[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5740-5754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2642]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 990128036-9036-01; I.D. 033198A]
RIN 0648-AG49
Designated Critical Habitat: Proposed Critical Habitat for Nine
Evolutionarily Significant Units of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to designate critical habitat for nine
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) previously listed and currently proposed for listing under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed critical habitat occurs in the
States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The areas
described in this proposed rule represent the current freshwater and
estuarine range inhabited by the ESU. Freshwater critical habitat
includes all waterways and substrates below longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years) and several dams that block access to former
anadromous habitats. The economic and other impacts resulting from this
critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1999. Requests for public
hearings must be received by March 22, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule or requests for reference
materials should be sent to Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division,
NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR
97232-2737; telefax (503) 230-5435.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, (503) 231-2005, Craig
Wingert, (562) 980-4021, or Chris Mobley, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 20, 1993, NMFS announced its intent to conduct a status
review to identify all coastal steelhead ESU(s) within California,
Oregon, and Washington and to determine whether any identified ESU(s)
warranted listing under the ESA. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994,
NMFS received a petition from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and
from 15 co-petitioners to list all steelhead (or specific ESUs, races,
or stocks) within the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho. In response to this petition, NMFS announced the expansion of
its status review to include inland steelhead populations occurring in
eastern Washington and Oregon and the State of Idaho (59 FR 27527, May
27, 1994).
On August 9, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 10 ESUs
of west coast steelhead as threatened or endangered under the ESA; NMFS
solicited comments on the proposal (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996). In
this document, NMFS concluded that the Middle Columbia River ESU
warranted classification as a candidate species since NMFS was
concerned about the status of steelhead in this area, but lacked
sufficient information to merit a proposed listing, and that the Upper
Willamette River steelhead ESU did not warrant listing, based on
available scientific information.
On August 18, 1997, NMFS published a final rule listing five ESUs
as threatened and endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate
document published on the same day,
[[Page 5741]]
NMFS determined that substantial scientific disagreement remained for
five proposed ESUs (62 FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In accordance with
section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred its decision on these
remaining steelhead ESUs for 6 months, until February 9, 1998, for the
purpose of soliciting additional data. By court order, NMFS' deadline
for issuing determinations on these five remaining ESUs was extended to
March 13, 1998.
On March 10, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule to list the Upper
Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs as threatened species
(63 FR 11798). On March 19, 1998, NMFS published a final rule to list
the Lower Columbia River and Central Valley, California, ESUs as
threatened species (63 FR 13347). NMFS now proposes critical habitat
for all nine currently listed and proposed steelhead ESUs.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS
has determined that sufficient information exists to propose
designating critical habitat for the nine ESUs of steelhead previously
listed and currently proposed for listing under the ESA. NMFS will
consider all available information and data in finalizing this
proposal.
The use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document
refers to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be
confused with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish
Habitat pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
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.'' 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.''
In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following
requirements of the species: (1) space for individual and population
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals,
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing offspring;
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of this species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to these
factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological
features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. These essential
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Consideration of Economic and Other Factors
The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation
have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS
identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify
the area(s) being considered or that may be affected by a designation.
An area may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS
determines that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits
of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental
impacts resulting specifically from a critical habitat designation,
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the
species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species
under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in
many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself,
are minimal. In general, the designation of critical habitat highlights
geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection
resulting from the listing itself.
Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated
regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm can
occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or not
designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential behaviors,
including breeding, feeding, rearing or migration (63 FR 24148, May 1,
1998).
Significance of Designating Critical Habitat
The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself,
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to
the area's importance. The only regulatory impact of a critical habitat
designation is through the provisions of section 7 of the ESA. Section
7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g., authorized,
funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not affect
exclusively state or private activities.
Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
defined as those actions that ``appreciably diminish the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery'' of the species
(50 CFR 402.02). Regardless of a critical habitat designation, Federal
agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the listed species. Activities that
jeopardize a species are defined as those actions that ``reasonably
would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR
402.02). Using these definitions, activities that are likely to destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat would also be likely to jeopardize
the species. Therefore, the protection provided by a critical habitat
designation generally duplicates the protection provided under the
section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may provide additional
benefits to a species in cases where areas outside the species' current
range have been designated. Federal agencies are required to consult
with NMFS under section 7 (50 CFR 402.14(a)), when these designated
areas
[[Page 5742]]
may be affected by their actions. The effects of these actions on
designated areas may not have been recognized but for the critical
habitat designation.
A designation of critical habitat provides Federal agencies with a
clear indication as to when consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
required, particularly in cases where the proposed action would not
result in direct mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed
species (e.g., an action occurring within the critical habitat area
when a migratory species is not present). The critical habitat
designation, in describing the essential features of the habitat, also
helps determine which activities conducted outside the designated area
are subject to section 7 (i.e., activities outside critical habitat
that may affect essential features of the designated area).
A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in
planning future actions because the designation establishes, in
advance, those habitats that will be given special consideration in
section 7 consultations. With a designation of critical habitat,
potential conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or
threatened species can be identified and possibly avoided early in an
agency's planning process.
Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it
helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation
regulations that restrict private as well as Federal activities. The
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the
time regulations are proposed and, therefore, are not considered in the
critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and local
authorities, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian lands protection,
may also benefit critical habitat areas.
Process for Designating 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. If
alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the
species, such alternatives are also 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 is promulgated after considering all comments and
any new information received on the proposal. Final critical habitat
designations may be revised, using the same process, as new information
becomes available.
A description of the essential habitat, need for special
management, impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed
action are described in the following sections.
Critical Habitat of Steelhead ESUs
Biological information for steelhead can be found in NMFS species
status reviews (Busby et al., 1996), species life history summaries
(Shapavalov and Taft, 1954; Barnhart, 1986; Pauley et al., 1986; Groot
and Margolis, 1991), and in Federal Register announcements of proposed
and final listing determinations (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR
43937, August 18, 1997; 63 FR 11798, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March
19, 1998). Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the
North Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the
northern Baja Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends
from the Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of
North America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There
are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as
the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan and Jackson,
1996). The species' marine distribution south of Punta Gorda,
California, appears to encompass a relatively narrow, nearshore strip
less than 100 kilometers (km) wide (NOAA, 1990). North of Punta Gorda,
the distribution widens to encompass nearly all marine areas north of
42 deg. N latitude in the North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Alaska (NOAA,
1990). Any attempt to describe the current distribution of steelhead
must take into account the fact that many extant populations and
densities are a small fraction of historical levels. Hence, some
populations considered extinct could in fact exist but be represented
by only a few individuals that could escape detection during surveys.
