[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5740-5754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2642]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 990128036-9036-01; I.D. 033198A]
RIN 0648-AG49


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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to designate critical habitat for nine 
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus 
mykiss) previously listed and currently proposed for listing under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed critical habitat occurs in the 
States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The areas 
described in this proposed rule represent the current freshwater and 
estuarine range inhabited by the ESU. Freshwater critical habitat 
includes all waterways and substrates below longstanding, naturally 
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least 
several hundred years) and several dams that block access to former 
anadromous habitats. The economic and other impacts resulting from this 
critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1999. Requests for public 
hearings must be received by March 22, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule or requests for reference 
materials should be sent to Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, 
NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 
97232-2737; telefax (503) 230-5435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, (503) 231-2005, Craig 
Wingert, (562) 980-4021, or Chris Mobley, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 20, 1993, NMFS announced its intent to conduct a status 
review to identify all coastal steelhead ESU(s) within California, 
Oregon, and Washington and to determine whether any identified ESU(s) 
warranted listing under the ESA. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994, 
NMFS received a petition from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and 
from 15 co-petitioners to list all steelhead (or specific ESUs, races, 
or stocks) within the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and 
Idaho. In response to this petition, NMFS announced the expansion of 
its status review to include inland steelhead populations occurring in 
eastern Washington and Oregon and the State of Idaho (59 FR 27527, May 
27, 1994).
    On August 9, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 10 ESUs 
of west coast steelhead as threatened or endangered under the ESA; NMFS 
solicited comments on the proposal (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996). In 
this document, NMFS concluded that the Middle Columbia River ESU 
warranted classification as a candidate species since NMFS was 
concerned about the status of steelhead in this area, but lacked 
sufficient information to merit a proposed listing, and that the Upper 
Willamette River steelhead ESU did not warrant listing, based on 
available scientific information.
    On August 18, 1997, NMFS published a final rule listing five ESUs 
as threatened and endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate 
document published on the same day,

[[Page 5741]]

NMFS determined that substantial scientific disagreement remained for 
five proposed ESUs (62 FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In accordance with 
section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred its decision on these 
remaining steelhead ESUs for 6 months, until February 9, 1998, for the 
purpose of soliciting additional data. By court order, NMFS' deadline 
for issuing determinations on these five remaining ESUs was extended to 
March 13, 1998.
    On March 10, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule to list the Upper 
Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs as threatened species 
(63 FR 11798). On March 19, 1998, NMFS published a final rule to list 
the Lower Columbia River and Central Valley, California, ESUs as 
threatened species (63 FR 13347). NMFS now proposes critical habitat 
for all nine currently listed and proposed steelhead ESUs.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently 
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS 
has determined that sufficient information exists to propose 
designating critical habitat for the nine ESUs of steelhead previously 
listed and currently proposed for listing under the ESA. NMFS will 
consider all available information and data in finalizing this 
proposal.
    The use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document 
refers to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be 
confused with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish 
Habitat pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    ``Critical habitat'' is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as 
``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species * * * on which are found those physical or biological features 
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may 
require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * 
* * upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as 
defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, means `` * * * to use and the use 
of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.''
    In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following 
requirements of the species: (1) space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, 
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or 
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing offspring; 
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of this species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to these 
factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological 
features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These essential 
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food 
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (50 CFR 
424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

    The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation 
have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS 
identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify 
the area(s) being considered or that may be affected by a designation. 
An area may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS 
determines that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits 
of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of 
the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
    The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental 
impacts resulting specifically from a critical habitat designation, 
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the 
species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species 
under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in 
many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical 
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself, 
are minimal. In general, the designation of critical habitat highlights 
geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection 
resulting from the listing itself.
    Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the 
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated 
regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA means to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm can 
occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or not 
designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential behaviors, 
including breeding, feeding, rearing or migration (63 FR 24148, May 1, 
1998).

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

    The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself, 
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific 
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation 
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important 
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are 
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to 
the area's importance. The only regulatory impact of a critical habitat 
designation is through the provisions of section 7 of the ESA. Section 
7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g., authorized, 
funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not affect 
exclusively state or private activities.
    Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat 
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are 
defined as those actions that ``appreciably diminish the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery'' of the species 
(50 CFR 402.02). Regardless of a critical habitat designation, Federal 
agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the listed species. Activities that 
jeopardize a species are defined as those actions that ``reasonably 
would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the 
likelihood of both the survival and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 
402.02). Using these definitions, activities that are likely to destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat would also be likely to jeopardize 
the species. Therefore, the protection provided by a critical habitat 
designation generally duplicates the protection provided under the 
section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may provide additional 
benefits to a species in cases where areas outside the species' current 
range have been designated. Federal agencies are required to consult 
with NMFS under section 7 (50 CFR 402.14(a)), when these designated 
areas

[[Page 5742]]

may be affected by their actions. The effects of these actions on 
designated areas may not have been recognized but for the critical 
habitat designation.
    A designation of critical habitat provides Federal agencies with a 
clear indication as to when consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
required, particularly in cases where the proposed action would not 
result in direct mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed 
species (e.g., an action occurring within the critical habitat area 
when a migratory species is not present). The critical habitat 
designation, in describing the essential features of the habitat, also 
helps determine which activities conducted outside the designated area 
are subject to section 7 (i.e., activities outside critical habitat 
that may affect essential features of the designated area).
    A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in 
planning future actions because the designation establishes, in 
advance, those habitats that will be given special consideration in 
section 7 consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, 
potential conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or 
threatened species can be identified and possibly avoided early in an 
agency's planning process.
    Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it 
helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management 
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special 
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation 
regulations that restrict private as well as Federal activities. The 
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the 
time regulations are proposed and, therefore, are not considered in the 
critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and local 
authorities, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian lands protection, 
may also benefit critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

    Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three 
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are 
evaluated, and essential habitat areas and features are identified. If 
alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the 
species, such alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for 
special management considerations or protection of the area(s) or 
features identified are evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and 
other impacts of designating these essential areas as ``critical 
habitat'' are evaluated. After considering the requirements of the 
species, the need for special management, and the impacts of the 
designation, a notification of the proposed critical habitat is 
published in the Federal Register for comment. The final critical 
habitat designation is promulgated after considering all comments and 
any new information received on the proposal. Final critical habitat 
designations may be revised, using the same process, as new information 
becomes available.
    A description of the essential habitat, need for special 
management, impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed 
action are described in the following sections.

