Agenda Item C.5.a Attachment 1 September 2010 Pacific Coast Salmon Essential Fish Habitat Review Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council Preliminary Draft for Public Review 13 September, 2010 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 How this Document is Organized... 3 Background on Essential Fish Habitat... 5 Essential Fish Habitat Periodic Reviews... 6 Methods/Approach... 6 Chronology... 6 2. REFINE/REVISE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR PACIFIC COAST SALMON... 7 Task: Stock Distribution... 7 General Approach of Appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan... 7 Description of Existing Essential Fish Habitat... 7 Preliminary Recommendations... 18 Task: Impassible Barriers... 18 Recommendations... 23 Task: Habitats important to Salmonid Life History... 23 Recommendation... 23 Task: Alaska Essential Fish Habitat... 23 Recommendation... 24 Task: 4 th Field versus 6 th Field Hydrologic Units... 24 Recommendation... 26 Task: Intrinsic Potential... 26 Recommendation... 28 Task: Qualitative versus Spatially explicit Descriptions of Essential Fish Habitat... 28 Recommendation... 28 3. HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN... 28 Recommendations... 32 4. THREATS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT... 32 Task: Non fishing Activities that may Affect Pacific Coast Salmon Essential Fish Habitat... 32 Recommendation... 33 Task: Fishing Activities that may Affect Pacific Coast Salmon Essential Fish Habitat... 33 Gear Effects... 33 Harvest of Prey Species... 34 Removal of Salmon Carcasses... 34 Recommendation... 35 Task: Information and Research Needs... 35 Recommendation... 35 2
1. INTRODUCTION The Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (MSA)(Public Law 104 297) defines Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, and requires fishery management councils to identify (EFH for Federally managed species. Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) may choose to identify EFH based on current distribution, habitat components, historic presence, or other factors; and must also identify life history habitat requirements, impacts from both fishing and non fishing activities, and research needs. Councils may choose to identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) within EFH based on the habitat s ecological function, sensitivity to human induced disturbance, rarity, or whether development activities may stress a particular habitat. Individual fishery management councils may refine the description of EFH to better suit individual species or fishery management Plans (FMPs). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) further defines EFH for Pacific Coast salmon as all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Exceptions include cases in which certain man made barriers represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. The Council established Pacific salmon EFH in 1999, and made minor revisions in 2008. This report is intended to describe the general requirements and elements of EFH, including guidance for periodic reviews; summarize the activities of the Pacific Coast salmon EFH Oversight Panel (Panel); summarize existing Pacific Coast Salmon EFH, including activities that affect EFH and research needs; present relevant new information and an updated list of impassible barriers that designate the upstream extent of EFH; and make recommendations for changes as appropriate. The potential changes considered by the Panel included the spatial extent of EFH for freshwater and marine areas; revising the list of impassible barriers; recommending HAPCs; identifying new fishing and non fishing threats; updating relevant literature on salmonid life history and habitat requirements, and recommending research needs. How this Document is Organized This document first provides a general overview of EFH and an explanation of how the periodic review process works. This is followed by a description of existing Pacific salmon EFH, and then expanded information on each Major Objective (refine/revise EFH, consider HAPCs, and describe threats) and the tasks that helped to inform each of those objectives. The Panel s recommendations are found immediately after each Major Objective and task. Table 1 outlines the three Major Objectives and the tasks associated with those. Note that some tasks helped to inform more than just one objective. For example, the annotated bibliography (Bergman 2010) helped to inform the refine/revise EFH objective as well as the HAPC objective. 3
Table 1. Overview of major objectives and tasks considered by the Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat oversight Panel. Major Objective/Task Description Outcome Major Objective: Revise/Revise Pacific Coast Salmon EFH Task: Pacific salmon distribution Task: Impassible barriers Task: Habitats important to Pacific salmon life history Task: Alaska EFH Task: 4 th Field vs 6 th Field USGS hydrologic units Task: Intrinsic Potential (IP) Review information; determine if changes are warranted for spatial extent, description, or other elements of salmon EFH Review and synthesize available information on the distribution and abundance of Pacific Coast salmonids ; develop GIS maps to facilitate decision making 1) Review and Synthesize available information on the impassible man made barriers in each basin that can be used to further refine existing spatial datasets and refine the list of those structures that meet the criteria for designation as the upstream extent of EFH 2) Consider changes to the criteria that define an impassible barrier. Review the available information and develop an annotated bibliography on the importance of specific types of habitats to the life history of Pacific Coast salmon Consider whether to keep the current definition of EFH that includes Alaskan marine waters designated as EFH by the NPFMC Consider using smaller/more precise hydrologic unit unit size to depict areas containing EFH. Consider whether to use IP as a tool to 1) help define a plausible historical distribution for a species, which could then help achieve a finer resolution in EFH designation; and 2) using IP to guide delineation of HAPCs. Possible changes to the spatial extent of EFH Compares existing EFH to known present and historic distribution Possible addition or removal from the list of barriers, and possible addition or reduction of EFH Update the library of important habitats to Pacific salmon Status quo would mean maintaining the inclusion of Alaskan marine EFH in the PFMC s EFH description More refined/precise maps available to help determine spatial extent of EFH Would provide more refined maps of EFH, especially in California 4
