[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7764-7787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3553]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 990128036-0025-02; I.D. 012100E]
RIN 0648-AG49
Designated Critical Habitat: Critical Habitat for 19
Evolutionarily Significant Units of Salmon and Steelhead in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is designating critical habitat for 19 evolutionarily
significant units (ESUs) of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), chum
(O. keta), coho (O. kisutch), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka) and
steelhead trout (O. mykiss) previously listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Critical habitat occurs in the states of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California and encompasses accessible reaches of all
rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) within the range of
each listed ESU. Critical habitat is also designated in Ozette Lake for
that sockeye salmon ESU. The areas described in this final rule
represent the current freshwater and estuarine range of the listed
species. For all ESUs, critical habitat includes all waterways,
substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years). After considering public comments and reviewing
additional scientific information, NMFS has modified various aspects of
the proposed designations, including a revised description of adjacent
riparian zones and the exclusion of Indian lands from critical habitat.
The economic (and other) impacts resulting from this critical habitat
designation are expected to be minimal.
DATES: This rule is effective March 17, 2000. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of June 4, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from
the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be
inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street--
Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Washington, Oregon, or Idaho,
contact Garth Griffin (Portland) at (503) 231-2005. In California,
contact Craig Wingert (Long Beach) at (562) 980-4021.
Reference materials regarding this critical habitat designation can
be obtained via the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
During the past 3 years, NMFS has published final listing
determinations for numerous ESUs of salmon and steelhead throughout the
Pacific Northwest and California. Although critical habitat has been
designated for several of these ESUs, final designations are still
pending for 19 ESUs of five species: (1) Puget Sound, Lower Columbia
River, Upper Willamette River, Upper Columbia River spring-run,
California Central Valley spring-run, and California Coastal chinook
salmon ESUs (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998); (2) Hood Canal summer-run and
Columbia River chum salmon ESUs (63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998); (3)
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU (63 FR 11750, March 10, 1998); (4)
Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (64 FR 24998, May 10, 1999); and (5)
Southern California, South-Central California coast, Central California
coast, California Central Valley, Upper Columbia River, Snake River
Basin, Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, and Middle
Columbia River steelhead ESUs (64 FR 5740, February 5, 1999).
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. At the
time of final listing for each of these 19 ESUs, critical habitat was
not determinable because the information to perform the required
analyses was insufficient. However, NMFS has published proposed rules
designating critical habitat for these ESUs, solicited public comments,
and held public hearings on the proposals. This final rule considers
the new information and comments received in response to the proposed
rules for all 19 ESUs.
[[Page 7765]]
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
(EFH) 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 [of Commerce (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 chapter are no longer
necessary'' (see U.S.C. 1532(3)).
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 of offspring;
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographical and ecological
distributions of the species (see 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.
Benefits of 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 immediate 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.
Summary of Comments
Between April 1998 and June 1999, NMFS held 40 public hearings on
the critical habitat proposals: 9 in Washington, 15 in Oregon, 4 in
Idaho, and 12 in California (63 FR 16955, April 7, 1998; 63 FR 30455,
June 4, 1998; 64 FR 20248, April 26, 1999; 64 FR 24998, May 10, 1999).
Approximately 800 written comments were submitted in response to the
proposed rules and numerous individuals provided oral testimony at the
public hearings. New information and comments received are summarized
as follows.
Public Notification Process
Comment 1 : Some commenters felt that the process for proposing
critical habitat was not handled well (e.g., difficulties with public
notice and time to respond) and that the proposal itself was too ill-
defined to be fully evaluated.
Response: NMFS made every attempt to communicate the critical
habitat proposal to the affected communities. As noted above, 40 public
hearings were held in California, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and
various local newspapers were notified of the proposed action, comment
deadlines, and public meetings. In response to numerous requests, NMFS
twice extended the comment periods (63 FR 30455, June 4, 1998; 64 FR
20248, April 26, 1999) to allow additional time for the public to
submit comments. Finally, NMFS responded to several requests for
supplemental meetings with affected county and local groups to promote
better understanding of the proposal and attempt to allay unwarranted
fears resulting from misleading information. Any and all parties are
encouraged to contact NMFS if they have questions or need additional
information regarding this final rule (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Economic Considerations
Comment 2: Numerous commenters believed that NMFS improperly
minimized the proposal's economic impacts by separating the designation
of critical habitat from the listing process (i.e., by considering only
the incremental economic effects of designating critical habitat,
beyond the effects associated with listing the species). These
commenters are concerned that by separating the costs associated with
the various administrative actions (e.g., listing, critical habitat
designation, section 7 consultations), NMFS underestimated the real
economic consequences of protecting listed salmon and steelhead. Some
commenters countered that any economic costs would be offset once the
salmon and steelhead fisheries were restored. Many commenters objected
to NMFS' interpretation that the impact of critical habitat designation
is subsumed by the costs associated with protections under section 7 of
the ESA. Several commenters contended that NMFS failed to conduct an
analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that it has improperly
minimized the economic impacts by separating the designation of
critical habitat from the listing process, or that this incremental
approach for critical habitat designation renders sections of the ESA
meaningless. Rather, the ESA is unambiguous in how it addresses
economic impacts; it prohibits the consideration of economic impacts in
the listing process, but requires analysis of economic impacts when
designating critical habitat. These separate requirements for each
determination necessarily engender an incremental analysis in which
only the economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical
habitat are considered.
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 beyond those which already accrue from
section 7 of the ESA, which is triggered by the species' listing.
Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action they
carry out, authorize, or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat determined to be critical. The consultation
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with
[[Page 7766]]
NMFS and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a listed species
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
Most of the effect on non-Federal interests will result from the
protective regulations of 4(d) and the no-jeopardy requirement of
section 7, both of which are a function of listing a species, not
designating its critical habitat. Whether or not critical habitat is
designated, non-Federal interests must conduct their actions in a
manner consistent with the requirements of the ESA. When a species is
listed, non-Federal interests must comply with the prohibitions on
takings found in section 9 of the ESA and associated regulations under
section 4(d). If the activity is funded, permitted, or authorized by a
Federal agency, that agency must comply with the non-jeopardy mandate
of section 7 of the ESA, which results from listing a species, not from
designating its critical habitat. Once critical habitat is designated,
the agency must avoid actions that destroy or adversely modify that
critical habitat. However, pursuant to NMFS' ESA implementing
regulations, any action that destroys or adversely modifies critical
habitat is also likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species (See the definitions in 50 CFR 402.02). Therefore, NMFS does
not anticipate that the designation will result in significant
additional requirements for non-Federal interests.
Notwithstanding its lack of economic impact, the designation of
critical habitat remains important because it identifies habitat that
is essential for the continued existence of a species and, therefore,
indicates habitat that may require special management attention. This
facilitates and enhances Federal agencies' ability to comply with
section 7 by ensuring that agencies are aware of it when their
activities may affect listed species and habitats essential to support
them. In addition to aiding Federal agencies in determining when
consultations are required pursuant to section 7(a)(2), critical
habitat can aid an agency in fulfilling its broader obligation under
section 7(a)(1) to use its authority to carry out programs for the
conservation of listed species.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, as provided in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Comment 3: A number of commenters were under the impression that
critical habitat is equivalent to a ``set-aside'' or an easement and
that by its nature is tantamount to an illegal and unconstitutional
``taking'' of private property. Some commenters felt that designating
critical habitat abrogated Executive Order 12630 and the June 30, 1988,
Attorney General's ``Guidelines for Evaluation and Risk Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings.'' Some of these commenters provided estimates
and analyses describing specific costs they believed they would incur
as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation. These
commenters suggested that they should be monetarily reimbursed for any
financial hardship resulting from a designation of critical habitat.
Response: A critical habitat designation does not impose any
additional burdens on private land than those imposed by the species'
listing. A private landowner continues to be free to manage his
property as he sees fit, using care that his land management does not
result in the take of a listed species. The critical habitat
designation simply clarifies the geographic areas within which one's
activities may impact listed salmon and steelhead. A critical habitat
designation affects private land only when a Federal action (e.g.,
obtaining a Federal permit) triggers a section 7 consultation.
Land use activities may be affected by statutory and regulatory
protections afforded species once they are listed under the ESA.
Section 9(a) of the ESA specifically prohibits the take of endangered
species, and NMFS has proposed to adopt similar regulations for
threatened steelhead (64 FR 73479, December 30, 1999) and chinook,
chum, coho, and sockeye salmon (65 FR 170, January 3, 2000). These
prohibitions, which include actions that significantly modify or
degrade habitat, may have some impact on land uses that can be shown to
have harmed anadromous salmonids (e.g., placing barriers to migration
in a stream), but these regulations should not be confused with the
designation of critical habitat. In the course of deciding to make this
final designation, the Department of Commerce has complied with
Executive Order 12630, Government Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Comment 4: Some commenters believed that NMFS should prepare an
environmental impact statement pursuant to NEPA on the critical habitat
designations because the designations are a major Federal action and
will have a significant impact on the environment.
Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, the Secretary is
required to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best
scientific data available after taking into account the economic and
other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In past critical habitat designations, NMFS has performed
analyses of the kind requested here: environmental analysis under the
NEPA. In all such cases NMFS has determined that mere designation of
critical habitat has no adverse environmental impacts. In the time
since these analyses were performed, it has become NMFS' policy, as
well as that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that designating
critical habitat has in fact no impact that requires a NEPA analysis.
