Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 971029257-9101-02; I.D. 101097A]

RIN 0648-AG56

Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast and

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule and correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is designating critical habitat for two Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESUs) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) pursuant

to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Critical habitat for the

Central California Coast ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all

rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between Punta Gorda

and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in California, including two

streams entering San Francisco Bay: Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio

and Corte Madera Creek. Critical habitat for the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coasts ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all

rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between the Mattole

River in California and the Elk River in Oregon, inclusive.

The areas described in this final rule represent the current

freshwater and estuarine range of the listed species. For both 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 is modifying various aspects of the proposed

designation, including a revised description of adjacent riparian zones

and the exclusion of tribal lands from critical habitat. NMFS has

identified several dams in the range of these ESUs that currently block

access to habitats

[[Page 24050]]

historically occupied by coho salmon. However, NMFS has not designated

these inaccessible areas as critical habitat because the downstream

areas are believed to provide sufficient habitat for conserving the

ESUs. The economic (and other) impacts resulting from this critical

habitat designation are expected to be minimal.

DATES: This rule is effective June 4, 1999. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Oregon, contact Garth Griffin

(Portland) at (503) 231-2005, or Frank Bird (Roseburg) at (541) 957-

3383. In California, contact Craig Wingert (Long Beach) at (562) 980-

4021, Patrick Rutten (Santa Rosa) at (707) 575-6050, or Greg Bryant

(Eureka) at (707) 441-3684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 31, 1996, NMFS published its determination to list

Central California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as

threatened under the ESA (61 FR 56138). In a technical correction to

the final listing determination (62 FR 1296, January 9, 1997), NMFS

defined the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU to include all

coho salmon naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda in

Humboldt County, California, and the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz

County, California (inclusive). Subsequently, on May 6, 1997, NMFS

published its determination to list the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coasts coho salmon ESU as threatened under the ESA (62 FR

24588) and defined the ESU to include all coho salmon naturally

reproduced in streams between Cape Blanco in Curry County, Oregon, and

Punta Gorda in Humboldt County, California.

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. On

July 25, 1995, NMFS published a Federal Register document (60 FR 38011)

soliciting information and data regarding the biological status of West

Coast coho salmon, available salmon conservation measures, and

information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat. At the time

of final listing for each of these two ESUs, critical habitat was not

determinable, because there was not enough information to perform the

required analyses. On November 25, 1997, NMFS published a proposed rule

designating critical habitat for the listed species (62 FR 62741). In

that proposed rule, NMFS solicited public comments and announced public

hearings on the proposed action. This final rule takes into

consideration the new information and comments received in response to

the proposed rule.

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'' (see 16

U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section

3(3) of the ESA, means ``* * * to use and the use of all methods and

procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or

threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant

to this Act are no longer necessary'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).

In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following

requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population

growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals,

or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing offspring;

and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of this species (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.

Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it

helps focus Federal, tribal, state, and private conservation and

management efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address

special considerations needed in critical habitat areas--including

conservation regulations that restrict both private and Federal

activities. The economic and other impacts of these actions would be

considered at the time regulations are proposed and, therefore, are not

considered in the critical habitat designation process. Other Federal,

tribal, state, and local authorities, such as zoning or wetlands and

riparian lands protection, may also benefit critical habitat areas.

Summary of Comments

Three public hearings were held on the proposed action: one in Gold

Beach, Oregon, on December 8, 1997, one in Eureka, California, on

December 9, 1997, and one in Santa Rosa, California, on December 11,

1997. Forty-two individuals provided oral testimony at the public

hearings. Approximately 5,100 written comments were submitted in

response to the proposed rule. While some commenters were in favor of

the proposed critical habitat designation, the vast majority of the

oral and written comments opposed the proposed rule. New information

and comments received in response to the proposed rule are summarized

here.

[[Page 24051]]

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. Three public hearings

were held in the range of each ESU in California and Oregon 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 period (63 FR 4212, January 28, 1998 and 63

FR 23710, April 30, 1998) to allow an additional 5 months 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 about the proposal and attempt to allay

unwarranted fears resulting from misleading information being widely

promulgated throughout northern California and southern Oregon. Such

misinformation created an unnecessary rift between local citizens and

fisheries managers. This is particularly troublesome because most

involved generally have the same common goal: restoring threatened

salmon to the point where they can once again be a prized and

sustainable resource in the region. 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 coho salmon. Some commenters

countered that any economic costs would be offset once the coho

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.

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. 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. Our

reading of these separate requirements for each determination leads us

to an incremental analysis in which only the economic impacts resulting

from the designation of the 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

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) of the ESA and the no-jeopardy

requirement of section 7 of the ESA, both of which are a function of

listing a species, not designating its critical habitat. Whether

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. 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 also 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 of the ESA by ensuring that they 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) of the ESA,

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.

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 was 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.'' Many 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 imply that

private land would be confiscated or taken without just compensation. A

critical habitat designation affects private land only when a Federal

action is involved. In the overwhelming majority of cases, private

landowners are not precluded from using their land as a result of the

critical habitat designation. In a separate rulemaking, NMFS has

adopted a regulation that prohibits the take of listed coho, which

includes take by actions that destroy habitat (62 FR 38479). This

regulation may have some impact on land uses that can be shown to have

harmed salmon (for example, placing barriers to salmon migration in a

stream). But this regulation should not be confused with the

designation of critical habitat. In the course of deciding to make this

final designation, the

[[Page 24052]]

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

designation because designation is 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 ``* * *

relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical

habitat''. In past critical habitat designations, NMFS has performed

analysis of the kind requested here: Environmental analysis under 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 (FWS), that designating critical

habitat has no impact that requires a NEPA analysis.

