Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Steelhead (O. mykiss) in California
Federal RegisterDec 10, 2004
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 041123329-4329-01; I.D. No. 110904F]
RIN 0648-AO04
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
) and Steelhead (
O. mykiss
) in California
AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION:
Proposed rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to designate critical habitat for two Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon (
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
) and five ESUs of
O. mykiss
(inclusive of anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout) listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The specific areas proposed for designation in the rule text set out below include approximately 11,668 miles (18,669 km) of riverine habitat and 947 mi
2
(2,444 km
2
) of bay/estuarine habitat (primarily in San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bays) in California. Some of the proposed areas, however, are occupied by two or more ESUs. However, as explained below, we are also considering excluding many of these areas from the final designation based on existing land management plans and policies, voluntary conservation efforts and other factors that could substantially reduce the scope of the final designations. The net economic impacts of ESA section 7 associated with designating the areas described in the proposed rule are estimated to be approximately $83,511,186, but we believe the additional exclusions under review could reduce this impact by up to 57 percent or more. We solicit information and 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. We may revise this proposal and solicit additional comments prior to final designation to address new information received during the comment period.
DATES:
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. P.s.t. on February 8, 2005. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing by January 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments, identified by docket number [041123329-4329-01] and RIN number [0648-AO04], by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
critical.habitat.swr@noaa.gov
. Include docket number [041123329-4329-01] and RIN number [0648-AO04] in the subject line of the message.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov
. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site:
http://ocio.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm-ssi/index.shtml
. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at
http://ocio.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm-ssi/process.shtml
.
• Mail: Submit written comments and information to: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the address given above.
• Fax: 562-980-4027
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Wingert at the above address, at 562-980-4021, or by facsimile at 562-980-4027; or Marta Nammack at 301-713-1401. The proposed rule, maps, and other materials relating to this proposal can be found on our Web site at
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS is responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or distinct population segments of Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
(inclusive of anadromous steelhead and some populations of resident rainbow trout) are threatened or endangered, and for designating constitute critical habitat for them under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq
). To be considered for ESA listing, a group of organisms must constitute a “species.” Section 3 of the ESA defines a species as “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.” Since 1991, NMFS has identified distinct population segments of Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
by dividing the U.S. populations of each species into evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) which it determines are substantially reproductively isolated and represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). Using this approach, every Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
population in the U.S. is part of a distinct population segment that is eligible for listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESU. In ESA listing determinations for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
since 1991 we have identified 52 ESUs in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. Presently, 25 ESUs are listed as threatened or endangered. One additional ESU (Oregon Coast coho salmon) was listed as threatened from 1998 to 2004 when it was removed from the list of threatened or endangered species as a result of a Court Order.
In a
Federal Register
document published on June 14, 2004 (69 FR 33101), we proposed to list 27 ESUs as threatened or endangered. The ESUs proposed for listing include 25 that are currently listed, but in most cases the ESUs are being redefined in either of two significant ways: By including hatchery fish that are no more than moderately divergent genetically from naturally spawning fish within the ESU, and in the case of
O. mykiss
species, by including some resident trout populations in the ESUs. We have also proposed to list the previously-listed Oregon Coast coho salmon population which is redefined to include some fish reared in hatcheries, and are proposing to list one new ESU (Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
, was previously thought to be extinct in the wild). In this document,
O. mykiss
ESUs refer to ESUs that include populations of both anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout. Also, references to “salmon” in this notice generally include all members of the genus
Oncorhynchus
, including
O. mykiss
.
This
Federal Register
document describes proposed critical habitat designations for the following seven ESUs of Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
in California: (1) California Coastal chinook salmon; (2) Northern California
O. mykiss
; (3) Central California Coast
O. mykiss
; (4) South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
; (5) Southern California
O. mykiss
; (6) Central Valley spring run chinook salmon; and (7) Central Valley
O. mykiss
.
Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as “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
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are determined by the Secretary to be 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.” Section 4 of the ESA requires that before designating critical habitat, we must consider economic impacts, impacts on national security and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat, and the Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, unless excluding an area from critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned. Once critical habitat for a salmon or
O. mykiss
ESU is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of NMFS, ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Previous Federal Action and Related Litigation
Many Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs in California and the Pacific Northwest have suffered broad declines over the past hundred years. We have conducted several ESA status reviews and status review updates for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The most recent ESA status review and proposed listing determinations were published on June 14, 2004 (69 FR 33101). Six of the currently listed ESUs have final critical habitat designations. Table 1 summarizes the NMFS scientific reviews of West Coast salmon and
O. mykiss
and the ESA listing determinations and critical habitat designations made to date. XXX
Table 1.—Summary of Previous ESA Listing Actions and Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and
O. Mykiss
Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU)
Current endangered species Act (ESA) status
Year listed
Previous ESA listing determinations and critical habitat designations—
Federal Register
citations
Previous scientific viability reviews and updates
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
56 FR 58619; 11/20/1991 (Final rule)
56 FR 14055; 04/05/1991 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
58 FR 68543; 12/28/1993 (Final rule)
Snake River sockeye ESU
Endangered
1991
57 FR 57051; 12/02/1992 (Proposed rule)
NMES 1991a.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14528; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11750; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998d.
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11750; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997f.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
59 FR 440; 01/01/1994 (Final rule)
57 FR 27416; 06/19/1992 (Proposed rule)
55 FR 49623; 11/30/1990 (Final rule)
55 FR 12831, 04/06/1990 (Emergency rule)
55 FR 102260; 03/20/1990 (Proposed rule)
54 FR 10260; 08/04/1989 (Emergency rule)
52 FR 6041; 02/27/1987 (Final rule)
Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU
Endangered
1994
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998b.
Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999d.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998b.
California Coastal chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999d.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1998b.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
Upper Willamette River chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Listing Determinations
NMFS 1998e.
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1998b.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU
Endangered.
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
NMFS 1998c.
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed NMFS 1999c rule)
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1998b.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
Puget Sound chinook ESU
Threatened.
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998 (Proposal withdrawn)
59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994 (Proposed rule)
59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994 (Emergency rule)
57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992 (Correction)
57 FR 14653; 04/22/1992 (Final rule)
56 FR 29547; 06/27/1991 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1991c.
Snake River fall-run chinook ESU
Threatened
1992
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1999d.
58 FR 68543; 12/28/1993 (Final rule)
57 FR 57051; 12/02/1992 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998 (Proposal withdrawn)
59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994 (Proposed rule)
59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994 (Emergency rule)
57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992 (Correction)
57 FR 34639; 04/22/92 (Final rule)
56 FR 29542; 06/27/1991 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
58 FR 68543; 12/28/1993 (Final rule)
NMFS 1991b.
Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU
Threatened
1992
57 FR 57051; 12/02/1992 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
NMFS 1998b.
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
61 FR 56138;-10/31/1996 (Final rule)
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
64 FR 24049; 05/05/1999 (Final rule)
Bryant 1994.
Central California Coast coho ESU
Threatened
1996
62 FR 62791; 11/25/1997 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1995a.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997 (Final rule)
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997a.
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS1996c.
64 FR 24049; 05/05/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996e.
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
Threatened
1997
62 FR 62791; 11/25/1997 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1995a.
NMFS 1997a.
Proposed
NMFS 1996b.
Oregon Coast coho ESU
Threatened*
1998
Listing Determinations
NMFS 1996d.
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list)
63 FR 42587; 08/10/1998 (Final rule)
62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997 (Proposal withdrawn)
61 FR 56138;10/31/1996 (6 mo. extension)
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
64 FR 24998; 0510/1999 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1995a.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list)
Proposed
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Not warranted)
NMFS 1996e.
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1995a.
Lower Columbia River coho ESU
Threatened
1995
n/a
BNFS 1991a.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14508; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1997e.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1999b.
Columbia River chum ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14508; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1996d.
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1997e.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1999b.
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
67 FR 21568; 05/01/2002 (Redefinition of ESU)
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b
Southern California
O. mykiss
+
ESU
Endangered
1997
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1997
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
NMFS 1997b.
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1997
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
NMFS 1997b.
69 FR 33102; 6/14/04 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1996b.
63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Final rule)
NMFS 1997b.
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1997c.
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997d.
California Central Valley
O. mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1998
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1998a.
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
65 FR 36074; 06/07/2000 (Final rule)
65 FR 6960; 02/11/2000 (Proposed rule)
63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Not Warranted)
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1996b.
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997c.
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1998a.
Northern California
O.
mykiss
ESU
Threatened
2000
n/a
NMFS 2000
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designation
NMFS 1996b.
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1997d.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1999a.
Upper Willamette River
O.
mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1999
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Final rule)
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1996b.
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
NMFS 1997c.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1997d.
Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1998
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1998a.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
NMFS 1996b.
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal
NMFS 1997d.
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1999a.
Middle Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1999
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Upper Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
Endangered
1997
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
Listing Determinations
69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
Critical Habitat Designations
68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 (removal)
65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU
Threatened
1997
64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
* Previously listed as a “threatened” species (63 FR 42587, August 10, 1998). Threatened listing set aside in
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans,
161 F.Supp.2d 1154 (D.Or.2001),
appeals dismissed
358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004).
+
O. mykiss
ESUs include both anadromous “steelhead” and resident “rainbow trout” in certain areas (see 69 FR 33101; July 14, 2004).
On February 16, 2000, NMFS published final critical habitat designations for 19 ESUs, thereby completing designations for all 25 ESUs listed at the time (65 FR 7764). The 19 designations included more than 150 river subbasins in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Within each occupied subbasin, we designated as critical habitat those lakes and river reaches accessible to listed fish along with the associated riparian zone, except for reaches on Indian land. Areas considered inaccessible included areas above long-standing natural impassable barriers and areas above impassable dams, but not areas above ephemeral barriers such as failed culverts.
In considering the economic impact of the February 16, 2000, action, NMFS determined that the critical habitat designations would impose very little or no additional requirements on Federal agencies beyond those already associated with the listing of the ESUs themselves. NMFS reasoned that since it was designating only occupied habitat, there would be few or no actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat that did not also jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Therefore, the agency reasoned that there would be no economic impact as a result of the designations (65 FR 7764, 7765; February 16, 2000).
The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) challenged the designations in District Court in Washington, DC on the grounds that he agency did not adequately consider economic impacts of the critical habitat designations (
National Association of Homebuilders
v.
