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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74571-74846]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14de04-29]
[[Page 74572]]

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

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

[[Page 74573]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous ESA listing
Evolutionarily Significant Unit Current Endangered Species Act determinations and critical Previous scientific viability
(ESU) (ESA) status Year listed habitat designations--Federal reviews and updates
Register citations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1991a.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1998d.
rule).
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU............. Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11750; 03/10/1998 NMFS 1997f.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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).

[[Page 74574]]

Sacramento River winter-run chinook Endangered........................ 1994 Critical Habitat Designations
ESU.
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1998b.
rule).
Central Valley spring-run chinook Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 NMFS 1999d.
ESU. (Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... Listing Determinations.......
.................................. ........... 69 FR 33102; 06/14/04
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999
(Final rule).
.................................. ........... 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... Critical Habitat Designations
.................................. ........... 68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1998b.
rule).
California Coastal chinook ESU...... Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 NMFS 1999d.
(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 NMFS 1998b.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1998e.
rule).
Upper Willamette River chinook ESU.. Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 NMFS 1999c.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... ............................. NMFS 1998b
.................................. ........... Listing Determinations....... NMFS 1998e.
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU.... Threatened........................ 1999 69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 NMFS 1999c.
(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).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1998b.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1998e.
rule).
Upper Columbia River spring-run Endangered........................ 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 NMFS 1999c.
chinook ESU. (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

[[Page 74575]]

.................................. ........... 68 FR 55900; 09/29/2003 NMFS 1998b.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1998e.
rule).
Puget Sound chinook ESU............. Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 NMFS 1999c.
(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 14653; 04/22/1992
(Final rule).
.................................. ........... 56 FR 29547; 06/27/1991 NMFS 1991c.
(Proposed rule).
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 NMFS 1991b.
(Final rule).
Snake River spring/summer-run Threatened........................ 1992 57 FR 57051; 12/02/1992 NMFS 1998b.
chinook ESU. (Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 Bryant 1994
(Final rule).
Central California Coast coho ESU... Threatened........................ 1996 62 FR 62791; 11/25/1997 NMFS 1995a.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... Listing Determinations.......
.................................. ........... 69 FR 33102; 06/14/04
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997
(Final rule).
.................................. ........... 60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 NMFS 1997a.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... Critical Habitat Designations NMFS 1996c.
.................................. ........... 64 FR 24049; 05/05/1999 NMFS 1996e.
(Final rule).
Southern Oregon/Northern California Threatened........................ 1997 62 FR 62791; 11/25/1997 NMFS 1995a.
Coast coho ESU. (Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... ............................. 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).

[[Page 74576]]

.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1995a.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996e.
warranted).
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 NMFS 1997e.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1999b.
rule).
Columbia River chum ESU............. Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 NMFS 1999c.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1997e.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1999b.
rule).
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU...... Threatened........................ 1999 63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 NMFS 1999c.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996b.
rule).
Southern California O. mykiss+ ESU.. Endangered........................ 1997 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1997b.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996b.
rule).
South-Central California Coast O. Threatened........................ 1997 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1997b.
mykiss ESU. (Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... Listing Determinations.......
.................................. ........... 69 FR 33102; 06/14/04
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997
(Final rule).

[[Page 74577]]

.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996b.
rule).
Central California Coast O. mykiss Threatened........................ 1997 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1997b.
ESU. (Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... Listing Determinations.......
.................................. ........... 69 FR 33102; 06/14/04 NMFS 1996b.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 NMFS 1997b.
(Final rule).
.................................. ........... 62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 NMFS 1997c.
mo. extension).
.................................. ........... 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 NMFS 1997d.
(Proposed rule).
California Central Valley O. mykiss Threatened........................ 1998 Critical Habitat Designations NMFS 1998a.
ESU.
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996b.
mo. extension).
.................................. ........... 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 NMFS 1997c.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1997d.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1999a.
rule).
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU Threatened........................ 1999 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1999c.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1997c.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1997d.
rule).
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU.. Threatened........................ 1998 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1998a.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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).

[[Page 74578]]

.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1997d.
(removal).
.................................. ........... 65 FR 7764; 02/16/2000 (Final NMFS 1999a.
rule).
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. Threatened........................ 1999 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1999c.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996b.
rule).
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU.. Endangered........................ 1997 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1997b.
(Proposed rule).
.................................. ........... 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 NMFS 1996b.
rule).
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU..... Threatened........................ 1997 64 FR 5740; 03/10/1999 NMFS 1997b.
(Proposed rule).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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

[[Page 74579]]

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

[[Page 74580]]

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

[[Page 74581]]

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

[[Page 74582]]

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.''

[[Page 74583]]

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

[[Page 74584]]

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,

[[Page 74585]]

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

[[Page 74586]]

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

[[Page 74587]]

(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.

[[Page 74588]]

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

[[Page 74589]]

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).

[[Page 74590]]

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

[[Page 74591]]

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)

[[Page 74592]]

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

[[Page 74593]]

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

[[Page 74594]]

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

[[Page 74595]]

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

[[Page 74596]]

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)
of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this corridor (WDFW,
2003). 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 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, dams, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals,
roadbuilding, river/estuary traffic, roadbuilding, urbanization, and
wetland loss and removal.

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

The Oregon Coast coho ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams south of the
Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August 10, 1998).
We have proposed that five artificial propagation programs also be
considered part of the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the North
Umpqua River (ODFW stock # 18), Cow Creek (ODFW stock # 37), Coos Basin
(ODFW stock # 37), Coquille River (ODFW stock # 44), and North Fork
Nehalem River (ODFW stock # 32) coho hatchery programs.
Geographical isolation is an important factor in the evolution of
these separate populations within or between basins.

[[Page 74597]]

The Oregon Coast coho ESU is, in general, composed of relatively small
basins (the Umpqua basin, an exception to this general rule, is a
relatively large basin characterized by diverse vegetation and
geology). The distance between saltwater entry points of each basin may
significantly affect the level of migration or connectivity among
populations. Some populations may be significantly affected by migrants
from larger or more productive systems The Oregon-Northern California
Coast TRT has putatively identified 19 ``functionally'' and
``potentially'' independent populations and 48 additional dependent
populations (Lawson et al., 2004). The functionally and potentially
independent populations include: the Necanicum River, Nehalem River,
Tillamook Bay, Nestucca River, Salmon River, Siletz River, Yaquina
River, Beaver Creek, Alsea River, Siuslaw River, Siltcoos River (lake),
Tahkenitch Creek (lake), Lower Umpqua River, Upper Umpqua River,
Tenmile Creek (lake), Coos Bay, Coquille River, Floras Creek, and Sixes
River populations. Recovery planning will likely emphasize the need for
a geographical distribution of viable populations across the range of
the ESU (Ruckelshaus et al., 2002; McElhany et al., 2003). Ecological
strata or regions have not been identified for the Oregon Coast coho
ESU. The TRT noted that, given the dominant influence of the ocean on
the Oregon Coast climate, ecological conditions are relatively uniform
throughout the ESU. The Umpqua River Basin is an exception, with inland
areas being drier and experiencing more extreme temperatures than the
coastal areas. Ecological differences within the ESU relate to the
effects of local topography on rainfall, and of local geology on
vegetation composition and slope stability.
Adult coho salmon begin migrating into coastal streams and rivers
with the first freshets in the fall. Spawning begins in November,
peaking in December or January, and may continue into March. Eggs hatch
in the spring and fry grow rapidly to the parr stage by early summer or
early fall. Parr then seek out areas protected from high flows and
spend a second winter in freshwater before migrating to the ocean as
smolts from March through June. Smolt outmigration timing and smolt
size appear to respond to small-scale habitat variability and have been
shown to be affected by anthropogenic activities including: habitat
degradation (Moring and Lantz, 1975) and habitat restoration (Johnson
et al., 1993; Rodgers et al., 1993). About 20 percent of males mature
at age 2 and return to freshwater as ``jacks'' in the same year they
entered the ocean as adults. Although the production of jacks is a
heritable trait in coho salmon (Iwamoto et al., 1984), the proportion
of jacks in a given coho salmon populations is strongly influenced by
environmental factors (Silverstein and Hershberger, 1992). The
remainder of juveniles rear in the ocean for 18 months and return as 3-
year-old adults in the following fall.
Habitat capacity for coho salmon on the Oregon Coast has
significantly decreased from historical levels (NMFS, 2003). During
periods of poor ocean survival, high quality habitat is necessary to
sustain coho populations (Nickelson and Lawson, 1998). The following
habitat features have been identified as important to the recovery of
Oregon Coast coho salmon (IMST, 2002): structure and function of
lowland areas, wetland, floodplains, and riparian forests; the presence
of large wood on beaches and stream banks, and in streams, channels,
estuaries, and floodplains; water quality, including temperature;
hydrologic function and flow regimes; connectivity of rivers with
floodplain and off-channel habitats; and the presence of diverse native
plant communities subject to natural disturbance regimes.
The Oregon Coast Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat
areas within 80 occupied watersheds in 13 associated subbasins
(identified below as ``units'' with unique HUC4 numbers). 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 populations
identified by the Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT. The Oregon
Coast Team evaluated the conservation value of habitat areas on the
basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements of Oregon
Coast coho 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. Necanicum River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100201)

This subbasin contains a single watershed which is occupied by the
ESU and encompasses approximately 137 sq mi (355 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 87
mi (140 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW,
2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT (2003) putatively
identified one ``potentially'' independent population (the Necanicum
River population) 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: forestry, grazing, and urbanization. The Oregon Coast
Team concluded that habitat areas in the one occupied watershed
comprising this subbasin are of 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 2. Nehalem River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100202)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, each of which is occupied by
the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 855 sq mi (2,214.4 sq
km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 675 mi (1,086.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified one ``functionally'' independent population (the
Nehalem River population) 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, forestry, grazing, and
urbanization. Of the six watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in all but one watershed 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 3. Wilson-Trask-Nestucca Rivers Subbasin (HUC4# 17100203)

This subbasin contains nine watersheds, each of which are occupied
by the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 889 sq mi (2,302
sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 632 mi (1,017.1 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified two ``functionally'' independent populations (the
Tillamook Bay and Nestucca River populations) 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,

[[Page 74598]]

forestry, urbanization, and river, estuary and ocean traffic. Of the
nine watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in seven 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 4. Siletz-Yaquina Rivers Subbasin (HUC4# 17100204)

This subbasin contains nine watersheds, eight of which are occupied
by the ESU and encompass approximately 642 sq mi (1,663 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 612
mi (984.9 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW,
2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT (2003) identified
three ``functionally'' or ``potentially'' independent populations (the
Salmon, Siletz, and Yaquina River 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, sand and gravel mining, urbanization, and river, estuary, and
ocean traffic. Of the eight watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat
areas in three were rated as having high, and those in five 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. Alsea River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100205)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds, each of which is occupied
by the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 690 sq mi (1,787.1
sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 559 mi (899.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003A,B). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified two ``functionally'' or ``potentially'' independent
populations (the Beaver Creek and Alsea River 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, sand and gravel mining, and urbanization. Of the
eight watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in four were rated
as having high, those in three were rated as having medium, and those
in one (the Big Creek/Vingie Creek watershed) 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 6. Siuslaw River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100206)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds, each of which is occupied
by the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 776 sq mi (2,010
sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 774 mi (1,245.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified one ``functionally'' independent population (the
Siuslaw River population) 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 eight watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in six 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 7. Siltcoos River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100207

This subbasin contains one watershed which is occupied by the ESU
and encompasses approximately 131 sq mi (339.3 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 137
mi (220.5 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW,
2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT (2003) identified
two ``potentially'' independent populations (the Siltcoos River (lake)
and Tahkenitch Creek (lake) 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: forestry, grazing, and
urbanization. The Oregon Coast Team concluded that habitat areas in the
one occupied watershed comprising this subbasin is of 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. North Fork Umpqua River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100301)

This subbasin contains 12 watersheds; however, due to habitat
blockage from the Soda Springs Dam, only the lower seven watersheds are
accessible to Oregon Coast coho salmon. These seven occupied watersheds
encompass approximately 924 sq mi (2,393.2 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 175 mi (281.6 km)
of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The
Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT (2003) identified one
``functionally'' independent population (the Upper Umpqua River
population) that is contained within this subbasin and the South Fork
Umpqua River subbasin (HUC4# 17100302, below). 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 seven watersheds reviewed by the
Team, habitat areas in one watershed were rated as having high, those
in three watersheds were rated as having medium, and those in three
watersheds 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 9. South Fork Umpqua River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100302)

This subbasin contains 13 watersheds, of which 12 are occupied by
the ESU encompassing approximately 1,727 sq mi (4,473 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 693
mi (1,115.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW,
2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT (2003) identified
one ``functionally'' independent population (the Upper Umpqua River
population) that is contained within this subbasin and the North Fork
Umpqua River subbasin (HUC4# 17100301, above). 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, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, sand
and gravel mining, and urbanization. Of the 12 watersheds reviewed by
the Team,

[[Page 74599]]

habitat areas in one watershed were rated as having high, those in
eight watersheds were rated as having medium, and those in three
watersheds 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. Umpqua River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100303)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds, each of which is occupied
by the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 1,514 sq mi (3,921
sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 1,083 mi (1,742.9 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified one ``functionally'' independent population (the
Lower Umpqua River population) that is contained within 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, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining,
urbanization, and river, estuary, and ocean traffic. Of the eight
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in five watersheds were
rated as having high, those in two watersheds were rated as having
medium, and those in one watershed 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 11. Coos River Subbasin (HUC4# 17100304)

This subbasin contains four watersheds, each of which is occupied
by the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 737 sq mi (1,909
sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 541 mi (870.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified one ``potentially'' independent population (the Coos
Bay population) 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 four 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 12. Coquille River Subbasin (HUC4 # 17100305)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, each of which is occupied by
the ESU. These watersheds encompass approximately 1,057 sq mi (2,738 sq
km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 546 mi (878.7 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT
(2003) identified one ``functionally'' independent population (the
Coquille River population) 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, irrigation
impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, and urbanization. Of the
six watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in four 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 did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin
that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 13. Sixes River Subbasin (HUC4 # 17100306)

This subbasin contains four watersheds, two of which are occupied
by the ESU and encompass approximately 290 sq mi (751.1 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 149
mi (239.8 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW,
2003a,b). The Oregon-Northern California Coast TRT (2003) identified
two ``potentially'' independent populations (the Sixes River and Floras
Creek 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, irrigation
impoundments and withdrawals, and sand and gravel mining. 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.

Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon ESU

The Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and its
tributaries as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between
Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Washington (64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999).
We have proposed that eight artificial propagation programs also be
considered part of the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the Quilcene
NFH, Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek Fish Hatchery, Union
River/Tahuya, Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery, Salmon Creek Fish Hatchery,
Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery, and the Jimmycomelately Creek Fish
Hatchery summer-run chum hatchery programs.
Sixteen historical demographically independent populations of Hood
Canal summer-run chum have been identified for this ESU: eight extant
populations (the Union River, Lilliwaup Creek, Hamma Hamma River,
Duckabush River, Dosewallips River, Big/Little Quilcene River, Snow and
Salmon creeks, Jimmycomelately Creek populations), and eight extirpated
or possibly extirpated populations (the Dungeness River, Big Beef
Creek, Anderson Creek, Dewatto Creek, Tahuya River, Skokomish River,
Finch Creek, and Chimacum Creek populations) (WDFW and PNPTT, 2000).
The Puget Sound TRT has identified 5 ``geographic regions of diversity
and correlated risk'' in Puget Sound (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 Hood
Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU occupies two of these regions--the
Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal. Recovery planning will likely
emphasize the need for a geographical distribution of viable
populations across the range of such regions in an ESU (Ruckelshaus et
al., 2002; McElhany et al., 2003).
Hood Canal summer-run chum are the southernmost occurrence of the
summer-run life history for the species. The ESU appears to be uniquely
adapted to the local habitat conditions, with this life-history
persisting in what otherwise would be deemed an inhospitable
environment. The summer chum streams are characterized by low

[[Page 74600]]

summer/fall flows and likely experience elevated stream temperatures
during the summer chum spawning periods. Given the return timing of
summer-run chum and the associated low flow conditions of spawning
streams, chum are confined to the lower reaches of the streams
(Crawford, 1997; Turner, 1995). Degradation of spawning habitat,
reduced river flows, increased urbanization of the Kitsap Peninsula,
and increased pinniped populations in Hood Canal have been cited as
habitat limiting factors for the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU
(Johnson et al., 1997).
The Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative (WDFW and PNPTT,
2000) provides a comprehensive overview of this ESU and describes the
following life history and habitat requirements. Migration to spawning
grounds occurs from late August through late October. Adults generally
spawn in low gradient, lower mainstem reaches of natal streams,
typically in center channel areas due to the low flows encountered in
the late summer and early fall. Eggs incubate in redds for 5 to 6
months, and fry emerge between January and May. After hatching, fry
move rapidly downstream to subestuarine habitats. WDFW and PNPTT (2000)
noted that successful incubation and rearing depends on a variety of
conditions including: (1) The presence of adequate large woody debris
to reduce scour of incubating eggs and moderate peak winter flow
velocities, (2) the absence of excessive fines within spawning gravel,
(3) stable channel configuration, and (4) access to floodplain and off-
channel areas. Subestuary deltas support a diverse array of habitats
(tidal channels, mudflats, marshes, and eelgrass meadows) that provide
essential rearing and transition environments for this ESU. Juveniles
rear in these habitats for days to weeks before entering the ocean, and
returning adults stage in subestuaries before ascending natal streams
to spawn. Juveniles feed primarily on plankton and epibenthic
organisms, while subadults feed on similar items as well as larger prey
(including fishes and squid). Most adults mature and spawn as 3- and 4-
year old fish (WDFW and PNPTT, 2000).
The Puget Sound Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat
areas within 12 occupied watersheds in four 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 two 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 Hood Canal summer-run chum 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. Skokomish Subbasin (HUC4# 17110017)

This subbasin contains a single occupied watershed encompassing
approximately 245 sq mi (635 sq km). The Skokomish River population is
the only historic population documented in this subbasin/watershed
(WDFW and PNPTT, 2000). Fish distribution and habitat use data from
WDFW identify approximately 13 mi (20.9 km) of occupied riverine/
estuarine habitat in the subbasin/watershed (WDFW and PNPTT, 2000). 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 channel
modifications/diking, dam operations, forestry, and urbanization. The
Team also concluded that habitat areas in this watershed 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 2. Hood Canal Subbasin (HUC4# 17110018)

This subbasin contains seven occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 715 sq mi (1,852 sq km). WDFW and PNPTT (2000) identified
the following historic populations in this subbasin: Union River,
Lilliwaup Creek, Hamma Hamma River, Duckabush River, Dosewallips River,
Big/Little Quilcene River, Big Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, Dewatto
Creek, Tahuya River, and Finch Creek. Several of these have undergone
recent extirpations but are now occupied through natural recolonization
or re-introduction (WDFW and PNPTT, 2000; NMFS, 2004a). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 50
mi (80.5 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in the watersheds
(WDFW, 2003; NMFS, 2004a; WDFW, 2004). 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 channel modifications/diking, forestry, and
urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in six 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 identified two streams (Finch Creek and Anderson
Creek) that are currently unoccupied but essential for the conservation
of the ESU. These streams historically supported independent
populations of summer-run chum salmon (WDFW and PNPTT, 2000) and, due
to the limited number of areas occupied by this ESU, are likely to be
important areas for ESU expansion during recovery (NMFS, 2004a).
Moreover, the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative (WDFW and
PNPTT, 2000) is being implemented and recommends both streams for
reintroduction of summer-run chum.

Unit 3. Kitsap Subbasin (HUC4# 17110019)

This subbasin contains a single occupied watershed encompassing
approximately 82 sq mi (212.4 sq km). The Chimacum Creek population is
the only historic population documented in this subbasin/watershed
(WDFW and PNPTT, 2000). Fish distribution and habitat use data from
WDFW identify approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) of occupied riverine/
estuarine habitat in the watershed (WDFW, 2003; WDFW, 2004). The Team
concluded that this occupied area contains spawning, rearing, or
migration PCEs for this ESU and identified several management
activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, 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 identified an additional 5-mile (8-km) stream
segment in Chimacum Creek that is currently unoccupied but essential
for the conservation of the ESU. This stream segment historically
supported the Chimacum Creek population of summer-run chum salmon (WDFW
and PNPTT, 2000) and, due to the limited number of areas occupied by
this ESU, is likely to be an important area for ESU expansion during
recovery (NMFS, 2004a).

Unit 4. Dungeness-Elwha Subbasin (HUC4# 17110020)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 350 sq mi (906 sq km). WDFW and PNPTT (2000) identified
the following historic populations in this

[[Page 74601]]

subbasin: Dungeness River, Jimmycomelately Creek, and Snow/Salmon
creeks. Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify
approximately 19 mi (30.6 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine habitat in
the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). 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 channel modifications/diking, forestry, and
urbanization. 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 did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin
that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 5. Nearshore Marine Area

The nearshore marine area considered by the Team includes that zone
from extreme high water out to a depth of 30 m 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 chum 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 all nearshore habitat areas from the southern
terminus of Hood Canal northeast to Dungeness Bay in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca warrant a high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a).
These habitat areas are found along approximately 402 miles (647 km) of
shoreline within the range of this ESU.