In the Central California Coast ESU, the major populations are
found in the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers. In the South-Central
California Coast ESU, major rivers include the Big Sur, Carmel, Little
Sur, Pajaro, and Salinas Rivers. In the Southern California Coast ESU,
major rivers include Malibu Creek and the Santa Clara, Santa Ynez, and
Ventura Rivers. Within the range of the California Central Valley ESU,
major tributaries supporting steelhead in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Basins include the American, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne,
Tuolumne, and Yuba Rivers, as well as numerous smaller tributaries.
The Columbia River serves as a migration corridor as well as an
important estuary for all of the listed or proposed steelhead ESUs in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Major tributaries known to support
steelhead in the Upper Columbia River ESU include the Entiat, Methow,
Okanogan, and Wenatchee Rivers. In the Snake River Basin ESU, major
tributaries include the Clearwater, Grande Ronde, Salmon, Selway, and
Tucannon Rivers. In the Middle Columbia River ESU, major tributaries
include the Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, Umatilla, and Yakima
Rivers. In the Lower Columbia River ESU, major tributaries include the
Clackamas, Cowlitz, Hood, Kalama, Lewis, Sandy, Washougal, and Wind
Rivers. Finally, in the Upper Willamette River ESU, major tributaries
known to support steelhead include the Molalla and Santiam Rivers.
In addition to the rivers identified, many smaller rivers and
streams in each ESU also provide important habitat for steelhead, but
access is often constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrological
conditions.
Defining specific river reaches that are critical for steelhead is
difficult because of the current low abundance of the species and of
our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater distribution,
both current and historical. The latter is due, in large part, to the
lack of comprehensive sampling effort dedicated to monitoring the
species. Based on consideration of the best available information
regarding the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the
preferred approach to identifying critical habitat for steelhead is to
designate all areas accessible to the species within the range of
specified river basins in each ESU. NMFS believes that adopting a more
inclusive, watershed-based description of 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; (2) takes into account the natural variability in habitat use
that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g., some streams may have
fish present only in years with
[[Page 5743]]
plentiful rainfall); and (3) reinforces the important linkage between
aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.
While NMFS is proposing to focus on accessible (i.e., fish bearing)
river reaches, it is important to note that habitat quality is
intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and upstream areas
(including headwater or intermittent streams) which provide key habitat
elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality) crucial for
steelhead in downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine
habitats are critical for steelhead and has included them in this
designation. Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward
of the mouth of coastal rivers) are also vital to the species, and
ocean conditions may have a major influence on steelhead survival.
However, NMFS is still evaluating whether these areas currently warrant
consideration as critical habitat, particularly whether marine areas
require special management consideration or protection. Therefore, NMFS
is not proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this
time. If additional information becomes available that supports the
inclusion of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems,
thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids.
Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing
dwindling steelhead run sizes. NMFS recently published a report
describing the impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals
upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and
California (NMFS, 1997). This report concludes that, in certain cases
where pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid
populations, salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to
predation. An example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington,
where sea lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult
winter steelhead. This study further concludes that data regarding
pinniped predation is quite limited and that substantial additional
research is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on
the seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to
warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where
pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997).
Essential features of steelhead critical habitat include adequate
(1) substrate; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4) water
temperature; (5) water velocity; (6) cover/shelter; (7) food; (8)
riparian vegetation; (9) space; and (10) safe passage conditions. Given
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these steelhead ESUs and
the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is not
practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of these
essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by
Barnhart (1986), Pauley et al. (1986), California Advisory Committee on
Salmon and Steelhead Trout (CACSST) (1988), Bjornn and Reiser (1991),
Nehlsen et al. (1991), California State Lands Commission (1993),
Reynolds et al. (1993), Botkin et al. (1995), McEwan and Jackson
(1996), NMFS (1996), and Spence et al. (1996).
An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their
features, and special management considerations will be needed,
especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership (see Activities
That May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special Management
Considerations or Protection). While marine areas are also a critical
link in the species' life cycle, NMFS has not yet concluded that
special management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat
features in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas
(and their adjacent riparian zones) are being proposed for critical
habitat at this time.
Adjacent Riparian Zones
NMFS' past critical habitat designations for listed anadromous
salmonids have included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the
designation. In the final designations for Snake River spring/summer
chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye (58 FR 68543, December 28, 1993),
NMFS included the adjacent riparian zone as part of critical habitat
and defined it in the regulation as those areas within a horizontal
distance of 300 feet (91.4 meters) from the normal high water line. In
the critical habitat designation for Sacramento River winter run
chinook (58 FR 33212, June 16, 1993), NMFS included ``adjacent riparian
zones'' as part of the critical habitat but did not define the extent
of that zone in the regulation. The preamble to that rule stated that
the adjacent riparian zone was limited to ``those areas that provide
cover and shade.''
Streams and stream functioning are inextricably linked to adjacent
riparian and upland (or upslope) areas. Streams regularly submerge
portions of the riparian zone via floods and channel migration, and
portions of the riparian zone may contain off-channel rearing habitats
used by juvenile salmonids during periods of high flow. The riparian
zone also provides an array of important watershed functions that
directly benefit salmonids. Vegetation in the zone shades the stream,
stabilizes banks, and provides organic litter and large woody debris.
