Designated Critical Habitat: Proposed Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 990429112-9112-01; I.D. 040899A]

RIN 0648-AM58

Designated Critical Habitat: Proposed Critical Habitat for the

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

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

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; and notification of public

hearings.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to designate critical habitat for the Oregon

Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant

Unit (ESU) previously listed as a threatened species under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed critical habitat occurs in

Oregon coastal river basins between Cape Blanco and the Columbia River.

The areas described in this proposed rule represent the current

freshwater and estuarine range inhabited by the ESU. Freshwater

critical habitat includes all waterways and substrates below

longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural

[[Page 24999]]

waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) and several

dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats. The economic and

other impacts resulting from this critical habitat designation are

expected to be minimal.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed Oregon Coast coho salmon

critical habitat designation must be received by July 9, 1999. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and times of public hearings.

Requests for specific locations or additional public hearings must be

received by June 24, 1999.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for locations of public

hearings. Written comments on this proposed rule or requests for

additional public hearings or reference materials should be sent to

Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525

NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; telefax (503)

230-5435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, (503) 231-2005, or

Chris Mobley, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The history of petitions received regarding coho salmon is

summarized in the proposed rule published on July 25, 1995 (60 FR

38011). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by the Pacific

Rivers Council and by 22 co-petitioners on October 20, 1993. In

response to that petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific

and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific

Salmon Biological and Technical Committees (PSBTCs) in Washington,

Oregon, and California. The PSBTCs consisted of scientists from

Federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes,

universities, industries, professional societies, and public interest

groups with technical expertise relevant to coho salmon. NMFS also

established a Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff from its

Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional Office, which

conducted a coastwide status review for coho salmon (Weitkamp et al.,

1995; NMFS, 1997).

Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other

information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a

proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) that

identified six ESUs of coho salmon, ranging from southern British

Columbia to central California. The Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coasts ESU, and Central California Coast ESU were

proposed for listing as threatened species, and the Olympic Peninsula

ESU was found not to warrant listing. The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia

ESU and the lower Columbia River/southwest Washington Coast ESU were

identified as candidates for listing. NMFS is in the process of

completing status reviews for the latter two ESUs; results and findings

for both will be announced in an upcoming Federal Register document.

On August 10, 1998, NMFS issued a final rule listing the Oregon

coast coho salmon ESU as a threatened species (63 FR 42587). Section

4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and

determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently with a

determination that a species is endangered or threatened. At the time

of the final listing, NMFS found that critical habitat was not

determinable for this ESU. However, NMFS has compiled and reviewed the

relevant information and now determines that sufficient information

exists to propose designating critical habitat for the Oregon Coast

ESU. NMFS will consider all available information and data in

finalizing this proposal.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i)

the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species

* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I)

essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require

special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific

areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon

a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as defined in

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

methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered

species or threatened species to the point at which the measures

provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.''

In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following

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

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

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

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

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

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of this species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to these

factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological

features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that

are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require

special management considerations or protection. These essential

features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food

resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (50 CFR

424.12(b)).

Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document refers

to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused

with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat

pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation

have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS

identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify

the area(s) being considered or that may be affected by a designation.

An area may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS

determines that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits

of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of

the species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).

The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental

impacts resulting specifically from a critical habitat designation,

above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the

species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species

under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in

many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical

habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself,

are minimal. In general, the designation of critical habitat highlights

geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection

resulting from the listing itself.

Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the

``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated

regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA means ``to harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm can

occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or not

designated as critical) that significantly

[[Page 25000]]

impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or

migration (63 FR 24148, May 1, 1998).

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself,

restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific

management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation

contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important

areas and by describing the features within those areas that are

essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to

the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a

critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7.

Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g.,

authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not

affect exclusively state or private activities.

Under the ESA section 7 provisions, a designation of critical

habitat would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are

defined as those actions that ``appreciably diminish the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and recovery'' of the species

(50 CFR 402.02). Regardless of a critical habitat designation, Federal

agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of the listed species. Activities that

jeopardize a species are defined as those actions that ``reasonably

would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species'' (50

CFR 402.02). Using these definitions, activities that are likely to

destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would also be likely to

jeopardize the species. Therefore, the protection provided by a

critical habitat designation generally duplicates the protection

provided under the section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may

provide additional benefits to a species in cases where areas outside

the species' current range have been designated. Federal agencies are

required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (50 CFR 402.14(a)), when

these designated areas may be affected by their actions. The effects of

these actions on designated areas may not have been recognized but for

the critical habitat designation.

