99-27585. Designated Critical Habitat: Revision of Critical Habitat for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 57399-57403]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-27585]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    
    50 CFR Part 226
    
    [Docket No. 990525143-9277-02; I.D. 120197A]
    RIN 0648-AM41
    
    
    Designated Critical Habitat: Revision of Critical Habitat for 
    Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon
    
    AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: Through this rule, NMFS revises critical habitat for Snake 
    River spring/summer chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), pursuant 
    to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. After a review of the best 
    available scientific information, NMFS determines that Napias Creek 
    Falls constitutes a naturally impassable barrier for Snake River 
    spring/summer chinook salmon. NMFS, therefore, excludes areas above 
    Napias Creek Falls from designated critical habitat for this species.
    
    DATES: The effective date of this determination is November 24, 1999.
    ADDRESSES: Requests for information concerning this action should be 
    submitted to Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon 
    Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232. Copies of the USGS publication 
    and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, 
    CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources 
    Division, 525 NE Oregon Street - Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or 
    at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 
    Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005 or 
    Chris Mobley at (301) 713-1401.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On June 27, 1991, NMFS proposed the listing of Snake River spring/
    summer chinook salmon as a threatened species under the ESA (56 FR 
    29542). The final determination listing Snake River spring/summer 
    chinook salmon as a threatened species was published on April 22, 1992 
    (57 FR 14653), and corrected on June 3, 1992 (57 FR 23458). Critical 
    habitat was designated on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543). In that 
    document, NMFS designated all river reaches presently or historically 
    accessible to listed spring/summer chinook salmon (except river reaches 
    above impassable natural falls, and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams) in 
    various hydrologic units as critical habitat (58 FR 68543). Napias 
    Creek, the area in question, occurs within one of these designated 
    hydrologic units (Middle Salmon-Panther, U.S. Geological Survey 
    Hydrologic Unit 17060203).
        On January 6, 1997, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) received 
    a petition from Meridian Gold Company (Meridian) to revise critical 
    habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon in Napias Creek, a 
    tributary to the Salmon River, located near Salmon, Idaho. In 
    accordance with section 4(b)(3)(D) of the ESA, NMFS issued a 
    determination on April 28, 1997, that the petition presented 
    substantial scientific information indicating that a revision may be 
    warranted (62 FR 22903). In that document of finding, NMFS solicited 
    information and comments from interested parties and interested tribal 
    governments concerning the petitioned action (62 FR 22903).
        On September 16, 1997, Meridian submitted additional information in 
    support of its petition. Specifically, Meridian submitted three new 
    reports entitled: (1) ``Ability of Salmon and Steelhead to Pass Napias 
    Creek Falls''; (2) ``Investigation of Physical Conditions at Napias 
    Creek Falls''; and (3) ``Historical and Ethnographic Analysis of Salmon 
    Presence in the Leesburg Basin, Lemhi County, Idaho.'' This new 
    information was added to the administrative record and was considered 
    by NMFS in its 12-month determination published on January 30, 1998 (63 
    FR 4615).
        On January 30, 1998, NMFS determined that the petitioned action was 
    not warranted since available information indicated that the falls was 
    likely passable to chinook salmon at some flows and that the presence 
    of relict indicator species indicated historical usage by anadromous 
    species (63 FR 4615). Subsequent to this determination, Meridian 
    submitted a ``petition for reconsideration,'' providing additional data 
    and analyses concerning the likelihood Napias Creek Falls constitutes a 
    naturally impassable barrier to anadromous salmonid migration 
    (Meridian, 1998a, 1998b; Chapman, 1998). While NMFS' ESA implementing 
    regulations do not provide a process for reconsidering findings on 
    petitions, NMFS nonetheless agreed in a letter dated July 31, 1998, to 
    consider Meridian's new information and provide Meridian with a written 
    determination regarding its findings (NMFS, 1998a; Meridian, 1998d). On 
    October 30, 1998, NMFS staff met with Meridian representatives to 
    discuss the new technical information and its interpretations (NMFS, 
    1998b).
        On December 29, 1998, Meridian expressed its desire to withdraw its 
    ``petition for reconsideration'' stating that it interpreted NMFS' 
    continuing treatment of the area as critical habitat as a denial of its 
    petition (Meridian, 1998c). However, at that time, NMFS had not yet 
    reached a conclusion regarding the additional information submitted by 
    Meridian, nor had NMFS provided Meridian with a written determination 
    on the matter as it had committed to do in its July 31, 1998, letter 
    (NMFS, 1998a). NMFS ultimately
    