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU

The Columbia River chum salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in
Washington and Oregon (64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999). We have proposed
that three artificial propagation programs also be considered part of
the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the Chinook River (Sea Resources
Hatchery), Grays River, and Washougal River/Duncan Creek chum hatchery
programs.
The Willamette/Lower Columbia River TRT identified 16 historical
demographically independent populations of chum in the Columbia River:
the Youngs Bay, Grays River, Big Creek, Elochoman River, Clatskanie
River, Mill Creek, Scappoose Creek, Cowlitz River fall-run and summer-
run, Kalama fall-run, Salmon Creek fall-run, Lewis River fall-run,
Clackamas River fall-run, Washougal River fall-run, Lower Gorge
tributaries fall-run, and the Upper Gorge tributaries fall-run
populations (Myers et al., 2003). All but two of these historical
populations appear to have been extirpated, or nearly so. Although the
historical record for Columbia River chum salmon is limited, it is
clear that chum salmon were present in most tributaries to the lower
Columbia River and to some extent in the mainstem (Myers et al., 2003).
Populations in the Coast Range tributaries (e.g., Grays River) differ
in peak spawning activity by approximately a month relative to the
Lower Gorge tributaries population. Differences in the time of spawning
may be related to differences in water sources (rainfall in the Coast
Range vs. groundwater in the Lower Gorge). There is insufficient
information to provide a clear understanding of the migration dynamics
among chum populations in the Columbia River, and hence the specific
habitat characteristics to which local chum populations may be adapted
is not understood. In general, extant Columbia River chum spawning
aggregations are most abundant in the lower mainstem and off-channel
areas. The TRT has placed 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 Columbia River chum salmon ESU inhabits three
ecological zones (Coast Range, Cascade, and Columbia Gorge) and
contains a single life history type (fall run), resulting in a total of
three strata for this ESU (McElhany et al., 2002). 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).
Intensive monitoring of chum spawning escapement is conducted in
three Washington tributaries in the lower Columbia Basin-Grays River,
Hardy Creek, and Hamilton Creek and in the mainstem Columbia River near
Ives Island. The latter three populations are located immediately
downstream of Bonneville Dam. Chum salmon populations exist in other
river systems of the lower Columbia, but are not consistently monitored
and are assumed to be extremely low in abundance.
Chum salmon returning to the Columbia River are considered a fall
run. Adult fall run chum salmon return to the Columbia River from mid-
October through November, but apparently do not reach the Grays River
until late October-early December. Spawning occurs in the Grays River
from early November to late December. Fish returning to Hamilton and
Hardy Creeks begin to appear in the tributaries in early November, and
their spawn timing is more protracted (mid-November-mid-January).
Chum seldom show persistence in surmounting river blockages and
falls, which may be why they usually spawn in lower river reaches.
Spawning chum salmon typically dig their redds in the mainstem or in
side channels of rivers, often in areas just above tidal influence.
They spawn in shallower, slower-running streams and side channels more
frequently than do other salmonids. In some locations, subgravel flow
(upwelled groundwater from seeps and springs) may be important in the
choice of redd sites by chum salmon. Many Columbia River chum have been
found to select spawning sites in areas of upwelling groundwater. New
spawning grounds for chum were recently discovered along the northern
Columbia River shoreline near the I-205 Glen Jackson Bridge where
groundwater upwelling occurs. A significant number of chum returning to
Hamilton Creek spawn in a spring-fed channel, and portions of the Grays
River and Hardy Creek populations spawn in the area of springs.
Hundreds of chum salmon once returned to spawn within spring-fed areas
along Duncan Creek; efforts have been completed to restore passage to
these productive areas and protect the springs that feed them.
Chum do not have a clearly defined smolt stage, but are nonetheless
capable of adapting to seawater soon after emerging from gravel.
Downstream migration may take only a few hours or days in rivers where
spawning sites are close to the mouth of the river. Historical
information concerning the timing of chum salmon emigration in the
lower Columbia River is limited. Recent seining projects conducted in
the Grays River and at Ives Island indicate outmigration occurs from
March through May and peaks from mid-April to early May.
Chum salmon juveniles, like other anadromous salmonids, use
estuaries to feed before beginning long-distance

[[Page 74602]]

oceanic migrations. However, chum and ocean-type chinook salmon usually
have longer residence times in estuaries than do other anadromous
salmonids. The period of estuarine residence appears to be the most
critical phase in the life history of chum salmon and may play a major
role in determining the size of the subsequent adult run back to fresh
water. Chum salmon spend more of their life history in marine waters
than other Pacific salmonids. Juveniles feed primarily on plankton and
epibenthic organisms, while subadults feed on similar items as well as
larger prey (including fishes and squid). Most adults mature and spawn
as 3-year old fish.
The Lower Columbia River Team's assessment for this ESU addressed
habitat areas within 19 occupied watersheds in 6 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 types 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, 3 of which are occupied by
this ESU (almost exclusively as rearing/migration habitat) and
encompass approximately 669 sq mi (1,733 sq mi). This subbasin may be
the upstream extent of the species' distribution in the entire Columbia
River basin (Myers et al., 2003). Fish distribution and habitat use
data from WDFW identify approximately 26 mi (41.8 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the watersheds, including a 22-mi (35.4-km) segment
of the Columbia River (WDFW, 2003). Myers et al. (2003) identified a
single ecological zone (Columbia Gorge) containing two historical
demographically independent populations in this subbasin (Upper Gorge
Tributaries and Lower Gorge Tributaries). The Lower Gorge Tributaries
population has been classified by the TRT as a ``core'' population
(i.e., historically abundant and ``may offer the most likely path to
recovery'') as well as a genetic legacy population ( i.e., one of ``the
most intact representatives of the genetic character of the ESU'')
(McElhany et al., 2003). The Team concluded that all occupied areas
contain rearing or migration (and possibly spawning) 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 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 2. Lower Columbia/Sandy Subbasin (HUC4# 17080001)

This subbasin contains nine watersheds, three of which are occupied
by this ESU and encompass approximately 571 sq mi (1,479 sq km). This
subbasin contains some of the principal spawning habitat for the entire
ESU (e.g., in Hardy and Hamilton creeks and adjacent areas of the
mainstem Columbia River). Fish distribution and habitat use data from
the WDFW identify approximately 84 mi (135.2 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
three historical demographically independent populations in this
subbasin: Lower Gorge Tributaries, Washougal River, and Salmon Creek.
The Lower Gorge Tributaries population has been classified by the TRT
as a ``core'' population (i.e., historically abundant and ``may offer
the most likely path to recovery'') as well as a genetic legacy
population ( i.e., one 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, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the three
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated as
having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also
noted that the Columbia Gorge Tributaries watershed, in addition to the
important mainstem spawning areas, also contains a high value rearing
and migration corridor in the Columbia River connecting upstream
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 3. Lewis Subbasin (HUC4# 17080002)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, two of which are currently
occupied by this ESU with the remaining four 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 71 mi (114.3 km) of occupied riverine habitat in
the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Myers et al. (2003) identified a single
ecological zone (Cascade) containing one historical demographically
independent population in this subbasin (Lewis River). The TRT has
classified this as a ``core'' population (historically abundant and
``may offer the most likely path to recovery'') and the East Fork Lewis
River summer-run population as a genetic legacy population (one 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, forestry, roadbuilding,
sand/gravel mining, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that
habitat areas in both of the occupied watersheds 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 4. Lower Columbia/Clatskanie Subbasin (HUC4# 17080003)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, three of which are occupied
by this ESU and encompass approximately 543 sq mi (1,406 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 51
mi (82.1 km) of occupied riverine habitat in these watersheds (WDFW,
2003). Myers et al. (2003) identified two ecological zones (Coast Range
and Cascade) containing five historical demographically independent
populations in this subbasin: Kalama River, Mill Creek, Elochoman
River, Clatskanie River, and Scappoose River. The Elochoman River
population has been classified by the TRT as a ``core'' population,
i.e., historically abundant

[[Page 74603]]

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 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 Cowlitz Subbasin (HUC4# 17080005)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds, six of which are occupied
by this ESU and encompass approximately 1,102 sq mi (2,854 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 243
mi (391.1 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW,
2003). Myers et al. (2003) identified one ecological zone (Cascade)
containing a single historical demographically independent population
(Cowlitz River) of chum salmon in this subbasin. This population has
been classified by the TRT as a ``core'' population (i.e., historically
abundant and ``may offer the most likely path to recovery'') and a
genetic legacy population (i.e., one 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, forestry, roadbuilding, and
urbanization. Of the six watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in three were rated as having high and those in three were rated as
having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team
also noted that two watersheds (East Willapa and Coweeman River)
contained 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 6. Lower Columbia Subbasin (HUC4# 17080006)

This subbasin contains three watersheds, two of which (Grays Bay
and Big Creek) are occupied by this ESU and encompass approximately 304
sq mi (787.4 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW
and WDFW identify approximately 62 mi (99.8 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). The Team
received recent data from ODFW ( Turner, NMFS, personal communication)
indicating that the Big Creek watershed is occupied by this ESU, even
though ODFW data identifies these reaches as ``historically occupied.''
Myers et al. (2003) identified a single ecological zone (Coast Range)
containing three demographically independent populations in this
subbasin (Grays and Chinook Rivers, Youngs Bay, and Big Creek). The
Youngs Bay, Grays and Chinook Rivers, and Big Creek 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 Grays and Chinook
Rivers population as a genetic legacy population (i.e., one 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 wetland loss and removal.
The Team also concluded that habitat areas in both of the occupied
watersheds 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 7. 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 WDFW identify approximately 118 mi (189.9 km)
of occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this corridor (WDFW,
2003). 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. Other upstream reaches of the Columbia
River corridor (within Units 1 and 2 above) are also high value for
rearing/migration. 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.

Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon ESU

The Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake and streams and
tributaries flowing into Ozette Lake, Washington (64 FR 14528; March
25, 1999). We have proposed that two artificial propagation programs
also be considered part of this ESU (69 FR 133101; June 14, 2004): the
Umbrella Creek and Big River sockeye hatchery programs. The Puget Sound
TRT considers the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU to be comprised of one
historical population with multiple spawning aggregations.
Migration of adult sockeye salmon (typically 4-year-old fish) up
the Ozette River generally occurs from April to early August (WDFW et
al., 1993). High water temperatures in the lake and river and low water
flows in the summer may create a thermal block to migration and
influence timing of the sockeye salmon migration (LaRiviere, 1991).
Recorded water temperatures in late-July and August in the Ozette River
near the lake outlet have exceeded the temperature range over which
sockeye salmon are known to migrate (Gustafson et al., 1997).
Disjunct spawning times for fish at different beach spawning sites
within the lake suggest that Ozette Lake sockeye may be composed of
discrete subpopulations or spawning aggregations (Dlugokenski et al.,
1981). The primary existing spawning aggregations occur in two beach
locations, Allen's and Olsen's beaches, and in two tributaries,
Umbrella Creek and Big River. Both of the tributary spawning groups
were initiated through a hatchery introduction program. Spawning fish
are occasionally found in other tributaries and may occur at other
beach locations within the lake (Makah Fisheries, 2000). The extent to
which sockeye spawned historically in tributaries to the lake is
controversial (Gustafson et al., 1997), but it is clear that multiple
beach-spawning aggregations of sockeye occurred historically, and that
genetically distinct kokanee currently spawn in large numbers in all
surveyed lake tributaries

[[Page 74604]]

(except Umbrella Creek and Big River). During low water levels in
summer, much of the available beach spawning habitat may become exposed
(Bortleson and Dion, 1979).
Eggs and alevins reside beneath fine gravel/cobble generally from
1.3 to 10.2 cm in diameter (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979). Incubation is
temperature dependent and generally takes as little as 50 days (or
less) or more than 5 months (Hart, 1973). After hatching most juveniles
spend one winter in Ozette Lake rearing before outmigrating to the
ocean as 2-year-old fish during April and May (Dlugokenski et al.,
1981). Juvenile sockeye feed primarily on plankton and a variety of
terrestrial and aquatic insects (Hart, 1973; Scott and Crossman, 1973).
The fish typically spend 2 years in the northeast Pacific Ocean
foraging on zooplankton, squid, and, infrequently, on small fishes
(Scott and Crossman, 1973).
The Puget Sound Team's assessment for this ESU addressed habitat
areas in the one occupied watershed. The Team evaluated these habitat
areas on the basis of the physical and biological habitat requirements
of Ozette Lake sockeye 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. Ozette Lake Subbasin (HUC4# 17100101)

This subbasin includes a single watershed encompassing
approximately 101 sq mi (262 sq km), with Ozette Lake being the
dominant feature. Fish distribution and habitat use type data from WDFW
identify approximately 40 mi (64.4 km) of occupied riverine/estuarine
habitat in this watershed (WDFW, 2003). In addition, Ozette Lake covers
approximately 12 sq mi (31.1 sq km) and contains important spawning
beaches and rearing areas. The Team concluded that all of these
occupied areas contained PCEs, including spawning beaches, lake and
river rearing habitat, and river migration corridors (NMFS, 2004a).
Management activities that may affect PCEs in this watershed include,
but are not limited to, forestry and introduction of exotic invasive
plants. This watershed supports the one and only population
constituting this ESU; therefore, the Team concluded that the habitat
areas in this watershed warrant a high rating for conservation value to
the ESU. While the Team did not identify any unoccupied areas that may
be essential for this ESU, they did note that tributary streams near
lake spawning beaches may have a major influence on PCEs (e.g.,
sedimentation and substrate recruitment).

Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

The Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of anadromous O. mykiss in streams in the Columbia
River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-
Canada border (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). We have proposed that
resident populations of O. mykiss below impassible barriers (natural
and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations also be included
in the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004).
The ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually
man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, has not been
resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered
to be part of the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU until such time
that significant scientific information becomes available affording a
case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships. We have proposed
that six artificial propagation programs also be considered part of the
ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery
(in the Methow and Okanogan Rivers), Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the
Ringold O. mykiss hatchery programs.
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) did not identify separate
major ecological groupings strata for this ESU due to the relatively
small number of populations. Four populations are identified for the
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU: the Wenatchee River, Methow River,
Entiat River, and Okanogan Basin population.
Unlike Pacific salmon, O. mykiss are capable of spawning more than
once before death. However, it is rare for anadromous O. mykiss to
spawn more than twice before dying, and most that do so are females.
Anadromous O. mykiss can be divided into two basic run types based on
their level of sexual maturity at the time they enter fresh water and
the duration of the spawning migration. The stream-maturing type, or
summer run, enters fresh water in a sexually immature condition and
requires several months in fresh water to mature and spawn. The ocean-
maturing type, or winter run, enters fresh water with well-developed
gonads and spawns relatively shortly after river entry. Anadromous fish
in the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU are made up entirely of
summer O. mykiss.
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss spawn in cool, clear streams with
suitable gravel size, depth, and current velocity. They sometimes also
use smaller streams for spawning. Adult O. mykiss enter fresh water
between May and October. During summer and fall before spawning, they
hold in cool, deep pools. They migrate inland toward spawning areas,
overwinter in the larger rivers, resume migration to natal streams in
early spring, and then spawn. In general, adults in this ESU spawn
later than in most downstream populations--often remaining in fresh
water for a year before spawning.
Depending on water temperature, O. mykiss eggs may incubate for 1.5
to 4 months before hatching. Rearing takes place primarily in the
faster parts of pools, although young-of-the-year are abundant in
glides and riffles. Some older juveniles move downstream to rear in
larger tributaries and mainstem rivers. Productive O. mykiss habitat is
characterized by complexity--primarily in the form of large and small
wood. The dry habitat conditions in the Upper Columbia River are less
conducive to O. mykiss survival than in many other parts of the
Columbia River Basin. Although the life history of this ESU is similar
to that of other inland O. mykiss, smolt ages are some of the oldest on
the West Coast (up to 7 years old), probably due to the area's cold
water temperatures. The cold stream temperatures also lead to the
possibility that many fish in this ESU may be thermally-fated to a
resident (rainbow trout) life history regardless of whether they are
the progeny of resident or anadromous O. mykiss parents. Most current
natural production occurs in the Wenatchee and Methow River systems,
with a smaller run returning to the Entiat River. Very limited spawning
also occurs in the Okanagan River Basin. Most of the anadromous fish
spawning in natural production areas are of hatchery origin. The
limited data available indicate that anadromous O. mykiss smolts in
this ESU are dominated by 2-year-olds. It also appears that anadromous
O. mykiss from the Wenatchee and Entiat rivers return to fresh water
after 1 year in salt water, whereas those in the Methow River primarily
return after 2 years of ocean residence.
The Middle and Upper Columbia River Team's assessment for this ESU
addressed habitat areas within 31 occupied watersheds in 10 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 four populations in
the ESU.

[[Page 74605]]

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 O. mykiss, 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). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (Methow River and Okanogan
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, dams, fire activity and disturbance, forestry,
grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of
the three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in one were
rated as having medium and those in two were rated as having low
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that the
Upper Columbia/Swamp watershed contains a high value migration corridor
for the Methow River and Okanogan River populations, connecting
upstream 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 2. Okanogan Subbasin (HUC4# 17020006)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 2,650 sq mi (6,863 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 131 mi (210.8 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the watershed (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Okanogan 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, mineral mining, and
roadbuilding. Of the five watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat
areas in two were rated as having high and those in three 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 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. Similkameen Subbasin (HUC4# 17020007)

This subbasin contains four watersheds, one of which (Lower
Similkameen River) is occupied by the ESU. This watershed encompasses
approximately 69 sq mi (179 sq km); other historically occupied areas
in this subbasin are now blocked by Enloe Dam. Fish distribution and
habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) of
occupied riverine habitat in the watershed (WDFW, 2003). The Interior
Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent
population (Okanogan 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, dams, forestry, grazing, and
roadbuilding. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in the Lower
Similkameen River watershed warrant a high rating for conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also believed that
historically occupied areas upstream of Enloe Dam may be essential for
the conservation of the ESU. The Team noted that a recent report
describing habitat and fish conditions in this subbasin (Talayco, 2002)
observed that Enloe Dam blocks access to more than 95 percent of the
potential anadromous fish habitat in the Similkameen River and that
there is ``significant potential for increasing spawning and rearing
habitat available to anadromous fish in this subbasin by addressing
passage barriers such as Enloe Dam.'' This report also noted that
``recently there has been interest in relicensing the Enloe Dam, and
fish passage alternatives are being investigated.'' Therefore, the Team
concluded that the ESU would likely benefit if the extant population
had access to spawning/rearing habitat upstream. We seek comment on
whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 4. 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 216 mi (347.6 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 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. Lake Chelan Subbasin (HUC4# 17020009)

This subbasin contains two watersheds, one of which (Lower Chelan)
is occupied by the ESU and encompasses approximately 262 sq mi (679 sq
km). Most of the stream reaches in this watershed are above the Lake
Chelan gorge and were likely historically inaccessible to anadromous
fish. Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
lowermost reach of this watershed (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) did not associate a demographically independent
population with this subbasin but Kaputa (2002) noted that a priority
management goal for the Chelan River is to provide spawning and rearing
habitat for O. mykiss in area near the confluence with the Columbia
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,
fire activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, and roadbuilding. The
Team also concluded that habitat areas in the Lower Chelan watershed
warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,

[[Page 74606]]

2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin
that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 6. Upper Columbia/Entiat Subbasin (HUC4# 17020010)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 1,491 sq mi (3,862 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 185 mi (298 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). All four demographically
independent populations in this ESU (Okanogan River, Methow River,
Entiat River, and Wenatchee River) occupy this subbasin (ICBTRT, 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, fire
activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments
and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the four watersheds reviewed by
the Team, habitat areas in three were rated as having high and those in
one were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Team also noted that the Lake Entiat watershed contains a
high value rearing and migration corridor connecting high value
upstream watersheds 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. 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 242 mi (390 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 four 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. Moses Coulee Subbasin (HUC4# 17020012)

This subbasin contains two watersheds, one of which (Rattlesnake
Creek) is occupied by the ESU and encompasses approximately 218 sq mi
(565 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) did not
associate a demographically independent population with 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, grazing, and irrigation impoundments. The
Team also concluded that habitat areas in the occupied watershed
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. Lower Crab Subbasin (HUC4# 17020015)

This subbasin contains two watersheds, only one of which (Lower
Crab Creek) is occupied by the ESU and encompasses approximately 400 sq
mi (1,036 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW
identified very little occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW,
2003). However, the Team concluded that this was inaccurate and cited
distribution information in Quinn (2001) that O. mykiss likely spawn
further upstream in Crab Creek. The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
did not associate a demographically independent population with 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, grazing, and irrigation impoundments and
withdrawals. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in the Lower
Crab Creek watershed 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 10. Upper Columbia/Priest Rapids Subbasin (HUC4# 17020016)

This subbasin contains four watersheds, three of which are occupied
by the ESU and encompass approximately 929 sq mi (2,406 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 113
mi (182 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003).
All four demographically independent populations identified by the
Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) occupy 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, fire
activity and disturbance, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments
and withdrawals, and roadbuilding. Of the three watersheds reviewed by
the Team, all were rated as having high conservation value to the ESU
(NMFS, 2004a). The Team also noted that these watersheds also 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 11. 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 the confluence of the Yakima and Columbia rivers
downstream to the Pacific Ocean. This confluence is located in the
Columbia River/Zintel Canyon 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 330 mi (531 km) of occupied riverine and
estuarine habitat in this corridor (WDFW, 2003). 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
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).