The Services determined that any appreciable environmental impact
resulting from ESA activities accrued not from designating critical
habitat, but from listing the species in the first place. Thus,
designating critical habitat is simply an adjunct to listing species as
threatened or endangered; it is, in itself, merely another effect
generated by the listing process and has little or no environmental
impact.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Services'
determination. In Douglas County v. Babbitt (see 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996)), the Court found that
Congress, in enacting the ESA, intended that critical habitat
procedures displace NEPA requirements. Further, the Court found that
NEPA ``does not apply to actions that do not change the physical
environment'' and that ``to apply NEPA to the * * * ESA would further
the purposes of neither statute.'' In other words, the court found that
NEPA does not apply to designation of critical habitat under the ESA.
Scope and Extent of Critical Habitat
The majority of commenters raised issues regarding the geographic
scope and extent of proposed critical habitat, in particular the
designation of adjacent riparian zones and the exclusion of historical
habitats above dams and marine areas in the Pacific Ocean. Critical
habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as the specific areas
within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found
those physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection. Based on commenters' concerns and on new
information received during the public comment period, NMFS has refined
its designation of critical habitat for all 19
[[Page 7767]]
ESUs of salmon and steelhead. The following sections, partitioned by
habitat type, address commenters' concerns and clarify NMFS'
designation of critical habitat for these ESUs.
Freshwater and Estuarine Habitats
Comment 5 : Numerous commenters felt that a more complete
scientific analysis was required before critical habitat could be
designated and, as a result, requested that the agency withdraw the
proposed rules. Some commenters questioned NMFS' delineation of
critical habitat as including all areas currently accessible to the
species, and requested more specificity as to which stream reaches are
critical habitat. Some commenters sought designation of unoccupied
streams as critical habitat, while others noted that some local creeks
and streams never had salmon or steelhead (e.g., Calleguas Creek) and
requested designation of only those areas where species restoration is
feasible. Several commenters believed that adverse hydrologic
conditions and degraded habitat in certain streams (e.g., Stone Corral
Creek and Upper Elder Creek in California's Central Valley, and Pony
Creek in coastal Oregon) would preclude certain basins or river reaches
from playing a critical role in the species' recovery. Several
commenters noted errors in the tables used to identify river basins
containing critical habitat in the proposed rules (e.g., in the
California coastal chinook salmon ESU). Several commenters identified
streams and estuarine areas that they believed should be included or
highlighted due to their significance for salmon and steelhead
production. Finally, a large number of commenters requested that NMFS
extend the southern extent of the critical habitat designation from
Malibu Creek to at least San Mateo Creek in San Diego County in
conjunction with a range extension of the Southern California steelhead
ESU.
Response: While the proposed rules described the lack of consistent
and robust data sets with which to discern the species' distribution at
a fine scale, NMFS believes that the best available distribution
information is sufficient to characterize basin-level designations of
critical habitat for the listed species. A variety of mapping efforts
are underway throughout the Pacific Northwest and California (e.g., the
``core area'' mapping component of the Oregon Coastal Salmon
Restoration Initiative (OCSRI 1997), since renamed ``The Oregon Plan
for Salmon and Watersheds''). However, most have yet to be completed or
fail to depict salmonid habitats in a consistent manner or at a fine
geographic scale. Hence, they must be viewed as good but tentative
descriptions of areas occupied by or critical for salmon and steelhead.
NMFS believes that these mapping efforts hold great promise for
focusing habitat protection and restoration efforts and will continue
to use the expertise of state and tribal comanagers to discern salmonid
distribution when specific actions warrant (e.g., during section 7
consultations). However, the limited data across the range of these 19
ESUs, as well as dissimilarities in data types within them, continue to
make it difficult to define this species' distribution at a finer scale
than the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic units (i.e., basins)
identified Tables 7-24. Similarly, this limitation precludes the agency
from restricting critical habitat to streams where restoration may or
may not be feasible.
The agency's preferred approach to identifying critical habitat is
to designate all areas accessible to the species within the range of
hydrologic units in each ESU. While this may not provide the level of
resolution to define the species' presence or absence in specific local
creeks and streams, NMFS believes that adopting a more inclusive,
watershed-based description of critical habitat is appropriate because
it: (1) Recognizes the species' use of diverse habitats and underscores
the need to account for all of the habitat types supporting the
species' freshwater and estuarine life stages, from small headwater
streams to migration corridors and estuarine rearing areas; (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 abundant rainfall); and (3) reinforces the important linkage
between aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upland areas. While
unoccupied streams are excluded from critical habitat, habitat quality
in the species' current range is intrinsically related to the quality
of upland areas and of inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams
which provide key habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel,
water quality) crucial for fish in downstream reaches.
NMFS clarifies that reaches or basins historically and currently
unoccupied (e.g., Calleguas Creek, Ventura County, California) would
not be considered critical habitat. Also, the agency acknowledges that
some streams currently have little suitable habitat for salmon and
steelhead or are rarely inhabited by the species. As noted previously,
the paucity of detailed information regarding salmonid distribution
precludes NMFS from identifying specific drainages or river reaches
occupied by the species. In addition, the current low abundance of the
species makes it difficult to rule out any stream for recovery since
the remnant populations may need whatever habitat is available in order
to persist. In the case of some streams cited by commenters it is
unclear whether the basin has been monitored sufficiently such that
firm conclusions about the species' presence/absence can be made.
Instead, NMFS believes that the most prudent approach to characterizing
critical habitat is to include all areas accessible to listed salmon
and steelhead. In streams where there is limited species distribution
information, NMFS biologists would make their best professional
judgment about the access to and suitability of available habitat and
what if any impacts would occur to the listed fish as a result of a
specific activity. Few if any effects would result from an activity
where it is well documented that the listed species makes little use of
a river reach or basin and the existing habitat conditions are poor.
To address the request by several commenters, NMFS has provided a
more complete list of rivers, bays, and estuaries known to support
salmon and steelhead in each ESU (see section Critical Habitat of
Salmon and Steelhead; Changes to the Proposed Rules). NMFS has also
corrected several errors contained in the tables used to identify river
basins and estuarine areas containing critical habitat and errors in
the regulatory definitions. Changes included correcting misidentified
basins and dams, deleting reference to several dams that are beyond the
upstream extent of salmonid access, and including habitats currently
occupied but erroneously omitted in the proposed rule (e.g., the
inadvertent exclusion of south San Francisco Bay as critical habitat
for Central California Coast steelhead ESU). See also comments and
corrections noted under Dams and Barriers.
It is important to note that recent listing determinations have
changed the geographic boundaries of several chinook salmon, chum
salmon, and steelhead ESUs. These changes have resulted in
modifications to the critical habitat to correspond with the new ESU
configurations. As a result, the Upper Willamette River chinook salmon
ESU (and its critical habitat) now extends downstream of Willamette
Falls to include the areas occupied by Clackamas River spring-run
populations (64 FR 14308, March 24, 1999) and the Hood Canal summer-run
chum salmon ESU/critical habitat now includes
[[Page 7768]]
Dungeness Bay and tributaries (64 FR 14508, March 25, 1999). In
contrast, the California coastal and Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon ESUs (64 FR 50394, September 16, 1999) and Upper Willamette
River steelhead ESU (64 FR 14517, March 25, 1999) were listed within a
smaller range of watersheds; hence several basins and dams/reservoirs
are now being excluded from the critical habitat designation. In the
case of the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, critical habitat
will remain in the range of watersheds originally designated on
December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543). Specific changes to the critical
habitat designations for all ESUs are summarized in Critical Habitat of
Salmon and Steelhead; Changes to the Proposed Rules.
Finally, with respect to the southern extent of critical habitat
for the Southern California steelhead ESU, NMFS finds that the comments
may have merit. In 1999, juvenile O. mykiss suspected of being
steelhead were found in several locations within the San Mateo Creek
watershed. NMFS is evaluating the available biological information for
these fish, including a limited amount of genetic and otolith
microchemistry data, to determine whether a range extension of this ESU
is warranted. If warranted by the available data, NMFS will propose a
range extension of this ESU in a separate rule making. NMFS would
consider the extension of the critical habitat designation south of
Malibu Creek in conjunction with that rulemaking.
Adjacent Riparian Zones
Comment 6: While many commenters supported NMFS' proposal to
include the adjacent riparian zone as critical habitat, others were
strongly against this approach. Some noted the lack of justification
for including adjacent riparian zones of 300 feet from each side of a
stream in the critical habitat proposals for chinook, chum and sockeye
salmon. Moreover, many felt that proposing to designate these zones was
arbitrary and excessive. Several commenters offered possible lesser
solutions to defining adjacent riparian zones, including: only the
actual inhabited stream reaches themselves, a smaller width to the
riparian boundary (e.g., equivalent to a site-potential tree height),
or the extent of the flood plain.
Response: NMFS agrees that the proposed rules for chinook, chum,
and sockeye salmon did not adequately describe the rationale for
identifying adjacent riparian zones as part of critical habitat. The
subsequent proposed rules for steelhead and Oregon coast coho salmon
included greater detail on this topic and moreover proposed a new,
refined approach to designating the adjacent riparian zone (summarized
below). NMFS believes it is important to include these zones in the
designation of critical habitat for several reasons. The ESA defines
critical habitat to include areas ``on which are found those physical
or biological features * * * essential to the conservation of the
species and * * * which may require special management considerations
or protection.'' These essential features for salmon include, but are
not limited to, spawning sites, food resources, water quality and
quantity, and riparian vegetation (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Riparian
areas form the basis of healthy watersheds and affect these primary
constituent elements; therefore, they are essential to the conservation
of the species and need to be included as critical habitat.