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 as critical habitat. 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 both the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coasts and Central California Coast coho salmon

ESUs. The following sections, partitioned by habitat type, address

these commenters' concerns and clarify NMFS' designation of critical

habitat for these ESUs.

Freshwater and Estuarine Habitats

Comment 5: Numerous commenters felt that a far more complete

scientific analysis was required before critical habitat could be

designated and, as a result, requested that the agency withdraw the

proposed rule. Several 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 coho salmon and requested designation of only

those areas where species restoration is feasible. The Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) requested that NMFS consider

using specific ``core areas'' for coho salmon and sought clarification

of NMFS' interpretation that coho salmon are rare in southern Oregon.

One commenter noted that coho salmon have not been documented recently

in Pilarcitos Creek (San Mateo County, California), and noted that

Stone Dam has blocked upstream areas for over 100 years. This commenter

believed that adverse hydrologic conditions and degraded habitat would

preclude this basin from playing a critical role in the species'

recovery. One commenter requested that NMFS specify that side channels

and off-channel wetlands are included in critical habitat, and that

beaver dams, alluvial deposits, and trees be identified as essential

features of coho salmon habitat. Another commenter noted that NMFS

misidentified Mill Valley Creek in San Francisco Bay; it is actually

named ``Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio'' on U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) maps. The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) questioned whether

Redwood Creek was identified as critical habitat for coho salmon.

Response: While the proposed rule described the lack of consistent

and robust data sets with which to discern the species' distribution at

a fine scale (62 FR 62741, November 25, 1997), NMFS believes that the

best available distribution information is sufficient to characterize

basin-level designations of critical habitat for the listed species.

The California and Oregon mapping efforts (e.g., ODFW's core area

assessment) cited in the proposed rule are nearing completion, but have

yet to reach final adoption and must be viewed as good, but tentative,

descriptions of areas occupied by or critical for coho salmon. NMFS

believes that these mapping efforts hold great promise for focusing

habitat protection and restoration efforts and will continue to use the

State's expertise to discern coho distribution when specific actions

warrant (e.g., during ESA section 7 consultations). However, the

limited data across the range of both ESUs, as well as dissimilarities

in data types within the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts

ESU, continue to make it difficult to define this species' distribution

at a finer scale than the USGS hydrologic units (i.e., basins)

identified in the proposed rule. Similarly, this limitation precludes

NMFS from restricting critical habitat to streams where restoration may

or may not be feasible.

NMFS' preferred approach to identifying critical habitat is to

designate all areas accessible to the species within the range of

hydrologic units in the range of 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 plentiful rainfall); and (3)

reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas and adjacent

riparian/upland areas. While unoccupied streams are excluded from

critical habitat, NMFS reiterates the proposed rule language that ``it

is important to note that habitat quality in this 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 coho in downstream reaches.''

In the proposed rule, NMFS noted that the ODFW considered coho

salmon ``rare'' in coastal streams draining the Siskiyou Mountains,

citing a recent ``Biennial Report on the Status of Wild Fish in Oregon

(ODFW, 1995). In fact, this report identifies 10 Oregon coho

populations in the range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coasts ESU (Elk, Rogue, Pistol, Chetco, and Winchuck Rivers, and

Hubbard, Brush, Mussel, Euchre, and Hunter Creeks). The report noted

that coho populations are currently located in the Rogue and Winchuck

River basins, but are ``very rare in the other coastal basins.''

Subsequent discussions with ODFW biologists has yielded additional,

site-specific information regarding coho salmon in several southern

Oregon streams, notably the Pistol and Chetco

[[Page 24053]]

Rivers. These discussions have raised the issue as to whether viable

populations still occur in these basins. Until this issue is resolved,

NMFS will continue to consider reaches accessible to coho salmon in

these and other basins as critical habitat for the species. If

additional information becomes available, NMFS will revise the critical

habitat designation for this ESU as appropriate.

Similarly, NMFS acknowledges that Pilarcitos Creek and other

coastal drainages may have little suitable habitat for coho salmon or

are rarely inhabited by the species (although information provided by

the commenter indicates that Pilarcitos Creek does contain habitat for

other salmonids and that the creek could be used by coho salmon

straying from other coastal streams). As noted previously, the paucity

of information regarding coho salmon 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 Pilarcitos Creek it is unclear whether the basin has

been monitored sufficiently 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 coho salmon. The key issue raised by these

and other commenters is whether activities in the Pilarcitos Creek

watershed and other coastal drainages could have an adverse effect on

the listed species. In streams where there is limited species

distribution information, NMFS biologists would make their best

professional judgement about the access, to and suitability of,

available habitat and what, if any, impacts would occur on 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 species

makes little use of a stream reach and the existing habitat conditions

are poor.

NMFS agrees with the statements by one commenter that beaver dams

and their associated habitat changes (e.g., channel flooding, and flow

and siltation changes) often create ideal conditions for coho salmon.

Some of the beneficial habitat effects from beaver activity include

improved rearing and overwintering habitat, increased water volumes

during low flows, and backwater habitat refuge areas during floods

(Swanston, 1991). NMFS will identify beaver removal as an activity

potentially requiring special management consideration, and encourages

landowners and agencies to promote beaver habitation as one means by

which to support coho salmon recovery. NMFS also agrees with this

commenter's assertion that side/off-channel habitats are important for

coho salmon and has retained reference to these habitats in this final

rule. However, NMFS has not specifically identified trees and alluvial

deposits as essential features because these habitat components are

already addressed in the proposed rule's list of essential features,

specifically the categories of substrate, cover/shelter, and riparian

vegetation (see Critical Habitat of California and Southern Oregon Coho

Salmon).