A designation of critical habitat provides Federal agencies with a

clear indication as to when consultation under section 7 of the ESA is

required, particularly in cases where the proposed action would not

result in 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, state, and private conservation and management

efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special

considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation

regulations that restrict private as well as Federal activities. The

economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the

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

critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and local

authorities, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian lands protection,

may also benefit critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three

main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are

evaluated, and essential habitat areas and features are identified. If

alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the

species, such alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for

special management considerations or protection of the area(s) or

features identified are evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and

other impacts of designating these essential areas as ``critical

habitat'' are evaluated. After considering the requirements of the

species, the need for special management, and the impacts of the

designation, a notification of the proposed critical habitat is

published in the Federal Register for comment. The final critical

habitat designation is promulgated after considering all comments and

any new information received on the proposal. Final critical habitat

designations may be revised, using the same process, as new information

becomes available.

A description of the essential habitat, need for special

management, impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed

action are described in the following sections.

Critical Habitat of the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

The Oregon Coast ESU is identified as all naturally spawned

populations of coho salmon in coastal streams south of the Columbia

River and north of Cape Blanco (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995). Biological

information for Oregon Coast coho salmon can be found in species status

assessments by NMFS (Weitkamp et al., 1995; NMFS, 1997) and by the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Nickelson et al., 1992;

Kostow, 1995; and Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI),

1997), and in species life history summaries by Laufle et al., 1986,

Emmett et al., 1991, and Sandercock, 1991 and in the proposed rule

Federal Register document (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995).

More than one million coho salmon are believed to have returned to

Oregon coastal rivers in the early 1900s (Lichatowich, 1989), the bulk

of them originating in this ESU. Current production is estimated to be

less than 10 percent of historical levels. ODFW recognizes at least 80

coho salmon populations within the range of this ESU (Kostow, 1995).

Spawning is distributed over a relatively large number of basins, both

large and small, with the bulk of the production being skewed to the

southern portion of the ESU's range. There, the coastal lake systems

(e.g., the Tenmile, Tahkenitch, and Siltcoos Basins) and the Coos and

Coquille Rivers have been particularly productive for coho salmon.

Major hydrologic units inhabited by this ESU include the Necanicum,

Nehalem, Wilson-Trask-Nestucca, Siletz-Yaquina, Alsea, Siuslaw,

Siltcoos, Umpqua, Coos, Coquille, and Sixes River Basins. Within these

basins, numerous small streams, tributaries, and off-channel areas

provide important habitat for coho salmon.

Defining specific river reaches that are critical for coho salmon

is difficult because of the current low abundance of the species and of

our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater distribution,

both current and historical. For example, ODFW has conducted systematic

spawner surveys for the species since the 1950's and has noted that

fish are often widely scattered in

[[Page 25001]]

larger basins and that marginal habitats may only be inhabited during

years of high abundance (Kostow, 1995). Several recent efforts have

been made to characterize the species' status and distribution in

Oregon (Emmett et al., 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992; The Wilderness

Society, 1993; Kostow, 1995; Weitkamp et al., 1995; and OCSRI, 1997) or

to identify watersheds important to at-risk populations of salmonids

and resident fishes (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT), 1993). Key among these is the ODFW effort (OCSRI, 1997) to

develop a series of maps depicting ``core areas'' for coho salmon and

other species. These core areas are defined as ``reaches or watersheds

within individual coastal basins that are judged to be of critical

importance to the sustenance of salmon populations that inhabit those

basins'' (OCSRI, 1997) and are derived from 1:100,000 U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit maps. The areas depicted are primarily

river reaches where best available data or professional judgement

indicate high concentrations of spawning or rearing coho salmon. Within

the range of the Oregon Coast ESU, more than 80 areas have been

identified as draft core areas, the vast majority of which are located

in the larger river basins. Notably missing are core areas for smaller

coastal streams which comprise approximately half of the populations in

the ESU (but a small fraction of the overall ESU production). While

NMFS believes that this mapping effort holds great promise to focus

habitat protection and restoration efforts, the core areas are still in

a draft stage and include only a subset of the areas that NMFS believes

are critical habitat for coho salmon (i.e., they do not specifically

identify migration corridors or essential habitat for populations in

smaller streams).

