Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and Steelhead (O. mykiss) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 030716175-4327-03; I.D. No. 070303A]

RIN No. 0648-AQ77

Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (

Oncorhynchus

spp.) and Steelhead (

O. mykiss

) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to designate critical habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific salmon (chum,

Oncorhynchus keta

; coho,

O. kisutch

, sockeye,

O. nerka

; chinook,

O. tshawytscha

) and

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 27,553 mi (44,342 km) of lake, riverine, and estuarine habitat in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as well as approximately 2,121 mi (3,413 km) of marine nearshore habitat in Puget Sound, Washington. Some of the proposed areas 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 $223,950,127, but we believe the additional exclusions under review could reduce this impact by up to 90 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 14, 2005. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing by January 28, 2005. We have already scheduled public hearings on this proposed rule as follows:

Tuesday, January 11, 2005, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel Columbia River, 1401 North Hayden Island Drive in Portland, OR;

Thursday, January 13, 2005, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. at the Red Lion Hotel Columbia Center, 1101 North Columbia Center Blvd. in Kennewick, WA;

Tuesday, January 18, 2005, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. at the Radisson Hotel Seattle Airport, 17001 Pacific Highway South in Seattle, WA; and

Tuesday, January 25, 2005, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. at the Red Lion Hotel Boise Downtown, 1800 Fairview Avenue in Boise, ID.

Details regarding the hearing format and related information will be posted by December 24, 2004, on our Web site at

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number [030716175-4327-03] and RIN number [0648-AQ77], by any of the following methods:

• E-mail:

critical.habitat.nwr@noaa.gov.

Include docket number [030716175-4327-03] and RIN number [0648-AQ77] 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 Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR, 97232-2737. You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the address given above.

• Fax: 503-230-5435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Stone at the above address, at (503) 231-2317, or by facsimile at (503) 230-5435; 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://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

We are 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 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 or

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.) ( In some cases, an ESU may contain a single population of fish.) Under 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 threatened or endangered under the ESA. 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 of the ESUs are listed as threatened or endangered. One additional ESU (Oregon Coast coho) 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 currently-listed species, but in most cases the ESUs are being redefined in either or both 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. We have also proposed to list the previously-listed Oregon Coast coho (redefined to include some such fish reared in hatcheries) and we proposed to list one new ESU (Lower Columbia River

O. mykiss

) previously believed to be extinct in the wild. In this document, “

O. mykiss

” ESUs refer to ESUs including 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 13 ESUs of salmon and

O. mykiss

: (1) Puget Sound chinook salmon; (2) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon; (3) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon; (4) Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon; (5) Oregon Coast coho salmon; (6) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon; (7) Columbia River chum salmon; (8) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon; (9) Upper Columbia River

O. mykiss

; (10) Snake River Basin

O. mykiss

; (11) Middle Columbia River

O. mykiss

; (12) Lower Columbia River

O. mykiss

; and (13) Upper Willamette River

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 the 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

populations 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.

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)

NMFS 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

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)

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.

NMFS 1998b

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)

NMFS 1999c.

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.

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)

NMFS 1998b.

Listing Determinations

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

NMFS 1996c.

64 FR 24049; 05/05/1999 (Final rule)

NMFS 1996e.

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU

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; 05/10/1999 (Proposed rule)

NMFS 1995a.

Listing Determinations

69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (Proposed rule)

69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list)

60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Not warranted)

NMFS 1996e.

Proposed

Critical Habitat Designations

NMFS 1995a.

Lower Columbia River coho ESU

Threatened

1995

n/a

NMFS 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)

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.

Central California Coast

O. mykiss

ESU

Threatened

1997

64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 (Proposed rule)

NMFS 1997b.

Listing Determinations

69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 (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 Designations

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 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.

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, we 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, we 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 species 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 ground that the agency did not adequately consider the 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 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 a First 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

for publication 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' 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

notice 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, except anadromous

O. mykiss

which may return to the ocean and make one or more 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 metapopulation 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. More detailed information describing habitat and life history characteristics of the ESUs addressed in this proposed rulemaking is described later in this document.

Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific Areas within the Geographical Area

In past critical habitat designations, we 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, we 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, then, we identified as critical habitat all areas accessible to listed salmon within an occupied HUC4 subbasin. Since the previous designations in 2000, additional scientific information 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.”

We can now be somewhat more precise about the “geographical area occupied by the species” because Federal, state, and tribal fishery biologists 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 judgment of biologists familiar with the watershed. However, such presumptions 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 species addressed in this rule.

Much of the available 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 (NMFS, 2004a). Previous distribution data were often compiled at a much coarser scale of 1:100,000 or greater. We made use of these finer-scale data for the current critical habitat designations, and we now believe that they enable 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.

We are now also able to identify “specific areas” (section 3(5)(a)) and “particular areas” (section 4(b)(2)) at a finer scale than in 2000. Since 2000, various Federal agencies 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). We 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). However, it must be recognized that even the fifth field watershed is a very broad geographic unit. We therefore solicit information on ways to further improve the geographical precision of our habitat analysis.

The USGS maps watershed units as polygons, bounding a drainage area from ridge-top to ridge-top, encompassing streams, riparian areas and uplands. Within the boundaries of any watershed, there are stream reaches not occupied by the species. Land areas within the HUC 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). We used the watershed boundaries as a basis for aggregating occupied stream reaches, for purposes of delineating “specific” areas. This document 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 in fact contained 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 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 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, watersheds are often being used in 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). 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. In previous designations of salmonid critical habitat we 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 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 carefully 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 specific estuarine areas in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and along the Oregon Coast as well as specific nearshore marine areas of Puget Sound that are occupied, contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, that may require special management considerations or protection (NMFS, 2004a). 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 Columbia River estuary, these habitats are occupied by multiple ESUs. We are proposing to designate occupied estuarine areas in similar terms to our past designations, as being defined by a line connecting the furthest land points at the estuary mouth.

Nearshore marine areas also provide important habitat for rearing/feeding and migrating salmonids. Puget Sound supports multiple populations of Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Beamish

et al.,

1998; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Point No Point Treaty Tribes (PNPTT), 2000). As noted in previous rulemaking (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000), the unique ecological setting of Puget Sound allowed us to focus on defining specific occupied marine areas. As with the freshwater areas described above, in Puget Sound we identified 19 nearshore marine zones (

i.e.,

areas beyond estuary mouths) eligible for designation based on water resource inventory areas defined by the State of Washington (NMFS, 2004a; Washington Department of Ecology, 2004). However, we are considering excluding these areas under Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA based on the conclusion that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating these areas and invite public comment on this issue. We did not identify offshore marine areas of Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean for reasons described below under

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species

and

Special Management Considerations or Protection.

The proposed designation of marine nearshore areas in Puget Sound is restricted to areas contiguous with the shoreline out to a depth no greater than 30 m relative to the mean lower low water. This nearshore area generally coincides with the maximum depth of the photic zone in Puget Sound and contains physical or biological features essential to the conservation of salmonids (Mazer and Shepard, 1962; Bakkala, 1970; Mathews and Senn, 1975; Fraser

et al.,

1978; Peterman, 1978; Sakuramoto and Yamada, 1980; Martin

et al.,

1986; Healey, 1982; Bax, 1983; Salo, 1991, as cited in Johnson

et al.,

1997; WDFW and PNPTT, 2000; Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Program, 2003; Williams

et al.,

2003).