Finally, NMFS concurs that the San Francisco Bay stream ``Arroyo

Corte Madera Del Presidio'' was misidentified as Mill Valley Creek and

has corrected the error in this final rule. Also, NMFS clarifies for

NPS that the basin containing Redwood Creek (hydrologic unit #18010102)

is identified as containing critical habitat for the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coasts coho salmon ESU.

Adjacent Riparian Zones

Comment 6: While several commenters supported NMFS' proposal to

include the adjacent riparian zone as critical habitat, the vast

majority were against this approach. Many commenters noted the lack of

justification for including adjacent riparian zones of 300 ft (91.4

meters (m)) from each side of a stream in the critical habitat

proposal. Moreover, they 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 50-ft or 30-m width to

the riparian boundary, a site-potential tree height, and the 10-year

flood plain. One commenter correctly noted that NMFS' proposal

referenced a ``horizontal'' rather than ``slope'' distance, which was

inconsistent with the Northwest Forest Plan's (NFP's) riparian reserve

definition.

Response: NMFS agrees that the proposed rule did not adequately

describe the rationale for identifying adjacent riparian zones as part

of critical habitat. NMFS believes it is important to include these

areas 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 anadromous

salmonids have included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the

designation. In the final designations for Snake River spring/summer

chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye 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 ft (91.4 m) 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; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

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,

[[Page 24054]]

reduce organic litter and woody debris, increase water temperatures,

simplify stream channels, and increase peak flows. These adverse

modifications reduce the value of habitat for salmon and, in many

instances, may result in injury 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-ft (91.4 m) slope distance, a distance

equivalent to two site-potential tree heights, the outer edges of

riparian vegetation, the 100-year flood plain, or the area between the

edge of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge,

whichever is greatest. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) ultimately adopted these riparian reserve

criteria as part of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy aimed at

conserving fish, amphibians, and other aquatic-and riparian-dependent

species in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northwest Forest Plan

(NFP) (FEMAT ROD, 1994).

While NMFS has used the findings of the FEMAT report to guide its

analyses in ESA section 7 consultations with USFS and BLM regarding

management of Federal lands, NMFS recognizes that the interim riparian

reserves may be conservative with regard to the protection of adjacent

riparian habitat for salmonids since they are designed to protect

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 NFP, 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 m (98 ft) 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-m 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 indicate that riparian management widths designed to

protect one function in particular, recruitment of large woody debris,

are likely to be adequate to protect other key riparian functions. The

reviewed studies concluded that the vast majority of large woody debris

is obtained within one site-potential tree height from the stream

channel (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade et al., 1990; Robison and

Beschta, 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; FEMAT, 1993; and

Cederholm, 1994). Based on the available literature, Spence et al.

(1996) concluded that fully protected riparian management zones of one

site-potential tree would adequately maintain 90 to 100 percent of most

key riparian functions of Pacific Northwest forests if the goal was to

maintain instream processes over a time frame of years to decades.

Based on experience gained since the designation of critical

habitat for Snake River salmon and after considering public comments

and reviewing

[[Page 24055]]

additional scientific information regarding riparian habitats, NMFS is

re-defining coho salmon critical habitat based on key riparian

functions. Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the

area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade,

sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and

input of large woody debris or organic matter. Specific guidance on

assessing the potential impacts of land use activities on riparian

functions can be obtained by consulting with NMFS (see ADDRESSES),

local foresters, conservation officers, fisheries biologists, or county

extension agents.

The physical and biological features that create properly

functioning salmonid habitat vary throughout the range of coho salmon

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 coho

salmon. On Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl,

Federal agencies should continue to rely on the Aquatic Conservation

Strategy of the NFP to guide their consultations with NMFS. Where there

is a Federal action on non-Federal lands, Federal agencies should

consider the potential effects of the activities they fund, permit, or

authorize on the riparian zone adjacent to a stream that may influence

the following functions: shade, sediment delivery to the stream,

nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and the input of

large woody debris or organic matter. In areas where the existing

riparian zone is seriously diminished (e.g., in many urban settings and

agricultural settings where flood control structures are prevalent),

Federal agencies should focus on maintaining any existing riparian

functions and restoring others where appropriate; (e.g., 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 the 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 coho salmon 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 coho salmon habitat, Federal permitting agencies will

be required to ensure that the permitted action, regardless of whether

it occurs in the stream channel, adjacent riparian zone, or upland

areas, does not appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for

both the survival and recovery of the listed species or jeopardize the

species' continued existence. For other actions, landowners should

consider the needs of the listed fish and NMFS will assist them in

assessing the impacts of actions on listed fish.

Dams and Barriers

Comment 7: Several commenters requested that NMFS conduct a more

detailed analysis of areas above existing dams before concluding that

these areas do not constitute critical habitat. Some suggested that

NMFS consider installing fish ladders and passage facilities to allow

coho salmon access to areas historically occupied. Two commenters

requested that NMFS add additional dams to the lists of impassable

manmade structures; specifically, Phoenix Dam in the Corte Madera Creek

basin, California; and Willow Lake, Fish Lake, Agate Lake, Emigrant

Lake, and Selmac Lake Dams in Oregon's Rogue River basin. One commenter

provided information indicating that Matthews Dam in the Mad River

basin should be excluded from the list of barriers because coho salmon

historically never occupied the areas upstream. One commenter noted

that Peters Dam was completed in 1953, not 1940 as stated in the

proposed rule.

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)). As the proposed rule states, dams currently

block approximately 9 to 11 percent of the historic range of each ESU.