Task: Qualitative versus spatially explicit descriptions of EFH Major Objective: Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) Major Objective: Existing and emerging threats (fishing and non fishing) Consider whether to use spatially explicit descriptions of EFH (e.g., lines on a map), or a qualitative description (e.g., all of a given habitat type, but leave it to the user to determine where that is on a map) Consider whether to add HAPCs to existing Pacific Coast salmon EFH. This objective informed by all tasks listed above Review the available information and develop an annotated bibliography on the existing and emerging threats to EFH for Pacific Coast salmon This objective informed by the annotate bibliography on habitats important to salmon life history Amendment 14 is based on a comprehensive/ qualitative approach. Changing that approach would result in definitive text and map descriptions of EFH HAPCs would highlight certain habitat types as particularly important, but would not add any specific regulatory burden Add/amend the list of potential impacts to EFH Develop conservation recommendations for newly identified threats Background on Essential Fish Habitat Federal agencies must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of whether those activities occur within identified EFH or not. In other words, an activity can adversely affect EFH without occurring within EFH. State and private entities are not required to consult with NMFS unless a proposed action requires a Federal permit or receives Federal funding. Although there is no formal requirement for state and private collaboration in the consultation process on adverse effects to salmon EFH, there is common interest in reducing threats to managed species, as well as those listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Numerous voluntary and incentive programs encourage habitat conservation, working in concert with Federal and state mandates whenever possible. One example is the habitat restoration program of the NOAA Restoration Center, a nationwide NMFS program that works collaboratively with NMFS regulatory staff and other partners to identify and implement habitat restoration activities. Although state agencies are not required to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH, NMFS is obligated to provide conservation recommendations to state agencies, if NMFS determines that an activity may adversely affect EFH. Whenever possible, NMFS utilizes existing coordination procedures to transmit EFH conservation recommendations. 5
Essential Fish Habitat Periodic Reviews The MSA requires regional FMCs and NMFS to periodically review the EFH provisions of FMPs, and to revise or amend EFH provisions as warranted, based on available information (Public Law 109 479). This review is intended to evaluate published scientific literature and unpublished reports, solicit input from interested parties, and search for previously unavailable information on salmon stocks identified in the FMP. Changes to existing EFH may be made by the Council, if the information warrants changes. The regulatory guidance suggests that reviews should be conducted periodically, and that complete reviews should be conducted at least once every five years. Pacific Coast salmon EFH was established in 1999 as part of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, and modified in 2008 as a result of the Idaho County versus Commerce court case. The current effort was initiated in 2009. Methods/Approach The Panel convened via conference call approximately monthly, from June, 2009 through August, 2010. The agendas varied according to the selected topic at hand. A designated note taker compiled meeting summaries, with tasks, and distributed to the group. The Panel included two GIS specialists who provided spatial information and maps to assist in identifying existing EFH and distribution information and determining whether new information warranted changes to the existing EFH maps. One technical issue is that of dataset currentness. This is demonstrated by comparing the boundaries of 4 th field hydrologic units used in EFH maps with current hydrologic unit boundaries where the boundaries have had some revisions. A second geospatial issue involved a comparison of the current EFH 4 th field hydrologic units with the current fish distribution geospatial data (obtained from Streamnet and Calfish). In both these cases, the NMFS GIS specialists were confident of being able to update maps to make use of the best current geospatial data. Chronology Late 2008 NMFS and the Council applied for and subsequently received $100k from NMFS Headquarters to provide support for the review. The funding was allocated to the Council Early 2009 Council Staff and NMFS established an Oversight Panel to implement the 5 year review; initiated meetings September 2009 Council Staff provided an informational report at the September Council meeting (Appendix B) September 2009 Council hired contractor (Cramer Fish Sciences) to compile new references and develop an annotated bibliography on the list of barriers, threats to EFH, habitat types/life histories, and to review and synthesize potential actions to avoid, minimize, or otherwise mitigate adverse impacts to EFH associated with the identified threats June 2010 Contract with Cramer Fish Sciences concludes; Oversight Panel begins developing draft report for September 2010 Council meeting 6
