[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24049-24062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 971029257-9101-02; I.D. 101097A]
RIN 0648-AG56


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

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

ACTION: Final rule and correction.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is designating critical habitat for two Evolutionarily 
Significant Units (ESUs) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) pursuant 
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Critical habitat for the 
Central California Coast ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all 
rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between Punta Gorda 
and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in California, including two 
streams entering San Francisco Bay: Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio 
and Corte Madera Creek. Critical habitat for the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all 
rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between the Mattole 
River in California and the Elk River in Oregon, inclusive.
    The areas described in this final rule represent the current 
freshwater and estuarine range of the listed species. For both ESUs, 
critical habitat includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent 
riparian zones below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., 
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). 
After considering public comments and reviewing additional scientific 
information, NMFS is modifying various aspects of the proposed 
designation, including a revised description of adjacent riparian zones 
and the exclusion of tribal lands from critical habitat. NMFS has 
identified several dams in the range of these ESUs that currently block 
access to habitats

[[Page 24050]]

historically occupied by coho salmon. However, NMFS has not designated 
these inaccessible areas as critical habitat because the downstream 
areas are believed to provide sufficient habitat for conserving the 
ESUs. The economic (and other) impacts resulting from this critical 
habitat designation are expected to be minimal.

DATES: This rule is effective June 4, 1999. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of June 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Oregon, contact Garth Griffin 
(Portland) at (503) 231-2005, or Frank Bird (Roseburg) at (541) 957-
3383. In California, contact Craig Wingert (Long Beach) at (562) 980-
4021, Patrick Rutten (Santa Rosa) at (707) 575-6050, or Greg Bryant 
(Eureka) at (707) 441-3684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 31, 1996, NMFS published its determination to list 
Central California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as 
threatened under the ESA (61 FR 56138). In a technical correction to 
the final listing determination (62 FR 1296, January 9, 1997), NMFS 
defined the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU to include all 
coho salmon naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda in 
Humboldt County, California, and the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz 
County, California (inclusive). Subsequently, on May 6, 1997, NMFS 
published its determination to list the Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coasts coho salmon ESU as threatened under the ESA (62 FR 
24588) and defined the ESU to include all coho salmon naturally 
reproduced in streams between Cape Blanco in Curry County, Oregon, and 
Punta Gorda in Humboldt County, California.
    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently 
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. On 
July 25, 1995, NMFS published a Federal Register document (60 FR 38011) 
soliciting information and data regarding the biological status of West 
Coast coho salmon, available salmon conservation measures, and 
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat. At the time 
of final listing for each of these two ESUs, critical habitat was not 
determinable, because there was not enough information to perform the 
required analyses. On November 25, 1997, NMFS published a proposed rule 
designating critical habitat for the listed species (62 FR 62741). In 
that proposed rule, NMFS solicited public comments and announced public 
hearings on the proposed action. This final rule takes into 
consideration the new information and comments received in response to 
the proposed rule.
    Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document refers 
to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused 
with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat 
(EFH) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq).

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon 
a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species'' (see 16 
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 
3(3) of the ESA, means ``* * * to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to this Act are no longer necessary'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
    In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following 
requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, 
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or 
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing offspring; 
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of this species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to 
these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological 
features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These essential 
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food 
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation.

Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation

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

Summary of Comments

    Three public hearings were held on the proposed action: one in Gold 
Beach, Oregon, on December 8, 1997, one in Eureka, California, on 
December 9, 1997, and one in Santa Rosa, California, on December 11, 
1997. Forty-two individuals provided oral testimony at the public 
hearings. Approximately 5,100 written comments were submitted in 
response to the proposed rule. While some commenters were in favor of 
the proposed critical habitat designation, the vast majority of the 
oral and written comments opposed the proposed rule. New information 
and comments received in response to the proposed rule are summarized 
here.