The six additional dams identified by two commenters do not add

significantly to these blocked percentages, and the ODFW stated that

the amount of blocked historic habitat above the five Oregon dams is

``thought to be low and not essential to maintaining or restoring coho

salmon in the Rogue River basin.'' While the blocked areas are

proportionally significant in certain basins, NMFS believes these areas

are not currently essential for the recovery of either ESU because an

array of habitat types (i.e., low and high gradient reaches) are still

accessible in downstream areas historically used by coho salmon.

NMFS has reviewed, and concurs with, the information submitted by

commenters requesting that six additional structures be added to the

list of dams/reservoirs representing the upstream extent of critical

habitat. Also, for the reasons presented by the commenter, NMFS agrees

that Matthews Dam should not be included in the list of dams within the

range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU. NMFS also

concurs with the corrections regarding the completion date for Peters

Dam and the naming of Seeger Dam (previously identified as Nicasio

Dam).

NMFS' intent in identifying specific dams in each ESU was to

clarify the upstream extent of known occupied reaches for each ESU 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 need to

include these blocked habitats in the recovery planning process and in

ESA section 7 consultations. If future analyses reveal that these areas

are essential for the

[[Page 24056]]

species' conservation or could contribute to an expedited recovery of

either ESU, NMFS will revise the critical habitat designation and

promote efforts to gain access to blocked habitats.

Marine Habitats

Comment 8: Numerous commenters questioned why NMFS had not

designated critical habitat in marine areas. Some recommended that NMFS

revise its designation based on the recent EFH recommendations which

include marine areas over portions of the continental shelf.

Response: NMFS is currently re-evaluating its previous

determination to exclude ocean areas as critical habitat for these

ESUs, in particular the issue of whether marine areas require special

management consideration or protection. If warranted, NMFS will revise

this designation to include specific marine areas as part of coho

salmon critical habitat.

Factors for the Species' Decline

Comment 9: Many commenters challenged the merits of the original

listings and felt that the true cause of the coho 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 these

coho populations is the result of human, rather than natural factors,

and will continue to encourage all efforts to protect and restore

imperiled salmon and their habitat. NMFS acknowledges that a multitude

of factors have contributed to the decline of coho salmon and has

described these factors in more detail in the listing determinations

for each ESU (61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997),

in technical status reviews for the species (Bryant 1994; Weitkamp et

al., 1995; NMFS 1997), 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 such uncontrollable natural events 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, and several commenters took exception to

NMFS' assertion that adverse modification of critical habitat is

equivalent to jeopardizing the listed species.

Response: On May 1, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule to define

the term ``harm'', which is contained in the definition of ``take'' in

the ESA (63 FR 24148). 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)). FWS has promulgated a regulation further defining the term

``harm'' to eliminate confusion concerning its meaning (50 CFR 17.3).

FWS' 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 Pacific salmon and anadromous trout stocks, potentially

affected parties have questioned whether NMFS also interprets ``harm''

to include habitat destruction. The May 1, 1998, proposed rule will, if

adopted, establish NMFS' interpretation of ``harm'' consistent with

that of FWS.

NMFS' proposed rule 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

(Compare 50 CFR 17.3). 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 proposed definition is reasonable for the conservation of the

habitats of listed species and is in keeping with Congress' intent

under the ESA. Public input has been solicited on this proposed

definition and a final rule will be published after taking all comments

into account.

With regard to comments on the ``adverse modification'' and

``jeopardy standards'', NMFS did not assert that adverse modification

of critical habitat is equivalent to jeopardizing listed species.

Section 7 of the ESA requires that Federal agencies refrain from

contributing to 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.

Implementing regulations define ``jeopardize the continued existence

of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification of'' in similar 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.'' 50

CFR 402.02. ``Destruction or adverse modification of'' means an

``alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat

for both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' 50 CFR

402.02. Using these definitions, Federal actions found to cause an

adverse modification are nearly always found to also jeopardize the

species concerned, and the existence of critical habitat designation

does not materially affect the outcome of consultation. Biological

opinions which conclude that a Federal agency action is likely to

adversely modify critical habitat but is not likely to jeopardize the

species for which it is designated are extremely rare historically;

none have been issued in recent years. However, a situation in which an

adverse modification did not result in jeopardy could arise. Such a

situation might involve a Federal action in critical habitat outside of

current range of the species, where the action would not reduce the

current reproduction, distribution, or numbers of the species, but

would appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for survival and

recovery.

Adequacy of Existing Conservation Plans and Efforts

Comment 11: Several commenters stated that existing management

plans and conservation initiatives were sufficient to protect coho

salmon and its 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

[[Page 24057]]

Critical Habitat). Moreover, NMFS considered existing regulatory

mechanisms and conservation plans applicable to Central California

Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho salmon and

their habitats in the final listing determinations (61 FR 56138,

October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997). 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 both 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 coho salmon's recovery and long-term survival. Species

listings and critical habitat designations under the ESA should in no

way hamper efforts to help coho salmon and other imperiled species in

the Pacific Northwest and California. NMFS encourages such efforts, as

evidenced by our involvement with an array of programs in the range of

both ESUs, including: helping to fund watershed coordinators through

the Oregon Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, working with

numerous Resource Conservation Districts and watershed restoration

efforts (including the Mattole River Restoration Council, and the

Salmon, South Fork Trinity, Shasta, and Scott River Coordinated

Resource Management Plans), participating in the development of

California's recovery and strategic management plans for coastal

salmonids, working with the California Governor's Biodiversity Councils

and assisting with implementation of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and

Watersheds (OPSW). NMFS recognizes the significant benefits that will

accrue to salmon as a result of these efforts. In fact, NMFS has

promulgated interim protection regulations (i.e., ESA 4(d) rule) that

provide specific exceptions for the significant harvest, hatchery,

habitat restoration, and monitoring efforts contained in the OPSW and

other efforts currently underway in the range of the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coasts ESU (62 FR 38479). All parties interested in

obtaining technical assistance in support of salmon conservation (or

other information related to NMFS' ESA activities) are encouraged to

contact NMFS field office personnel in Roseburg, Oregon, and in Eureka,

Long Beach, and Santa Rosa, California (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT).