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.” With one exception, we are not proposing to designate these stream reaches at this time but are instead soliciting further information. For the Hood Canal summer run chum salmon ESU, we are proposing approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) of unoccupied (but historically utilized) stream reaches determined to be essential for the conservation of this ESU.

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 occupied area must contain one or more of the 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. We received very few comments specifically addressing PCEs. 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 species 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 species: (1) Forestry; (2) grazing; (3) agriculture; (4) road building/maintenance; (5) channel modifications/diking; (6) urbanization; (7) sand and gravel mining; (8) mineral mining; (9) dams; (10) irrigation impoundments and withdrawals; (11) river, estuary, and ocean traffic; (12) wetland loss/removal; (13) beaver removal; (14) exotic/invasive species introductions. 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 correspondingly. 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 there. 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 No. 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 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, which is not addressed in this notice). The military services identified 16 installations in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho with INRMPs in place or under development. We determined that the following 11 facilities with INRMPs overlap with habitat areas under consideration for critical habitat designation: (1) Naval Submarine Base, Bangor; (2) Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport; (3) Naval Ordinance Center, Port Hadlock (Indian Island); (4) Naval Radio Station, Jim Creek; (5) Naval Fuel Depot, Manchester; (6) Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island; (7) Naval Air Station, Everett; (8) Bremerton Naval Hospital; (9) Fort Lewis (Army); (10) Pier 23 (Army); and (11) Yakima Training Center (Army). The first ten facilities are located within the range of the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU, and two of these sites—Bangor and Port Hadlock (Indian Island)—are also within the range of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU. The Army's Yakima Training Center is located within the range of the Upper Columbia River

O. mykiss

ESU. All of these INRMPs are final except for Pier 23 and Bremerton Naval Hospital, which should 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 (NMFS, 2004b). 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 information from the DOD identifying national security impacts at all of their affected sites if designated as critical habitat (see Impacts on National Security section). Our consideration of such impacts is separate from our assessment of INRMPs, but the result is that we are not proposing to designate critical habitat in areas subject to the final INRMPs or the draft INRMPs for Pier 23 and for the Bremerton Naval Hospital.

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 domains that roughly correspond to salmon recovery planning domains. The Teams consisted of Federal salmonid biologists (from NMFS and other federal natural resource agencies) with demonstrated expertise regarding salmonid habitat within the domain and habitat specialists. The Teams were tasked with assessing biological information pertaining to areas under consideration for designation as critical habitat.

The Teams examined each habitat area within the watershed to determine whether the stream reaches or lakes 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 the area is essential for conservation. 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. Where information was currently available to make this determination, the Teams identified those currently unoccupied areas essential for conservation (

i.e.

in Hood Canal summer chum ESU). In most cases, the Teams did not have information available that would allow them to draw that conclusion. The Teams nevertheless identified areas they believe 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 area 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 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 Teams' 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 comment on approaches that would better refine this assessment.

As discussed earlier, the scale chosen for the “specific area” referred to in section 3(5)(a) was a watershed, as delineated by the USGS. There were some complications with this delineation that 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.

Most of the preliminary Team findings were sent to state and tribal comanagers for review and comment; findings for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU were not submitted for comanager review due to time constraints (see Previous Federal Rulemaking section). These comanager reviews resulted in several changes to the Teams' preliminary assessments (e.g., revised fish distribution as well as conservation value ratings) and helped to ensure that the Teams' revised findings (NMFS, 2004a) incorporated the best available scientific data. 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 we publish final critical habitat designations.

Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat

In past designations we have 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 ordinary high-water has not been defined pursuant to 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 the relatively few cases where we are proposing to designate lake habitats (e.g., Lake Ozette), we believe that the lateral extent may best be defined as the perimeter of the water body as displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps or the elevation of ordinary high water, whichever is greater. In estuarine and nearshore marine areas we believe that extreme high water is the best descriptor of lateral extent. For nearshore marine areas we focused particular attention on the geographical area occupied by the Puget Sound ESUs (chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon) because of the unique ecological setting and well-documented importance of the area's nearshore habitats to these species (

see

the

Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific Areas within the Geographical Area

section). 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 salmon are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying heavily on forage, cover, and refuge qualities provided by these occupied habitats. However, it may be more appropriate to use the ordinary high water level in estuarine and nearshore marine 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 13 subject Pacific salmon and

O. mykiss

ESUs noting specific life-history traits and associated habitat requirements, and summarizes the Teams' assessment of habitat areas for each ESU. The Teams' assessments addressed PCEs in the habitat areas within watersheds (as well as rearing/migration corridors and nearshore zones for some ESUs). For ease of reporting and reference these watersheds have been organized into “units” based on their associated subbasin. Similarly, we assigned units to (1) distinct corridors outside the spawning range of several Columbia River Basin ESUs and (2) nearshore zones assessed for two Puget Sound ESUs.

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU

The Puget Sound chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Strait of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, westward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). We have proposed that 22 artificial propagation (

i.e.,

hatchery) programs also be considered to be part of the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004)): the Kendal Creek Hatchery, Marblemount Hatchery (fall, spring yearlings, spring subyearlings, and summer run), Harvey Creek Hatchery, Whitehorse Springs Pond, Wallace River Hatchery (yearlings and subyearlings), Tulalip Bay, Soos Creek Hatchery, Icy Creek Hatchery, Keta Creek Hatchery, White River Hatchery, White Acclimation Pond, Hupp Springs Hatchery, Voights Creek Hatchery, Diru Creek, Clear Creek, Kalama Creek,

Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery, and Elwha Channel Hatchery Chinook hatchery programs.

The Puget Sound chinook ESU includes genetically similar spring-, summer-, and fall-run chinook populations that overlap substantially in their migration and spawn timing (Myers

et al.,

1998). A Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has been formed to assist recovery planning efforts in the Puget Sound domain. The Puget Sound TRT has released several recent technical reports describing independent populations of chinook salmon in Puget Sound (Ruckelshaus

et al.,

2001, 2002, 2004). To date the Puget Sound TRT has identified 22 independent chinook populations: the North Fork Nooksack River, South Fork Nooksack River, Lower Skagit River, Upper Skagit River, Lower Sauk River, Suiattle River, Upper Sauk River, Cascade River, North Fork Stillaguamish River, South Fork Stillaguamish River, Skykomish River, Snoqualmie River, North Lake Washington, Cedar River, Green/Duwamish River, Puyallup River, White River, Nisqually River, Skokomish River, Mid-Hood Canal, Dungeness River, and Elwha River. Some naturally spawning aggregations of chinook were not recognized as part of these populations (e.g., the Deschutes River in South Puget Sound). The TRT has concluded that chinook salmon using smaller streams in south and central Puget Sound probably did not occur there in large numbers historically and were not independent populations. It is not clear whether these smaller streams are occupied due to recent hatchery releases or whether historically they supported small satellite “sink” populations that were dependent on larger independent “source” populations (Ruckelshaus

et al.,

2002; B. Graeber, NMFS, personal communication). The Puget Sound TRT has identified five “geographic regions of diversity and correlated risk” in Puget Sound that are intended to assist in evaluating the need for a geographical distribution of viable populations across the range of such regions in an ESU (Ruckelshaus

et al.,

2002). The regions are based on similarities in hydrographic, biogeographic, geologic, and catastrophic risk characteristics and where groups of populations have evolved in common (Ruckelshaus

et al.,

2002). The Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU occupies all of these regions.