The riparian zone stores sediment, recycles nutrients and chemicals,
mediates stream hydraulics, and controls microclimate. Healthy riparian
zones help ensure water quality essential to salmonids as well as the
forage species they depend on (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979; Meehan, 1991;
FEMAT, 1993; and Spence et al., 1996). Human activities in the adjacent
riparian zone, or in upslope areas, can harm stream function and can
harm salmonids, both directly and indirectly, by interfering with the
watershed functions described here. For example, timber harvest, road-
building, grazing, cultivation, and other activities can increase
sediment, destabilize banks, reduce organic litter and woody debris,
increase water temperatures, simplify stream channels, and increase
peak flows. These adverse modifications reduce the value of habitat for
salmon and, in many instances, may result in injury or mortality of
fish. Because human activity may adversely affect these watershed
functions and habitat features, NMFS concluded the adjacent riparian
zone could require special management consideration, and, therefore,
was appropriate for inclusion in critical habitat.
The Snake River salmon critical habitat designation relied on
analyses and conclusions reached by the Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team (FEMAT, 1993) regarding interim riparian reserves for
fish-bearing streams on Federal lands within the range of the northern
spotted owl. The interim riparian reserve recommendations in the FEMAT
report were based on a systematic review of the available literature,
primarily for forested habitats, concerning riparian processes as a
function of distance from stream channels. The interim riparian
reserves identified in the FEMAT report for fish-bearing streams on
Federal forest lands are intended to (1) provide protection to
salmonids, as well as riparian-dependent and associated species,
through the protection of riparian processes that influence stream
function, and (2) provide a high level of fish habitat and riparian
protection until
[[Page 5744]]
site-specific watershed and project analyses can be completed. The
FEMAT report identified several alternative ways that interim riparian
reserves providing a high level of protection could be defined,
including the 300-foot (91.4 meter) slope distance, a distance
equivalent to two site potential tree heights, the outer edges of
riparian vegetation, the 100-year flood plain, or the area between the
edge of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge,
whichever is greatest. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) ultimately adopted these riparian reserve
criteria as part of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy aimed at
conserving fish, amphibians, and other aquatic- and riparian-dependent
species in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT
ROD, 1994).
While NMFS has used the findings of the FEMAT report to guide its
analyses in ESA section 7 consultations with the USFS and BLM regarding
management of Federal lands, NMFS recognizes that the interim riparian
reserves may be conservative with regard to the protection of adjacent
riparian habitat for salmonids since they are designed to protect
salmonids as well as terrestrial species that are riparian dependent or
associated. Moreover, NMFS' analyses have focused more on the stream
functions important to salmonids and on how proposed activities will
affect the riparian area's contribution to properly functioning
conditions for salmonid habitat.
Since the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan, NMFS has gained
experience working with Federal and non-Federal landowners to determine
the likely effects of proposed land management actions on stream
functions. In freshwater and estuarine areas, these activities include,
but are not limited to agriculture; forestry; grazing; bank
stabilization; construction/urbanization; dam construction/operation;
dredging and dredged spoil disposal; habitat restoration projects;
irrigation withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral mining; road
building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining; wastewater/pollutant
discharge; wetland and floodplain alteration; and woody debris/
structure removal from rivers and estuaries. NMFS has developed
numerous tools to assist Federal agencies in analyzing the likely
impacts of their activities on anadromous fish habitat. With these
tools, Federal agencies are better able to judge the impacts of their
actions on salmonid habitat, taking into account the location and
nature of their actions. NMFS' primary tool guiding Federal agencies is
a document titled ``Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of
Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale''
(NMFS, 1996a). This document presents guidelines to facilitate and
standardize determinations of ``effect'' under the ESA and includes a
matrix for determining the condition of various habitat parameters.
This matrix is being implemented in several northern California and
Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to help guide efforts to
define salmonid risk factors and conservation strategies throughout the
West Coast.
Several recent literature reviews have addressed the effectiveness
of various riparian zone widths for maintaining specific riparian
functions (e.g., sediment control, large woody debris recruitment) and
overall watershed processes. These reviews provide additional useful
information about riparian processes as a function of distance from
stream channels. For example, Castelle et al. (1994) conducted a
literature review of riparian zone functions and concluded that
riparian widths in the range of 30 meters (98 feet) appear to be the
minimum needed to maintain biological elements of streams. They also
noted that site-specific conditions may warrant substantially larger or
smaller riparian management zones. Similarly, Johnson and Reba (1992)
summarized the technical literature and found that available
information supported a minimum 30-meter riparian management zone for
salmonid protection.
A recent assessment funded by NMFS and several other Federal
agencies reviewed the technical basis for various riparian functions as
they pertain to salmonid conservation (Spence et al., 1996). These
authors suggest that a functional approach to riparian protection
requires a consistent definition of riparian ecosystems based on
``zones of influence'' for specific riparian processes. They noted that
in constrained reaches where the active channel remains relatively
stable through time, riparian zones of influences may be defined based
on site-potential tree heights and distance from the active channel. In
contrast, they note that, in unconstrained reaches (e.g., streams in
broad valley floors) with braided or shifting channels, the riparian
zone of influence is more difficult to define, but recommend that it is
more appropriate to define the riparian zone based on some measure of
the extent of the flood plain.
Spence et al. (1996) reviewed the functions of riparian zones that
are essential to the development and maintenance of aquatic habitats
favorable to salmonids and the available literature concerning the
riparian distances that would protect these functional processes. Many
of the studies reviewed indicate that riparian management widths
designed to protect one function in particular, recruitment of large
woody debris, are likely to be adequate to protect other key riparian
functions. The reviewed studies concluded that the vast majority of
large woody debris is obtained within one site-potential tree height
from the stream channel (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade et al., 1990;
Robison and Beschta, 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; FEMAT, 1993;
and Cederholm, 1994). Based on the available literature, Spence et al.
(1996) concluded that fully protected riparian management zones of one
site potential tree would adequately maintain 90 to 100 percent of most
key riparian functions of Pacific Northwest forests if the goal was to
maintain instream processes over a time frame of years to decades.
Based on experience gained since the designation of critical
habitat for Snake River salmon and after considering public comments
and reviewing additional scientific information regarding riparian
habitats, NMFS defines steelhead critical habitat based on key riparian
functions. Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the
area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade,
sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and
input of large woody debris or organic matter. Specific guidance on
assessing the potential impacts of land use activities on riparian
functions can be obtained by consulting with NMFS (see ADDRESSES),
local foresters, conservation officers, fisheries biologists, or county
extension agents.
