Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Threatened Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead, 1392-1399 [2011-283]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1392-1399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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 https://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 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.

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 https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/ 
and https://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 https://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