Critical Habitat of Steelhead ESUs

    Biological information for steelhead can be found in NMFS species 
status reviews (Busby et al., 1996), species life history summaries 
(Shapavalov and Taft, 1954; Barnhart, 1986; Pauley et al., 1986; Groot 
and Margolis, 1991), and in Federal Register announcements of proposed 
and final listing determinations (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR 
43937, August 18, 1997; 63 FR 11798, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March 
19, 1998). Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the 
North Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the 
northern Baja Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends 
from the Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of 
North America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There 
are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as 
the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan and Jackson, 
1996). The species' marine distribution south of Punta Gorda, 
California, appears to encompass a relatively narrow, nearshore strip 
less than 100 kilometers (km) wide (NOAA, 1990). North of Punta Gorda, 
the distribution widens to encompass nearly all marine areas north of 
42 deg. N latitude in the North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Alaska (NOAA, 
1990). Any attempt to describe the current distribution of steelhead 
must take into account the fact that many extant populations and 
densities are a small fraction of historical levels. Hence, some 
populations considered extinct could in fact exist but be represented 
by only a few individuals that could escape detection during surveys.
    In the Central California Coast ESU, the major populations are 
found in the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers. In the South-Central 
California Coast ESU, major rivers include the Big Sur, Carmel, Little 
Sur, Pajaro, and Salinas Rivers. In the Southern California Coast ESU, 
major rivers include Malibu Creek and the Santa Clara, Santa Ynez, and 
Ventura Rivers. Within the range of the California Central Valley ESU, 
major tributaries supporting steelhead in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
River Basins include the American, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne, 
Tuolumne, and Yuba Rivers, as well as numerous smaller tributaries.
    The Columbia River serves as a migration corridor as well as an 
important estuary for all of the listed or proposed steelhead ESUs in 
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Major tributaries known to support 
steelhead in the Upper Columbia River ESU include the Entiat, Methow, 
Okanogan, and Wenatchee Rivers. In the Snake River Basin ESU, major 
tributaries include the Clearwater, Grande Ronde, Salmon, Selway, and 
Tucannon Rivers. In the Middle Columbia River ESU, major tributaries 
include the Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, Umatilla, and Yakima 
Rivers. In the Lower Columbia River ESU, major tributaries include the 
Clackamas, Cowlitz, Hood, Kalama, Lewis, Sandy, Washougal, and Wind 
Rivers. Finally, in the Upper Willamette River ESU, major tributaries 
known to support steelhead include the Molalla and Santiam Rivers.
    In addition to the rivers identified, many smaller rivers and 
streams in each ESU also provide important habitat for steelhead, but 
access is often constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrological 
conditions.
    Defining specific river reaches that are critical for steelhead is 
difficult because of the current low abundance of the species and of 
our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater distribution, 
both current and historical. The latter is due, in large part, to the 
lack of comprehensive sampling effort dedicated to monitoring the 
species. Based on consideration of the best available information 
regarding the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the 
preferred approach to identifying critical habitat for steelhead is to 
designate all areas accessible to the species within the range of 
specified river basins in each ESU. NMFS believes that adopting a more 
inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is 
appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' extensive use of 
diverse habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the 
habitat types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life 
stages; (2) takes into account the natural variability in habitat use 
that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g., some streams may have 
fish present only in years with

[[Page 5743]]

plentiful rainfall); and (3) reinforces the important linkage between 
aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.
    While NMFS is proposing to focus on accessible (i.e., fish bearing) 
river reaches, it is important to note that habitat quality is 
intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and upstream areas 
(including headwater or intermittent streams) which provide key habitat 
elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality) crucial for 
steelhead in downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine 
habitats are critical for steelhead and has included them in this 
designation. Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward 
of the mouth of coastal rivers) are also vital to the species, and 
ocean conditions may have a major influence on steelhead survival. 
However, NMFS is still evaluating whether these areas currently warrant 
consideration as critical habitat, particularly whether marine areas 
require special management consideration or protection. Therefore, NMFS 
is not proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this 
time. If additional information becomes available that supports the 
inclusion of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
    Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have 
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems, 
thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids. 
Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing 
dwindling steelhead run sizes. NMFS recently published a report 
describing the impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals 
upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and 
California (NMFS, 1997). This report concludes that, in certain cases 
where pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid 
populations, salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to 
predation. An example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington, 
where sea lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult 
winter steelhead. This study further concludes that data regarding 
pinniped predation is quite limited and that substantial additional 
research is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on 
the seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to 
warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where 
pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997).
    Essential features of steelhead critical habitat include adequate 
(1) substrate; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4) water 
temperature; (5) water velocity; (6) cover/shelter; (7) food; (8) 
riparian vegetation; (9) space; and (10) safe passage conditions. Given 
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these steelhead ESUs and 
the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is not 
practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of these 
essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these 
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed 
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by 
Barnhart (1986), Pauley et al. (1986), California Advisory Committee on 
Salmon and Steelhead Trout (CACSST) (1988), Bjornn and Reiser (1991), 
Nehlsen et al. (1991), California State Lands Commission (1993), 
Reynolds et al. (1993), Botkin et al. (1995), McEwan and Jackson 
(1996), NMFS (1996), and Spence et al. (1996).
    An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their 
features, and special management considerations will be needed, 
especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership (see Activities 
That May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special Management 
Considerations or Protection). While marine areas are also a critical 
link in the species' life cycle, NMFS has not yet concluded that 
special management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat 
features in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas 
(and their adjacent riparian zones) are being proposed for critical 
habitat at this time.

Adjacent Riparian Zones

    NMFS' past critical habitat designations for listed anadromous 
salmonids have included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the 
designation. In the final designations for Snake River spring/summer 
chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye (58 FR 68543, December 28, 1993), 
NMFS included the adjacent riparian zone as part of critical habitat 
and defined it in the regulation as those areas within a horizontal 
distance of 300 feet (91.4 meters) from the normal high water line. In 
the critical habitat designation for Sacramento River winter run 
chinook (58 FR 33212, June 16, 1993), NMFS included ``adjacent riparian 
zones'' as part of the critical habitat but did not define the extent 
of that zone in the regulation. The preamble to that rule stated that 
the adjacent riparian zone was limited to ``those areas that provide 
cover and shade.''
    Streams and stream functioning are inextricably linked to adjacent 
riparian and upland (or upslope) areas. Streams regularly submerge 
portions of the riparian zone via floods and channel migration, and 
portions of the riparian zone may contain off-channel rearing habitats 
used by juvenile salmonids during periods of high flow. The riparian 
zone also provides an array of important watershed functions that 
directly benefit salmonids. Vegetation in the zone shades the stream, 
stabilizes banks, and provides organic litter and large woody debris. 
The riparian zone stores sediment, recycles nutrients and chemicals, 
mediates stream hydraulics, and controls microclimate. Healthy riparian 
zones help ensure water quality essential to salmonids as well as the 
forage species they depend on (Reiser and Bjornn, 1979; Meehan, 1991; 
FEMAT, 1993; and Spence et al., 1996). Human activities in the adjacent 
riparian zone, or in upslope areas, can harm stream function and can 
harm salmonids, both directly and indirectly, by interfering with the 
watershed functions described here. For example, timber harvest, road-
building, grazing, cultivation, and other activities can increase 
sediment, destabilize banks, reduce organic litter and woody debris, 
increase water temperatures, simplify stream channels, and increase 
peak flows. These adverse modifications reduce the value of habitat for 
salmon and, in many instances, may result in injury or mortality of 
fish. Because human activity may adversely affect these watershed 
functions and habitat features, NMFS concluded the adjacent riparian 
zone could require special management consideration, and, therefore, 
was appropriate for inclusion in critical habitat.
    The Snake River salmon critical habitat designation relied on 
analyses and conclusions reached by the Forest Ecosystem Management 
Assessment Team (FEMAT, 1993) regarding interim riparian reserves for 
fish-bearing streams on Federal lands within the range of the northern 
spotted owl. The interim riparian reserve recommendations in the FEMAT 
report were based on a systematic review of the available literature, 
primarily for forested habitats, concerning riparian processes as a 
function of distance from stream channels. The interim riparian 
reserves identified in the FEMAT report for fish-bearing streams on 
Federal forest lands are intended to (1) provide protection to 
salmonids, as well as riparian-dependent and associated species, 
through the protection of riparian processes that influence stream 
function, and (2) provide a high level of fish habitat and riparian 
protection until