    [[Page 57400]]
    
    concluded this information is part of the best scientific information 
    available regarding whether the area in question constitutes critical 
    habitat for the species. Therefore, in accordance with section 
    4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, NMFS considered this information in its review 
    of Meridian's ``petition for reconsideration.''
        On June 2, 1999, NMFS published a proposed rule to revise critical 
    habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon (64 FR 29618). In 
    the proposed rule, NMFS determined that available evidence suggests 
    that Napias Creek Falls, while passable at some flows, constitutes an 
    effective migrational barrier for chinook salmon. This conclusion was 
    based on an analysis of available hydrological and biological data, as 
    well as some ethnographical information. In reaching this conclusion, 
    NMFS recognized that scientific uncertainty remained whether (1) 
    chinook salmon could establish a naturally reproducing population above 
    the falls if present in sufficient numbers in Napias Creek; and (2) 
    whether chinook salmon historically occurred above the falls.  To help 
    resolve this uncertainty, NMFS specifically requested comments and 
    information regarding the proposed determination. Discussion of the 
    comments received on the proposal follow.
    
    Definition of Critical Habitat
    
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i) 
    the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
    * * * 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 (ii) specific 
    areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon 
    a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
    conservation of the species'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term 
    ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, means `` * * * 
    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 Act are no longer 
    necessary'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
        Defining specific river reaches that constitute critical habitat 
    for chinook salmon, and anadromous fish species in general, is 
    difficult to do because of our imperfect understanding of the species' 
    freshwater distribution, both current and historical, and the lack of 
    comprehensive sampling efforts dedicated to monitoring these species. 
    Given this scientific uncertainty, NMFS' approach to designating 
    critical habitat for chinook salmon is to designate all areas currently 
    accessible to the species within the range of the Evolutionarily 
    Significant Unit. NMFS believes that this inclusive approach to 
    designating critical habitat is appropriate because it (1) recognizes 
    the species' extensive use of diverse habitats and underscores the need 
    to account for all of the habitat types supporting the species' 
    freshwater and estuarine life stages; and (2) takes into account the 
    natural variability in habitat use.
    
    Process for Defining Critical Habitat
    
        Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three 
    main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are 
    evaluated, and essential habitat areas and features are identified. 
    Second, the need for special management considerations or protection of 
    the area(s) or features identified are evaluated. Finally, the probable 
    economic and other impacts of designating these essential areas as 
    ``critical habitat'' are evaluated. After considering the requirements 
    of the species, the need for special management, and the impacts of the 
    designation, a notification of the proposed critical habitat is 
    published in the Federal Register for comment. The final critical 
    habitat designation, considering comments on the proposal and impacts 
    assessment, is typically published within 1 year of the proposed rule. 
    Final critical habitat designations may be revised as new information 
    becomes available.
    
    Consultation with Affected Indian Tribes
    
        The unique and distinctive relationship between the United States 
    and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, 
    judicial decisions, and agreements, and differentiates tribes 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 with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust and treaty 
    resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
        As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship 
    previously described, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of 
    the Interior issued a Secretarial Order entitled ``American Indian 
    Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
    Endangered Species Act'' on June 5, 1997. The Secretarial Order 
    clarifies the responsibilities of NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
    Service when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires that 
    they consult with, and seek the participation of, affected Indian 
    tribes to the maximum extent practicable.
        During the course of this rulemaking, NMFS consulted with, and 
    solicited comments from, affected Indian tribes, including the 
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes). The Tribes, in turn, provided written 
    comments and testimony on the proposed rule a discussion as follows.
    