2. REFINE/REVISE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR PACIFIC COAST SALMON Task: Stock Distribution This section describes existing EFH for Pacific salmon, the approach of Amendment 14, the revisions of the 2008 Final Rule, and makes recommendations for possible changes. General Approach of Appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan In Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999), the Council chose a comprehensive approach to identification of EFH for several reasons: Salmon distribution varies spatially and temporally; there is very limited information regarding ocean distribution and migration; and there is an immense diversity of freshwater habitats. The comprehensive approach is manifested in the text descriptions and the associated maps provided to assist the user. The text descriptions are the legal definition of EFH, and for Pacific salmon are written broadly (see Description of Existing Essential Fish Habitat ). This means that the species specific maps of the USGS 4 th field hydrologic units across a large geographic area oblige the user to make a more refined determination as to whether a particular activity is in, or may adversely affect, Pacific Coast salmon EFH. EFH identification based on USGS 4 th hydrologic units recognizes the diversity of habitats essential to the species in all life stages, considers the variability of environmental conditions, and reinforces linkages between aquatic and adjacent upslope areas (PFMC 1999). In describing Pacific Coast salmon EFH, the Council chose to include Alaskan marine waters identified by the NPFMC as EFH for salmon. This highlights the importance of habitats around the North Pacific Ocean, and recognizes the fact that many of the salmon stocks spawned in the contiguous West Coast states migrate north past British Columbia and into the waters of Alaska. Appendix A of Amendment 14 does not specifically identify any HAPCs, although they are discussed in the context of important habitats in salmonid life histories. PFMC (1999) noted the relative lack of sufficient information on which to base HAPC designations in its decision to not identify HAPCs. Pacific salmon EFH underwent some revisions in 2008 as a result of the Idaho County v DOC lawsuit, which required NMFS to issue the Pacific salmon EFH descriptions as a Final Rule.The 2008 rulemaking exercise addressed some issues (fixed typographical and nomenclature errors; consolidated the marine and freshwater definitions of salmon EFH), but did not constitute a full review. Description of Existing Essential Fish Habitat This section presents a summary of existing EFH descriptions for the three Pacific salmonid species managed by the Council. More detailed information can be found in Appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999) and the Final Rule that codified Pacific Salmon EFH in 2008 (73 FR 60987). It is important to bear in mind that the text descriptions of EFH are the legal definition. Maps are provided to assist the user in interpreting the spatial extent of salmon EFH, but should not be considered to absolutely depict the extent of EFH. It follows that due to various factors (new information, changes to presence/absence of salmon, etc) the maps will be amended over time. 7
The 2008 Final Rule merged the marine and freshwater definitions of EFH, to simplify the description. It defines Pacific salmon EFH as all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and adds caveats for impassible barriers and for Puget Sound pink salmon (see following sections). Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook salmon Chinook salmon EFH includes all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to Chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Exceptions include cases in which man made barriers represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. Chinook EFH includes the marine areas off Alaska designated as salmon EFH by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). Including marine EFH designated by the NPFMC serves to recognize the migratory patterns of Chinook, and the importance of habitat during all life stages. Current marine EFH for Chinook includes the entire EEZ around Alaska. The southern extent of Chinook salmon marine EFH extends to Point Conception, CA, which represents The southern extent of Chinook range. Although areas upstream of the identified impassible dams are not considered EFH, this does not preclude the possibility of an action taking place upstream of such a barrier that may adversely affect designated EFH. The same logic applies to activities on upslope areas that aren t technically EFH. Any Federal action would still require EFH consultation if that action may adversely affect EFH, regardless of whether it is actually in EFH. Figures 1, 2, and 3 depict the 4 th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for Chinook salmon, plus Chinook distribution in those 4 th field hydrologic units not currently identified as EFH. Note that some 4 th field hydrologic units are listed as EFH but do not show distribution. That is probably because Chinook historically occupied that hydrologic unit. Conversely, some hydrologic units show distribution but no EFH. There could be several reasons for this (new information, impassible barrier presence, etc), and will be considered by the Panel in making recommendations to the Council. However, freshwater salmon distribution is not an absolute science. For example, if a particular hydrologic unit has always had relatively poor habitat and scant historic presence, but the occasional salmon strays into that hydrologic unit, that may not be enough to warrant inclusion in EFH. These situations will require further investigation. Amendment 14 includes descriptions of relevant habitat parameters, including the four major components of Chinook freshwater EFH: 1) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors and adult holding habitat. It also includes a life history description and detailed descriptions of habitat requirements per life stage. 8
British Columbia Alberta Washington CANADA UNITED STATES Montana Pacific Ocean Oregon Idaho Wyoming Nevada Russia Utah Alaska Yukon Terr. British Colorado Columbia California Arizona New Mexico UNITED STATES MEXICO Chinook Salmon Marine Essential Fish Habitat 4th Field Hydrologic Units with Current Chinook Salmon Essential Fish Habitat 4th Field Hydrologic Units with Current Chinook Salmon Distribution 100 0 100 200 300 Miles 100 0 100 200 300 Kilometers 8/23/10, C. Gavette West_Coast_Chinook_current_EFH.mxd UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION 777 Sonoma Ave., Room 325 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404 Figure 1. 4th field hydrologic units and marine waters currently identified as EFH for Chinook salmon, and Chinook distribution, U.S. West Coast and Alaska. 9