[[Page 5744]]

site-specific watershed and project analyses can be completed. The 
FEMAT report identified several alternative ways that interim riparian 
reserves providing a high level of protection could be defined, 
including the 300-foot (91.4 meter) slope distance, a distance 
equivalent to two site potential tree heights, the outer edges of 
riparian vegetation, the 100-year flood plain, or the area between the 
edge of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, 
whichever is greatest. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) ultimately adopted these riparian reserve 
criteria as part of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy aimed at 
conserving fish, amphibians, and other aquatic- and riparian-dependent 
species in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 
ROD, 1994).
    While NMFS has used the findings of the FEMAT report to guide its 
analyses in ESA section 7 consultations with the USFS and BLM regarding 
management of Federal lands, NMFS recognizes that the interim riparian 
reserves may be conservative with regard to the protection of adjacent 
riparian habitat for salmonids since they are designed to protect 
salmonids as well as terrestrial species that are riparian dependent or 
associated. Moreover, NMFS' analyses have focused more on the stream 
functions important to salmonids and on how proposed activities will 
affect the riparian area's contribution to properly functioning 
conditions for salmonid habitat.
    Since the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan, NMFS has gained 
experience working with Federal and non-Federal landowners to determine 
the likely effects of proposed land management actions on stream 
functions. In freshwater and estuarine areas, these activities include, 
but are not limited to agriculture; forestry; grazing; bank 
stabilization; construction/urbanization; dam construction/operation; 
dredging and dredged spoil disposal; habitat restoration projects; 
irrigation withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral mining; road 
building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining; wastewater/pollutant 
discharge; wetland and floodplain alteration; and woody debris/
structure removal from rivers and estuaries. NMFS has developed 
numerous tools to assist Federal agencies in analyzing the likely 
impacts of their activities on anadromous fish habitat. With these 
tools, Federal agencies are better able to judge the impacts of their 
actions on salmonid habitat, taking into account the location and 
nature of their actions. NMFS' primary tool guiding Federal agencies is 
a document titled ``Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of 
Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale'' 
(NMFS, 1996a). This document presents guidelines to facilitate and 
standardize determinations of ``effect'' under the ESA and includes a 
matrix for determining the condition of various habitat parameters. 
This matrix is being implemented in several northern California and 
Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to help guide efforts to 
define salmonid risk factors and conservation strategies throughout the 
West Coast.
    Several recent literature reviews have addressed the effectiveness 
of various riparian zone widths for maintaining specific riparian 
functions (e.g., sediment control, large woody debris recruitment) and 
overall watershed processes. These reviews provide additional useful 
information about riparian processes as a function of distance from 
stream channels. For example, Castelle et al. (1994) conducted a 
literature review of riparian zone functions and concluded that 
riparian widths in the range of 30 meters (98 feet) appear to be the 
minimum needed to maintain biological elements of streams. They also 
noted that site-specific conditions may warrant substantially larger or 
smaller riparian management zones. Similarly, Johnson and Reba (1992) 
summarized the technical literature and found that available 
information supported a minimum 30-meter riparian management zone for 
salmonid protection.
    A recent assessment funded by NMFS and several other Federal 
agencies reviewed the technical basis for various riparian functions as 
they pertain to salmonid conservation (Spence et al., 1996). These 
authors suggest that a functional approach to riparian protection 
requires a consistent definition of riparian ecosystems based on 
``zones of influence'' for specific riparian processes. They noted that 
in constrained reaches where the active channel remains relatively 
stable through time, riparian zones of influences may be defined based 
on site-potential tree heights and distance from the active channel. In 
contrast, they note that, in unconstrained reaches (e.g., streams in 
broad valley floors) with braided or shifting channels, the riparian 
zone of influence is more difficult to define, but recommend that it is 
more appropriate to define the riparian zone based on some measure of 
the extent of the flood plain.
    Spence et al. (1996) reviewed the functions of riparian zones that 
are essential to the development and maintenance of aquatic habitats 
favorable to salmonids and the available literature concerning the 
riparian distances that would protect these functional processes. Many 
of the studies reviewed indicate that riparian management widths 
designed to protect one function in particular, recruitment of large 
woody debris, are likely to be adequate to protect other key riparian 
functions. The reviewed studies concluded that the vast majority of 
large woody debris is obtained within one site-potential tree height 
from the stream channel (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade et al., 1990; 
Robison and Beschta, 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; FEMAT, 1993; 
and Cederholm, 1994). Based on the available literature, Spence et al. 
(1996) concluded that fully protected riparian management zones of one 
site potential tree would adequately maintain 90 to 100 percent of most 
key riparian functions of Pacific Northwest forests if the goal was to 
maintain instream processes over a time frame of years to decades.
    Based on experience gained since the designation of critical 
habitat for Snake River salmon and after considering public comments 
and reviewing additional scientific information regarding riparian 
habitats, NMFS defines steelhead critical habitat based on key riparian 
functions. Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the 
area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade, 
sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and 
input of large woody debris or organic matter. Specific guidance on 
assessing the potential impacts of land use activities on riparian 
functions can be obtained by consulting with NMFS (see ADDRESSES), 
local foresters, conservation officers, fisheries biologists, or county 
extension agents.
    The physical and biological features that create properly 
functioning salmonid habitat vary throughout the range of steelhead and 
the extent of the adjacent riparian zone may change accordingly 
depending on the landscape under consideration. While a site-potential 
tree height can serve as a reasonable benchmark in some cases, site-
specific analyses provide the best means to characterize the adjacent 
riparian zone because such analyses are more likely to accurately 
capture the unique attributes of a particular landscape. Knowing what 
may be a limiting factor to the properly functioning condition of a 
stream channel on a land use or land type basis