Adult spring-run chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in April and May and spawn in August and September (Orrell, 1976; WDFW

et al.,

1993). Adults migrate to the upper portions of their respective river systems and hold in pools until they mature. In contrast, summer-run fish begin their freshwater migration in June and July and spawn in September, while summer/fall-run chinook salmon begin to return in August and spawn from late September through January (WDF

et al.,

1993). In rivers with an overlap in spawning time, temporal runs on the same river system maintain a certain amount of reproductive isolation through geographic separation.

The majority of Puget Sound fish emigrate to the ocean as subyearlings. Many of the rivers have well-developed estuaries that are important rearing areas for emigrating ocean-type smolts. In contrast, the Suiattle and South Fork Nooksack Rivers have been characterized as producing a majority of yearling smolts (Marshall

et al.,

1995). Glacially influenced conditions on the Suiattle River may be responsible for limiting juvenile growth, delaying smolting, and producing a higher proportion of 4- and 5-year-old spawners compared to other Puget Sound chinook stocks which mature predominantly as 3- and 4-year-olds. Based on Coded Wire Tag (CWT) recoveries in ocean fisheries, Puget Sound chinook stocks exhibit similar marine distributions in Canadian coastal and Puget Sound waters.

Myers

et al.

(1998) also noted that anthropogenic activities have limited the access to historical spawning grounds and altered downstream flow and thermal conditions. Water diversion and hydroelectric dams have prevented access to portions of several rivers. Watershed development and activities throughout the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca regions have resulted in increased sedimentation, higher water temperatures, decreased large woody debris recruitment, decreased gravel recruitment, a reduction in river pools and spawning areas, and a loss of estuarine rearing areas (Bishop and Morgan, 1996). These impacts on the spawning and rearing environment may also have altered the expression of many life-history traits, and masked or exaggerated the phenotypic distinctiveness of many stocks. Nevertheless, PCEs exist under current conditions in these areas today and therefore, as explained earlier, NMFS is proposing to designate these areas as critical habitat.

Juvenile chinook salmon in freshwater feed on a variety of terrestrial and aquatic insects and crustaceans, while subadults feed on similar items as well as larger prey including fishes, shrimp, and squid (Scott and Crossman, 1973). One study noted that adults in marine waters forage on a large array of fish species, especially herring and sand lance (Pritchard and Tester, 1944, as cited in Scott and Crossman, 1973).

The Puget Sound Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 61 occupied watersheds in 18 associated subbasins (identified below as “units” with unique HUC4 numbers) as well as the nearshore marine area. 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 five geographical regions of correlated risk identified by the Puget Sound TRT. The Puget Sound Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of Puget Sound 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. Strait of Georgia Subbasin (HUC4# 17110002)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 428 sq mi (1,109 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 71 mi (114.3 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). However, Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) did not identify any historically independent populations in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and urbanization. Of the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 2. Nooksack Subbasin (HUC4# 17110004)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 795 sq mi (2,059 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 256 mi (412 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified two historically independent populations in this subbasin: North Fork Nooksack River

and South Fork Nooksack River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the five watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in four were rated as having high and in one were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 3. Upper Skagit Subbasin (HUC4# 17110005)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds, five of which are occupied and encompass approximately 999 sq mi (2,587 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 105 mi (169 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified six historically independent populations in this subbasin: Lower Skagit River, Upper Skagit River, Cascade River, Lower Sauk River, Suiattle River, and Upper Sauk River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including dams, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in four of the occupied watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in one warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 4. Sauk Subbasin (HUC4# 17110006)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 741 sq mi (1,919.2 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 118 mi (189.9 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified three historically independent populations in this subbasin: Lower Sauk River, Suiattle River, and Upper Sauk River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry and roadbuilding. Of the four watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 5. Lower Skagit Subbasin (HUC4# 17110007)

This subbasin contains two occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 447 sq mi (1,157.7 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 149 mi (239.8 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified six historically independent populations in this subbasin: Lower Skagit River, Upper Skagit River, Cascade River, Lower Sauk River, Suiattle River, and Upper Sauk River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, forestry, wetland loss/removal, and urbanization. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in both were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 6. Stillaguamish Subbasin (HUC4# 17110008)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 704 sq mi (1,823.3 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 132 mi (212.4 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified two historically independent populations in this subbasin: North Fork Stillaguamish River and South Fork Stillaguamish River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including forestry, roadbuilding, urbanization, and wetland loss/removal. Of the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 7. Skykomish Subbasin (HUC4# 17110009)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 853 sq mi (2,209.3 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 153 mi (246.2 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified one historically independent population (Skykomish River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the five watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 8. Snoqualmie Subbasin (HUC4# 17110010)

This subbasin contains four watersheds, two of which are occupied and encompass approximately 504 sq mi (1,305.3 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 90 mi (144.8 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified one historically independent population (Snoqualmie River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture and forestry. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in both were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 9. Snohomish Subbasin (HUC4# 17110011)

This subbasin contains two occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 278 sq mi (720 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 101 mi (162.5 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds

(WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified two historically independent populations in this subbasin: Skykomish River and Snoqualmie River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, dams, forestry, and urbanization. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in one were rated as having high and those in the other were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 10. Lake Washington Subbasin (HUC4# 17110012)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 619 sq mi (1,603.2 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 190 mi (307.4 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in these watersheds. Lake Washington contains approximately 40 sq mi (103.6 sq km) of lake habitat in these watersheds and the Team identified three additional small tributaries to the southern portion of the lake that are important rearing habitat for this ESU (Tabor

et al.