Figure 2. 4th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for Chinook salmon, and Chinook distribution in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. 10
17100312 17100311 10101 10206 Oregon Oregon Area of Detail 10209 10208 10207 Nevada 10210 California 10102 10211 Mexico 10212 20112 20101 20118 10107 10105 20113 20102 10106 20114 20103 10104 20119 20120 10108 10103 20104 20105 2010620107 20108 20125 Nevada Pacific Ocean 10109 10111 10110 50002 50001 20109 20111 40013 40005 40004 40011 50004 40003 40002 40010 50003 40001 California Dams relevant to current Chinook Salmon EFH 4th Field Hydrolgic Units with Current Chinook Salmon EFH 10109 4th Field HUC Number; Add prefix of 180 (except 17100312 & 17100311) 4th Field Hydrolgic Units with Current Chinook Salmon Distribution 30 0 30 60 90 Miles 30 0 30 60 90 Kilometers 8/23/10, C. Gavette CA_Chinook_current_EFH.mxd UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION 777 Sonoma Ave., Room 325 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404 Figure 3. 4th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for Chinook salmon, and Chinook distribution in California. 11
Description of EFH for coho salmon Coho salmon EFH includes all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to Chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Exceptions include cases in which man made barriers represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. Coho EFH includes the marine areas off Alaska designated as salmon EFH by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). Including marine EFH designated by the NPFMC serves to recognize the migratory patterns of coho, and the importance of habitat during all life stages. Current marine EFH for Coho includes the entire EEZ around Alaska. The southern extent of coho marine EFH is Point Conception, CA, which represents the southern extent of coho range. Although areas upstream of the identified impassible dams are not considered EFH, this does not preclude the possibility of an action taking place upstream of such a barrier that may adversely affect designated EFH. The same logic applies to activities on upslope areas that aren t technically EFH. Any Federal action woud still require EFH consultation if that action may adversely affect EFH, regardless of whether it is actually in EFH. Figures 4, 5, and 6 depict the 4 th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for coho salmon, plus Coho distribution in those hydrologic units not currently identified as EFH. Note that some 4 th field hydrologic units are listed as EFH but do not show distribution. That is probably because coho historically occupied that hydrologic unit. Conversely, some hydrologic units show distribution but no EFH. There could be several reasons for this (new information, impassible barrier presence, etc), and will be considered by the Panel in making recommendations to the Council. However, freshwater salmon distribution is not an absolute science. For example, if a particular hydrologic unit has always had relatively poor habitat and scant historic presence, but the occasional salmon strays into that hydrologic unit, that may not be enough to warrant inclusion in EFH. These situations will require further investigation. Amendment 14 includes descriptions of relevant habitat parameters, including the four major components of coho freshwater EFH: 1) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors. EFH for coho does not include adult holding habitat. Amendment 14 also includes a life history description and detailed descriptions of habitat requirements per life stage. 12
British Columbia Alberta CANADA UNITED STATES Washington Montana Pacific Ocean Oregon Idaho Wyoming Nevada Russia Utah Alaska Yukon Terr. British Colorado Columbia California Arizona New Mexico UNITED STATES MEXICO Coho Salmon Marine Essential Fish Habitat 4th Field Hydrologic Units with Current Coho Salmon Essential Fish Habitat 4th Field Hydrologic Units with Current Coho Salmon Distribution 100 0 100 200 300 Miles 100 0 100 200 300 Kilometers 8/23/10, C. Gavette West_Coast_Coho_current_EFH.mxd UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION 777 Sonoma Ave., Room 325 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404 Figure 4. 4th field hydrologic units and marine waters currently identified as EFH for coho salmon, and coho distribution, U.S. West Coast and Alaska. 13
Figure 5. 4th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for coho salmon, and coho distribution in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. 14
17100312 17100311 10101 10209 10206 10208 10207 Oregon Oregon Area of Detail 10210 Nevada 10102 10211 California 10212 10107 10106 10105 Mexico 10104 10108 10103 Nevada 10109 10110 Pacific Ocean 10111 50005 50001 50002 San Pablo 50004 50006 50003 60001 California 60006 Dams relevant to current Coho Salmon EFH 4th Field Hydrolgic Units with Current Coho Salmon EFH 10109 4th Field HUC Number; Add prefix of 180 (except 17100312 & 17100311) 4th Field Hydrolgic Units with Current Coho Salmon Distribution 40 0 40 80 120 Miles 40 0 40 80 120 Kilometers 8/23/10, C. Gavette CA_Coho_current_EFH.mxd UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION 777 Sonoma Ave., Room 325 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404 Figure 6. 4th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for coho salmon, and coho distribution in California. 15