Evans
, 2002 WL 1205743 No. 00-CV-2799 (D.D.C.)). NAHB also challenged NMFS' designation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) (Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan, 2000). While the NAHB litigation was pending, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued its decision in
New Mexico Cattlegrowers' Association
v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (
NMCA
). In that case, the Court rejected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) approach to economic analysis, which was similar to the approach taken by NMFS in the final rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of West Coast salmon and
O. mykiss
. The Court ruled that “Congress intended that the FWS conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to other causes.” Subsequent to the 10th Circuit decision, we entered into and sought judicial approval of a consent decree resolving the NAHB litigation. That decree provided for the withdrawal of critical habitat designations for the 19 Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs and dismissed NAHB's challenge to the EFH designations. The District Court approved the consent decree and vacated the critical habitat designations by Court order on April 30, 2002 (
National Ass'n of Homebuilders
v.
Evans
, 2002 WL 1205743 (D.D.C. 2002)).
Subsequently, in response to a complaint filed in the District of Columbia by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Pacific Rivers Council, and the Environmental Protection Information Center (PCFFA
et al.
) alleging that NMFS had failed to timely designate critical habitat for the 19 ESUs for which critical habitat had been vacated (as well as the Northern California
O. mykiss
ESU), PCFFA and NMFS filed—and the court approved—an agreement resolving that litigation and establishing a schedule for designation of critical habitat. On July 13, 2004, the D.C. District Court approved an amendment to the Consent Decree and Stipulated Order of Dismissal providing for a revised schedule for the submission of proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for the 20 ESUs to the
Federal Register
. For those ESUs that are included on the list of threatened and endangered species as of September 30, 2004, and which fall under the responsibility of the Northwest Regional office of NMFS, proposed rules must be submitted to the
Federal Register
no later than September 30, 2004. For those ESUs that are included on the list of threatened and endangered species as of November 30, 2004, and which fall under the responsibility of NMFS's Southwest Regional office, proposed rules must be submitted to the
Federal Register
for publication no later than November 30, 2004. For those of the 20 ESUs addressed in the proposed rules and included on the lists of threatened and endangered species as of June 15, 2005, final rules must be submitted to the
Federal Register
for publication no later than June 15, 2005. On September 17, 2004, NMFS filed a motion with the Court seeking an additional 60-day extension of the deadline for submitting to the
Federal Register
a proposed rule for the 13 ESUs subject to the September 30, 2004, deadline. On October 7, 2004, the court granted the motion.
Past critical habitat designations have generated considerable public interest. Therefore, in an effort to engage the public early in this rulemaking process, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on September 29, 2003 (68 FR 55926). The ANPR identified issues for consideration and evaluation, and solicited comments regarding these issues and information regarding the areas and species under consideration. We received numerous comments in response to the ANPR and considered them during development of this proposed rulemaking. Where applicable we have referenced these comments in this
Federal Register
document as well as in other documents supporting this proposed rule. We encourage those who submitted comments on the ANPR to review and comment on this proposed rule as well. We will address all comments in the final rule.
Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat
Salmon Life History
Pacific salmon 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 across 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 from the inland spawning grounds. En route to the ocean the juveniles may spend 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 1 to 5 years foraging over thousands of miles in the North Pacific Ocean before returning to spawn. Some species, such as coho and chinook salmon, have precocious life history types (primarily male fish known as “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 anadromous
O. mykiss
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 require cool water that is free of contaminants. They also require rearing and migration corridors with adequate passage conditions (water quality and quantity available at specific times) to allow access to the various habitats required to complete their life cycle.
The homing fidelity of salmon has created a meta-population structure with distinct populations distributed among watersheds (McElhany
et al.
, 2000). Low levels of straying 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.
Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific Areas within the Geographical Area
In past critical habitat designations, NMFS had concluded that the limited availability of species distribution data prevented mapping salmonid critical habitat at a scale finer than occupied river basins (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000). Therefore, the 2000 designations defined the “geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing” as all accessible river reaches within the current range of the listed species. Comments received on the ANPR expressed a range of opinions about the appropriate scale for defining occupied areas; many expressed concern that the 2000 designations were overly broad and inclusive and encouraged us to use a finer scale in designating critical habitat for salmon.
In the 2000 designations, NMFS relied on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) identification of subbasins, which was the finest scale mapped by USGS at that time, to define the “specific areas” within the geographical area occupied by the species. The subbasin boundaries are based on an area's topography and hydrography, and USGS has developed a uniform framework for mapping and cataloging drainage basins using a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) identifier (Seaber
et al.
1986). The code contains separate two-digit identifier fields wherein the first two digits refer to a region comprising a relatively large drainage area (
e.g.
, Region 17 for the entire Pacific Northwest), while subsequent fields identify smaller nested drainages. Under this convention, fourth field hydrologic units contain eight digits and are commonly referred to as “HUC4s” or “subbasins.” In the 2000 designations, therefore, we identified as critical habitat all areas accessible to listed salmon within an occupied HUC4 subbasin. Since the critical habitat designations in 2000, additional scientific information in the Pacific Northwest has significantly improved our ability to identify freshwater and estuarine areas occupied by salmonids and to group the occupied stream reaches into finer scale “specific areas” in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
In the Pacific Northwest, we can now be somewhat more precise about the “geographical area occupied by the species” because Federal, state, and tribal fishery biologists in the northwest have made progress mapping actual species distribution at the level of stream reaches. The current mapping identifies occupied stream reaches where the species has been observed. It also identifies stream reaches where the species is presumed to occur based on the professional judgement of biologists familiar with the watershed. However, such presumptions may not be sufficiently rigorous or consistent to support a critical habitat designation. Much of these data can now be accessed and analyzed using geographic information systems (GIS) to produce consistent and fine-scale maps. As a result, nearly all salmonid freshwater and estuarine habitats in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are now mapped and available in GIS at a scale of 1:24,000. Previous distribution data were often compiled at a scale of 1:100,000 or greater.
In California, similar fine-scale species distribution mapping efforts have not been conducted by Federal, State or tribal co-managers on the scale that was needed for the critical habitat designation effort, and therefore, maps of species distribution were not available for the seven ESUs addressed in this rulemaking. Given the need to identify and map occupied habitat more precisely and the lack of fine-scale species distribution mapping in California, the Southwest Regional office embarked on a major effort to compile available information on species distribution, habitat use, and other parameters, and develop species distribution and habitat use maps for all seven ESUs. In order to make this effort manageable, data were compiled for stream hydrography at a scale of 1:100,000 rather than the 1:24,000 scale of data that were available in the Pacific Northwest. Fishery biologists in the Southwest Region were organized into a series of teams tasked with compiling and organizing information available in the literature, from Federal and state agencies, and personal knowledge, regarding the spatial distribution, habitat use (
i.e.
spawning, rearing, and/or migration) and habitat quality on a stream reach basis for each of the seven ESUs in California. This information was organized into a series of databases and then converted to GIS data layers for the analysis of data and generation of distribution maps. The current mapping identifies occupied stream reaches where the various ESUs have been observed, and also identifies stream reaches where the ESUs are presumed to occur based on the professional judgement of biologists familiar with the watersheds. As in the Northwest, such presumptions, however, may not be sufficiently rigorous or consistent to support a critical habitat designation, and we therefore solicit information as to which stream reaches are actually occupied by the various ESUs addressed in this rule. We made use of these finer scale data for the critical habitat designations for the seven California ESUs, and now believe they enable us to make a more accurate delineation of the “geographical area occupied by the species” referred to in the ESA definition of critical habitat. The final critical habitat designations will be based on the final listing decisions for these ESUs due by June 2005 and thus will reflect occupancy “at the time of listing” as the ESA requires.
NMFS is now able to also identify “specific areas” (section 3(5)(a)) and “particular areas'(section 4(b)(2)) for ESUs in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington and Idaho) at a finer scale than in 2000. Since 2000, various Federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest have identified fifth field hydrologic units (referred to as “HUC5s” or hereafter “watersheds”) throughout the Pacific Northwest using the USGS mapping conventions referred to above. This information is now generally available from these agencies and via the internet (California Spatial Information Library, 2004; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 2003; Regional Ecosystem Office, 2004). For ESUs in the Pacific Northwest, the agency used this information to organize critical habitat information systematically and at a scale that is relevant to the spatial distribution of salmon. Organizing information at this scale is especially relevant to salmonids, since their innate homing ability allows them to return to the watersheds where they were born. Such site fidelity results in spatial aggregations of salmonid populations that generally correspond to the area encompassed by subbasins or HUC5 watersheds (Washington Department of Fisheries
et al.
, 1992; Kostow, 1995; McElhany
et al.
, 2000).
In California, it was not possible to use the USGS's HUC5 watershed framework to organize the biological and other types of information since HUC5s have not been delineated for the entire geographical area occupied by the seven ESUs addressed in this rulemaking. The Southwest Region, therefore, used the State of California's CALWATER watershed classification system (version 2.2), which is similar to the USGS watershed classification system, to organize biological and other types of information. Under the CALWATER watershed classification system, geographic units range from hydrologic regions (the largest) to planning watersheds (the smallest). For the purposes of this critical habitat designation analysis, biological and other types of information were organized primarily by hydrologic subareas (HSAs) that generally correspond to major tributary watersheds and are roughly equivalent in size to USGS HUC5s. These smaller HSA watersheds were then aggregated into larger geographic units called hydrologic units that correspond to major watersheds or sub-regions for purposes of describing critical habitat for each of the seven ESUs in California. However, it must be recognized that even the CALWATER HSA watershed units used for the designations in California are very broad units, often containing several different populations of salmonids which may in fact be largely independent of each other.We therefore solicit information on ways to further improve the geographic precision of our habitat analyis.
Both the USGS and CALWATER systems map watershed units as polygons that bound a drainage area and encompass streams, riparian areas and uplands. Within the boundaries of any such watershed unit (HUC5 or HSA), there are stream reaches not occupied by the species. Land areas within the HUC5 or HSA boundaries are also generally not “occupied” by the species (though certain areas such as flood plains or side channels may be occupied at some times of some years). In California, we used the HSA watershed boundaries as a basis for aggregating occupied stream reaches and to delineate “specific” areas occupied by the species. This document generally refers to the occupied stream reaches within the watershed boundary as the “habitat area” to distinguish it from the entire area encompassed by the watershed boundary.
At the same time, the ESA requires that an area cannot be designated as critical habitat unless at the time of listing it contains physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The ESA does not permit an area lacking such features to be designated as critical habitat in the hope that it may over time acquire such features and therefore aid in the conservation of the species.
The HSA watershed-scale aggregation of stream reaches also allowed us to analyze the impacts of designating a “particular area,” as required by ESA section 4(b)(2). As a result of watershed processes, many activities occurring in riparian or upland areas and in non-fish-bearing streams may affect the physical or biological features essential to conservation in the occupied stream reaches. The watershed boundary thus describes an area in which Federal activities have the potential to affect critical habitat (Spence
et al.
