Designated Critical Habitat: Proposed Critical Habitat for Nine Evolutionarily Significant Units of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 990128036-9036-01; I.D. 033198A]

RIN 0648-AG49

Designated Critical Habitat: Proposed Critical Habitat for Nine

Evolutionarily Significant Units of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon,

Idaho, and California

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

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to designate critical habitat for nine

evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss) previously listed and currently proposed for listing under the

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

States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The areas

described in this proposed rule represent the current freshwater and

estuarine range inhabited by the ESU. Freshwater critical habitat

includes all waterways and substrates below longstanding, naturally

impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least

several hundred years) and several dams that block access to former

anadromous habitats. The economic and other impacts resulting from this

critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1999. Requests for public

hearings must be received by March 22, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule or requests for reference

materials should be sent to Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division,

NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR

97232-2737; telefax (503) 230-5435.

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

Wingert, (562) 980-4021, or Chris Mobley, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 20, 1993, NMFS announced its intent to conduct a status

review to identify all coastal steelhead ESU(s) within California,

Oregon, and Washington and to determine whether any identified ESU(s)

warranted listing under the ESA. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994,

NMFS received a petition from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and

from 15 co-petitioners to list all steelhead (or specific ESUs, races,

or stocks) within the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and

Idaho. In response to this petition, NMFS announced the expansion of

its status review to include inland steelhead populations occurring in

eastern Washington and Oregon and the State of Idaho (59 FR 27527, May

27, 1994).

On August 9, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 10 ESUs

of west coast steelhead as threatened or endangered under the ESA; NMFS

solicited comments on the proposal (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996). In

this document, NMFS concluded that the Middle Columbia River ESU

warranted classification as a candidate species since NMFS was

concerned about the status of steelhead in this area, but lacked

sufficient information to merit a proposed listing, and that the Upper

Willamette River steelhead ESU did not warrant listing, based on

available scientific information.

On August 18, 1997, NMFS published a final rule listing five ESUs

as threatened and endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate

document published on the same day,

[[Page 5741]]

NMFS determined that substantial scientific disagreement remained for

five proposed ESUs (62 FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In accordance with

section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred its decision on these

remaining steelhead ESUs for 6 months, until February 9, 1998, for the

purpose of soliciting additional data. By court order, NMFS' deadline

for issuing determinations on these five remaining ESUs was extended to

March 13, 1998.

On March 10, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule to list the Upper

Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs as threatened species

(63 FR 11798). On March 19, 1998, NMFS published a final rule to list

the Lower Columbia River and Central Valley, California, ESUs as

threatened species (63 FR 13347). NMFS now proposes critical habitat

for all nine currently listed and proposed steelhead ESUs.

Critical Habitat

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

prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently

with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS

has determined that sufficient information exists to propose

designating critical habitat for the nine ESUs of steelhead previously

listed and currently proposed for listing under the ESA. NMFS will

consider all available information and data in finalizing this

proposal.

The use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document

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

confused with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish

Habitat pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

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

Definition of Critical Habitat

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

``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the

species * * * on which are found those physical or biological features

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

require special management considerations or protection; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species *

* * upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential

for the conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as

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

of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any

endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the

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

In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following

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

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

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

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

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

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

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

factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological

features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that

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

special management considerations or protection. These essential

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

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

424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation

have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS

identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify

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

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

determines that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits

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

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

The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental

impacts resulting specifically from a critical habitat designation,

above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the

species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species

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

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

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

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

geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection

resulting from the listing itself.

Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the

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

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

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

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

occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or not

designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential behaviors,

including breeding, feeding, rearing or migration (63 FR 24148, May 1,

1998).

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

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

restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific

management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation

contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important

areas and by describing the features within those areas that are

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

the area's importance. The only regulatory impact of a critical habitat

designation is through the provisions of section 7 of the ESA. Section

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

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

exclusively state or private activities.

Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat

would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they

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

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are

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

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

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

agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of the listed species. Activities that

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

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

likelihood of both the survival and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR

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

or adversely modify critical habitat would also be likely to jeopardize

the species. Therefore, the protection provided by a critical habitat

designation generally duplicates the protection provided under the

section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may provide additional

benefits to a species in cases where areas outside the species' current

range have been designated. Federal agencies are required to consult

with NMFS under section 7 (50 CFR 402.14(a)), when these designated

areas

[[Page 5742]]

may be affected by their actions. The effects of these actions on

designated areas may not have been recognized but for the critical

habitat designation.

A designation of critical habitat provides Federal agencies with a

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

required, particularly in cases where the proposed action would not

result in direct mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed

species (e.g., an action occurring within the critical habitat area

when a migratory species is not present). The critical habitat

designation, in describing the essential features of the habitat, also

helps determine which activities conducted outside the designated area

are subject to section 7 (i.e., activities outside critical habitat

that may affect essential features of the designated area).

A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in

planning future actions because the designation establishes, in

advance, those habitats that will be given special consideration in

section 7 consultations. With a designation of critical habitat,

potential conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or

threatened species can be identified and possibly avoided early in an

agency's planning process.

Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it

helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management

efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special

considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation

regulations that restrict private as well as Federal activities. The

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

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

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

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

may also benefit critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three

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

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

alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the

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

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

features identified are evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and

other impacts of designating these essential areas as ``critical

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

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

designation, a notification of the proposed critical habitat is

published in the Federal Register for comment. The final critical

habitat designation is promulgated after considering all comments and

any new information received on the proposal. Final critical habitat

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

becomes available.

A description of the essential habitat, need for special

management, impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed

action are described in the following sections.