Tribal Lands

Comment 12: On June 3, 1998, the Hoopa Valley Tribe (HVT)

specifically requested that NMFS not designate critical habitat on

their reservation and that NMFS waive ESA section 7 consultation

requirements when the tribe has a plan in place which protects fish

habitat and meets the requirements of the Secretarial Order entitled

``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,

and the Endangered Species Act'' on June 5, 1997 (Secretarial Order).

Response: The unique and distinctive relationship between the

United States and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes,

executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, that

differentiates tribes from the other entities that deal with, or are

affected by, the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise

to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the legal

responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian

tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with

respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of

tribal rights. 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 Secretarial Order entitled ``American

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the

Endangered Species Act'' on June 5, 1997 (Secretarial Order). The

Secretarial Order clarifies the responsibilities of NMFS and FWS 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 requirements of the Secretarial Order and in

response to written and verbal comments provided by the Hoopa Valley

Tribe (HVT) and other tribes in California, as well as the Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA), NMFS engaged several tribes in government-to-

government consultation concerning the inclusion of tribal lands in the

final critical habitat designation for coho salmon. Prior to initiating

government-to-government consultation, NMFS reviewed available

information from the BIA and concluded that the tribal lands most

likely to be affected by a final critical habitat designation for coho

salmon were the Yurok Reservation, Hoopa Valley Reservation, Karuk

Reservation, and the Round Valley Reservation, all of which are located

in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU. The major river

basins containing these reservation lands and listed coho salmon

populations are the Klamath, Trinity, and Eel River basins.

Accordingly, NMFS' government-to-government consultation efforts

concerning coho salmon critical habitat were focused on these tribes.

In addition to these larger tribal reservations, there are a large

number of smaller Indian rancherias located in both the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coasts and Central California Coast ESUs

which could potentially be affected, depending on their specific

locations.

As part of the government-to-government consultation process called

for in the Secretarial Order, NMFS solicited written comments from the

Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe of California, HVT, and the Round Valley Tribe

regarding the inclusion of tribal lands in the final critical habitat

designation, and also met with representatives from each tribe to

discuss the issue and their concerns in greater detail. In the course

of these discussions, each tribe expressed its opposition to the

inclusion of tribal lands in the final critical habitat designation.

The Yurok Tribe expressed its support for the recovery of coho salmon

and other non-listed species, but felt that its current resource

management plans and practices already promoted the conservation and

recovery of these species. They were also concerned that designating

tribal lands as critical habitat would place an additional burden upon

the Tribe, but recognized that impacts to critical habitat would only

be considered in the course of section 7 consultations. Similarly, HVT

expressed its support for coho salmon recovery, but argued that its

existing resource management plans and other efforts already contribute

to the recovery of coho salmon and other species on the reservation,

and more

[[Page 24058]]

than compensate for the small impact that tribal activities have on the

listed species when compared with non-tribal activities in the Trinity

River basin (e.g., Federal water project operations, timber harvest,

etc). In its view, NMFS should give deference to tribal management

efforts in accordance with the Secretarial Order and thereby recognize

the contribution that tribal management makes for the recovery of

listed coho salmon. In addition, the tribe asserted that including

tribal lands in the critical habitat designation would infringe on its

sovereignty and was inconsistent with the approach taken by FWS when it

excluded HVT lands from the critical habitat designation for the

marbled murrelet.

Based on a consideration of the Federal Government's trust

responsibilities to Indian tribes, particularly as addressed in the

Secretarial Order, and following government-to-government consultation

with affected Indian tribes, NMFS has determined that tribal lands

should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation for coho

salmon. Although NMFS continues to believe that habitat on tribal lands

which is currently accessible to coho salmon is important for the long-

term survival and recovery of the species, we believe that ESA section

7 consultations through BIA and other Federal agencies, in combination

with the continued development and implementation of tribal resource

management programs that support coho salmon conservation represent an

alternative to designating critical habitat that will result in a

proportionate and essential contribution to coho salmon conservation

that is also consistent with the goals of the Secretarial Order.

The tribal lands (reservations or rancherias) which are excluded

from the final critical habitat designation for coho salmon are

identified in Tables 5 (Central California Coast ESU) and 6 (Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU) by individual USGS hydrologic

unit. Excluded tribal lands in the Central California Coast ESU

include: the Cloverdale Rancheria, Coyote Valley Rancheria, Dry Creek

Rancheria, Guidiville Rancheria, Hopland Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria,

Manchester/Point Arena Rancheria, Pinoleville Rancheria, and Stewarts

Point Rancheria. Excluded tribal lands in the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast ESU include: the Big Lagoon Rancheria, Blue Lake

Rancheria, Elk Valley Rancheria, Hoopa Valley Reservation, Karuk

Reservation, Laytonville Rancheria, Quartz Valley Reservation,

Resighini Rancheria, Round Valley Reservation, Sherwood Valley

Rancheria, Smith River Rancheria, and Yurok Reservation.