The physical and biological features that create properly
functioning salmonid habitat vary throughout the range of steelhead and
the extent of the adjacent riparian zone may change accordingly
depending on the landscape under consideration. While a site-potential
tree height can serve as a reasonable benchmark in some cases, site-
specific analyses provide the best means to characterize the adjacent
riparian zone because such analyses are more likely to accurately
capture the unique attributes of a particular landscape. Knowing what
may be a limiting factor to the properly functioning condition of a
stream channel on a land use or land type basis
[[Page 5745]]
and how that may or may not affect the function of the riparian zone
will significantly assist Federal agencies in assessing the potential
for impacts to listed steelhead. On Federal lands within the range of
the northern spotted owl, Federal agencies should continue to rely on
the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan to guide
their consultations with NMFS. Where there is a Federal action on non-
Federal lands, Federal agencies should consider the potential effects
of the activities they fund, permit, or authorize on the riparian zone
adjacent to a stream that may influence the following functions: shade,
sediment delivery to the stream, nutrient or chemical regulation,
streambank stability, and the input of large woody debris or organic
matter. In areas where the existing riparian zone is seriously
diminished (e.g., in many urban settings and agricultural settings
where flood control structures are prevalent), Federal agencies should
focus on maintaining any existing riparian functions and restoring
others where appropriate, for example, by cooperating with local
watershed groups and landowners. NMFS acknowledges in its description
of riparian habitat function that different land use types (e.g.,
timber, urban, and agricultural) will have varying degrees of impact
and that activities requiring a Federal permit will be evaluated on the
basis of disturbance to the riparian zone. In many cases the evaluation
of an activity may focus on a particular limiting factor for a water
course (e.g., temperature, stream bank erosion, sediment transport) and
whether that activity may or may not contribute to improving or
degrading the riparian habitat.
Finally, NMFS emphasizes that a designation of critical habitat
does not prohibit landowners from conducting actions that modify
streams or the adjacent terrestrial habitat. Critical habitat
designation serves to identify important areas and essential features
within those areas, thus alerting both Federal and non-Federal entities
to the importance of the area for listed salmonids. Federal agencies
are required by the ESA to consult with NMFS to ensure that any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes
the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the
listed species. The designation of critical habitat will assist Federal
agencies in evaluating how their actions on Federal or non-Federal
lands may affect listed steelhead and determining when they should
consult with NMFS on the impacts of their actions. When a private
landowner requires a Federal permit that may result in the modification
of steelhead habitat, Federal permitting agencies will be required to
ensure that the permitted action, regardless of whether it occurs in
the stream channel, adjacent riparian zone, or upland areas, does not
appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery of the listed species or jeopardize the species'
continued existence. For other actions, landowners should consider the
needs of the listed fish and NMFS will assist them in assessing the
impacts of actions.
Barriers Within the Species' Range
Within the range of all threatened or endangered ESUs, steelhead
face a multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile and
adult fish to essential freshwater habitats. In some cases these are
natural barriers (e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity barriers)
that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years. Some
pose an obvious physical barrier to any anadromous salmonids (e.g.,
Palouse Falls on the Palouse River, Washington) while others may only
be surmountable during years when extreme river conditions (e.g.,
floods) provide passage.
An example of the latter has recently been brought to NMFS'
attention via 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 (U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit ``Middle Salmon-Panther,
17060203''). Like chinook salmon, steelhead do not presently occur in
Napias Creek; therefore, conclusions regarding the nature of this
barrier are difficult since such conclusions must rely on indirect
modeling efforts and surveys, as well as historical sources on the
presence of anadromous fish. While NMFS believes it is likely steelhead
could migrate above the falls at certain streamflows (NMFS, 1998), it
is difficult to determine the frequency that steelhead would migrate
above the falls or whether steelhead would recolonize habitat areas
above the falls. The presence of relict indicator species above the
falls (e.g., rainbow trout) tends to indicate steelhead may have
occurred above the falls over evolutionary time periods; however,
recent historical information indicates steelhead have not occurred in
this area in recent times.
After analyzing new information and analyses submitted by Meridian,
NMFS concludes Napias Creek Falls may constitute a naturally impassable
barrier for steelhead. While the falls may be passable to steelhead at
certain flows, available evidence suggests this species would not do so
with any regularity. Given the scientific uncertainty associated with
this conclusion, NMFS specifically requests data and analyses
concerning this and other potentially impassable natural barriers (see
Public Comments Solicited).
Manmade barriers created in the past several decades can create
significant problems for anadromous salmonids (California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), 1965; CACSST, 1988; Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1996). The extent of such barriers as culverts
and road crossing structures that impede or block fish passage appears
to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence surveys conducted
in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey season, nearly 15
percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due to human
barriers, principally road culverts (Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration
Initiative, 1997). Pushup dams/diversions and irrigation withdrawals
also present significant barriers or lethal conditions (e.g., high
water temperatures) to steelhead in nearly all ESUs. However, because
these manmade barriers can, under certain flow conditions, be
surmounted by fish or present only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS
does not consider them to delineate the upstream extent of critical
habitat.
Since man-made impassable barriers are widely distributed
throughout the range of each ESU, they can have a major downstream
influence on steelhead. Such impacts may include (1) depletion and
storage of natural flows which can drastically alter natural
hydrological cycles; (2) increased juvenile and adult mortality due to
migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or habitat
blockages; (3) loss of sufficient habitat due to deterring and
blockage; (4) stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow fluctuations;
(5) entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or unscreened
diversions; and (6) increased mortality resulting from increased water
temperatures (CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991;
Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; and
NMFS, 1996b). In addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively
affect
[[Page 5746]]
fish habitats due to increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning
gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and spawning
gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic vegetation into
spawning and rearing areas resulting in reduced available habitat
(CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and NMFS, 1996b).
These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed through ESA
section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.
Numerous hydropower and water storage projects have been built
which either block access to areas used historically by steelhead or
alter the hydrograph of downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified
numerous dams within the range of steelhead ESUs listed or proposed for
listing that currently have no fish passage facilities to allow
steelhead access to former spawning and rearing habitats (Tables 18
through 26). In some ESUs, blocked habitat constitutes up to 95 percent
of the historical range (CACSST, 1988; and Reynolds et al., 1993).