Based on consideration of the best available information regarding

the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred

approach to identifying critical habitat for this ESU is to designate

all areas accessible to any life stage of the species within the range

of specified river basins. NMFS believes that adopting a more

inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is

appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' extensive use of

diverse habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the

habitat types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life

stages; (2) takes into account the natural variability in habitat use

that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g., some streams/reaches may

have fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall); and (3)

reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas and adjacent

riparian/upslope areas.

While NMFS is proposing to focus on accessible river reaches, it is

important to note that habitat quality is intrinsically related to the

quality of upland areas and upstream areas (including headwater or

intermittent streams) which provide key habitat elements (e.g., large

woody debris, gravel, water quality) crucial for coho salmon in

downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine habitats are

critical for coho salmon and has included them in this designation.

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

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

may have a major influence on its survival. However, NMFS is still

evaluating whether these areas currently warrant consideration as

critical habitat, particularly whether marine areas require special

management consideration or protection. Therefore, NMFS is not

proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this time.

If additional information becomes available that supports the inclusion

of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.

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 the Oregon Coast ESU and the

diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is not

practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of these

essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these

environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed

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

Barnhart, 1986, Pauley et al., 1986, California Advisory Committee on

Salmon and Steelhead Trout (CACSST), 1988, Bjornn and Reiser, 1991,

Nehlsen et al., 1991, California State Lands Commission, 1993, Reynolds

et al., 1993, Botkin et al., 1995, McEwan and Jackson, 1996, NMFS,

1996a, and Spence et al., 1996.

Adjacent Riparian Zones

NMFS' past critical habitat designations for listed anadromous

salmonids have included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the

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

chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye (58 FR 68543, December 28, 1993),

NMFS included the adjacent riparian zone as part of critical habitat

and defined it in the regulation as those areas within a horizontal

distance of 300 feet (91.4 meters) from the normal high water line. In

the critical habitat designation for Sacramento River winter run

chinook (58 FR 33212, June 16, 1993), NMFS included ``adjacent riparian

zones'' as part of the critical habitat but did not define the extent

of that zone in the regulation. The preamble to that rule stated that

the adjacent riparian zone was limited to ``those areas that provide

cover and shade.''

Streams and stream functioning are inextricably linked to adjacent

riparian and upland (or upslope) areas. Streams regularly submerge

portions of the riparian zone via floods and channel migration, and

portions of the riparian zone may contain off-channel rearing habitats

used by juvenile salmonids during periods of high flow. The riparian

zone also provides an array of important watershed functions that

directly benefit salmonids. Vegetation in the zone shades the stream,

stabilizes banks, and provides organic litter and large woody debris.

The riparian zone stores sediment, recycles nutrients and chemicals,

mediates stream hydraulics, and controls microclimate. Healthy riparian

zones help ensure water quality essential to salmonids as well as the

forage species they depend on (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979; Meehan, 1991;

FEMAT, 1993; and Spence et al., 1996). Human activities in the adjacent

riparian zone, or in upslope areas, can harm stream function and can

harm salmonids, both directly and indirectly, by interfering with the

watershed functions described here. For example, timber harvest, road-

building, grazing, cultivation, and other activities can increase

sediment, destabilize banks, reduce organic litter and woody debris,

increase water temperatures, simplify stream channels, and increase

peak flows. These adverse modifications reduce the value of habitat for

salmon and, in many instances, may result in injury or mortality of

fish. Because human activity may adversely affect these watershed

functions and habitat features, NMFS concluded the adjacent riparian

zone could require special management consideration, and, therefore,

was appropriate for inclusion in critical habitat.