Critical Habitat of Steelhead ESUs

Biological information for steelhead can be found in NMFS species

status reviews (Busby et al., 1996), species life history summaries

(Shapavalov and Taft, 1954; Barnhart, 1986; Pauley et al., 1986; Groot

and Margolis, 1991), and in Federal Register announcements of proposed

and final listing determinations (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR

43937, August 18, 1997; 63 FR 11798, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March

19, 1998). Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the

North Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the

northern Baja Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends

from the Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of

North America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There

are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as

the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan and Jackson,

1996). The species' marine distribution south of Punta Gorda,

California, appears to encompass a relatively narrow, nearshore strip

less than 100 kilometers (km) wide (NOAA, 1990). North of Punta Gorda,

the distribution widens to encompass nearly all marine areas north of

42 deg. N latitude in the North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Alaska (NOAA,

1990). Any attempt to describe the current distribution of steelhead

must take into account the fact that many extant populations and

densities are a small fraction of historical levels. Hence, some

populations considered extinct could in fact exist but be represented

by only a few individuals that could escape detection during surveys.

In the Central California Coast ESU, the major populations are

found in the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers. In the South-Central

California Coast ESU, major rivers include the Big Sur, Carmel, Little

Sur, Pajaro, and Salinas Rivers. In the Southern California Coast ESU,

major rivers include Malibu Creek and the Santa Clara, Santa Ynez, and

Ventura Rivers. Within the range of the California Central Valley ESU,

major tributaries supporting steelhead in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

River Basins include the American, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne,

Tuolumne, and Yuba Rivers, as well as numerous smaller tributaries.

The Columbia River serves as a migration corridor as well as an

important estuary for all of the listed or proposed steelhead ESUs in

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Major tributaries known to support

steelhead in the Upper Columbia River ESU include the Entiat, Methow,

Okanogan, and Wenatchee Rivers. In the Snake River Basin ESU, major

tributaries include the Clearwater, Grande Ronde, Salmon, Selway, and

Tucannon Rivers. In the Middle Columbia River ESU, major tributaries

include the Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, Umatilla, and Yakima

Rivers. In the Lower Columbia River ESU, major tributaries include the

Clackamas, Cowlitz, Hood, Kalama, Lewis, Sandy, Washougal, and Wind

Rivers. Finally, in the Upper Willamette River ESU, major tributaries

known to support steelhead include the Molalla and Santiam Rivers.

In addition to the rivers identified, many smaller rivers and

streams in each ESU also provide important habitat for steelhead, but

access is often constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrological

conditions.

Defining specific river reaches that are critical for steelhead is

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

our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater distribution,

both current and historical. The latter is due, in large part, to the

lack of comprehensive sampling effort dedicated to monitoring the

species. Based on consideration of the best available information

regarding the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the

preferred approach to identifying critical habitat for steelhead is to

designate all areas accessible to the species within the range of

specified river basins in each ESU. NMFS believes that adopting a more

inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is

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

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

habitat types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life

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

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

fish present only in years with

[[Page 5743]]

plentiful rainfall); and (3) reinforces the important linkage between

aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.

While NMFS is proposing to focus on accessible (i.e., fish bearing)

river reaches, it is important to note that habitat quality is

intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and upstream areas

(including headwater or intermittent streams) which provide key habitat

elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality) crucial for

steelhead in downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine

habitats are critical for steelhead and has included them in this

designation. Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward

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

ocean conditions may have a major influence on steelhead survival.

However, NMFS is still evaluating whether these areas currently warrant

consideration as critical habitat, particularly whether marine areas

require special management consideration or protection. Therefore, NMFS

is not proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this

time. If additional information becomes available that supports the

inclusion of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.

Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems,

thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids.

Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing

dwindling steelhead run sizes. NMFS recently published a report

describing the impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals

upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and

California (NMFS, 1997). This report concludes that, in certain cases

where pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid

populations, salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to

predation. An example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington,

where sea lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult

winter steelhead. This study further concludes that data regarding

pinniped predation is quite limited and that substantial additional

research is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on

the seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to

warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where

pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997).

Essential features of steelhead critical habitat include adequate

(1) substrate; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4) water

temperature; (5) water velocity; (6) cover/shelter; (7) food; (8)

riparian vegetation; (9) space; and (10) safe passage conditions. Given

the vast geographic range occupied by each of these steelhead ESUs and

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

practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of these

essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these

environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed

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

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

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

Nehlsen et al. (1991), California State Lands Commission (1993),

Reynolds et al. (1993), Botkin et al. (1995), McEwan and Jackson

(1996), NMFS (1996), and Spence et al. (1996).

An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their

features, and special management considerations will be needed,

especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership (see Activities

That May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special Management

Considerations or Protection). While marine areas are also a critical

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

special management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat

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

(and their adjacent riparian zones) are being proposed for critical

habitat at this time.

Adjacent Riparian Zones

NMFS' past critical habitat designations for listed anadromous

salmonids have included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the

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

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

NMFS included the adjacent riparian zone as part of critical habitat

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

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

the critical habitat designation for Sacramento River winter run

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

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

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

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

cover and shade.''

Streams and stream functioning are inextricably linked to adjacent

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

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

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

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

zone also provides an array of important watershed functions that

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

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

The riparian zone stores sediment, recycles nutrients and chemicals,

mediates stream hydraulics, and controls microclimate. Healthy riparian

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

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

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

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

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

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

building, grazing, cultivation, and other activities can increase

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

increase water temperatures, simplify stream channels, and increase

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

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

fish. Because human activity may adversely affect these watershed

functions and habitat features, NMFS concluded the adjacent riparian

zone could require special management consideration, and, therefore,

was appropriate for inclusion in critical habitat.