While these blocked areas are significant in certain basins (e.g.,
areas in California's Central Valley), NMFS believes that currently
accessible habitat may be sufficient for the conservation of affected
steelhead ESUs. NMFS has concluded that the potential for restoring
access to former spawning and rearing habitat above currently
impassable man-made barriers is a significant factor to be considered
in determining whether such habitat is essential for the conservation
of species. NMFS solicits comments and scientific information on this
issue and will consider such information prior to issuing any final
critical habitat designation. This may result in the inclusion of areas
above some man-made impassable barriers in a future critical habitat
designation.
Throughout the range of west coast steelhead, numerous hydropower
dams are undergoing, or are scheduled for, relicensing by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NMFS will evaluate information
developed during the process of relicensing to determine whether fish
passage facilities are needed at such dams to restore access to
historically available habitat. Even though habitat above such barriers
is not currently designated as critical, this conclusion does not
foreclose the potential importance of restoring access to these areas.
Therefore, NMFS will determine on a case-by-case basis during FERC
relicensing proceedings whether fish passage facilities will be
required to provide access to habitat that is essential for the
conservation of affected steelhead ESUs.
Critical Habitat and Indian Lands
The unique and distinctive political 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 of due care with
respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of
tribal rights.
Indian lands (Indian lands are defined in the Secretarial Order of
June 5, 1997, as ``any lands title to which is either: (1) held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or
individual; or (2) held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to
restrictions by the United States against alienation'') were retained
by tribes or have been set aside for tribal use pursuant to treaties,
statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders, or agreements. These
lands are managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and
objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.
As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship
described here and implementing the Presidential Memorandum of April
24, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Governments, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the
Interior issued the 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
(Services) when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires
that they consult with, and seek the participation of, the affected
Indian tribes to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order
further provides that the Services ``shall consult with the affected
Indian tribe(s) when considering the designation of critical habitat in
an area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee
lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve
a listed species.''
NMFS has determined that the Indian Reservations containing Indian
lands most likely to be affected by a critical habitat designation of
listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are the Colville Indian Reservation
(Upper Columbia River ESU); Nez Perce Indian Reservation (Snake River
ESU); and the Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Indian Reservations
(Middle Columbia River ESU). The major river basins containing
reservation lands and listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are identified
in Tables 24 through 26. NMFS has not yet identified tribally owned fee
lands or other areas where designation of critical habitat may impact
tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal rights. NMFS will
identify any such lands during government-to-government consultation
with affected tribes.
Although NMFS notified the affected tribes of the proposed critical
habitat designation, insufficient time was allotted for meaningful
government-to-government consultation. NMFS will continue to consult
with the tribes in accordance with the agency's trust responsibilities
and the Secretarial Order concerning critical habitat designation in
these ESUs. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to designate critical
habitat on the described reservation lands at this time. In addition,
tribally owned fee lands and other areas where critical habitat
designation may impact the exercise of tribal rights or trust resources
may be identified and included or excluded from critical habitat
designation in a subsequent action. If any such lands are determined to
be essential to conserve listed steelhead, such lands may be designated
critical habitat in a subsequent action.
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
In order to ensure that the essential habitat areas and features
are maintained or restored, special management measures may be needed.
Federal activities that may require special management considerations
for freshwater and estuarine life stages of listed steelhead include,
but are not limited to (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3)
point and non-point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat
restoration; (6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining;
(8) road construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10)
dredge and fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily
of current concern within every ESU; however, they indicate the
potential types of activities that will require consultation in the
future. Activities that are conducted on private or state lands that
are not federally permitted or funded are not subject to any additional
regulations under this rule. However, non-Federal
[[Page 5747]]
landowners should be aware that any significant habitat modifications
that could adversely affect listed fish, could result in a ``taking''
(i.e., harming or killing) of the listed species, which is prohibited
under section 9 of the ESA. No special management considerations have
been identified for steelhead while they are residing in the ocean
environment.
Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat
A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat
requirements of steelhead. More in-depth discussions are contained in
the Federal Register documents announcing the listing determinations
for each ESU (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR 43937, August 18,
1997; 63 FR 11798, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998) as well
as NMFS' document entitled ``Steelhead Factors for Decline: A
Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead''
(NMFS, 1996b). These activities include water and land management
actions of Federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Federal Highway Administration (FHA),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), National Park Service (NPS), and FERC) and
related or similar actions of other federally regulated projects and
lands including livestock grazing allocations by USFS and BLM;
hydropower sites licensed by FERC; dams built or operated by the Corps
or BOR; timber sales conducted by the USFS and BLM; road building
activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, BLM, and NPS; and mining and
road building activities authorized by the states of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California. Other actions of concern include dredge
and fill, mining, and bank stabilization activities authorized or
conducted by the Corps and habitat modifications authorized by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, actions of
concern could include approval of water quality standards and pesticide
labeling and use restrictions administered by EPA.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, Corps, FHA,
NRCS, NPS, FEMA, and FERC. This designation will provide clear
notification to these agencies, private entities, and the public of
critical habitat designated for steelhead and of the boundaries of the
habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7
consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies
and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on
steelhead and their critical habitat and in determining when
consultation with NMFS is appropriate.
Expected Economic Impacts
The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation
above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to
authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other
Factors). 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 to the conservation of
the species. For these steelhead ESUs, NMFS has determined that the
present geographic extent of their freshwater and estuarine range is
likely sufficient to provide for conservation of the species, although
the quality of that habitat needs improvement on many fronts. Because
NMFS is not designating any areas beyond the current range of these
steelhead ESUs as critical habitat, the designation will result in few,
if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have been
caused by listing and by other statutes.
USFS, BLM, BOR, and the Corps manage areas of proposed critical
habitat for the steelhead ESUs. The Corps and other Federal agencies
that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in critical
habitat areas may also be affected by this designation. Because NMFS
believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations
pertaining to critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy''
conclusions under ESA Section 7 consultations (i.e., as a result of the
species being listed), the designation of critical habitat is not
expected to result in significant incremental restrictions on Federal
agency activities. Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result
in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have
been caused by the ESA listing and by other statutes.