    Summary of Comments
    
        During the public comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS 
    received seven written comments from a variety of sources. On August 
    31, 1999, NMFS held a public hearing in Boise, Idaho at which seven 
    people provided testimony concerning the proposed rule. Of the seven 
    parties providing comments and testimony, five supported the 
    conclusions reached in the proposed rule and two, including the Tribes, 
    disagreed with such conclusions. Commenters provided no additional 
    scientific information that resolves issues raised in the proposed 
    rule. Pertinent comments are summarized here.
         Comment 1: Two parties commented on the historic presence of 
    chinook salmon above the falls in question and the historic value of 
    this area. The Tribes stated that ``salmon hunting above the falls that 
    NMFS presently concludes is a barrier to salmon, has been reported by 
    tribal fishermen.'' Another commenter stated that it is possible Tribal 
    accounts may reflect historical fishing activities (and, thus, the 
    presence of chinook salmon) before the formation of the existing 
    barrier.
         Response: The question of historic Tribal usage of areas above the 
    falls, and, thus, presence of chinook salmon in this area, is a 
    difficult one to analyze. The Tribal oral history indicates chinook 
    salmon historically occurred above the falls; however, NMFS does not 
    believe, based on current scientific information, that this area has 
    supported chinook salmon populations over any appreciable and 
    continuous length of time. Current biological information indicates 
    that chinook salmon have not occurred above the falls over evolutionary 
    time periods. For example, the absence of a native fish community above 
    the falls and the presence of non-native fish species indicate that 
    areas above the falls have been, and continue to be, isolated from 
    areas below the falls. Further, a number
    
    [[Page 57401]]
    
    of ethnographic studies indicate that chinook have not occurred in this 
    area in recent times (i.e., within the last 100 years) (e.g., Larhen, 
    1999).
        While available scientific evidence supports the conclusion that 
    areas above the falls have not supported self-sustaining populations of 
    chinook salmon, it is possible that this species may have periodically 
    inhabited this area under certain environmental conditions. Such a 
    possibility is supported by NMFS' passage analysis (a discussion 
    follows) that indicates the falls is likely passable to chinook salmon 
    under certain flow conditions. This intermittent habitation of chinook 
    would likewise be consistent with Tribal accounts of fishing above the 
    falls.
         Comment 2: Two commenters, including the Tribes, expressed concern 
    about potential impacts to water quality and other critical habitat 
    elements in Napias Creek and areas downstream as a result of revising 
    this designation. The Tribes also expressed concern that revision of 
    critical habitat may hinder efforts to reestablish chinook salmon in 
    Panther Creek.
         Response: NMFS has previously stated that Napias Creek constitutes 
    an important source of dilution water within the Panther Creek system 
    and that any degradation of dilution flows from Napias Creek would 
    likely hinder efforts to reestablish anadromous fisheries in Panther 
    Creek (63 FR 4615, 4618). Recognizing this, NMFS intends to carefully 
    evaluate proposed actions that may adversely affect salmonid habitat in 
    this area (See Special Management Considerations).
         Comment 3: Several parties commented on NMFS' conclusion that 
    Napias Creek Falls is likely passable to chinook salmon at certain flow 
    conditions. The Tribes concurred with NMFS' assessment, stating that 
    such conclusions are consistent with reports from tribal fishermen of 
    salmon above the falls during the months of May and June. One commenter 
    disagreesed with NMFS' assessment, stating that existing hydrologic 
    studies refute this conclusion.
         Response: Aside from providing hydrographs that simply validate 
    assumptions made in previous modeling exercises, commenters present no 
    additional scientific information that NMFS has not considered in its 
    passage assessments. Furthermore, NMFS has thoroughly reviewed 
    available technical information and analyses, and has conducted on-site 
    investigations to verify the validity of its conclusions. In doing so, 
    NMFS has consistently concluded that chinook salmon can likely migrate 
    past Napias Creek Falls under certain flow conditions (i.e., at about 
    49 cfs) (NMFS, 1997; NMFS, 1998; NMFS, 1999a).
        Even though NMFS concludes that the falls in question are passable 
    to chinook salmon at certain flows, NMFS recognizes that it is 
    difficult to determine whether the falls constitutes an ``effective'' 
    migrational barrier for the species, thus, precluding the species from 
    colonizing areas above the falls (NMFS, 1999a). Since chinook salmon do 
    not presently occur in Napias Creek, NMFS must rely on historical 
    accounts and other biological and ecological information to infer 
    whether Napias Creek Falls effectively constitutes a migrational 
    barrier to the species. Such information indicates that chinook salmon 
    have not historically colonized habitat above the falls, thus, leading 
    1 to the conclusion that the falls constitute an effective migrational 
    barrier.
    
