in southwest Washington and it originates in the Willapa 
Hills. The watershed lies within Lewis, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum counties 
and flows generally south to the Columbia River. The combined 
Elochoman/Skamokawa watershed area is approximately 422 km\2\ (163 
mi\2\) with the Elochoman accounting for the majority of the area 
(LCFRB, 2004a).
    Eulachon spawn occasionally in the Elochoman River, although there 
is no history of commercial or recreational harvest of eulachon for the 
Elochoman River. Sampling of outmigrating larval eulachon by WDFW has 
confirmed spawning in the river 6 times in the last 15 years, most 
recently in 2008 (JCRMS, 2009). WDFW has documented spawning eulachon 
as far as 3.2 km (2 mi) up the lower Elochoman River to the Washington 
State Highway 4 bridge crossing (Anderson, 2009), indicating that this 
area contains the spawning and incubation, and migration corridor 
essential features. If eulachon ascend the river beyond this point, the 
water intake dam at the old Beaver Creek Hatchery (located on the 
Elochoman River at river km 8 [river mi 5]) may be a barrier to any 
further upstream migration of eulachon (Wade, 2002).
    (10) Cowlitz River, WA: The Cowlitz River flows from its source on 
the west slope of the Cascade Mountains through the towns of Kelso and 
Longview, WA, and empties into the Columbia River about 109 km (68 mi) 
upstream from the Pacific Ocean. The Cowlitz River drains approximately 
6,400 km\2\ (2,480 mi\2\) over a distance of 243 km (151 mi) (Dammers 
et al., 2002). Principal tributaries to the Cowlitz River include the 
Coweeman, Toutle, Tilton, and Cispus Rivers.
    The Cowlitz River is likely the most productive and important 
spawning river for eulachon within the Columbia River system (Wydoski 
and Whitney, 2003). Spawning adults typically move upstream about 26 km 
(16 mi) to the town of Castle Rock, WA or beyond to the confluence with 
the Toutle River. Adults are regularly sighted from the mouth of the 
river to 55 km (34 mi) upstream (near the town of Toledo, WA). Eulachon 
are occasionally sighted as far as 80 km (50 mi) upstream, to the 
barrier dam at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery (WDFW and ODFW, 2008; 
Anderson, 2009), indicating that this area contains the spawning and 
incubation, and migration corridor essential features.
    The Cowlitz River currently has 3 major hydroelectric dams and 
several small-scale hydropower and sediment retention structures 
located on tributaries within the Cowlitz Basin. Mayfield Dam is 
located at river km 84 (river mi 52) and is a complete barrier to 
upstream migration of anadromous fishes (LCFRB, 2004b) (although the 
salmon hatchery barrier dam at river km 80 (river mi 50) may also be a 
complete barrier to eulachon).
    (11) Kalama River, WA: The Kalama River basin is a 531 km\2\ (205 
mi\2\) watershed extending from the southwest slopes of Mount St. 
Helens to the Columbia River (LCFRB, 2004e). The headwaters of the 
Kalama River begin in Skamania County, WA, but the majority of the 72 
km (45 mi) river flows within Cowlitz County. At river km 16 (river mi 
10), a concrete barrier dam and fish ladder prevent upstream movement 
of all anadromous fishes with the exception of summer steelhead and 
spring Chinook salmon (LCFRB, 2004c).
    The extent of spawning within the Kalama River is from the 
confluence with the Columbia River to the Modrow Bridge (Anderson, 
2009) at river km 4.5 (river mi 2.8), indicating that this area 
contains the spawning and incubation, and migration corridor essential

[[Page 522]]