[[Page 24051]]

Public Notification Process

    Comment 1: Some commenters felt that the process for proposing 
critical habitat was not handled well (e.g., difficulties with public 
notice and time to respond) and that the proposal itself was too ill-
defined to be fully evaluated.
    Response: NMFS made every attempt to communicate the critical 
habitat proposal to the affected communities. Three public hearings 
were held in the range of each ESU in California and Oregon and various 
local newspapers were notified of the proposed action, comment 
deadlines, and public meetings. In response to numerous requests, NMFS 
twice extended the comment period (63 FR 4212, January 28, 1998 and 63 
FR 23710, April 30, 1998) to allow an additional 5 months for the 
public to submit comments. Finally, NMFS responded to several requests 
for supplemental meetings with affected county and local groups to 
promote better understanding about the proposal and attempt to allay 
unwarranted fears resulting from misleading information being widely 
promulgated throughout northern California and southern Oregon. Such 
misinformation created an unnecessary rift between local citizens and 
fisheries managers. This is particularly troublesome because most 
involved generally have the same common goal: restoring threatened 
salmon to the point where they can once again be a prized and 
sustainable resource in the region. Any and all parties are encouraged 
to contact NMFS if they have questions or need additional information 
regarding this final rule (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Economic Considerations

    Comment 2: Numerous commenters believed that NMFS improperly 
minimized the proposal's economic impacts by separating the designation 
of critical habitat from the listing process (i.e., by considering only 
the incremental economic effects of designating critical habitat beyond 
the effects associated with listing the species). These commenters are 
concerned that by separating the costs associated with the various 
administrative actions (e.g., listing, critical habitat designation, 
section 7 consultations), NMFS underestimated the real economic 
consequences of protecting listed coho salmon. Some commenters 
countered that any economic costs would be offset once the coho 
fisheries were restored. Many commenters objected to NMFS' 
interpretation that the impact of critical habitat designation is 
subsumed by the costs associated with protections under section 7 of 
the ESA.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that it has improperly 
minimized the economic impacts by separating the designation of 
critical habitat from the listing process. Rather, the ESA is 
unambiguous in how it addresses economic impacts; it prohibits the 
consideration of economic impacts in the listing process, but requires 
analysis of economic impacts when designating critical habitat. Our 
reading of these separate requirements for each determination leads us 
to an incremental analysis in which only the economic impacts resulting 
from the designation of the critical habitat are considered.
    Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
requirements or economic effects beyond those which already accrue from 
section 7 of the ESA, which is triggered by the species' listing. 
Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
carry out, authorize, or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of habitat determined to be critical. The consultation 
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the 
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with 
NMFS and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
    Most of the effect on non-Federal interests will result from the 
protective regulations of 4(d) of the ESA and the no-jeopardy 
requirement of section 7 of the ESA, both of which are a function of 
listing a species, not designating its critical habitat. Whether 
critical habitat is designated, non-Federal interests must conduct 
their actions in a manner consistent with the requirements of the ESA. 
When a species is listed, non-Federal interests must comply with the 
prohibitions on takings found in section 9 of the ESA and associated 
regulations. If the activity is funded, permitted, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, that agency must comply with the non-jeopardy mandate 
of section 7 of the ESA, which also results from listing a species, not 
from designating its critical habitat. Once critical habitat is 
designated, the agency must avoid actions that destroy or adversely 
modify that critical habitat. However, pursuant to NMFS' ESA 
implementing regulations, any action that destroys or adversely 
modifies critical habitat is also likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species (See the definitions in 50 CFR 402.02). 
Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate that the designation will result in 
significant additional requirements for non-Federal interests.
    Notwithstanding its lack of economic impact, the designation of 
critical habitat remains important because it identifies habitat that 
is essential for the continued existence of a species and, therefore, 
indicates habitat that may require special management attention. This 
facilitates and enhances Federal agencies' ability to comply with 
section 7 of the ESA by ensuring that they are aware of it when their 
activities may affect listed species and habitats essential to support 
them. In addition to aiding Federal agencies in determining when 
consultations are required pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 
critical habitat can aid an agency in fulfilling its broader obligation 
under section 7(a)(1) to use its authority to carry out programs for 
the conservation of listed species.
    Comment 3: A number of commenters were under the impression that 
critical habitat is equivalent to a ``set-aside'' or an easement and 
that by its nature was tantamount to an illegal and unconstitutional 
``taking'' of private property. Some commenters felt that designating 
critical habitat abrogated Executive Order 12630 and the June 30, 1988, 
Attorney General's ``Guidelines for Evaluation and Risk Avoidance of 
Unanticipated Takings.'' Many of these commenters provided estimates 
and analyses describing specific costs they believed they would incur 
as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation. These 
commenters suggested that they should be monetarily reimbursed for any 
financial hardship resulting from a designation of critical habitat.
    Response: A critical habitat designation does not imply that 
private land would be confiscated or taken without just compensation. A 
critical habitat designation affects private land only when a Federal 
action is involved. In the overwhelming majority of cases, private 
landowners are not precluded from using their land as a result of the 
critical habitat designation. In a separate rulemaking, NMFS has 
adopted a regulation that prohibits the take of listed coho, which 
includes take by actions that destroy habitat (62 FR 38479). This 
regulation may have some impact on land uses that can be shown to have 
harmed salmon (for example, placing barriers to salmon migration in a 
stream). But this regulation should not be confused with the 
designation of critical habitat. In the course of deciding to make this 
final designation, the