    Analysis of Available Information
    
        Two lines of evidence suggest that habitat above Napias Creek Falls 
    is not presently accessible or essential for the conservation or 
    recovery of the listed species. This evidence includes (1) current 
    passage conditions at the falls; and (2) surveys of salmonid presence 
    above the falls.
        On several previous occasions, NMFS analyzed the specific 
    hydrologic conditions present at Napias Creek Falls (NMFS 1997; 1998; 
    1999a). NMFS also conducted on-site evaluations of the falls to verify 
    its theoretical analysis. During the public comment period, no 
    additional information was presented that changes NMFS' previous 
    conclusion that chinook salmon can likely migrate past Napias Creek 
    Falls under certain flow conditions (i.e., at about 49 cfs). However, 
    NMFS recognizes that it is difficult to predict the likelihood that 
    chinook salmon would in fact colonize areas above the falls if present 
    in Napias Creek. Since chinook salmon do not presently occur in Napias 
    Creek, NMFS must rely on historical accounts and other biological 
    information to infer whether Napias Creek Falls effectively constitutes 
    a migrational barrier to the species.
        Studies submitted by Meridian, as well as the opinions of Federal 
    and state resource agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service [USFS], Idaho 
    Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality) 
    indicate that Napias Creek Falls is a historic barrier to anadromous 
    salmonid passage. However, this conclusion is in conflict with comments 
    from a USFS fishery biologist. In a report dated February 8, 1996, 
    Bruce Smith, Salmon and Challis National Forest Fisheries Biologist, 
    concludes that Napias Creek historically contained chinook salmon 
    (Smith, 1996a). Smith also states that areas above Napias Creek Falls 
    currently contain relict indicator species (Smith, 1996a), indicating 
    pre-historic accessibility of this area to anadromous salmonid species 
    (Smith, 1996b).
        In its January 30, 1998, determination, NMFS found Smith's analysis 
    persuasive on the question of the historical presence of chinook salmon 
    above Napias Creek Falls (63 FR 4615, 4617). However, since that time, 
    NMFS has reconsidered its reliance on this information. While such 
    relict indicator species as rainbow trout occur above the falls, other 
    native fish species (e.g., mountain whitefish, westslope cutthroat 
    trout, sculpins, and dace) do not presently occur above the falls, 
    indicating that salmonids in the area may have been the result of 
    hatchery introductions or transfers (Chapman 1998). This explanation is 
    supported by the presence of other nonnative fish species above the 
    falls (i.e., brook trout), and the apparent history of fish stocking in 
    Napias Creek (Smith 1996a).
        Available ethnographic information supports the conclusion that 
    chinook salmon have not historically used habitat above Napias Creek 
    Falls in recent times. Furthermore, available historic literature and 
    surveys of nearby residents indicate chinook salmon have not occurred 
    above the falls in recent times (Larhen, 1999).
        After considering comments received on the proposed rule, NMFS 
    concludes that habitat above Napias Creek Falls is outside the current 
    range of listed spring/summer chinook salmon and that habitat in this 
    area is not now essential for the conservation of the species. This 
    conclusion is based on several considerations. First, while NMFS 
    concludes the falls is likely passable to chinook salmon at certain 
    flows, historic evidence suggests that chinook salmon have not used 
    areas above the falls with any frequency in recorded history. Second, 
    while relict indicator species occur above the falls suggesting 
    historic use, the origin of these indicator species is uncertain.
        Even though uncertainty remains regarding NMFS' conclusions, 
    chinook salmon do not presently occur in Napias Creek, and therefore, 
    habitat above the falls would not likely be used by the species in the 
    near-term even if it were accessible. Furthermore, any potential long-
    term risk of harm to the species is lessened by the fact NMFS may 
    revise its determination if in the future additional information 
    indicates that
    
    [[Page 57402]]
    
    habitat above Napias Creek Falls constitutes critical habitat for the 
    species.
    