Public Comments Solicited
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments
and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
NMFS requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality and
extent of marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (including
adjacent riparian zones) for juvenile and adult steelhead as well as
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Areas that include the
physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the
species should be identified. Essential features include, but are not
limited to (1) habitat for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)
sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that
are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distributions of the species. NMFS is also
requesting information regarding steelhead distribution and habitat
requirements within the range of Indian lands identified in this
proposal and whether these lands should be considered essential for the
conservation of the listed species or whether recovery can be achieved
by limiting the designation to other lands.
NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries
of these ESUs that historically constituted steelhead habitat but may
not be currently occupied by steelhead. NMFS requests information about
steelhead in these currently unoccupied areas and whether these
habitats should be considered essential to the recovery of the species
or excluded from designation.
For areas where natural barriers are believed to pose a migration
barrier for steelhead (e.g., the Napias Creek Falls issue described
earlier in this document), NMFS specifically requests data and analyses
concerning the following: (1) Historic accounts indicating steelhead or
other anadromous salmonids occurred above the barrier; (2) data or
reports analyzing the likelihood steelhead or other anadromous
salmonids would migrate above the barrier; and (3) other information
indicating that a particular barrier is or is not naturally impassable
to anadromous salmonid migration. NMFS will evaluate all new
information received concerning this issue and will reconsider this
issue in its final steelhead critical habitat designation.
For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is
requesting the following information: (1) The activities that affect
the area or could be affected by the designation and (2) the economic
[[Page 5748]]
costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures
likely to result from the designation. The economic cost to be
considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the
probable economic impact ``of the [critical habitat] designation upon
proposed or ongoing activities'' (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider
the incremental costs resulting specifically from a critical habitat
designation that are above the economic effects attributable to listing
the species. Economic effects attributable to listing include actions
resulting from section 7 consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy
to the species and from the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the
ESA. Comments concerning economic impacts should distinguish the costs
of listing from the incremental costs that can be directly attributed
to the designation of specific areas as critical habitat.
NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information
regarding the status and critical habitat of the steelhead ESUs
described herein and complete a final rule as soon as practicable. The
availability of new information may cause NMFS to reassess the proposed
critical habitat designation of steelhead ESUs.
Public Hearings
Joint Departments of Commerce and Interior ESA implementing
regulations state that the Secretaries shall promptly hold at least one
public hearing if any person so requests within 45 days of publication
of a proposed regulation to list species or to designate critical
habitat (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). NMFS will schedule public hearings on
this proposed rule in the range of affected communities in a subsequent
Federal Register document. Requests for specific locations or
additional public hearings must be received by March 22, 1999. NMFS
encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing
the range of listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
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).
NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of these
steelhead ESUs as critical habitat. 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 each 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 that 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.
Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the
proposed 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.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.
Dated: January 29, 1999.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is
proposed to be 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. 1533.
2. Section 226.29 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 226.29 Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central
California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), South-Central
California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Southern California
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Upper
Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River Basin
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed steelhead within the range of the ESUs listed,
except for reaches on Indian lands within Indian Reservations defined
in Tables 24 through 26 to this part. Critical habitat consists of the
water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine
reaches in hydrologic units and counties identified in Tables 18
through 26 to this part for all of the steelhead ESUs listed in this
section. Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of
the ESUs that can still be occupied by any life stage of steelhead.
Inaccessible reaches are those above longstanding, naturally impassable
barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several
hundred years) and specific dams within the historical range of each
ESU identified in Tables 18 through 26 to this part. Hydrologic units
are those defined by the Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic Unit Maps, Water
Supply Paper 2294, 1986, and by the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000
scale hydrologic unit maps: State of California (1978), State of Idaho
(1981), State of Oregon (1974), and State of Washington (1974) which
are incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C.
[[Page 5749]]
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 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 St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(a) Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries between
the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers in Washington and the Willamette and Hood
Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Also included are river reaches and
estuarine areas in 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) upstream
to the Hood River in Oregon. Excluded are areas above specific dams
identified in Table 18 to this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(b) Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in the Willamette River
and its tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also included are river
reaches and estuarine areas in 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)
upstream to, and including, the Willamette River in Oregon. Excluded
are areas above specific dams identified in Table 19 to this part or
above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(c) Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in
coastal river basins from the Russian River to Soquel Creek, California
(inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.
Also included are all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez
Bridge and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/
Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge.
Excluded is the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the California
Central Valley as well as areas above specific dams identified in Table
20 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years).
(d) South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in
coastal river basins from the Pajaro River (inclusive) to, but not
including, the Santa Maria River, California. Excluded are areas above
specific dams identified in Table 21 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(e) Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in coastal river
basins from the Santa Maria River to Malibu Creek, California
(inclusive). Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table
22 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years).
(f) Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
and their tributaries in California. Also included are river reaches
and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters
from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay,
Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo
Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco
Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay
to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas of the San Joaquin River
upstream of the Merced River confluence and areas above specific dams
identified in Table 23 to this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(g) Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River
tributaries (except the Snake River) between Mosier Creek in Oregon and
the Yakima River in Washington (inclusive). Also included are river
reaches and estuarine areas in 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)
upstream to the Yakima River in Washington. Excluded are areas above
specific dams identified in Table 24 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(h) Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries upstream
of the Yakima River, Washington, and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam.
Also included are river reaches and estuarine areas in 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) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington.
Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 25 of this
part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(i) Snake River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed steelhead in the Snake River and its tributaries
in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Also included are river reaches and
estuarine areas in 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) upstream
to the confluence with the Snake River. Excluded are areas above
specific dams identified in Table 26 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
3. Tables 5 through 17 are added and reserved, and tables 18
through 26 are added to part 226 to read as follows:
[[Page 5750]]
Table 18 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Steelhead, and Dams Representing the Upstream
Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Skamania (WA). ......................................
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clackamas (OR), Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania Bull Run Dam #2.
(WA)
Lewis.................................... 17080002 Clark (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania (WA) Merwin Dam.