NMFS' past critical habitat designations for listed salmonids have
included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the designation. For
example, in the final designations for Snake River spring/summer
chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye salmon (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, especially 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 leading to scouring. These adverse
modifications reduce the value of habitat for salmonids and, in many
instances, may result in injury to 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 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-
[[Page 7769]]
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 in some instances, with regard to the
protection of adjacent riparian habitat for salmonids since they are
designed to protect terrestrial species that are riparian dependent or
associated, as well as salmonids. 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; diking and 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 throughout 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 earlier critical habitat
designations and after considering public comments and reviewing
additional scientific information regarding riparian habitats, NMFS is
re-defining adjacent riparian zones for the 9 chinook, chum and sockeye
salmon ESUs to match the riparian function description used for
steelhead and Oregon Coast coho salmon ESUs. Specifically, the adjacent
riparian area for all 19 salmon and steelhead ESUs is defined as the
area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade,
sediment transport, 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 species' range 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 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
salmon and 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
[[Page 7770]]
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 watercourse (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 salmon and 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 salmonid 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, upstream of an
impassible dam, 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' (i.e., ESUs) continued
existence. For other actions, landowners and agencies should consider
the needs of the listed fish and NMFS will assist them in assessing the
impacts of actions.
Dams and Barriers
Comment 7: Numerous commenters, including the Elwha Klallam Tribe
requested that NMFS conduct a more detailed analysis of areas above
existing dams before concluding that these areas do not constitute
critical habitat. Of particular concern were two Elwha River dams in
Washington and numerous dams in California's Central Valley and south
coast. Many felt that designating areas above dams would assist in
recovery planning and dam-relicensing negotiations. Others requested
that NMFS identify additional dams as the upstream extent of accessible
habitat for salmon and steelhead. Some commenters requested
clarification about whether NMFS considers critical habitat above dams
that currently have listed fish transported above them (i.e., via trap
and haul programs). The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes requested that NMFS
include areas above Napias Creek Falls in the designation for Snake
River Basin steelhead.
Response: NMFS' ESA implementing regulations specify that
unoccupied areas are not to be included in critical habitat unless the
present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species (50 CFR 424.12(e)). While the blocked areas are significant in
certain ESUs or river basins (e.g., California's Central Valley and
southern coast and in Washington's Elwha River Basin), NMFS has not
conducted an assessment to determine if all or some of these blocked
habitats are currently essential for the recovery of any ESU. In
addition, the agency has not performed the requisite economic analyses
needed to designate blocked areas (50 CFR 424.12(a)).
The agency's intent in identifying specific dams in each ESU was to
clarify the upstream extent of known occupied reaches and to contrast
these barriers with smaller, ephemeral barriers (e.g., culverts, push-
up dams, etc.) that the agency does not view as impassable structures.
NMFS does not intend to ``write off'' potential habitats above these
dams, but instead will fully consider the role of these blocked
habitats in the recovery planning process and in ESA habitat
conservation plans and section 7 consultations. If future analyses
reveal that these areas are essential for the species' conservation or
could contribute to an expedited recovery of any listed ESU, NMFS will
revise the critical habitat designation and make efforts to gain access
to blocked habitats. NMFS will continue to encourage Federal, state and
local agencies to consider the needs of listed salmon and steelhead
even in areas currently unoccupied but potentially important for future
population access, restoration, and recovery.
NMFS has also reviewed information submitted by commenters
requesting that a number of dams be added or removed from the list of
dams/reservoirs representing the upstream extent of critical habitat
(Tables 7-24). In doing so, the agency re-examined the hydrologic unit
maps and found a number of errors that have been corrected in the
tables. In many cases a particular dam was found to be misidentified,
located in the wrong hydrologic unit, or upstream of an impassable
barrier. Although several commenters believed that Black Butte Dam was
misidentified in the proposed rule, NMFS has verified that this dam
does in fact mark the upstream extent of Stony Creek in the Sacramento-
Lower Thomes hydrologic unit. In other cases, NMFS found additional
dams that block salmon and steelhead passage and has identified them as
the upstream extent of critical habitat in the appropriate tables.
The agency also found several cases where dams identified as
blockages in the original proposed designation were discovered to have
``trap and haul'' programs that move listed salmon and steelhead above
them. This has resulted in an increase in the occupied range of several
listed ESUs, and NMFS has expanded critical habitat to include
accessible reaches above such dams. These and other edits are
summarized in the section Critical Habitat of Salmon and Steelhead;
Changes to the Proposed Rules.
In the case of Napias Creek Falls, NMFS noted in the proposed
designation that steelhead do not presently occur in upper Napias Creek
and that conclusions regarding the nature of this barrier are
difficult. 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, historical information
indicates steelhead have not occurred in this area in recent times. The
agency specifically requested comments regarding this and
[[Page 7771]]
other falls, but has not received information that would bear
conclusively on this issue. Therefore, the agency will continue to
consider the areas upstream of Napias Creek Falls as outside the range
of critical habitat for listed Snake River Basin steelhead. If new
information becomes available to indicate otherwise, the agency will
make the appropriate modifications to this ESU's critical habitat
designation.
Marine Habitats
Comment 8: Numerous commenters questioned why NMFS had not
designated critical habitat in marine areas. Some commenters provided
data supporting the inclusion of estuarine/marine areas for the Hood
Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU. Some recommended that NMFS revise its
designation based on the recent EFH recommendations which include
marine areas over portions of the continental shelf.
Response: In the case of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU,
NMFS agrees that the evidence supports including marine/estuarine areas
in the unique, fjord-like setting of Puget Sound (i.e., in a manner
similar to the designation for the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU). The
agency is currently re-evaluating its previous determination to exclude
ocean areas as critical habitat for listed salmon and steelhead ESUs,
in particular the issue of whether marine areas require special
management consideration or protection. NMFS agrees that the rationale
supporting the current EFH designation for Pacific salmon should be a
key part of this re-evaluation. Regardless of the specific areas
designated, it is important to note that Federal agencies are required
to ensure that their actions, regardless of whether they occur in
freshwater, estuarine, or marine habitats, do not jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species.
Factors for the Species' Decline
Comment 9: Many commenters challenged the merits of the original
listings and felt that the true cause of salmon and steelhead declines
lay in various spheres aside from freshwater habitat. Among the various
causes cited were: tribal fishing, commercial fishing, sport fishing,
foreign fishing, marine mammals, other protected predators, non-native
species, birds, hatchery practices, dams, ocean conditions, and recent
droughts and floods. Others provided evidence that mismanagement and
pollution of freshwater habitats have been principal factors in the
species' decline. Still others felt that extinction is a natural
process and that little can (or should) be done about it.
Response: NMFS believes that the threatened extinction of numerous
salmon and steelhead populations is primarily the result of human, not
natural, factors and will continue to encourage all efforts to protect
and restore imperiled salmon and their habitat. The agency acknowledges
that a multitude of factors have contributed to the decline of west
coast salmon and steelhead and has described these factors in more
detail in the proposed listing determinations (60 FR 38011, July 25,
1995; 61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998; 63 FR
11750, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998; 63 FR11798, March
10, 1998), in technical status reviews for the coho salmon (Weitkamp et
al., 1995), steelhead (Busby et al., 1996), sockeye salmon (Gustafson
et al., 1997), chum salmon (Johnson et al., 1997), and chinook salmon
(Myers et al., 1998), and in documents detailing factors for decline
for related species (NMFS 1996b and 1998). Many of the causes cited by
commenters are human-controlled and NMFS believes that these can and
must be addressed in the near term to improve the salmon's chances for
surviving uncontrollable natural events such as droughts, floods, and
poor ocean conditions.
ESA Definitions and Standards
Comment 10: Some commenters requested that NMFS clarify the meaning
of ``harm'' under the ESA.
Response: NMFS interprets the term ``harm'' in the context of
habitat destruction as an act that actually kills or injures fish or
wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering (64 FR
60727, November 8, 1999). The habitat modification or degradation
contained in the definition of ``harm'' is limited to those actions
that actually kill or injure listed fish or wildlife. NMFS believes
that this definition is reasonable for the conservation of the habitats
of listed species and moreover is in keeping with Congress' intent
under the ESA.
Section 9 of the ESA makes it illegal to take an endangered species
of fish or wildlife. The definition of ``take'' is 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)). On
November 8, 1999, NMFS published a final rule defining the term
``harm'' (64 FR 60727). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also
promulgated a regulation further defining the term ``harm'' to
eliminate confusion concerning its meaning (50 CFR 17.3). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's definition of ``harm'' with respect to habitat
destruction has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable
interpretation of the term and supported by the broad purpose of the
ESA to conserve endangered and threatened species (See Babbitt v. Sweet
Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon, 115 S. Ct. 2407, 2418
(1995)). With the listings of salmon and steelhead, potentially
affected parties questioned whether NMFS also interpreted harm to
include habitat destruction. The November 8, 1999, final rule clarifies
that NMFS' interpretation of harm is consistent with that of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Comment 11: Several commenters took exception to NMFS' assertion
that adverse modification of critical habitat is equivalent to
jeopardizing the listed species.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the terms ``adverse modification''
and ``jeopardy'' are necessarily different. Section 7 of the ESA
requires that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likely
to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. This requirement is in addition to the prohibition against
jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species, and it is the
only mandatory legal consequence of a critical habitat designation. An
understanding of the interplay of the ``jeopardy'' and ``adverse
modification'' standards is necessary to the proper evaluation of the
prudence of designation as well as the conduct of consultation under
section 7. Implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.02) define ``jeopardize
the continued existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification
of'' in virtually identical terms. ``Jeopardize the continued existence
of'' means ``to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected...to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival
and recovery of a listed species...'' ``Destruction or adverse
modification'' means ``an alteration that appreciably diminishes the
value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a
listed species.'' Common to both definitions is an appreciable
detrimental effect on both survival and recovery of a listed species.