    Special Management Considerations
    
        Section 424.12(b) of NMFS' ESA implementing regulations states that 
    in determining what areas constitute critical habitat, NMFS shall 
    consider ``physical and biological features that are essential to the 
    conservation of a given species and that may require special management 
    considerations or protection.'' (Emphasis added). As discussed earier, 
    NMFS concludes that areas above the falls are outside the current range 
    of chinook salmon, and are not now essential for conservation of the 
    species. While these conclusions essentially end NMFS' inquiry into 
    whether areas above the falls constitute critical habitat, in this case 
    it is useful to consider the management implications of this 
    conclusion.
        NMFS believes that Napias Creek constitutes an important source of 
    dilution water within the Panther Creek system and that any degradation 
    of dilution flows from Napias Creek would likely hinder efforts to 
    reestablish anadromous fisheries in Panther Creek (63 FR 4615, 4618; 
    January 30, 1998). NMFS recently completed a section 7 biological 
    opinion (BO) concerning the operation of the Beartrack Gold Project 
    owned by Meridian Gold Company (NMFS, 1999b). In this BO, NMFS 
    concluded that the proposed operation of the mine would jeopardize 
    listed chinook, and recommended a reasonable and prudent alternative 
    that requires Meridian to monitor and protect water quality in Napias 
    Creek over the long-term. It is NMFS' belief that while mitigative 
    measures contained in this BO will change as a result of this revision, 
    such changes will not result in substantial impacts to salmonid habitat 
    below the falls.
        In addition to the presence of listed steelhead and chinook salmon 
    in Napias Creek, bull trout also occur above Napias Creek Falls (Smith, 
    1996a). On June 10, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
    listed the Columbia River distinct population segment of bull trout 
    (including populations in Panther Creek) as a threatened species (63 FR 
    31647). Consequently, the practical significance of excluding areas 
    above Napias Creek Falls from chinook salmon critical habitat is 
    debatable because federal agencies must ensure their actions do not 
    jeopardize bull trout located in this area.
    
    Expected Economic Impacts
    
        Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires NMFS to consider the economic 
    impact of specifying any particular areas as critical habitat. However, 
    section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA prohibits NMFS from considering economic 
    impacts associated with species listings. Consequently, when 
    designating critical habitat, NMFS considers only the incremental 
    economic impacts associated with the designation above the economic 
    impacts attributable to the listing of the species or authorities other 
    than the ESA. Incremental impacts result from special management 
    activities in those areas, if any, outside the present distribution of 
    the listed species that NMFS has determined to be essential for the 
    conservation of the species.
        In this particular case, positive economic impacts will likely 
    result to parties in the subject area. Meridian owns and operates 
    Beartrack Mine, which is adjacent to Upper Napias Creek (Napias Creek 
    above the Falls), within the Salmon National Forest. Meridian is 
    subject to a BO that contains measures to protect designated critical 
    habitat in Napias Creek. NMFS is not aware of any other business 
    operating in Upper Napias Creek whose operations might adversely modify 
    potential salmon habitat. This action would reduce the ESU's critical 
    habitat, by eliminating Upper Napias Creek from critical habitat. In 
    turn, measures contained in the BO that relate to this designate are no 
    longer applicable. Therefore, the reduction of critical habitat would 
    lessen Meridian's economic burden resulting from measures contained in 
    the BO.
    
    Determination
    
        After considering the best available scientific and commercial 
    information, NMFS concludes that Napias Creek Falls likely constitutes 
    a naturally impassable barrier for Snake River spring/summer chinook 
    salmon. While the falls may be passable to chinook salmon at certain 
    flows, available evidence suggests this species has not mounted this 
    falls with any regularity in the recent past, nor is it likely do so in 
    the future. NMFS will reevaluate this conclusion in the future if 
    information indicates areas above the falls are essential for 
    conservation of chinook salmon in the Panther Creek drainage.
    