The Snake River salmon critical habitat designation relied on

analyses and conclusions reached by FEMAT (1993) regarding interim

riparian reserves for fish-bearing streams on Federal lands within the

range of the

[[Page 25002]]

northern spotted owl. The interim riparian reserve recommendations in

the FEMAT report were based on a systematic review of the available

literature, primarily for forested habitats, concerning riparian

processes as a function of distance from stream channels. The interim

riparian reserves identified in the FEMAT report for fish-bearing

streams on Federal forest lands are intended to (1) provide protection

to salmonids, as well as riparian-dependent and associated species,

through the protection of riparian processes that influence stream

function, and (2) provide a high level of fish habitat and riparian

protection until site-specific watershed and project analyses can be

completed. The FEMAT report identified several alternative ways that

interim riparian reserves providing a high level of protection could be

defined, including the 300-foot (91.4 meter) slope distance, a distance

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

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

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

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

of Land Management (BLM) ultimately adopted these riparian reserve

criteria as part of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy aimed at

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

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

(FEMAT ROD, 1994).

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

analyses in ESA section 7 consultations with the USFS and BLM regarding

management of Federal lands, NMFS recognizes that the interim riparian

reserves may be conservative with regard to the protection of adjacent

riparian habitat for salmonids since they are designed to protect

salmonids as well as terrestrial species that are riparian dependent or

associated. Moreover, NMFS' analyses have focused more on the stream

functions important to salmonids and on how proposed activities will

affect the riparian area's contribution to properly functioning

conditions for salmonid habitat.

Since the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan, NMFS has gained

experience working with Federal and non-Federal landowners to determine

the likely effects of proposed land management actions on stream

functions. In freshwater and estuarine areas, these activities include,

but are not limited to, agriculture; forestry; grazing; bank

stabilization; construction/urbanization; dam construction/operation;

dredging and dredged spoil disposal; habitat restoration projects;

irrigation withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral mining; road

building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining; wastewater/pollutant

discharge; wetland and floodplain alteration; and woody debris/

structure removal from rivers and estuaries. NMFS has developed

numerous tools to assist Federal agencies in analyzing the likely

impacts of their activities on anadromous fish habitat. With these

tools, Federal agencies are better able to judge the impacts of their

actions on salmonid habitat, taking into account the location and

nature of their actions. NMFS' primary tool guiding Federal agencies is

a document titled ``Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of

Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale''

(NMFS, 1996b). This document presents guidelines to facilitate and

standardize determinations of ``effect'' under the ESA and includes a

matrix for determining the condition of various habitat parameters.

This matrix is being implemented in several northern California and

Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to help guide efforts to

define salmonid risk factors and conservation strategies throughout the

West Coast.

Several recent literature reviews have addressed the effectiveness

of various riparian zone widths for maintaining specific riparian

functions (e.g., sediment control, large woody debris recruitment) and

overall watershed processes. These reviews provide additional useful

information about riparian processes as a function of distance from

stream channels. For example, Castelle et al., 1994 conducted a

literature review of riparian zone functions and concluded that

riparian widths in the range of 30 meters (98 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-meter (98 ft) riparian management

zone for salmonid protection.

A recent assessment funded by NMFS and several other Federal

agencies reviewed the technical basis for various riparian functions as

they pertain to salmonid conservation (Spence et al., 1996). These

authors suggest that a functional approach to riparian protection

requires a consistent definition of riparian ecosystems based on

``zones of influence'' for specific riparian processes. They noted that

in constrained reaches where the active channel remains relatively

stable through time, riparian zones of influences may be defined based

on site-potential tree heights and distance from the active channel. In

contrast, they note that, in unconstrained reaches (e.g., streams in

broad valley floors) with braided or shifting channels, the riparian

zone of influence is more difficult to define, but recommend that it is

more appropriate to define the riparian zone based on some measure of

the extent of the flood plain.

Spence et al., 1996 reviewed the functions of riparian zones that

are essential to the development and maintenance of aquatic habitats

favorable to salmonids and the available literature concerning the

riparian distances that would protect these functional processes. Many

of the studies reviewed indicate that riparian management widths

designed to protect one function in particular, recruitment of large

woody debris, are likely to be adequate to protect other key riparian

functions. The reviewed studies concluded that the vast majority of

large woody debris is obtained within one site-potential tree height

from the stream channel (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade et al., 1990;

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

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

1996 concluded that fully protected riparian management zones of one

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

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

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

Based on experience gained since the designation of critical

habitat for Snake River salmon and after considering public comments

and reviewing additional scientific information regarding riparian

habitats, NMFS defines 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

[[Page 25003]]