Consistent with the provisions of the Secretarial Order, NMFS will

respect the exercise of tribal sovereignty over the management of

Indian lands and tribal trust resources, and give deference to tribal

conservation and management plans for tribal trust resources to the

extent that they address the conservation needs of coho salmon or other

listed species. NMFS is currently engaged in a programmatic ESA section

7 consultation with BIA and a government-to-government consultation

with HVT regarding its Forest Management Plan (FMP) and its associated

standards and guidelines. Through these consultation processes, NMFS is

working with HVT and BIA to determine the effects of FMP implementation

on coho salmon and its habitat, including adjacent riparian and upslope

habitat, as well as to ensure that FMP implementation on tribal lands

supports the conservation of coho salmon.

Agencies Affected by Critical Habitat Designation

Comment 13: NPS requested that NMFS include them as an agency

affected by the critical habitat designation due to the fact that they

manage and fund salmonid restoration projects at Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Redwood National and

State Parks. The U.S. Department of Interior requested that the Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and FEMA be identified as well,

because both agencies can conduct or authorize activities that alter

coho salmon critical habitat. In addition, they requested that NMFS

identify an ``emergency communications network'' which would allow NMFS

to provide these agencies with fisheries technical expertise during

cleanups associated with floods and other emergencies.

Response: NMFS has reviewed, and concurs with, the information

submitted by both commenters and will add the NPS, NRCS, and FEMA to

the list of affected agencies.

NMFS agrees with the commenters requesting that guidelines be

established so that emergency response agencies (e.g., FEMA) can avoid

adversely modifying critical habitat during their mitigation actions

after a natural disaster. To that end, NMFS is in contact with the NRCS

and is giving input on their Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement on Emergency Watershed Protection actions. NMFS hopes that

through such input it will be able to help establish a strong set of

guidelines for protecting critical habitat when a natural disaster

strikes and immediate action must be taken to protect human life and

property. Further, it is NMFS' position that with such a set of

guidelines in place, there will be no reason for NMFS to become

involved in making on-the-ground decisions regarding disaster

mitigation actions. The guidelines will protect critical habitat in

advance and, in most cases, thereby take the place of the difficult and

potentially time-consuming process of emergency consultation. Thus, the

guidelines themselves will largely obviate the need for an emergency

communications network.

Changes to the Proposed Rule

Based on comments and new information received on the proposed

rule, NMFS is modifying the final critical habitat designation for

these two ESUs as follows:

(1) Phoenix, Willow Lake, Fish Lake, Agate Lake, Emigrant Lake, and

Selmac Lake Dams have been added to the list of dams/reservoirs

representing the upstream extent of critical habitat for these ESUs.

(2) Matthews Dam is removed from the list of dams/reservoirs

representing the upstream extent of critical habitat for the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU.

(3) Nicasio Dam is corrected to ``Seeger Dam.''

(4) Mill Valley Creek is corrected to ``Arroyo Corte Madera Del

Presidio.''

(5) Adjacent riparian zones have been re-defined and are now based

on a functional (rather than quantitative) description.

(6) NPS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NRCS, FEMA, and BIA

have been included as agencies affected by the critical habitat

designation.

(7) Beaver removal, diking, and streambank stabilization have been

identified as activities that may require special management

consideration.

(8) Tribal lands in northern California are excluded from the

critical habitat designations.

Critical Habitat of California and Southern Oregon Coho Salmon

Biological information for listed coho salmon can be found in NMFS'

species status reviews (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995; NMFS,

1997), species life history summaries (Shapavalov and Taft, 1954;

Laufle et al., 1986; Hassler, 1987; Anderson, 1995; Sandercock, 1991),

and in Federal Register notices of proposed and final listing

determinations (59 FR 21744, April 26, 1994; 60 FR 38011, July 25,

1995; 61 FR

[[Page 24059]]

56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997).

The current geographic range of coho salmon from the Oregon and

California coasts includes vast areas of the North Pacific ocean,

nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine areas. The

marine distribution south of Punta Gorda, California, appears to

encompass a relatively narrow, nearshore strip approximately 100 km

wide (Taft, 1937; Shapovalov and Taft, 1954; Laufle et al., 1986; NOAA,

1990; Weitkamp et al., 1995). North of Punta Gorda, the distribution

widens to encompass nearly all marine areas north of 41 deg. latitude

(Wright, 1968; Godfrey et al., 1975; NOAA, 1990). Major rivers,

estuaries, and bays known to support coho salmon within the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU include the Rogue River, Smith

River, Klamath River, Mad River, Humboldt Bay, Eel River, and Mattole

River. Within the range of the Central California Coast ESU, major

rivers, estuaries, and bays include the Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro,

Garcia, Gualala, and Russian Rivers, and Tomales and San Francisco Bays

(Emmett et al., 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992; Brown and Moyle, 1991;

Bryant, 1994; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1994;

Weitkamp et al., 1995). Many smaller coastal rivers and streams in each

ESU also provide essential estuarine habitat for coho salmon, but

access is often constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrologic

conditions.

Any attempt to describe the current distribution of coho salmon

must take into account the fact that extant populations and densities

are a small fraction of historical levels. All coho salmon stocks in

the Central California Coast ESU are extremely depressed relative to

past abundance and there are limited data to assess population numbers

or trends. The main coho salmon stocks in this region are from the Ten

Mile River, Big River, Nolo River, Navarro River, Garcia River, Gualala

River, Russian River, Lagunitas Creek, Waddell Creek, and Scott Creek.

Several of these stocks are heavily influenced by hatcheries and,

apparently, have little natural production in mainstem reaches.

Historically, coho salmon abundance within this region was estimated

from 50,000 to 125,000 native coho salmon. Presently, coho salmon

abundance within this region is estimated to be less than 5,000

naturally reproducing fish, and a vast majority of these are considered

to be hatchery origin fish (Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bryant, 1994; CDFG,

1994).