[[Page 5745]]

and how that may or may not affect the function of the riparian zone 
will significantly assist Federal agencies in assessing the potential 
for impacts to listed steelhead. On Federal lands within the range of 
the northern spotted owl, Federal agencies should continue to rely on 
the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan to guide 
their consultations with NMFS. Where there is a Federal action on non-
Federal lands, Federal agencies should consider the potential effects 
of the activities they fund, permit, or authorize on the riparian zone 
adjacent to a stream that may influence the following functions: shade, 
sediment delivery to the stream, nutrient or chemical regulation, 
streambank stability, and the input of large woody debris or organic 
matter. In areas where the existing riparian zone is seriously 
diminished (e.g., in many urban settings and agricultural settings 
where flood control structures are prevalent), Federal agencies should 
focus on maintaining any existing riparian functions and restoring 
others where appropriate, for example, by cooperating with local 
watershed groups and landowners. NMFS acknowledges in its description 
of riparian habitat function that different land use types (e.g., 
timber, urban, and agricultural) will have varying degrees of impact 
and that activities requiring a Federal permit will be evaluated on the 
basis of disturbance to the riparian zone. In many cases the evaluation 
of an activity may focus on a particular limiting factor for a water 
course (e.g., temperature, stream bank erosion, sediment transport) and 
whether that activity may or may not contribute to improving or 
degrading the riparian habitat.
    Finally, NMFS emphasizes that a designation of critical habitat 
does not prohibit landowners from conducting actions that modify 
streams or the adjacent terrestrial habitat. Critical habitat 
designation serves to identify important areas and essential features 
within those areas, thus alerting both Federal and non-Federal entities 
to the importance of the area for listed salmonids. Federal agencies 
are required by the ESA to consult with NMFS to ensure that any action 
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes 
the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the 
listed species. The designation of critical habitat will assist Federal 
agencies in evaluating how their actions on Federal or non-Federal 
lands may affect listed steelhead and determining when they should 
consult with NMFS on the impacts of their actions. When a private 
landowner requires a Federal permit that may result in the modification 
of steelhead habitat, Federal permitting agencies will be required to 
ensure that the permitted action, regardless of whether it occurs in 
the stream channel, adjacent riparian zone, or upland areas, does not 
appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery of the listed species or jeopardize the species' 
continued existence. For other actions, landowners should consider the 
needs of the listed fish and NMFS will assist them in assessing the 
impacts of actions.

Barriers Within the Species' Range

    Within the range of all threatened or endangered ESUs, steelhead 
face a multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile and 
adult fish to essential freshwater habitats. In some cases these are 
natural barriers (e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity barriers) 
that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years. Some 
pose an obvious physical barrier to any anadromous salmonids (e.g., 
Palouse Falls on the Palouse River, Washington) while others may only 
be surmountable during years when extreme river conditions (e.g., 
floods) provide passage.
    An example of the latter has recently been brought to NMFS' 
attention via a petition from Meridian Gold Company (Meridian) to 
revise critical habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon in 
Napias Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River, located near Salmon, 
Idaho (U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit ``Middle Salmon-Panther, 
17060203''). Like chinook salmon, steelhead do not presently occur in 
Napias Creek; therefore, conclusions regarding the nature of this 
barrier are difficult since such conclusions must rely on indirect 
modeling efforts and surveys, as well as historical sources on the 
presence of anadromous fish. While NMFS believes it is likely steelhead 
could migrate above the falls at certain streamflows (NMFS, 1998), it 
is difficult to determine the frequency that steelhead would migrate 
above the falls or whether steelhead would recolonize habitat areas 
above the falls. The presence of relict indicator species above the 
falls (e.g., rainbow trout) tends to indicate steelhead may have 
occurred above the falls over evolutionary time periods; however, 
recent historical information indicates steelhead have not occurred in 
this area in recent times.
    After analyzing new information and analyses submitted by Meridian, 
NMFS concludes Napias Creek Falls may constitute a naturally impassable 
barrier for steelhead. While the falls may be passable to steelhead at 
certain flows, available evidence suggests this species would not do so 
with any regularity. Given the scientific uncertainty associated with 
this conclusion, NMFS specifically requests data and analyses 
concerning this and other potentially impassable natural barriers (see 
Public Comments Solicited).
    Manmade barriers created in the past several decades can create 
significant problems for anadromous salmonids (California Department of 
Fish and Game (CDFG), 1965; CACSST, 1988; Forest Ecosystem Management 
Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, 1996). The extent of such barriers as culverts 
and road crossing structures that impede or block fish passage appears 
to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence surveys conducted 
in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey season, nearly 15 
percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due to human 
barriers, principally road culverts (Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration 
Initiative, 1997). Pushup dams/diversions and irrigation withdrawals 
also present significant barriers or lethal conditions (e.g., high 
water temperatures) to steelhead in nearly all ESUs. However, because 
these manmade barriers can, under certain flow conditions, be 
surmounted by fish or present only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS 
does not consider them to delineate the upstream extent of critical 
habitat.
    Since man-made impassable barriers are widely distributed 
throughout the range of each ESU, they can have a major downstream 
influence on steelhead. Such impacts may include (1) depletion and 
storage of natural flows which can drastically alter natural 
hydrological cycles; (2) increased juvenile and adult mortality due to 
migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or habitat 
blockages; (3) loss of sufficient habitat due to deterring and 
blockage; (4) stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow fluctuations; 
(5) entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or unscreened 
diversions; and (6) increased mortality resulting from increased water 
temperatures (CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991; 
Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; and 
NMFS, 1996b). In addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively 
affect

[[Page 5746]]

fish habitats due to increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning 
gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and spawning 
gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic vegetation into 
spawning and rearing areas resulting in reduced available habitat 
(CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and NMFS, 1996b). 
These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed through ESA 
section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.
    Numerous hydropower and water storage projects have been built 
which either block access to areas used historically by steelhead or 
alter the hydrograph of downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified 
numerous dams within the range of steelhead ESUs listed or proposed for 
listing that currently have no fish passage facilities to allow 
steelhead access to former spawning and rearing habitats (Tables 18 
through 26). In some ESUs, blocked habitat constitutes up to 95 percent 
of the historical range (CACSST, 1988; and Reynolds et al., 1993). 
While these blocked areas are significant in certain basins (e.g., 
areas in California's Central Valley), NMFS believes that currently 
accessible habitat may be sufficient for the conservation of affected 
steelhead ESUs. NMFS has concluded that the potential for restoring 
access to former spawning and rearing habitat above currently 
impassable man-made barriers is a significant factor to be considered 
in determining whether such habitat is essential for the conservation 
of species. NMFS solicits comments and scientific information on this 
issue and will consider such information prior to issuing any final 
critical habitat designation. This may result in the inclusion of areas 
above some man-made impassable barriers in a future critical habitat 
designation.
    Throughout the range of west coast steelhead, numerous hydropower 
dams are undergoing, or are scheduled for, relicensing by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NMFS will evaluate information 
developed during the process of relicensing to determine whether fish 
passage facilities are needed at such dams to restore access to 
historically available habitat. Even though habitat above such barriers 
is not currently designated as critical, this conclusion does not 
foreclose the potential importance of restoring access to these areas. 
Therefore, NMFS will determine on a case-by-case basis during FERC 
relicensing proceedings whether fish passage facilities will be 
required to provide access to habitat that is essential for the 
conservation of affected steelhead ESUs.