1996). Using HSA watershed boundaries for the economic analysis ensured that all potential economic impacts were considered. Section 3(5) defines critical habitat in terms of “specific areas,” and section 4(b)(2) requires the agency to consider certain factors before designating “particular areas.” In the case of Pacific salmonids, the biology of the species, the characteristics of its habitat, the nature of the impacts and the limited information currently available at finer geographic scales made it appropriate to consider
“specific areas” and “particular areas” as the same unit.
In addition, HSA watersheds are consistent with the scale of recovery efforts for West Coast salmon. In its review of the long-term sustainability of Pacific Northwest salmonids, the National Research Council's Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids concluded that “habitat protection must be coordinated at landscape scales appropriate to salmon life histories' and that social structures and institutions “must be able to operate at the scale of watersheds” (National Research Council, 1996). Watershed-level analyses are now common throughout the West Coast (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993; Montgomery
et al.
, 1995; Spence
et al.
, 1996). The recent recovery strategy developed for coho salmon in California by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 2004) organized its watershed assessment and recovery recommendations on the basis of CALWATER HSA watersheds. There are presently more than 400 watershed councils or groups in Washington, Oregon, and California alone (For the Sake of the Salmon, 2004). Many of these groups operate at a geographic scale of one to several watersheds and are integral parts of larger-scale salmon recovery strategies (Northwest Power Planning Council, 1999; Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, 2001; Puget Sound Shared Strategy, 2002; CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 2003). Aggregating stream reaches into watersheds allowed us to consider “specific areas,” within or outside the geographical area occupied by the species, at a scale that often corresponds well to salmonid population structure and ecological processes.
Occupied estuarine and marine areas were also considered with regard to the seven ESUs in California. In previous designations of salmonid critical habitat the agency did not designate marine areas outside of estuaries and Puget Sound. In the Pacific Ocean, we concluded that there may be essential habitat features, but that they did not require special management considerations or protection (see
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species
and
Special Management Considerations or Protection
sections below). Several commenters on that previous rule questioned the finding, and we stated that we would revisit the issue (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000). Since that time we have considered the best available scientific information, and related agency actions, such as the designation of Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
We now conclude that it is possible to delineate some estuarine areas in California (
e.g.
, the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay complex, Humboldt Bay, and Morro Bay) that are occupied and contain essential habitat features that may require special management considerations or protection. Such estuarine areas are crucial for juvenile salmonids, given their multiple functions as areas for rearing/feeding, freshwater-saltwater acclimation, and migration (Simenstad
et al.
, 1982; Marriott
et al.
2002). In many areas, especially the San Francisco Bay estuary, these habitats are occupied by multiple ESUs. Accordingly, we are proposing to designate specific occupied estuarine areas as defined by a line connecting the furthest land points at the estuary mouth.
Nearshore coastal marine areas may provide important habitat for rearing/feeding and migrating salmonids in California; however, we were not able to identify essential habitat features or conclude that such areas require special management considerations or protection.
For salmonids in marine areas farther offshore, it becomes more difficult to identify specific areas where essential habitat can be found. Links between human activity, habitat conditions and impacts to listed salmonids are less direct in offshore marine areas. Perhaps the closest linkage exists for salmon prey species that are harvested commercially (
e.g.
, Pacific herring) and, therefore, may require special management considerations or protection. However, because salmonids are opportunistic feeders we could not identify “specific areas” beyond the nearshore marine zone where these or other essential features are found within this vast geographic area occupied by Pacific salmon. Moreover, prey species move or drift great distances throughout the ocean and would be difficult to link to any “specific” areas.
Unoccupied Areas
ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to include “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied” if the areas are determined by the Secretary to be “essential for the conservation of the species.” NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) emphasize that we “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.” NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) emphasize that we “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 not proposing to designate any areas not occupied at the time of listing; however, within the range of some ESUs, we have identified unoccupied areas which may be essential to their conservation, and we seek public comment on this issue.
Primary Constituent Elements and Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species
In determining what areas are critical habitat, agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require that we must “consider those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given species including space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a species.” The regulations further direct us to “focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements * * * that are essential to the conservation of the species,” and specify that the “known primary constituent elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description.” The regulations identify primary constituent elements (PCE) as including, but not limited to: “roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.” An area must contain one or more PCEs at the time the species is listed to be eligible for designation as critical habitat; an area lacking a PCE may not be designated in the hope it will acquire one or more PCEs in the future.
NMFS biologists developed a list of PCEs specific to salmon for the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003), based on a decision matrix (NMFS, 1996) that describes general parameters and characteristics of most of the essential features under consideration in this critical habitat designation. As a result of biological assessments supporting this proposed rule (see Critical Habitat Analytical Review
Teams section), we are now proposing slightly revised PCEs.
The ESUs addressed in this proposed rulemaking share many of the same rivers and estuaries and have similar life history characteristics and, therefore, many of the same PCEs. These PCEs include sites essential to support one or more life stages of the ESU (sites for spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). These sites in turn contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the ESU (for example, spawning gravels, water quality and quantity, side channels, forage species). Specific types of sites and the features associated with them include:
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development;
2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and 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 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 with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and 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.
The habitat areas designated in this proposal currently contain PCEs within the acceptable range of values required to support the biological processes for which the ESUs use the habitat. It is important to note that the contribution of the PCEs to the habitat varies by site and biological function, illustrating the interdependence of the habitat elements such that the quality of the elements may vary within a range of acceptable conditions. An area in which a PCE no longer exists because it has been degraded to the point where it no longer functions as a PCE cannot be designated in the hope that its function may be restored in the future.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
An occupied area cannot be designated as critical habitat unless it contains physical and biological features that “may require special management considerations or protection.” Agency regulations at 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.” Many forms of human activity have the potential to affect the habitat of listed salmon ESUs including: (1) Forestry; (2) grazing and other associated rangeland activities; (3) agriculture and associated water withdrawals for agriculture; (4) road building/maintenance; (5) channel modifications/diking/stream bank stabilization; (6) urbanization; (7) sand and gravel mining; (8) mineral mining; (9) dams; (10) irrigation impoundments and water withdrawals; (11) wetland loss/removal; (12) exotic/invasive species introductions; and (13) impediments to fish passage. In addition to these, the harvest of salmonid prey species (
e.g.
, herring, anchovy, and sardines) may present another potential habitat-related management activity (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1999). In recent years the Federal government and many non-Federal landowners have adopted many changes in land and water management practices that are contributing significantly to protecting and restoring the habitat of listed species. Thus, many of the available special management considerations or protections for these areas are already in place and the need for designating such areas as critical habitat is diminished accordingly. We request comment on the extent to which particular areas may require special management considerations or protection in light of existing management constraints. The contributions of these management measures are also relevant to the exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, and will be considered further in a later section of this notice.
Military Lands
The Sikes Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the installation. Each INRMP includes: an assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification, wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The recent National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) amended the ESA to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(I) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(I)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”
To address this new provision we contacted the Department of Defense (DOD) and requested information on all INRMPs that might benefit Pacific salmon. In response to the ANPR (68 FR 55926, September 29, 2003) we had already received a letter from the U.S. Marine Corps regarding this and other issues associated with a possible critical habitat designation on its facilities in the range of the Southern California
O. mykiss
ESU. In response to our request, the military services identified 25 installations in California with INRMPs in place or under development. Based on information provided by the military,
as well as GIS analysis of fish distributional information compiled by NMFS” Southwest Region (NMFS, 2004a) and land use data, we determined that the following facilities with INRMPs overlap with habitat areas under consideration for critical habitat designation in California: (1) Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base; (2) Vandenberg Air Force Base; (3) Camp San Luis Obispo; (4) Camp Roberts; and (5) Mare Island Army Reserve Center. Two additional facilities are adjacent to, but do not appear to overlap with, habitat areas under consideration for critical habitat in California: (1) Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach/Concord Detachment; and (2) Point Mugu Naval Air Station. None of the remaining facilities with INRMPs in place overlapped with or were adjacent to habitat under consideration for critical habitat based on the information available to us. All of these INRMPs are final except for the Vandenberg Air Force Base INRMP, which is expected to be finalized in the near term.
We identified habitat of value to listed salmonids in each INRMP and reviewed these plans, as well as other information available regarding the management of these military lands. Our preliminary review indicates that each of these INRMPs addresses habitat for salmonids, and all contain measures that provide benefits to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Examples of the types of benefits include actions that control erosion, protect riparian zones, minimize stormwater and construction impacts, reduce contaminants, and monitor listed species and their habitats. Also, we have received some information from the DOD identifying national security impacts at certain sites including the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base and Vandenberg Air Force Base. On the basis of this information, therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat in areas subject to the final INRMPs or the draft INRMP for Vandenberg Air Force Base at this time.
Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams
To assist in the designation of critical habitat, we convened several Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams (Teams) organized by major geographic areas that roughly correspond to salmon recovery planning domains in California. The Teams consisted of NMFS fishery biologists from the Southwest Region with demonstrated expertise regarding salmonid habitat within the domain. The Teams were tasked with compiling and assessing biological information pertaining to areas under consideration for designation as critical habitat. Each Team worked closely with GIS specialists to develop maps depicting the spatial distribution of habitat occupied by each ESU and the use of occupied habitat on stream hydrography at a scale of 1:100,000.
The Teams examined each habitat area within the watershed to determine whether the stream reaches occupied by the species contain the physical or biological features essential to conservation. The Teams also relied on their experience conducting section 7 consultations to determine whether there are management activities in the area that threaten the currently existing primary constituent elements identified for the species. Where such activities occur, the Teams concluded that there were “any methods or procedures useful in protecting physical and biological features” for the area (50 CFR 424.02(j)), and therefore, that the features “may require special management considerations or protection.”
However, the Teams were not asked to evaluate the effects of existing management protections on the species, or analyze the usefulness of protective methods or procedures in addressing risks to PCEs. Thus, the Teams' evaluations do not reflect the extent to which an area will contribute to conservation of the species in the absence of a critical habitat designation.
In addition to occupied areas, the definition of critical habitat also includes unoccupied areas if we determine that area is essential for conservation of a species. Accordingly the Teams were next asked whether there were any unoccupied areas within the historical range of the ESUs that may be essential for conservation. For the seven ESUs addressed in this rulemaking, the Teams did not have information available that would allow them to conclude that specific unoccupied areas were essential for conservation; however, in many cases they were able to identify areas they believed may be determined essential through future recovery planning efforts. These are identified under the Species Descriptions and Area Assessments section, and we are specifically requesting information regarding such areas under Public Comments Solicited.