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 Northwest Forest Plan to guide their consultations with

NMFS. Where there is a Federal action on non-Federal lands, Federal

agencies should consider the potential effects of the activities they

fund, permit, or authorize on the riparian zone adjacent to a stream

that may influence the following functions: shade, sediment delivery to

the stream, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and

the input of large woody debris or organic matter. In areas where the

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

settings and agricultural settings where flood control structures are

prevalent), Federal agencies should focus on maintaining any existing

riparian functions and restoring others where appropriate by

cooperating with local watershed groups and landowners. NMFS

acknowledges in its description of riparian habitat function that

different land use types (e.g., timber, urban, and agricultural) will

have varying degrees of impact and that activities requiring a Federal

permit will be evaluated on the basis of disturbance to the riparian

zone. In many cases the evaluation of an activity may focus on a

particular limiting factor for a watercourse (e.g., temperature, stream

bank erosion, sediment transport) and whether that activity may or may

not contribute to improving or degrading the riparian habitat.

Finally, NMFS emphasizes that a designation of critical habitat

does not prohibit landowners from conducting actions that modify

streams or the adjacent terrestrial habitat. Critical habitat

designation serves to identify important areas and essential features

within those areas, thus alerting both Federal and non-Federal entities

to the importance of the area for listed salmonids. Federal agencies

are required by the ESA to consult with NMFS to ensure that any action

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes

the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the

listed species. The designation of critical habitat will assist Federal

agencies in evaluating how their actions on Federal or non-Federal

lands may affect listed 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.

Barriers Within the Species' Range

Within the range of the Oregon Coast ESU, coho salmon face a

multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile and adult fish

to essential freshwater habitats. In some cases these are natural

barriers (e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity barriers) that

have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years. Some pose an

obvious physical barrier to any anadromous salmonids while others may

only be surmountable during years when extreme river conditions (e.g.,

floods) provide passage.

Man-made barriers created in the past several decades can create

significant problems for anadromous salmonids (California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG), 1965; CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al.,

1995; and National Research Council, 1996). The extent of barriers such

as culverts and road crossing structures that impede or block fish

passage appears to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence

surveys conducted in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey

season, nearly 15 percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due

to human barriers, principally road culverts (OCSRI, 1997). Pushup

dams/diversions and irrigation withdrawals also present significant

barriers or lethal conditions (e.g., stranding, high water

temperatures) to coho salmon. However, because these manmade barriers

can, under certain flow conditions, be surmounted by fish or present

only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS does not consider them to

delineate the upstream extent of critical habitat.

Since man-made impassable barriers are widely distributed

throughout the range of the ESU, they can have a major downstream

influence on coho salmon. Such impacts may include (1) depletion and

storage of natural flows which can drastically alter natural

hydrological cycles; (2) increased juvenile and adult mortality due to

migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or habitat

blockages; (3) loss of sufficient habitat due to delay and blockage;

(4) stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow fluctuations; (5)

entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or unscreened diversions;

and (6) increased mortality resulting from increased water temperatures

(CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991; Reynolds et al.,

1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; and NMFS, 1996a). In

addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively affect fish

habitats in some areas due to increased deposition of fine sediments in

spawning gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and

spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic

vegetation into spawning and rearing areas resulting in reduced

available habitat (CASST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and

NMFS, 1996a). These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed

through ESA section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.

Several hydropower and water storage projects have been built which

either block access to areas used historically by coho salmon or alter

the hydrograph of downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified several

dams within the range of the Oregon Coast ESU that currently have no

fish passage facilities to allow coho salmon access to former spawning

and rearing habitats (see Table 27 to this part). While these blocked

areas are potentially significant in certain basins (e.g., areas above

several dams in the Umpqua River basin), NMFS believes that currently

accessible habitat may be sufficient for the conservation of the ESU.

NMFS has concluded that the potential for restoring access to former

spawning and rearing habitat above currently impassable man-made

barriers is a significant factor to be considered in determining

whether such habitat is essential for the conservation of species. NMFS

solicits comments and scientific information on this issue and will

consider such information prior to

[[Page 25004]]

issuing any final critical habitat designation. This may result in the

inclusion of areas above some man-made impassable barriers in a future

critical habitat designation.