Description of EFH for Puget Sound pink salmon Puget Sound (PS) pink salmon life history and migratory patterns are distinctly different than Chinook and coho salmon, and are described in Amendment 14. Pink salmon EFH is defined as all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to pink salmon within Washington State. EFH for PS pink salmon also includes marine waters north and east of Cape Flattery, Washington, including Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Strait of Georgia. Exceptions include cases in which man made barriers represent the upstream extent of Pacific salmon access. Existing PS pink salmon EFH is limited to Puget Sound because Washington State is near the southern extent of pink salmon range and the majority of the commercial and recreational catch (outside of Alaska) occurs in Puget Sound. Although areas upstream of the identified impassible dams are not considered EFH, this does not preclude the possibility of an action taking place upstream of such a barrier that may adversely affect designated EFH. The same logic applies to activities on upslope areas that aren t technically EFH. Any Federal action would still require EFH consultation if that action may adversely affect EFH, regardless of whether it is actually in EFH. Figure 7 depicts the 4 th field hydrologic units currently identified as EFH for PS pink salmon, plus distribution in those hydrologic units not currently identified as EFH. Note that some 4 th field hydrologic units are listed as EFH but do not show distribution. That is probably because PS pinks historically occupied that hydrologic unit. Conversely, some hydrologic units show distribution but no EFH. New information appears to indicate pink salmon populations in two hydrologic units not currently identified as EFH: the Hoko Crescent (17110021) and the Queets Quinalt (17100102). It is tempting to assume that because the Hoko Crescent and Queets Quinalt hydrologic units show current distribution, they should be included in EFH. However, it is not so simple. First, the pink salmon FMU is not clearly defined in the FMP. The Puget Sound FMUs for coho and Chinook appear to extend from the Elwha River to the east, as do the ESUs. Although NMFS status reviews delineate the pink salmon ESUs (one for even years and one for odd years), the FMP is less clear about defining the western extent of the PS pink salmon FMU. The Panel will continue investigating this issue. The four major components of freshwater PS pink salmon EFH are: 1) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors. EFH for pink does not include adult holding habitat. 16
Figure 7. Hydrologic units with Puget Sound pink salmon distribution and EFH. 17
Preliminary Recommendations The Panel recommends updating current GIS maps to reflect the most accurate boundaries between hydrologic units. The Panel recommends modifying the definition of EFH to clarify that Chinook and coho EFH includes the U.S. EEZ from the U.S. Canada boundary to Point Conception, California: EFH includes all streams, estuaries, marine waters, and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and the adjacent U.S. EEZ north of Point Conception, California. The Panel recommends adding the Duwamish 4 th field hydrologic unit as EFH for PS pink salmon, based on the fact that the abundance of pink salmon in the Duwamish watershed has increased dramatically since Amendment 14 was written, with returns numbering more than one million fish in 2009. The Panel recommends that the Council and NMFS more clearly define the FMU for Puget Sound pink salmon. Task: Impassible Barriers In identifying EFH in Amendment 14, the Council considered dams that effectively blocked fish passage, and used four criteria to determine whether a particular dam should represent the upstream extent of EFH: 1. Is the dam federally owned or operated, licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state licensed, or subject to state dam safety supervision? 2. Is the dam upstream of any other impassible dam? 3. Is fish passage to upstream areas under consideration, or are fish passage facilities in the design or construction phase? 4. Has NMFS determined that the dam does not block access to habitat that is key for the conservation of the species? The Panel reviewed the list of barriers, the four criteria outlined in Amendment 14, and the updated information compiled by Bergman (2010) on the list of impassible barriers. The Panel noted some typographical or naming errors that should be corrected (see Table 3), and also reviewed the list of impassible barriers in light of the four considerations from Amendment 14. Possible changes to the list based on those considerations generally fall into two categories. First, if a dam has been removed (per criterion #3 above), modified to include fish passage, or is under consideration for such action,, it would be a candidate for removal from the list. In some cases this is an obvious decision. For example, the Marmot Dam on the Sandy River, Oregon has been decommissioned and completely removed. Therefore, it should be removed from the list of impassible barriers. However, in some cases, it is not as straightforward. 18
Second, if NMFS determines, in an official position (e.g., biological opinion, recovery plan, or fish passage prescription under the Federal Power Act) that a dam blocks access to upstream habitat that is key for the conservation of the species, that dam may be removed from the list (per criterion #4 above). Several dams fitting this category were excluded from the list in Amendment 14 for this reason. Within the past few years, NMFS has completed, or is in the process of completing, several recovery plans, mandated under the ESA. Recovery plans must identify critical habitats and priority actions necessary for population recovery. In some cases, recovery plans specifically identify habitat upstream of existing dams that are on the list of impassible barriers, making those barriers candidates for removal from the list. Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) typically includes issuance of a Biological Opinion (biop), which includes mandatory terms and conditions to protect the species and/or its designated critical habitat. In the case of dams, these terms and conditions may indicate fish passage actions, again making the barrier a candidate for removal from the list of impassible barriers. Another example is that of fish passage prescriptions issued under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, in which NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may require fish passage installation and/or upgrades to existing facilities. There are associated considerations and actions that would have to be undertaken upon removing a dam from the list. The obvious result is that areas upstream of the dam would become EFH, thereby requiring EFH consultation for Federal or state actions that may adversely affect EFH. The other is that the hydrologic unit(s) upstream of the barrier in question would have to be examined to see what, if any, impassible barriers there are further upstream. Table 3 lists the impassible barriers from the 2008 Final Rule, and explains potential changes. The table does not yet identify those dams that may be candidates for removal from the list based on the four criteria in Amendment 14 and the discussion above. The Panel continues to compile information that will help inform decisions about dams that may be candidates for removal from the list. 19