    References
    
        A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing 
    the range of proposed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon are 
    available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    
    Classification
    
        The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined 
    this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        Through this rule, NMFS designates only the current range of this 
    chinook salmon ESU as critical habitat. Given the affinity of this 
    species to spawn in small tributaries, this current range encompasses a 
    wide range of habitat, including headwater streams, as well as 
    mainstem, off-channel and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this 
    proposed designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and 
    any historically occupied areas above impassable natural barriers 
    (e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS concludes that the 
    currently inhabited areas within the range of this ESU are the minimum 
    habitat necessary to ensure the species' conservation and recovery.
        Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
    as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
    requirements or economic effects upon small entities beyond those which 
    may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal 
    agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund 
    is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
    species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
    critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements 
    of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of 
    species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS 
    and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, regardless 
    of whether critical habitat is designated.
        In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat 
    areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation 
    and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action 
    and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
    would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
    the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and 
    governments.
        Meridian owns and operates Beartrack Mine, which is adjacent to 
    Upper Napias Creek (Napias Creek above the Falls), within the Salmon 
    National Forest. NMFS is not aware of any other business operating in 
    Upper Napias Creek whose operations might adversely modify potential 
    salmon habitat. This
    
    [[Page 57403]]
    
    revision would reduce the ESU's critical habitat, by eliminating Upper 
    Napias Creek from critical habitat. To the extent that Meridian may be 
    impacted by the current designation of Upper Napias Creek as critical 
    habitat, the reduction of critical habitat would lessen Meridian's 
    economic burden, if any, from that impact.
        Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of 
    Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
    Business Administration that the critical habitat designation, if 
    adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
    number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory Flexibility 
    Act.
        This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
    requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments or an 
    Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
    this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
    F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).
    
    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
    
        Endangered and threatened species.
    
        Dated: October 15, 1999.
    Andrew A. Rosenberg,
    Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
    Service.
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is amended 
    as follows:
    
    PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
    
        1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    
        2. In Sec. 226.205, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 226.205  Critical habitat for Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake 
    River fall chinook salmon, and Snake River spring/summer chinook 
    salmon.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 
    tshawytscha). Geographic Boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to 
    include the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west end 
    of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the 
    Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) and including all Columbia 
    River estuarine areas and river reaches proceeding upstream to the 
    confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers; all Snake River reaches 
    from the confluence of the Columbia River upstream to Hells Canyon Dam. 
    Critical habitat also includes river reaches presently or historically 
    accessible (except reaches above impassable natural falls (including 
    Napias Creek Falls) and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams) to Snake River 
    spring/summer chinook salmon in the following hydrologic units: Hells 
    Canyon, Imnaha, Lemhi, Little Salmon, Lower Grande Ronde, Lower Middle 
    Fork Salmon, Lower Salmon, Lower Snake-Asotin, Lower Snake-Tucannon, 
    Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, Middle Salmon-Panther, Pahsimeroi, South 
    Fork Salmon, Upper Middle Fork Salmon, Upper Grande Ronde, Upper 
    Salmon, Wallowa. Critical habitat borders on or passes through the 
    following counties in Oregon: Baker, Clatsop, Columbia, Gillium, Hood 
    River, Morrow, Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco; the 
    following counties in Washington: Asotin, Benton, Clark, Columbia, 
    Cowlitz, Franklin, Garfield, Klickitat, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, 
    Walla, Whitman; and the following counties in Idaho: Adams, Blaine, 
    Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Lewis, Nez Perce, Valley.
    * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 99-27585 Filed 10-22-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
11/24/1999
Published:
10/25/1999
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-27585
Dates:
The effective date of this determination is November 24, 1999.
Pages:
57399-57403 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 990525143-9277-02, I.D. 120197A
RINs:
0648-AM41: Redesignation of Critical Habitat for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/0648-AM41/redesignation-of-critical-habitat-for-snake-river-spring-summer-chinook
PDF File:
99-27585.pdf
CFR: (1)
50 CFR 226.205