Thus, actions satisfying the standard for adverse modification are
nearly always found to also jeopardize the species
[[Page 7772]]
concerned, and the existence of a critical habitat designation does not
materially affect the outcome of section 7 consultation. This is in
contrast to the public perception that the adverse modification
standard sets a lower threshold for violation of section 7 than that
for jeopardy. In fact, biological opinions which conclude that a
Federal agency action is likely to adversely modify critical habitat
but not to jeopardize the species for which it is designated are very
rare.
Adequacy of Existing Conservation Plans and Efforts
Comment 12: Several commenters stated that existing management
plans and conservation initiatives were sufficient to protect salmon
and steelhead and their habitat, and, therefore, the proposed critical
habitat designation is not warranted. Some commenters admonished NMFS
to engage in local salmon conservation programs and warned that
designating critical habitat could dampen these efforts.
Response: The designation of critical habitat relies on evaluating
which areas are occupied and essential for the species' conservation
(see ``Definition of Critical Habitat''). However, NMFS did consider
existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation plans applicable to
salmon and steelhead and their habitats in the final listing
determinations for each species (62 FR 43937, August 18, 1997; 63 FR
13347, March 19, 1998; 63 FR 42587, August 10, 1998; 64 FR 14308, March
24, 1999; 64 FR 14508, March 25, 1999; 64 FR 14517, March 25, 1999; 64
FR 14528, March 25, 1999; 64 FR 50394, September 16, 1999). In those
Federal Register documents, a variety of Federal and state laws and
programs were found to have affected the abundance and survival of
anadromous fish populations in all 19 ESUs. NMFS concluded that
available regulatory mechanisms were inadequate and that regulated
activities continued to represent a potential threat to the species'
existence.
NMFS agrees with commenters that state and local watershed efforts
are key to the recovery and long-term survival of these 19 salmon and
steelhead ESUs. Species listings and critical habitat designations
under the ESA should in no way hamper efforts to help salmonids and
other imperiled species in the Pacific Northwest and California. NMFS
encourages such efforts, as evidenced by the agency's involvement with
an array of programs in the Pacific Northwest and California,
including: helping to fund watershed coordinators through the Oregon
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board and assisting with
implementation of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; working
with numerous Resource Conservation Districts and watershed restoration
efforts in the four states; providing technical support for a variety
of recovery planning efforts in Puget Sound and the Columbia River
Basin; participating in the development of California's recovery and
strategic management plans for coastal salmonids and working with the
California Governor's Biodiversity Councils; and working with tribal,
state, and city/local jurisdictions to develop protective regulations
for threatened salmonids. NMFS recognizes the significant benefits that
will accrue to salmon and steelhead as a result of these efforts. In
fact, NMFS has promulgated interim and proposed protection regulations
(i.e., ESA 4(d) rules) that provide specific limits to the ESA take
prohibitions for certain harvest, hatchery, habitat restoration,
monitoring, and other state and tribal efforts currently underway in
the range of these 19 salmon and steelhead ESUs (62 FR 38479, July 18,
1997; 64 FR 73479, December 30, 1999; 65 FR 170, January 3, 2000). All
parties interested in obtaining technical assistance in support of
salmon and steelhead conservation (or other information related to
NMFS' ESA activities) are encouraged to contact NMFS field office
personnel in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Indian Lands
Comment 13: Beginning in 1998, NMFS received comments from various
Northwest and California tribes requesting that the agency not
designate critical habitat on Indian lands. Many of these tribes noted
that this exclusion was warranted due to specific provisions contained
in a June 1997 Secretarial Order entitled ``American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act'' (Secretarial Order). Many of these comments focused on
the critical habitat proposals for chinook, chum and sockeye salmon (63
FR 11482, March 9, 1998; 63 FR 11750, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 11774,
March 10, 1998) which did not address Indian lands (i.e., proposed to
designate Indian lands). However, other comments addressed specific
language used to define the exclusion of Indian lands in proposals for
steelhead (64 FR 5740, February 5, 1999) and Oregon Coast coho salmon
(64 FR 24998, May 10, 1999).
Response: The unique and distinctive relationship between the
United States and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes,
executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which
differentiate 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. Pursuant to the treaties, statutes, judicial decisions,
executive orders and other agreements that define the relationship
between the United States and tribes, lands have been retained by
Indian tribes or have been set aside for tribal use. These lands are
managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and
objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.
As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship
between the United States and Indian tribes, the Secretaries of
Commerce and Interior issued the June 5, 1997 Secretarial Order. The
Secretarial Order clarifies the responsibilities of NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service when carrying out authorities under the ESA
and requires that they consult with, and seek 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.''
Pursuant to the Secretarial Order and in response to written and
verbal comments provided by various tribes in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California, as well as the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission, NMFS met and corresponded with many of the affected tribes
concerning the inclusion of Indian lands in final critical habitat
designations. These discussions resulted in significant clarifications
regarding the tribes' general position to exclude their lands, as well
as specific issues regarding NMFS' interpretation of Indian lands under
the Secretarial Order.
The Secretarial Order defines Indian lands as ``any lands title to
which is either: (1) Held in trust by the United States for the benefit
of any Indian tribe
[[Page 7773]]
or individual; or (2) held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to
restrictions by the United States against alienation.'' In clarifying
this definition with the tribes, NMFS has asserted that (1) fee lands
within the reservation boundaries and owned by non-Indians, and (2) fee
lands outside the reservation boundaries and owned by individual
Indians, would be designated as critical habitat. The basis for this
distinction regarding fee lands is that the tribal governments exercise
management authority over fee lands they own (whether on or off the
reservation) and over fee lands on the reservation owned by individual
Indians. However, it is presently unclear to NMFS what management
authority the tribal governments have over non-Indian-owned lands on
the reservation or member-owned fee lands off the reservation. Such
authority over land management is a crucial factor in the determination
to designate them as critical habitat or not.
Based on a consideration of the Federal Government's trust
responsibilities to Indian tribes, particularly as addressed in the
Secretarial Order (including NMFS' determination that designating such
areas are not essential to the conservation of listed steelhead), and
out of respect for tribal sovereignty over the management of Indian
lands, NMFS has determined that Indian lands should be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation for these 19 ESUs of salmon and
steelhead. The Indian lands specifically excluded from critical habitat
are those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: (1) Fee lands,
either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the
tribal government; and (2) fee lands, within the reservation
boundaries, owned by individual Indians.
Although NMFS continues to believe that habitat on Indian lands
which is currently accessible to listed salmon and steelhead is
important for the long-term survival and recovery of these species, the
agency believes that section 7 consultations through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and other Federal agencies in combination with the
continued development and implementation of tribal resource management
programs that support salmonid conservation represent an alternative to
designating critical habitat that will result in a proportionate and
essential contribution to salmon and steelhead conservation that is
also consistent with the goals of the Secretarial Order. Also, all of
these Tribal lands combined comprised only a minor portion (less than
3%) of the total watershed area for these 19 ESUs. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the critical habitat that is designated in this final
rule is sufficient to provide for the conservation of these 5 species.
NMFS will continue to discuss this issue with interested tribes, in
particular some tribes' concerns over the status of fee lands, and will
modify critical habitat as needed in the future. Such modifications
could include: (1) Recognizing that additional lands have been
converted into trust status and are thereby excluded from critical
habitat; or (2) designating Indian lands as critical habitat if the
agency, in consultation with an affected tribe, determines that
recovery cannot be achieved for an ESU unless the particular lands are
designated.
The original proposals for steelhead and Oregon Coast coho
identified specific tribes that should be excluded from critical
habitat designation. However, given the complete exclusion of all
Indian lands within the range of these 19 salmon and steelhead ESUs,
NMFS believes there is no longer a need to identify all affected
tribes. If, in future rulemaking, NMFS proposes to designate Indian
lands, then the agency would specifically identify the affected
landholdings.
Critical Habitat of Salmon and Steelhead; Changes to the Proposed
Rules
As noted in the proposed rules for these 5 species of salmon and
steelhead, critical habitat encompasses dozens of major river basins
and an array of essential habitat features. Essential habitat types for
these species can be generally described to include the following: (1)
Juvenile rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for
growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; and
(5) spawning areas. Within these areas, essential features of 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
salmon and 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 salmon and steelhead can be found in
reviews by CDFG, 1965; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and
Steelhead Trout (CACSST), 1988; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and
Reiser, 1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; California
State Lands Commission (CSLC), 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996b;
and Spence et al., 1996.
For reasons described earlier in this document, NMFS has revised
its designation of freshwater and estuarine critical habitat for
chinook, chum, and sockeye salmon to include riparian areas that
provide the following functions: shade, sediment transport, nutrient or
chemical regulation, streambank stability, and input of large woody
debris or organic matter. Habitat quality in this range is
intrinsically related to the quality of riparian and upland areas and
of inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which provide key
habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality)
crucial for salmon and steelhead in downstream reaches. Marine habitats
(i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward of the mouth of coastal
rivers) are also vital to salmon and steelhead, and ocean conditions
are believed to have a major influence on the species' survival.
Although NMFS has not included the Pacific Ocean as critical habitat in
these final rules, the agency will be re-evaluating this issue and may
propose including specific marine zones for salmon and steelhead ESUs
in a separate notice.
NMFS is modifying the final critical habitat designations for these
19 ESUs based on comments and new information received on the proposed
rules. The following section gives a general description of each ESU's
range, identifies some of the larger salmon and steelhead basins within
each ESU, and summarizes the major changes to critical habitat
designations. The river basins identified do not constitute a
comprehensive inventory; many small or unidentified streams and
tributaries in each ESU also provide essential spawning, rearing and
estuarine habitat for salmon and steelhead. Instead, these summaries
are meant to supplement the USGS hydrologic units listed in Tables 7-24
with commonly-used river names within each ESU. The actual regulatory
descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU can be found in the
regulatory text at the end of this Federal Register document.