, 2002). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified two historically independent populations in this subbasin: North Lake Washington and Cedar River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including channel modifications/diking, dams, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and urbanization. Of the four watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in one were rated as having high and those in three were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 11. Duwamish Subbasin (HUC4# 17110013)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 487 sq mi (1,261.3 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 171 mi (275.2 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified one historically independent population (Green/Duwamish River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, dams, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and urbanization. Of the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as having high and those in one were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 12. Puyallup Subbasin (HUC4# 17110014)

This subbasin contains five watersheds occupied by this ESU, and these watersheds encompass approximately 996 sq mi (256.4 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 243 mi (391.1 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified two historically independent populations in this subbasin: Puyallup River and White River. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, dams, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, urbanization. Of the five watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 13. Nisqually Subbasin (HUC4# 17110015)

This subbasin contains three watersheds, two of which are occupied by this ESU and encompass approximately 472 sq mi (1,222.5 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 82 mi (132.0 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified one historically independent population (Nisqually River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, and urbanization. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in both were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 14. Deschutes Subbasin (HUC4# 17110016)

This subbasin contains two occupied watersheds occupied encompassing approximately 168 sq mi (435.1 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 53 mi (85.3 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). However, Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) did not identify any historically independent populations in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, forestry, and grazing. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in both were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 15. Skokomish Subbasin (HUC4# 17110017)

This subbasin contains a single watershed encompassing approximately 248 sq mi (642.3 sq km). The Skokomish River population is the only historically independent population documented in this subbasin/watershed by Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 72 mi (115.9 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watershed (WDFW, 2003). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including channel modifications/diking, dams, forestry, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in this watershed warrant a high rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 16. Hood Canal Subbasin (HUC4# 17110018)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds occupied encompassing approximately 605 sq mi (1,567sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 59 mi (95.0 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). The Mid-Hood Canal population is the only historically independent population documented in this subbasin by Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2004). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications/diking, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the six watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as having high, those in one were rated as having medium, and those in three were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 17. Kitsap Subbasin (HUC4# 17110019)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 721 sq mi (1,867 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 56 mi (90.1 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). However, Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) did not identify any historically independent populations in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, forestry, grazing, and urbanization. Of the four watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 18. Dungeness/Elwha Subbasin (HUC4# 17110020)

This subbasin contains five watersheds, three of which are occupied, and encompass approximately 695 sq mi (1,800 sq km). Ruckelshaus

et al.

(2001, 2004) identified two historically independent populations in this subbasin: Dungeness River and Elwha River. Chinook salmon in the Port Angeles Harbor watershed are not currently assigned to a historically independent population for this ESU. Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 47 mi (75.6 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including channel modifications/diking, forestry, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as having high and those in one were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 19. Nearshore Marine Areas

The nearshore marine area considered by the Team includes that zone from extreme high water out to a depth of 30 meters and adjacent to watersheds occupied by the ESU (described above). The Team assessment focused on this area because it generally encompasses photic zone habitats supporting plant cover (e.g., eelgrass and kelp) important for rearing, migrating, and maturing chinook salmon and their prey. Also, PCEs that may require special management considerations or protection are more readily identified in this zone (e.g., destruction of vegetative cover due to docks and bulkheads). Deeper waters are occupied by subadult and maturing fish, but it is unclear if these areas contain PCEs that require special management considerations or protection. The Team concluded that habitat areas in all nearshore zones of Puget Sound (including areas adjacent to islands), Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (to the mouth of the Elwha River) warrant a high rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). These habitat areas are found along approximately 2,376 miles (3,824 km) of shoreline within the range of this ESU.

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

The Lower Columbia River chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). We have proposed that 17 artificial propagation programs also be considered part of the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the Sea Resources Tule Chinook Program, Big Creek Tule Chinook Program, Astoria High School (STEP) Tule Chinook Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Tule Chinook Program, Elochoman River Tule Chinook Program, Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program, North Fork Toutle Tule Chinook Program, Kalama Tule Chinook Program, Washougal River Tule Chinook Program, Spring Creek NFH Tule Chinook Program, Cowlitz Spring Chinook Program in the Upper Cowlitz River and the Cispus River, Friends of the Cowlitz Spring Chinook Program, Kalama River Spring Chinook Program, Lewis River Spring Chinook Program, Fish First Spring Chinook Program, and the Sandy River Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stock #11) Chinook hatchery programs.

Myers

et al.

(2003) identified 31 historical demographically independent chinook salmon populations in this ESU consisting of three life history types (spring-, fall-, and late fall-run). It is estimated that 8 to 10 historical populations in the ESU have been extirpated or nearly so. The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has placed groups of populations in this recovery planning domain into “strata” (McElhany

et al.

, 2002). The strata are based on major life-history characteristics (

e.g.

, species run-types) and ecological zones. The Lower Columbia River chinook ESU inhabits three ecological zones (Coast Range, Cascade, and Columbia Gorge) and contains three life-history types (spring-, fall-, and late-fall run chinook salmon), resulting in six strata for this ESU: Coast range fall-run populations; Cascade spring-, fall-, and late fall-run populations; and Columbia Gorge spring- and fall-run populations (McElhany

et al.

, 2002). Recovery planning will likely emphasize the need for a geographical distribution of viable populations across the range of such strata in the ESU (Ruckelshaus

et al.

, 2002; McElhany

et al.

, 2003).

Of the Pacific salmon, chinook salmon exhibit the most diverse and complex life history strategies. Chinook salmon follow one of two general freshwater cycles: stream or ocean type. After emerging from the gravel, stream-type chinook salmon reside in fresh water for a year or more before migrating to the ocean. Ocean-type chinook salmon migrate to the ocean within their first year. These two types

of chinook salmon have different life history traits, geographic distribution, and genetic characteristics. Chinook in the lower Columbia River generally follow an ocean-type life history cycle.

Runs are designated on the basis of when adults enter freshwater; however, distinct runs may also differ in the degree of maturation at river entry and time of spawning. Early, spring-run (stream-maturing) chinook salmon tend to enter freshwater as immature or bright fish, migrate upriver (holding in suitable thermal refuges for several months), and finally spawn in late summer and early autumn. Late, fall-run (ocean maturing) chinook salmon enter freshwater at an advanced stage of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning areas on the main stem or lower tributaries of the rivers, and spawn within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry. Fall chinook dominate chinook salmon runs in the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU. The once abundant natural runs of fall and spring chinook have been largely replaced by hatchery production. Large chinook runs continue to return to many of their natal streams, but there are few sustained, native, naturally reproducing populations.

Adult spring chinook return to the Lower Columbia River at 4 to 5 years of age. They enter the Columbia River in March and April and generally enter natal basins from March through June, well in advance of spawning in August and September. Spring chinook typically spawn in headwater areas where higher gradient habitat exists. Successful spawning depends on sufficient clean gravel of the right size, in addition to the constant need of adequate flows and water quality. Fall chinook return to the Columbia River at 3 to 4 years of age, although 5-year olds are common in some populations. They enter fresh water from August to September and spawning generally occurs from late September to November, with peak spawning activity in mid-October. Bright fall Chinook adults enter the Columbia River August to October; dominant age class varies by population and brood year, but is typically age 4. Spawning occurs in November to January, with peak spawning in mid November.

Chinook salmon eggs incubate throughout the autumn and winter months. As with other salmonids, water temperature controls incubation time and affects survival. During incubation, clean, well-oxygenated water flow is critical. Floods and scouring, dewatering, and sedimentation can result in high egg mortality. In the Lower Columbia River, spring chinook fry emerge from the gravel from November through March; peak emergence time is likely December and January. Fall chinook fry generally emerge from the gravel in April, depending on the time of egg deposition and incubation water temperature. The emerging fry migrate quickly to protected waters and off-stream areas where they can find food and refuge from predators and high flows.