Table 3. Preliminary list of impassible barriers and potential changes. USGS 4th field HUC State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Impassible Man made Barrier (from 2008 F.R.) 17110005 WA Upper Skagit Gorge Lake Dam 17110010 WA Snoqualmie Tolt Dam (S. Fork Tolt R.) 17110012 WA Lake Washington Cedar Falls (Masonry) Dam (Cedar R.) 17080001 OR/WA Lower Columbia Sandy River 17090001 OR Middle Fork Willamette River 17090002 OR Coast Fork Willamette River Impassable man made barrier Dexter Dam Dorena Dam 17090004 OR McKenzie River Cougar Dam 17090005 OR N. Santiam River Big Cliff Dam 17090011 OR Clackamas River Oak Grove Dam 17070305 OR Lower Crooked River Opal Springs Dam 17030001 WA Upper Yakima River Keechelus Dam Kachess Dam (Kachess R.) Cle Elum Dam (Cle Elum R.) 17030002 WA Naches River Rimrock Dam (Tieton R.) 17020005 WA Columbia River Chief Joseph Dam 17060101 OR/ID Hells Canyon Hells Canyon Complex (Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee Dams) Possible changes City of Portland #2 (Bull Run River) Hells Canyon Dam (Snake R.) Notes/Explanation The Portland General Electric Marmot Dam project (Sandy R.) was decommissioned in 2006. The only remaining impassible barrier is the City of Portland s municipal reservoir dam on the Bull Run River Amendment 14 placed all three of these barriers in HUC 17050201. In reality, only Hells Canyon Dam is in 17060101. 20
USGS 4th field HUC State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Impassible Man made Barrier (from 2008 F.R.) Possible changes Notes/Explanation 17050201 OR/ID Hells Canyon (Snake R.) None Oxbow Dam Brownlee Dam 17060306 WA/ID Clearwater River Dworshak Dam (at border of HUCs 17060306 and 17060308) These two dams are in HUC 17050201. 17100301 OR N. Umpqua River Soda Springs Dam 17100307 OR Upper Rogue River Lost Creek Dam 17100309 CA/OR Applegate River Applegate Dam 18010206 CA/OR Upper Klamath River Iron Gate Dam 18010207 CA Shasta River None Add Shasta/Dwinnell Dam as an impassible barrier This barrier was listed in Amendment 14, but mistakenly was deleted from the 2008 F.R. 18010211 CA Trinity River Lewiston Dam 18010102 CA Mad Redwood Robert W. Matthews dam 18010103 CA Upper Eel River Scott Dam 18010110 CA Russian River Coyote Valley Dam (E. Fork Russian R.) Warm Springs Dam (Dry Cr.) 18060001 CA San Lorenzo Soquel Newell Dam (Newell Cr.) 18050002 CA San Pablo Bay San Pablo Dam (San Pablo Cr.) 18050003 CA Coyote Creek LeRoy Anderson Dam 18050005 CA Tomales Drakes Bay Nicasio Dam (Nicasio Cr.) Peters Dam (Lagunitas Cr.) 18020106 CA Feather River None Add Feather River Fish Barrier Dam as an impassible Oroville Dam was listed in Amendment 14, but mistakenly was deleted from the 2008 F.R. NMFS staff recommended at that time 21
USGS 4th field HUC State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Impassible Man made Barrier (from 2008 F.R.) Possible changes Notes/Explanation barrier to add the Feather River Fish Barrier Dam because that dam (approx 1.5 miles downstream of Oroville Dam) more logically defines the upstream extent for EFH on the Feather River. No fish pass this barrier, and there is yet another impassible barrier between Oroville and the Fish Barrier Dams. 18020111 CA Lower American River Nimbus Dam 18020112 CA Sacramento Upper Clear Keswick Dam (Sacramento R.) Whiskeytown Dam (Clear Cr.) Remove Keswick Dam; leave Whiskeytown Dam This corrects a mistake in Amendment 14 18020115 CA Stony Creek Add Black Butte Dam This dam was mistakenly deleted from the 2008 F.R. 18020126 CA Bear River Add Camp Far West Dam This dam was mistakenly deleted from the 2008 F.R. 18040006 CA San Joaquin River Add Friant Dam This dam was mistakenly deleted from the 2008 F.R. 18040002 CA Mid. San Joaquin L. Merced L. Stanislaus La Grange Dam (Tuolumne R.) Add Crocker Diversion Dam (Merced R.) as an impassible barrier NMFS staff recommended adding this to the 2008 F.R. 18040005 CA L. Consumnes L. Mokelumne Comanche Dam 18040010 CA Upper Stanislaus Goodwin Dam 18040011 CA Upper Calveras New Hogan Dam 22
Recommendations The Panel recommends updating the list of impassible barriers to correct/update typographical and naming errors, and to reflect barriers that have been recently removed or retrofitted with fish passage facilities, as indicated in Table 3. (Note: Table 3 does not yet list those dams that have been or are likely to be removed or receive fish passage). The Panel further recommends consideration of removing certain barriers from the list that mark the upstream extent of EFH, if considered by NMFS to be necessary for the conservation of the species. (Note: the list of dams fitting that description is pending). Task: Habitats important to Salmonid Life History Amendment 14 provides a thorough literature review and synthesis of important habitats per life stage of Pacific salmon. It identifies five levels of data, pertaining to the volume and quality of information available, and presents a matrix for each of the three managed species, indicating residence time, habitat requirements, prey, water quality parameters, and other information. The information and tables are based on the literature review completed at the time. A major part of the periodic review process is aimed at updating the literature and background data that informs EFH identification. The Council enlisted Cramer Fish Sciences to develop an annotated bibliography of relevant recent information that could inform and update the library of information relative to the habitat requirements of Pacific