[[Page 74607]]

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

Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU

The Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of anadromous O. mykiss in streams in the Snake River Basin
of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho (62 FR 43937;
August 18, 1997). We have proposed that resident populations of O.
mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur
with anadromous populations also be included in the Snake River Basin
O. mykiss ESU. The ESU membership of native resident populations above
recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural
barriers, has not been resolved. These resident populations are
provisionally not considered to be part of the Snake River Basin O.
mykiss ESU until such time that significant scientific information
becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU
relationships. Recent genetic data suggest that native resident O.
mykiss above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River are part
of this ESU. We have proposed that native resident O. mykiss
populations above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River be
considered part of the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU. Hatchery
rainbow trout that have been introduced to the Clearwater River and
other areas within the ESU are not considered part of the ESU. We have
proposed that six artificial propagation programs be considered part of
the ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004): the Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH,
Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater, East Fork Salmon River, and the
Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery O. mykiss hatchery programs.
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (ICBTRT, 2003) has identified 6
``major groupings'' of populations in the Snake River Basin O. mykiss
ESU. The groupings are based on similarities in genetic distances,
distances between spawning aggregates, life history, and habitat or
environmental considerations. Recovery planning will likely emphasize
the need for a geographical distribution of viable populations across
the range of such regions in an ESU (Ruckelshaus et al., 2002; McElhany
et al., 2003; McClure, 2004 [pers comm.]).
The Snake River O. mykiss ESU is distributed throughout the Snake
River drainage system, including tributaries in southeast Washington,
eastern Oregon and north/central Idaho. Snake River O. mykiss migrate a
substantial distance from the ocean (up to 930 mi (1,497 km)) and use
high elevation tributaries (typically 3,300-6,600 ft; 1,005.8-2,011.7
m) above sea level) for spawning and juvenile rearing. Snake River O.
mykiss occupy habitat that is considerably warmer and drier (on an
annual basis) than other O. mykiss ESUs.
Snake River Basin O. mykiss are generally classified as summer run,
based on their adult run timing patterns. Summer O. mykiss enter the
Columbia River from late June to October. After holding over the
winter, summer O. mykiss spawn during the following spring (March to
May). Managers classify up-river summer O. mykiss runs into two groups
based primarily on ocean age and adult size upon return to the Columbia
River. Those classified as A-run O. mykiss are predominately age-1
ocean fish, while B-run O. mykiss are larger, predominately age-2 ocean
fish.
With one exception (the Tucannon River production area), the
tributary habitat used by Snake River O. mykiss ESU is above Lower
Granite Dam. Major groupings of populations and/or subpopulations can
be found in: (1) the Lower Snake River tributaries; (2) the Imnaha
River drainage; (3) the Grande Ronde River system; (4) the Hells Canyon
tributaries; (5) the Clearwater River drainages; and (6) the Salmon
River drainages. Resident O. mykiss are believed to be present in many
of the drainages used by Snake River basin O. mykiss. Very little is
known about interactions between co-occurring resident and anadromous
forms within this ESU (NMFS, 2003).
The Snake River Basin Team's assessment for this ESU addressed
habitat areas within 271 occupied watersheds in 25 associated subbasins
(identified below as ``units'' with unique HUC4 numbers) as well as the
lower Snake/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 six major groupings
identified by the TRT for this ESU. The Team evaluated the conservation
value of habitat areas, on the basis of the physical and biological
habitat requirements of Snake River Basin O. mykiss, 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. Hells Canyon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060101)

This subbasin contains three watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 541 sq mi (1,401 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
identify approximately 152 mi (245 km) of occupied riverine habitat in
the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
determined that although the streams in this subbasin are
geographically separated from other major spawning areas, none of these
tributaries appears to be large enough to support an independent
population. However, the Team determined that maintaining this area may
be important for ESU viability or other conservation goals. 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 grazing and dams. Of the
three watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in all were rated
as having high conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team
also noted that the northern end of the subbasin provides rearing and
migration habitat for the Imnaha River population. The Team did not
identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential
for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 2. Imnaha River Subbasin (HUC4# 17060102)

This subbasin contains five watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 851 sq mi (2,204 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 357 mi (575 km)
of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003). The
Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Imnaha 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 forestry, fire activity
and disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals,
roads, 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

[[Page 74608]]

may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 3. Lower Snake/Asotin Subbasin (HUC4# 17060103)

This subbasin contains three watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 704 sq mi (1,823 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW, WDFW, USFS, BLM, and IDFG identify
approximately 196 mi (315 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
identified three demographically independent populations (Asotin Creek,
Lower Grande Ronde, and Little Salmon and Lower Salmon tributaries)
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, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and
withdrawals, urbanization, and exotic/invasive species introductions.
Of the three 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 4. Upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin (HUC4# 17060104)

This subbasin contains eleven watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,637 sq mi (4,240 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 789 mi (1,270 km)
of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003). The
Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Upper Grande Ronde 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,
channel modifications/diking, forestry, fire activity and disturbance,
grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, road
building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the 11 watersheds reviewed
by the Team, habitat areas in 9 were rated as having high and those in
2 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 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 5. Wallowa River Subbasin (HUC4# 17060105)

This subbasin contains six watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 954 sq mi (2,471 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 265 mi (427 km)
of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003). The
Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Wallowa 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, channel
modifications/diking, forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and
withdrawals, mineral mining, road building/maintenance, and
urbanization. Of the six watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in five were rated as having high, and those in one were rated as
having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team
noted that the Middle Wallowa River watershed contains 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 6. Lower Grande Ronde Subbasin (HUC4# 17060106)

This subbasin contains seven watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,518 sq mi (3,932 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from ODFW and WDFW identify approximately 576 mi
(927 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW, 2003;
WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (Lower Grande Ronde River and
Joseph Creek) 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 forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and
withdrawals, road building/maintenance, river traffic, and exotic/
invasive species introductions. The Team also concluded that all of the
habitat areas in these seven watersheds 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 7. Lower Snake/Tucannon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060107)

This subbasin contains eight watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,458 sq mi (3,777 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 325 mi (523 km)
of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). The
Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two demographically
independent populations (Asotin Creek and Tucannon 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, channel modifications/diking, hydroelectric dams,
forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, road
building/maintenance, recreational facilities and activities, river
traffic, and exotic/invasive species introductions. Of the eight
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as
having high, those in two were rated as having medium, and those in
four were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Team noted that one of the watersheds with habitat areas
having a medium overall rating (Snake River/Penawawa Creek) and one
with low overall ratings (Snake River/Steptoe Canyon ) contain a high
value rearing and migration corridor connecting high value upstream
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 8. Palouse River Subbasin (HUC4# 17060108)

This subbasin contains one watershed that is occupied by this ESU.
The occupied watershed encompasses approximately 199 sq mi (515 sq km).
Fish distribution and habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately
8 mi (13 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW,
2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) did not identify a
demographically independent population occupying this subbasin.
However, the Team determined that this area may provide

[[Page 74609]]

spawning habitats during years of high abundance or favorable habitat
conditions. Additionally, 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 hydroelectric dams. The Team also concluded
that habitat areas in the Lower Palouse River watershed 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. Upper Salmon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060201)

This subbasin contains 27 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 2,119 sq mi (5,488 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG, and USFS identify approximately
551 mi (887 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS,
2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (Upper Mainstem Salmon River
and East Fork Salmon 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, channel modifications/diking,
forestry, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral
mining, road building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the 27
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in 20 were rated as
having high, those in six were rated as having medium, and those in one
were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a).
The Team noted that three of the watersheds with habitat areas having
medium overall ratings (Salmon River/Kinnikinic Creek, Salmon River/
Slate Creek, Yankee Fork/Jordan Creek) contain a 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 10. Pahsimeroi Subbasin (HUC4# 17060202)

This subbasin contains seven watersheds, three of which are
currently occupied by this ESU. The occupied watersheds encompass
approximately 376 sq mi (974 sq km) ; other historically occupied areas
in this subbasin are now blocked by irrigation impoundments and low
stream flows due to irrigation withdrawals. Fish distribution and
habitat use data from BLM, IDFG, and USFS identify approximately 51 mi
(82 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
In addition, the Team identified 83 mi (134 km) of unoccupied riverine
habitat that may be essential for conservation of the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one
demographically independent population (Pahsimeroi 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, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral
mining, and road building/maintenance. Of the three occupied 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 also believed that historically occupied
areas within three watersheds (Big Creek, Pahsimeroi River/Goldberg
Creek, Upper Pahsimeroi River) may be essential for the conservation of
the ESU. We seek comment on whether these areas should be proposed as
critical habitat.

Unit 11. Middle Salmon-Panther Subbasin (HUC4# 17060203)

This subbasin contains 23 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,821 sq mi (4,716 sq km) and 1,987 mi (3,198
km) of streams. Fish distribution and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG,
and USFS identify approximately 340 mi (547 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin
TRT (2003) identified four demographically independent populations
(Lemhi River, North Fork Salmon River, Pahsimeroi River, Panther Creek)
within 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, hydroelectric dams, forestry, grazing,
irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, road building/
maintenance, and urbanization. Of the 23 watersheds reviewed by the
Team, habitat areas in 16 were rated as having high, those in 6 were
rated as having medium, and those in one were rated as having low
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that two of
the watersheds with habitat areas having medium overall ratings
(Panther Creek/Trail Creek and Salmon River/Williams Creek) contain a
migration corridor connecting high value habitat areas upstream
watersheds 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 12. Lemhi Subbasin (HUC4# 17060204)

This subbasin contains 14 watersheds, 10 of which are currently
occupied by this ESU. The occupied watersheds in this subbasin
encompass approximately 862 sq mi (2,233 sq km). Fish distribution and
habitat use data from BLM, IDFG, and USFS identify approximately 112 mi
(180 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
In addition to the occupied riverine habitat, the Team determined that
there are 191 mi (307 km) of unoccupied riverine habitat that may be
essential for conservation of the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). These segments of
unoccupied riverine habitat are found within both occupied and
unoccupied watersheds. The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
identified one demographically independent population (Lemhi 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 channel modifications/diking, grazing, irrigation
impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, and road building/
maintenance. Of the 10 watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in 9 watersheds were rated as having high and those in 1 watershed were
rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The
Team also believed that historically occupied areas within four
watersheds (Big Timber Creek, Eighteen Mile Creek, Hawley Creek, Texas
Creek) may be essential for the conservation of the ESU. We seek
comment on whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 13. Upper Middle Fork Salmon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060205)

This subbasin contains 13 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,506 sq mi (3,901 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from IDFG and USFS identify approximately 572 mi
(921 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified

[[Page 74610]]

two demographically independent populations (Upper Middle Fork Salmon
River and Lower Middle Fork Salmon 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 fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral
mining, and road building/maintenance. The Team rated all of the
habitat areas in these watersheds 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. Lower Middle Fork Salmon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060206)

This subbasin contains 17 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,373 sq mi (3,556 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from IDFG and USFS identify approximately 340 mi
(547 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Lower Middle Fork Salmon 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 fire activity
and disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals,
mineral mining, recreational facilities and activities, and road
building/maintenance. The Team rated all of the habitat areas in these
watersheds 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 15. Middle Salmon-Chamberlain Subbasin (HUC4# 17060207)

This subbasin contains 19 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,715 sq mi (4,442 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG, and USFS identify approximately
402 mi (647 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS,
2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (Chamberlain Creek and Panther
Creek) 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 forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing, irrigation
impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, and road building/
maintenance. Of the 19 watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in 14 were rated as having high, those in 3 were rated as having
medium, and those in 2 were rated as having low conservation value to
the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also noted that the watersheds with
habitat areas having medium overall ratings 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 16. South Fork Salmon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060208)

This subbasin contains 15 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,313 sq mi (3,401 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG, and USFS identify approximately
410 mi (660 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS,
2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (South Fork Salmon River and
Secesh 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 irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral
mining, and road building/maintenance. The Team rated all of the
habitat areas in these 15 watersheds 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 17. Lower Salmon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060209)

This subbasin contains 17 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,179 sq mi (3,054 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG, and USFS identify approximately
317 mi (510 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS,
2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (Chamberlain Creek and Little
Salmon and Lower Salmon tributaries) 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, forestry,
fire activity and disturbance, grazing, mineral mining, road building/
maintenance, and urbanization. Of the 17 watersheds reviewed by the
Team, habitat areas in 12 were rated as having high, and those in 5 as
having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team
noted that two of the watersheds with habitat areas having medium
overall ratings (Salmon River/Hammer Creek and Salmon River/Van Creek)
contain a 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 18. Little Salmon Subbasin (HUC4# 17060210)

This subbasin contains seven watersheds, five of which are occupied
by this ESU. The occupied watersheds encompass approximately 406 sq mi
(1,052 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG,
and USFS identify approximately 101 mi (163 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin
TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Little Salmon and Lower Salmon tributaries) 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,
hydroelectric dams, forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing,
road building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the five watersheds
reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in two were rated as having high
and those in three were rated as having medium conservation value to
the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that one of the watersheds (Lower
Little Salmon River) with habitat areas having medium overall value
contains 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 19. Upper Selway Subbasin (HUC4# 17060301)

This subbasin contains nine watersheds occupied by this ESU and

[[Page 74611]]

encompasses approximately 983 sq mi (2,546 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from IDFG and USFS identify approximately 314 mi
(505 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Selway 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 fire activity and
disturbance. All of the habitat areas in the watersheds reviewed by the
Team 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 20. Lower Selway Subbasin (HUC4# 17060302)

This subbasin contains 14 watersheds, 13 of which are occupied by
this ESU. The occupied watersheds encompass approximately 1,005 sq mi
(2,603 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from IDFG and
USFS identify approximately 242 mi (390 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin
TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Selway 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 forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing, and
road building/maintenance. All of the habitat areas in watersheds
reviewed by the Team 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 21. Lochsa Subbasin (HUC4# 17060303)

This subbasin contains 14 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,178 sq mi (3,051 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from IDFG and USFS identify approximately 277 mi
(446 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Lochsa 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 forestry, fire activity
and disturbance, and road building and maintenance. All of the habitat
areas in watersheds reviewed by the Team 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 22. Middle Fork Clearwater Subbasin (HUC4# 17060304)

This subbasin contains two watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 217 sq mi (562 sq km). Fish distribution and
habitat use data from BLM, IDFG and USFS identify approximately 80 mi
(129 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a).
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (Lower Clearwater 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,
forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing, road building/
maintenance, and urbanization. The Team rated habitat areas in both of
the watersheds within this subbasin 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 23. South Fork Clearwater Subbasin (HUC4# 17060305)

This subbasin contains 13 watersheds occupied by this ESU and
encompasses approximately 1,176 sq mi (3,046 sq km). Fish distribution
and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG and USFS identify approximately 406
mi (653 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (NMFS,
2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two
demographically independent populations (South Fork Clearwater River
and Lower Clearwater 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, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, mineral mining, road building/maintenance, and
urbanization. Of the 13 watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in 8 watersheds were rated as having high, those in 3 were rated as
having medium, and those in 2 were rated as having low conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that two of the
watersheds with habitat areas having medium value and one of the
watersheds with habitat areas having low value contain a high value
rearing and migration corridor connecting high value upstream 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 24. Clearwater Subbasin (HUC4# 17060306)

This subbasin contains 31 watersheds, 26 of which are occupied by
this ESU. The occupied watersheds encompass approximately 2,046 sq mi
(5,299 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from BLM, IDFG
and USFS identify approximately 425 mi (684 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the watersheds (NMFS, 2004a). The Interior Columbia Basin
TRT (2003) identified two demographically independent populations (Lolo
Creek and Lower Clearwater) 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, hydroelectric dams, forestry,
fire activity and disturbance, grazing, mineral mining, road building/
maintenance, and urbanization. Of the 26 watersheds reviewed by the
Team, habitat areas in 14 watersheds were rated as having high, those
in 9 were rated as having medium, and those in 3 were rated as having
low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that
five of the watersheds with habitat areas having medium value and two
watersheds with habitat areas having low value contain a high value
rearing and migration corridor connecting high value upstream 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 25. Lower North Fork Clearwater Subbasin (HUC4# 17060308)

This subbasin contains 12 watersheds, one of which is occupied by
the anadromous life history type of this ESU. The occupied watershed
encompasses approximately 81 sq mi (210 sq km). Fish distribution and
habitat use data from IDFG and USFS identify approximately 2 mi (3.2
km) of occupied riverine habitat in the lowermost watershed of the
subbasin (NMFS, 2004a). The fish in the occupied habitat are part of
the Lower Clearwater

[[Page 74612]]

River population (ICBTRT, 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, hydroelectric dams, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, and road building and maintenance. The Team rated the
habitat areas in the Lower North Fork Clearwater River watershed as
having a low conservation value for the ESU. In addition, the Team also
considered whether historically occupied areas of this subbasin (and
the upstream subbasin--Upper North Fork Clearwater) above Dworshak Dam
are essential for ESU conservation. Although many areas are now
inundated, the Team concluded that most of the blocked watersheds are
still in good condition. The Team also noted that the Interior Columbia
Basin TRT identified these areas as part of a historically independent
population and underscored that the resident O. mykiss above Dworshak
Dam are genetically unique relative to other O. mykiss in the
Clearwater Basin. A recently completed status review update of this ESU
(NMFS, 2003) noted that ``recent genetic data suggest that native
resident O. mykiss above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater
should be considered part of this ESU, but hatchery rainbow trout that
have been introduced to that and other areas would not.'' Given these
considerations, the Team concluded that these blocked watersheds may be
essential for ESU conservation, but it was uncertain which specific
areas within them may warrant consideration as critical habitat. We
seek comment on whether these areas should be proposed as critical habitat.

Unit 26. Lower Snake/Columbia River corridor

Unit 26 consists of the migration corridor that begins in Southeast
Washington immediately downstream of the confluence of the Snake River
with the Palouse River. The corridor includes approximately 378 mi (608
km) of the Lower Snake and Columbia rivers. Watersheds downstream of
the Palouse River are outside of the spawning range of this ESU and
likely used in a limited way as juvenile rearing habitat for this ESU.
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 Snake/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
by rearing/migrating juveniles and migrating adults. The Columbia River
estuary also contains PCEs and 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 (Marriot et
al., 2002).

Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

The Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of anadromous O. mykiss in streams from above the
Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive),
upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, Washington, excluding O.
mykiss from the Snake River basin (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999). We
have proposed that resident populations of O. mykiss below impassible
barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous
populations also be included in the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
(69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004). The ESU membership of native resident
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but
below natural barriers, has not been resolved. These resident
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Middle
Columbia River O. mykiss ESU until such time that significant
scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case
evaluation of their ESU relationships. We have proposed that seven
artificial propagation programs be considered part of the ESU (69 FR
33101; June 14, 2004): the Touchet River Endemic, Yakima River Kelt
Reconditioning Program (in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River,
and Upper Yakima River), Umatilla River, and the Deschutes River O.
mykiss hatchery programs.
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (ICBTRT, 2003) has identified 16
extant demographically independent populations: the Fifteenmile Creek,
Deschutes River--westside, Deschutes River--eastside, John Day River
lower mainstem tributaries, South Fork John Day River, John Day River
upper mainstem, Middle Fork John Day River, North Fork John Day River,
Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Touchet River, Rock Creek, Klickitat
River, Toppenish and Satus Creeks, Naches River, and Yakima River upper
mainstem populations. The historical White Salmon River population was
extirpated with the construction of Condit Dam. The TRT arranged these
populations into four major groups in this recovery planning area: (1)
Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries, (2) John Day River, (3) Umatilla
and Walla Walla Rivers, and (4) Yakima River. A fifth unaffiliated
group consists of at least the Rock Creek drainage (Washington) to the
mid-Columbia River. These groupings are based on the proximity of major
drainages, distances between spawning aggregations, topography, and
genetic and ecological characteristics. Recovery planning will likely
emphasize the need for a geographical distribution of viable
populations across the range of population groupings (also called
``strata'') in an ESU (Ruckelshaus et al., 2002; McElhany et al., 2003).
Unlike Pacific salmon, O. mykiss are capable of spawning more than
once before death. However, it is rare for O. mykiss to spawn more than
twice before dying, and most that do so are females. O. mykiss can be
divided into two basic run types based on their level of sexual
maturity at the time they enter fresh water and the duration of the
spawning migration. The stream-maturing type, or summer O. mykiss,
enters fresh water in a sexually immature condition and requires
several months in fresh water to mature and spawn. The ocean-maturing
type, or winter O. mykiss, enters fresh water with well-developed
gonads and spawns relatively shortly after river entry. Anadromous fish
in the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU are predominantly summer-run
fish, but winter-run fish are found in the Klickitat River in
Washington, and Fifteenmile Creek in Oregon.
Both types of O. mykiss spawn in cool, clear streams with suitable
gravel size, depth, and current velocity. They sometimes also use
smaller streams for spawning. Summer-run fish enter fresh water between
May and October. During summer and fall before spawning, they hold in
cool, deep pools. They migrate inland toward spawning areas, overwinter
in the larger rivers, resume migration to natal streams in early
spring, and then spawn. Winter-run fish enter fresh water between
November and April in the Pacific Northwest, migrate to spawning areas,
and then spawn in late winter or spring. Depending on water
temperature, O. mykiss eggs may incubate for 1.5 to 4 months before
hatching. Summer rearing takes place primarily in the faster parts of
pools, although young-of-the-year are abundant in glides and riffles.
Winter rearing occurs more uniformly at lower densities across a wide
range of fast and slow habitat types. Some older juveniles move
downstream to rear in larger tributaries and mainstem rivers.
Productive O. mykiss habitat is characterized by complexity, primarily
in the form of large and small wood.