After emerging from the gravel in the spring, most fall chinook fry rear in the freshwater habitat for 1 to 4 months before emigrating to the ocean as subyearlings. A few fall chinook remain in fresh water until their second spring and emigrate as yearlings. Conversely, spring chinook emerge from the gravel earlier than fall chinook, generally in the late winter/early spring. Normally, spring chinook spend one full year in fresh water and emigrate to sea in their second spring. After emergence fry generally search for suitable rearing habitat within side sloughs, side channels, spring-fed seep areas, and along the outer edges of the stream. These side margin, off-channel, and slough areas are vital for early juvenile habitat. The presence of woody debris and overhead cover aid in food and nutrient inputs, and provide refuge from predators during early freshwater residence.

Juvenile chinook salmon in freshwater feed on a variety of terrestrial and aquatic insects and crustaceans, while subadults in the ocean feed on similar items as well as larger prey including fishes, shrimp, and squid (Scott and Crossman, 1973). One study noted that adults in marine waters forage on a large array of fish species, especially herring and sand lance (Pritchard and Tester, 1944, as cited in Scott and Crossman, 1973).

The Lower Columbia River Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 47 occupied watersheds in 10 subbasins (identified below as “units” with unique HUC4 numbers), as well as the lower Columbia River rearing/migration corridor. 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 six life-history type and ecological strata identified by the Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT. The Lower Columbia River Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of Lower Columbia River chinook salmon, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and

O. mykiss

described above in the Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat section.

Unit 1. Middle Columbia/Hood Subbasin (HUC4# 17070105)

This subbasin contains 13 watersheds, 8 of which are occupied by this ESU and encompass approximately 1,370 sq mi (3,548.3 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW and WDFW identify approximately 145 mi (233.4 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds, including a 23-mi (37-km) segment of the Columbia River (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified a single ecological zone (Columbia Gorge) containing four fall-run (Lower Gorge tributaries, Upper Gorge tributaries, Big White Salmon River, and Hood River) and two spring-run (Big White Salmon River and Hood River) historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin. The Upper Gorge tributaries fall-run and Big White Salmon fall- and spring-run populations have been classified by the TRT as “core” populations (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

, 2003)). Native spring-run chinook salmon are believed to be extirpated in this subbasin, although efforts are underway to reestablish these fish. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, dams, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in six of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in two warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that two watersheds contain a high value rearing and migration corridor in the Columbia River connecting high value habitat areas upstream with downstream reaches and the ocean. The Team also considered whether blocked historical habitats above Condit Dam (on the White Salmon River) may be essential for conservation of the ESU. The Team determined that accessing this habitat would likely provide a benefit to the ESU, especially for spring-run chinook salmon of which there are only two historical populations in the Gorge region. However, the Team concluded that it was unclear whether the areas above Condit Dam are essential for conservation of the entire ESU, especially in comparison to other, more extensive, historical habitats that may be of greater potential benefit to the ESU (

e.g.

, areas in the Upper Lewis River).

We seek comment on whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 2. Lower Columbia/Sandy Subbasin (HUC4# 17080001)

This subbasin contains nine occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,076 sq mi (2,787 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW and WDFW identify approximately 217 mi (349.2 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds, including a 26-mi (41.8-km) segment of the Columbia River (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified two ecological zones (Cascade and Columbia Gorge) containing five fall-run (Lower Gorge tributaries, Sandy River early fall, Sandy River late fall, Washougal River, and Salmon Creek/Lewis River) and one spring-run (Sandy River) historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin. The Sandy River late fall- and spring-run chinook salmon have been classified by the TRT as “core” populations (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). Also, the TRT classified the Sandy River spring- and late fall-runs and the Salmon Creek/Lewis River fall-run as genetic legacy populations (

i.e.

, some of “the most intact representatives of the genetic character of the ESU” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including channel modifications, dams, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the nine watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in seven were rated as having high, those in one were rated as having medium, and those in one were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also noted that one watershed contains a high value rearing and migration corridor in the Columbia River connecting high value habitat areas upstream with downstream reaches and the ocean. The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches above the Bull Run Dam complex in the Bull Run River watershed may be essential to the conservation of the ESU. The Team concluded that these unoccupied areas may be essential for conservation because (1) they once supported TRT core and genetic legacy populations (Sandy River spring- and late fall-runs) and (2) they contain non-inundated habitats that are likely in good to excellent condition (

i.e.

, the watershed provides domestic drinking water for the City of Portland and may have been some of the better spawning areas) (Sieglitz, 2002; McElhany

et al.

, 2003). The Team noted that NMFS” status review of this ESU stated that habitat loss due to “extensive hydropower development projects” posed a serious threat to this ESU (NMFS, 2003). This report also expressed serious concerns associated with dramatic declines in the spring-run life history type (which inhabits this watershed). Therefore, the Team concluded that the ESU would likely benefit if the extant population of spring-run fish had access to spawning/rearing habitat upstream. We seek comment on whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 3. Lewis Subbasin (HUC4# 17080002)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, two of which are currently occupied by this ESU and the remaining four of which are now blocked by Merwin Dam and others upstream. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 456 sq mi (1,181 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 68 mi (109.4 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified a single ecological zone (Cascade) containing one spring-run (Lewis River), one fall-run (Salmon Creek/Lewis River) and one late fall-run (Lewis River) historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin. The TRT has classified the Lewis River spring- and late fall-run populations as “core” populations (historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery”) and the Lewis River late fall-run and Salmon Creek/Lewis River fall-run populations as genetic legacy populations (some of “the most intact representatives of the genetic character of the ESU”) (McElhany

et al.

2003). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, dams, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in both of the occupied watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded that inaccessible reaches above Merwin, Yale and Swift dams may be essential to the conservation of the ESU. The Team believed that these unoccupied areas may be essential because: (1) They once supported TRT core and genetic legacy populations; and (2) they contain non-inundated habitats that are likely in good condition relative to other more urbanized watersheds in the Cascade region (Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery Board, 2003; McElhany

et al.

, 2003). The Team noted that NMFS’ status review of this ESU stated that habitat loss due to “extensive hydropower development projects” posed a serious threat to this ESU (NMFS, 2003). This report also expressed serious concerns associated with dramatic declines in the spring-run life history type (which inhabits this watershed). Therefore, the Team concluded that the ESU would likely benefit if the extant population of spring-run fish had access to spawning/rearing habitat upstream. We seek comment on whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 4. Lower Columbia/Clatskanie Subbasin (HUC4# 17080003)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 841 sq mi (2,178 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW and WDFW identify approximately 170 mi (273.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified two ecological zones (Coast Range and Cascade) containing five fall-run (Elochoman River, Mill Creek, Kalama River, Clatskanie River, and Scappoose River) and one spring-run (Kalama River) historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin. The Elochoman River fall-run population has been classified by the TRT as a “core” population (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

, 2003)). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the six watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as having high, those in three were rated as having medium, and those in one were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 5. Upper Cowlitz Subbasin (HUC4# 17080004)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,030 sq mi (2,667.7 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify

approximately 104 mi (167.4 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). All of this habitat is located upstream of impassable dams (Mayfield and Mossyrock) and only accessible to anadromous fish via trap and haul operations. Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one ecological zone (Cascade) containing one fall-run (Upper Cowlitz River) and two spring-run (Upper Cowlitz River and Cispus River) historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin. Both spring-run populations have been classified by the TRT as “core” populations (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). In addition, the TRT classified the Upper Cowlitz River spring-run population as a genetic legacy population (

i.e.