features. Although the last commercial harvest of eulachon in the 
Kalama River occurred in 1993, sampling for larval eulachon has 
confirmed spawning in the Kalama River as recently as 2002 (JCRMS, 
2009).
    (12) Lewis River, WA: The Lewis River enters the Columbia River 104 
km (87 mi) upstream from the mouth of the Columbia River, a few 
kilometers north of the town of Ridgefield, Washington. The majority of 
the 1,893 km\2\ (731 mi\2\) watershed lies within Lewis and Skamania 
Counties (LCFRB, 2004d). Although generally not considered as large a 
eulachon run as the Cowlitz River, the Lewis River has produced very 
large runs periodically. Nearly half of the total commercial eulachon 
catch for the Columbia River Basin in 2002 and 2003 came from the Lewis 
River. Larval eulachon are caught in WDFW sampling on the Lewis River, 
including during the past three years (2007-09) (JCRMS, 2009). During 
spawning, eulachon typically move upstream in the Lewis River about 16 
km (10 mi; to Eagle Island), but they have been observed upstream to 
the Merwin Dam (31.4 km [19.5 mi] from the mouth of the river) (WDFW 
and ODFW, 2008; Anderson, 2009) indicating that this area contains the 
spawning and incubation, and migration corridor essential features.
    Merwin Dam is 240 feet high and was completed in 1931. The dam 
presents a passage barrier to all anadromous fish, including eulachon 
(LCFRB, 2004d). We are unable to find information to determine whether 
eulachon ascended the river beyond river km 31.4 (river mi 19.5) prior 
to construction of the dam.
    (13) Quinault River, WA: The headwaters of the Quinault River 
originate in the Olympic Mountains within Olympic National Park. The 
river then crosses into the Quinault Indian Reservation where it flows 
into Lake Quinault. Downstream of the lake, the Quinault River remains 
within the Quinault Indian Reservation for another 53 km (33 mi) to the 
Pacific Ocean. The total watershed area is 1,190 km\2\ (460 mi\2\) 
(Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
    Although there is currently no monitoring for eulachon in the 
Quinault River, WDFW and ODFW (2001) reported that eulachon ``were 
noted in large abundance in the Quinault'' River in 1993. A noticeable 
number of eulachon make an appearance in the Quinault River, and to a 
lesser extent the Queets River, at 5 to 6 year intervals and were last 
observed in the Quinault River in the winter of 2004-2005 (Quinault 
Indian Nation, 2008). There is very little information on eulachon 
spawning distribution in the Quinault River, but tribal fishermen 
targeting eulachon typically catch fish in the lower three miles of the 
river (Quinault Indian Nation, 2008). It is reasonable to conclude that 
this area contains the spawning and incubation, and migration corridor 
essential features.
    Although eulachon are currently only occasionally recorded in the 
Quinault River, during the late 19th and early 20th century eulachon 
were regularly caught by members of the Quinault Indian Tribe 
(Willoughby, 1889; Olson, 1936). Fish were typically taken in the ocean 
surf but often ascended the river for several miles (Olson, 1936). 
Olson (1936) reported that there was usually a large run of eulachon in 
the Quinault River every three or four years, and the run timing 
varied, usually occurring between January and April. The Washington 
Department of Fisheries annual report for 1960 (Starlund, 1960) listed 
commercial eulachon landings in the Quinault River in 1936, 1940, 1953, 
1958 and 1960. The commercial catches ranged from a low of 61 kg (135 
lbs.) in 1960, to a high of 42,449 kg (93,387 lbs.) in 1953.
    Nearly half of the watershed lies within Olympic National Park, 
under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, while the Quinault 
Indian reservation comprises about one third (32 percent) of the 
watershed, including most of the area downstream of Lake Quinault 
(Quinault Indian Nation and U.S. Forest Service, 1999). The U.S. Forest 
Service manages 13 percent of the watershed, and private landholdings 
comprise only 4 percent of the lands in the watershed (Smith and 
Caldwell, 2001).
    (14) Elwha River, WA: The Elwha River mainstem is approximately 72 
km (45 mi) long, and it drains 831 km\2\ (321 mi\2\) of the Olympic 
Peninsula. A majority of the drainage (83 percent) is within Olympic 
National Park (Elwha-Dungeness Planning Unit, 2005). The historical 
condition of the river has been altered by two major hydroelectric 
developments: the Elwha Dam and the Glines Canyon Dam (located just 
upstream of the Elwha Dam).
    In 2005, eulachon were observed in the Elwha River for the first 
time since the 1970s (Shaffer et al., 2007). Since 2005, adult eulachon 
have been captured in the Elwha River every year (2006-2010) (Lower 
Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe, 2010). Several of the fish captured in 2005 
were ripe (egg-extruding) females, indicating that eulachon likely 
spawn in the Elwha River. The Elwha Dam serves as a complete barrier to 
upstream fish migration, and thus it is reasonable to assume that the 
spawning and incubation, and migration corridor essential features only 
extend to that point in the Elwha River. It is not known if eulachon 
ascended the Elwha River beyond river km 7.9 (river mi 4.9) prior to 
the construction of the Elwha Dam, and it is also not known if the 
portion of the river above Elwha Dam will provide the physical and 
biological features essential to eulachon once the dam is removed. As 
part of a comprehensive restoration of the watershed's ecosystem and 
its fisheries, the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams were acquired by the 
Federal government in 2000 and their removal is scheduled to begin in 
2011.
    All Areas: We delineated each specific area as extending from the 
mouth of the river or creek (or its associated estuary when applicable) 
upstream to a fixed location. We delineated the upstream extent based 
on evidence of eulachon spawning or presence, or the presence of an 
impassable barrier. The boundary at the mouth of each specific area was 
defined by the demarcation lines which delineate ``those waters upon 
which mariners shall comply with the International Regulations for 
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) and those waters upon 
which mariners shall comply with the Inland Navigation Rules'' (33 CFR 
80.01). For those specific areas that do not have a COLREGS line 
delineated, the boundary at the mouth of those specific areas was 
defined as a line drawn from the northernmost seaward extremity of the 
mouth of the creek or river to the southernmost seaward extremity of 
the mouth (with the exception of the boundary at the mouth of the Elwha 
River, which was defined as a line drawn from the easternmost seaward 
extremity of the mouth of the river to the westernmost seaward 
extremity of the mouth).

Areas Not Considered for Designation at This Time

    Nearshore and offshore marine foraging habitat is essential for 
juvenile eulachon to survive and grow to adulthood, and for adults to 
survive and reproduce. At this time we have little information on 
eulachon distribution in marine waters and no information on where 
eulachon foraging habitat might occur. For these reasons, we are unable 
to identify any specific areas in marine waters that meet the 
definition of critical habitat under the ESA. Although we cannot 
presently identify any specific marine areas where foraging takes 
place, we will continue to gather information and will consider 
revising the designation in future rulemaking if new information 
supports doing so.