[[Page 74613]]

Most anadromous O. mykiss in this ESU smolt at 2 years and spend 1
to 2 years in salt water before re-entering fresh water, where they may
remain for up to a year before spawning. Age-2-ocean fish dominate the
summer run in the Klickitat River, whereas most other rivers with
summer-run fish produce about equal numbers of both age-1- and 2-ocean
fish. Juvenile life-history stages (i.e., eggs, alevins, fry, and parr)
inhabit freshwater/riverine areas throughout the range of the ESU. Parr
usually undergo a smolt transformation as 2-year-olds, at which time
they migrate to the ocean. Subadults and adults forage in coastal and
offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean before returning to spawn in
their natal streams. An inland form of resident O. mykiss (redband
trout) co-occurs with the anadromous form in this ESU, and juvenile
life stages of the two forms can be very difficult to differentiate. In
addition, hatchery O. mykiss are also distributed throughout the range
of this ESU (except for the John Day subbasin).
The Middle and Upper Columbia River Team's assessment of this ESU
addressed habitat areas within 111 occupied watersheds in 15 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 five major
groupings identified by the TRT for this ESU. The Team evaluated the
conservation value of habitat areas on the basis of the physical and
biological habitat requirements of Middle Columbia River O. mykiss,
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. Upper Yakima (HUC4# 17030001)

The subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 2,139 sq mi (5,540 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 284 mi (457 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Upper Yakima 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, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral
mining, road building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the four
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in three were rated as
having high conservation value and those in one were rated as having
medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team noted that
the Umtanum/Wenas watershed contains a high value migration corridor
connecting high value habitat areas in upstream watersheds with
downstream reaches and the ocean. The Team also concluded that several
historically occupied areas in this subbasin may be essential for ESU
conservation, including upper reaches in Wilson and Naneum creeks
(Middle Upper Yakima River watershed) and areas upstream of Cle Elum,
Kacheelus, and Kachess dams (Upper Yakima River watershed). These dams
block substantial amounts of historical habitat and the Team noted that
areas above them were historically important nursery/rearing areas for
this ESU and that habitat conditions are still in generally good
condition. 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 2. Naches (HUC4# 17030002)

The subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 1,105 sq mi (2,862 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from the WDFW identify approximately 230 mi (370 km) of
occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior
Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent
population (Naches 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, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and road
building/maintenance. Habitat areas in all of the watersheds reviewed
by the Team were rated as having a high conservation value to the ESU
(NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded that two historically occupied
areas in this subbasin may be essential for ESU conservation, including
reaches blocked by Bumping Lake Dam in the Little Naches River
watershed and reaches above Tieton Dam in the Naches/Tieton River
watershed. The Team noted that areas above both dams were historically
important nursery/rearing areas for this ESU and that habitat
conditions are in generally good condition. 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 3. Lower Yakima (HUC4# 17030003)

The subbasin contains seven occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 2,903 sq mi (7,519 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 574 mi (924 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified two demographically independent populations
(Naches River and Satus and Toppenish Creeks) 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, channel
modifications/diking, forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing,
irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral mining, road building/
maintenance, and urbanization. Of the seven watersheds reviewed by the
Team, habitat areas in four were rated as having high and those in
three were rated as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Team also concluded that the watersheds with habitat areas
having a medium overall rating contain a high value rearing and
migration corridor connecting high value habitat areas in upstream
watersheds 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. Middle Columbia/Lake Wallula (HUC4# 17070101)

The subbasin contains 14 watersheds, 10 of which are occupied by
the ESU; 5 of these consist solely of a Columbia River rearing/
migration corridor. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 2,089
sq mi (5,410 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW
and WDFW identify approximately 155 mi (249 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). Seven of the 16
demographically independent O. mykiss populations in this ESU
identified by the Interior

[[Page 74614]]

Columbia Basin TRT (2003) occupy Columbia River reaches within this
subbasin. However, only one of these (Rock Creek, an unaffiliated
independent population) is known to spawn here. 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, hydroelectric dams, forestry, fire
activity and disturbance, grazing, road building/maintenance, and
urbanization. Of the 10 watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in 7 were rated as having high and those in 3 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. Walla Walla (HUC4# 17070102)

The subbasin contains 11 watersheds, 9 of which are occupied by the
ESU. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 1,525 sq mi (3,950 sq
km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW and WDFW identify
approximately 531 mi (855 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT
(2003) identified two demographically independent populations (Walla
Walla River and Touchet 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, channel
modifications/diking, hydroelectric dams, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, road
building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the nine watersheds reviewed
by the Team, habitat areas in five were rated as having high, those in
three as having medium, and those in one were rated as having low
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded
that while the tributary habitat areas in some of the watersheds were
of medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a), the watersheds
still contain a high value rearing and migration corridor connecting
high value habitat areas in upstream watersheds 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 6. Umatilla (HUC4# 17070103)

The subbasin contains 13 watersheds, 10 of which are occupied by
the ESU. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 1,828 sq mi (4,734
sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 419 mi (674 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
identified one demographically independent population (Umatilla 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, channel modifications/diking, forestry, fire
activity and disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and
withdrawals, road building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the 10
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in 6 were rated as
having high, those in 1 as having medium, and those in 3 were rated as
having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also
concluded that while the tributary habitat areas in one of the
watersheds was of medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a),
the watershed still contains a high value rearing and migration
corridor connecting high value habitat areas in upstream watersheds
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. Middle Columbia/Hood (HUC4# 17070105)

This subbasin contains 13 watersheds, 8 of which are occupied by
this ESU. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 1,461 sq mi
(3,784 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW and
WDFW identify approximately 272 mi (438 km) of occupied riverine
habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). The Interior
Columbia Basin TRT (2003) identified two demographically independent
populations (Klickitat River and Fifteenmile Creek) 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,
channel modifications/diking, hydroelectric dams, forestry, fire
activity and disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and
withdrawals, road building/maintenance, river traffic, and
urbanization. Of the eight watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat
areas in three were rated as having high, those in four as medium, and
those in one were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU
(NMFS, 2004a). The Team also concluded that while the tributary habitat
areas in two watersheds were of low and medium conservation value to
the ESU (NMFS, 2004a), these watersheds still contain a high value
Columbia River rearing and migration corridor connecting high value
habitat areas in upstream watersheds 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. Klickitat (HUC4# 17070106)

This subbasin contains four occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 1,351 sq mi (3,499 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 216 mi (348 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (WDFW, 2003). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Klickitat 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, forestry, fire activity and disturbance,
grazing, and road building/maintenance. The Team concluded that habitat
areas in all of the watersheds in this subbasin are of 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. Upper John Day (HUC4# 17070201)

This subbasin contains 15 watersheds, 14 of which are occupied by
this ESU. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 1,991 sq mi
(5,157 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW
identify approximately 799 mi (1,286 km) of occupied riverine habitat
in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
identified three demographically independent populations (South Fork
John Day, Lower Mainstem John Day, Upper Mainstem John Day) occupying
this subbasin. The Team concluded that all occupied areas contain
spawning, rearing, or migration PCEs for this ESU and identified
several management

[[Page 74615]]

activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel
modifications/diking, forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing,
irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, road building/maintenance and
urbanization. Of the 13 watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas
in 12 watersheds were rated as having high and those in 1 were rated as
having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team
also noted that the Fields Creek watershed contains a high value
rearing and migration corridor connecting high value habitat areas in
upstream watersheds 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 10. North Fork John Day (HUC4# 17070202)

This subbasin contains 10 occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 1,849 sq mi (4,789 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from ODFW identify approximately 931 mi (1,498 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified two demographically independent populations
(North Fork John Day and Middle Fork John Day) 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, forestry,
fire activity and disturbance, grazing, mineral mining, and road
building/maintenance. Of the 10 watersheds reviewed by the Team,
habitat areas in 9 were rated as having high and those in 1 were rated
as having medium conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team
also noted that the Lower North Fork John Day River watershed contains
a high value rearing and migration corridor connecting high value
habitat areas in upstream watersheds 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 11. Middle Fork John Day (HUC4# 17070203)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 792 sq mi (2,051 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from ODFW identify approximately 387 mi (623 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Middle Fork John Day) 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, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, mineral
mining, and road building/maintenance. Of the five watersheds reviewed
by the Team, habitat areas in four were rated as having high and those
in one were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Team also noted that the Lower Middle Fork John Day River
watershed contains a high value rearing and migration corridor
connecting high value habitat areas in upstream watersheds 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 12. Lower John Day (HUC4# 17070204)

This subbasin contains 14 occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 3,155 sq mi (8,171 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from ODFW identify approximately 829 mi (1,334 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia
Basin TRT (2003) identified one demographically independent population
(Lower Mainstem John Day) 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, forestry, fire activity and
disturbance, grazing, irrigation impoundments and withdrawals, and road
building/maintenance. Of the 14 watersheds reviewed by the Team,
habitat areas in 7 were rated as having high, those in 4 were rated as
having medium, and those in 3 were rated as having low conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also noted that the three low
value watersheds contain a high value rearing and migration corridor
connecting high value habitat areas in upstream watersheds 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 13. Lower Deschutes (HUC4# 17070306)

This subbasin contains 12 watersheds, 9 of which are occupied by
this ESU. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 1,891 sq mi
(4,898 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW
identify approximately 357 mi (575 km) of occupied riverine habitat in
the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
identified two demographically independent populations (Deschutes River
Westside Tributaries and Deschutes River Eastside Tributaries)
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, channel modifications/diking, hydroelectric
dams, forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing, mineral mining,
road building/maintenance, and urbanization. Of the nine watersheds
reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in eight were rated as having high
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 14. Trout (HUC4# 17070307)

This subbasin contains five watersheds, four of which are occupied
by this ESU. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 554 sq mi
(1,435 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW
identify approximately 116 mi (187 km) of occupied riverine habitat in
the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). The Interior Columbia Basin TRT (2003)
identified one demographically independent population (Deschutes River
Eastside Tributaries) 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, channel modifications/diking,
forestry, fire activity and disturbance, grazing, irrigation
impoundments and withdrawals, and road building/maintenance. Of the
four 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
one were rated as having low conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas

[[Page 74616]]

in this subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 15. Upper Columbia/Priest Rapids (HUC4# 17020016)

This subbasin contains four watersheds, only one of which (Columbia
River/Zintel Canyon) is occupied by the ESU. The occupied watershed
encompasses approximately 211 sq mi (546 sq km). Fish distribution and
habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 13 mi (21 km) of
occupied riverine habitat in the subbasin consisting of the Columbia
River downstream of its confluence with the Yakima River (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 agriculture,
hydroelectric dams, fire activity and disturbance, road building/
maintenance, and urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat
areas in the Columbia River/Zintel Canyon 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. 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 the confluence of the Wind and Columbia Rivers downstream
to the Pacific Ocean. This confluence is located at the downstream
boundary of the Middle Columbia/Grays Creek 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 ODFW and WDFW identify approximately 151 mi (243 km) of
occupied riverine and estuarine habitat in this corridor (ODFW,
2003a,b; WDFW, 2003). 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 Columbia River corridor was of
high conservation value to the ESU. The Team noted that this corridor
connects habitat areas in 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, dams, irrigation impoundments
and withdrawals, roadbuilding, river/estuary traffic, roadbuilding,
urbanization, and wetland loss and removal. The Team did not identify
any unoccupied areas in this subbasin that may be essential for the
conservation of the ESU.

Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

The Lower Columbia River anadromous O. mykiss ESU includes all
naturally spawned populations of anadromous O. mykiss in streams and
tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers,
Washington (inclusive), and the Willamette and Hood Rivers, Oregon
(inclusive). Excluded are O. mykiss in the upper Willamette River Basin
above Willamette Falls and O. mykiss from the Little and Big White
Salmon Rivers in Washington (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). We have
proposed that resident populations of O. mykiss below impassible
barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous
populations be included in the Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU (69
FR 33101; June 14, 2004). The ESU membership of native resident
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but
below natural barriers, has not been resolved. These resident
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Lower
Columbia River O. mykiss ESU until such time that significant
scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case
evaluation of their ESU relationships. We have proposed that 10
artificial propagation programs be considered part of the ESU: the
Cowlitz Trout Hatchery (in the Cispus, Upper Cowlitz, Lower Cowlitz,
and Tilton Rivers), Kalama River Wild (winter- and summer-run),
Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Hood River (winter- and summer-
run) O. mykiss hatchery programs (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004).
The Willamette-Lower Columbia River TRT has identified 23
historical demographically independent populations of Lower Columbia
River O. mykiss: 18 Western Cascade Range tributaries populations (the
Cispus River winter-run, Tilton River winter-run, Upper Cowlitz River
winter-run, Lower Cowlitz River winter-run, North Fork Toutle River
winter-run, South Fork Toutle River winter-run, Coweeman River winter-
run, Kalama River winter-run, Kalama River summer-run, North Fork Lewis
River winter-run, East Fork Lewis River winter-run, North Fork Lewis
River summer-run, East Fork Lewis River summer-run, Clackamas River
winter-run, Salmon Creek winter-run, Sandy River winter-run, Washougal
River winter-run, Washougal River summer-run populations); and five
Columbia River Gorge tributaries populations (the Lower Gorge
tributaries winter-run, Upper Gorge tributaries winter-run, Wind River
summer-run, Hood River winter-run, and Hood River summer-run
populations) (Myers et al., 2003). The TRT has arranged these
populations into ``strata'' based on major life history characteristics
(e.g., species run types) and ecological zones (McElhany et al., 2002).
The Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU inhabits two ecological zones
(Cascade and Columbia Gorge) and contains two life-history types
(summer- and winter-run fish), resulting in a total of four strata for
this ESU: Cascade summer- and winter-run populations, and Columbia
Gorge summer- and winter-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).
In the Lower Columbia River Basin, migrating adult O. mykiss can
occur in the Columbia River year-round, but peaks in migratory activity
and differences in reproductive ecotype lend themselves to classifying
anadromous O. mykiss into two races: summer-run and winter-run fish.
Summer-run fish return to fresh water from May to October, and enter
the Columbia in a sexually immature condition, requiring several months
in fresh water to reach sexual maturity and spawn. Winter-run fish
enter fresh water from November to April, and return as sexually mature
individuals that spawn shortly thereafter.
Some rivers have both summer and winter runs, while others have
only one race. Where both runs occur in the same stream, summer-run
fish tend to spawn higher in the watershed than do winter forms,
perhaps suggesting that summer-run fish tend to exist where winter runs
do not fully utilize available habitat. In rivers where both winter and
summer forms occur, they are often separated by a seasonal hydrologic
barrier, such as a waterfall. Coastal streams are predominantly winter-
run fish, whereas interior subbasins are dominated by summer-run fish.
Historically, winter-run fish may have been excluded from interior
Columbia River subbasins by Celilo Falls.
O. mykiss spawn in clear, cool, well-oxygenated streams with
suitable gravel and water velocity. Adult fish waiting to spawn or in
the process of spawning are

[[Page 74617]]

vulnerable to disturbance and predation in areas without suitable
cover. Cover types include overhanging vegetation, undercut banks,
submerged vegetation, submerged objects such as logs and rocks, deep
water, and turbulence. Spawning occurs earlier in areas of lower
elevation and where water temperature is warmer than in areas of higher
elevation and cooler water temperature. Spawning occurs from January
through May, and precise spawn timing is related to stream temperature.
Adult O. mykiss, unlike salmon, do not necessarily die after spawning
but return to the ocean. However, repeat spawning is not common among
anadromous O. mykiss migrating several hundred miles or more upstream
from the ocean.
O. mykiss eggs hatch in 35 to 50 days depending on water
temperature. Following hatching, alevins remain in the gravel 2 to 3
weeks until the yolk-sac is absorbed. Anadromous O. mykiss are spring
spawners, so they spawn at a time when temperatures are typically cold,
but increasing. Their spawning time must optimize avoidance of
competing risks from gravel-bed scour during high flow and increasing
water temperatures that can become lethal to eggs as the warm season
arrives. Fry emergence is principally determined by the time of egg
deposition and the water temperature during the incubation period. In
the lower Columbia, emergence timing differs slightly between
anadromous O. mykiss races and among subbasins. The different emergence
times between races may be a function of spawning location within the
watershed (and hence water temperature) or a result of genetic
differentiation between the races. Generally, emergence occurs from
March into July, with peak emergence time generally in April and May.
Following emergence, fry usually move into shallow and slow-moving
margins of the stream. Fry tend to occupy shallow riffle habitats, and
as they grow, they inhabit areas with deeper water, a wider range of
velocities, and larger substrate.
Anadromous O. mykiss exhibit a great deal of variability in smolt
age and ocean age. The dominant age class of outmigrating smolts in the
lower Columbia River is age 2. In the lower Columbia River, smolt
outmigration generally occurs from March to June, with peak migration
usually in April or May.
The Lower Columbia River Team's assessment for this ESU addressed
habitat areas within 41 occupied watersheds in 9 associated 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 four 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, 6 of which are occupied by
this ESU and encompass approximately 842 sq mi (2,181 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW and WDFW identify
approximately 299 mi (481 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 two summer-run (Wind River
and Hood River) and three winter-run (Upper Gorge Tributaries, Lower
Gorge Tributaries, and Hood River) historical demographically
independent populations in this subbasin. The Wind River summer-run and
Hood River winter-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). Also, the TRT
classified the Hood River winter-run fish as a genetic legacy
population, i.e., one 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, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. Of the six
watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat areas in four 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 noted that two watersheds (Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek and
Middle Columbia/Grays Creek) contain a high value rearing and migration
corridor in the Columbia River connecting high value habitat areas in
upstream watersheds 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. Lower Columbia/Sandy Subbasin (HUC4# 17080001)

Unit 3. Lewis Subbasin (HUC4# 17080002)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, two of which are currently
occupied by this ESU and the remaining four now blocked by Merwin Dam
and others upstream. Occupied watersheds encompass approximately 456 sq mi

[[Page 74618]]

(1,181 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat use data from the WDFW
identify approximately 250 mi (402 km) of occupied riverine habitat in
the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Myers et al. (2003) identified a single
ecological zone (Cascade) containing two summer-run (North Fork Lewis
River and East Fork Lewis River) and two winter-run (North Fork Lewis
River and East Fork Lewis River) historical demographically independent
populations in this subbasin. The TRT has classified the North Fork
Lewis River winter-run fish as a ``core'' population (historically
abundant and ``may offer the most likely path to recovery'') and the
East Fork Lewis River summer-run population as a genetic legacy
population (one 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,
forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team rated habitat areas
in both occupied watersheds as having high conservation value to the
ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The Team also considered whether inaccessible
reaches above Merwin, Yale and Swift dams may be essential to the
conservation of this ESU. The Team believed that these unoccupied areas
may be important because they once supported a TRT core population, and
they contain non-inundated habitats that are likely in good condition
relative to other more urbanized watersheds in the Cascade region
(Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2003; McElhany et al., 2003). The
Team also noted that the TRT concluded that ``given the limited amount
of spawning habitat currently accessible it is unlikely that an
independent self-sustaining [summer-run]
population could exist''
(Myers et al., 2003). On the other hand, the Team noted that there is
currently a substantial amount of habitat still accessible throughout
the range of this ESU. Therefore, the Team concluded that the ESU would
likely benefit if the extant populations 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 a single occupied watershed (Kalama River)
encompassing approximately 237 sq mi (614 sq km). Fish distribution and
habitat use data from WDFW identify approximately 133 mi (214 km) of
occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (WDFW, 2003). Myers et al.
(2003) identified one ecological zone (Cascade) containing two
historical demographically independent populations in this subbasin:
Kalama River summer- and winter-run fish. The Kalama River summer-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 channel modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and
urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in the Kalama
River 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 5. Upper Cowlitz Subbasin (HUC4# 17080004)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 1,026 sq mi (2,657 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 170 mi (274 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 two
winter-run historical demographically independent populations in this
subbasin (Upper Cowlitz River and Cispus River). Both 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
winter-run population as a genetic legacy population (i.e., one 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. The
Team also concluded that habitat areas in all five occupied watersheds
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 6. Lower Cowlitz Subbasin (HUC4# 17080005)