[[Page 24052]]

Department of Commerce has complied with Executive Order 12630, 
Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Compliance With National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Comment 4: Some commenters believed that NMFS should prepare an 
environmental impact statement pursuant to NEPA on the critical habitat 
designation because designation is a major Federal action and will have 
a significant impact on the environment.
    Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, the Secretary is 
required to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
scientific data available after taking into account the ``* * * 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat''. In past critical habitat designations, NMFS has performed 
analysis of the kind requested here: Environmental analysis under NEPA. 
In all such cases NMFS has determined that mere designation of critical 
habitat has no adverse environmental impacts. In the time since these 
analyses were performed, it has become NMFS' policy, as well as that of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), that designating critical 
habitat has no impact that requires a NEPA analysis.

Scope and Extent of Critical Habitat

    The majority of commenters raised issues regarding the geographic 
scope and extent of proposed critical habitat; in particular, the 
designation of adjacent riparian zones as critical habitat. Critical 
habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as the specific areas 
within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found 
those physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations or protection. Based on commenters' concerns and on new 
information received during the public comment period, NMFS has refined 
its designation of critical habitat for both the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts and Central California Coast coho salmon 
ESUs. The following sections, partitioned by habitat type, address 
these commenters' concerns and clarify NMFS' designation of critical 
habitat for these ESUs.