General Description of ESU Range and Major Changes from Proposed
Critical Habitat Designations
Chinook Salmon
(1) Puget Sound ESU - Major river basins known to support this ESU
include the Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Green/
[[Page 7774]]
Duwamish, Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish, Dungeness, Cedar, and Elwha
Rivers. Major bays and estuarine/marine areas include the South Sound,
Hood Canal, Elliott Bay, Possession Sound, Admiralty Inlet, Saratoga
Passage, Rosario Strait, Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait
of Juan De Fuca. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) Modified the
description of the adjacent riparian zone to be based on a functional
(rather than quantitative) description; (2) excluded all Indian lands
(as previously defined) from the designation; (3) removed the Fraser
and Crescent-Hoko hydrologic units from Table 7 because they are
outside the range of the ESU; (4) included areas above Howard Hanson
Dam due to the fact that trap and haul operations move listed chinook
salmon into habitats above this dam; (5) included areas above Cushman
Dam due to the presence of listed chinook salmon above the dam; (6)
removed Cedar Falls Dam (Masonary Dam) since it does not delimit the
upstream extent of river reaches inhabited by this ESU; and (7) added
Landsburg Diversion and Alder Dam to Table 7 because they currently
block upstream passage.
(2) Lower Columbia River ESU - Major river basins known to support
this ESU include the Grays, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, Washougal, White
Salmon, Cowlitz, Coweeman, Klaskanine, Clackamas, Sandy, and Hood
Rivers, as well as Youngs Bay and the Columbia River and estuary. In
this final rule, NMFS has: (1) Modified the description of the adjacent
riparian zone to be based on a functional (rather than quantitative)
description; (2) excluded all Indian lands (as previously defined) from
the designation; (3) added the Upper Cowlitz hydrologic unit to Table 8
because it contains critical habitat for this ESU; (4) removed Cougar,
Oak Grove, and Yale Dams from Table 8 since they do not delimit the
upstream extent of river reaches inhabited by this ESU; (5) clarified
that the dam in the Lower Columbia-Sandy hydrologic unit is ``Bull Run
Dam 2'' and that The Dalles Dam is in the Middle Columbia-Hood
hydrologic unit; and (6) included areas above Mayfield Dam due to the
fact that trap and haul operations move listed chinook salmon into
habitats above the dam.
(3) Upper Willamette River ESU - Major river basins known to
support this ESU include the Willamette, Molalla, North Santiam, and
McKenzie Rivers, as well as the Columbia River and estuary. In this
final rule, NMFS has: (1) Modified the description of the adjacent
riparian zone to be based on a functional (rather than quantitative)
description; (2) excluded all Indian lands (as previously defined) from
the designation; (3) corrected the range of the designation to include
the Clackamas River Basin (which contains populations that are part of
the ESU); (4) added Big Cliff, Blue River, Cottage Grove, Dorena, and
Fern Ridge Dams to Table 9 because they currently block upstream
passage; (5) included areas above Foster, Cougar, and Dexter Dams due
to the fact that trap and haul operations move listed chinook salmon
into habitats above these dams.
(4) Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESU - Major river basins known
to support this ESU include the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers,
as well as the Columbia River and estuary. In this final rule, NMFS
has: (1) Modified the description of the adjacent riparian zone to be
based on a functional (rather than quantitative) description; (2)
excluded all Indian lands (as previously defined) from the designation;
(3) added the Lower Willamette hydrologic unit to Table 10 because it
contains critical habitat for this ESU; (4) removed the Okanogan
hydrologic unit from Table 10 since it does not contain river reaches
inhabited by the ESU; and (5) removed Bull Run and Condit Dams from
Table 10 since they do not delimit the upstream extent of river reaches
inhabited by this ESU.
(5) California Central Valley Spring-run ESU - Major river basins
known to support this ESU include the Sacramento River, Feather River,
Yuba River, and Big Chico, Beegum, Deer, Mill, Butte, Clear, Battle,
and Antelope Creeks, as well as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
Honker, Grizzly, Suisun, and San Francisco Bays. In this final rule,
NMFS has: (1) Modified the description of the adjacent riparian zone to
be based on a functional (rather than quantitative) description; (2)
excluded all Indian lands (as previously defined) from the designation;
(3) removed the Lower American, Cottonwood Headwaters, Upper Coon-Upper
Auburn and Coyote hydrologic units from Table 11 since they do not
contain river reaches inhabited by the ESU; (4) removed Nimbus, San
Pablo, Shasta, and Calaveras Dams from Table 11 since they do not
delimit the upstream extent of river reaches inhabited by this ESU; (5)
added Centerville Dam to Table 11 because it currently blocks upstream
passage; and (6) corrected the location of Englebright Dam to be in the
Upper Yuba hydrologic unit.
(6) California Coastal ESU - Rivers, estuaries, and bays known to
support this ESU include Humboldt Bay, Redwood Creek, and the Mad, Eel,
Mattole, and Russian Rivers. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) Modified
the description of the adjacent riparian zone to be based on a
functional (rather than quantitative) description; (2) excluded all
Indian lands (as previously defined) from the designation; (3) removed
several hydrologic units and dams/reservoirs that are no longer within
the range of this re-configured ESU; (4) added Warm Springs Dam to
Table 12 because it currently blocks upstream passage; and (5)
specified the dams for two reservoirs - Scott Dam (Lake Pillsbury) and
Coyote Dam (Lake Mendocino).
Chum Salmon
(1) Hood Canal Summer-run ESU - Rivers, estuaries, and bays known
to support this ESU include the Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush, Hamma
Hamma, Lilliwaup, Dewatto, Tahuya, and Union Rivers, Dungeness Bay/
River, and Snow and Salmon Creeks (Discovery Bay tributaries) and
Jimmycomelately Creek in Sequim Bay. Some populations on the east side
of Hood Canal (Big Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, and the Dewatto and
Tahuya Rivers) are severely depressed and have recently had no
returning adults. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) Modified the
description of the adjacent riparian zone to be based on a functional
(rather than quantitative) description; (2) excluded all Indian lands
(as previously defined) from the designation; (3) included estuarine/
marine areas adjacent to the basins within the range of the ESU as well
as areas of Admiralty Inlet and the Straits of Juan De Fuca; (4)
corrected the range of the designation to extend as far west as
Dungeness Bay/Basin (which contains populations that are part of the
ESU); and (5) excluded areas above Cushman Dam or above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers.
(2) Columbia River ESU - Besides the Columbia River and estuary,
presently only a few Washington streams are recognized as containing
chum salmon: Hamilton and Hardy Creeks (near Bonneville Dam), and the
Cowlitz and Grays Rivers. Oregon currently recognizes 23
``provisional'' populations in the Columbia River Basin, ranging from
the Lewis and Clark River to Milton Creek near St. Helens, Oregon
(Kostow, 1995). In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) Modified the
description of the adjacent riparian zone to be based on a functional
(rather than quantitative) description; (2) excluded all Indian lands
(as previously defined) from the designation; and (3) excluded areas
above specific dams (Bonneville and Merwin Dams) or above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers.
[[Page 7775]]
Sockeye Salmon
(1) Ozette Lake ESU - Sockeye salmon in this ESU inhabit Ozette
Lake and the Ozette River and currently spawn primarily in lakeshore
upwelling areas in Ozette Lake (particularly at Allen's Bay and Olsen's
Beach). Additional spawning areas may include the Ozette River (below
Ozette Lake) and Coal Creek, a tributary of the Ozette River. Sockeye
salmon do not presently spawn in tributary streams to Ozette Lake
(although they may have spawned there historically), but currently
there are efforts to propagate the species in Umbrella Creek. In this
final rule, NMFS has: (1) modified the description of the adjacent
riparian zone to be based on a functional (rather than quantitative)
description; (2) excluded all Indian lands (as previously defined) from
the designation; and (3) clarified that areas above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers are excluded.
Coho Salmon
(1) Oregon Coast ESU - Major river basins known to support this ESU
include the Necanicum, Nehalem, Nestucca, Salmon, Siletz, Yaquina,
Alsea, Yachats, Siuslaw, Umpqua, Coos, Coquille Rivers, and Siltcoos,
Tahkenitch, and Tenmile Lakes Basins. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1)
added Win Walker Reservoir to Table 15 because it currently blocks
upstream passage; and (2) clarified that all Indian lands are excluded
from the designation.
Steelhead
(1) Southern California ESU - Major river basins known to support
this ESU include Malibu Creek and the Santa Clara, Santa Ynez, and
Ventura Rivers. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) removed Vern Freeman
Dam (which was misidentified in the Ventura hydrologic unit) and
Matilija Dam since they do not delimit the upstream extent of river
reaches inhabited by this ESU; (2) corrected the location of Vaquero
and Rindge Dams to be in the Santa Maria and Santa Monica Bay
hydrologic units, respectively; (3) removed the Calluegas hydrologic
unit from Table 16 since it does not contain river reaches inhabited by
the ESU; and (4) clarified that all Indian lands are excluded from the
designation.
(2) South-Central California Coast ESU - Major river basins known
to support this ESU include the Big Sur, Carmel, Little Sur, Pajaro,
and Salinas Rivers. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) removed Los
Padres Dam since it does not delimit the upstream extent of river
reaches inhabited by this ESU; (2) added Lopez Dam, and Whale Rock,
North Fork Pacheco, Chesbro, Nacimiento, and San Antonio Reservoirs to
Table 17 because they currently block upstream passage; and (3)
clarified that all Indian lands are excluded from the designation.