This subbasin contains eight occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 1,465 sq mi (3,794 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from WDFW identify approximately 785 mi (1,263 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in the watersheds (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 anadromous O. mykiss 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 seven
historical demographically independent populations of winter-run fish
in this subbasin: Cispus River, Upper Cowlitz River, Lower Cowlitz
River, Tilton River, North Fork Toutle River, South Fork Toutle River,
and Coweeman River. Three populations (Cispus River, Upper Cowlitz
River, and North Fork Toutle River) 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 winter-run fish as a genetic
legacy population, 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, dams, forestry, and
roadbuilding. Of the eight watersheds reviewed by the Team, habitat
areas in three were rated as having high and those in five 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 high value rearing and migration
corridors connecting high value habitat areas in

[[Page 74619]]

upstream watersheds 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. 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 136 sq mi (352 sq km) as well as a short segment
(approximately 1 mi (1.6 km)) of the Willamette River downstream of
Willamette Falls. Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW
identify approximately 26 mi (42 km) of occupied riverine habitat in
the subbasin (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers et al. (2003) identified one
ecological zone (Cascade) containing a single historical
demographically independent population in this subbasin: Clackamas
River winter-run fish. This 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, dams, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team also
concluded that the 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 8. Clackamas Subbasin (HUC4# 17090011)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 942 sq mi (2,440 km). Fish distribution and habitat use
data from ODFW identify approximately 274 mi (441 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 winter-run fish. This 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 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 9. Lower Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090012)

This subbasin contains three occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 408 sq mi (1,057 sq km). Two of the watersheds (Columbia
Slough/Willamette River and Scappoose Creek) do not contain spawning
PCEs for this ESU but instead are used solely for rearing and
migration. Fish distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify
approximately 88 mi (142 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the
watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers et al. (2003) identified a single
ecological zone (Cascade) containing one historical demographically
independent population of winter-run fish in this subbasin (Clackamas
River). This 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 all three 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 10. 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 (190 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. Other upstream reaches of the Columbia
River corridor (within Units 1 and 2 above) are also high value for
rearing/migration. The Team noted that this corridor connects habitat
areas in 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 O. mykiss ESU

The Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of anadromous O. mykiss in the Willamette River,
Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the
Calapooia River (inclusive) (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999). We have
proposed that resident populations of O. mykiss below impassible
barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous
populations also be included in the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss
ESU (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004). Although there are no obvious
physical barriers separating populations upstream of the Calapooia from
those lower in the basin, resident O. mykiss in these upper basins are
quite distinctive both phenotypically and genetically and are not
considered part of the ESU. The ESU membership of native resident
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but
below natural barriers, has not been resolved. These resident
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Upper
Willamette River O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant
scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case
evaluation of their ESU relationships. This ESU does not include any
artificially propagated O. mykiss stocks that reside within the
historical geographic range of the ESU. Hatchery summer-run fish occur
in the Willamette Basin but are an out-of-basin stock that is not
included as part of the ESU.
The Willamette-Lower Columbia River TRT has identified four
historical demographically independent populations of Upper Willamette
River O. mykiss: the Mollala River, North Santiam River, South Santiam
River, and Calapooia River populations (Myers et al., 2003). The TRT
also notes that spawning winter-run fish have been observed in the
Westside tributaries to

[[Page 74620]]

the Upper Willamette River; however, the Westside tributaries are not
considered to have historically constituted a demographically
independent population (Myers et al., 2003). The TRT has determined
that the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU populations comprise a
single ``stratum,'' based on major life history characteristics (e.g.,
species run types) and ecological zones (McElhany et al., 2002). This
single stratum consists of the single run-type (winter-run fish) and
the single ecological zone (Willamette River) in the ESU. 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).
Of the three temporal runs of anadromous O. mykiss currently found
in the Upper Willamette River ESU, only the late-run winter fish are
considered to be native. The same flow conditions at Willamette Falls
that only provided access for spring-run chinook salmon also provided
an isolating mechanism for this unique run time of anadromous O.
mykiss. The predominant tributaries to the Willamette River that
historically supported winter-run fish all drain the Cascade Range.
Anadromous O. mykiss populations in the upper Willamette River Basin
have been strongly influenced by extensive hatchery transfers of fish
throughout the ESU, and the introduction of summer-run fish
(facilitated by the laddering of Willamette Falls). Summer-run fish are
still stocked in the Upper Willamette River, but the stocking of
winter-run fish in the Willamette River has been discontinued (although
non-native winter-run fish still return).
It is generally agreed that anadromous O. mykiss did not
historically emigrate farther upstream than the Calapooia River. The
TRT reviewed evidence of anadromous O. mykiss using westside
tributaries to the Willamette River and concluded that ``with the
exception of the Tualatin River, there is little evidence to suggest
that sustained spawning aggregations of steelhead may have existed
historically in the westside tributaries of the Willamette River Basin.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that these tributaries, individually or
collectively were large enough to constitute a demographically
independent population.''
Late-run Upper Willamette River O. mykiss are considered an ocean-
maturing type, entering fresh water with well-developed gonads and
typically spawning shortly thereafter. Maturing fish enter the
Willamette River beginning in January and February, but do not ascend
to their spawning areas until late March or April. Spawning takes place
from April to June, typically peaking in May, and occurs in both
mainstem and tributary habitats in the major Cascade drainages
identified above. Presently, native anadromous O. mykiss are
distributed in a few, relatively small, naturally spawning aggregations.
The juvenile life-history characteristics of Upper Willamette River
O. mykiss are summarized (where known) in ODFW (1990) and Olsen et al.
(1992). In the subbasins reviewed, egg/alevin incubation and fry
emergence occurred from April to August. Juveniles spend 2 winters
rearing in freshwater before emigrating to the ocean from March to
July. Upper Willamette River winter-run fish typically spawn as 4-year-
olds after 2 years in the ocean.
The Upper Willamette River Team's assessment for this ESU addressed
habitat areas within 34 occupied watersheds in 7 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 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 O. mykiss 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. Upper Willamette Subbasin (HUC4# 17090003)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, three of which are occupied
by this ESU and encompass approximately 765 sq mi (1,981 km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from the ODFW identify approximately
241 mi (388 km) of occupied riverine habitat in the watersheds (ODFW,
2003a,b). Myers et al. (2003) identified possibly two demographically
independent populations in this subbasin, but only one (Calapooia
River) with spawning habitat. Myers et al. (2003) also noted that there
is considerable debate about the origin of naturally spawning winter-
run fish currently found in several westside tributaries. These authors
went on to state that (with the exception of the Tualatin River)
``there is little evidence to suggest that sustained spawning
aggregations of steelhead may have existed historically in the westside
tributaries of the Willamette River Basin. Furthermore, it is unlikely
that these tributaries, individually or collectively were large enough
to constitute a demographically independent population.'' 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 one of the watersheds warrant a high rating, and those in two
warrant a medium rating for conservation value to the ESU (NMFS,
2004a). The Team also noted that all reaches of the Willamette River
within this subbasin constitute a high value rearing and migration
corridor for the Calapooia River population 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. North Santiam River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090005)

This subbasin contains six watersheds, three of which are occupied
by this ESU and encompass approximately 315 sq mi (816 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 137
mi (221 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 but may have
been productive anadromous O. mykiss habitat (Parkhurst, 1950). 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 all three of the occupied watersheds in this subbasin 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.

[[Continued on page 74621]]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]]

[[pp. 74621-74670]]
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

[[Continued from page 74620]]
[[Page 74621]]

Unit 3. 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 (1,984 sq km). Fish
distribution and habitat use data from ODFW identify approximately 230
mi (370 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 demographically independent population
(South Santiam 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, and roadbuilding. The
Team also concluded that habitat areas in all six of the occupied
watersheds in this subbasin 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 4. 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 175 mi (282 km) of occupied
riverine habitat (all rearing/migration) in these watersheds (ODFW,
2003a,b). Myers et al. (2003) identified one demographically
independent population (North Santiam River) that spawns in this
subbasin, although three populations use this subbasin for rearing/
migration. 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, channel modifications, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The
Team also concluded that all of the tributary habitat areas in the four
watersheds warrant a low rating for conservation value to the ESU
(NMFS, 2004a). However, that assessment pertained solely to the
tributary streams in these watersheds (e.g., Ash, Rickreall, and Harvey
creeks), not the mainstem Willamette River nor the Mill Creek reaches
connecting to the North Santiam 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
all populations and watersheds in this ESU 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 5. Yamhill River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090008)

This subbasin contains seven occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 772 sq mi (1,999 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from ODFW identify approximately 319 mi (513 km) of occupied
riverine habitat (all rearing/migration) in these watersheds (ODFW,
2003a,b). Myers et al. (2003) did not identify a demographically
independent population in this subbasin. These authors noted that there
is considerable debate about the origin of naturally spawning winter-
run fish currently found in several westside tributaries and went on to
state that (with the exception of the Tualatin River) ``there is little
evidence to suggest that sustained spawning aggregations of steelhead
may have existed historically in the westside tributaries of the
Willamette River basin. Furthermore, it is unlikely that these
tributaries, individually or collectively were large enough to
constitute a demographically independent population.'' While there is
uncertainty regarding the population status of anadromous O. mykiss in
westside watersheds, the Team determined that it was likely that PCEs
exist in these seven watersheds and identified several management
activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, forestry,
roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team noted that, given the limited
number of populations in this ESU, habitat in this subbasin may provide
some conservation benefits to the ESU (e.g., as a buffer against a
catastrophic event affecting Cascade watersheds). In that context, the
Team concluded that habitat areas in the Upper South Yamhill River
watershed may have the greatest conservation value in this subbasin and
therefore assigned them a medium conservation value while habitat areas
in the remaining six watersheds warrant a low conservation value to the
ESU. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this subbasin
that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 6. Molalla/Pudding River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090009)

This subbasin contains six occupied watersheds and encompasses
approximately 875 sq mi (2,266 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from ODFW identify approximately 284 mi (457 km) of occupied
riverine habitat in these watersheds (ODFW, 2003a,b). Myers et al.
(2003) identified one demographically independent population (Molalla
River) that spawns 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, channel modifications, roadbuilding, and
urbanization. The Team also concluded that habitat areas in one of the
watersheds warrant a high rating, those in three warrant a medium
rating, and those in two 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 7. Tualatin River Subbasin (HUC4# 17090010)

This subbasin contains five occupied watersheds encompassing
approximately 709 sq mi (1,836 sq km). Fish distribution and habitat
use data from ODFW identify approximately 298 mi (480 km) of occupied
riverine habitat (all rearing/migration) in these watersheds (ODFW,
2003a,b). Myers et al. (2003) did not identify a demographically
independent population in this subbasin. These authors noted that there
is considerable debate about the origin of naturally spawning winter-
run fish currently found in several westside tributaries and went on to
state that (with the exception of the Tualatin River) ``there is little
evidence to suggest that sustained spawning aggregations of steelhead
may have existed historically in the westside tributaries of the
Willamette River basin. Furthermore, it is unlikely that these
tributaries, individually or collectively were large enough to
constitute a demographically independent population.'' While there is
uncertainty regarding the population status of anadromous O. mykiss in
westside watersheds, the Team determined that it was likely that PCEs
exist in these five watersheds and identified several management
activities that may affect the PCEs, including agriculture, channel
modifications, forestry, roadbuilding, and urbanization. The Team noted
that, given the limited number of populations in this ESU, habitat in
this subbasin may provide some conservation benefits to the ESU (e.g.,
as a buffer against a catastrophic event affecting Cascade watersheds). In

[[Page 74622]]

that context, the Team concluded that habitat areas in the Gales Creek
watershed may have the greatest conservation value in this subbasin and
therefore assigned them a medium conservation value while habitat areas
in the remaining four watersheds warrant a low conservation value to
the ESU. The Team did not identify any unoccupied areas in this
subbasin that may be essential for the conservation of the ESU.

Unit 8. 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 138 mi (223 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 habitat areas in
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.

Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)

The foregoing discussion describes those areas that are eligible
for designation as critical habitat--the specific areas that fall
within the ESA section 3(5)(A) definition of critical habitat, minus
those lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or
designated for its use, that are covered by an INRMP that we have
determined in writing provides a benefit to the species. The
application of section 4(b)(2) was a major concern of those commenting
on the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003). Many commenters
requested that we describe the process used--in particular the economic
analysis--as part of our proposed rulemaking.
Specific areas eligible for designation are not automatically
designated as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires
that the Secretary first considers the economic impact, impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact. The Secretary has the
discretion to exclude an area from designation if he determines the
benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding the impact that would result
from designation), outweigh the benefits of designation. The Secretary
may not exclude an area from designation if exclusion will result in
the extinction of the species. Because the authority to exclude is
discretionary, exclusion is not required for any areas.
In this proposed rule, the Secretary has applied his statutory
discretion to exclude areas from critical habitat for several different
reasons. To be consistent, we used the fifth field watershed as the
unit for exclusion in each case. However, the agency is asking for
public comment on whether considering exclusions on a stream-by-stream
approach would be more appropriate.

Impacts to Tribes

We believe there is very little benefit to designating critical
habitat on Indian lands. Although there is a broad array of activities
on Indian lands that may trigger section 7, Indian lands comprise only
a minor portion (less than 3 percent) of the total habitat under
consideration for these ESUs. Depending upon the ESU, Indian lands
account for zero to 13 percent of the total habitat area for these
ESUs. (For nine ESUs the Indian lands total less than one percent, with
only one ESU greater than five percent. These percentages are likely
overestimates as they include all habitat area within reservation
boundaries. In many cases, a considerable portion of the land within
the reservation boundaries is no longer held in trust for the tribe or
in fee status by individual tribal members). Further, in more than 15
letters to NMFS--several in response to the agency's ANPR (68 FR 55926;
September 29, 2003)--the tribes have documented how they are already
working to address the habitat needs of the species on these lands as
well as in the larger ecosystem, and are fully aware of the
conservation value of their lands.
There are several benefits to excluding Indian lands. The
longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal and
tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders,
judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal
governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by,
the Federal government. This relationship has given rise to a special
Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and
obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and the
application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian
lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
Pursuant to these authorities lands have been retained by Indian Tribes
or have been set aside for tribal use. These lands are managed by
Indian Tribes in accordance with tribal goals and objectives within the
framework of applicable treaties and laws.
In addition to the distinctive trust relationship, for Pacific
salmon in the Northwest, there is a unique partnership between the
Federal government and Indian tribes regarding salmon management.
Northwest Indian tribes are regarded as ``co-managers'' of the salmon
resource, along with Federal and state managers. This co-management
relationship evolved as a result of numerous court decisions clarifying
the tribes' treaty right to take fish in their usual and accustomed places.
The tribes have stated in letters and meetings that designation of
Indian lands as critical habitat will undermine long-term working
relationships and reduce the capacity of tribes to participate at
current levels in the many and varied forums across four states
addressing ecosystem management and conservation of fisheries resources.
The benefits of excluding Indian lands from designation include:
(1) The furtherance of established national policies, our Federal trust
obligations and our deference to the tribes in management of natural
resources on their lands; (2) the maintenance of effective long-term
working relationships to promote the conservation of salmonids on an
ecosystem-wide basis across four states; (3) the allowance for
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work
to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an
ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for tribal sovereignty
over management of natural resources on Indian lands through
established tribal natural resource programs.

[[Page 74623]]

We believe that the current co-manager process addressing
activities on an ecosystem-wide basis across three states is currently
beneficial for the conservation of the salmonids. Because the co-
manager process provides for coordinated ongoing focused action through
a variety of forums, we find the benefits of this process to be greater
than the benefits of applying ESA section 7 to Federal activities on
Indian lands, which comprise less than three percent of the total area
under consideration for these ESUs. Additionally, we have determined
that the exclusion of tribal lands will not result in the extinction of
the species concerned. We also believe that maintenance of our current
co-manager relationship consistent with existing policies is an
important benefit to continuance of our tribal trust responsibilities
and relationship. Based upon our consultation with the Tribes, we
believe that designation of Indian lands as critical habitat would
adversely impact our working relationship and the benefits resulting
from this relationship.
Based upon these considerations, we have determined to exercise
agency discretion under ESA section 4(b)(2) and propose to exclude
Indian lands from the eligible critical habitat designation for these
ESUs of salmonids. The Indian lands specifically excluded from critical
habitat are those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: (1)
Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian
tribe; (2) land held in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe
or individual subject to restrictions by the United States against
alienation; (3) fee lands, either within or outside the reservation
boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and (4) fee lands within
the reservation boundaries owned by individual Indians.

Impacts on National Security

As noted previously (see Military Lands section), we evaluated 11
DOD sites with draft or final INRMPs and determined that each INRMP
provides a benefit to the listed salmon or O. mykiss ESUs under
consideration at the site. Therefore, we are proposing that those areas
subject to final INRMPs are not eligible for designation pursuant to
section 4(a)(3)(B)(I) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(A)(3)). At the request
of the DOD (and in the case that an INRMP might not provide a benefit
to the species), we also assessed the impacts on national security that
may result from designating these and other DOD sites as critical habitat.
We contacted the DOD by letter and requested information about the
impacts to national security that may result from designating critical
habitat at the following 24 military sites in Washington: (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); (11) Yakima
Training Center (Army); (12) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard; (13) Naval
Submarine Base Bangor security zone; (14) Strait of Juan de Fuca naval
air-to-surface weapon range, restricted area; (15) Hood Canal and Dabob
Bay naval non-explosive torpedo testing area; (16) Strait of Juan de
Fuca and Whidbey Island naval restricted areas; (17) Admiralty Inlet
naval restricted area; (18) Port Gardner Naval Base restricted area;
(19) Hood Canal naval restricted areas; (20) Port Orchard Passage naval
restricted area; (21) Sinclair Inlet naval restricted areas; (22) Carr
Inlet naval restricted areas; (23) Dabob Bay/Whitney Point naval
restricted area; and (24) Port Townsend/Indian Island/Walan Point naval
restricted area. All of these sites overlap with habitat areas occupied
by one or more of the 13 ESUs and under consideration for critical
habitat. A number of other sites (primarily armories and small Army
facilities) were also assessed and were determined to be outside the
areas under consideration. In response to our letter, both the Army and
Navy provided information clarifying site locations and describing the
types of military activities that occur at these sites. They also
listed the potential changes in these activities and consequent
national security impacts that critical habitat designation would cause
in these areas. Both military agencies concluded that critical habitat
designation at any of these sites would likely impact national security
by diminishing military readiness. The possible impacts include:
Preventing, restricting, or delaying training or testing exercises or
access to such sites; restricting or delaying activities associated
with vehicle/vessel/facility maintenance and ordinance loading;
delaying response times for ship deployments and overall operations;
and creating uncertainties regarding ESA consultation (e.g.,
reinitiation requirements) or imposing compliance conditions that would
divert military resources. Also, both military agencies cited their
ongoing and positive consultation history with NMFS and underscored
cases where they are implementing best management practices to reduce
impacts on listed salmonids.
Most of the affected DOD sites overlap habitat areas in nearshore
zones occupied by Puget Sound chinook or Hood Canal summer-run chum
salmon. The overlap consists of approximately 109 miles (175 km) of
shoreline out of the 2,376 miles (3,824 km) of total occupied shoreline
for these two ESUs. Freshwater and estuarine overlap areas include
approximately 20 miles (32 km) of stream used by Puget Sound chinook
salmon and 10 miles (16 km) used by Upper Columbia River O. mykiss,
representing less than one percent of the total freshwater and
estuarine habitat area for these two ESUs. The Teams assessing
conservation values for these overlap areas concluded that all of them
were of high conservation value to the respective ESUs. However, the
overlap areas are a small percentage of the total area for the affected
ESUs. Designating these DOD sites will likely reduce the readiness
capability of the Army and Navy, both of which are actively engaged in
training, maintaining, and deploying forces in the current war on
terrorism. Therefore we conclude that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation and are not proposing to designate
these DOD sites as critical habitats.