Freshwater and Estuarine Habitats

    Comment 5: Numerous commenters felt that a far more complete 
scientific analysis was required before critical habitat could be 
designated and, as a result, requested that the agency withdraw the 
proposed rule. Several commenters questioned NMFS' delineation of 
critical habitat as including all areas currently accessible to the 
species, and requested more specificity as to which stream reaches are 
critical habitat. Some commenters sought designation of unoccupied 
streams as critical habitat, while others noted that some local creeks 
and streams never had coho salmon and requested designation of only 
those areas where species restoration is feasible. The Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) requested that NMFS consider 
using specific ``core areas'' for coho salmon and sought clarification 
of NMFS' interpretation that coho salmon are rare in southern Oregon. 
One commenter noted that coho salmon have not been documented recently 
in Pilarcitos Creek (San Mateo County, California), and noted that 
Stone Dam has blocked upstream areas for over 100 years. This commenter 
believed that adverse hydrologic conditions and degraded habitat would 
preclude this basin from playing a critical role in the species' 
recovery. One commenter requested that NMFS specify that side channels 
and off-channel wetlands are included in critical habitat, and that 
beaver dams, alluvial deposits, and trees be identified as essential 
features of coho salmon habitat. Another commenter noted that NMFS 
misidentified Mill Valley Creek in San Francisco Bay; it is actually 
named ``Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio'' on U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) maps. The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) questioned whether 
Redwood Creek was identified as critical habitat for coho salmon.
    Response: While the proposed rule described the lack of consistent 
and robust data sets with which to discern the species' distribution at 
a fine scale (62 FR 62741, November 25, 1997), NMFS believes that the 
best available distribution information is sufficient to characterize 
basin-level designations of critical habitat for the listed species. 
The California and Oregon mapping efforts (e.g., ODFW's core area 
assessment) cited in the proposed rule are nearing completion, but have 
yet to reach final adoption and must be viewed as good, but tentative, 
descriptions of areas occupied by or critical for coho salmon. NMFS 
believes that these mapping efforts hold great promise for focusing 
habitat protection and restoration efforts and will continue to use the 
State's expertise to discern coho distribution when specific actions 
warrant (e.g., during ESA section 7 consultations). However, the 
limited data across the range of both ESUs, as well as dissimilarities 
in data types within the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts 
ESU, continue to make it difficult to define this species' distribution 
at a finer scale than the USGS hydrologic units (i.e., basins) 
identified in the proposed rule. Similarly, this limitation precludes 
NMFS from restricting critical habitat to streams where restoration may 
or may not be feasible.
    NMFS' preferred approach to identifying critical habitat is to 
designate all areas accessible to the species within the range of 
hydrologic units in the range of each ESU. While this may not provide 
the level of resolution to define the species' presence or absence in 
specific local creeks and streams, NMFS believes that adopting a more 
inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is 
appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' use of diverse 
habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the habitat 
types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life stages, 
from small headwater streams to migration corridors and estuarine 
rearing areas; (2) takes into account the natural variability in 
habitat use that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g., some streams 
may have fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall); and (3) 
reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas and adjacent 
riparian/upland areas. While unoccupied streams are excluded from 
critical habitat, NMFS reiterates the proposed rule language that ``it 
is important to note that habitat quality in this current range is 
intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and of 
inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which provide key 
habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality) 
crucial for coho in downstream reaches.''
    In the proposed rule, NMFS noted that the ODFW considered coho 
salmon ``rare'' in coastal streams draining the Siskiyou Mountains, 
citing a recent ``Biennial Report on the Status of Wild Fish in Oregon 
(ODFW, 1995). In fact, this report identifies 10 Oregon coho 
populations in the range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California 
Coasts ESU (Elk, Rogue, Pistol, Chetco, and Winchuck Rivers, and 
Hubbard, Brush, Mussel, Euchre, and Hunter Creeks). The report noted 
that coho populations are currently located in the Rogue and Winchuck 
River basins, but are ``very rare in the other coastal basins.'' 
Subsequent discussions with ODFW biologists has yielded additional, 
site-specific information regarding coho salmon in several southern 
Oregon streams, notably the Pistol and Chetco

[[Page 24053]]