The Teams were next asked to determine the relative conservation value of each occupied area or watershed for each ESU. The Teams scored each habitat area based on several factors related to the quantity and quality of the physical and biological features. They next considered each area in relation to other areas and with respect to the population occupying that area. Based on a consideration of the raw scores for each area, and a consideration of that area's contribution to conservation in relation to other areas and in relation to the overall population structure of the ESU, the Teams rated each habitat area as having a “high,” “medium” or “low” conservation value.
The rating of habitat areas as having a high, medium, or low conservation value provided information useful for the discretionary balancing consideration in ESA section 4(b)(2). The higher the conservation value for an area, the greater may be the likely benefit of the ESA section 7 protections. The correlation is not perfect because the Teams did not take the additional step of separately considering two factors: how likely are section 7 consultations in an area (that is, how strong is the “Federal nexus”), and how much protection would exist in the absence of a section 7 consultation (that is, how protective are existing management measures and would they likely continue in the absence of section 7 requirements). We considered the Team's ratings one useful measure of the “benefit of designating a particular area as critical habitat” as contemplated in section 4(b)(2). We are soliciting public comments on approaches that would better refine this assessment.
As discussed earlier, the scale chosen in California for the “specific area” referred to in the definition of critical habitat was an HSA watershed as delineated by the CALWATER classification system. This delineation required us to adapt the approach for some areas. In particular, a large stream or river might serve as a rearing and migration corridor to and from many watersheds, yet be embedded itself in a watershed. In any given watershed through which it passes, the stream may have a few or several tributaries. For rearing/migration corridors embedded in a watershed, the Teams were asked to rate the conservation value of the watershed based on the tributary habitat. We assigned the rearing/migration corridor the rating of the highest-rated watershed for which it served as a rearing/migration corridor. The reason for this treatment of migration corridors is the role they play in the salmon's life cycle. Salmon are anadromous—born in fresh water, migrating to salt water to feed and grow, and returning to fresh water to spawn. Without a rearing/migration corridor to and from the sea, salmon cannot complete their life cycle. It would be illogical to consider a spawning and
rearing area as having a particular conservation value and not consider the associated rearing/migration corridor as having a similar conservation value.
Preliminary ESU mapping results and some of the preliminary HSA watershed conservation assessments developed by the Teams were shared with the CDFG for review and comment. In some instances, their reviews and comments resulted in changes to the ESU distribution maps, and in some cases changes in the conservation assessments. Because of time constraints, however, this comanager review process was limited in duration and focused on identifying major discrepancies in the mapping products developed by the Teams. These revised preliminary assessments, along with this proposed rulemaking, will once again be made available to these comanagers, as well as the general public and peer reviewers, during the public comment period leading up to the final rule. The Teams will be reconvened to review the comments and any new information that might bear on their assessments before the agency publishes final critical habitat designations.
Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat
In past designations NMFS described the lateral extent of critical habitat in various ways ranging from fixed distances to “functional” zones defined by important riparian functions (65 FR 7764, February 16, 2000). Both approaches presented difficulties, and this was highlighted in several comments (most of which requested that we focus on aquatic areas only) received in response to the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003). Designating a set riparian zone width will (in some places) accurately reflect the distance from the stream on which PCEs might be found, but in other cases may over-or understate the distance. Designating a functional buffer avoids that problem, but makes it difficult for Federal agencies to know in advance what areas are critical habitat. To address these issues we are proposing to define the lateral extent of designated critical habitat as the width of the stream channel defined by the ordinary high-water line as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 33 CFR 329.11. In areas for which the ordinary high-water line has not been defined pursuant 33 CFR 329.11, the width of the stream channel shall be defined by its bankfull elevation. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain (Rosgen, 1996) and is reached at a discharge which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series (Leopold
et al.
, 1992). Such an interval is commensurate with nearly all of the juvenile freshwater life phases of most salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that for an occupied stream reach this lateral extent is regularly “occupied.” Moreover, the bankfull elevation can be readily discerned for a variety of stream reaches and stream types using recognizable water lines (
e.g.
, marks on rocks) or vegetation boundaries (Rosgen, 1996).
As underscored in previous critical habitat designations, the quality of aquatic habitat within stream channels is intrinsically related to the adjacent riparian zones and floodplain, to surrounding wetlands and uplands, and to non-fish-bearing streams above occupied stream reaches. Human activities that occur outside the stream can modify or destroy physical and biological features of the stream. In addition, human activities that occur within and adjacent to reaches upstream (
e.g.
, road failures) or downstream (
e.g.
, dams) of designated stream reaches can also have demonstrable effects on physical and biological features of designated reaches.
In estuarine areas we believe that mean extreme high water is the best descriptor of lateral extent. We are proposing the area inundated by extreme high tide because it encompasses habitat areas typically inundated and regularly occupied during the spring and summer when juvenile salmonids are migrating in nearshore estuarine areas. However, it may be more appropriate to use the ordinary high water level in estuarine nearshore areas and we request comment on this issue. As noted above for stream habitat areas, human activities that occur outside the area inundated by extreme or ordinary high water can modify or destroy physical and biological features of the nearshore habitat areas and Federal agencies must be aware of these important habitat linkages as well.
Species Descriptions and Area Assessments
This section provides descriptions of the seven Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs addressed in this rulemaking and summarizes the Teams' assessment of habitat areas for each ESU. The Teams' assessments addressed PCEs in the habitat areas within occupied CALWATER HSA watersheds (as well as rearing/migration corridors for some ESUs). For ease of reporting and reference these HSA watersheds have been organized into “units” based on their associated subbasin or CALWATER Hydrologic Unit (HU).
California Coastal (CC) Chinook Salmon ESU
The CC chinook salmon ESU was listed as a threatened species in 1999 (64 FR 50394). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to and including the Russian River. Following completion of an updated status review (NMFS, 2003a) and review of hatchery populations located within the range of the ESU (NMFS, 2003b), NMFS recently proposed that the ESU remain listed as a threatened species and that seven hatchery populations be included as part of the ESU (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). Major watersheds occupied by naturally spawning fish in this ESU include Redwood Creek, Mad River, Eel River, several smaller coastal watersheds, and the Russian River. A Technical Recovery Team has been formed and is in the process of identifying the historical and extant population structure of this ESU; however, this is still in progress.
The Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 45 occupied watersheds or CALWATER HSAs that occur in 8 associated subbasins or CALWATER HUs (NMFS, 2004b). In addition to the 45 HSA watershed units, conservation assessments were also made for Humboldt Bay and the Eel River Estuary. As part of its assessment, the Team considered the conservation value of each habitat area in the context of the productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of habitats across the range of the ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of CC chinook salmon, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
described under Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat
Unit 1. Redwood Creek Subbasin (HU #1107)
The Redwood Creek HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes the Redwood Creek drainage. The HU encompasses approximately 294 mi
2
(758 km
2
) and includes three occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 107 miles (171 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain one or
more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, sand and gravel mining, agricultural water withdrawals and impoundments, grazing, and channelization. Of the three occupied HSA watersheds, two were rated as having high conservation value and one as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 2. Trinidad Subbasin (HU #1108)
The Trinidad HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes Big Lagoon and Little River. The HU encompasses approximately 131 mi
2
(338 km
2
) and contains two HSA watersheds both of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 26 miles (42 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, agriculture, non-agricultural and agricultural water withdrawals, and grazing. Of the two occupied HSA watersheds, one was rated as having low conservation value and one as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for conservation of the ESU.
Unit 3. Mad River Subbasin (HU #1109)
The Mad River HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes the Mad River drainage. The HU encompasses approximately 499 mi
2
(1287 km
2
) and includes four HSA watersheds, three of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 53 miles (85 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, agriculture, and grazing. All of the occupied HSA watersheds were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 4. Eureka Plain Subbasin (HU #1110)
The Eureka Plain HU is located in the vicinity of Eureka and surrounds Humboldt Bay. The HU encompasses approximately 224 mi
2
(578 km
2
) and contains a single HSA which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 74 miles (118 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this HSA watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, flood control channelization, and road building and maintenance. This single occupied HSA watershed was rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team also evaluated Humboldt Bay into which most of these freshwater streams in this subbasin drain as a separate habitat unit. Humboldt Bay contains approximately 25 mi
2
(65 km
2
) of estuarine habitat which the Team found contained PCEs for rearing and migration and was of high conservation value since it provides migratory connectivity for juveniles and adults between high value freshwater spawning and rearing habitat and the ocean. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 5. Eel River Subbasin (HU #1111)
The Eel River HU is located in the northern and central portion of the ESU and includes the Eel River and Van Duzen River drainages. This HU, which is the largest in the ESU, encompasses approximately 3,682 mi
2
(9,500 km
2
) and contains 19 occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 841 miles (1,345 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied habitat areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs including agriculture, forestry, sand and gravel mining, grazing, exotic/invasive species, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, and urbanization. Of these occupied HSA watersheds, three were rated as having low conservation value, four were rated as having medium conservation value, and twelve were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team also evaluated the Eel River estuary as a separate habitat unit and concluded it contained PCEs for rearing and migration and is of high conservation value since it provides migratory connectivity for juveniles and adults between high value freshwater spawning and rearing habitat and the ocean. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 6. Cape Mendocino Subbasin (HU #1112)
The Cape Mendocino HU is located in the central portion of the ESU and includes the Bear River and Mattole River drainages. This HU encompasses approximately 499 mi
2
(1,287 km
2
) and contains three HSA watersheds, two of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 173 miles (277 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, grazing, forestry, and agricultural water withdrawals. Both occupied HSA watersheds were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 7. Mendocino Coast Subbasin (HU #1113)
The Mendocino Coast HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes several smaller coastal streams including the Ten Mile, Noyo, Albion, Navarro, and Garcia Rivers. This HU encompasses approximately 1,598 mi
2
(4,123 km
2
) and contains eighteen HSA watersheds, seven of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 204 miles (326 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, grazing, urbanization, agriculture, and agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied HSA
watersheds, the Team rated two as low in conservation value, three as medium in conservation value, and two as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 8. Russian River Subbasin (HU #1114)
The Russian River HU is located in the southernmost portion of the ESU and includes the Russian River drainage and its tributaries. The HU encompasses approximately 1,482 mi
2
(3,824 km
2
) and contains ten HSA watersheds within the range of the ESU, nine of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 133 miles (212 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded these occupied HSA areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, agriculture, forestry, sand and gravel mining, grazing, flood control channelization, and agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied HSA watersheds, the Team rated three as low in conservation value, two as medium in conservation value, and four as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Northern California (NC)
O. mykiss
ESU
The NC
O. mykiss
ESU was listed as a threatened species in 2000 (65 FR 36074; June 7, 2000). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
O. mykiss
in coastal river basins from Redwood Creek south to and including the Gualala River. Major watersheds occupied by naturally spawning fish in this ESU include Redwood Creek, Mad River, Eel River, several smaller coastal watersheds on the coast south to the Gualala River.