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania
(WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Lower Cowlitz............................ 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA)............................. Mayfield Dam.
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Clackamas................................ 17090011 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR).
Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR),
Washington (OR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.
Table 19 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Willamette River Steelhead, and Dams Representing the
Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA)........................................... Bull Run Dam.
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA).
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Middle Fork Willamette................... 17090001 Lane (OR)............................................ Dexter Dam.
Coast Fork Willamette.................... 17090002 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR).............................. Dorena Dam.
Upper Willamette......................... 17090003 Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Lincoln (OR), Linn (OR), Polk Cougar Dam.
(OR).
McKenzie................................. 17090004 Lane (OR), Linn (OR)................................. Big Cliff Dam.
North Santiam............................ 17090005 Linn (OR), Marion (OR).
South Santiam............................ 17090006 Linn (OR)............................................ Green Peter Dam.
Middle Willamette........................ 17090007 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR), Polk (OR), Washington
(OR), Yamhill (OR).
Yamhill.................................. 17090008 Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR), Tillamook (OR), Washington
(OR), Yamhill (OR).
Molalla-Pudding.......................... 17090009 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR).
Tualatin................................. 17090010 Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR),
Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR), Yamhill (OR).
Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.
Table 20 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central California Coast Steelhead, and Dams Representing the
Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian............................. 18010110 Mendocino (CA), Sonoma (CA)..................... Coyote Dam, Warm Springs Dam.
Bodega Bay.......................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).
Suisun Bay.......................... 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Napa (CA), Solano (CA).
San Pablo Bay....................... 18050002 Marin (CA), Napa (CA)........................... San Pablo Reservoir.
Coyote.............................. 18050003 Alameda (CA), San Mateo (CA), Santa Clara (CA).. Calavera Reservoir.
San Francisco Bay................... 18050004 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA), San Mateo (CA),
Santa Clara (CA).
Tomales-Drake Bays.................. 18050005 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)......................... Nicasio Dam, Seeger Dam.
San Francisco Coastal South......... 18050006 San Mateo (CA).
San Lorenzo-Soquel.................. 18060001 San Mateo (CA), Santa Cruz (CA)................. Newell Dam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.
[[Page 5751]]
Table 21 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, and Dams Representing the
Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pajaro................................... 18060002 Monterey (CA), San Benito (CA), Santa Clara (CA),
Santa Cruz (CA).
Estrella................................. 18060004 Monterey (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA).
Salinas.................................. 18060005 Monterey (CA), San Benito (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA). Salinas Dam.
Central Coastal.......................... 18060006 Monterey (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA)..................
Alisal-Elkhorn Sloughs................... 18060011
Carmel................................... 18060012 ..................................................... Los Padres Dam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.
Table 22 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Southern California
Steelhead, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and
Hydrologic unit name unit No. within range of ESU \1\ Dams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuyama........................ 18060007 San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Barbara (CA). Vaquero Dam.
Santa Maria................... 18060008 San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Barbara (CA).
San Antonio................... 18060009 Santa Barbara (CA).
Santa Ynez.................... 18060010 Santa Barbara (CA)....................... Bradbury Dam.
Santa Barbara Coastal......... 18060013 Santa Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA).
Ventura....................... 18070101 Santa Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA)......... Casitas Dam, Robles
Dam, Matilija Dam,
Vern Freeman
Diversion Dam.
Santa Clara................... 18070102 Los Angeles (CA), Santa Barbara (CA), Santa Felicia Dam.
Ventura (CA).
Calleguas..................... 18070103 Los Angeles (CA), Ventura (CA).
Santa Monica Bay.............. 18070103 Los Angeles (CA), Ventura (CA)........... Rindge Dam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.
Table 23 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central Valley Steelhead,
and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and
Hydrologic unit name unit No. within range of ESU \1\ Dams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower 18020101 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).
Clear.
Lower Cottonwood.............. 18020102 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).
Sacramento-Lower Thomes....... 18020103 Butte (CA), Glenn (CA), Tehama (CA)...... Black Butte Dam.
Sacramento-Stone Corral....... 18020104 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA), .....................
Sutter (CA), Yolo (CA).
Lower Butte................... 18020105 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA), .....................
Sutter (CA).
Lower Feather................. 18020106 Butte (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA)....... Oroville Dam.
Lower Yuba.................... 18020107 Yuba (CA). .....................
Lower Bear.................... 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA)...... Camp Far West Dam.
Lower Sacramento.............. 18020109 Placer (CA), Sacramento (CA), Solano .....................
(CA), Sutter (CA), Yolo (CA).
Lower American................ 18020111 Placer (CA), Sacramento (CA), Sutter (CA) Nimbus Dam.
Sacramento-Upper Clear........ 18020112 Shasta (CA).............................. Keswick Dam.
Cottonwood Headwaters......... 18020113 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA). .....................
Upper Elder-Upper Thomes...... 18020114 Tehama (CA). .....................
Upper Cow-Battle.............. 18020118 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)................. Whiskeytown Dam.
Mill-Big Chico................ 18020119 Butte (CA), Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA). .....................
Upper Butte................... 18020120 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA). .....................
Honcut Headwaters............. 18020124 Butte (CA), Yuba (CA). .....................
Upper Yuba.................... 18020125 Yuba (CA), Nevada (CA)................... Englebright Dam.
Upper Coon-Upper Auburn....... 18020127 Placer (CA). .....................
Middle San Joaquin-Lower 18040002 Calaveras (CA), Merced (CA), San Joaquin Crocker Diversion
Merced-Lower Stanislaus. (CA), Stanislaus (CA) Dam, La Grange Dam.
San Joaquin Delta............. 18040003 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA), .....................
Sacramento (CA), San Joaquin (CA).
Lower Calaveras-Mormon Slough. 18040004 Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin (CA), .....................
Stanislaus (CA).
Lower Consumnes-Lower 18040005 Amador (CA), Sacramento (CA), San Joaquin Comanche Dam.
Mokelumne. (CA).
Upper Stanislaus.............. 18040010 Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin (CA), Goodwin Dam.
Tuolumne (CA).
[[Page 5752]]
Upper Calaveras............... 18040011 Calaveras (CA)........................... New Hogan Dam.