salmon at several different life stages (Appendix A). Bergman (2010) includes about 100 references in the annotated bibliography, which presents literature for Chinook, coho, and PS pink salmon. Life histories are divided into eggs and spawning, freshwater juveniles, estuarine juveniles, marine juveniles, and adults. For each life stage, the annotated bibliography presents several key or representative references. Recommendation The Panel recommends incorporating the annotated bibliography in Bergman (2010) into the literature supporting Pacific salmon EFH. Task: Alaska Essential Fish Habitat In Amendment 14, the Council included in the description of Pacific Coast salmon EFH, Alaskan marine waters identified by the NPFMC as EFH for salmon. This was intended to highlight the importance of habitats around the North Pacific Ocean, as well as the far ranging migrations that many stocks exhibit. The regulatory implications of this designation are not clear. For example, does an action agency have to consult with the NMFS NWR on activities in Alaskan marine waters that may adversely affect salmon of West Coast origin? It is unlikely that this scenario would ever come to fruition because the EFH designations of Alaskan and Pacific salmon overlap. Any conservation recommendations for Alaskan salmon would presumably apply to Pacific salmon managed by the Council. Therefore, the practical effect, as far as EFH consultation is concerned, is negligible. Of note is the fact that the NPFMC is revising marine salmon EFH descriptions, which could result in a significant change in the spatial extent of Alaskan marine EFH. 23
Recommendation The Panel recommends retaining Alaskan marine salmon EFH in the description of Pacific Coast salmon EFH, and tracking changes made to marine EFH by the NPFMC. Task: 4 th Field versus 6 th Field Hydrologic Units The seminal EFH descriptions for Pacific salmon are contained in the text of the 2008 Final Rule. Maps are also provided to assist with interpreting EFH more specifically, but it is important bear in mind that the maps are not the final word in the spatial location of EFH. Rather, the text description is the definitive legal description. The maps contain USGS 4 th field hydrologic units to depict the current or historic distribution of each of the three managed species of Pacific salmon. To know whether a particular project would possibly adversely affect EFH, the user would first determine whether the project is within one of those 4 th field hydrologic units, and then make a second level determination regarding whether the project is actually in (or may adversely affect) EFH. Not every water body within that hydrologic unit would be considered EFH, based on the text description, although activities on land and water that are not EFH could be considered likely to adversely affect EFH. It is up to the user to make that initial determination. Defining EFH on a 4 th field HUC level results in relatively coarse geographic descriptors. Geospatial mapping has improved significantly since the original Amendment 14, and USGS 6 th field hydrologic units are commonly used in many geospatial applications. One way to provide a more refined and precise interpretation of the text descriptions for Pacific Coast salmon EFH is to present historic distribution in smaller hydrologic units. The resulting maps would provide a more precise spatial representation of EFH, and allow for a more accurate determination of whether or not a proposed project would occur in, or impact, EFH. However, in many cases, too few data exist to refine EFH to that degree. Another consideration of switching to the more refined 6 th field hydrologic unit maps is the magnitude of staff resources required, which would be significant. For California, there are 59 4 th field hydrologic units currently described as EFH, and there are 1294 6 th field hydrologic units within those 59 4 th field hydrologic units. 547 of those show distribution data while 747 do not. For Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, there are 115 4 th field hydrologic units currently described as EFH, encompassing 4198 6 th field hydrologic units. 2443 of those have salmon distribution data, while 1755 do not. These examples illustrate the potential pitfalls, due to a lack of distribution data for many of the 6 th field hydrologic units; as well as the staff resources required to manage EFH information for a total of 5492 6 th field hydrologic units rather than 174. Figure 8 depicts the difference between 4 th field and 6 th field hydrologic units. 24
Figure 8. Example of the relative size difference between 4 th field and 6 th field USGS hydrologic units. 25
Recommendation The Panel recommends maintaining the existing 4 th field hydrologic unit maps for general use by the public, and providing more detailed maps to users when possible. The Panel recommends expanding the available data to allow development of maps at the 6 th field hydrologic unit level in the future. Task: Intrinsic Potential Intrinsic Potential (IP) models are models intended to predict the historical (i.e., pre anthropogenic disturbance) potential for a given stream reach to develop habitat characteristics suitable for a particular salmonid species and life stage based on a limited set of geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics. Most IP models convert values for stream gradient, valley width index, and mean annual discharge (landform, lithologic, and hydrologic functions that interact to govern movement and deposition of sediment, large wood, and other structural elements along a river network) into separate suitability ratings scaled between 0 and 1. These individual suitability values are combined (typically as the geometric mean of these three suitability values) into the IP value for a particular reach. Additionally, some models may incorporate other environmental factors thought to limit the distribution or abundance of a particular species. For example, models of coho salmon intrinsic potential in California streams incorporate a mean August air temperature threshold as a method of masking out regions where water temperatures are too warm for coho salmon. Intrinsic Potential (IP) models have potential application