O. mykiss
within this ESU include both winter and summer run types, including what is presently considered to be the southernmost population of summer run
O. mykiss
in the Middle Fork Eel River (NMFS, 1996). The half-pounder life history type also occurs in the ESU, specifically in the Mad and Eel Rivers. Based on an updated status review (NMFS, 2003a) and an assessment of hatchery populations located within the range of the ESU (NMFS, 2003b), NMFS recently proposed that the ESU remain listed as a threatened species and that resident
O. mykiss
co-occurring with anadromous populations below impassible barriers (both natural and man-made) as well as two artificial propagation programs (Yager Creek Hatchery and North Fork Gualala River Hatchery) also be included in the ESU (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). A Technical Recovery Team has been formed and is in the process of identifying the historical and extant independent population structure of this ESU and associated population viability parameters for each population.
The Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 50 occupied watersheds or CALWATER HSAs that occur in 7 associated subbasins or CALWATER HUs. In addition to the 50 HSA watershed units, conservation assessments were also made for Humboldt Bay and the Eel River Estuary. As part of its assessment, the Team considered the conservation value of each habitat area in the context of the productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of habitats across the range of the ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of NC
O. mykiss
, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
described under Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat.
Unit 1. Redwood Creek Subbasin (HU #1107)
The Redwood Creek HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes the Redwood Creek drainage. The HU encompasses approximately 294 mi
2
(758km
2
) and includes three HSA watersheds, all of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 138 (220 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the three occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSA watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, sand and gravel mining, agricultural water withdrawals and impoundments, grazing and channelization. Of the three occupied HSA watersheds, one was rated as medium and two were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 2. Trinidad Subbasin (HU #1108)
The Trinidad HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes Big Lagoon and Little River. The HU encompasses approximately 131 mi
2
(338 km
2
) and contains two HSA watersheds, both of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 66 miles (106 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, agriculture, non-agricultural and agricultural water withdrawals and grazing. Of the two HSA watersheds, one was rated by the Team as having medium conservation value and one was rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for conservation of the ESU.
Unit 3. Mad River Subbasin (HU #1109)
The Mad River HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes the Mad River drainage. The HU encompasses approximately 499 mi
2
(1,287 km
2
) and contains four HSA watersheds, all of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 169 miles (270 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in these occupied habitat areas (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, agriculture, and grazing. Of these occupied HSA watersheds, one was rated as having low conservation value and three were rated by the Team as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 4. Eureka Plain Subbasin (HU #1110)
The Eureka Plain HU is located in the vicinity of Eureka and includes Humboldt Bay. The HU encompasses approximately 224 mi
2
(578 km
2
) and contains a single HSA which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 122 miles (195 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine
habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, flood control channelization, and road building and maintenance. The single HSA watershed in the subbasin was rated by the Team as having high conservation value to the ESU. The Team also evaluated Humboldt Bay into which most of these freshwater streams in this subbasin drain as a separate habitat unit. Humboldt Bay contains approximately 25 mi
2
(65 km
2
) of estuarine habitat which the Team found contained PCEs for rearing and migration and was of high conservation value since it provides migratory connectivity for juveniles and adults between high value freshwater spawning and rearing habitat and the ocean. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 5. Eel River Subbasin (HU #1111)
The Eel River HU is located in the north central portion of the ESU and includes the Eel River and Van Duzen River drainages. The HU encompasses approximately 3,682 mi
2
(9,500 km
2
) and contains nineteen HSA watersheds, all of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 1,269 miles (2,030 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied watershed areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, forestry, sand and gravel mining, grazing, exotic/invasive species, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, and urbanization. Of these nineteen occupied watersheds, nine were rated by the Team as medium in conservation value and ten were rated as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team also evaluated the Eel River estuary as a separate habitat unit and concluded it contained PCEs for rearing and migration and is of high conservation value since it provides migratory connectivity for juveniles and adults between high conservation value freshwater spawning and rearing habitat and the ocean. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 6. Cape Mendocino Subbasin (HU #1112)
The Cape Mendocino HU is located in the central portion of the ESU and includes the Bear River and Mattole River drainages. This HU encompasses approximately 499 mi
2
(1,287 km
2
) and contains three HSA watersheds which are all occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 342 miles (547 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, grazing, forestry, and agricultural water withdrawals. Of these watersheds, the Team rated two as having low conservation value and one as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 7. Mendocino Coast Subbasin (HU #1112)
The Mendocino Coast HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes several smaller coastal streams such as Ten Mile, Noyo, Albion, Navarro, and Garcia Rivers. This HU encompasses approximately 1,598 mi
2
(4,123 km
2
) and contains eighteen HSA watersheds that are all occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 1,022 miles (1,635 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, grazing, urbanization, agriculture, and agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals. Of these occupied HSA watersheds, the Team rated five as low in conservation value, four as medium in conservation value, and nine as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Central California Coast (CCC) O. mykiss ESU
The CCC
O. mykiss
ESU was listed as a threatened species in 1997 (62 FR 433937; August 18, 1997). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
O. mykiss
in coastal river basins from the Russian River southward to and including Aptos Creek, as well as naturally spawned populations of
O. mykiss
in drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bay eastward to but excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Major coastal watersheds occupied by naturally spawning fish in this ESU include the Russian River, Lagunitas Creek, and San Lorenzo River. Important watersheds occupied by naturally spawning fish within the San Francisco Bay/San Pablo Bay area include Alameda Creek, Coyote Creek, Guadelupe Creek, Petaluma River, and the Napa River. Based on an updated status review (NMFS, 2003a) and an assessment of hatchery populations located within the range of the ESU (NMFS, 2003b), NMFS recently proposed that the ESU remain listed as a threatened species (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). In addition, NMFS proposed that: (1) Resident
O. mykiss
occurring with anadromous populations below impassable barriers (both natural and man made); (2) two artificially propagated populations (Don Clausen Fish Hatchery in the Russian River basin and the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek hatchery in Scott Creek south of San Francisco); and (3) three resident
O. mykiss
sub-populations above Dam 1 on Alameda Creek also be included in the CCC
O. mykiss
ESU. For the purposes of this re-designation proposal, therefore, the watershed units occupied by resident
O. mykiss
in upper Alameda Creek were considered occupied. A Technical Recovery Team has been formed and is in the process of identifying the historical and extant independent population structure of this ESU as well as the associated viability criteria for these populations.
The Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 47 occupied watersheds or CALWATER HSAs that occur in 10 associated subbasins (or CALWATER HUs). Five of these HSAs encompass the San Francisco—San Pablo—Suisun Bay complex which constitutes migratory and rearing habitat for several Bay area tributary stream populations in this ESU. As part of this assessment, the Team considered the conservation value of each habitat area in the context of the productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of habitats across the range of the ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of the CCC
O. mykiss
ESU, consistent with the PCEs
identified for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
described under Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat.
Unit 1. Russian River Subbasin (HU #1114)
The Russian River HU is located in the northern portion of the ESU and includes the Russian River drainage and its tributaries. The HU encompasses approximately 1,482 mi
2
(3,824 km
2
) and contains eleven HSA watersheds, ten of which are occupied. The unoccupied HSA does not contain fish because it is located above Coyote Dam, which is an impassable fish barrier used to facilitate water diversions from the Eel River and delivery downstream for agricultural and municipal purposes. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 713 miles (1,141 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the 10 occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSAs watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, agriculture, grazing, flood control channelization, road building and maintenance, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, and non-hydro dams. Of the occupied HSA watersheds, the Team rated one as low in conservation value, two as medium in conservation value, and seven as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify and unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 2. Bodega Bay Subbasin (HU #1115)
The Bodega Bay HU is located in the north central portion of the ESU and includes several small streams as well as Bodega Harbor. The HU encompasses approximately 147 mi
2
(411 km
2
) and contains four HSA watersheds, two of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 18 miles (29 km
2
) of occupied riverine or estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including grazing, urbanization, agriculture, and agricultural water withdrawals. The Team rated one occupied HSA watershed as low in conservation value and one as medium in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 3. Marin Coastal Subbasin (HU #2201)
The Marin Coastal HU is located in the central portion of the ESU along the coast and includes several small watersheds including Lagunitas Creek. The HU encompasses approximately 327 mi
2
(844 km
2
) and contains five HSA watersheds, four of which are occupied. The unoccupied HSA lacks satisfactory habitat and is of high gradient. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 74 miles (118 km) of occupied riverine or estuarine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied habitat areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including grazing, urbanization, forestry, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, and non-hydro dams. Of the occupied HSA watersheds, the Team rated two as low in conservation value, one as medium in conservation value, and one as high in conservation value to the ESU. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential to the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 4. San Mateo Subbasin (HU #2202)
The San Mateo HU is located on the coast immediately south of the Golden Gate Bridge and includes several small creeks including San Gregorio and Pescadero Creeks. The HU encompasses approximately 257 mi
2
(663 km
2
) and contains six HSA watersheds, five of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 146 miles (234 km) of occupied riverine or estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, urbanization, non-hydro dams, and road building and maintenance. Of these occupied HSA watersheds, one is low in conservation value, two are medium in value, and two are high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify and unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 5. Bay Bridges Subbasin (HU #2203)
The Bay Bridges HU is located in the central portion of the ESU and includes portions of northern San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and some associated watersheds. The HU encompasses approximately 191 mi
2
(493 km
2
) and contains four HSA watersheds, three of which are occupied. The San Francisco Bayside HSA is unoccupied by this ESU due to intense urbanization and lack of stream habitat. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 46 miles (74 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). One of the occupied HSAs (HSA #220312; Bay Waters) includes that portion of San Francisco Bay bounded by the Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Richmond Bridge, and encompasses an area of approximately 83 mi
2
(214 km
2
). This occupied estuarine habitat area constitutes important migratory and rearing habitat and access to the ocean for some populations within this ESU. The Team concluded that these occupied habitat areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, channel modification, flood control channelization, road building and maintenance, and wetland loss. Of the occupied watersheds, one each is rated low, medium and high, respectively, in conservation value to the ESU. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 6. South Bay Subbasin (HU #2204)