Panoche-San Luis Reservoir.... 18040014 San Joaquin (CA), Stanislaus (CA). .....................
Suisun Bay.................... 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Solano (CA). .....................
San Pablo Bay................. 18050002 Contra Costa (CA), Marin (CA), San .....................
Francisco (CA), Solano (CA), Sonoma
(CA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.
Table 24 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Middle Columbia River
Steelhead, Tribal Lands within the Range of the ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical
Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties and tribal lands contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and within range of ESU Dams
unit No. \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids.. 17020016 Benton (WA), Franklin (WA). .....................
Upper Yakima.................. 17030001 Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA). .....................
Naches........................ 17030002 Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA). .....................
Lower Yakima.................. 17030003 Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA), .....................
Yakima Indian Reservation.
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula.. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), .....................
Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla
(WA), Yakima (WA).
Walla Walla................... 17070102 Umatilla (OR), Wallowa (OR), Columbia .....................
(WA), Walla Walla (WA).
Umatilla...................... 17070103 Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), Union (OR), .....................
Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Willow........................ 17070104 Morrow (OR), Gilliam (OR). .....................
Middle Columbia-Hood.......... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco Condit Dam.
(OR), Klickitat (WA), Skamania (WA).
Klickitat..................... 17070106 Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA), Yakama .....................
Indian Reservation.
Upper John Day................ 17070201 Crook (OR), Grant (OR), Harney (OR), .....................
Wheeler (OR).
North Fork John Day........... 17070202 Grant (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), .....................
Union (OR), Wheeler (OR).
Middle Fork John Day.......... 17070203 Grant (OR). .....................
Lower John Day................ 17070204 Crook (OR), Gilliam (OR), Grant (OR), .....................
Jefferson (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman
(OR), Wasco (OR), Wheeler (OR).
Lower Deschutes............... 17070306 Jefferson (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Pelton Dam.
Warm Springs Indian Reservation.
Trout......................... 17070307 Crook (OR), Jefferson (OR), Wasco (OR). .....................
Lower Columbia-Sandy.......... 17080001 Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania .....................
(WA).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie..... 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz .....................
(WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Lower Columbia................ 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum .....................
(WA).
Lower Willamette.............. 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR). .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.
Table 25 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River Steelhead, Tribal Lands Within the Range of
the ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties and tribal lands contained in hydrologic
Hydrologic unit name unit No. unit and within range of ESU 1, 2 Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Joseph............................. 17020005 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Okanogan (WA), Colville Chief Joseph Dam.
Indian Reservation.
Okanogan................................. 17020006 Okanogan (WA), Colville Indian Reservation...........
Similkameen.............................. 17020007 Okanogan (WA)........................................
Methow................................... 17020008 Okanogan (WA)........................................
Upper Columbia-Entiat.................... 17020010 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Grant (WA), Kittitas (WA).
Wenatchee................................ 17020011 Chelan (WA)..........................................
Moses Coulee............................. 17020012 Douglas (WA), Grant (WA).............................
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids............. 17020016 Benton (WA), Franklin (WA), Grant (WA), Kittitas
(WA), Yakima (WA).
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla
(OR), Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat
(WA), Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA)............
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA).
[[Page 5753]]
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA)...........
Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR)........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.
Table 26 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Snake River Basin Steelhead, Tribal Lands Within the Range of the
ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Counties and tribal lands contained in hydrologic
Hydrologic unit name unit No. unit and within range of ESU 1, 2 Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hells Canyon............................. 17060101 Adams (ID), Idaho (ID), Wallowa (OR)................. Hells Canyon Dam.
Imnaha................................... 17060102 Baker (OR), Union (OR), Wallowa (OR).................
Lower Snake-Asotin....................... 17060103 Nez Perce (ID), Wallowa (OR), Asotin (WA), Garfield
(WA).
Upper Grande Ronde....................... 17060104 Grant (OR), Umatilla (OR), Union (OR)................
Wallowa.................................. 17060105 Union (OR), Wallowa (OR).............................
Lower Grande Ronde....................... 17060106 Union (OR), Wallowa (OR), Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA),
Garfield (WA).
Lower Snake-Tucannon..................... 17060107 Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA), Garfield (WA), Whitman
(WA).
Palouse.................................. 17060108 Benewah (ID), Latah (ID), Nez Perce (ID), Franklin
(WA), Lincoln (WA), Spokane (WA), Whitman (WA) Nez
Perce Indian Reservation.
Lower Snake.............................. 17060110 Columbia (WA), Franklin (WA), Walla Walla (WA).......
Upper Salmon............................. 17060201 Blaine (ID), Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID).................
Pahsimeroi............................... 17060202 Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID)..............................
Middle Salmon-Panther.................... 17060203 Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID)..............................
Lemhi.................................... 17060204 Lemhi (ID)...........................................
Upper Middle Fork Salmon................. 17060205 Boise (ID), Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID).....
Lower Middle Fork Salmon................. 17060206 Idaho (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID)..................
Middle Salmon-Chamberlain................ 17060207 Idaho (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID)..................
South Fork Salmon........................ 17060208 Idaho (ID), Valley (ID)..............................
Lower Salmon............................. 17060209 Idaho (ID), Lewis (ID), Nez Perce (ID)...............
Little Salmon............................ 17060210 Adams (ID), Idaho (ID)...............................
Upper Selway............................. 17060301 Idaho (ID)...........................................
Lower Selway............................. 17060302 Idaho (ID)...........................................
Lochsa................................... 17060303 Clearwater (ID), Idaho (ID)..........................
Middle Fork Clearwater................... 17060304 Idaho (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.............
South Fork Clearwater.................... 17060305 Idaho (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.............
Clearwater............................... 17060306 Clearwater (ID), Idaho (ID), Latah (ID), Lewis (ID),
Nez Perce (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.
Lower North Fork Clearwater.............. 17060308 Clearwater (ID), Latah (ID), Shoshone (ID), Nez Perce Dworshak Dam.
Indian Reservation.
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla
(OR), Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat
(WA), Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA)............
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA).
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA)...........
Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR) .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.
[[Page 5754]]
[FR Doc. 99-2642 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