In the range of this ESU, at least one hydropower dam (e.g., Soda

Springs Dam) is undergoing or is scheduled for relicensing by the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NMFS will evaluate

information developed during the process of relicensing to determine

whether fish passage facilities are needed at such dams to restore

access to historically available habitat. Even though habitat above

such barriers is not currently designated as critical, this conclusion

does not foreclose the potential importance of restoring access to

these areas. Therefore, NMFS will determine on a case-by-case basis

during FERC relicensing proceedings whether fish passage facilities

will be required to provide access to habitat that is essential for the

conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Land Ownership Within the Species' Range

Table 27 to this part summarizes the major river basins inhabited

by the Oregon Coast ESU, as well as counties containing basins

designated as critical habitat. Major river basins containing spawning

and rearing habitat for this ESU comprise approximately 10,606 square

miles in Oregon. The following counties lie partially or wholly within

these basins: Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson,

Josephine, Lane, Lincoln, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill.

NMFS has also derived estimates of land ownership for each of the major

river basins in the range of this ESU. Due to data limitations which

prevent mapping the precise river reaches inhabited by coho salmon, the

ownership estimates were based on land area within entire river basins.

Aggregating all basins in the Oregon Coast ESU yields ownership

estimates of approximately 35 percent Federal, 9 percent state/local,

56 percent private/other, and less than 1 percent tribal lands. These

data underscore that all landholders have a role to play in protecting

and restoring coho salmon and their habitat in the Oregon Coast ESU.

Critical Habitat and Indian Lands

The unique and distinctive political relationship between the

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

executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and

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

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

to a special Federal trust responsibility, involving the legal

responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian

tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with

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

tribal rights.

Indian lands (Indian lands are defined in the Secretarial Order of

June 5, 1997, as ``any lands title to which is either: (1) held in

trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or

individual; or (2) held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to

restrictions by the United States against alienation'') were retained

by tribes or have been set aside for tribal use pursuant to treaties,

statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders, or agreements. These

lands are managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and

objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.

As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship

described here and implementing the Presidential Memorandum of April

24, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American

Tribal Governments, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the

Interior issued the Secretarial Order entitled ``American Indian Tribal

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered

Species Act'' on June 5, 1997. The Secretarial Order clarifies the

responsibilities of NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Services) when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires

that they consult with, and seek the participation of, the affected

Indian tribes to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order

further provides that the Services ``shall consult with the affected

Indian tribe(s) when considering the designation of critical habitat in

an area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee

lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be

designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve

a listed species.''

NMFS has determined that the Indian tribes potentially affected by

a critical habitat designation for the Oregon Coast ESU include the

Siletz Tribe, Cow Creek Tribe, Coquille Tribe, and Coos/Lower Umpqua/

Siuslaw Tribe. The major river basins containing reservation lands are

identified in Table 27 to this part. NMFS has not yet identified

tribally owned fee lands or other areas where designation of critical

habitat may impact tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal

rights. NMFS will identify any such lands during government-to-

government consultation with affected tribes.

NMFS will notify and work with these tribes in accordance with the

agency's trust responsibilities and the Secretarial Order concerning

critical habitat designation in this ESU, but the agency is not

proposing to designate critical habitat on the described tribal lands

at this time. In addition, tribally owned fee lands and other areas

where critical habitat designation may impact the exercise of tribal

rights or trust resources may be identified and included or excluded

from critical habitat designation in a subsequent action. If any such

lands are determined to be essential to conserve listed coho salmon,

such lands may be designated critical habitat in a subsequent action.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their

features, and special management considerations will be needed

(especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership) to ensure

that the essential areas and features are maintained or restored.

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. Activities that are conducted on private or state lands that

are not federally permitted or funded, are not subject to any

additional regulations under this proposed rule. However, non-Federal

landowners should be aware that any significant habitat modifications

that could adversely affect listed fish, could result in a ``taking''

(i.e., harming or killing) of the listed species, which is prohibited

under section 9 of the ESA. While marine areas are also a critical link

in the species' life cycle, NMFS has not yet concluded that special

management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features

in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas (and

their adjacent

[[Page 25005]]

riparian zones) are being proposed for critical habitat at this time.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat

requirements of listed coho salmon and other salmonids. More in-depth

discussions are contained in the Federal Register documents announcing

the proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) as well

as NMFS' document entitled ``Steelhead Factors for Decline: A

Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead''

(NMFS, 1996a). These activities include water and land management

actions of Federal agencies (i.e., USFS, BLM, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps), Federal Highway Administration (FHA), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natural Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS), and FERC and related or similar actions of other

federally regulated projects and lands including livestock grazing

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

built or operated by the Corps; timber sales conducted by the USFS and

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

mining and road building activities authorized by the State of Oregon.

Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, diking, and

bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the Corps, and

habitat modifications authorized by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA). Additionally, actions of concern could include approval

of water quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions

administered by EPA.

The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this

critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, Corps, FHA, NRCS,

FEMA, EPA, and FERC. This designation will provide clear notification

to these agencies, private entities, and the public of critical habitat

designated for Oregon Coast coho salmon and of the boundaries of the

habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7

consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies

and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on

coho salmon and their critical habitat and in determining if

consultation with NMFS is needed.

Expected Economic Impacts

The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat

designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation

above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to

authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other

Factors). Incremental impacts result from special management activities

in those areas, if any, outside the present distribution of the listed

species that NMFS has determined to be essential to the conservation of

the species. For the Oregon Coast ESU, 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 this ESU

as critical habitat, the designation will result in few, if any,

additional economic effects beyond those that may have been caused by

listing and by other statutes.

USFS and BLM manage areas of proposed critical habitat for the

Oregon Coast ESU. The Corps and other Federal agencies that may be

involved with funding or permits for projects in critical habitat areas

may also be affected by this designation. Because NMFS believes that

virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations pertaining to

critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy'' conclusions under

ESA section 7 consultations (i.e., as a result of the species being

listed), the designation of critical habitat is not expected to result

in significant incremental restrictions on Federal agency activities.

Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result in few, if any,

additional economic effects beyond those that may have been caused by

the ESA listing and by other statutes.

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments

and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.

NMFS requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality and

extent of marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (including

adjacent riparian zones) for juvenile and adult coho salmon as well as

information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat in coastal

Oregon. Areas that include the physical and biological features

essential to the recovery of the species should be identified.

Essential features include, but are not limited to, (1) habitat for

individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food,

water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological

requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and

rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from

disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and

ecological distributions of the species. NMFS is also requesting

information regarding coho salmon distribution and habitat requirements

within the range of Indian lands identified in this proposal and

whether these lands should be considered essential for the conservation

of the listed species or whether recovery can be achieved by limiting

the designation to other lands.

NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries

of the ESU that historically constituted coho salmon habitat but may

not be currently occupied. NMFS requests information about coho salmon

in these currently unoccupied areas and whether these habitats should

be considered essential to the recovery of the species or excluded from

designation.

For areas where natural barriers are believed to pose a migration

barrier for the species, NMFS specifically requests data and analyses

concerning the following: (1) Historic accounts indicating coho salmon

or other anadromous salmonids occurred above the barrier; (2) data or

reports analyzing the likelihood that coho salmon or other anadromous

salmonids would migrate above the barrier; and (3) other information

indicating that a particular barrier is or is not naturally impassable

to anadromous salmonid migration. NMFS will evaluate all new

information received concerning this issue and will reconsider this

issue in its final critical habitat designation.

For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is

requesting the following information: (1) The activities that affect

the area or could be affected by the designation and (2) the economic

costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures

likely to result from the designation. The economic cost to be

considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the

probable economic impact ``of the [critical habitat] designation upon

proposed or ongoing activities'' (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider

the incremental costs resulting specifically from a critical habitat

designation that are above the economic effects attributable to listing

the species. Economic effects attributable to listing include actions

resulting from section 7 consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy

to the species and from the taking prohibitions under section 9 of

[[Page 25006]]

the ESA. Comments concerning economic impacts should distinguish the

costs of listing from the incremental costs that can be directly

attributed to the designation of specific areas as critical habitat.

NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information

regarding critical habitat of the Oregon Coast ESU and complete a final

rule as soon as practicable. The availability of new information may

cause NMFS to reassess the proposed critical habitat designation of

this ESU.