The South Bay HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes South San Francisco Bay and associated tributaries such as Alamada Creek. This HU encompasses approximately 1,220 mi
2
(3.148 km
2
) and contains four occupied HSA watersheds. One of these four watersheds (Upper Alameda Creek; HSA #220430) is not accessible to anadromous fish at this time, but is nonetheless considered occupied for the purposes of this critical habitat designation because genetic evidence indicates the resident O. mykiss that reside there are closely related to local anadromous steelhead (Nielsen 2003) and we have proposed to include these fish in the listed ESU (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). Fish distribution and
habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 172 miles (275 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a), including the Upper Alameda Creek HSA (#220430). One of the occupied HSAs (Bay Channel; HSA #220410) includes that portion of San Francisco Bay south of the Bay Bridge to the Dumbarton Bridge, and encompasses an area of approximately 173 mi
2
(446 km
2
). This occupied estuarine habitat area constitutes important migratory and rearing habitat and access to the ocean for some populations within this ESU. The Team concluded that these occupied habitat areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, flood control channelization, non-hydro dams, channel modification, and non-agricultural water withdrawals. Of these occupied HSAs, the Team rated one as low in conservation value, one as medium in conservation value, and two as high in conservation value to the ESU. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 7. Santa Clara Subbasin (HU #2205)
The Santa Clara HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes part of South San Francisco Bay and associated tributaries including Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River. This HU encompasses approximately 840 mi
2
(2,167 km
2
) and contains five HSA watersheds, four of which are occupied. The remaining HSA is unoccupied due to lack of stream habitat and intense urbanization. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 135 miles (216 km) of occupied riverine or estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). One of the occupied HSAs (Dumbarton South; HSA #220510) includes that portion of San Francisco Bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge, and encompasses an area of approximately 15 mi
2
(39 km
2
). This occupied estuarine habitat area constitutes important migratory and rearing habitat and access to the ocean for some populations within this ESU. The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including road building and maintenance, urbanization, wetland loss, flood control channelization, non-hydro dams, and non-agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as low in conservation value, two as medium in conservation value, and one as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 8. San Pablo Subbasin (HU #2206)
The San Pablo HU is located in the central portion of the ESU and includes part of San Pablo Bay as well as several associated tributaries including the Petaluma River, Sonoma Creek, and the Napa River. This HU encompasses approximately 1,018 mi
2
(2,626 km
2
) and contains six occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 392 miles (627 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). One of the occupied HSAs (San Pablo Bay; HSA #220610) includes San Pablo Bay from the Richmond Bridge to the Carquinez Bridge, and encompasses an area of approximately 115 mi
2
(297 km
2
). This occupied estuarine habitat area constitutes important migratory and rearing habitat and access to the ocean for some populations within this ESU. The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, road building and maintenance, channel modification, flood control channelization, agriculture, wetland loss, and non-hydro dams. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated two as low, one as medium, and three as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 9. Suisun Bay Subbasin (HU #2207)
The Suisun Bay HU is located in the easternmost portion of the ESU and includes Suisun Bay and associated tributaries including Mount Diablo Creek and Suisun Creek. This HU encompasses approximately 653 mi
2
(1,684 km
2
) and contains eight HSA watersheds, five of which are occupied. The remaining three HSA watersheds are unoccupied due to unsuitable habitat and/or barriers and urbanization. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 86 miles (138 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). One of the occupied HSAs (Suisun Bay; HSA #220710) includes Suisun Bay which encompasses an area of approximately 56 mi
2
(143 km
2
). This occupied estuarine habitat area constitutes important migratory and rearing habitat and access to the ocean for some populations within this ESU. The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, road building and maintenance, wetland loss, non-hydro dams, flood control channelization, and agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied watersheds, the Team rated four as low and one as medium in conservation value for the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 10. Big Basin Subbasin (HU #3304)
The Big Basin HU is located in the southernmost coastal portion of the ESU south of the Golden Gate Bridge and includes several small coastal streams such as Gazos Creek, Waddell Creek, Scott Creek, the San Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek and Aptos Creek. This HU encompasses approximately 367 mi
2
(947 km
2
) and contains four occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 220 miles (352 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including road building and maintenance, forestry, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, and non-hydro dams. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as medium and three as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
South-Central California Coast (SCCC) O. mykiss ESU
The SCCC
O. mykiss
ESU was listed as a threatened species in 1997 (62 FR 43937). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
O. mykiss
in
coastal river basins from the Pajaro River southward to, but not including, the Santa Maria River. The major watersheds occupied by naturally spawning fish in this ESU include the Pajaro River, Salinas River, Carmel River, and numerous smaller rivers and streams along the Big Sur coast and southward. Most of the rivers in this ESU drain the Santa Lucia Range, the southernmost unit of the California Coast Range, and only winter steelhead are found in this ESU. The climate is drier and warmer than in the north, as reflected in vegetational changes from coniferous forest to chapparral and coastal scrub. The mouths of many rivers and streams in this ESU are seasonally closed by sand berms that form during periods of low flow in the summer. Based on an updated status review (NMFS, 2003a), NMFS recently proposed that the ESU remain listed as a threatened species and that resident
O. mykiss
co-occurring with anadromous populations below impassible barriers (both natural and man-made) be included in the ESU (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). A Technical Recovery Team has been formed and is in the process of identifying the historical and extant independent population structure of this ESU and associated population viability criteria. The time frame for completion of this work is uncertain.
The Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 30 occupied watersheds or CALWATER HSAs that occur in 8 associated subbasins (or CALWATER HUs). In addition to 29 HSA watershed units, a conservation assessment was also made for Morro Bay (a separate HSA unit) which provides rearing and migration PCEs for this ESU. As part of its conservation assessment, the Team considered the conservation value of each habitat area in the context of the productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of habitat across the range of the ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of the SCCC
O. mykiss
ESU, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
described under Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat.
Unit 1. Pajaro River Subbasin (HU #3305)
The Pajaro River HU is located in the northern part of the ESU and includes the Pajaro River and its tributaries. The HU encompasses approximately 1,311 mi
2
(3,382 km
2
) and contains five occupied HSA watersheds, although a portion of one HSA is located outside the boundary of the ESU. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 296 miles (474 km) of occupied riverine and/or estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSAs contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including flood control channelization, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, road building and maintenance, and non-hydro dams. Of the five occupied watersheds, the Team rated three as medium in conservation value and two as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team also concluded that inaccessible habitat above Uvas Dam in Uvas Creek (a tributary to the Pajaro River) may be essential to the conservation of the ESU. The Team concluded that this unoccupied habitat area may be essential for conservation because: (1) It supports
O. mykiss
native to the Pajaro River watershed and contains habitat suitable for spawning and rearing; and (2) efforts are underway to implement a long-standing agreement between the South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District and the State of California to provide fish passage past this dam. We seek comment on whether this unoccupied area should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 2. Bolsa Neuva Subbasin (HU #3306)
The Bolsa Neuva HU is a small watershed unit located in the northern part of the ESU which includes Elkhorn Slough. The HU encompasses approximately 51 mi
2
(132 km
2
) and contains one HSA watershed and approximately 63 miles of streams (at 1:100,000 hydrography). Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists indicate that this watershed is not occupied (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify this unoccupied HSA as a habitat area that was essential for the conservation of the ESU. Because this HU did not contain occupied habitat or unoccupied habitat that the Team believed may be essential for the conservation of the ESU, it was not considered further in the designation process.
Unit 3. Carmel River Subbasin (HU #3307)
The Carmel River HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes the Carmel River watershed. The HU encompasses approximately 256 mi
2
(660 km
2
) and contains only one HSA which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 136 miles (218 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that this occupied watershed contained habitat areas with one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including flood control channelization, non-hydro dams, and non-agricultural water withdrawals. The Team rated this watershed as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for conservation of the ESU.
Unit 4. Santa Lucia Subbasin (HU #3308)
The Santa Lucia HU is located along the Big Sur coastal area and includes the Big Sur River and Little Sur River watersheds. The HU encompasses approximately 302 mi
2
(779 km
2
) and contains only a single HSA which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 102 miles (163 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that this occupied watershed contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified at least one management activity that may affect the PCEs, including road building and maintenance. The Team rated this watershed as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 5. Salinas River Subbasin (HU #3309)
The Salinas River HU is located in the north-central portion of the ESU and includes the Salinas River watershed which is the largest in the ESU. The Salinas River HU encompasses approximately 3,527 mi
2
(9,099km
2
) and contains twelve HSA watersheds, seven of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 375 miles (600 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities
that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, flood control channelization, wetland loss, road building and maintenance, non-hydro dams, and agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied watersheds, the Team rated four as having low conservation value, one as having medium conservation value, and two as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 6. Estero Bay (HU #3310)
The Estero Bay HU is located along the southern coast of the ESU and includes several relatively small coastal streams including Arroyo De La Cruz, San Simeon Creek, Santa Rosa Creek, Morro Creek, Chorro Creek, San Luis Obispo Creek, and Arroyo Grande Creek. The HU encompasses approximately 751 mi
2
(436 km
2
) and contains seventeen HSA watersheds, sixteen of which are occupied. One of these occupied watersheds is Morro Bay into which the Morro Creek and Chorro Creek watersheds drain. Morro Bay proper encompasses an area of approximately 3 mi
2
(8 km
2
) and is an important rearing and migratory habitat for populations that occupy the watersheds that drain into the Bay. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 352 miles (563 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied habitat areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including grazing, agriculture, urbanization, non-hydro dams, road building and maintenance, and agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied HSA watersheds, the Team rated two as low, seven as medium, and seven as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Units 7 (Santa Maria HU #3312) and 8 (Estrella HU #3317)
Portions of the Santa Maria and Estrella HUs are within the geographic range of this ESU, but do not contain occupied riverine or estuarine habitat. The Santa Maria HU includes a single HSA (Guadalupe; 331210) which is divided by the ESU boundary. All occupied habitat within this HSA occurs within the range of the Southern California steelhead ESU. The Estrella HU contains a single HSA (Estrella River; 331700) which is unoccupied. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU. Because these areas did not contain occupied habitat or unoccupied habitat that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU, they were not considered further in the designation process.