Critical Habitat and Indian Lands

    The unique and distinctive political relationship between the 
United States and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes, 
executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and 
differentiates tribes from the other entities that deal with, or are 
affected by, the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise 
to a special Federal trust responsibility, involving the legal 
responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian 
tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with 
respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 
tribal rights.
    Indian lands (Indian lands are defined in the Secretarial Order of 
June 5, 1997, as ``any lands title to which is either: (1) held in 
trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 
individual; or (2) held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to 
restrictions by the United States against alienation'') were retained 
by tribes or have been set aside for tribal use pursuant to treaties, 
statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders, or agreements. These 
lands are managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and 
objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.
    As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship 
described here and implementing the Presidential Memorandum of April 
24, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American 
Tribal Governments, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the 
Interior issued the Secretarial Order entitled ``American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act'' on June 5, 1997. The Secretarial Order clarifies the 
responsibilities of NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Services) when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires 
that they consult with, and seek the participation of, the affected 
Indian tribes to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order 
further provides that the Services ``shall consult with the affected 
Indian tribe(s) when considering the designation of critical habitat in 
an area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee 
lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve 
a listed species.''
    NMFS has determined that the Indian Reservations containing Indian 
lands most likely to be affected by a critical habitat designation of 
listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are the Colville Indian Reservation 
(Upper Columbia River ESU); Nez Perce Indian Reservation (Snake River 
ESU); and the Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Indian Reservations 
(Middle Columbia River ESU). The major river basins containing 
reservation lands and listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are identified 
in Tables 24 through 26. NMFS has not yet identified tribally owned fee 
lands or other areas where designation of critical habitat may impact 
tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal rights. NMFS will 
identify any such lands during government-to-government consultation 
with affected tribes.
    Although NMFS notified the affected tribes of the proposed critical 
habitat designation, insufficient time was allotted for meaningful 
government-to-government consultation. NMFS will continue to consult 
with the tribes in accordance with the agency's trust responsibilities 
and the Secretarial Order concerning critical habitat designation in 
these ESUs. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to designate critical 
habitat on the described reservation lands at this time. In addition, 
tribally owned fee lands and other areas where critical habitat 
designation may impact the exercise of tribal rights or trust resources 
may be identified and included or excluded from critical habitat 
designation in a subsequent action. If any such lands are determined to 
be essential to conserve listed steelhead, such lands may be designated 
critical habitat in a subsequent action.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    In order to ensure that the essential habitat areas and features 
are maintained or restored, special management measures may be needed. 
Federal activities that may require special management considerations 
for freshwater and estuarine life stages of listed steelhead include, 
but are not limited to (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3) 
point and non-point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat 
restoration; (6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining; 
(8) road construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10) 
dredge and fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily 
of current concern within every ESU; however, they indicate the 
potential types of activities that will require consultation in the 
future. Activities that are conducted on private or state lands that 
are not federally permitted or funded are not subject to any additional 
regulations under this rule. However, non-Federal

[[Page 5747]]

landowners should be aware that any significant habitat modifications 
that could adversely affect listed fish, could result in a ``taking'' 
(i.e., harming or killing) of the listed species, which is prohibited 
under section 9 of the ESA. No special management considerations have 
been identified for steelhead while they are residing in the ocean 
environment.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

    A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat 
requirements of steelhead. More in-depth discussions are contained in 
the Federal Register documents announcing the listing determinations 
for each ESU (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996; 62 FR 43937, August 18, 
1997; 63 FR 11798, March 10, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998) as well 
as NMFS' document entitled ``Steelhead Factors for Decline: A 
Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead'' 
(NMFS, 1996b). These activities include water and land management 
actions of Federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Federal Highway Administration (FHA), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natural Resource 
Conservation Service (NRCS), National Park Service (NPS), and FERC) and 
related or similar actions of other federally regulated projects and 
lands including livestock grazing allocations by USFS and BLM; 
hydropower sites licensed by FERC; dams built or operated by the Corps 
or BOR; timber sales conducted by the USFS and BLM; road building 
activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, BLM, and NPS; and mining and 
road building activities authorized by the states of Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, and California. Other actions of concern include dredge 
and fill, mining, and bank stabilization activities authorized or 
conducted by the Corps and habitat modifications authorized by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, actions of 
concern could include approval of water quality standards and pesticide 
labeling and use restrictions administered by EPA.
    The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this 
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, Corps, FHA, 
NRCS, NPS, FEMA, and FERC. This designation will provide clear 
notification to these agencies, private entities, and the public of 
critical habitat designated for steelhead and of the boundaries of the 
habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7 
consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies 
and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on 
steelhead and their critical habitat and in determining when 
consultation with NMFS is appropriate.

Expected Economic Impacts

    The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat 
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation 
above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to 
authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other 
Factors). Incremental impacts result from special management activities 
in those areas, if any, outside the present distribution of the listed 
species that NMFS has determined to be essential to the conservation of 
the species. For these steelhead ESUs, NMFS has determined that the 
present geographic extent of their freshwater and estuarine range is 
likely sufficient to provide for conservation of the species, although 
the quality of that habitat needs improvement on many fronts. Because 
NMFS is not designating any areas beyond the current range of these 
steelhead ESUs as critical habitat, the designation will result in few, 
if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have been 
caused by listing and by other statutes.
    USFS, BLM, BOR, and the Corps manage areas of proposed critical 
habitat for the steelhead ESUs. The Corps and other Federal agencies 
that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in critical 
habitat areas may also be affected by this designation. Because NMFS 
believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations 
pertaining to critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy'' 
conclusions under ESA Section 7 consultations (i.e., as a result of the 
species being listed), the designation of critical habitat is not 
expected to result in significant incremental restrictions on Federal 
agency activities. Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result 
in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have 
been caused by the ESA listing and by other statutes.

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments 
and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
    NMFS requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality and 
extent of marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (including 
adjacent riparian zones) for juvenile and adult steelhead as well as 
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat in 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Areas that include the 
physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the 
species should be identified. Essential features include, but are not 
limited to (1) habitat for individual and population growth and for 
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) 
sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that 
are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of the species. NMFS is also 
requesting information regarding steelhead distribution and habitat 
requirements within the range of Indian lands identified in this 
proposal and whether these lands should be considered essential for the 
conservation of the listed species or whether recovery can be achieved 
by limiting the designation to other lands.
    NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries 
of these ESUs that historically constituted steelhead habitat but may 
not be currently occupied by steelhead. NMFS requests information about 
steelhead in these currently unoccupied areas and whether these 
habitats should be considered essential to the recovery of the species 
or excluded from designation.
    For areas where natural barriers are believed to pose a migration 
barrier for steelhead (e.g., the Napias Creek Falls issue described 
earlier in this document), NMFS specifically requests data and analyses 
concerning the following: (1) Historic accounts indicating steelhead or 
other anadromous salmonids occurred above the barrier; (2) data or 
reports analyzing the likelihood steelhead or other anadromous 
salmonids would migrate above the barrier; and (3) other information 
indicating that a particular barrier is or is not naturally impassable 
to anadromous salmonid migration. NMFS will evaluate all new 
information received concerning this issue and will reconsider this 
issue in its final steelhead critical habitat designation.
    For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is 
requesting the following information: (1) The activities that affect 
the area or could be affected by the designation and (2) the economic