, one of “the most intact representatives of the genetic character of the ESU.”) However, there are significant uncertainties about the remaining stock structure in this subbasin (Myers

et al.

, 2003). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the five watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 6. Lower Cowlitz Subbasin (HUC4# 17080005)

This subbasin contains eight occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,460 sq mi (3,781.4 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 350 mi (563.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the (WDFW, 2003). Habitat in two watersheds—Tilton River and Riffe Reservoir—is located upstream of impassable dams (Mayfield and Mossyrock) and only accessible to anadromous fish via trap and haul operations. Data from WDFW identified very little chinook salmon distribution in the Riffe Reservoir watershed (and did not identify the Riffe and Mayfield lakes as occupied habitat). However, the Team determined that these lakes are occupied and contain PCEs for rearing/migrating juveniles based on information regarding migrants described in Wade (2000) as well as their own knowledge of trap and haul operations in this subbasin. Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one ecological zone (Cascade) containing four fall-run (Coweeman River, Toutle River, Lower Cowlitz River, and Upper Cowlitz River) and four spring-run (Toutle River, Tilton River, Upper Cowlitz River, and Cispus River) historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin. The latter two spring-run populations as well as the Toutle River and Lower Cowlitz River fall-run populations have been classified by the TRT as “core” populations (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). In addition, the TRT classified the Upper Cowlitz River spring-run and Coweeman River fall-run as genetic legacy populations (

i.e.

, some of “the most intact representatives of the genetic character of the ESU.”) The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the eight watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in four were rated as having high and those in four were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also noted that four watersheds (Riffe Reservoir, Jackson Prairie, East Willapa, and Coweeman River) contained habitat areas with high value rearing and migration corridors connecting high value habitat areas upstream with downstream reaches 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 7. Lower Columbia Subbasin (HUC4# 17080006)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 515 sq mi (1,334 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from the ODFW and WDFW identify approximately 120 mi (193.1 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified a single ecological zone (Coast Range) containing three fall-run historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin (Grays River, Youngs Bay, and Big Creek). The Big Creek fall-run population has been classified by the TRT as a “core” population (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as having high and those in one were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 8. Middle Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090007)

The occupied portion of this subbasin is downstream of Willamette Falls and includes a single watershed (Abernethy Creek) encompassing approximately 134 sq mi (347.0 sq km) as well as a short segment (approximately 1 mile (1.6 km)) of the Willamette River downstream of Willamette Falls. Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The occupied portions of the subbasin are in the Cascade ecological zone identified by Myers

et al.

(2003), but the TRT did not associate fish in this area with a historical demographically independent population (McElhany

et al.

, 2003). However, the mouth of Abernethy Creek enters the Willamette upstream and in close proximity (less than 0.6 mi (1 km)) to the mouth of the Clackamas River which does contain a fall-run population identified by the TRT. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, dams, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in the Abernethy Creek watershed are of low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 9. Clackamas Subbasin (HUC4# 17090011)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, two of which are occupied by this ESU (Lower Clackamas and Eagle Creek) and encompass approximately 270 sq mi (699.3 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from the ODFW identify approximately 54 mi (86.9 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified a single ecological zone (Cascade)

containing a single historical demographically independent population in this subbasin (Clackamas River fall-run). This fall-run population has been classified by the TRT as a “core” population (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in one (Lower Clackamas River) were rated as having high and those in the other (Eagle Creek) were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 10. Lower Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090012)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 407 sq mi (1,054.1 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 89 mi (143.2 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified a single ecological zone (Cascade) containing two fall-run historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin (Clackamas River and Scappoose River). The Clackamas River fall-run population has been classified by the TRT as a “core” population (

i.e.

, historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (McElhany

et al.

2003)). The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, roadbuilding, urbanization, and wetland loss and removal. Of the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in one were rated as having high and those in two were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 11. Lower Columbia River Corridor

For the purposes of describing units of critical habitat designation for this ESU, we define this corridor as that segment of the Columbia River from the confluences of the Sandy River (Oregon) and Washougal River (Washington) to the Pacific Ocean. Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 118 mi (189.9 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this corridor (ODFW, 2003a,b). After reviewing the best available scientific data for all of the areas within the freshwater and estuarine range of this ESU, the Team concluded that the lower Columbia River corridor was of high conservation value to the ESU. The Team noted that this corridor connects every watershed and population in this ESU with the ocean and is used by rearing/migrating juveniles and migrating adults. The Columbia River estuary is a particularly important area for this ESU as both juveniles and adults make the critical physiological transition between life in freshwater and marine habitats (Marriott

et al.

, 2002). Management activities that may affect the PCEs in this corridor include channel modifications, roadbuilding, river/estuary traffic, roadbuilding, urbanization, and wetland loss and removal.

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU

The Upper Willamette River chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River and in the Willamette River, and its tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Oregon (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). We have proposed that seven artificial propagation programs also be considered part of the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the McKenzie River Hatchery (ODFW stock # 24), Marion Forks/North Fork Santiam River (ODFW stock # 21), South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock # 23) in the South Fork Santiam River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Calapooia River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Mollala River, Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock # 22), and Clackamas hatchery (ODFW stock # 19) spring-run chinook hatchery programs.

Historically, the Willamette River Basin provided sufficient spawning and rearing habitat for large numbers of spring-run chinook salmon. The predominant tributaries to the Willamette River that historically supported spring-run chinook salmon all drain the Cascade Range. The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified each of these seven drainages as an historically demographically independent population: Clackamas, Molalla, North Santiam, South Santiam, Calapooia, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. The TRT also noted that reports of “Chinook salmon in westside tributaries have continued to the present; however it is unlikely the abundance of spawners in any of these tributaries constitutes a [demographically independent population].” Approximately 30 to 40 percent of total historical habitat is now inaccessible behind dams. These inaccessible areas, however, represent a majority of the historical spawning habitat. This restriction of natural production to just a few areas increases the ESU's vulnerability to environmental variability and catastrophic events. The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified groups of populations in this recovery planning domain into “strata” intended to assist in evaluating ESU-wide recovery scenarios (McElhany

et al.

, 2002). The strata are based on major life-history characteristics (e.g., species run-types) and ecological zones. The upper Willamette River chinook ESU consists of a single stratum as it consists of a single run-type (spring-run fish) that spawns within a single ecological zone (the Willamette River). Recovery planning will likely emphasize the need for a geographical distribution of viable populations across the range of such strata/regions in an ESU (Ruckelshaus

et al.

, 2002; McElhany

et al.

, 2003).