(3) Central California Coast ESU - Major river basins known to
support this ESU include the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers on the
coast, and several other smaller tributaries within San Pablo and San
Francisco Bays. In this final rule, NMFS has: (1) corrected the range
of the designation to include Aptos Creek (which contains populations
that are part of the ESU); (2) added Phoenix Dam, Almaden Reservoir,
Anderson Reservoir, Calero Reservoir, Guadalupe Reservoir, Searsville
Lake, Stevens Creek Reservoir, Vasona Reservoir, Chabot Dam, Crystal
Springs Reservoir, Del Valle Reservoir, San Antonio Reservoir,
Soulejule Dam, and Pilarcitos Dam to Table 18 because they currently
block upstream passage; (3) corrected the location of Calaveras
Reservoir to be in the San Francisco Bay hydrologic unit; (4) renamed
Nicasio Dam to Peters Dam; (5) included the entire San Francisco Bay
(west to the Golden Gate Bridge) as critical habitat; and (6) clarified
that all Indian lands are excluded from the designation.
(4) California Central Valley ESU - Major river basins known to
support this ESU include the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
American, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne, Tuolumne, and Yuba Rivers,
Battle, Butte, Big Chico, Beegum, Cache, Deer, Mill, Antelope, Putah,
Stony, and Cottonwood Creeks, as well as the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta and Honker, Grizzly, Suisun, and San Francisco Bays. In this
final rule, NMFS has: (1) added Centerville and Monticello Dams to
Table 19 because they currently block upstream passage; (2) corrected
the location of Whiskeytown Dam to be in the Sacramento-Upper Clear
hydrologic unit; (3) added the Lower Cache and San Francisco Bay
hydrologic units to Table 19 because they contain critical habitat for
this ESU; and (4) clarified that all Indian lands are excluded from the
designation.
(5) Upper Columbia River ESU - Major Columbia River tributaries
known to support this ESU include the Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and
Wenatchee Rivers, as well as the Columbia River and estuary. In this
final rule, NMFS has clarified that all Indian lands are excluded from
the designation.
(6) Snake River Basin ESU - Major Snake River tributaries known to
support this ESU include the Clearwater, Grande Ronde, Salmon, Selway,
and Tucannon Rivers, as well as the Columbia River and estuary. In this
final rule, NMFS has: (1) clarified that all Indian lands are excluded
from the designation; and (2) clarified that areas upstream of Napias
Creek Falls are excluded from the designation.
(7) Lower Columbia River ESU - Major Columbia River tributaries
known to support this ESU include the Clackamas, Cowlitz, Hood, Kalama,
Lewis, Sandy, Washougal, and Wind Rivers. In this final rule, NMFS has:
(1) included areas above Mayfield Dam due to the fact that trap and
haul operations move listed steelhead into habitats above these dams;
and (2) clarified that all Indian lands are excluded from the
designation.
(8) Upper Willamette River ESU - Major river basins known to
support this ESU include the Willamette, Mollala, and Santiam Rivers,
as well as the Columbia River and estuary. In this final rule, NMFS
has: (1) corrected the range of the designation to exclude areas
upstream of the Calapooia River Basin; (2) removed Bull Run, Cougar,
Dexter, and Dorena Dams from Table 23 since they do not delimit the
upstream extent of river reaches inhabited by this ESU; (3) corrected
the location of Big Cliff Dam to be in the North Santiam hydrologic
unit; and (4) clarified that all Indian lands are excluded from the
designation.
(9) Middle Columbia River ESU - Major Columbia River tributaries
known to support this ESU include the Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat,
Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Yakima Rivers, as well as the Columbia River
and estuary. In this final rule, NMFS has clarified that all Indian
lands are excluded from the designation.
As a result of recent listing determinations affecting the
geographic boundaries and ESA listing status of several chinook salmon
ESUs (64 FR 50394, September 16, 1999), NMFS is not promulgating a
final critical habitat designation for the Central Valley fall- and
late-fall run chinook salmon ESU. Also, NMFS is excluding from
designation areas north of Redwood Creek and south of the Russian
River, including San Francisco and San Pablo Bay tributaries, that were
originally proposed as critical habitat for the former southern Oregon
and California coastal chinook salmon ESU (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998).
Finally, critical habitat for the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon
ESU will remain in the range of watersheds originally designated on
December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543).
[[Page 7776]]
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
NMFS believes that special management considerations may be needed
to ensure that essential habitats and features are maintained or
restored. Activities that may require special management considerations
for freshwater and estuarine life stages of listed salmon and 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) beaver removal; (7) irrigation
and domestic water withdrawals and returns; (8) mining; (9) road
construction; (10) dam operation and maintenance; (11) diking and
streambank stabilization; and (12) dredge and fill activities. Not all
of these activities are necessarily of current concern within every
watershed; however, they indicate the potential types of activities
that will require consultation in the future. At this time, no special
habitat management considerations have been identified for listed
salmon and 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 listed salmon and steelhead in freshwater and estuarine
habitats. More in-depth discussions are contained in the response to
comments under Scope and Extent of Critical Habitat and in Federal
Register documents announcing the proposed critical habitat for each
ESU (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998; 63 FR 11750, March 10, 1998; 63 FR
11774, March 10, 1998; 64 FR 5740, February 5, 1999; 64 FR 24998, May
10, 1999). These activities include water and land management actions
of Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
the Federal Highway Administration, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and related or similar actions of
other federally regulated projects and lands, including livestock
grazing allocations by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land
Management; hydropower sites licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; dams built or operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; timber sales conducted by the U.S.
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management; road building
activities authorized by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and National Park
Service; and mining and road building activities authorized by the
states of California and Oregon. Other actions of concern include
dredge and fill, mining, diking, and bank stabilization activities
authorized or conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, habitat
modifications authorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
and approval of water quality standards and pesticide labeling and use
restrictions administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This designation will
provide these agencies, private entities, and the public with clear
notification of critical habitat designated for listed salmonids and
the boundaries of the habitat 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 listed salmon and steelhead and their critical
habitat and in determining if consultation with NMFS is needed.
NMFS anticipates that numerous private entities will be affected by
the ESA listings and the resultant need to carry out conservation
measures throughout the species' current range. As noted above, many of
these effects result from direct and indirect linkages to an array of
Federal actions, including Federal projects, permits, and funding. For
example, the fishing industry (both the commercial and recreational
sectors) is already hard hit by declining salmon runs and will continue
to suffer until the species recover and provide sustainable fisheries.
Agriculture and forestry sectors typically require Federal permits or
authorizations to harvest timber, graze livestock, apply herbicides/
pesticides, irrigate crops, or build associated access roads in salmon
watersheds. These permits will need to be modified so that they are
adequately protective of salmon and their habitats. In some cases, such
modifications could result in decreases in timber harvest, and
livestock and crop production. The transportation and utilities sectors
may need to modify the placement of culverts, bridges and utility
conveyances (e.g., water, sewer and power lines) to avoid barriers to
fish migration. Developments occurring in or near salmon streams (e.g.,
marinas, residential, or industrial facilities) may need to be altered
or built in a manner that ensures that listed fish will not be harmed
by the construction, or subsequent operation, of the facility.
Recreational and commercial mining operations will need to ensure that
their actions do not jeopardize listed species. Recreational and
tourism industries may have ESA-related restrictions imposed so that
activities such as fishing enterprises are conducted in a manner that
safeguard spawning fish and their habitats.
In addition, the widespread ESA listings underscore that both urban
and rural communities could face significant changes in how they
approach such diverse activities as: planning, zoning, and
construction/development; erosion and sediment control; floodplain
management; water withdrawals and supply reservoirs; and stormwater and
wastewater discharges. These are just a few examples of potential
impacts, but it is clear that the effects will encompass numerous
sectors of private and public activities.
Expected Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat
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 response to comments under Economic
Considerations). 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 19 salmon and 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 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.
[[Page 7777]]
Compliance With Existing Statutes
NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for critical
habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698
(1996).
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting Garth Griffin, NMFS (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or via the Internet (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
NMFS is designating only the current range of these salmon and
steelhead ESUs as critical habitat. Given the affinity of these species
to spawn in small watersheds, this current range encompasses a wide
range of habitat, including lakes, small tributary reaches, as well as
mainstem, off-channel and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this
designation include historically-occupied areas above impassable dams
and headwater areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-
standing, natural waterfalls). 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 result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat (ESA Sec. 7(a)(2)). The consultation
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a listed species,
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and
governments.
Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of
Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration that this rule would not have a significant
economic impact of a substantial number of small entities, as described
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State
and Federal interest, NMFS has conferred with appropriate State and
local officials following its proposal to designate the critical
habitat described in this final rule. While these officials, and other
interested parties, expressed support for protection of the listed
species, they also expressed support for activities that may be
affected by the designation. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this rule discusses these comments and NMFS' responses. Among other
things, the responses address concerns regarding the scope and extent
of critical habitat, and concerns regarding possible impacts of a
critical habitat designation. The areas described in this final rule
represent the current freshwater and estuarine range of the listed
species. For all ESUs, critical habitat includes all waterways,
substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers. The economic (and other) impacts resulting from
this critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.
This 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: February 7, 2000.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is amended
as follows:
PART 226-DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
2. Section 226.212 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 226.212 Critical habitat designation for 19 evolutionary
significant units of salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
and California.
Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed salmon or steelhead within the range of the ESUs
listed, except for reaches on Indian lands. Critical habitat consists
of the water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and
riverine reaches in hydrologic units and counties identified in Tables
7 through 24 to this part for all of the salmon and 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 salmon or 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 7 through
24 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, 1987, and the
following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000 Scale Hydrologic Unit Maps: State of
Oregon (1974), State of Washington (1974), State of California (1978),
and State of Idaho (1981), 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. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
of the USGS publicaion and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map
Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS,
Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street-Suite 500, Portland,
OR 97232-2737, or 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) Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon
in Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood
Canal, and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer
extent of the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan De
Fuca to a straight line extending north from the west end of Freshwater
Bay, inclusive. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in
Table 7 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable
barriers (i.e.,
[[Page 7778]]
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(b) Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in Columbia River
tributaries between the Grays and White Salmon 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 Dalles Dam. Excluded are areas above specific
dams identified in Table 8 to this part or above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence
for at least several hundred years).