The Snake River salmon critical habitat designation relied on

analyses and conclusions reached by the Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team (FEMAT, 1993) regarding interim riparian reserves for

fish-bearing streams on Federal lands within the range of the northern

spotted owl. The interim riparian reserve recommendations in the FEMAT

report were based on a systematic review of the available literature,

primarily for forested habitats, concerning riparian processes as a

function of distance from stream channels. The interim riparian

reserves identified in the FEMAT report for fish-bearing streams on

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

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

through the protection of riparian processes that influence stream

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

protection until

[[Page 5744]]

site-specific watershed and project analyses can be completed. The

FEMAT report identified several alternative ways that interim riparian

reserves providing a high level of protection could be defined,

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

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

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

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

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

of Land Management (BLM) ultimately adopted these riparian reserve

criteria as part of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy aimed at

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

species in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT

ROD, 1994).

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

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

management of Federal lands, NMFS recognizes that the interim riparian

reserves may be conservative with regard to the protection of adjacent

riparian habitat for salmonids since they are designed to protect

salmonids as well as terrestrial species that are riparian dependent or

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

functions important to salmonids and on how proposed activities will

affect the riparian area's contribution to properly functioning

conditions for salmonid habitat.

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

experience working with Federal and non-Federal landowners to determine

the likely effects of proposed land management actions on stream

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

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

stabilization; construction/urbanization; dam construction/operation;

dredging and dredged spoil disposal; habitat restoration projects;

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

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

discharge; wetland and floodplain alteration; and woody debris/

structure removal from rivers and estuaries. NMFS has developed

numerous tools to assist Federal agencies in analyzing the likely

impacts of their activities on anadromous fish habitat. With these

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

actions on salmonid habitat, taking into account the location and

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

a document titled ``Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of

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

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

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

matrix for determining the condition of various habitat parameters.

This matrix is being implemented in several northern California and

Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to help guide efforts to

define salmonid risk factors and conservation strategies throughout the

West Coast.

Several recent literature reviews have addressed the effectiveness

of various riparian zone widths for maintaining specific riparian

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

overall watershed processes. These reviews provide additional useful

information about riparian processes as a function of distance from

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

literature review of riparian zone functions and concluded that

riparian widths in the range of 30 meters (98 feet) appear to be the

minimum needed to maintain biological elements of streams. They also

noted that site-specific conditions may warrant substantially larger or

smaller riparian management zones. Similarly, Johnson and Reba (1992)

summarized the technical literature and found that available

information supported a minimum 30-meter riparian management zone for

salmonid protection.

A recent assessment funded by NMFS and several other Federal

agencies reviewed the technical basis for various riparian functions as

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

authors suggest that a functional approach to riparian protection

requires a consistent definition of riparian ecosystems based on

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

in constrained reaches where the active channel remains relatively

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

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

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

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

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

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

the extent of the flood plain.

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

are essential to the development and maintenance of aquatic habitats

favorable to salmonids and the available literature concerning the

riparian distances that would protect these functional processes. Many

of the studies reviewed indicate that riparian management widths

designed to protect one function in particular, recruitment of large

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

functions. The reviewed studies concluded that the vast majority of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on experience gained since the designation of critical

habitat for Snake River salmon and after considering public comments

and reviewing additional scientific information regarding riparian

habitats, NMFS defines steelhead critical habitat based on key riparian

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

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

sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and

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

assessing the potential impacts of land use activities on riparian

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

local foresters, conservation officers, fisheries biologists, or county

extension agents.

The physical and biological features that create properly

functioning salmonid habitat vary throughout the range of steelhead and

the extent of the adjacent riparian zone may change accordingly

depending on the landscape under consideration. While a site-potential

tree height can serve as a reasonable benchmark in some cases, site-

specific analyses provide the best means to characterize the adjacent

riparian zone because such analyses are more likely to accurately

capture the unique attributes of a particular landscape. Knowing what

may be a limiting factor to the properly functioning condition of a

stream channel on a land use or land type basis

[[Page 5745]]

and how that may or may not affect the function of the riparian zone

will significantly assist Federal agencies in assessing the potential

for impacts to listed steelhead. On Federal lands within the range of

the northern spotted owl, Federal agencies should continue to rely on

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan to guide

their consultations with NMFS. Where there is a Federal action on non-

Federal lands, Federal agencies should consider the potential effects

of the activities they fund, permit, or authorize on the riparian zone

adjacent to a stream that may influence the following functions: shade,

sediment delivery to the stream, nutrient or chemical regulation,

streambank stability, and the input of large woody debris or organic

matter. In areas where the existing riparian zone is seriously

diminished (e.g., in many urban settings and agricultural settings

where flood control structures are prevalent), Federal agencies should

focus on maintaining any existing riparian functions and restoring

others where appropriate, for example, by cooperating with local

watershed groups and landowners. NMFS acknowledges in its description

of riparian habitat function that different land use types (e.g.,

timber, urban, and agricultural) will have varying degrees of impact

and that activities requiring a Federal permit will be evaluated on the

basis of disturbance to the riparian zone. In many cases the evaluation

of an activity may focus on a particular limiting factor for a water

course (e.g., temperature, stream bank erosion, sediment transport) and

whether that activity may or may not contribute to improving or

degrading the riparian habitat.

Finally, NMFS emphasizes that a designation of critical habitat

does not prohibit landowners from conducting actions that modify

streams or the adjacent terrestrial habitat. Critical habitat

designation serves to identify important areas and essential features

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

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

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

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

adversely modify critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes

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

listed species. The designation of critical habitat will assist Federal

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

lands may affect listed steelhead and determining when they should

consult with NMFS on the impacts of their actions. When a private

landowner requires a Federal permit that may result in the modification

of steelhead habitat, Federal permitting agencies will be required to

ensure that the permitted action, regardless of whether it occurs in

the stream channel, adjacent riparian zone, or upland areas, does not

appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the

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

continued existence. For other actions, landowners should consider the

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

impacts of actions.