All coho salmon stocks between Punta Gorda and Cape Blanco in the

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU are also depressed

relative to past abundance, and there are limited data to assess

population numbers or trends currently. The main coho salmon stocks in

this region are from the Rogue, Klamath, and Trinity Rivers, and the

latter two are heavily influenced by hatcheries and have little natural

production in mainstem reaches. Other important stocks within this ESU

include the Winchuck, Chetco, Smith, Mad, Elk, Eel, and the Mattole

Rivers. Historically, coho salmon abundance within this region was

estimated from 150,000 to 400,000 native fish. Presently, abundance is

estimated to be less than 30,000 naturally reproducing coho salmon, and

a vast majority of these (roughly 20,000) are considered to be hatchery

origin fish (Brown and Moyle, 1991, Bryant, 1994; CDFG, 1994; Weitkamp

et al., 1995).

Within the range of both ESUs, the species' life cycle can be

separated into five essential habitat types: (1) Juvenile summer and

winter rearing areas ; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for

growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; and

(5) spawning areas. Areas 1 and 5 are often located in small headwater

streams and side channels, while areas 2 and 4 include these

tributaries as well as mainstem reaches and estuarine zones. Growth and

development to adulthood (area 3) occurs primarily in near-and off-

shore marine waters, although final maturation takes place in

freshwater tributaries when the adults return to spawn. Within these

areas, essential features of coho salmon 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 coho salmon ESUs

and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is

not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of

these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these

environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed

to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by

CDFG, 1965; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead

Trout, 1988; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991; Nehlsen et

al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; California State Lands Commission,

1993; Botkin et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996b; and Spence et al., 1996.

NMFS believes that the current range of the species encompasses all

essential habitat features and is adequate to ensure the species'

conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat areas outside the

species' current range (i.e., historical habitats above the 17 dams

identified in Tables 5 and 6) is not necessary. For reasons described

earlier in this document, NMFS has revised its designation of

freshwater and estuarine critical habitat to include riparian areas

that provide the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or

chemical regulation, streambank stability, and input of large woody

debris or organic matter. It is important to note that 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 coho in downstream reaches. Marine habitats

(i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward of the mouth of coastal

rivers) are also vital to the species, and ocean conditions are

believed to have a major influence on coho salmon survival (see review

in Pearcy, 1992). Although NMFS has not included the ocean as critical

habitat in this final rule, the agency will be re-evaluating this issue

and may propose including specific marine zones for each ESU in a

separate Federal Register document.

The regulatory descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU can be

found at the end of this Federal Register document.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

To ensure that the essential areas and features are maintained or

restored, special management may be needed. Activities that may require

special management considerations for freshwater and estuarine life

stages of listed coho salmon 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 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. No special management

considerations have been identified for listed coho salmon while

[[Page 24060]]

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 coho salmon 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 listing determinations for each ESU

(61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997). These

activities include water and land management actions of Federal

agencies (i.e., USFS, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Federal

Highway Administration (FHA), NRCS, NPS, BIA, and the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC)) and related or similar actions of other

federally regulated projects and lands, including livestock grazing

allocations by the USFS and BLM; hydropower sites licensed by the FERC;

dams built or operated by COE or BOR; timber sales conducted by the

USFS and BLM; road building activities authorized by the FHA, USFS,

BLM, and NPS; and mining and road building activities authorized by the

states of California and Oregon. Other actions of concern include

dredge and fill, mining, diking, and bank stabilization activities

authorized or conducted by COE, habitat modifications authorized by the

FEMA, and approval of water quality standards and pesticide labeling

and use restrictions administered by EPA.

The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this

critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, COE, FHA,

NRCS, NPS, BIA, FEMA, EPA, and FERC. This designation will provide

these agencies, private entities, and the public with clear

notification of critical habitat designated for listed coho salmon and

the boundaries of the habitat and protection provided for that habitat

by the ESA section 7 consultation process. This designation will also

assist these agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of

their activities on listed coho salmon and their critical habitat and

in determining if consultation with NMFS is needed.

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 coho salmon 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 coho 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.

Change in Designation of Critical Habitat and Need for Correction

In the proposed rule issued on November 25, 1997, (62 FR 62741),

Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts

coho salmon ESUs were added to part 226, subpart C as Secs. 226.24 and

226.25 respectively. Since November 25, NMFS has issued a final rule

(64 FR 140525, March 23, 1999) consolidating and reorganizing existing

regulations regarding implementation of the ESA. In this final rule,

critical habitat designations for the Central California Coast and

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESUs have been added as

Sec. 226.210 paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.

This document also corrects the date for the USGS citation for

Hydrologic units as defined by the Department of the Interior (DOI),

U.S. Geological Survey contained in Sec. 226.23. The final rule

consolidating and reorganizing existing regulations regarding

implementation of the ESA (64 FR 14052, March 23, 1999) also

redesignated Sec. 226.23 as Sec. 226.206.

References

The complete citations for the references used in this document can

be obtained by contacting Garth Griffin, NMFS (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT).

Classification

NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of 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).

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

NMFS is designating only the current range of these coho salmon

ESUs as critical habitat. Given the affinity of this species to spawn

in small streams, this current range encompasses a wide range of

habitat, including small tributary reaches, as well as mainstem, off-

channel and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this designation

include historically-occupied areas above 17 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 section 7(a)(2)). The

consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA 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 action on local businesses, organizations, and governments.

Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of

Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration with the proposed rule that, if adopted, this

rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. NMFS received two comments, addressed above,

concerning this certification. These comments did not result in any

change regarding the certification. As a result, no final Regulatory

Flexibility Act analysis was prepared.