Southern California (SC) O. mykiss ESU
The SC
O. mykiss
ESU was listed as an endangered species in 1997 (62 FR 3937; August 18, 1997). In 2002, the status of the ESU was updated and its range extended based on new information indicating that anadromous
O. mykiss
had re-colonized watersheds from which it was thought to have been extirpated (67 FR 21586; May 1, 2002). The SC
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
O. mykiss
in coastal river basins from the Santa Maria River in San Luis Obispo County southward to the U.S.—Mexican Border (67 FR 21586). Major coastal watersheds occupied by naturally spawning fish in this ESU include the Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara Rivers. Several smaller streams in Santa Barbara, Ventura and northern Los Angeles County also support naturally spawning steelhead, as do two watersheds (San Juan Creek and San Mateo Creek) in southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. These southernmost populations are disjunct in distribution and are separated from the northernmost populations by approximately 80 miles (128 km). Based on an updated status review (NMFS, 2003a), NMFS recently proposed that the ESU remain listed as an endangered species (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). In addition, NMFS proposed that resident
O. mykiss
occurring with anadromous populations below impassable barriers (both natural and man made) also be included in the ESU. A Technical Recovery Team has been formed for the South-Central coast of California and is in the process of identifying the historical and extant independent population structure of this ESU and the SCCC
O. mykiss
ESU, as well as the associated viability criteria for these populations.
The Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 37 occupied watersheds or CALWATER HSAs that occur in 8 associated subbasins or CALWATER HUs. As part of its assessment, the Team considered the conservation value of each habitat area (or HSA) in the context of the productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of habitats across the range of the ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of the SC
O. mykiss
, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
described under Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat.
Unit 1. Santa Maria River Subbasin (HU #3312)
The Santa Maria River HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes the Santa Maria River and its upstream tributaries, the Sisquoc and Cuyama Rivers. The HU encompasses an area of approximately 704 mi
2
(1816 km
2
) and contains three occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 219 miles (350 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSA watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including non-hydro dams, water withdrawals, sand and gravel mining, and grazing. Of the occupied watersheds, the Team rated two as low and one as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 2. Santa Ynez River Subbasin (HU #3314)
The Santa Ynez River HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes the Santa Ynez River watershed. The HU encompasses an area of approximately 485 mi
2
(1,251 km
2
) and contains six HSA watersheds, five of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 138 miles (221 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including grazing, water withdrawals, non-hydro dams, urbanization, barriers to migration, and road building and maintenance. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as low, two as medium, and two as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches of the Santa Ynez River and its tributaries above Bradbury Dam may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. The Team reached this conclusion because historical records indicate that the upper portion of the Santa Ynez watershed above Bradbury Dam provided the principal spawning and rearing habitat for a historically large anadromous
O. mykiss
population within this river system prior to construction of the dam. In addition, most of these unoccupied river reaches are located on lands under public ownership and management, primarily the Los Padres National Forest. Because of the large size of the Santa Ynez river system, it is likely to have historically supported one or more independent populations which contributed to the resiliency of the ESU and served as a buffer against extinction. The currently occupied habitat areas within the range of the SC
O. mykiss
ESU are relatively small in number and size, and in many cases are isolated from other occupied habitats, thus the re-establishment of larger populations such as the one that historically occurred in the Santa Ynez River may be necessary to reduce the extinction probability of this ESU. We seek comment on whether unoccupied areas above Bradbury Dam should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 3. South Coast Subbasin (HU #3315)
The South Coast HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes several small coastal streams such as Jalama Creek, Arroyo Hondo, Mission Creek, and Carpinteria Creek. The HU encompasses an area of approximately 375 mi
2
(968 km
2
) and contains five occupied HSAs. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 152 miles (243 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSA watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, migration barriers or impediments, water withdrawals, urbanization, road building and maintenance, and wetland loss. Of the occupied watersheds, the Team rated all five as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 4. Ventura River Subbasin (HU #4402)
The Ventura River HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes the Ventura River and its associated tributaries. The HU encompasses an area of approximately 162 mi
2
(259 km
2
) and contains four occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 68 miles (109 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSAs contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, agriculture, water withdrawals, non-hydro dams, barriers or impediments, and exotic or invasive species. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated two as medium and two as high in conservation value (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches of Matilija Creek and its tributaries above Matilija Dam and inaccessible reaches of Coyote and Santa Ana Creeks above Casitas Dam may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. The Team reached this conclusion because historical records indicate that the inaccessible habitat reaches above Matilija and Casitas Dams provided the principal spawning and rearing habitat for a historically large anadromous
O. mykiss
population within the Ventura River watershed prior to construction of the dams. In addition, most of these unoccupied river reaches are located on lands under public ownership and management, primarily the Los Padres National Forest. Because of the relatively large size of the Ventura River watershed, it is likely to have historically supported one or more independent populations prior to dam construction which contributed to the resiliency of the ESU and served as a buffer against extinction. The currently occupied habitat areas within the range of the SC
O. mykiss
ESU are relatively small in number and size, and in many cases are isolated from other occupied habitats. Thus the re-establishment of larger populations such as the ones that historically occurred in the Ventura River watershed may be necessary to reduce the extinction probability of this ESU. We seek comment on whether unoccupied areas above Matilija and Casitas Dams should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 5. Santa Clara—Calleguas Subbasin (HU #4403)
The Santa Clara—Calleguas HU is located in the northwestern portion of the range of the ESU and includes the Santa Clara River and its tributaries including Sespe Creek. That portion of the HU within the range of the ESU encompasses a large area of approximately 1,236 mi
2
(3,189 km
2
) and contains 14 HSA watersheds, only 6 of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 182 miles (291 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied HSAs contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, irrigation water withdrawals, barriers and impediments, dams, urbanization, and exotic/invasive species. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as medium and five as high in conservation value (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches of Piru Creek and its tributaries above Santa Felicia Dam may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. The Team reached this conclusion because historical records indicate that the inaccessible habitat reaches above Santa Felicia Dam provided the principal spawning and rearing habitat for a historically large anadromous
O. mykiss
population within the Santa Clara River watershed prior to construction of the dam. In addition, most of these unoccupied river reaches are located on lands under public ownership and management, primarily the Los Padres National Forest. Because of the large size of the Santa Clara River watershed, it is likely to have historically supported one or more independent populations prior to dam construction which contributed to the resiliency of the ESU and served as a buffer against its extinction. The currently occupied habitat areas within the range of the SC
O. mykiss
ESU are relatively small in number and size, and in many cases are isolated from other occupied habitats, thus the re-establishment of larger populations such as the one that historically occurred in the Santa Clara River watershed may be necessary to reduce the extinction probability of this ESU. We seek comment on whether unoccupied areas above Santa Felicia Dam should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 6. Santa Monica Bay Subbasin (HU #4404)
The Santa Monica Bay HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes Topanga Creek, Malibu Creek, and Arroyo Sequit. That portion of the HU within the ESU encompasses approximately 328 mi
2
(846 km
2
) and includes 29 HSA watersheds, only 3 of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify only approximately 11 miles (18 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the 3 occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including road building and maintenance, urbanization, barriers and impediments, and flood control and other channel modifications. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated all three as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches of Malibu Creek above Rindge Dam may be essential to the conservtion of this ESU. The Team reached this conclusion because historical records indicate that the inaccessible habitat reaches above Rindge Dam provided the principal spawning and rearing habitat for an important anadromous
O. mykiss
population within the Malibu River watershed prior to construction of the dam. Because of the size of this watershed, it is likely to have historically supported an independent population prior to dam construction which contributed to the resiliency of the ESU and served as a buffer against its extinction. The currently occupied habitat areas within the range of the SC
O. mykiss
ESU are relatively small in number and size, and in many cases are isolated from other occupied habitats, thus the re-establishment of larger populations such as the one that historically occurred in Malibu Creek may be necessary to reduce the extinction probability of this ESU. We seek comment on whether unoccupied areas above Rindge Dam should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 7. Calleguas Subbasin (HU #4408)
The Calleguas HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes Calleguas Creek and estuary. That portion of the HU within the range of the ESU encompasses a large area of approximately 344 mi
2
(888 km
2
) and 12 HSA watersheds, only 2 of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify only approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) of occupied freshwater and estuarine habitat in the occupied HSA watersheds (NMFS, 2004b). The Team concluded that the occupied watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, rearing and migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, and barriers or impediments. The Team also concluded that both watersheds have a low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas that may be essential to the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 8. San Juan Subbasin (HU #4901)
The San Juan HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes the San Juan Creek and San Mateo Creek watersheds which have recently been re-colonized by anadromous
O. mykiss
. That portion of the HU within the range of the ESU encompasses an area of approximately 496 mi
2
(1,280 km
2
) and contains 18 HSA watersheds, 9 of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 66 miles (106 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that the occupied watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urbanization, road building and maintenance, barriers and impediments, channel modifications or flood control structures, agriculture, agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, and exotic/invasive species. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as low, one as medium, and seven as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Within the range of the SC
O. mykiss
ESU, which extends from the Santa Maria River southward to the U.S.—Mexico border, there are a large number of HSA watersheds and their associated subbasins (or HUs) that are not occupied. These unoccupied subbasins include the San Gabriel River, Los Angeles River, Santa Ana River, Santa Margarita River, San Luis Rey River, San Dieguito River, San Diego River, Sweetwater River, Otay River and Tijuana River. Because these areas are unoccupied and were not considered essential for conservation of the ESU by the Team, they were not considered further in the designation process.
Central Valley (CV) Spring-Run Chinook ESU
The CV spring-run chinook ESU was listed as a threatened species in 1999 (64 FR 50394). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The agency recently conducted a review to update the ESU's status, taking into account new information and considering the net contribution of artificial propagation efforts in the ESU. A single artificially propagated spring-run chinook stock resides within the historical geographic range of the ESU (Feather River Hatchery spring-run chinook program), but it is not considered part of the ESU because of introgression with fall-run chinook salmon. NMFS has recently proposed that the CV spring-run chinook ESU remain listed as a threatened species (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). No artificial propagation programs were proposed for listing.
A Technical Recovery Team has been established for the Central Valley recovery planning domain, and it has identified historic and extant demographically independent populations of spring chinook (NMFS, 2004; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-370). The TRT divided the range of the spring-run chinook ESU into four geographic groups. Geographic areas in each group inhabit similar environments based on a principle components analysis of environmental variables. The four geographic groups are the southern Cascades, northern Sierra, southern Sierra, and Coast Range. The TRT identified at least 18 historically demographically independent populations of spring-run chinook distributed among these four geographic areas, plus an additional seven likely dependent populations that may have been strongly influenced by adjacent independent population. Three of the 18 independent populations are extant (Mill, Deer and Butte Creek populations) and all occur in the Southern Cascade geographic area. Several extant dependent populations have intermittent runs of spring chinook including Big Chico, Antelope, and Beegum Creeks. Recovery planning will likely emphasize the need for having viable populations distributed across the range of the identified geographic areas (Ruckelshaus
et al.
, 2002; McElhany
et al.