Barriers Within the Species' Range

Within the range of all threatened or endangered ESUs, steelhead

face a multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile and

adult fish to essential freshwater habitats. In some cases these are

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

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

pose an obvious physical barrier to any anadromous salmonids (e.g.,

Palouse Falls on the Palouse River, Washington) while others may only

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

floods) provide passage.

An example of the latter has recently been brought to NMFS'

attention via a petition from Meridian Gold Company (Meridian) to

revise critical habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon in

Napias Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River, located near Salmon,

Idaho (U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit ``Middle Salmon-Panther,

17060203''). Like chinook salmon, steelhead do not presently occur in

Napias Creek; therefore, conclusions regarding the nature of this

barrier are difficult since such conclusions must rely on indirect

modeling efforts and surveys, as well as historical sources on the

presence of anadromous fish. While NMFS believes it is likely steelhead

could migrate above the falls at certain streamflows (NMFS, 1998), it

is difficult to determine the frequency that steelhead would migrate

above the falls or whether steelhead would recolonize habitat areas

above the falls. The presence of relict indicator species above the

falls (e.g., rainbow trout) tends to indicate steelhead may have

occurred above the falls over evolutionary time periods; however,

recent historical information indicates steelhead have not occurred in

this area in recent times.

After analyzing new information and analyses submitted by Meridian,

NMFS concludes Napias Creek Falls may constitute a naturally impassable

barrier for steelhead. While the falls may be passable to steelhead at

certain flows, available evidence suggests this species would not do so

with any regularity. Given the scientific uncertainty associated with

this conclusion, NMFS specifically requests data and analyses

concerning this and other potentially impassable natural barriers (see

Public Comments Solicited).

Manmade barriers created in the past several decades can create

significant problems for anadromous salmonids (California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG), 1965; CACSST, 1988; Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, 1996). The extent of such barriers as culverts

and road crossing structures that impede or block fish passage appears

to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence surveys conducted

in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey season, nearly 15

percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due to human

barriers, principally road culverts (Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration

Initiative, 1997). Pushup dams/diversions and irrigation withdrawals

also present significant barriers or lethal conditions (e.g., high

water temperatures) to steelhead in nearly all ESUs. However, because

these manmade barriers can, under certain flow conditions, be

surmounted by fish or present only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS

does not consider them to delineate the upstream extent of critical

habitat.

Since man-made impassable barriers are widely distributed

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

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

storage of natural flows which can drastically alter natural

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

migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or habitat

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

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

(5) entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or unscreened

diversions; and (6) increased mortality resulting from increased water

temperatures (CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991;

Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; and

NMFS, 1996b). In addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively

affect

[[Page 5746]]

fish habitats due to increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning

gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and spawning

gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic vegetation into

spawning and rearing areas resulting in reduced available habitat

(CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and NMFS, 1996b).

These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed through ESA

section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.

Numerous hydropower and water storage projects have been built

which either block access to areas used historically by steelhead or

alter the hydrograph of downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified

numerous dams within the range of steelhead ESUs listed or proposed for

listing that currently have no fish passage facilities to allow

steelhead access to former spawning and rearing habitats (Tables 18

through 26). In some ESUs, blocked habitat constitutes up to 95 percent

of the historical range (CACSST, 1988; and Reynolds et al., 1993).

While these blocked areas are significant in certain basins (e.g.,

areas in California's Central Valley), NMFS believes that currently

accessible habitat may be sufficient for the conservation of affected

steelhead ESUs. NMFS has concluded that the potential for restoring

access to former spawning and rearing habitat above currently

impassable man-made barriers is a significant factor to be considered

in determining whether such habitat is essential for the conservation

of species. NMFS solicits comments and scientific information on this

issue and will consider such information prior to issuing any final

critical habitat designation. This may result in the inclusion of areas

above some man-made impassable barriers in a future critical habitat

designation.

Throughout the range of west coast steelhead, numerous hydropower

dams are undergoing, or are scheduled for, relicensing by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NMFS will evaluate information

developed during the process of relicensing to determine whether fish

passage facilities are needed at such dams to restore access to

historically available habitat. Even though habitat above such barriers

is not currently designated as critical, this conclusion does not

foreclose the potential importance of restoring access to these areas.

Therefore, NMFS will determine on a case-by-case basis during FERC

relicensing proceedings whether fish passage facilities will be

required to provide access to habitat that is essential for the

conservation of affected steelhead ESUs.

Critical Habitat and Indian Lands

The unique and distinctive political relationship between the

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

executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and

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

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

to a special Federal trust responsibility, involving the legal

responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian

tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with

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

tribal rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.

As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship

described here and implementing the Presidential Memorandum of April

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

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

Interior issued the Secretarial Order entitled ``American Indian Tribal

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered

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

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

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

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

Indian tribes to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order

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

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

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

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

designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve

a listed species.''

NMFS has determined that the Indian Reservations containing Indian

lands most likely to be affected by a critical habitat designation of

listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are the Colville Indian Reservation

(Upper Columbia River ESU); Nez Perce Indian Reservation (Snake River

ESU); and the Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Indian Reservations

(Middle Columbia River ESU). The major river basins containing

reservation lands and listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are identified

in Tables 24 through 26. NMFS has not yet identified tribally owned fee

lands or other areas where designation of critical habitat may impact

tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal rights. NMFS will

identify any such lands during government-to-government consultation

with affected tribes.