[[Page 24061]]

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: April 28, 1999.

Penelope D. Dalton,

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.

Sec. 226.206 [Corrected]

2. In Sec. 226.206(a), in the fourth sentence, remove ``1986'' and

add in its place, ``1987''.

3. Section 226.210 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 226.210 Central California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch), Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed coho within the range of the ESUs listed, except

for reaches on Indian lands defined in Tables 5 and 6 to this part.

Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent

riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches in hydrologic units and

counties identified in Tables 5 and 6 to this part for all of the coho

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 coho salmon. 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 5 and 6 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 and

State of California, 1978 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 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.

(a) Central California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches accessible

to listed coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern California south to

the San Lorenzo River in central California, including Arroyo Corte

Madera Del Presidio and Corte Madera Creek, tributaries to San

Francisco Bay. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and

adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches (including

off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and counties identified in

Table 5 of this part. Accessible reaches are those within the

historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied by any life

stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above specific

dams identified in Table 5 of this part or above longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence

for at least several hundred years).

(b) Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical habitat is designated to include all

river reaches accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape Blanco,

Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the

water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine

reaches (including off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and

counties identified in Table 6 of this part. Accessible reaches are

those within the historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied

by any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above

specific dams identified in Table 6 of this part or above longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence

for at least several hundred years).

3. Tables 5 and 6 are added to part 226 to read as follows: Table 5

to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat

for Central California Coast Coho Salmon, Tribal Lands within the Range

of the ESU, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of

Critical Habitat

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counties and tribal lands

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic contained in hydrologic unit Dams (reservoirs)

unit No. and within the range of ESU1

------------------------------------------------------------------2---------------------------------------------

San Lorenzo-Soquel................... 18060001 Santa Cruz (CA), San Mateo Newell Dam (Loch Lomond).

(CA).

San Francisco Coastal South.......... 18050006 San Mateo (CA)...............

San Pablo Bay........................ 18050002 Marin (CA), Napa (CA)........ Phoenix Dam (Phoenix Lake).

Tomales-Drake Bays................... 18050005 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)...... Peters Dam (Kent Lake);

Seeger Dam (Nicasio

Reservoir).

Bodega Bay........................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)......

Russian.............................. 18010110 Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA)-- Warm Springs Dam (Lake

Cloverdale Rancheria; Coyote Sonoma); Coyote Dam (Lake

Valley Rancheria; Dry Creek Mendocino).

Rancheria; Guidiville

Rancheria; Hopland

Rancheria; Lytton Rancheria;

Pinoleville Rancheria;

Stewarts Point Rancheria.

Gualala-Salmon....................... 18010109 Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA)..

Big-Navarro-Garcia................... 18010108 Mendocino (CA)-- Manchester/

Point Arena Rancheria;.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical

habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and

basin boundaries.

2 Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.

Table 6 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing

Critical Habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho

Salmon, Tribal Lands within the Range of the ESU, and Dams/Reservoirs

Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.

[[Page 24062]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counties and tribal lands

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic contained in hydrologic unit Dams (reservoirs)

unit No. and within the range of ESU1

------------------------------------------------------------------2---------------------------------------------

Mattole.............................. 18010107 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino (CA)

South Fork Eel....................... 18010106 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt

(CA)--Laytonville Rancheria;

Sherwood Valley Rancheria.

Lower Eel............................ 18010105 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt

(CA), Trinity (CA).

Middle Fork Eel...................... 18010104 Mendocino (CA), Trinity (CA),

Glenn (CA), Lake (CA)--Round

Valley Reservation.

Upper Eel............................ 18010103 Mendocino (CA), Glenn (CA), Scott Dam (Lake Pillsbury).

Lake (CA).

Mad-Redwood.......................... 18010102 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)--

Big Lagoon Rancheria; Blue

Lake Rancheria.

Smith................................ 18010101 Del Norte (CA), Curry (OR)--

Elk Valley Rancheria; Smith

River Rancheria.

South Fork Trinity................... 18010212 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)..

Trinity.............................. 18010211 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)-- Lewiston Dam (Lewiston

Hoopa Valley Reservation. Reservoir).

Salmon............................... 18010210 Siskiyou (CA)................

Lower Klamath........................ 18010209 Del Norte (CA), Humboldt

(CA), Siskiyou (CA)--Karuk

Reservation; Resighini

Rancheria; Yurok Reservation.

Scott................................ 18010208 Siskiyou (CA)--Quartz Valley

Reservation.

Shasta............................... 18010207 Siskiyou (CA)................ Dwinnell Dam (Dwinnell

Reservoir).

Upper Klamath........................ 18010206 Siskiyou (CA), Jackson (OR).. Irongate Dam (Irongate

Reservoir).

Chetco............................... 17100312 Curry (OR), Del Norte (CA)...

Illinois............................. 17100311 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR), Selmac Lake Dam (Lake

Del Norte (CA). Selmac).

Lower Rogue.......................... 17100310 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR),

Jackson (OR).

Applegate............................ 17100309 Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR), Applegate Dam (Applegate

Siskiyou (CA). Reservoir).

Middle Rogue......................... 17100308 Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR). Emigrant Lake Dam (Emigrant

Lake).

Upper Rogue.......................... 17100307 Jackson (OR), Klamath (OR), Agate Lake Dam (Agate Lake);

Douglas (OR). Fish Lake Dam (Fish Lake);

Willow Lake Dam (Willow

Lake); Lost Creek Dam (Lost

Creek Reservoir).

Sixes................................ 17100306 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.

2 Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.

[FR Doc. 99-11187 Filed 5-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P