Other Potential Exclusions

As discussed above, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling in
NMCA, which criticized the historic approach that FWS and NMFS had
taken towards the economic analysis required in the critical habitat
designation process. As a result of this ruling, both agencies engaged
in a long-term process of reevaluating existing critical habitat
designations consistent with the Tenth Circuit's ruling. NMFS's
critical habitat designations for steelhead and salmon ESUs and FWS's
designations for bull trout are the first to fully evaluate the
economic impacts of the designations for aquatic species on a broad
landscape scale. As a result, many of the critical issues faced by the
two agencies are issues of first impression.
On October 6, 2004, the FWS issued a final rule designating
critical habitat for the bull trout, a species in many respects
coextensive with listed salmon and steelhead ESUs. Necessarily, the FWS
had to make determinations on many of these novel issues. The Secretary
of the Interior found that a number of conservation measures designed
to protect salmon and steelhead on federal, state, tribal and private
lands would also have significant beneficial impacts to

[[Page 74624]]

bulltrout. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior determined that the
benefits of excluding those areas exceeded the benefits of including
those areas as critical habitat.
The Secretary of Commerce has reviewed the bull trout rule and has
recognized the merits of the approach taken by the Secretary of the
Interior to these emerging issues. As a result, the Secretary of
Commerce is considering the following exclusions because the benefits
of exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion and expects the
final rule will include some or all of these exclusions. However, given
the time constraints associated with this rulemaking and the broader
geographic range of the potential salmon and steelhead designations,
the Secretary of Commerce has not had an opportunity to fully evaluate
all of the potential exclusions, the geographical extent of such
exclusions, or compare the benefits of these exclusions to the benefits
of inclusion. As a result, the proposed designations included in this
rule generally represent an upper bound to the area that the Secretary
is considering designating as critical habitat and do not include the
following additional exclusions that the Secretary is considering:
A set of exclusions based on existing land management plans adopted
and currently implemented by Federal agencies within the relevant
geographic area: These plans are the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and
INFISH, which are implemented by the USDA Forest Service and the BLM in
parts of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The Secretary is considering
excluding from critical habitat all federal lands subject to these
plans. We may make these exclusions on a fifth field watershed basis or
a stream-by-stream basis and we invite comment on the appropriate
method. Each of these plans is designed to provide very substantial
conservation benefits to salmonid species including the listed species,
while permitting provision of other multiple uses on those federal
lands to the extent compatible with the provisions of the plan.
Imposing an overlay of critical habitat in these areas could threaten
the provision of the other multiple uses contemplated by these plans
and potentially impede vital land restoration activities, while
potentially offering a negligible conservation benefit in light of the
other existing conservation measures provided by the plans. The threat
to forest restoration activities (forest thinning and brush clearing to
reduce catastrophic fire risks), economic activities (e.g. grazing and
timber production) and recreational uses on public lands may outweigh
the benefit of a critical habitat designation in these areas.
An exclusion of areas in the mainstem Columbia River that contain
or are directly affected by the operation of the federal dams on the
river, including reservoir pools above dams, tail race areas below
dams, and the navigation locks: The intent of this potential exclusion
is that the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS) would have no effect on designated critical habitat. The FCRPS
is already managed through an unprecedented cooperative effort among
three Federal action agencies (Bonneville Power Administration, Corps,
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)), three Federal land management agencies
(Forest Service, BLM, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)) and
three Federal regulatory agencies (NMFS, FWS and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)). These agencies, operating through a Federal
Caucus, closely and effectively coordinate their activities to minimize
any adverse effects of operating the hydroelectric dams on the Columbia
and Snake Rivers. There may be no benefit to placing a critical habitat
designation as an additional layer of Federal regulation over and above
the existing cooperative efforts. Conversely, if a critical habitat
designation reduces hydro electric power generation from the dams,
there may be great economic harm to the three-state region.
An exclusion of areas covered by conservation commitments by state
and private landowners: Another set of exclusions is based on
conservation commitments by state and private landowners reflected in
habitat conservation plans and cooperative agreements approved by NMFS.
These commitments are: (1) Land subject to Washington state forest
practice rules referred to as the Forests and Fish Agreement; (2) lands
covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) approved under section 10
of the ESA (NMFS, 2004f); and (3) non-Federal timber lands covered by
the Term Sheet in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA).
An exclusion for intermingled lands: If a large part of a watershed
is determined to warrant exclusion for any of the reasons stated below,
the Secretary is considering excluding the entire watershed. For
example, if a large proportion of a watershed consists of Federal land
to be excluded based on an existing management plan, the entire
watershed could be excluded. There may be little policy justification
for designating non-Federal lands as critical habitat in a watershed
dominated by excluded Federal lands.
Snake River O. Mykiss ESU: The Secretary is considering excluding
all eligible habitat in this ESU from the critical habitat designation.
More than 225 of the HUC5 watersheds contain 40 percent or more Federal
land subject to protection under the PACFISH management standards;
almost 200 of these watersheds are 80 percent or more of such Federal
land. Another seven HUC5 watersheds are more than 98 percent tribal
lands. Some of the eligible habitat is found within the mainstem of the
Columbia River, which is already subject to the most comprehensive
Federal salmonid management strategy of any area of salmonid habitat,
with participation by at least eight Federal agencies. Most of the
geographic area of the ESU lies in Idaho, where the State of Idaho has
reached agreement in principle with the Federal government as part of a
tribal water rights adjudication for the Snake River Basin to adopt new
land management standards for state lands and for private landowners
who choose to enroll in the program, potentially offering a higher
level of conservation efforts on these lands in the future than may
have been provided in the past. Many residents of the affected area are
voluntarily undertaking other substantial actions to help improve and
increase available habitat for this species. The economy in the
affected region of all three states is primarily rural in nature, and
is especially sensitive to additional land management burdens. For
these reasons, the benefits of excluding the eligible habitat in this
ESU may outweigh the benefits of designation as critical habitat.
Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU: The Secretary is considering
an exclusion of all eligible habitat within the range of this ESU from
the critical habitat designation. Seventeen of the 30 HUC5 watersheds
contain 48 percent or more Federal land subject to protection under the
PACFISH management standards. Much of the eligible habitat is found
within the mainstem of the Columbia River which is already subject to
the most comprehensive Federal salmonid management strategy of any area
of salmonid habitat, with participation by at least eight Federal
agencies. The affected economy is primarily rural in nature, and is
especially sensitive to additional land management burdens. At the same
time, many residents of the affected area are voluntarily undertaking
substantial actions to help improve and increase available salmon
habitat. For these reasons, the benefits of excluding the

[[Page 74625]]

eligible habitat in this ESU may outweigh the benefits of designation
as critical habitat.
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU: The Secretary is considering
an exclusion of all eligible habitat within the range of this ESU from
the critical habitat designation. Twenty-seven of the HUC5 watersheds
contain 48 percent or more Federal land subject to protection under the
PACFISH management standards; another 16 of these watersheds are 25 to
48 percent of such Federal land. Another 10 HUC5 watersheds are 70 to
100 percent tribal lands. Some of the eligible habitat is found within
the mainstem of the Columbia River, which is already subject to the
most comprehensive federal salmonid management strategy of any area of
salmonid habitat, with participation by at least eight Federal agencies.
In both Washington and Oregon, there are many voluntary
conservation activities underway by Federal agencies (BOR in
particular), state agencies and private citizens throughout the range
of the ESU. We have noted recently that the ESU may be close to meeting
recovery standards, and NOAA's scientists have consistently rated the
degree of risk for this ESU the lowest among the listed salmonid
species. The economy in the affected region of both states is primarily
rural in nature and is especially sensitive to additional land
management burdens. For these reasons, the benefits of excluding the
eligible habitat in this ESU may outweigh the benefits of designation
as critical habitat.
Oregon Coast coho ESU: The Secretary is considering an exclusion of
all eligible habitat within the range of this ESU from the critical
habitat designation. One primary reason for this exclusion may lie in
the voluntary conservation efforts undertaken by the State of Oregon
and its citizens in this area since 1996, collectively referred to as
the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Under the Oregon Plan, very
substantial improvements have occurred, and are expected to continue to
occur, to improve and increase habitat, to reduce harvest and to reform
hatchery practices to aid in the conservation of this species. These
efforts by the State and its citizens are a national model for
cooperative conservation. Designating critical habitat in this ESU
could discourage and even undercut these voluntary conservation
efforts, possibly resulting in a decrease rather than an increase in
conservation of the species.
In addition, 36 of the 80 watersheds contain 40 percent or more
Federal land managed under the protective provisions of the Northwest
Forest Plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and an additional 16
watersheds contain 25 to 40 percent of such Federal land. With these
protective measures in place on Federal land to complement the non-
Federal conservation efforts embodied in the Oregon Plan, there may be
little biological justification to designate critical habitat within
the range of this ESU. Further, the coastal economy is and has been
weak for some time, with the manufacturing sector declining and tourism
emerging slowly as the leading industry, and additional economic
burdens may not be justified in light of the potentially limited
conservation benefit of a critical habitat designation. For these
reasons, the benefits of excluding the eligible habitat in this ESU may
outweigh the benefits of designation as critical habitat.
Accordingly, NMFS specifically asks for public comment on the other
potential exclusions discussed above. Specifically, NMFS requests
comment on the benefits of excluding and including: (1) Other Federal
lands subject to protective management provisions for salmonids (e.g.,
the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan,
PACFISH, or INFISH); (2) other state, tribal, or private lands subject
to (or planned to receive) other forms of protective management for
salmonids (e.g., private land HCPs, State of Washington Forests
Practices Act lands, Idaho SRBA lands, State of California Forest
Practices Act lands); and (3) other state, tribal, or private lands
within watersheds containing a large proportion of Federal, state,
tribal or private lands already subject to protective management measures.

Exclusions Primarily Based on Economic Impacts

In this exercise of discretion, the first issue we must address is
the scope of impacts relevant to the 4(b)(2) evaluation. As discussed
in the Previous Federal Action and Related Litigation section, we are
re-designating critical habitat for these 13 ESUs because the previous
designations were vacated. (National Association of Homebuilders v.
Evans, 2002 WL 1205743 No. 00-CV-2799 (D.D.C.) (NAHB)). The NAHB Court
had agreed with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). In that decision, the
Tenth Circuit stated ``[t]he statutory language is plain in requiring
some kind of consideration of economic impact in the critical habitat
designation phase.'' The Tenth Circuit concluded that, given the FWS'
failure to distinguish between ``adverse modification'' and
``jeopardy'' in its 4(b)(2) analysis, the FWS must analyze the full
impacts of critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those
impacts are co-extensive with other impacts (such as the impact of the
jeopardy requirement).
In re-designating critical habitat for these salmon ESUs, we have
followed the Tenth Circuit Court's directive regarding the statutory
requirement to consider the economic impact of designation. Areas
designated as critical habitat are subject to ESA section 7
requirements, which provide that Federal agencies ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
To evaluate the economic impact of critical habitat we first examined
our voluminous section 7 consultation record for these as well as other
ESUs of salmon. (For thoroughness, we examined the consultation record
for other ESUs to see if it shed light on the issues.) That record
includes consultations on habitat-modifying Federal actions both where
critical habitat has been designated and where it has not. We could not
discern a distinction between the impacts of applying the jeopardy
provision versus the adverse modification provision in occupied
critical habitat. Given our inability to detect a measurable difference
between the impacts of applying these two provisions, the only
reasonable alternative seemed to be to follow the recommendation of the
Tenth Circuit, approved by the NAHB court--to measure the co-extensive
impacts; that is, measure the entire impact of applying the adverse
modification provision of section 7, regardless of whether the jeopardy
provision alone would result in the identical impact.
The Tenth Circuit's opinion only addressed ESA section 4(b)(2)'s
requirement that economic impacts be considered. The Court did not
address how ``other relevant impacts'' were to be considered, nor did
it address the benefits of designation. Because section 4(b)(2)
requires a consideration of other relevant impacts of designation, and
the benefits of designation, and because our record did not support a
distinction between impacts resulting from application of the adverse
modification provision versus the jeopardy provision, we are uniformly
considering coextensive impacts and coextensive benefits, without
attempting to distinguish the benefit of a critical habitat
consultation from the benefit that would otherwise result from a
jeopardy consultation that would occur

[[Page 74626]]

even if critical habitat were not designated. To do otherwise would
distort the balancing test contemplated by section 4(b)(2).
The principal benefit of designating critical habitat is that
Federal activities that may affect such habitat are subject to
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Such consultation
requires every Federal agency to ensure that any action it authorizes,
funds or carries out is not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. This complements the section
7 provision that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.
Another benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can serve
to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an
area and thereby focus and contribute to conservation efforts by
clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain
species. It is unknown to what extent this process actually occurs, and
what the actual benefit is, as there are also concerns, noted above,
that a critical habitat designation may discourage such conservation efforts.
The balancing test in section 4(b)(2) contemplates weighing
benefits that are not directly comparable--the benefit to species
conservation balanced against the economic benefit, benefit to national
security, or other relevant benefit that results if an area is excluded
from designation. Section 4(b)(2) does not specify a method for the
weighing process. Agencies are frequently required to balance benefits
of regulations against impacts; Executive Order 12866 established this
requirement for Federal agency regulation. Ideally such a balancing
would involve first translating the benefits and impacts into a common
metric. Executive branch guidance from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) suggests that benefits should first be monetized (i.e.,
converted into dollars). Benefits that cannot be monetized should be
quantified (for example, numbers of fish saved). Where benefits can
neither be monetized nor quantified, agencies are to describe the
expected benefits (OMB, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003 (OMB, 2003)).
It may be possible to monetize benefits of critical habitat
designation for a threatened or endangered species in terms of
willingness-to-pay (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2003).
However, we are not aware of any available data that would support such
an analysis for salmon. The short statutory time-frames, geographic
scale of the designations under consideration, and the statute's
requirement to use best ``available'' information suggests such a
costly and time-consuming approach is not currently available. In
addition, ESA section 4(b)(2) requires analysis of impacts other than
economic impacts that are equally difficult to monetize, such as
benefits to national security of excluding areas from critical habitat.
In the case of salmon designations, impacts to Northwest tribes are an
``other relevant impact'' that also may be difficult to monetize.
An alternative approach, approved by OMB, is to conduct a cost-
effectiveness analysis. A cost-effectiveness analysis ideally first
involves quantifying benefits, for example, percent reduction in
extinction risk, percent increase in productivity, or increase in
numbers of fish. Given the state of the science, it would be difficult
to quantify reliably the benefits of including particular areas in the
critical habitat designation. Although it is difficult to monetize or
quantify benefits of critical habitat designation, it is possible to
differentiate among habitat areas based on their relative contribution
to conservation. For example, habitat areas can be rated as having a
high, medium or low conservation value. The qualitative ordinal
evaluations can then be combined with estimates of the economic costs
of critical habitat designation in a framework that essentially adopts
that of cost-effectiveness. Individual habitat areas can then be
assessed using both their biological evaluation and economic cost, so
that areas with high conservation value and lower economic cost might
be considered to have a higher priority for designation, while areas
with a low conservation value and higher economic cost might have a
higher priority for exclusion. While this approach can provide useful
information to the decision-maker, there is no rigid formula through
which this information translates into exclusion decisions. Every
geographical area containing habitat eligible for designation is
different, with a unique set of ``relevant impacts'' that may be
considered in the exclusion process. Regardless of the analytical
approach, section 4(b)(2) makes clear that what weight the agency gives
various impacts and benefits, and whether the agency excludes areas
from the designation, is discretionary.

Assessment of Economic Impacts

Assessment of economic impact generated considerable interest from
commenters on the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003). A number of
commenters requested that we make the economic analysis available as
part of the proposed rulemaking, and some identified key considerations
(e.g., sector-specific impacts, direct and indirect costs, ecological
services/benefits) that they believed must be taken into account. In a
draft 2004 report, we have documented our conclusions regarding the
economic impacts of designating each of the particular areas found to
meet the definition of critical habitat (NMFS, 2004c). This report is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The first step was to identify existing legal and regulatory
constraints on economic activity that are independent of critical
habitat designation, such as Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements.
Coextensive impacts of the ESA section 7 requirement to avoid jeopardy
were not considered part of the baseline. Also, we have stated our
intention to revisit the existing critical habitat designations for
Snake River chinook and sockeye salmon ESUs (58 FR 68543; December 28,
1993), if appropriate, following completion of related rulemaking (67
FR 6215; February 11, 2002). Given the uncertainty that these
designations will remain in place in their current configuration, we
decided not to consider them.
Next, from the consultation record, we identified Federal
activities that might affect habitat and that might result in a section
7 consultation. (We did not consider federal actions, such as the
approval of a fishery, that might affect the species directly but not
affect its habitat.) We identified nine types of activities including:
hydropower dams; non-hydropower dams and other water supply structures;
federal lands management, including grazing (considered separately);
transportation projects; utility line projects; instream activities,
including dredging (considered separately); activities permitted under
EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; sand & gravel
mining; and residential and commercial development. Based on our
consultation record and other available information, we determined the
modifications each type of activity was likely to undergo as a result
of section 7 consultation (regardless of whether the modification might
be required by the jeopardy or the adverse modification provision).
We developed an expected direct cost for each type of action and
projected the likely occurrence of each type of project in each
watershed, using existing spatial databases (e.g., the Corps 404(d)
permit database). Finally, we aggregated the costs from the various
types of actions and estimated an annual impact, taking into account
the probability of

[[Page 74627]]

consultation occurring and the likely rate of occurrence of that
project type.
This analysis allowed us to estimate the coextensive economic
impact of designating each ``particular area'' (that is, each habitat
area, or aggregated occupied stream reaches in a watershed). Expected
economic impacts ranged from zero to $15 million per habitat area.
Where a watershed included both tributaries and a migration corridor
that served other watersheds, we estimated the separate impacts of
designating the tributaries and the migration corridor. We did this by
identifying those categories of activities most likely to affect
tributaries and those most likely to affect larger migration corridors.
Because of the methods we selected and the data limitations,
portions of our analysis both under- and over-estimate the co-extensive
economic impact of section 7 requirements. For example, we lacked data
on the likely impact on flows at non-Federal hydropower projects, which
would increase economic impacts. We also did not have information
currently available allowing us to estimate the likely economic impact
of a judicially-imposed ban on pesticide use near salmon-bearing
streams. The EPA was recently enjoined from authorizing the application
of a set of pesticides within a certain distance of ``salmon supporting
waters.'' We have completed a preliminary analysis of these impacts at
the ESU level (NMFS, 2004c). Because of the existing data limitations
and the preliminary nature of the analysis, we determined not to use
these estimates in the proposed designations. However, we believe the
information presented in this preliminary consideration will aid pubic
comment and assist in the development of a more complete examination of
these impacts for the final rule. In addition, operation and
maintenance of the FCRPS has changed in response to section 7
requirements. Federal agencies estimate direct costs of the FCRPS fish
and wildlife program to be approximately $283 million annually, while
the power costs in 2003 were estimated to be approximately $250
million. Many of these costs would occur without the requirements of
section 7, but there is currently no estimate available of what portion
of these costs are attributable to section 7. Finally, we did not have
information about potential changes in irrigation flows associated with
section 7 consultation. These impacts would increase the estimate of
co-extensive costs. On the other hand, we estimated an impact on all
activities occurring within the geographic boundaries of a watershed,
even though in some cases activities would be far removed from occupied
stream reaches and so might not require modification (or even
consultation). We intend to pursue information prior to issuing a final
rule that will allow us to refine our estimates of economic impacts and
better inform our analysis under section 4(b)(2) (NMFS, 2004d).
In addition, we had no information on the costs of critical habitat
designation that occur outside the section 7 consultation process,
including costs resulting from state or local regulatory burdens
imposed on developers and landowners as a result of a Federal critical
habitat designation. We solicit information on these subjects during
the public comment period.

Exclusion Process

In determining whether the economic benefit of excluding a habitat
area might outweigh the benefit of designation to the species, we took
into consideration a cost-effectiveness approach giving priority to
excluding habitat areas with a relatively lower benefit of designation
and a relatively higher economic impact. We believe it is reasonable at
this stage of the analysis to assume that all areas containing physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species are
essential to the conservation of the species.
The circumstances of most of the listed ESUs can make a cost-
effectiveness approach useful. Pacific salmon are wide-ranging species
and occupy numerous habitat areas with thousands of stream miles. Not
all occupied areas, however, are of equal importance to conserving an
ESU. Within the currently occupied range there are areas that support
highly productive populations, areas that support less productive
populations, and areas that support production in only some years. Some
populations within an ESU may be more important to long-term
conservation of the ESU than other populations. Therefore, in many
cases it may be possible to construct different scenarios for achieving
conservation. Scenarios might have more or less certainty of achieving
conservation, and more or less economic impact. Future applications of
this methodology will strive to better distinguish the relative
conservation value of areas eligible for designation, which should
improve the utility of this approach.
We attempted to consider the effect of excluding areas, either
alone or in combination with other areas, on the opportunities for
conservation of the ESU. We preferred exclusions in areas with a lower
conservation value to those with a high conservation value. We also
recognize that in practice a large proportion of all watersheds
received a ``high'' conservation rating, making it difficult to
establish priorities within that subgroup. In the second step of the
process, we asked the biological teams whether excluding any of the
habitat areas identified in the first step would significantly impede
conservation, recognizing that the breadth of available conservation
measures makes such judgments necessarily subjective. The teams
considered this question in the context of all of the areas eligible
for exclusion as well as the information they had developed in
providing the initial conservation ratings. The following section
describes the results of applying this process to each ESU. The results
are discussed in greater detail in a separate report that is available
for public review and comment (NMFS, 2004d). While the possible effect
on conservation was useful information, it was not determinative in
deciding whether to propose the exclusion of an area. The only
determinative limitation is the statutory bar on excluding any area
that ``will result in the extinction of the species concerned.''