[[Page 523]]

Special Management Considerations

    Physical or biological features meet the definition of critical 
habitat if they ``may require special management considerations or 
protection.'' Joint NMFS and USFWS regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j) 
define ``special management considerations or protection'' to mean 
``any methods or procedures useful in protecting physical and 
biological features of the environment for the conservation of listed 
species.'' We identified a number of activities that may affect the 
physical and biological features essential to the southern DPS of 
eulachon such that special management considerations or protection may 
be required. Major categories of such activities include: (1) Dams and 
water diversions; (2) dredging and disposal of dredged material; (3) 
in-water construction or alterations, including channel modifications/
diking, shoreline stabilization, sand and gravel mining, and road 
building and maintenance; (4) pollution and runoff from point and non-
point sources including industrial activities, urbanization, grazing, 
agriculture, and forestry operations; (5) proposed tidal, wind, or wave 
energy projects; (6) port and shipping terminals; and (7) habitat 
restoration projects. All of these activities may have an effect on one 
or more of the essential physical and biological features via their 
alteration of one or more of the following: stream hydrology; water 
level and flow; water temperature; dissolved oxygen; erosion and 
sediment input/transport; physical habitat structure; vegetation; 
soils; nutrients and chemicals; fish passage; and estuarine/marine prey 
resources.
    In the following paragraphs, we describe the potential effects of 
certain activities on essential physical or biological features, and we 
summarize the occurrence of these activities in the specific areas in 
Table 1 below (examples of activities that may require special 
management considerations for each of the specific areas are listed in 
the Draft Eulachon Biological Report (NMFS, 2010b)). This is not an 
exhaustive list of potential effects, but rather a description of the 
primary concerns and potential effects that we are aware of at this 
time and that should be considered in the analysis of these activities 
under section 7 of the ESA.
    (1) Dams and Water Diversions: Physical structures associated with 
dams and water diversions may impede or delay passage of southern DPS 
eulachon. The operation of dams and water diversions may also affect 
water flow, water quality parameters, substrate quality, and depth, and 
further compromise the ability of adult eulachon to reproduce 
successfully. Optimum flow and temperature requirements for spawning 
and incubation are unclear, but effects on water flow and associated 
effects on water quality (e.g., water temperature) and substrate 
composition may affect adult spawning activity, egg viability, and 
larval growth, development, and survival. Many uncertainties remain 
about how large-scale hydropower development (e.g., the Federal 
Columbia River Power System) affects eulachon habitat.
    (2) Dredging: Dredging activities, which include the disposal of 
dredged material, may affect depth, sediment quality, water quality, 
and prey resources for eulachon. Dredging and the in-river disposal of 
dredged material can remove, and/or alter the composition of, substrate 
materials at the dredge site, as well as bury them at the disposal site 
(potentially altering the quality of substrate for use as a spawning 
site). In addition, dredging operations and disposal of dredged 
materials may result in the re-suspension and spread of contaminated 
sediments, which can adversely affect eulachon migration and spawning, 
as well as larval growth and development. The effects of dredging and 
disposal activities on critical habitat would depend on factors such as 
the location, seasonality, scale, frequency, and duration of these 
activities.
    (3) In-Water Construction or Alterations: This category consists of 
a broad range of activities associated with in-water structures or 
activities that alter habitat within rivers, estuaries, and coastal 
marine waters. The primary concerns are with activities that may affect 
water quality, water flow, sediment quality, substrate composition, or 
migratory corridors. Activities that may affect water quality include 
the installation of in-water structures (such as pilings) with 
protective coatings containing chemicals that may leach into the water. 
Activities that affect flow, sediment quality and substrate composition 
include those that result in increased erosion and sedimentation (such 
as road maintenance and construction, bridge construction, construction 
of levees and other flood control devices, construction or repair of 
breakwaters, docks, piers, pilings, bulkheads, and boat ramps) and 
those that directly alter substrates (such as sand and gravel mining or 
gravel augmentation). Activities that may affect migratory corridors 
include the construction of in-water structures, such as docks, piers, 
pilings, and ramps.
    (4) Pollution and Runoff: The discharge of pollutants and runoff 
from point and non-point sources (including but not limited to: 
Industrial discharges, urbanization, grazing, agriculture, road 
surfaces, road construction, and forestry operations) can adversely 
affect the water quality, sediment quality, and substrate composition 
of eulachon critical habitat. Exposure to contaminants may disrupt 
eulachon spawning migration patterns, and high concentrations may be 
lethal to young fish (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955). Excessive runoff may 
increase turbidity and alter the quality of spawning substrates.
    (5) Proposed Tidal, Wind, or Wave Energy Projects: Proposed tidal, 
wind, or wave energy projects generally require energy generating 
equipment and supporting structures to be anchored on the bottom. 
However, there are a wide range of designs currently being tested and 
potential impacts of individua