(c) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in the
Clackamas River and 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 9 to this part or above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence
for at least several hundred years).
(d) Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in
Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and
downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan
River. 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 10 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable
barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several
hundred years).
(e) Central Valley Spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in the
Sacramento River and its 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 above
specific dams identified in Table 11 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(f) California Coastal Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed chinook salmon
from Redwood Creek (Humboldt County, California) to the Russian River
(Sonoma County, California), inclusive. Excluded are areas above
specific dams identified in Table 12 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(g) Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine
areas and tributaries) draining into Hood Canal as well as Olympic
Peninsula rivers between and including Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay,
Washington. Also included are estuarine/marine areas of Hood Canal,
Admiralty Inlet, and the Straits of Juan De Fuca to the international
boundary and as far west as a straight line extending north from
Dungeness Bay. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in
Table 13 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable
barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several
hundred years).
(h) Columbia River Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine areas and
tributaries) in the Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam,
excluding Oregon tributaries upstream of Milton Creek at river km 144
near the town of St. Helens. Excluded are areas above specific dams
identified in Table 14 to this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(i) Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all lake areas
and river reaches accessible to listed sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake,
located in Clallam County, Washington. Excluded are areas above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(j) Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) geographic
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
and estuarine areas accessible to listed coho salmon from coastal
streams south of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco, Oregon.
Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 15 to this
part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(k) 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
16 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years).
(l) 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 17 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(m) 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 Aptos 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
[[Page 7779]]
Bridge and all waters of San Francisco Bay 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 18 to this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(n) 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 19 to this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(o) 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 20 to this
part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(p) 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 21 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., Napias Creek Falls
and other natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years).
(q) 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 22 to this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(r) 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 upstream to, and including,
the Calapooia River. 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 23 to this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(s) 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).
3. Tables 7 through 24 are added to part 226 to read as follows:
Table 7 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon,
and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strait of Georgia........................ 17110002 Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA)..
Sand Juan Islands........................ 17110003 San Juan (WA)..............
Nooksack................................. 17110004 Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA)..
Upper Skagit............................. 17110005 Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA)..
Sauk..................................... 17110006 Snohomish (WA), Skagit (WA)
Lower Skagit............................. 17110007 Skagit (WA), Snohomish (WA)
Stillaguamish............................ 17110008 Snohomish (WA), Skagit (WA)
Skykomish................................ 17110009 King (WA), Snohomish (WA)..
Snoqualmie............................... 17110010 King (WA), Snohomish (WA).. Tolt Dam
Snohomish................................ 17110011 Snohomish (WA).............
Lake Washington.......................... 17110012 King (WA), Snohomish (WA).. Landsburg Diversion
Duwamish................................. 17110013 King (WA)..................
Puyallup................................. 17110014 King (WA), Pierce (WA).....
Nisqually................................ 17110015 Pierce (WA), Thurston (WA). Alder Dam
[[Page 7780]]
Deschutes................................ 17110016 Lewis (WA), Thurston (WA)..
Skokomish................................ 17110017 Grays Harbor (WA),
Jefferson (WA), Mason (WA).
Hood Canal............................... 17110018 Clallam (WA), Jefferson
(WA), Kitsap (WA), Mason
(WA).
Puget Sound.............................. 17110019 Island (WA), Jefferson
(WA), King (WA), Kitsap
(WA), Mason (WA), Pierce
(WA), Skagit (WA),
Snohomish (WA), Thurston
(WA).
Dungeness-Elwha.......................... 17110020 Clallam (WA), Jefferson Elwha Dam
(WA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, and riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 8 to Part 226 --Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Chinook
Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Klickitat Condit Dam, The Dalles Dam
(WA), Skamania (WA), Wasco
(OR).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clackamas (OR), Clark (WA), Bull Run Dam 2
Multnomah (OR), Skamania
(WA).
Lewis.................................... 17080002 Clark (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Merwin Dam
Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR), Cowlitz (WA), Lewis
(WA), Skamania (WA),
Wahkiakum (WA).
Upper Cowlitz............................ 17080004 Lewis (WA), Pierce (WA),
Skamania (WA), Yakima (WA).
Lower Cowlitz............................ 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA),
Skamania (WA).
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, and riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 9 to Part 226 --Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Willamette River
Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA).................
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR), Cowlitz (WA),
Wahkiakum (WA).
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA),
Wahkiakum (WA).
Middle Fork Willamette................... 17090001 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR)....
Coast Fork Willamette.................... 17090002 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR).... Cottage Grove Dam, Dorena
Dam
Upper Willamette......................... 17090003 Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Fern Ridge Dam
Lincoln (OR), Linn (OR),
Polk (OR).
McKenzie................................. 17090004 Lane (OR), Linn (OR)....... Blue River Dam
North Santiam............................ 17090005 Clackamas (OR), Linn (OR) Big Cliff Dam
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), Yamhill
(OR).
Molalla-Pudding.......................... 17090009 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR)
Tualatin................................. 17090010 Clackamas (OR), Columbia
(OR), Multnomah (OR),
Tillamook (OR), Washington
(OR), Yamhill (OR).
Clackamas................................ 17090011 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR)
[[Page 7781]]
Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Clackamas (OR), Columbia
(OR), Multnomah (OR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, and riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 10 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River Spring-
run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Joseph............................. 17020005 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Chief Joseph
Okanogan (WA).
Similkameen.............................. 17020007 Okanogan (WA)..............
Methow................................... 17020008 Okanogan (WA)..............
Upper Columbia-Entiat.................... 17020010 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA),
Grant (WA), Kittitas (WA).
Wenatchee................................ 17020011 Chelan (WA)................
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids............. 17020016 Benton (WA), Grant (WA),
Franklin (WA), Kittitas
(WA), Yakima (WA).
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Benton (WA), Gilliam (OR),
Klickitat (WA), Morrow
(OR), Sherman (OR),
Umatilla (OR), Walla Walla
(WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Klickitat
(WA), Sherman (OR),
Skamania (WA), Wasco (OR).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA), Multnomah (OR),
Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR), 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, and riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 11 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central Valley California
Spring-run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear......... 18020101 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
Lower Cottonwood......................... 18020102 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
Sacramento-Lower Thomes.................. 18020103 Butte (CA), Glenn (CA), Black Butte Dam
Tehama (CA).
Sacramento-Stone Corral.................. 18020104 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA),
Glenn (CA), Sutter (CA),
Yolo (CA).
Lower Butte.............................. 18020105 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Centerville Dam
Glenn (CA), Sutter (CA).
Lower Feather............................ 18020106 Butte (CA), Sutter (CA), Oroville Dam
Yuba (CA).
Lower Yuba............................... 18020107 Yuba (CA)..................
Lower Bear............................... 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Camp Far West Dam
Yuba (CA).
Lower Sacramento......................... 18020109 Sacramento (CA), Solano
(CA), Sutter (CA), Placer
(CA), Yolo (CA).
Sacramento-Upper Clear................... 18020112 Shasta (CA)................ Keswick Dam, Whiskeytown
Dam
Upper Elder-Upper Thomes................. 18020114 Tehama (CA)................
Upper Cow-Battle......................... 18020118 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
Mill-Big Chico........................... 18020119 Butte (CA), Shasta (CA),
Tehama (CA).
Upper Butte.............................. 18020120 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA)....
Upper Yuba............................... 18020125 Nevada (CA), Yuba (CA)..... Englebright Dam
Suisun Bay............................... 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Napa
(CA), Solano (CA).
San Pablo Bay............................ 18050002 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa
(CA), Marin (CA), Napa
(CA), San Mateo (CA),
Solano (CA), Sonoma (CA).
San Francisco Bay........................ 18050004 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa
(CA), Marin (CA), San
Francisco (CA), San Mateo
(CA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, and riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
[[Page 7782]]
Table 12 to Part 226 --Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for California Coastal Chinook
Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad-Redwood.............................. 18010102 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)
Upper Eel................................ 18010103 Glenn (CA), Lake (CA), Scott Dam
Mendocino (CA), Trinity
(CA).
Middle Fork Eel.......................... 18010104 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino
(CA), Trinity (CA).
Lower Eel................................ 18010105 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino
(CA).
South Fork Eel........................... 18010106 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino
(CA).
Mattole.................................. 18010107 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino
(CA).
Big-Navarro-Garcia....................... 18010108 Mendocino (CA).............
Gualala-Salmon........................... 18010109 Mendocino (CA), Sonoma (CA)
Russian.................................. 18010110 Mendocino (CA), Sonoma (CA) Coyote Dam, Warm Springs
Dam
Bodega Bay............................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, and riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 13 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer-run Chum
Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skokomish................................ 17110017 Mason (WA)................. Cushman Dam
Hood Canal............................... 17110018 Clallam (WA), Jefferson
(WA), Kitsap (WA), Mason
(WA).
Puget Sound.............................. 17110019 Island (WA), Jefferson
(WA), Kitsap (WA).
Dungeness-Elwha.......................... 17110020 Clallam (WA), Jefferson
(WA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
Table 14 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Columbia River Chum Salmon,
and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia - Sandy................... 17080001 Clark (WA), Skamania (WA), Bonneville Dam
Multnomah (OR).