[[Page 5748]]

costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures 
likely to result from the designation. The economic cost to be 
considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the 
probable economic impact ``of the [critical habitat] designation upon 
proposed or ongoing activities'' (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider 
the incremental costs resulting specifically from a critical habitat 
designation that are above the economic effects attributable to listing 
the species. Economic effects attributable to listing include actions 
resulting from section 7 consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy 
to the species and from the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the 
ESA. Comments concerning economic impacts should distinguish the costs 
of listing from the incremental costs that can be directly attributed 
to the designation of specific areas as critical habitat.
    NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information 
regarding the status and critical habitat of the steelhead ESUs 
described herein and complete a final rule as soon as practicable. The 
availability of new information may cause NMFS to reassess the proposed 
critical habitat designation of steelhead ESUs.

Public Hearings

    Joint Departments of Commerce and Interior ESA implementing 
regulations state that the Secretaries shall promptly hold at least one 
public hearing if any person so requests within 45 days of publication 
of a proposed regulation to list species or to designate critical 
habitat (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). NMFS will schedule public hearings on 
this proposed rule in the range of affected communities in a subsequent 
Federal Register document. Requests for specific locations or 
additional public hearings must be received by March 22, 1999. NMFS 
encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing 
the range of listed or proposed steelhead ESUs are available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

    NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments or an 
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).
    NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of these 
steelhead ESUs as critical habitat. Areas excluded from this proposed 
designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and any 
historically occupied areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g., 
long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS concludes that the currently 
inhabited areas within the range of each ESU are the minimum habitat 
necessary to ensure the species' conservation and recovery.
    Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
requirements or economic effects upon small entities beyond those which 
may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal 
agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements 
of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of 
species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS 
and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
    In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation 
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action 
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and 
governments.
    Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the 
proposed critical habitat designation, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
as described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined 
this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
    This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: January 29, 1999.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

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


Sec. 226.29  Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 
Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central 
California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), South-Central 
California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Southern California 
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus 
mykiss), Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Upper 
Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River Basin 
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

    Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed steelhead within the range of the ESUs listed, 
except for reaches on Indian lands within Indian Reservations defined 
in Tables 24 through 26 to this part. Critical habitat consists of the 
water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine 
reaches in hydrologic units and counties identified in Tables 18 
through 26 to this part for all of the steelhead ESUs listed in this 
section. Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of 
the ESUs that can still be occupied by any life stage of steelhead. 
Inaccessible reaches are those above longstanding, naturally impassable 
barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several 
hundred years) and specific dams within the historical range of each 
ESU identified in Tables 18 through 26 to this part. Hydrologic units 
are those defined by the Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic Unit Maps, Water 
Supply Paper 2294, 1986, and by the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000 
scale hydrologic unit maps: State of California (1978), State of Idaho 
(1981), State of Oregon (1974), and State of Washington (1974) which 
are incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C.

[[Page 5749]]

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the USGS publication and maps may 
be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. 
Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE 
Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (a) Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic 
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries between 
the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers in Washington and the Willamette and Hood 
Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Also included are river reaches and 
estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting 
the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the 
west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream 
to the Hood River in Oregon. Excluded are areas above specific dams 
identified in Table 18 to this part or above longstanding, naturally 
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least 
several hundred years).
    (b) Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in the Willamette River 
and its tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also included are river 
reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line 
connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) 
and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) 
upstream to, and including, the Willamette River in Oregon. Excluded 
are areas above specific dams identified in Table 19 to this part or 
above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural 
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (c) Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in 
coastal river basins from the Russian River to Soquel Creek, California 
(inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. 
Also included are all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez 
Bridge and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/
Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge. 
Excluded is the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the California 
Central Valley as well as areas above specific dams identified in Table 
20 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers 
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred 
years).
    (d) South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in 
coastal river basins from the Pajaro River (inclusive) to, but not 
including, the Santa Maria River, California. Excluded are areas above 
specific dams identified in Table 21 to this part or above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (e) Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic 
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in coastal river 
basins from the Santa Maria River to Malibu Creek, California 
(inclusive). Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 
22 to this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers 
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred 
years).
    (f) Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic 
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers 
and their tributaries in California. Also included are river reaches 
and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters 
from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, 
Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo 
Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco 
Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay 
to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas of the San Joaquin River 
upstream of the Merced River confluence and areas above specific dams 
identified in Table 23 to this part or above longstanding, naturally 
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least 
several hundred years).
    (g) Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River 
tributaries (except the Snake River) between Mosier Creek in Oregon and 
the Yakima River in Washington (inclusive). Also included are river 
reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line 
connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) 
and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) 
upstream to the Yakima River in Washington. Excluded are areas above 
specific dams identified in Table 24 to this part or above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (h) Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic 
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed steelhead in Columbia River tributaries upstream 
of the Yakima River, Washington, and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam. 
Also included are river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia 
River from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty 
(south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north 
jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington. 
Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 25 of this 
part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., 
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (i) Snake River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) geographic 
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed steelhead in the Snake River and its tributaries 
in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Also included are river reaches and 
estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting 
the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the 
west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream 
to the confluence with the Snake River. Excluded are areas above 
specific dams identified in Table 26 to this part or above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years).
    3. Tables 5 through 17 are added and reserved, and tables 18 
through 26 are added to part 226 to read as follows:

[[Page 5750]]



 Table 18 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Steelhead, and Dams Representing the Upstream
                                                               Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Hydrologic       Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
           Hydrologic unit name               unit No.                        range of ESU \1\                                     Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Columbia-Hood.....................        17070105  Hood River (OR), Skamania (WA).                        ......................................
Lower Columbia-Sandy.....................        17080001  Clackamas (OR), Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania   Bull Run Dam #2.
                                                            (WA)
Lewis....................................        17080002  Clark (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania (WA)                Merwin Dam.
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................        17080003  Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania
                                                            (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Lower Cowlitz............................        17080005  Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA).............................  Mayfield Dam.
Lower Columbia...........................        17080006  Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Clackamas................................        17090011  Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR).
Lower Willamette.........................        17090012  Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR),
                                                            Washington (OR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.