Critical Habitat Designation

Not including any of the eight other potential exclusions
identified under Other Potential Exclusions, we are proposing to
designate approximately 27,553 mi (44,342 km) of lake, riverine, and
estuarine habitat in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and 2,121 mi (3,413
km) of nearshore marine habitat in Puget Sound within the geographical
areas presently occupied by the 13 ESUs. Some of these proposed areas
overlap with two or more ESUs (Table 2), and approximately 1,327 mi
(2,136 km) overlap with Indian reservations (a portion of which are
Indian lands not proposed for designation). Some of these areas also
overlap with military lands (described in the Military Lands section),
which are not proposed for designation either because they are subject
to INRMPs that benefit listed species (NMFS, 2004b) or were determined
to have national security impacts that outweigh the benefit of
designation. The net economic impacts (coextensive with ESA section 7)
associated with the areas proposed for designation for all ESUs are
estimated to be approximately $223,950,127. This estimate does not
account for reductions that occur as a result of excluding Indian lands
or military lands. Moreover, as discussed previously, we are soliciting
comment on additional

[[Page 74628]]

exclusions which, if adopted, would further reduce the estimate of
coextensive costs.
These proposed designated habitat areas, summarized below by ESU,
contain physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management considerations
or protection. Some of the areas proposed for designation are likely to
be excluded in the final rule after consideration of the additional
eight potential exclusions identified above.

Table 2.--Approximate Quantity of Proposed Critical Habitat* and Ownership Within Watersheds Containing Habitat
Areas Proposed for Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearshore Ownership (percent)
Streams Lakes Marine -------------------------------------------
ESU (mi) (sq mi) (mi)
(km) (sq km) (km) Federal Tribal State Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon......... 1,694 41 2,185 46.4 1.0 10.0 42.6
2,726 106 3,516 ......... ......... ......... .........
Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon 1,250 33 ......... 37.0 0.0 7.6 55.4
2,012 85.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Upper Willamette River Chinook 1,571 18 ......... 39.9 0.4 0.7 59.0
Salmon............................
2,528 46.6 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Upper Columbia River Spring-run 926 4 ......... 71.4 0.0 4.6 23.9
Chinook Salmon....................
1,490 10.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Oregon Coast Coho Salmon........... 6,527 15 ......... 31.3 0.2 9.4 59.2
10,504 38.8 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon.. 75 ......... 377 45.8 0.4 13.9 39.9
121 ......... 607 ......... ......... ......... .........
Columbia River Chum Salmon......... 656 ......... ......... 16.6 0.0 13.6 69.8
1,056 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon......... 40 12 ......... 19.3 1.2 7.1 72.4
64 31 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss..... 1,247 7 ......... 53.7 5.5 9.1 31.7
2,007 18.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Snake River Basin O. mykiss........ 7,622 4 ......... 70.0 3.8 2.1 24.1
12,266 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss.... 5,376 ......... ......... 25.5 13.2 3.5 57.8
8,652 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss..... 2,428 27 ......... 43.9 0.4 5.9 49.7
3,908 70 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss... 1,312 2 ......... 11.4 0.4 1.4 86.9
2,108 5.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These estimates are the total amount proposed for each ESU. They do not account for overlapping areas (e.g.,
the Columbia River corridor) proposed for multiple ESUs.

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 61 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 18 units
based on their associated subbasin). Twelve watersheds received a low
rating, 9 received a medium rating, and 40 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). Nineteen nearshore marine
areas also received a rating of high conservation value.
Habitat areas for this ESU include 2,148 mi (3,457 km) of stream
and 2,376 mi (3,824 km) of nearshore marine areas. Of these, 12 stream
miles (19 km) and 109 nearshore miles (175 km) are not proposed for
designation because they are within lands controlled by the military
that contain qualifying INRMPs or they would result in national
security impacts that outweigh the benefits of designation. Fifty-three
miles (85 km) of stream and 147 mi (237 km) of nearshore marine areas
are within the boundaries of Indian reservations, but only those
reaches defined as Indian lands (see Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes) are proposed for exclusion. We have not
calculated the potential reduction in estimated economic impact as a
result of these Indian land exclusions, but expect it would be small
given the small percentage of stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, the Secretary is currently proposing to exclude from the
designation, at a minimum, the habitat areas shown in Table 3. Of the
areas eligible for designation, no fewer than 389 stream miles (624 km)
are proposed for exclusion because the economic benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential estimated
economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $95,374,362. The
exclusions set forth in Table 3 would reduce the total estimated
economic impact is $77,355,898. However, as indicated above, the
Secretary is considering a number of additional exclusions which may
further reduce this economic impact by a substantial amount. For Puget
Sound chinook, a preliminary analysis of the economic impact of
designating critical habitat after considering some of these additional
exclusions indicates that it could be reduced to about $4,200,000.

[[Page 74629]]

Table 3.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and Proposed for Exclusion From
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Strait of Georgia subbasin... 1711000201 Bellingham Bay......... Entire watershed
1711000202 Samish River........... Entire watershed
1711000204 Birch Bay.............. Entire watershed
Unit 3. Upper Skagit River subbasin.. 1711000508 Baker River............ Entire watershed
Unit 10. Lake Washington subbasin.... 1711001202 Lake Sammamish......... Entire watershed
1711001204 Sammamish River........ Entire watershed
Unit 14. Deschutes River subbasin.... 1711001601 Prairie................ Entire watershed
1711001602 Prairie................ Entire watershed
Unit 16. Hood Canal subbasin......... 1711001802 Lower West Hood Canal Entire watershed
Frontal.
1711001806 Big Quilcene River..... Entire watershed
1711001808 West Kitsap............ Entire watershed
Unit 17. Kitsap subbasin............. 1711001900 Kennedy/Goldsborough... Entire watershed
1711001901 Puget.................. Entire watershed
1711001902 Prairie................ Entire watershed
1711001904 Puget Sound/East Entire watershed
Passage.
Unit 18. Dungeness/Elwha Rivers 1711002004 Port Angeles Harbor.... Entire watershed
subbasin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 47 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 10 units
based on their associated subbasin). Four watersheds received a low
rating, 13 received a medium rating, and 30 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Columbia River
corridor downstream of the spawning range was also considered to have a
high conservation value.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, the Secretary is currently proposing to exclude from the
designation, at a minimum, the habitat areas shown in Table 4. Of the
1,440 miles (2,317 km) eligible for designation, no fewer than 190 mi
(306 km) are proposed for exclusion because the economic benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential
estimated economic impact is $35,077,449. After exclusions the total
estimated economic impact is $26,114,165. However, as indicated above,
the Secretary is considering a number of additional exclusions which
may further reduce this economic impact by a substantial amount. For
Lower Columbia River chinook, a preliminary analysis of the economic
impact of designating critical habitat after considering some of these
additional exclusions indicates that it could be reduced to about
$6,300,000.

Table 4.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU and Proposed for
Exclusion From Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Middle Columbia/Hood subbasin 1707010510 Little White Salmon Entire watershed
River.
Unit 2. Lower Columbia/Sandy Rivers 1708000106 Washougal River........ Entire watershed
subbasin.
Unit 4. Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 1708000302 Beaver Creek/Columbia Entire watershed
Rivers subbasin. River.
1708000304 Germany/Abernathy...... Entire watershed
Unit 6. Lower Cowlitz subbasin....... 1708000504 North Fork Toutle River Entire watershed
Unit 7. Lower Columbia River subbasin 1708000601 Youngs River........... Entire watershed
Unit 8. Middle Willamette River 1709000704 Abernethy Creek........ Entire watershed
subbasin.
Unit 9. Clackamas River subbasin..... 1709001105 Eagle Creek............ Entire watershed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 56 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 10 units
based on their associated subbasin). Twenty watersheds received a low
rating, 17 received a medium rating, and 19 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Willamette/
Columbia River corridor downstream of the spawning range was also
considered to have a high conservation value.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, the Secretary is proposing to exclude from the designation, at a
minimum, the habitat areas shown in Table 5. Of the 1,788 mi (2,878 km)
eligible for designation, no fewer than 217 mi (349 km) are proposed
for exclusion because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is
$29,798,559. After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is
$24,627,805. However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering
a number of additional exclusions which may further reduce this
economic impact by a substantial amount. For Upper Willamette River
chinook, a preliminary analysis of the economic impact of designating
critical habitat after considering some of these additional exclusions
indicates that it could be reduced to about $4,900,000.

[[Page 74630]]

Table 5. Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU and Proposed for Full
or Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only are Excluded Contain Rearing/
Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Middle Fork Willamette River 1709000104 Salmon Creek........... Entire watershed
subbasin.
Unit 2. Coast Fork Willamette River 1709000201 Row River.............. Entire watershed
subbasin.
1709000202 Mosby Creek............ Entire watershed
1709000203 Upper Coast Fork Entire watershed
Willamette River.
1709000205 Lower Coast Fork Entire watershed
Willamette River.
Unit 3. Upper Willamette River 1709000301 Long Tom River......... Entire watershed
subbasin.
1709000302 Muddy Creek............ Tributaries only
Unit 4. Mckenzie River subbasin...... 1709000404 Blue River............. Entire watershed
Unit 7. Middle Willamette River 1709000702 Rickreall Creek........ Tributaries only
subbasin.
1709000703 Willamette River/ Tributaries only
Chehalem Creek.
1709000704 Abernethy Creek........ Tributaries only
Unit 8. Yamhill River subbasin....... 1709000804 Lower South Yamhill Entire watershed
River.
1709000805 Salt Creek/South Entire watershed
Yamhill River.
1709000806 North Yamhill River.... Entire watershed
1709000807 Yamhill River.......... Entire watershed
Unit 9. Molalla/Pudding Rivers 1709000901 Abiqua Creek/Pudding Entire watershed
subbasin. River.
Unit 10. Clackamas River subbasin.... 1709001105 Eagle Creek............ Entire watershed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 15 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into four units
based on their associated subbasin). Six watersheds received a medium
rating and nine received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU
(NMFS, 2004a). The Columbia River corridor downstream of the spawning
range was also considered to have a high conservation value.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation, at a minimum,
the habitat areas shown in Table 6. Of the 976 mi (1,571 km) eligible
for designation, no fewer than 50 mi (80.5 km) are proposed for
exclusion because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is
$16,499,567. After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is
$13,511,034. However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering
a number of additional exclusions which may further reduce this
economic impact by a substantial amount. For Upper Columbia River
spring-run chinook, a preliminary analysis of the economic impact of
designating critical habitat after considering some of these additional
exclusions indicates that it could be reduced to $0. Seventeen of the
30 HUC5 watersheds contain a substantial amount of Federal land subject
to protection under the PACFISH management standards. Much of the
eligible habitat is found within the mainstem of the Columbia River,
which is already subject to a comprehensive Federal salmonid management
strategy, with participation by at least eight Federal agencies. The
affected economy is primarily rural in nature, and is especially
sensitive to additional land management burdens. At the same time, many
residents of the affected area are voluntarily undertaking substantial
actions to help improve and increase available salmon habitat. For
these reasons, the benefits of excluding the eligible habitat in this
ESU may outweigh the benefits of designation as critical habitat.

Table 6.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU and Proposed
for Full or Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only Are Excluded Contain
Rearing/Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2. Methow River subbasin........ 1702000807 Lower Methow River..... Tributaries only
Unit 3. Upper Columbia/Entiat Rivers 1702001002 Lake Entiat............ Tributaries only
subbasin.
Unit 4. Wenatchee River subbasin..... 1702001104 Icicle/Chumstick....... Tributaries only
1702001105 Lower Wenatchee River.. Tributaries only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

There are 80 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 13 units
based on their associated subbasin). Ten watersheds received a low
rating, 28 received a medium rating, and 42 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a).
There are 6,665 mi (10,726 km) of stream in the 80 habitat areas
for Oregon Coast coho. Three miles (4.8 km) of stream are within the
boundaries of Indian reservations, but only those reaches defined as
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes)
are proposed for exclusion. We have not calculated the potential
reduction in estimated economic impact as a result of these Indian land
exclusions, but expect it would be small given the small percentage of
stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude, at a minimum, from the designation
the habitat areas shown in Table 7. Of the

[[Page 74631]]

6,665 mi (10,726 km) eligible for designation, no fewer than 135 mi
(217 km) are proposed for exclusion because the economic benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential
estimated economic impact is $18,446,139. After exclusions the total
estimated economic impact is $15,696,696. However, as indicated above,
the Secretary is considering a number of additional exclusions which
may further reduce this economic impact by a substantial amount. The
Secretary could exclude all eligible habitat in this ESU from the
critical habitat designation. One primary reason for such an exclusion
lies in the voluntary conservation efforts undertaken by the State of
Oregon and its citizens in this area since 1996, collectively referred
to as the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Under the Oregon Plan,
substantial improvements have occurred, and are expected to continue to
occur, to improve and increase habitat, to reduce harvest and to reform
hatchery practices to aid in the conservation of this species. These
efforts by the State and its citizens are a national model for
cooperative conservation. Designating critical habitat in this ESU
could discourage and even undercut these voluntary conservation
efforts, possibly resulting in a decrease rather than an increase in
conservation of the species.
In addition, 36 of the 80 watersheds contain a substantial amount
of Federal land managed under the protective provisions of the
Northwest Forest Plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and an
additional 16 watersheds contain moderate amounts of such Federal land.
With these protective measures in place on Federal land to complement
the non-Federal conservation efforts embodied in the Oregon Plan, there
is little biological justification to designate critical habitat in
this ESU. Further, the coastal economy is and has been weak for some
time, with the manufacturing sector declining and tourism emerging
slowly as the leading industry. Any additional economic burdens are
difficult to justify in light of the limited conservation value of a
critical habitat designation. For these reasons, the benefits of
excluding the eligible habitat in this ESU may outweigh the benefits of
designation as critical habitat.

Table 7. Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU and Proposed for Exclusion From
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 8. North Fork Umpqua River 1710030106 Boulder Creek.......... Entire watershed
subbasin.
1710030108 Steamboat Creek........ Entire watershed
1710030109 Canton Creek........... Entire watershed
Unit 9. South Fork Umpqua River 1710030201 Upper South Umpqua Entire watershed
subbasin. River.
1710030202 Jackson Creek.......... Entire watershed
1710030204 Elk Creek/South Umpqua. Entire watershed
Unit 10. Umpqua River subbasin....... 1710030305 Lake Creek............. Entire watershed
Unit 12. Coquille River subbasin..... 1710030501 Coquille S Fk, Lwr..... Entire watershed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon ESU

There are 12 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into four units
based on their associated subbasin). Three watersheds received a medium
rating, and nine received a high rating of conservation value to the
ESU (NMFS, 2004a). Five nearshore marine areas also received a rating
of high conservation value.
Habitat areas for this ESU include 88 mi (142 km) of stream and 402
mi (647 km) of nearshore marine areas. Of these, 41 nearshore miles (66
km) are not proposed for designation because they are within lands
controlled by the military that contain qualifying INRMPs or they would
result in national security impacts that outweigh the benefits of
designation. Six miles (10 km) of stream and 9 mi (15 km) of nearshore
marine areas are within the boundaries of Indian reservations, but only
those reaches defined as Indian lands (see Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes) are proposed for exclusion. We have not
calculated the potential reduction in estimated economic impact as a
result of these Indian land exclusions, but expect it would be small
given the small percentage of stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation, at a minimum,
the habitat areas shown in Table 8. Of the areas eligible for
designation 13 stream miles (20.9 km) are proposed for exclusion
because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is $7,624,320.
After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is $6,630,479.
However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering a number of
additional exclusions which may further reduce this economic impact by
a substantial amount. For Hood Canal summer-run chum, a preliminary
analysis of the economic impact of designating critical habitat after
considering some of these additional exclusions indicates that it could
be reduced to about $1,800,000.

Table 8. Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU and Proposed for Exclusion
From Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Skokomish River subbasin..... 1711001701 Skokomish River........ Entire watershed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74632]]

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU

There are 19 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into six units
based on their associated subbasin). Three watersheds received a medium
rating, and 16 received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU
(NMFS, 2004a). The lower Columbia River corridor downstream of the
spawning range was also considered to have a high conservation value.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation, at a minimum,
the habitat areas shown in Table 9. Of the 657 mi (1,057 km) eligible
for designation approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) is proposed for exclusion
because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is $14,413,049.
After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is $14,048,419.
However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering a number of
additional exclusions which may further reduce this economic impact by
a substantial amount. For Columbia River chum salmon, a preliminary
analysis of the economic impact of designating critical habitat after
considering some of these additional exclusions indicates that it could
be reduced to about $4,000,000.

Table 9. Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU and Proposed for Exclusion From
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 5. Lower Cowlitz River subbasin. 1708000504 North Fork Toutle River Entire watershed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon ESU

There is one subbasin within the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU, composed
of a single watershed. This watershed was rated as having a high
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). There are 40 mi (64 km) of
stream in the one habitat area for Ozette Lake sockeye and 0.5 mi (0.8
km) of stream within the boundaries of Indian reservations. We have not
calculated the potential reduction in estimated economic impact as a
result of these Indian land exclusions, but expect it would be small
given the small percentage of stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, no habitat is being proposed for exclusion. Total potential
estimated economic impact is $2,720.

Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

There are 31 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 10 units
based on their associated subbasin). Three watersheds received a low
rating, 8 received a medium rating, and 20 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Columbia River
corridor downstream of the spawning range was also considered to have a
high conservation value.
There are 1,319 mi (2,123 km) of stream in the habitat areas for
this ESU. Of these, 7 mi (11 km) are not proposed for designation
because they are within lands controlled by the military that contain
qualifying INRMPs. Fifty-nine mi (95 km) of stream are within the
boundaries of Indian reservations, but only those reaches defined as
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes)
are proposed for exclusion. We have not calculated the potential
reduction in estimated economic impact as a result of these Indian land
exclusions, but expect it would be small given the small percentage of
stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation the habitat
areas shown in Table 10. Of the 1,319 mi (2,123 km) eligible for
designation 16 mi (26 km) are proposed for exclusion because the
economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
Total potential estimated economic impact is $24,558,737. After
exclusions the total estimated economic impact is $18,843,714. However,
as indicated above, the Secretary is considering a number of additional
exclusions which may further reduce this economic impact by a
substantial amount. For Upper Columbia River O. mykiss, a preliminary
analysis of the economic impact of designating critical habitat after
considering some of these additional exclusions indicates that it could
be reduced to about $3,000,000.

Table 10.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU and Proposed for Full or
Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only Are Excluded Contain Rearing/
Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Chief Joseph subbasin........ 1702000503 Foster Creek........... Entire watershed.
1702000504 Jordan/Tumwater........ Entire watershed.
Unit 5. Lake Chelan subbasin......... 1702000903 Lower Chelan........... Entire watershed.
Unit 6. Upper Columbia/Entiat Rivers 1702001002 Lake Entiat............ Tributaries only.
subbasin.
Unit 8. Moses Coulee subbasin........ 1702001204 Rattlesnake Creek...... Entire watershed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU

There are 271 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 25 units
based on their associated subbasin). Sixteen watersheds received a low
rating, 42 received a medium rating, and 213 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Snake/Columbia
River corridor downstream of the spawning range was also considered to
have a high conservation value.

[[Page 74633]]

There are 7,989 mi (12,857 km) of stream in the habitat areas
(including the lower Snake/Columbia River rearing/migration corridor)
of this ESU and 261 mi (420 km) of stream within the boundaries of
Indian reservations, but only those reaches defined as Indian lands
(see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes) are proposed
for exclusion. We have not calculated the potential reduction in
estimated economic impact as a result of these Indian land exclusions,
but expect it would be small given the small percentage of stream miles
these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation, at a minimum,
the habitat areas shown in Table 11. Of the 7,989 mi (12,857 km)
eligible for designation, no fewer than 110 mi (177 km) are proposed
for exclusion because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is
$35,746,361. After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is
$34,867,772. However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering
a number of additional exclusions which may further reduce this
economic impact to $0. More than 225 of the HUC5 watersheds contain a
substantial amount of Federal land subject to protection under the
PACFISH management standards. Some of the eligible habitat is found
within the mainstem of the Columbia River which is already subject to a
comprehensive Federal salmonid management strategy, with participation
by at least eight Federal agencies. Most of the geographic area of the
ESU lies in Idaho, where the State of Idaho has reached agreement in
principle with the Federal government as part of a tribal water rights
adjudication for the Snake River Basin to adopt new land management
standards for state lands and for private landowners who choose to
enroll in the program, offering a higher level of conservation efforts
on these lands in the future than may have been provided in the past.
Many residents of the affected area are voluntarily undertaking other
substantial actions to help improve and increase available habitat for
this species. The economy in the affected region of all three states is
primarily rural in nature, and is especially sensitive to additional
land management burdens. For these reasons, the benefits of excluding
the eligible habitat in this ESU may outweigh the benefits of
designation as critical habitat.