Although NMFS notified the affected tribes of the proposed critical

habitat designation, insufficient time was allotted for meaningful

government-to-government consultation. NMFS will continue to consult

with the tribes in accordance with the agency's trust responsibilities

and the Secretarial Order concerning critical habitat designation in

these ESUs. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to designate critical

habitat on the described reservation lands at this time. In addition,

tribally owned fee lands and other areas where critical habitat

designation may impact the exercise of tribal rights or trust resources

may be identified and included or excluded from critical habitat

designation in a subsequent action. If any such lands are determined to

be essential to conserve listed steelhead, such lands may be designated

critical habitat in a subsequent action.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

In order to ensure that the essential habitat areas and features

are maintained or restored, special management measures may be needed.

Federal activities that may require special management considerations

for freshwater and estuarine life stages of listed steelhead include,

but are not limited to (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3)

point and non-point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat

restoration; (6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining;

(8) road construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10)

dredge and fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily

of current concern within every ESU; however, they indicate the

potential types of activities that will require consultation in the

future. Activities that are conducted on private or state lands that

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

regulations under this rule. However, non-Federal

[[Page 5747]]

landowners should be aware that any significant habitat modifications

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

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

under section 9 of the ESA. No special management considerations have

been identified for steelhead while they are residing in the ocean

environment.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat

requirements of steelhead. More in-depth discussions are contained in

the Federal Register documents announcing the listing determinations

for each ESU (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR 43937, August 18,

1997; 63 FR 11798, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998) as well

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

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

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

actions of Federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Federal Highway Administration (FHA),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS), National Park Service (NPS), and FERC) and

related or similar actions of other federally regulated projects and

lands including livestock grazing allocations by USFS and BLM;

hydropower sites licensed by FERC; dams built or operated by the Corps

or BOR; timber sales conducted by the USFS and BLM; road building

activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, BLM, and NPS; and mining and

road building activities authorized by the states of Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, and California. Other actions of concern include dredge

and fill, mining, and bank stabilization activities authorized or

conducted by the Corps and habitat modifications authorized by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, actions of

concern could include approval of water quality standards and pesticide

labeling and use restrictions administered by EPA.

The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this

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

NRCS, NPS, FEMA, and FERC. This designation will provide clear

notification to these agencies, private entities, and the public of

critical habitat designated for steelhead and of the boundaries of the

habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7

consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies

and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on

steelhead and their critical habitat and in determining when

consultation with NMFS is appropriate.

Expected Economic Impacts

The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat

designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation

above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to

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

Factors). Incremental impacts result from special management activities

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

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

the species. For these steelhead ESUs, NMFS has determined that the

present geographic extent of their freshwater and estuarine range is

likely sufficient to provide for conservation of the species, although

the quality of that habitat needs improvement on many fronts. Because

NMFS is not designating any areas beyond the current range of these

steelhead ESUs as critical habitat, the designation will result in few,

if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have been

caused by listing and by other statutes.

USFS, BLM, BOR, and the Corps manage areas of proposed critical

habitat for the steelhead ESUs. The Corps and other Federal agencies

that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in critical

habitat areas may also be affected by this designation. Because NMFS

believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations

pertaining to critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy''

conclusions under ESA Section 7 consultations (i.e., as a result of the

species being listed), the designation of critical habitat is not

expected to result in significant incremental restrictions on Federal

agency activities. Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result

in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have

been caused by the ESA listing and by other statutes.

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will

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

and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.

NMFS requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality and

extent of marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (including

adjacent riparian zones) for juvenile and adult steelhead as well as

information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Areas that include the

physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the

species should be identified. Essential features include, but are not

limited to (1) habitat for individual and population growth and for

normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other

nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)

sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that

are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic

geographical and ecological distributions of the species. NMFS is also

requesting information regarding steelhead distribution and habitat

requirements within the range of Indian lands identified in this

proposal and whether these lands should be considered essential for the

conservation of the listed species or whether recovery can be achieved

by limiting the designation to other lands.

NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries

of these ESUs that historically constituted steelhead habitat but may

not be currently occupied by steelhead. NMFS requests information about

steelhead in these currently unoccupied areas and whether these

habitats should be considered essential to the recovery of the species

or excluded from designation.

For areas where natural barriers are believed to pose a migration

barrier for steelhead (e.g., the Napias Creek Falls issue described

earlier in this document), NMFS specifically requests data and analyses

concerning the following: (1) Historic accounts indicating steelhead or

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

reports analyzing the likelihood steelhead or other anadromous

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

indicating that a particular barrier is or is not naturally impassable

to anadromous salmonid migration. NMFS will evaluate all new

information received concerning this issue and will reconsider this

issue in its final steelhead critical habitat designation.

For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is

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

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

[[Page 5748]]

costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures

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

considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the

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

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

the incremental costs resulting specifically from a critical habitat

designation that are above the economic effects attributable to listing

the species. Economic effects attributable to listing include actions

resulting from section 7 consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy

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

ESA. Comments concerning economic impacts should distinguish the costs

of listing from the incremental costs that can be directly attributed

to the designation of specific areas as critical habitat.

NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information

regarding the status and critical habitat of the steelhead ESUs

described herein and complete a final rule as soon as practicable. The

availability of new information may cause NMFS to reassess the proposed

critical habitat designation of steelhead ESUs.

Public Hearings

Joint Departments of Commerce and Interior ESA implementing

regulations state that the Secretaries shall promptly hold at least one

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

of a proposed regulation to list species or to designate critical

habitat (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). NMFS will schedule public hearings on

this proposed rule in the range of affected communities in a subsequent

Federal Register document. Requests for specific locations or

additional public hearings must be received by March 22, 1999. NMFS

encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

References

A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing

the range of listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are available upon

request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments or an

Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for

this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).

NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of these

steelhead ESUs as critical habitat. Areas excluded from this proposed

designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and any

historically occupied areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g.,

long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS concludes that the currently

inhabited areas within the range of each ESU are the minimum habitat

necessary to ensure the species' conservation and recovery.

Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species

as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional

requirements or economic effects upon small entities beyond those which

may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal

agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund

is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed

species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of

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

of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of

species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS

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

regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.

In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat

areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation

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

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

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

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

the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and

governments.

Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and

Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the

proposed critical habitat designation, if adopted, would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,

as described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined

this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

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

requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: January 29, 1999.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

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

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

2. Section 226.29 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec. 226.29 Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),

Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central

California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), South-Central

California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Southern California

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss), Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Upper

Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River Basin

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed steelhead within the range of the ESUs listed,

except for reaches on Indian lands within Indian Reservations defined

in Tables 24 through 26 to this part. Critical habitat consists of the

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

reaches in hydrologic units and counties identified in Tables 18

through 26 to this part for all of the steelhead ESUs listed in this

section. Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of

the ESUs that can still be occupied by any life stage of steelhead.

Inaccessible reaches are those above longstanding, naturally impassable

barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several

hundred years) and specific dams within the historical range of each

ESU identified in Tables 18 through 26 to this part. Hydrologic units

are those defined by the Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic Unit Maps, Water

Supply Paper 2294, 1986, and by the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000

scale hydrologic unit maps: State of California (1978), State of Idaho

(1981), State of Oregon (1974), and State of Washington (1974) which

are incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C.

[[Page 5749]]

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the USGS publication and maps may

be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225.

Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE

Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of

Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,

or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

(a) Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic

boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries between

the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers in Washington and the Willamette and Hood

Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Also included are river reaches and

estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting

the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the

west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream

to the Hood River in Oregon. Excluded are areas above specific dams

identified in Table 18 to this part or above longstanding, naturally

impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least

several hundred years).

(b) Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all

river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in the Willamette River

and its tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also included are river

reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line

connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side)

and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side)

upstream to, and including, the Willamette River in Oregon. Excluded

are areas above specific dams identified in Table 19 to this part or

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

waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).

(c) Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all

river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in

coastal river basins from the Russian River to Soquel Creek, California

(inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.

Also included are all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez

Bridge and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/

Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Excluded is the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the California

Central Valley as well as areas above specific dams identified in Table

20 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers

(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred

years).

(d) South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all

river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in

coastal river basins from the Pajaro River (inclusive) to, but not

including, the Santa Maria River, California. Excluded are areas above

specific dams identified in Table 21 to this part or above

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

in existence for at least several hundred years).

(e) Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic

boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in coastal river

basins from the Santa Maria River to Malibu Creek, California

(inclusive). Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table

22 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers

(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred

years).

(f) Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic

boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers

and their tributaries in California. Also included are river reaches

and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters

from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay,

Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo

Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco

Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay

to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas of the San Joaquin River

upstream of the Merced River confluence and areas above specific dams

identified in Table 23 to this part or above longstanding, naturally

impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least

several hundred years).

(g) Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all

river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River

tributaries (except the Snake River) between Mosier Creek in Oregon and

the Yakima River in Washington (inclusive). Also included are river

reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line

connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side)

and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side)

upstream to the Yakima River in Washington. Excluded are areas above

specific dams identified in Table 24 to this part or above

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

in existence for at least several hundred years).

(h) Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic

boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries upstream

of the Yakima River, Washington, and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam.

Also included are river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia

River from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty

(south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north

jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington.

Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 25 of this

part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,

natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).

(i) Snake River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic

boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed steelhead in the Snake River and its tributaries

in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Also included are river reaches and

estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting

the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the

west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream

to the confluence with the Snake River. Excluded are areas above

specific dams identified in Table 26 to this part or above

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

in existence for at least several hundred years).

3. Tables 5 through 17 are added and reserved, and tables 18

through 26 are added to part 226 to read as follows:

[[Page 5750]]

Table 18 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Steelhead, and Dams Representing the Upstream

Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within

Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams

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

Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Skamania (WA). ......................................

Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clackamas (OR), Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania Bull Run Dam #2.

(WA)

Lewis.................................... 17080002 Clark (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania (WA) Merwin Dam.

Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania

(WA), Wahkiakum (WA).

Lower Cowlitz............................ 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA)............................. Mayfield Dam.

Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).

Clackamas................................ 17090011 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR).

Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR),

Washington (OR).

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

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

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

\2\ Reserved.

Table 19 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Willamette River Steelhead, and Dams Representing the

Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within

Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams

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

Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Clark (WA)........................................... Bull Run Dam.

Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum

(WA).

Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).

Middle Fork Willamette................... 17090001 Lane (OR)............................................ Dexter Dam.

Coast Fork Willamette.................... 17090002 Douglas (OR), Lane (OR).............................. Dorena Dam.

Upper Willamette......................... 17090003 Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Lincoln (OR), Linn (OR), Polk Cougar Dam.

(OR).

McKenzie................................. 17090004 Lane (OR), Linn (OR)................................. Big Cliff Dam.

North Santiam............................ 17090005 Linn (OR), Marion (OR).

South Santiam............................ 17090006 Linn (OR)............................................ Green Peter Dam.

Middle Willamette........................ 17090007 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR), Polk (OR), Washington

(OR), Yamhill (OR).

Yamhill.................................. 17090008 Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR), Tillamook (OR), Washington

(OR), Yamhill (OR).

Molalla-Pudding.......................... 17090009 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR).

Tualatin................................. 17090010 Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR),

Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR), Yamhill (OR).

Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR).

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

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

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

\2\ Reserved.

Table 20 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central California Coast Steelhead, and Dams Representing the

Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within

Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams

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

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

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

Suisun Bay.......................... 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Napa (CA), Solano (CA).