, 2003). Recovery planning efforts are currently focused on working with the CalFed and Central
Valley Project Improvement Act programs to implement habitat restoration projects and other recovery related efforts in the Central Valley. The Team considered the TRT products in rating each watershed and also solicited input from the TRT on the distributional and habitat use information that was compiled as well as the conservation assessment of occupied HSAs.
The Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 37 occupied watersheds or CALWATER HSAs that occur in 15 associated subbasins or CALWATER HUs. This assessment also included four HSAs that encompass the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay complex, which constitutes rearing and migration habitat for this ESU. This complex is treated as a separate unit in the following ESU description even though it is not a CALWATER HU. As part of its assessment, the Team considered the conservation value of each habitat area (or HSA) in the context of the productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity of habitats across the range of the ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of the CV spring-run chinook, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
described under Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat.
Unit 1. Tehama Subbasin (HU #5504)
The Tehama HU is located in the north central portion of the ESU and includes portions of the mainstem Sacramento River, the lower portions of two westside tributaries (Thomes and Stony Creeks) and the lower portions of three eastside tributaries (Mill Creek, Deer Creek, and Pine Creek). The HU encompasses an area of approximately 1,119 square miles (2,887 km
2
) and contains two HSA watersheds, both of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 250 miles (400 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied watersheds contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.
, spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural water withdrawals, fish passage impediments, stream bank stabilization for flood control, dam operations, urbanization, rangeland management, diking, and point and non-point source water pollution. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as medium and one as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 2. Whitmore Subbasin (HU #5507)
The Whitmore HU is located in the north eastern portion of the ESU and includes portions of upper Battle Creek (North and South Forks), upper Bear Creek, and the Cow Creek watershed. The HU encompasses an area approximately 913 mi
2
(2,355 km
2
) and contains seven HSA watersheds, four of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 58 miles (93 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the occupied HSAs (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural and no-agricultural water withdrawals, forestry, rangeland management, hydropower diversions, urbanization, and fish passage impediments. Of these watersheds, the Team rated three as having low conservation value and one as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 3. Redding Subbasin (HU #5508)
The Redding HU is located in the northernmost portion of the ESU and includes portions of the upper Sacramento River mainstem, westside tributaries including Cottonwood Creek (portions of both the Middle and South Forks) and Clear Creek, and the lower portions of several eastside tributaries (Cow Creek, Bear Creek, and lower Battle Creek). The HU encompasses an area of approximately 705 mi
2
(1,818 km
2
) and contains two occupied HSA watersheds. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 159 miles (254 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including rangeland management, gravel mining, fish passage impediments, dam operations and flood control water storage, and agricultural water withdrawals. The Team rated both occupied watersheds as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 4. Eastern Tehama Subbasin (HU #5509)
The Eastern Tehama HU is located in the northeastern portion of the ESU and includes portions of several important populations including Mill Creek, Deer Creek, Antelope Creek, and the upper portion of Big Chico Creek. The HU encompasses an area of approximately 896 mi
2
(2,311 km
2
) and contains ten HSA watersheds, four of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 117 miles (187 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, rangeland management, fish passage impediments, road building and maintenance, and agricultural water withdrawals. Of the occupied watersheds, the Team rated them all high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 5. Sacramento Delta Subbasin (HU #5510)
The Sacramento Delta HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes portions of the mainstem Sacramento River and the Deep Water Ship Channel. The HU encompasses an area of approximately 446 mi
2
(1,150 km
2
) and contains a single HSA which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 180 miles (288 km) of occupied riverine habitat in this watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural water withdrawals, point and non-point water pollution, invasive/non-native species, diking, and streambank stabilization for flood control. The Team rated this watershed as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied habitat areas in the subbasin that may be essential for conservation of the ESU.
Unit 6. Valley Putah-Cache Subbasin (HU #5511)
The Valley Putah-Cache HU is located in the southern portion of the ESU and includes portions of Putah and Cache Creeks. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 961 mi
2
(2,479 km
2
) and contains two HSA watersheds within the range of the ESU, one of which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 16 miles (26 km) of occupied riverine habitat in this watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including urban development, agricultural water withdrawals, and impediments to fish passage. The Team rated the occupied watershed as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied habitat areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 7. Marysville Subbasin (HU #5515)
The Marysville HU is located in the central portion of the ESU and includes portions of the lower Feather and Yuba Rivers. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 417 mi
2
(1,076 km
2
) and contains three HSA watersheds, two of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify only 58 miles (93 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural water withdrawals, hydroelectric and municipal water diversions, water storage for flood control, dam operations, streambank stabilization for flood control, diking, and fish passage impediments. The Team rated both occupied watersheds as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team did not identify any unoccupied habitat areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU; however, the Team did conclude that inaccessible stream reaches in the Upper Feather River above Oroville Dam in the adjacent subbasin (HU #5518) may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. Specifically, the Team identified the following stream reaches above Oroville Dam that may be essential for conservation of this ESU: from Oroville Dam upstream along the West Branch of the Feather River to the vicinity of Kimshew Falls; along the North Fork of the Feather River upstream of the location of Lake Almanor; along the East Branch of the NF Feather River including Indian Creek and Spanish Creek; the South Middle Fork of the Feather River, and the South Fork of the Feather River upstream to the first natural impassible barrier. Both spring-run chinook and steelhead historically occurred in the Upper Feather River prior to Pacific Gas and Electric's hydroelectric development in the North Fork watershed and the construction of Oroville Dam. Construction of Oroville Dam extirpated both the spring-run chinook and steelhead populations in this upper watershed. The Team concluded that spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat occurs above Oroville Dam in these inaccessible reaches, but it is in better condition for steelhead than spring-run chinook salmon. The feasibility of providing fish passage past Oroville Dam is currently being evaluated through the ongoing FERC relicensing process for this facility. The Team concluded this inaccessible habitat may be essential for the conservation of this ESU because the genetic integrity of spring-run chinook in the Lower Feather River has been compromised by Feather River Hatchery practices (
i.e.,
introgression of spring and fall runs in the hatchery), and providing access to the unoccupied habitat above the dam would allow for expansion of the population in this watershed. We seek comment on whether this unoccupied habitat should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 8. Yuba River Subbasin (HU #5517)
The Yuba River HU is located in the central and eastern portion of the ESU and includes part of the upper Yuba River watershed. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 1,436 mi
2
(3,704 km
2
) and contains sixteen HSA watersheds, only four of which are occupied. Virtually all of these watersheds, however, are outside the previously identified boundary of the ESU. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify only approximately 22 miles (35 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the occupied watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural and non-agricultural water withdrawals, fish passage impediments, and dam operations. Of these occupied watersheds, the Team rated one as low, one as medium, and two as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team concluded that inaccessible stream reaches on the Upper Yuba River above Englebright Dam may be essential to the conservation of this ESU, including those upstream reaches on the North Yuba to New Bullards Bar Dam, on the Middle Yuba to Milton Dam, and on the South Yuba to Lake Spaulding. All three forks of the Upper Yuba River historically supported populations of spring chinook and steelhead (Yoshiyama
et al.,
1995). The Team considered this area to be essential for conservation because it provides one of the largest areas of suitable habitat in the Central Valley that can be accessed by providing passage at one relatively small dam. The Lower Yuba is also considered to have a good “seed” population of both spring chinook and steelhead and both populations are considered relatively free of hatchery influence. A large, multi-million dollar study program is underway through the CALFED Ecological Restoration Program to evaluate the feasibility of restoring anadromous salmonid populations to the Upper Yuba River. We seek comment on whether this unoccupied habitat should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 9. Valley-American Subbasin (HU #5519)
The Valley-American HU is located in the south-central and eastern portion of the ESU and includes portions of the Lower American River, the mainstem Sacramento River, and the lower Feather River. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 958 mi
2
(2,471 km
2
) and contains four HSA watersheds, only two of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify only approximately 61 miles (98 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural and municipal water withdrawals, point source and non-point source water pollution, streambank stabilization for flood control, fish passage impediments, water storage for flood control, dam operations, and urbanization. The Team rated one watershed as medium in conservation value and one as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any
unoccupied habitat areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 10. Colusa Basin Subbasin (HU #5520)
The Colusa Basin HU is located in the central portion of the ESU and includes portions of the mainstem Sacramento River, lower Butte Creek, and the Butte Creek-Sutter Bypass. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 2,767 mi
2
(7,139 km
2
) and contains five HSA watersheds, four of which are occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 230 miles of occupied riverine habitat, including the Butte Creek-Sutter Bypass, in these watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agricultural and municipal water withdrawals, fish passage impediments, point and non-point source pollution, diking, wildlife habitat management, flood control operations, and non-native/invasive species. The Team rated all four occupied watersheds as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The Team did not identify any unoccupied habitat areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Unit 11. Butte Creek Subbasin (HU #5521)
The Butte Creek HU is located in the northeastern portion of the ESU and includes portions of upper Butte Creek. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 207 mi
2
(534 km
2
) and contains three HSA watersheds, only one of which is occupied. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 15 miles (24 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that these occupied areas contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified water diversions for hydroelectric power as the principal management activity that may affect the PCEs. The Team rated this occupied watershed as high in conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004b).
The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches of Upper Butte Creek above Centerville Dam upstream to Butte Meadow may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. It is uncertain whether this area was historically used by the ESU, but spawning, rearing, and migration is present in the inaccessible areas and is thought to be in good condition. The Team believed this area may be essential for conservation because current spring run chinook and steelhead spawning in this watershed is all below an elevation of 1,000 ft and other spring-run chinook populations within the ESU typically spawn above 2,000 ft. High water temperatures in the lower portion of Butte Creek have led to significant spring-run chinook pre-spawning mortalities in recent years, and the Team concluded that improved fish passage over the Centerville Diversion Dam would increase the range of this ESU and reduce the risk of adult losses in the lower stream reaches. The Team expects that feasibility of passage at the Centerville Diversion Dam will be evaluated through the upcoming FERC relicensing process for the facility. We seek comment on whether these unoccupied habitat areas should be proposed as critical habitat.
Unit 12. Ball Mountain Subbasin (HU #5523)
The Ball Mountain HU is located in the northwestern portion of the ESU and includes a portion of upper Thomes Creek. This HU encompasses an area of approximately 334 mi
2
(862 km
2
) and contains three HSAs, only one of which is occupied primarily in the Thomes Creek watershed. Fish distribution and habitat use data compiled by NMFS biologists identify approximately 15 miles (24 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the single occupied HSA watershed (NMFS, 2004a). The Team concluded that the occupied areas in this watershed contained one or more PCEs (
i.e.,
spawning, rearing, or migratory habitat) for this ESU and identified rangeland management as the principal activity that may affect the PCEs. The Team
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.