both in identifying EFH and in designating HAPCs. Specifically, the Panel explored using IP in areas that lack robust empirical information regarding salmonid presence/absence, either because they have not been surveyed or because populations have been extirpated. If a given hydrologic unit has never been surveyed and the paucity of valid information precludes definitively concluding current or historical presence, IP can be used to infer answers to those questions. IP models also typically include biophysical factors such as gradient that could be used to evaluate the relative suitability of different stream reaches, though such potential uses are confounded by the fact that IP models may be poor predictors of current habitat conditions, as none of the variables reflect habitat changes caused by anthropogenic activities. Figure 9 shows an example of how IP can be used to infer habitat suitability. In this example, stream reaches with suitable IP are highlighted, and then colored to indicate stream reaches above currently impassible barriers. One barrier (Nicasio Dam) is being considered for fish passage while the other (Peters Dam) is not. Both dams, however, show IP above the barrier. IP models have also been used extensively by salmon technical recovery teams to provide rough estimates of the relative habitat potential among different hydrologic units. In these applications, the sum of all stream segment distances weighted by their IP values is calculated, a value termed IP km. These estimates were used as proxies for relative habitat capacity in different hydrologic units. 26
Lagunitas Creek IP Example Seeger (Nicasio) Halleck Nicasio Olema Creek Lagunitas Creek Devils Gulc h Dam San Geronimo Coho IP Peters (Kent) Coho IP above Dam Actively considering Fish Passage Coho IP above Dam No Fish Passage in near future 1:24,000 Stream Watershed Boundary Fort Bragg Area of Detail Bon Tempe Santa Rosa Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU Santa Cruz California 0 2 Miles Alpine Figure 9. Example of how Intrinsic Potential can help identify potentially suitable habitats for Pacific salmon. A workshop on Salmon Intrinsic Potential was held in Portland, OR on Nov. 19 20, 2008. A resultant product of that workshop is a paper titled "Development & Management of Fish Intrinsic Potential Data and Methodologies: State of the IP 2008 Summary Report. An excerpt from the report reads "IP models have been developed for some salmon and steelhead groups listed under the Endangered Species Act, and model results have been incorporated into recovery planning activities. However, currently, there is no standard methodology for developing geospatial datasets needed for IP models nor are there peer reviewed species preference curves for many resident and anadromous species in the Pacific Northwest." (Sheer et al. 2009) Evolutionarily Significant Units that have IP defined: Lower Columbia Coho Lower Columbia Chinook Oregon Coast Coho (OC Coho) Willamette Chinook Puget Sound Chinook Snake River spring/ summer Chinook (physical habitat potential, vegetation not considered) Upper Columbia River spring run Chinook (physical habitat potential, vegetation not considered) Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon (SONCC Coho) 27
Central California Coast coho salmon (CCC Coho) California Coastal Chinook salmon (CC Chinook) No GIS data for Snake River fall Chinook is available, and it seems probable that no IP models for pink salmon have been done. The SWR GIS staff currently have resultant GIS data for the IP model work done in that region. However, individual data files exist for each hydrologic unit making any desired analysis fairly time consuming. The NWR GIS staff do not currently have GIS data for the IP models and would need to obtain it if needed to use IP to infer EFH for particular hydrologic units. Recommendation Given the relative uncertainty of using IP to infer salmonid historic presence or habitat suitability, the Panel does not recommend using IP at this time to define EFH. However, the Panel recognizes that in some cases of sparse information, IP can be used as a tool to investigate the likelihood of suitable salmonid habitat. Task: Qualitative versus Spatially explicit Descriptions of Essential Fish Habitat In developing Amendment 14, the Council chose a comprehensive approach toward defining EFH. Inferred in the decision to use 4 th field hydrologic units, and to depend on the text description of EFH, is the obligation of the user to make reasonable determinations about whether a particular activity is or is not included in EFH. The same level of responsibility is assigned regarding whether a particular action would adversely affect EFH. As discussed in this document, there are many 4 th field hydrologic units shaded to indicate the presence of EFH, but inherent is the fact that not every piece of land or water inside that hydrologic unit should be considered EFH. The user must therefore make a reasonable professional judgment on a case by case basis. The Panel considered whether it would make sense to pursue spatially explicit EFH designations, but recognized that because habitats are variable spatially and temporally, it would be impractical to continuously update every portion of EFH, in response to seasonal or Interannual changes in the spatial extent of any particular habitat or in response to natural changes in salmon distribution. Recommendation The Panel recommends retaining the existing comprehensive approach to interpreting EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, rather than spatially explicit designations. 3. HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN The implementing regulations for the EFH provisions of the MSA (50 CFR part 600) encourage the Fishery Management Councils to identify specific types or areas of habitat within EFH as habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), based on one or more of the following considerations: (1) the importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat; (2) the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human induced environmental degradation; (3) whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and (4) the rarity of the habitat type. The intended 28