Table 11.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU and Proposed for Full or
Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only Are Excluded Contain Rearing/
Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 7. Lower Snake/Tucannon Rivers 1706010705 Pataha Creek........... Entire watershed.
subbasin.
Unit 9. Upper Salmon River subbasin.. 1706020107 Road Creek............. Entire watershed.
Unit 10. Pahsimeroi River subbasin... 1706020202 Pahsimeroi River/Falls Entire watershed.
Creek.
Unit 11. Middle Salmon River-Panther 1706020319 Napias Creek........... Entire watershed.
Creek subbasin.
1706020321 Big Deer Creek......... Entire watershed.
Unit 15. Middle Salmon River- 1706020702 Wind River............. Entire watershed.
Chamberlain Creek subbasin.
1706020707 Big Mallard Creek...... Entire watershed.
Unit 17. Lower Salmon River subbasin. 1706020917 Rice Creek............. Entire watershed.
Unit 23. South Fork Clearwater River 1706030503 South Fork Clearwater Tributaries only.
subbasin. River/Peasley Creek.
1706030512 Three Mile Creek....... Entire watershed.
Unit 24. Clearwater River subbasin... 1706030601 Lower Clearwater River. Tributaries only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

There are 111 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into 15 units
based on their associated subbasin). Eleven watersheds received a low
rating, 22 received a medium rating, and 78 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Columbia River
corridor downstream of the spawning range was also considered to have a
high conservation value.
There are 6,264 mi (10,081 km) of stream in the habitat areas of
this ESU. Of these, 796 mi (1,281 km) of stream are within the
boundaries of Indian reservations, but only those reaches defined as
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes)
are proposed for exclusion. We have not calculated the potential
reduction in estimated economic impact as a result of these Indian land
exclusions, but expect it would be small given the small percentage of
stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation the habitat
areas shown in Table 12. Of the 6,264 mi (10,081 km) eligible for
designation, 93 mi (150 km) are proposed for exclusion because the
economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
Total potential estimated economic impact is $37,510,095. After
exclusions the total estimated economic impact is $34,556,978.
However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering a number
of additional exclusions which could reduce this economic impact to $0.
Twenty-seven of the HUC5 watersheds have a substantial amount of
Federal land subject to protection under the PACFISH management
standards; another 16 of these watersheds have a moderate amount of
such Federal land. Some of the eligible habitat is found within the
mainstem of the Columbia River which is already subject to a
comprehensive Federal salmonid management strategy, with participation
by at least eight Federal agencies.
In both Washington and Oregon, there are many voluntary
conservation activities underway throughout the ESU by Federal agencies
(BOR in particular), state agencies and private citizens. We have noted
recently that the ESU may be close to meeting recovery standards, and
NOAA's scientists have consistently rated the degree of risk for this
ESU the lowest among the listed salmonid species. The economy in the
affected region of both states is primarily rural in nature, and is
especially sensitive to additional land management burdens.

[[Page 74634]]

For these reasons, the benefits of excluding the eligible habitat in
this ESU may outweigh the benefits of designation as critical habitat.

Table 12.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU and Proposed for Full or
Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only Are Excluded Contain Rearing/
Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 5. Walla Walla River subbasin... 1707010209 Pine Creek............. Entire watershed.
Unit 6. Umatilla River subbasin...... 1707010304 Wildhorse Creek........ Entire watershed.
Unit 7. Middle Columbia/Hood Rivers 1707010510 Little White Salmon Entire watershed.
subbasin. River.
Unit 12. Lower John Day River 1707020405 Lower John Day River/ Tributaries only.
subbasin. Clarno.
1707020409 Lower John Day River/ Tributaries only.
Ferry Canyon.
1707020410 Lower John Day River/ Tributaries only.
Scott Canyon.
Unit 13. Lower Deschutes River 1707030610 White River............ Entire watershed.
subbasin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

There are 41 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into nine units
based on their associated subbasin). Two watersheds received a low
rating, 11 received a medium rating, and 28 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Columbia River
corridor downstream of the spawning range was also considered to have a
high conservation value.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation, at a minimum,
the habitat areas shown in Table 13. Of the 2,656 mi (4,274 km)
eligible for designation, no fewer than 229 mi (369 km) are proposed
for exclusion because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is
$33,906,543. After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is
$26,618,626. However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering
a number of additional exclusions which may further reduce this
economic impact by a substantial amount. For Lower Columbia River O.
mykiss, a preliminary analysis of the economic impact of designating
critical habitat after considering some of these additional exclusions
indicates that it could be reduced to about $3,600,000.

Table 13.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU and Proposed for Full or
Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only Are Excluded Contain Rearing/
Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Middle Columbia/Hood Rivers 1707010512 Middle Columbia/Grays Tributaries only.
subbasin. Creek.
Unit 2. Lower Columbia/Sandy Rivers 1708000105 Bull Run River......... Entire watershed.
subbasin.
1708000107 Columbia Gorge Tributaries only.
Tributaries.
1708000109 Salmon Creek........... Entire watershed.
Unit 7. Middle Willamette River 1709000704 Abernethy Creek........ Entire watershed.
subbasin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Willamette River O. Mykiss ESU

There are 34 watersheds within the spawning range of this ESU (for
ease of reference these watersheds have been organized into seven units
based on their associated subbasin). Sixteen watersheds received a low
rating, 7 received a medium rating, and 11 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2004a). The lower Willamette/
Columbia River corridor downstream of the spawning range was also
considered to have a high conservation value.
There are 1,822 mi (2,932 km) of stream in the 34 habitat areas for
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss. Of these, 9 mi (15 km) of stream are
within the boundaries of Indian reservations, but only those reaches
defined as Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With
Tribes) are proposed for exclusion. We have not calculated the
potential reduction in estimated economic impact as a result of these
Indian land exclusions, but expect it would be small given the small
percentage of stream miles these exclusions represent.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, we are proposing to exclude from the designation, at a minimum,
the habitat areas shown in Table 14. Of the 1,822 mi (2,932 km)
eligible for designation, no fewer than 503 mi (810 km) are proposed
for exclusion because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact is
$11,159,514. After exclusions the total estimated economic impact is
$7,647,553. However, as indicated above, the Secretary is considering a
number of additional exclusions which may further reduce this economic
impact by a substantial amount. For Upper Willamette River O. mykiss, a
preliminary analysis of the economic impact of designating critical
habitat after considering some of these additional exclusions indicates
that it could be reduced to about $3,000,000.

[[Page 74635]]

Table 14.--Fifth-Field Watersheds Occupied by the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU and Proposed for Full or
Partial Exclusion From Critical Habitat. Watersheds for Which Tributaries Only Are Excluded Contain Rearing/
Migration Corridors Necessary for Conservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin/Unit Watershed code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4. Middle Willamette River 1709000702 Rickreall Creek........ Tributaries only.
subbasin.
1709000703 Willamette River/ Tributaries only.
Chehalem Creek.
1709000704 Abernethy Creek........ Tributaries only.
Unit 5. Yamhill River subbasin....... 1709000802 Willamina Creek........ Entire watershed.
1709000805 Salt Creek/South Entire watershed.
Yamhill River.
1709000806 North Yamhill River.... Entire watershed.
1709000807 Yamhill River.......... Tributaries only.
Unit 6. Molalla/Pudding River 1709000901 Abiqua Creek/Pudding Entire watershed.
subbasin. River.
Unit 7. Tualatin River subbasin...... 1709001001 Dairy Creek............ Entire watershed.
1709001003 Scoggins Creek......... Entire watershed.
1709001004 Rock Creek/Tualatin Entire watershed.
River.
1709001005 Lower Tualatin River... Entire watershed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including NMFS, to
ensure that actions they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In agency regulations at
50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``a
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to: Alterations
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' However,
in a March 15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 243
F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), and an August 9, 2004 decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Gifford Pinchot Task
Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, No. 03-35279, the courts have found
the agencies' definition of destruction or adverse modification to be
invalid. In response to this decision, we are reviewing this regulatory
definition.
Section 7(a) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including NMFS,
to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed
or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing
this provision of the ESA are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section
7(a)(4) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any
action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a
conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion that is prepared
according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species were listed or critical
habitat designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the
biological opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat
designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, ESA
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we
would review actions to determine if they would destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we will also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that we believe would avoid destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect these ESUs or their
critical habitat will require ESA section 7 consultation. Activities on
private or state lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such
as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the CWA, a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit from NMFS, or some other Federal action, including
funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration (FHA) or Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding), will also be subject to
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal and
private lands that are not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted
do not require section 7 consultation.

Activities Affected by Critical Habitat Designation

Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that we evaluate briefly and
describe, in

[[Page 74636]]

any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat,
those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely modify
such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. As noted in
the Special Management Considerations or Protection section above, we
received several comments on the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003)
regarding activities potentially affected by a critical habitat
designation.
A wide variety of activities may affect critical habitat and, when
carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, require that an
ESA section 7 consultation be conducted. Such activities include, but
are not limited to, those described in the Species Descriptions and
Area Assessments section. Generally these include water and land
management actions of Federal agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM, Corps, BOR),
the FHA, NRCS, National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) and related
or similar actions of other Federally regulated projects and lands,
including livestock grazing allotments by the USFS and BLM; hydropower
sites licensed by the FERC; dams built or operated by the Corps or BOR;
timber sales and other vegetation management activities conducted by
the USFS, BLM, and BIA; irrigation diversions authorized by the USFS
and BLM; road building and maintenance activities authorized by the
FHA, USFS, BLM, NPS, and BIA; and mining and road building/maintenance
activities authorized by the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, diking, and
bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the Corps,
habitat modifications authorized by the FEMA, and approval of water
quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions
administered by the EPA.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, Corps, FHA,
NRCS, NPS, BIA, FEMA, EPA, and the FERC. This designation will provide
these agencies, private entities, and the public with clear
notification of critical habitat designated for listed salmonids and
the boundaries of the habitat. This designation will also assist these
agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of their
activities on listed salmon and their critical habitat and in
determining if section 7 consultation with NMFS is needed.
As noted above, numerous private entities also may be affected by
this critical habitat designation because of the direct and indirect
linkages to an array of Federal actions, including Federal projects,
permits, and funding. For example, private entities may harvest timber
or graze livestock on Federal land or have special use permits to
convey water or build access roads across Federal land; they may
require Federal permits to armor stream banks, construct irrigation
withdrawal facilities, or build or repair docks; they may obtain water
from Federally funded and operated irrigation projects; or they may
apply pesticides that are only available with Federal agency approval.
These activities will need to be analyzed with respect to their
potential to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In some
cases, proposed activities may require modifications that may result in
decreases in activities such as timber harvest and livestock and crop
production. The transportation and utilities sectors may need to modify
the placement of culverts, bridges and utility conveyances (e.g.,
water, sewer and power lines) to avoid barriers to fish migration.
Developments occurring in or near salmon streams (e.g., marinas,
residential, or industrial facilities) that require Federal
authorization or funding may need to be altered or built in a manner
that ensures that critical habitat is not destroyed or adversely
modified as a result of the construction, or subsequent operation, of
the facility. These are just a few examples of potential impacts, but
it is clear that the effects will encompass numerous sectors of private
and public activities. If you have questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, contact NMFS (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governments and agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments
particularly are sought concerning:
(1) Maps and specific information describing the amount,
distribution, and use type (e.g., spawning, rearing, or migration) of
salmon habitat in each ESU; as well as any additional information on
occupied and unoccupied habitat areas.
(2) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of
the ESA;
(3) Information regarding the benefits of excluding lands covered
by Habitat Conservation Plans (ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permits),
including the regulatory burden designation may impose on landowners
and the likelihood that exclusion of areas covered by existing plans
will serve as an incentive for other landowners to develop plans
covering their lands;
(4) Information regarding the benefits of excluding Federal and
other lands covered by habitat conservation strategies and plans (e.g.
Northwest Forest Plan, Washington's Forest and Fish Plan, and the
Oregon Plan), including the regulatory burden designation may impose on
land managers and the likelihood that exclusion of areas covered by
existing plans will serve as an incentive for land users to implement
the conservation measures covering the lands subject to these plans;
(5) Information regarding the benefits of designating particular
areas as critical habitat;
(6) Current or planned activities in the areas proposed for
designation and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(7) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting
from the proposed designations, in particular, any impacts on small
entities;
(8) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concern and comments; and
(9) Whether specific unoccupied areas (e.g., dewatered stream
reaches, areas behind dikes or dams) not presently proposed for
designation may be essential to provide additional spawning and rearing
areas for an ESU. In particular we are seeking information regarding
potential habitat areas in the Lemhi River and Pahsimeroi River
subbasins in Idaho. Dam-related areas identified by the Teams as
possibly being essential for conservation and for which we are seeking
information include:
Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU: areas upstream of Bull
Run, Condit, Merwin, Swift, and Yale dams;
Upper Willamette River Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU: areas
upstream of Big Cliff and Detroit dams;
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU: areas upstream of Enloe Dam;
Snake River O. mykiss ESU: areas upstream of Dworshak Dam;

[[Page 74637]]

Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU: upper reaches of Wilson and
Naneum creeks and areas upstream of Bumping, Cle Elum, Kacheelus,
Kachess, and Tieton dams;
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU: areas upstream of Bull Run,
Condit, Merwin, Swift, and Yale dams.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES
section). The proposed rule, maps, fact sheets, 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. We will
consider all comments and information received during the comment period
on this proposed rule as we prepare our final rulemaking. Accordingly, the
final decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the
Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person
requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to
list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR
424.16(copyright)(3)). Requests for public hearing must be made in
writing (see ADDRESSES) by January 28, 2005. Due to the high likelihood
of such requests we have already scheduled four public hearings on this
proposed rule (see DATES). Details regarding the specific hearing
locations, formats, and times will be posted by December 24, 2004, on
our Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/
CHsite.htm. These hearings will provide the opportunity for
interested individuals and parties to give comments, exchange information
and opinions, and engage in a constructive dialogue concerning this
proposed rule. We encourage the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

Peer Review

In accordance with an ESA policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. Given
the varied considerations involved in making the proposed designations,
we intend to solicit reviews from specialist(s) with biological
expertise as well as specialist(s) with economic expertise in the
geographic range of these ESUs. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that the critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these reviewers copies of
this proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal
Register. We will invite them to comment, during the public comment
period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In response to the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003) we
received the names of two potential independent reviewers and will
identify other candidates prior to or soon after publishing this
proposed rule. We will announce the availability of comments received
from these reviewers and the public and make them available via the
internet as soon as practicable during or after the comment period but
in advance of a final rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the
description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What else
could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand? You may
send comments on how we could make this proposed rule easier to
understand to one of the addresses identified in the ADDRESSES section
or via e-mail to: critical.habitat.nwr@noaa.gov.
Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). As noted above, we have prepared several reports to
support the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. The
economic costs of the proposed critical habitat designations are
described in our draft economic report (NMFS, 2004c). The benefits of
the proposed designations are described in the Critical Habitat
Analytical Review Team report (NMFS, 2004a). This document uses a
biologically-based ranking system for gauging the benefits of applying
section 7 of the ESA to particular watersheds. Because data are not
available to express these benefits in monetary terms, we have adopted
a cost-effectiveness framework, as outlined in a draft 4(b)(2) report
(NMFS, 2004d). This approach is in accord with OMB's guidance on
regulatory analysis (U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4, Regulatory Analysis, September 17, 2003). By taking this approach,
we seek to designate sufficient critical habitat to meet the biological
goal of the ESA while imposing the least burden on society, as called
for by E.O. 12866.
In assessing the overall cost of critical habitat designation for
the 13 Pacific salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, the annual total impact
figures given in the draft economic analysis (NMFS, 2004c) cannot be
added together to obtain an aggregate annual impact. Because some
watersheds are included in more than one ESU, a simple summation would
entail duplication, resulting in an overestimate. Accounting for this
duplication, the aggregate annual economic impact of the 13 proposed
critical habitat designations is $223,950,126 (in contrast to a
$264,727,857 aggregate annual economic impact from designating all
areas considered in the 4(b)(2) process for these ESUs). These amounts
include impacts that are co-extensive with the implementation of the
jeopardy standard of section 7 (NMFS, 2004c).

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
We have prepared a draft regulatory flexibility analysis and this
document is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). This analysis
estimates that the number of regulated small entities potentially
affected by this proposed rulemaking ranges from zero to 2,720
depending on the ESU. If these areas are designated critical habitat,
the estimated co-extensive costs of section 7 consultation incurred by
small entities is estimated to range from $2.3 thousand to $60.4
million depending on the ESU. As described in the analysis, we
considered various alternatives for designating critical habitat for
these 13

[[Page 74638]]

ESUs. We considered and rejected the alternative of not designating
critical habitat for any of the ESUs because such an approach did not
meet the legal requirements of the ESA. We also examined and rejected
an alternative in which all the potential critical habitat of the 13
Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs is proposed for designation (i.e., no
areas are excluded) because many of the areas considered to have a low
conservation value also had relatively high economic impacts that might
be mitigated by excluding those areas from designation. A third
alternative we examined and rejected would exclude all habitat areas
with a low or medium conservation value. While this alternative
furthers the goal of reducing economic impacts, it is not sensitive to
the fact that for most ESUs, eliminating all habitat areas with low and
medium conservation value is likely to significantly impede
conservation. Moreover, for some habitat areas the incremental economic
benefit from excluding that area is relatively small. Therefore, after
considering these alternatives in the context of the section 4(b)(2)
process of weighing benefits of exclusion against benefits of
designation, we determined that the current proposal for designating
critical habitat (i.e., designating some but not all areas with low or
medium conservation value) provides an appropriate balance of
conservation and economic mitigation and that excluding the areas
identified in this proposed rulemaking would not result in extinction
of the ESUs. It is estimated that small entities could save from zero
to $20.2 million in compliance costs, depending on the ESU, if the
areas proposed for exclusion in this proposed rule are excluded from
designation.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule may
be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. At this
time, however, we are unable to determine both the scope and the nature
of the energy effects.
Nine of the ESUs under consideration for critical habitat
designation occupy the Columbia River and most of these migrate through
one or more of the hydropower dams comprising the FCRPS. In National
Wildlife Federation et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al.,
the court remanded the 2000 Biological Opinion on the operation of the
FCRPS for salmon. This Biological Opinion establishes Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives for the operation of the FCRPS, many of which are
likely to have significant energy effects. The court has established a
November 30, 2004, deadline for the revised Biological Opinion. Until
that time, we do not have sufficient information or certainty to
estimate the energy effects of critical habitat designation for the 13
Pacific salmon ESUs. When such information is available and greater
certainty exists about the effects of the revised 2000 Biological
Opinion, we will assess the significance of the energy effects of this
regulatory action and publish a notice of availability of this
assessment (and request for comment) prior to a final rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the
following findings:
(a) This proposed rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local,
tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.'' The
designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the ESA,
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal funding,
assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or authorization from
a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal
entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal
assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
to State governments.
(b) Due to current public knowledge of salmon protection and the
prohibition against take of these species both within and outside of
the designated areas, we do not anticipate that this proposed rule will
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does
not have significant takings implications. A takings implication
assessment is not required. The designation of critical habitat affects
only Federal agency actions. The proposed rule will not increase or
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take
of salmon. As noted above, due to widespread public knowledge of salmon
protection and the prohibition against take of the species both within
and outside of the designated areas, we do not anticipate that property
values will be affected by the proposed critical habitat designations.
While real estate market values may temporarily decline following
designation, due to the perception that critical habitat designation
may impose additional regulatory burdens on land use, we expect any
such impacts to be short term (NMFS, 2004c). Additionally, critical
habitat designation does not preclude development of HCPs and issuance
of incidental take permits.

[[Page 74639]]

Owners of areas that are included in the designated critical habitat
will continue to have the opportunity to use their property in ways
consistent with the survival of listed salmon.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of Commerce policies, we requested
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed
critical habitat designation with appropriate state resource agencies
in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The proposed designation may have
some benefit to the states and local resource agencies in that the
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While
making this definition and identification does not alter where and what
Federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the
Commerce has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden
the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the ESA. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the 13 salmon ESUs.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This proposed rule does not contain new or revised information
collection for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we need not prepare environmental analyses
as provided for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for
critical habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116
S.Ct. 698 (1996).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and tribal Governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal
governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by,
the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise to a special
Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and
obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and the
application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian
lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
Pursuant to these authorities lands have been retained by Indian Tribes
or have been set aside for tribal use. These lands are managed by
Indian Tribes in accordance with tribal goals and objectives within the
framework of applicable treaties and laws.
Administration policy contained in the Secretarial Order:
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997) (``Secretarial
Order''); the President's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-
to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (50
FR 2291); Executive Order 13175; and Department of Commerc--American
Indian and Alaska Native Policy (March 30, 1995) reflects and defines
this unique relationship.
These policies also recognize the unique status of Indian lands.
The Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, provides that, to the
maximum extent possible, tribes should be the governmental entities to
manage their la