San Pablo Bay....................... 18050002 Marin (CA), Napa (CA)........................... San Pablo Reservoir.

Coyote.............................. 18050003 Alameda (CA), San Mateo (CA), Santa Clara (CA).. Calavera Reservoir.

San Francisco Bay................... 18050004 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA), San Mateo (CA),

Santa Clara (CA).

Tomales-Drake Bays.................. 18050005 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)......................... Nicasio Dam, Seeger Dam.

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

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

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

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

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

\2\ Reserved.

[[Page 5751]]

Table 21 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, and Dams Representing the

Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within

Hydrologic unit name unit No. range of ESU \1\ Dams

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

Pajaro................................... 18060002 Monterey (CA), San Benito (CA), Santa Clara (CA),

Santa Cruz (CA).

Estrella................................. 18060004 Monterey (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA).

Salinas.................................. 18060005 Monterey (CA), San Benito (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA). Salinas Dam.

Central Coastal.......................... 18060006 Monterey (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA)..................

Alisal-Elkhorn Sloughs................... 18060011

Carmel................................... 18060012 ..................................................... Los Padres Dam.

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

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

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

\2\ Reserved.

Table 22 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Southern California

Steelhead, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and

Hydrologic unit name unit No. within range of ESU \1\ Dams

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

Cuyama........................ 18060007 San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Barbara (CA). Vaquero Dam.

Santa Maria................... 18060008 San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Barbara (CA).

San Antonio................... 18060009 Santa Barbara (CA).

Santa Ynez.................... 18060010 Santa Barbara (CA)....................... Bradbury Dam.

Santa Barbara Coastal......... 18060013 Santa Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA).

Ventura....................... 18070101 Santa Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA)......... Casitas Dam, Robles

Dam, Matilija Dam,

Vern Freeman

Diversion Dam.

Santa Clara................... 18070102 Los Angeles (CA), Santa Barbara (CA), Santa Felicia Dam.

Ventura (CA).

Calleguas..................... 18070103 Los Angeles (CA), Ventura (CA).

Santa Monica Bay.............. 18070103 Los Angeles (CA), Ventura (CA)........... Rindge Dam.

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

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

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

county and basin boundaries.

\2\ Reserved.

Table 23 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central Valley Steelhead,

and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties contained in hydrologic unit and

Hydrologic unit name unit No. within range of ESU \1\ Dams

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

Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower 18020101 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).

Clear.

Lower Cottonwood.............. 18020102 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).

Sacramento-Lower Thomes....... 18020103 Butte (CA), Glenn (CA), Tehama (CA)...... Black Butte Dam.

Sacramento-Stone Corral....... 18020104 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA), .....................

Sutter (CA), Yolo (CA).

Lower Butte................... 18020105 Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA), .....................

Sutter (CA).

Lower Feather................. 18020106 Butte (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA)....... Oroville Dam.

Lower Yuba.................... 18020107 Yuba (CA). .....................

Lower Bear.................... 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA)...... Camp Far West Dam.

Lower Sacramento.............. 18020109 Placer (CA), Sacramento (CA), Solano .....................

(CA), Sutter (CA), Yolo (CA).

Lower American................ 18020111 Placer (CA), Sacramento (CA), Sutter (CA) Nimbus Dam.

Sacramento-Upper Clear........ 18020112 Shasta (CA).............................. Keswick Dam.

Cottonwood Headwaters......... 18020113 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA). .....................

Upper Elder-Upper Thomes...... 18020114 Tehama (CA). .....................

Upper Cow-Battle.............. 18020118 Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA)................. Whiskeytown Dam.

Mill-Big Chico................ 18020119 Butte (CA), Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA). .....................

Upper Butte................... 18020120 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA). .....................

Honcut Headwaters............. 18020124 Butte (CA), Yuba (CA). .....................

Upper Yuba.................... 18020125 Yuba (CA), Nevada (CA)................... Englebright Dam.

Upper Coon-Upper Auburn....... 18020127 Placer (CA). .....................

Middle San Joaquin-Lower 18040002 Calaveras (CA), Merced (CA), San Joaquin Crocker Diversion

Merced-Lower Stanislaus. (CA), Stanislaus (CA) Dam, La Grange Dam.

San Joaquin Delta............. 18040003 Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA), .....................

Sacramento (CA), San Joaquin (CA).

Lower Calaveras-Mormon Slough. 18040004 Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin (CA), .....................

Stanislaus (CA).

Lower Consumnes-Lower 18040005 Amador (CA), Sacramento (CA), San Joaquin Comanche Dam.

Mokelumne. (CA).

Upper Stanislaus.............. 18040010 Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin (CA), Goodwin Dam.

Tuolumne (CA).

[[Page 5752]]

Upper Calaveras............... 18040011 Calaveras (CA)........................... New Hogan Dam.

Panoche-San Luis Reservoir.... 18040014 San Joaquin (CA), Stanislaus (CA). .....................

Suisun Bay.................... 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Solano (CA). .....................

San Pablo Bay................. 18050002 Contra Costa (CA), Marin (CA), San .....................

Francisco (CA), Solano (CA), Sonoma

(CA).

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

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

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

county and basin boundaries.

\2\ Reserved.

Table 24 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Middle Columbia River

Steelhead, Tribal Lands within the Range of the ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical

Habitat

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

Counties and tribal lands contained in

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and within range of ESU Dams

unit No. \1\ \2\

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

Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids.. 17020016 Benton (WA), Franklin (WA). .....................

Upper Yakima.................. 17030001 Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA). .....................

Naches........................ 17030002 Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA). .....................

Lower Yakima.................. 17030003 Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA), .....................

Yakima Indian Reservation.

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula.. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), .....................

Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla

(WA), Yakima (WA).