Spring-run chinook salmon populations in the upper Willamette River basin and Clackamas River have been strongly influenced by extensive transfers of hatchery fish throughout the ESU for nearly 100 years, as well as the introduction of non-native fall-run chinook salmon. Prior to the laddering of Willamette Falls, passage by returning adult salmonids (just upstream of the confluence of the Clackamas and Willamette rivers) was only possible during winter and spring high-flow periods. Low flows during the summer and autumn months prevented fall-run salmon from accessing the upper Willamette River Basin. This isolation has provided the potential for significant local adaptation of Upper Willamette River spring-run chinook relative to other Columbia River populations. The early run-timing of adult Willamette River spring-run chinook salmon relative to other lower Columbia River spring-run populations is viewed as an adaptation to flow conditions at Willamette Falls. In some years fish returning to the upper Willamette River Basin historically may have strayed into the Clackamas River when conditions at Willamette Falls prevented upstream passage. Therefore, similarities between Clackamas River and upper Willamette River spring-run fish may reflect an historical and

evolutionary association between the two groups.

Upper Willamette River chinook salmon begin appearing in the Lower Willamette River in February, but the majority of the run ascends Willamette Falls in April and May, with a peak in mid-May. Currently, the migration of adult spring-run chinook salmon over Willamette Falls extends into July and August. Historically, passage over the falls may have been marginal in June, due to diminishing flows, with only larger fish being able to ascend.

Adults spawn in both mainstem and tributary habitats of eastside drainages to the Willamette River typically from late July to October. The juvenile life-history characteristics of Upper Willamette River spring-run salmon appear to be highly variable. Fry emerge from February to March, although sometimes as late as June. Juveniles appear to emigrate continuously out of the tributaries and into the mainstem Willamette River as fry (late winter to early spring), fingerlings (fall to early winter), and yearlings (late winter to spring). Most juveniles enter the ocean as yearlings after overwintering and rearing in the mainstem Willamette and Columbia rivers. In general, the majority of spring chinook salmon returning to the upper Willamette River basin currently mature at 4 and 5 years old.

The Upper Willamette River Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 56 occupied watersheds in 10 associated subbasins (identified below as “units” with unique HUC4 numbers) as well as the lower Willamette/Columbia River rearing/migration corridor. 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 single life-history type and ecological stratum identified by the Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT. The Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of Upper Willamette River chinook salmon, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and

O. mykiss

described in the Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat section.

Unit 1. Middle Fork Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090001)

This subbasin contains 10 occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,367 sq mi (3,541 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 273 mi (439.4 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one demographically independent population (Middle Fork Willamette River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all of these occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in four of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in six warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that the habitat areas with medium overall ratings contained a high value rearing and migration corridor connecting high value habitat areas upstream with downstream reaches 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 2. Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090002)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 664 sq mi (1,719.8 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 44 mi (70.8 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) did not identify a demographically independent population in this subbasin, and Kostow (1995) characterized them as extinct. Myers

et al.

(2003) noted that reports of “Chinook salmon in westside tributaries have continued to the present; however it is unlikely the abundance of spawners in any of these tributaries constitutes a [demographically independent population].” However, recent data from ODFW (ODFW, 2004a,b) indicate that several watersheds in this subbasin likely contain important rearing and migration PCEs. Therefore, the Team concluded that all of these occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in all four watersheds in this subbasin warrant a low rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 3. Upper Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090003)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,872 sq mi (4,848 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 225 mi (362.1 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified possibly four demographically independent populations in this subbasin. Myers

et al.

(2003) also noted that reports of “Chinook salmon in westside tributaries have continued to the present; however it is unlikely the abundance of spawners in any of these tributaries constitutes a [demographically independent population].” However, recent data from ODFW (ODFW, 2004a,b) indicate that some watersheds (e.g., Marys and Luckiamute rivers) in this subbasin likely contain important rearing and migration PCEs. Therefore, the Team concluded that all of these occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in three of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a medium rating and those in three warrant a low rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded that all reaches of the Willamette River within this subbasin constitute a high value rearing and migration corridor connecting upstream populations (e.g., those in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, and Calapooia Rivers) and high value habitat areas with downstream reaches 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 4. McKenzie River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090004)

This subbasin contains seven occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,339 sq mi (3,468 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 268 mi (431.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one demographically independent population (McKenzie River) in this subbasin. This is probably the only self-sustaining population above Willamette Falls, and possibly in the entire ESU (Myers

et al.

, 2003; NMFS, 2003). The Team concluded that all of the occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or

migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in five of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in two warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 5. North Santiam River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090005)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, three of which are occupied and encompass approximately 315 sq mi (815.8 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 125 mi (201.2 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003A,B). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one demographically independent population (North Santiam River) in this subbasin. Historically accessible areas in the three uppermost watersheds of this subbasin are now blocked by Big Cliff and Detroit dams. These dams block access to approximately 70 percent of the historic spawning area in this subbasin (Myers

et al.

, 2003). The Team concluded that all of the occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in two of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in one warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded that the three inaccessible watersheds (Upper North Santiam, North Fork Breitenbush River, and Detroit Reservoir/Blowout Divide Creek) may be essential to the conservation of the ESU. All three watersheds are presently occupied by hatchery chinook salmon which are trapped downstream and released into these watersheds. The Team determined that the Detroit Reservoir/Blowout Divide Creek watershed would have a lower overall conservation value due to the large areas inundated by Detroit Reservoir. The Team concluded that these unoccupied areas may be essential because: (1) They once supported a TRT core population; (2) they contain non-inundated habitats that are still relatively abundant and in fair to good condition and improving; (3) there is evidence that the areas can support significant natural production; and (3) the naturally-reproducing population below Big Cliff Dam has limited spawning PCEs and appears to suffer from high mortality rates (Willamette National Forest [WNF], 1994; WNF, 1995; WNF, 1996; WNF, 1997; Ziller

et al.

, 2002; McElhany

et al.

, 2003). The Team noted that NMFS' status review of this ESU stated “the declines in spring chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette River ESU can be attributed in large part to the extensive habitat blockages caused by dam construction.” In addition, the Team also noted that providing passage at dams and diversions has been identified as a key potential conservation measure for Willamette River salmon (Martin

et al.

, 1998; Bastasch

et al.

, 2002). Therefore, the Team determined that access to these areas would likely promote the conservation of the ESU. We seek comment on whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 6. South Santiam River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090006)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds, six of which are occupied by this ESU and encompass approximately 766 sq mi (1,983.9 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 169 mi (272 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Two watersheds in the upper Middle Santiam River (Quartzville Creek and Middle Santiam River) are blocked by Green Peter Dam. Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one historically independent population (South Santiam River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all of these occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, forestry, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in three of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in three warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 7. Middle Willamette River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090007)

This subbasin consists of four occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 712 sq mi (1,844 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 158 mi (254.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat (all rearing/migration) in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified only a small portion of the spawning range of one demographically independent population (North Santiam River) in this subbasin, although six populations use this subbasin for rearing/migration. The Team concluded that all of these occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that all of the habitat areas in this subbasin's watersheds warrant a low rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). However, that assessment pertained solely to the tributary habitat areas in these watersheds (e.g., Ash, Rickreall, and Harvey creeks), not the mainstem Willamette River. The Team concluded that all reaches of the Willamette River within this subbasin constitute a high value rearing and migration corridor. These high value reaches connect nearly all populations and watersheds in this ESU (except those in the Clackamas River) with downstream reaches 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 8. Yamhill River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090008)

This subbasin contains seven watersheds, four of which are occupied by this ESU and encompass approximately 495 sq mi (1,282 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 71 mi (114.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat (all used for rearing or migration) in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) did not identify a demographically independent population in this subbasin. Myers

et al.