Public Hearings

Joint Department of Commerce and Interior ESA implementing

regulations state that the Secretaries shall promptly hold at least one

public hearing if any person so requests within 45 days of publication

of a proposed regulation to list species or to designate critical

habitat (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Public hearings on the proposed rule

provide the opportunity for the public to give comments and to permit

an exchange of information and opinion among interested parties. NMFS

encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

The public hearings on this action are scheduled as follows:

1. Monday, May 24, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Tillamook County

Courthouse, Commissioners Conference Room, 201 Laurel Avenue,

Tillamook, Oregon.

2. Tuesday, May 25, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Umpqua Discovery

Center, 409 Riverfront Way, Reedsport, Oregon.

3. Wednesday, May 26, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Douglas County

Courthouse, Room 216, 1036 SE Douglas Avenue, Roseburg, Oregon.

4. Thursday, May 27, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Eugene City Hall,

Council Chambers, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon.

These hearings are physically accessible to people with

disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other aids

should be directed to Garth Griffin (see ADDRESSES) by 7 days prior to

each meeting date.

Requests for specific locations or additional public hearings must

be received by June 24, 1999 (see ADDRESSES).

References

A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing

the range of listed coho salmon ESUs are available upon request (see

ADDRESSES) or via the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

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

this critical habitat designation 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 proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of the Oregon

Coast ESU as critical habitat. Given the affinity of this species to

spawn in small tributaries, this current range encompasses a wide range

of habitat, including headwater streams, as well as mainstem, off-

channel, and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this proposed

designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and

historically occupied areas above 6 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 ensure that any action they carry out, authorize,

or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

listed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation

requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the

time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with

NMFS and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize a listed species,

regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.

In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat

areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation

and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action

and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis

would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of

the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and

governments.

Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of

Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration that the proposed critical habitat designation,

if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information

requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: May 4, 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

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533

Secs. 226.211--226.214 [Added and reserved]

2. Sections 226.211 through 226.214 are added and reserved.

3. Section 226.215 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 226.215 Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed coho salmon within the range of this ESU, except

for reaches on Indian lands defined in Table 27 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 Table 27 to 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

longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls

in existence for at least several hundred years) and specific dams

within the historical range of the ESU identified in Table 27 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 by the following DOI,

USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit map: State of Oregon (1974),

which is 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

[[Page 25007]]

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) Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical

habitat is designated to include all river reaches accessible to listed

coho salmon from coastal streams south of the Columbia River and north

of Cape Blanco, Oregon. 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 27 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 27 of this part or above

longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls

in existence for at least several hundred years).

(b) [Reserved]

Tables 7 through 26 to this part [Added and reserved]

4. Tables 7 through 26 to this part are added and reserved.

5. Table 27 is added to part 226 to read as follows:

Table 27 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Oregon 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 and Dams

unit No. within the Range of ESU 1, 2

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

Necanicum................................ 17100201 Clatsop (OR), Tillamook (OR).....

Nehalem.................................. 17100202 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR),

Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR).

Wilson-Trask-Nestucca.................... 17100203 Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR), McGuire Dam.

Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR),

Yamhill (OR).

Siletz-Yaquina........................... 17100204 Benton (OR), Lincoln (OR), Polk

(OR), Tillamook (OR); Siletz

Tribe.

Alsea.................................... 17100205 Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Lincoln

(OR).

Siuslaw.................................. 17100206 Benton (OR), Douglas (OR), Lane

(OR).

Siltcoos................................. 17100207 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR)..........

North Umpqua............................. 17100301 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR).......... Cooper Creek Dam; Soda Springs Dam.

South Umpqua............................. 17100302 Coos (OR), Douglas (OR), Jackson Ben Irving Dam; Galesville Dam.

(OR), Josephine (OR); Cow Creek

Tribe.

Umpqua................................... 17100303 Coos (OR), Douglas (OR), Lane

(OR).

Coos..................................... 17100304 Coos (OR), Douglas (OR); Coos, Lower Pony Creek Dam.

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribe;

Coquille Tribe.

Coquille................................. 17100305 Coos (OR), Curry (OR), Douglas

(OR).

Sixes.................................... 17100306 Coos (OR), Curry (OR)............

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

1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS

hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.

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

[FR Doc. 99-11696 Filed 5-7-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P