Proposed Critical Habitat

1
Proposed Critical Habitat
NOAA Fisheries

• For Seven ESUs of Pacific Salmon and O. mykiss in
  California
• February 2005

2
Scope of the Project

• 20 Species or ESUs of
• Pacific Salmon and Steelhead
• 13 in WA, OR, ID
• 7 in CA

3
Ways the ESA Protects Threatened and Endangered
Species

• Federal agencies must ensure that their actions
  do not
• jeopardize species continued existence, or
• destroy or adversely modify designated critical
  habitat (Section 7(a)(2))
• No person may take a listed species (Sections
  4(d) and 9)

4
What Is Critical Habitat?

• Specific areas within the geographical area
  occupied by the species . . . on which are found
  those physical or biological features that are
• essential to the conservation of the species and
• which may require special management
  considerations or protection
• Specific areas outside the geographical area
  occupied by the species . . . upon a
  determination that such areas are essential for
  the conservation of the species ESA 3(5)

5
How is Critical Habitat designated?

• The Secretary shall designate critical habitat .
  . . on the basis of the best scientific data . .
  .
• after taking into consideration the economic
  impact, the impact on national security, and any
  other relevant impact. . . .
• The Secretary may exclude any area from critical
  habitat if he determines that the benefits of
  such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
  designation . . .
• unless he determines . . . that the failure to
  designate such area . . . will result in the
  extinction of the species ESA 4(b)(2)

6
Why Designate Critical Habitat Now?

• NOAA designated critical habitat for 19 salmon
  and steelhead (O. mykiss) ESUs in 2000
• NAHB challenged the economic analysis
• NOAA sought and was granted remand, based on 10th
  Circuit decision in Cattlegrowers case
• Environmental groups sued over lack of timely
  designations
• NOAA settled, agreeing to a proposal deadline
  that was ultimately extended to Nov. 30.

7
Step 1 Identify Potential Critical Habitat

• Specific Areas within the Geographical Area
  Occupied by the Species
• Mapped actual fish distribution (1100,000) using
  information compiled by NOAAF fisheries
  biologists
• (Different than 2000 designations all areas
  occupied or accessible)
• Verify biological/physical features (i.e.
  spawning, rearing, migration habitat) and special
  management considerations
• Grouped information by watershed into specific
  areas (CALWATER hydrologic subareas)

8
Examples of Maps Showing Fish Distribution and
Land Ownership
9
Result of Better Information

• 2004 Proposal
• Detailed mapping of occupied stream miles and
  habitat use (approx 12,800 occupied stream miles
  for 7 ESUs in California)
• 2000 Designation
• Included all areas occupied and accessible, but
  no mapping of either occupied or accessible
  stream reaches
• Gave the appearance of designating entire
  watersheds
• Difficult to identify what areas actually were
  critical habitat and which were occupied versus
  accessible

10
Step 1 Identify Potential Critical Habitat

• Specific Areas outside the Geographical Area
  Occupied by the Species
• Identified unoccupied areas that may be
  essential for conservation for several ESUs based
  on evaluation by NOAA Fisheries biologists
• Public comment solicited in FR Notice
• Premature to propose unoccupied areas without
  completion of recovery planning

11
Step 2 Consider impacts and balance Benefits of
exclusion vs. Benefits of inclusion

• Used Best available science
• Considered economic and other impacts
• Established framework to Balance benefits of
  exclusion vs benefits of inclusion or designation
• Used Secretarys discretion to exclude

12
Biological Benefits of Inclusion or Designation

• Benefit of designation is the protection of
  habitat and ESU from section 7 consultation
  process
• Designation also gives notice of areas important
  to listed ESUs

13
Conservation Rating Process
Three teams of NOAA Fisheries biologists
evaluated Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
and rated 313 watersheds (CALWATER hydrologic
subareas) occupied by the seven ESUs in California
14
Watershed Conservation Rating Maps

15
Benefits of Exclusion

• Avoid impacts
• Economic impacts associated with section 7
  consultations (project modification)
• Impacts on national security
• Other relevant impacts (e.g., those on tribal
  governments)

16
Economic Benefits of Exclusion

• Analyzed by specific area i.e., watershed or
  CALWATER hydrologic subarea (same unit used for
  conservation assessment)
• Estimated full cost of section 7 consultation
  i.e., adverse modification, even if coextensive
  with jeopardy)
• Identified
• types of federal actions affected by section 7
• modifications required as a result of section 7
• average cost of modifications
• expected number of actions in a watershed
• Multiply unit costs by number of actions in
  watershed unit

17
Balancing Benefits - Economics

• Benefit of Exclusion avoiding economic impact
• Benefit of Inclusion or Designation protection
  of section 7
• Ideally both costs and benefits would be
  described in monetary terms, but it is very
  difficult to monetize benefits (i.e. Biological
  benefits)
• As an alternative, therefore, we used a cost
  effectiveness framework in which we compared the
  relative benefit of designation using the
  conservation value of a particular area to the
  species against economic cost

18
Balancing Benefits Using a Cost-Effectiveness
Framework

• Considered areas (CALWATER hydrologica subareas)
  for exclusion with a relatively high economic
  impact and a relatively low conservation value
• Economic impact thresholds applied to low and
  medium conservation value watersheds to identify
  exclusions
• High conservation value watersheds not considered
  for exclusion
• Policy Consideration Did not exclude watershed
  if exclusion judged to significantly impede ESU
  conservation

19
Maps Showing Draft Exclusion Results
20
Proposed Exclusions for 7 ESUs in
California

• Tribal lands (approx. 36 stream miles)
• National Security Areas (approx. 41 stream miles)
• Economic Exclusions
• 12,854 stream miles 115,680,394
  
• -1,109 stream miles - 32,169,208
• 11,754 stream miles 83,511,186

21
Additional Potential Exclusions

• Federal land covered by Northwest Forest Plan and
  PacFish
• Areas covered by HCPs and State conservation
  programs

22
Issues for Comment

• Maps and other data describing salmon habitat
  areas
• The benefits of designating or excluding
  particular areas
• Current or planned activities and their habitat
  impacts
• Economic or other potential impacts from
  designations
• Whether specific unoccupied areas warrant
  designation
• Ways to improve the designation process

Submit comments or access maps and additional
info at NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region
website http//swr.nmfs.noaa.gov
23
Next Steps

• Four public hearings in January and February
  2005 Arcata, Santa Rosa, Sacramento, and Santa
  Barbara
• Soliciting peer review
• Comment period closes March 14, 2005
• Final Rule due August 15, 2005