    Table 19 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Willamette River Steelhead, and Dams Representing the
                                                           Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Hydrologic       Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
           Hydrologic unit name               unit No.                        range of ESU \1\                                     Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia-Sandy.....................        17080001  Clark (WA)...........................................  Bull Run Dam.
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................        17080003  Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum
                                                            (WA).
Lower Columbia...........................        17080006  Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Middle Fork Willamette...................        17090001  Lane (OR)............................................  Dexter Dam.
Coast Fork Willamette....................        17090002  Douglas (OR), Lane (OR)..............................  Dorena Dam.
Upper Willamette.........................        17090003  Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Lincoln (OR), Linn (OR), Polk  Cougar Dam.
                                                            (OR).
McKenzie.................................        17090004  Lane (OR), Linn (OR).................................  Big Cliff Dam.
North Santiam............................        17090005  Linn (OR), Marion (OR).
South Santiam............................        17090006  Linn (OR)............................................  Green Peter Dam.
Middle Willamette........................        17090007  Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR), Polk (OR), Washington
                                                            (OR), Yamhill (OR).
Yamhill..................................        17090008  Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR), Tillamook (OR), Washington
                                                            (OR), Yamhill (OR).
Molalla-Pudding..........................        17090009  Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR).
Tualatin.................................        17090010  Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR),
                                                            Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR), Yamhill (OR).
Lower Willamette.........................        17090012  Clackamas (OR), Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\  Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.


   Table 20 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central California Coast Steelhead, and Dams Representing the
                                                           Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Hydrologic    Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
        Hydrologic unit name             unit No.                     range of ESU \1\                                        Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian.............................        18010110  Mendocino (CA), Sonoma (CA).....................  Coyote Dam, Warm Springs Dam.
Bodega Bay..........................        18010111  Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).
Suisun Bay..........................        18050001  Contra Costa (CA), Napa (CA), Solano (CA).
San Pablo Bay.......................        18050002  Marin (CA), Napa (CA)...........................  San Pablo Reservoir.
Coyote..............................        18050003  Alameda (CA), San Mateo (CA), Santa Clara (CA)..  Calavera Reservoir.
San Francisco Bay...................        18050004  Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA), San Mateo (CA),
                                                       Santa Clara (CA).
Tomales-Drake Bays..................        18050005  Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).........................  Nicasio Dam, Seeger Dam.
San Francisco Coastal South.........        18050006  San Mateo (CA).
San Lorenzo-Soquel..................        18060001  San Mateo (CA), Santa Cruz (CA).................  Newell Dam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.


[[Page 5751]]


Table 21 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, and Dams Representing the
                                                           Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Hydrologic       Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within
           Hydrologic unit name               unit No.                        range of ESU \1\                                     Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pajaro...................................        18060002  Monterey (CA), San Benito (CA), Santa Clara (CA),
                                                            Santa Cruz (CA).
Estrella.................................        18060004  Monterey (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA).
Salinas..................................        18060005  Monterey (CA), San Benito (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA).  Salinas Dam.
Central Coastal..........................        18060006  Monterey (CA), San Luis Obispo (CA)..................
Alisal-Elkhorn Sloughs...................        18060011
Carmel...................................        18060012  .....................................................  Los Padres Dam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.


    Table 22 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Southern California
                    Steelhead, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hydrologic    Counties contained in hydrologic unit and
     Hydrologic unit name          unit No.              within range of ESU \1\                    Dams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuyama........................        18060007  San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Barbara (CA).  Vaquero Dam.
Santa Maria...................        18060008  San Luis Obispo (CA), Santa Barbara (CA).
San Antonio...................        18060009  Santa Barbara (CA).
Santa Ynez....................        18060010  Santa Barbara (CA).......................  Bradbury Dam.
Santa Barbara Coastal.........        18060013  Santa Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA).
Ventura.......................        18070101  Santa Barbara (CA), Ventura (CA).........  Casitas Dam, Robles
                                                                                            Dam, Matilija Dam,
                                                                                            Vern Freeman
                                                                                            Diversion Dam.
Santa Clara...................        18070102  Los Angeles (CA), Santa Barbara (CA),      Santa Felicia Dam.
                                                 Ventura (CA).
Calleguas.....................        18070103  Los Angeles (CA), Ventura (CA).
Santa Monica Bay..............        18070103  Los Angeles (CA), Ventura (CA)...........  Rindge Dam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
  county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.


 Table 23 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Central Valley Steelhead,
                          and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hydrologic    Counties contained in hydrologic unit and
     Hydrologic unit name          unit No.              within range of ESU \1\                    Dams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower            18020101  Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).
 Clear.
Lower Cottonwood..............        18020102  Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).
Sacramento-Lower Thomes.......        18020103  Butte (CA), Glenn (CA), Tehama (CA)......  Black Butte Dam.
Sacramento-Stone Corral.......        18020104  Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA),       .....................
                                                 Sutter (CA), Yolo (CA).
Lower Butte...................        18020105  Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA),       .....................
                                                 Sutter (CA).
Lower Feather.................        18020106  Butte (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA).......  Oroville Dam.
Lower Yuba....................        18020107  Yuba (CA).                                 .....................
Lower Bear....................        18020108  Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA)......  Camp Far West Dam.
Lower Sacramento..............        18020109  Placer (CA), Sacramento (CA), Solano       .....................
                                                 (CA), Sutter (CA), Yolo (CA).
Lower American................        18020111  Placer (CA), Sacramento (CA), Sutter (CA)  Nimbus Dam.
Sacramento-Upper Clear........        18020112  Shasta (CA)..............................  Keswick Dam.
Cottonwood Headwaters.........        18020113  Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).                  .....................
Upper Elder-Upper Thomes......        18020114  Tehama (CA).                               .....................
Upper Cow-Battle..............        18020118  Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).................  Whiskeytown Dam.
Mill-Big Chico................        18020119  Butte (CA), Shasta (CA), Tehama (CA).      .....................
Upper Butte...................        18020120  Butte (CA), Tehama (CA).                   .....................
Honcut Headwaters.............        18020124  Butte (CA), Yuba (CA).                     .....................
Upper Yuba....................        18020125  Yuba (CA), Nevada (CA)...................  Englebright Dam.
Upper Coon-Upper Auburn.......        18020127  Placer (CA).                               .....................
Middle San Joaquin-Lower              18040002  Calaveras (CA), Merced (CA), San Joaquin   Crocker Diversion
 Merced-Lower Stanislaus.                        (CA), Stanislaus (CA)                      Dam, La Grange Dam.
San Joaquin Delta.............        18040003  Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA),           .....................
                                                 Sacramento (CA), San Joaquin (CA).
Lower Calaveras-Mormon Slough.        18040004  Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin (CA),          .....................
                                                 Stanislaus (CA).
Lower Consumnes-Lower                 18040005  Amador (CA), Sacramento (CA), San Joaquin  Comanche Dam.
 Mokelumne.                                      (CA).
Upper Stanislaus..............        18040010  Calaveras (CA), San Joaquin (CA),          Goodwin Dam.
                                                 Tuolumne (CA).

[[Page 5752]]

 
Upper Calaveras...............        18040011  Calaveras (CA)...........................  New Hogan Dam.
Panoche-San Luis Reservoir....        18040014  San Joaquin (CA), Stanislaus (CA).         .....................
Suisun Bay....................        18050001  Contra Costa (CA), Solano (CA).            .....................
San Pablo Bay.................        18050002  Contra Costa (CA), Marin (CA), San         .....................
                                                 Francisco (CA), Solano (CA), Sonoma
                                                 (CA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
  county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Reserved.