(2003) noted that reports of “Chinook salmon in westside tributaries have continued to the present; however it is unlikely the abundance of spawners in any of these tributaries constitutes a [demographically independent population].” However, recent data (ODFW, 2004a,b) indicate that several watersheds in this subbasin likely contain important rearing and migration PCEs. Therefore, the Team concluded that all of these occupied areas contain rearing and migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel modifications, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in all four occupied watersheds in this subbasin warrant a

low rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 9. Molalla/Pudding River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090009)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 875 sq mi (2,266 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 181 mi (291.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Team concluded that all of the occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in two of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a medium rating and those in four warrant a low rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 10. Clackamas River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090011)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 942 sq mi (2,440 sq km). This is the only subbasin with spawning habitat for this ESU below Willamette Falls. Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 137 mi (220.5 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers

et al.

(2003) identified one demographically independent population (Clackamas River) in this subbasin. The Team concluded that all of the occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in five of the watersheds in this subbasin warrant a high rating and those in one warrant a low rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 11. Lower Willamette/Columbia River Corridor

For the purposes of describing units of critical habitat designation for this ESU, we define the lower Willamette/Columbia River corridor as that segment from the confluence of the Willamette and Clackamas rivers to the Pacific Ocean. This corridor also includes the Multnomah Channel portion of the Lower Willamette River. Watersheds downstream of the Clackamas River subbasin (Johnson Creek and Columbia Slough/Willamette River watersheds) are outside the spawning range of this ESU and likely used in a limited way as juvenile rearing habitat for this ESU. Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 137 mi (220.5 km) of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this corridor (ODFW, 2003a,b). After reviewing the best available scientific data for all of the areas within the freshwater and estuarine range of this ESU, the Team concluded that the lower Willamette/Columbia River corridor was of high conservation value to the ESU. The Team noted that this corridor connects every watershed and population in this ESU with the ocean and is used by rearing/migrating juveniles and migrating adults. The Columbia River estuary is a particularly important area for this ESU as both juveniles and adults make the critical physiological transition between life in freshwater and marine habitats (Marriott

et al.

, 2002). Management activities that may affect the PCEs in this corridor include channel modifications, roadbuilding, river/estuary traffic, roadbuilding, urbanization, and wetland loss and removal.

Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU

The Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon in all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan River (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). We have proposed that six artificial propagation programs also be considered part of the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop NFH, Chiwawa River, and White River spring-run chinook hatchery programs.

Spring-run chinook salmon in this ESU have a stream-type life history, which means that they enter freshwater before they are fully mature and finish maturing during their upriver spawning run. Three demographically independent populations of naturally spawning spring-run chinook salmon are identified for this ESU: the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow River Basin populations. Principally due to the small number of independent populations, the Interior Columbia Basin TRT (ICBTRT, 2003) has not identified separate major groupings or strata for the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU. Nonetheless, recovery planning will likely emphasize the need for a viable geographical distribution of the three populations comprising this ESU (Ruckelshaus

et al.

, 2002; McElhany

et al.

, 2003).

Adults returning to the Wenatchee River enter fresh water from late March through early May, and those returning to the Entiat and Methow Rivers enter fresh water from late March through June. The run timing of Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook tends to be relatively earlier in low flow years, and later in high flow years. Adults migrating upriver hold in deeper pools or under cover until the onset of spawning. Adults may spawn in the areas where they hold, or move further into smaller tributaries. Peak spawning for all three populations occurs from August to September, though the timing is highly dependent upon water temperature. The egg incubation/alevin stage occurs from August into December, and emergence occurs into March. The juveniles typically spend 1 year in freshwater before migrating downstream, primarily in May and June. Most adults return after spending 2 years in the ocean, although 20 to 40 percent return after 3 years at sea.

The Middle and Upper Columbia River Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat areas within 15 occupied watersheds in four associated subbasins (identified below as “units” with unique HUC4 numbers), as well as the Columbia River rearing/migration corridor. 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 in the context of each of the three populations in the ESU. The Middle and Upper Columbia River Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon, consistent with the PCEs identified for Pacific salmon and

O. mykiss

described above in the Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat section.

Unit 1. Chief Joseph Subbasin (HUC4# 17020005)

This subbasin contains five watersheds, three of which are occupied by the ESU and encompass approximately 817 sq mi (2,116 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data

from WDFW identify approximately 42 mi (67.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watershed (WDFW, 2003). However, the Team determined that occupied reaches in two watersheds (Jordan/Tumwater and Foster Creek) did not contain PCEs for this ESU because these reaches are located upstream of the uppermost population in the ESU (Methow River) and in areas that were likely to be of very minimal conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population (Methow River) occupying this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas in the Upper Columbia/Swamp watershed contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, dams, fire activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, and roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in this watershed warrant an overall medium rating for conservation value to the ESU and that the rearing and migration corridor in Columbia River reaches downstream of the confluence of the Methow River were of high conservation value (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 2. Methow Subbasin (HUC4# 17020008)

This subbasin contains seven occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,823 sq mi (4,722 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 202 mi (325.1 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watershed (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population (Methow River) occupying this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, fire activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the seven watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in five were rated as having high and those in two were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also noted that the watersheds with habitat areas having medium overall ratings (Middle Methow River and Lower Methow River) contain a high value rearing and migration corridor connecting high value habitat areas upstream with downstream reaches 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 3. Upper Columbia/Entiat Subbasin (HUC4# 17020010)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds (but two of these consist of a rearing/migration corridor downstream of Rock Island Dam—see Unit 5 below). The two watersheds in this subbasin with tributary habitat (

i.e.

, tributaries to the Columbia River mainstem) encompass approximately 907 sq mi (2,349.1 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 103 mi (165.8 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified three demographically independent populations (Methow River, Entiat River, and Wenatchee River) occupying this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, fire activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the two watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in one were rated as having high and those in the other were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded that both watersheds contain high value rearing and migration corridors connecting high value habitat areas upstream with downstream reaches 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 4. Wenatchee Subbasin (HUC4# 17020011)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing approximately 1,328 sq mi (3,440 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 182 mi (292.9 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population (Wenatchee River) occupying this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, fire activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the five watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in three were rated as having high and those in two were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 5. Columbia River Corridor

For the purposes of describing units of critical habitat designation for this ESU, we define the Columbia River corridor as that segment from Rock Island Dam downstream to the Pacific Ocean. Rock Island Dam is located near the downstream border of the Entiat River watershed, which was the furthest downstream watershed with spawning or tributary PCEs identified in the range of this ESU. Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 448 mi (721 km)

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.