Walla Walla................... 17070102 Umatilla (OR), Wallowa (OR), Columbia .....................

(WA), Walla Walla (WA).

Umatilla...................... 17070103 Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), Union (OR), .....................

Umatilla Indian Reservation.

Willow........................ 17070104 Morrow (OR), Gilliam (OR). .....................

Middle Columbia-Hood.......... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco Condit Dam.

(OR), Klickitat (WA), Skamania (WA).

Klickitat..................... 17070106 Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA), Yakama .....................

Indian Reservation.

Upper John Day................ 17070201 Crook (OR), Grant (OR), Harney (OR), .....................

Wheeler (OR).

North Fork John Day........... 17070202 Grant (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), .....................

Union (OR), Wheeler (OR).

Middle Fork John Day.......... 17070203 Grant (OR). .....................

Lower John Day................ 17070204 Crook (OR), Gilliam (OR), Grant (OR), .....................

Jefferson (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman

(OR), Wasco (OR), Wheeler (OR).

Lower Deschutes............... 17070306 Jefferson (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Pelton Dam.

Warm Springs Indian Reservation.

Trout......................... 17070307 Crook (OR), Jefferson (OR), Wasco (OR). .....................

Lower Columbia-Sandy.......... 17080001 Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania .....................

(WA).

Lower Columbia-Clatskanie..... 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz .....................

(WA), Wahkiakum (WA).

Lower Columbia................ 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum .....................

(WA).

Lower Willamette.............. 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR). .....................

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

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

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

county and basin boundaries.

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

Table 25 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River Steelhead, Tribal Lands Within the Range of

the ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties and tribal lands contained in hydrologic

Hydrologic unit name unit No. unit and within range of ESU 1, 2 Dams

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

Chief Joseph............................. 17020005 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Okanogan (WA), Colville Chief Joseph Dam.

Indian Reservation.

Okanogan................................. 17020006 Okanogan (WA), Colville Indian Reservation...........

Similkameen.............................. 17020007 Okanogan (WA)........................................

Methow................................... 17020008 Okanogan (WA)........................................

Upper Columbia-Entiat.................... 17020010 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Grant (WA), Kittitas (WA).

Wenatchee................................ 17020011 Chelan (WA)..........................................

Moses Coulee............................. 17020012 Douglas (WA), Grant (WA).............................

Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids............. 17020016 Benton (WA), Franklin (WA), Grant (WA), Kittitas

(WA), Yakima (WA).

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla

(OR), Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).

Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat

(WA), Skamania (WA).

Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA)............

Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum

(WA).

[[Page 5753]]

Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA)...........

Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR)........................

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

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

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

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

Table 26 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Snake River Basin Steelhead, Tribal Lands Within the Range of the

ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat

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

Hydrologic Counties and tribal lands contained in hydrologic

Hydrologic unit name unit No. unit and within range of ESU 1, 2 Dams

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

Hells Canyon............................. 17060101 Adams (ID), Idaho (ID), Wallowa (OR)................. Hells Canyon Dam.

Imnaha................................... 17060102 Baker (OR), Union (OR), Wallowa (OR).................

Lower Snake-Asotin....................... 17060103 Nez Perce (ID), Wallowa (OR), Asotin (WA), Garfield

(WA).

Upper Grande Ronde....................... 17060104 Grant (OR), Umatilla (OR), Union (OR)................

Wallowa.................................. 17060105 Union (OR), Wallowa (OR).............................

Lower Grande Ronde....................... 17060106 Union (OR), Wallowa (OR), Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA),

Garfield (WA).

Lower Snake-Tucannon..................... 17060107 Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA), Garfield (WA), Whitman

(WA).

Palouse.................................. 17060108 Benewah (ID), Latah (ID), Nez Perce (ID), Franklin

(WA), Lincoln (WA), Spokane (WA), Whitman (WA) Nez

Perce Indian Reservation.

Lower Snake.............................. 17060110 Columbia (WA), Franklin (WA), Walla Walla (WA).......

Upper Salmon............................. 17060201 Blaine (ID), Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID).................

Pahsimeroi............................... 17060202 Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID)..............................

Middle Salmon-Panther.................... 17060203 Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID)..............................

Lemhi.................................... 17060204 Lemhi (ID)...........................................

Upper Middle Fork Salmon................. 17060205 Boise (ID), Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID).....

Lower Middle Fork Salmon................. 17060206 Idaho (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID)..................

Middle Salmon-Chamberlain................ 17060207 Idaho (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID)..................

South Fork Salmon........................ 17060208 Idaho (ID), Valley (ID)..............................

Lower Salmon............................. 17060209 Idaho (ID), Lewis (ID), Nez Perce (ID)...............

Little Salmon............................ 17060210 Adams (ID), Idaho (ID)...............................

Upper Selway............................. 17060301 Idaho (ID)...........................................

Lower Selway............................. 17060302 Idaho (ID)...........................................

Lochsa................................... 17060303 Clearwater (ID), Idaho (ID)..........................

Middle Fork Clearwater................... 17060304 Idaho (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.............

South Fork Clearwater.................... 17060305 Idaho (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.............

Clearwater............................... 17060306 Clearwater (ID), Idaho (ID), Latah (ID), Lewis (ID),

Nez Perce (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.

Lower North Fork Clearwater.............. 17060308 Clearwater (ID), Latah (ID), Shoshone (ID), Nez Perce Dworshak Dam.

Indian Reservation.

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula............. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla

(OR), Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).

Middle Columbia-Hood..................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat

(WA), Skamania (WA).

Lower Columbia-Sandy..................... 17080001 Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA)............

Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................ 17080003 Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum

(WA).

Lower Columbia........................... 17080006 Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA)...........

Lower Willamette......................... 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR) .......................

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5754]]

[FR Doc. 99-2642 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P