   Table 24 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Middle Columbia River
   Steelhead, Tribal Lands within the Range of the ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical
                                                     Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties and tribal lands contained in
     Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and within range of ESU            Dams
                                   unit No.                      \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids..        17020016  Benton (WA), Franklin (WA).                .....................
Upper Yakima..................        17030001  Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA).                .....................
Naches........................        17030002  Kittitas (WA), Yakima (WA).                .....................
Lower Yakima..................        17030003  Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA),  .....................
                                                 Yakima Indian Reservation.
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula..        17070101  Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR),  .....................
                                                 Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla
                                                 (WA), Yakima (WA).
Walla Walla...................        17070102  Umatilla (OR), Wallowa (OR), Columbia      .....................
                                                 (WA), Walla Walla (WA).
Umatilla......................        17070103  Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR), Union (OR),    .....................
                                                 Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Willow........................        17070104  Morrow (OR), Gilliam (OR).                 .....................
Middle Columbia-Hood..........        17070105  Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco       Condit Dam.
                                                 (OR), Klickitat (WA), Skamania (WA).
Klickitat.....................        17070106  Klickitat (WA), Yakima (WA), Yakama        .....................
                                                 Indian Reservation.
Upper John Day................        17070201  Crook (OR), Grant (OR), Harney (OR),       .....................
                                                 Wheeler (OR).
North Fork John Day...........        17070202  Grant (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR),    .....................
                                                 Union (OR), Wheeler (OR).
Middle Fork John Day..........        17070203  Grant (OR).                                .....................
Lower John Day................        17070204  Crook (OR), Gilliam (OR), Grant (OR),      .....................
                                                 Jefferson (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman
                                                 (OR), Wasco (OR), Wheeler (OR).
Lower Deschutes...............        17070306  Jefferson (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR),  Pelton Dam.
                                                 Warm Springs Indian Reservation.
Trout.........................        17070307  Crook (OR), Jefferson (OR), Wasco (OR).    .....................
Lower Columbia-Sandy..........        17080001  Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania       .....................
                                                 (WA).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie.....        17080003  Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz       .....................
                                                 (WA), Wahkiakum (WA).
Lower Columbia................        17080006  Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum      .....................
                                                 (WA).
Lower Willamette..............        17090012  Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR).             .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
  county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.


  Table 25 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Upper Columbia River Steelhead, Tribal Lands Within the Range of
                                         the ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Hydrologic      Counties and tribal lands contained in hydrologic
           Hydrologic unit name               unit No.               unit and within range of ESU 1, 2                             Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Joseph.............................        17020005  Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Okanogan (WA), Colville     Chief Joseph Dam.
                                                            Indian Reservation.
Okanogan.................................        17020006  Okanogan (WA), Colville Indian Reservation...........
Similkameen..............................        17020007  Okanogan (WA)........................................
Methow...................................        17020008  Okanogan (WA)........................................
Upper Columbia-Entiat....................        17020010  Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Grant (WA), Kittitas (WA).
Wenatchee................................        17020011  Chelan (WA)..........................................
Moses Coulee.............................        17020012  Douglas (WA), Grant (WA).............................
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids.............        17020016  Benton (WA), Franklin (WA), Grant (WA), Kittitas
                                                            (WA), Yakima (WA).
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula.............        17070101  Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla
                                                            (OR), Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood.....................        17070105  Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat
                                                            (WA), Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Sandy.....................        17080001  Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA)............
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................        17080003  Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum
                                                            (WA).

[[Page 5753]]

 
Lower Columbia...........................        17080006  Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA)...........
Lower Willamette.........................        17090012  Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR)........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.


 Table 26 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Snake River Basin Steelhead, Tribal Lands Within the Range of the
                                           ESU, and Dams Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Hydrologic      Counties and tribal lands contained in hydrologic
           Hydrologic unit name               unit No.               unit and within range of ESU 1, 2                             Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hells Canyon.............................        17060101  Adams (ID), Idaho (ID), Wallowa (OR).................  Hells Canyon Dam.
Imnaha...................................        17060102  Baker (OR), Union (OR), Wallowa (OR).................
Lower Snake-Asotin.......................        17060103  Nez Perce (ID), Wallowa (OR), Asotin (WA), Garfield
                                                            (WA).
Upper Grande Ronde.......................        17060104  Grant (OR), Umatilla (OR), Union (OR)................
Wallowa..................................        17060105  Union (OR), Wallowa (OR).............................
Lower Grande Ronde.......................        17060106  Union (OR), Wallowa (OR), Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA),
                                                            Garfield (WA).
Lower Snake-Tucannon.....................        17060107  Asotin (WA), Columbia (WA), Garfield (WA), Whitman
                                                            (WA).
Palouse..................................        17060108  Benewah (ID), Latah (ID), Nez Perce (ID), Franklin
                                                            (WA), Lincoln (WA), Spokane (WA), Whitman (WA) Nez
                                                            Perce Indian Reservation.
Lower Snake..............................        17060110  Columbia (WA), Franklin (WA), Walla Walla (WA).......
Upper Salmon.............................        17060201  Blaine (ID), Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID).................
Pahsimeroi...............................        17060202  Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID)..............................
Middle Salmon-Panther....................        17060203  Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID)..............................
Lemhi....................................        17060204  Lemhi (ID)...........................................
Upper Middle Fork Salmon.................        17060205  Boise (ID), Custer (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID).....
Lower Middle Fork Salmon.................        17060206  Idaho (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID)..................
Middle Salmon-Chamberlain................        17060207  Idaho (ID), Lemhi (ID), Valley (ID)..................
South Fork Salmon........................        17060208  Idaho (ID), Valley (ID)..............................
Lower Salmon.............................        17060209  Idaho (ID), Lewis (ID), Nez Perce (ID)...............
Little Salmon............................        17060210  Adams (ID), Idaho (ID)...............................
Upper Selway.............................        17060301  Idaho (ID)...........................................
Lower Selway.............................        17060302  Idaho (ID)...........................................
Lochsa...................................        17060303  Clearwater (ID), Idaho (ID)..........................
Middle Fork Clearwater...................        17060304  Idaho (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.............
South Fork Clearwater....................        17060305  Idaho (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.............
Clearwater...............................        17060306  Clearwater (ID), Idaho (ID), Latah (ID), Lewis (ID),
                                                            Nez Perce (ID), Nez Perce Indian Reservation.
Lower North Fork Clearwater..............        17060308  Clearwater (ID), Latah (ID), Shoshone (ID), Nez Perce  Dworshak Dam.
                                                            Indian Reservation.
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula.............        17070101  Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla
                                                            (OR), Benton (WA), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).
Middle Columbia-Hood.....................        17070105  Hood River (OR), Sherman (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat
                                                            (WA), Skamania (WA).
Lower Columbia-Sandy.....................        17080001  Multnomah (OR), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA)............
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie................        17080003  Clatsop (OR), Columbia (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Wahkiakum
                                                            (WA).
Lower Columbia...........................        17080006  Clatsop (OR), Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA)...........
Lower Willamette.........................        17090012  Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR) .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
\2\ Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.


[[Page 5754]]

[FR Doc. 99-2642 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P