Lewis.................................... 17080002 Cowlitz (WA), Clark (WA), Merwin Dam
Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia - Clatskanie.............. 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Lewis (WA),
Cowlitz (WA), Skamania
(WA), Clatsop (OR),
Columbia (OR).
Lower Cowlitz............................ 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA),
Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA), Lewis (WA), Clatsop
(OR).
Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 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.
Table 15 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon,
and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within the range Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number of ESUX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Necanicum................................ 17100201 Clatsop (OR), Tillamook
(OR).
Nehalem.................................. 17100202 Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR), Tillamook (OR),
Washington (OR).
Wilson-Trask-Nestucca.................... 17100203 Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR), McGuire Dam
Tillamook (OR), Washington
(OR), Yamhill (OR).
Siletz-Yaquina........................... 17100204 Benton (OR), Lincoln (OR),
Polk (OR), Tillamook (OR).
Alsea.................................... 17100205 Benton (OR), Lane (OR),
Lincoln (OR).
Siuslaw.................................. 17100206 Benton (OR), Douglas (OR),
Lane (OR).
Siltcoos................................. 17100207 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR)....
[[Page 7783]]
North Umpqua............................. 17100301 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR).... Cooper Creek Dam, Soda
Springs Dam
South Umpqua............................. 17100302 Coos (OR), Douglas (OR), Ben Irving Dam, Galesville
Josephine (OR). Dam, Win Walker Reservoir
Umpqua................................... 17100303 Coos (OR), Douglas (OR),
Lane (OR).
Coos..................................... 17100304 Coos (OR), Douglas (OR).... Lower Pony Creek Dam
Coquille................................. 17100305 Coos (OR), Curry (OR),
Douglas (OR).
Sixes.................................... 17100306 Coos (OR), Curry (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.
Table 16 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Southern California
Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuyama................................... 18060007 San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa
Barbara (CA).
Santa Maria.............................. 18060008 San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Vaquero Dam
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 Casitas Dam, Robles Dam
(CA).
Santa Clara.............................. 18070102 Los Angeles (CA), Santa Santa Felicia Dam
Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA).
Santa Monica Bay......................... 18070104 Los Angeles (CA), Ventura Rindge Dam
(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.
Table 17 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for South-Central California
Coast Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pajaro................................... 18060002 Monterey (CA), San Benito Chesbro Reservoir, North
(CA), Santa Clara (CA), Fork Pacheco Reservoir
Santa Cruz (CA).
Estrella................................. 18060004 Monterey (CA), San Luis
Obispo (CA).
Salinas.................................. 18060005 Monterey (CA), San Benito Nacimiento Reservoir,
(CA), San Luis Obispo (CA). Salinas Dam, San Antonio
Reservoir
Central Coastal.......................... 18060006 Monterey (CA), San Luis Lopez Dam, Whale Rock
Obispo (CA). Reservoir
Alisal-Elkhorn Sloughs................... 18060011 Monterey (CA), San Benito
(CA).
Carmel................................... 18060012 Monterey (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.
Table 18 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central California Coast
Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa Phoenix Dam, San Pablo Dam
(CA), Marin (CA), Napa
(CA), San Francisco (CA),
Solano (CA), Sonoma (CA).
Coyote................................... 18050003 Alameda (CA), San Mateo Almaden Reservoir, Anderson
(CA), Santa Clara (CA). Reservoir, Calero
Reservoir, Guadalupe
Reservoir, Searsville
Lake, Stevens Creek
Reservoir, Vasona
Reservoir
San Francisco Bay........................ 18050004 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa Calaveras Reservoir, Chabot
(CA), San Francisco (CA), Dam, Crystal Springs
San Mateo (CA), Santa Reservoir, Del Valle
Clara (CA). Reservoir, San Antonio
Reservoir
[[Page 7784]]
Tomales-Drake Bays....................... 18050005 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).... Peters Dam, Seeger Dam,
Soulejule Dam
San Francisco Coastal South.............. 18050006 San Mateo (CA)............. Pilarcitos Dam
San Lorenzo-Soquel....................... 18060001 San Mateo (CA), Santa Cruz Newell Dam
(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.
Table 19 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central Valley Steelhead,
and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear......... 18020101 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
Lower Cottonwood......................... 18020102 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
Sacramento-Lower Thomes.................. 18020103 Butte (CA), Glenn (CA), Black Butte Dam
Tehama (CA).
Sacramento-Stone Corral.................. 18020104 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA),
Glenn (CA), Sutter (CA),
Yolo (CA).
Lower Butte.............................. 18020105 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Centerville Dam
Glenn (CA), Sutter (CA).
Lower Feather............................ 18020106 Butte (CA), Sutter (CA), Oroville Dam
Yuba (CA).
Lower Yuba............................... 18020107 Yuba (CA)..................
Lower Bear............................... 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Camp Far West Dam
Yuba (CA).
Lower Sacramento......................... 18020109 Placer (CA), Sacramento Monticello Dam
(CA), Solano (CA), Sutter
(CA), Yolo (CA).
Lower Cache.............................. 18020110 Yolo (CA)..................
Lower American........................... 18020111 Placer (CA), Sacramento Nimbus Dam
(CA), Sutter (CA).
Sacramento-Upper Clear................... 18020112 Shasta (CA)................ Keswick Dam, Whiskeytown
Dam
Cottonwood Headwaters.................... 18020113 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
Upper Elder-Upper Thomes................. 18020114 Tehama (CA)................
Upper Cow-Battle......................... 18020118 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)...
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 Merced-Lower 18040002 Calaveras (CA), Merced Crocker Diversion Dam, La
Stanislaus. (CA), San Joaquin (CA), Grange Dam
Stanislaus (CA).
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 Mokelumne.......... 18040005 Amador (CA), Sacramento Comanche Dam
(CA), San Joaquin (CA).
Upper Stanislaus......................... 18040010 Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin Goodwin Dam
(CA), Tuolumne (CA).
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).
San Francisco Bay........................ 18050004 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa
(CA), San Francisco (CA),
San Mateo (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.
Table 20 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River
Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Joseph............................. 17020005 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Chief Joseph Dam
Okanogan (WA).
Okanogan................................. 17020006 Okanogan (WA)..............
Similkameen.............................. 17020007 Okanogan (WA)..............
Methow................................... 17020008 Okanogan (WA)..............
[[Page 7785]]
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 Benton (WA), Gilliam (OR),
Klickitat (WA), Morrow
(OR), Sherman (OR),
Umatilla (OR), Walla Walla
(WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Klickitat
(WA), Sherman (OR),
Skamania (WA), Wasco (OR).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA), Multnomah (OR),
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.
Table 21 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Snake River Basin Steelhead,
and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hells Canyon............................. 17060101 Adams (ID), Idaho (ID), Hells Canyon Dam
Wallowa (OR).
Imnaha................................... 17060102 Baker (OR), Union (OR),
Wallowa (OR).
Lower Snake-Asotin....................... 17060103 Asotin (WA), Garfield (WA),
Nez Perce (ID), Wallowa
(OR).
Upper Grande Ronde....................... 17060104 Umatilla (OR), Union (OR),
Wallowa (OR).
Wallowa.................................. 17060105 Union (OR), Wallowa (OR)...
Lower Grande Ronde....................... 17060106 Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA),
Garfield (WA), Union (OR),
Wallowa (OR).
Lower Snake-Tucannon..................... 17060107 Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA),
Garfield (WA), Whitman
(WA).
Palouse.................................. 17060108 Franklin (WA), Whitman (WA)
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).................
South Fork Clearwater.................... 17060305 Idaho (ID).................
Clearwater............................... 17060306 Clearwater (ID), Idaho
(ID), Latah (ID), Lewis
(ID), Nez Perce (ID),
Whitman (WA).
Lower North Fork Clearwater.............. 17060308 Clearwater (ID)............ Dworshak Dam
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Benton (WA), Gilliam (OR),
Klickitat (WA), Morrow
(OR), Sherman (OR),
Umatilla (OR), Walla Walla
(WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Klickitat
(WA), Sherman (OR),
Skamania (WA), Wasco (OR).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA), Multnomah (OR),
Skamania (WA).
[[Page 7786]]
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.
Table 22 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River
Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Skamania
(WA).
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clackamas (OR), Clark (WA), Bull Run Dam 2
Multnomah (OR), Skamania
(WA).
Lewis.................................... 17080002 Clark (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Merwin Dam
Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR), Cowlitz (WA),
Skamania (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA).
Lower Cowlitz............................ 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA),
Skamania (WA).
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.
Table 23 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Willamette River
Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA).................
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(WA), Cowlitz (WA),
Wahkiakum (WA).
Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA),
Wahkiakum (WA).
Upper Willamette......................... 17090003 Benton (OR), Linn (OR),
Polk (OR).
North Santiam............................ 17090005 Clackamas (OR), Linn (OR), Big Cliff Dam
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), 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.
Table 24 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Middle Columbia River
Steelhead, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties1 within Hydrologic
Hydrologic Unit name Hydrologic Unit and within range of Dams/Reservoirs
Unit number ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids............. 17020016 Benton (WA), Franklin (WA).
Upper Yakima............................. 17030001 Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA).
[[Page 7787]]
Naches................................... 17030002 Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA).
Lower Yakima............................. 17030003 Benton (WA), Klickitat
(WA), Yakima (WA).
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR),
Umatilla (OR), Benton
(WA), Klickitat (WA),
Sherman (OR), 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).
Willow................................... 17070104 Morrow (OR), Gilliam (OR)..
Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman Condit Dam
(OR), Wasco (OR),
Klickitat (WA), Skamania
(WA).
Klickitat................................ 17070106 Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA)
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 Hood River (OR), Jefferson Pelton Dam
(OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco
(OR).
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.
[FR Doc. 00-3553 Filed 2-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F