Rivers. These discussions have raised the issue as to whether viable 
populations still occur in these basins. Until this issue is resolved, 
NMFS will continue to consider reaches accessible to coho salmon in 
these and other basins as critical habitat for the species. If 
additional information becomes available, NMFS will revise the critical 
habitat designation for this ESU as appropriate.
    Similarly, NMFS acknowledges that Pilarcitos Creek and other 
coastal drainages may have little suitable habitat for coho salmon or 
are rarely inhabited by the species (although information provided by 
the commenter indicates that Pilarcitos Creek does contain habitat for 
other salmonids and that the creek could be used by coho salmon 
straying from other coastal streams). As noted previously, the paucity 
of information regarding coho salmon distribution precludes NMFS from 
identifying specific drainages or river reaches occupied by the 
species. In addition, the current low abundance of the species makes it 
difficult to rule out any stream for recovery since the remnant 
populations may need whatever habitat is available in order to persist. 
In the case of Pilarcitos Creek it is unclear whether the basin has 
been monitored sufficiently that firm conclusions about the species' 
presence/absence can be made. Instead, NMFS believes that the most 
prudent approach to characterizing critical habitat is to include all 
areas accessible to listed coho salmon. The key issue raised by these 
and other commenters is whether activities in the Pilarcitos Creek 
watershed and other coastal drainages could have an adverse effect on 
the listed species. In streams where there is limited species 
distribution information, NMFS biologists would make their best 
professional judgement about the access, to and suitability of, 
available habitat and what, if any, impacts would occur on the listed 
fish as a result of a specific activity. Few if any effects would 
result from an activity where it is well-documented that the species 
makes little use of a stream reach and the existing habitat conditions 
are poor.
    NMFS agrees with the statements by one commenter that beaver dams 
and their associated habitat changes (e.g., channel flooding, and flow 
and siltation changes) often create ideal conditions for coho salmon. 
Some of the beneficial habitat effects from beaver activity include 
improved rearing and overwintering habitat, increased water volumes 
during low flows, and backwater habitat refuge areas during floods 
(Swanston, 1991). NMFS will identify beaver removal as an activity 
potentially requiring special management consideration, and encourages 
landowners and agencies to promote beaver habitation as one means by 
which to support coho salmon recovery. NMFS also agrees with this 
commenter's assertion that side/off-channel habitats are important for 
coho salmon and has retained reference to these habitats in this final 
rule. However, NMFS has not specifically identified trees and alluvial 
deposits as essential features because these habitat components are 
already addressed in the proposed rule's list of essential features, 
specifically the categories of substrate, cover/shelter, and riparian 
vegetation (see Critical Habitat of California and Southern Oregon Coho 
Salmon).
    Finally, NMFS concurs that the San Francisco Bay stream ``Arroyo 
Corte Madera Del Presidio'' was misidentified as Mill Valley Creek and 
has corrected the error in this final rule. Also, NMFS clarifies for 
NPS that the basin containing Redwood Creek (hydrologic unit #18010102) 
is identified as containing critical habitat for the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts coho salmon ESU.

Adjacent Riparian Zones

    Comment 6: While several commenters supported NMFS' proposal to 
include the adjacent riparian zone as critical habitat, the vast 
majority were against this approach. Many commenters noted the lack of 
justification for including adjacent riparian zones of 300 ft (91.4 
meters (m)) from each side of a stream in the critical habitat 
proposal. Moreover, they felt that proposing to designate these zones 
was arbitrary and excessive. Several commenters offered possible lesser 
solutions to defining adjacent riparian zones, including: only the 
actual inhabited stream reaches themselves, a 50-ft or 30-m width to 
the riparian boundary, a site-potential tree height, and the 10-year 
flood plain. One commenter correctly noted that NMFS' proposal 
referenced a ``horizontal'' rather than ``slope'' distance, which was 
inconsistent with the Northwest Forest Plan's (NFP's) riparian reserve 
definition.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the proposed rule did not adequately 
describe the rationale for identifying adjacent riparian zones as part 
of critical habitat. NMFS believes it is important to include these 
areas in the designation of critical habitat for several reasons. The 
ESA defines critical habitat to include areas ``on which are found 
those physical or biological features * * * essential to the 
conservation of the species and * * * which may require special 
management considerations or protection.'' These essential features for 
salmon include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food resources, 
water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (see 50 CFR 
424.12(b)). Riparian areas form the basis of healthy watersheds and 
affect these primary constituent elements; therefore, they are 
essential to the conservation of the species and need to be included as 
critical habitat.
    NMFS' past critical habitat designations for listed anadromous 
salmonids have included the adjacent riparian zone as part of the 
designation. In the final designations for Snake River spring/summer 
chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye salmon (58 FR 68543, December 28, 
1993), NMFS included the adjacent riparian zone as part of critical 
habitat and defined it in the regulation as those areas within a 
horizontal distance of 300 ft (91.4 m) from the normal high water line. 
In the critical habitat designation for Sacramento River winter run 
chinook (58 FR 33212, June 16, 1993), NMFS included ``adjacent riparian 
zones'' as part of the critical habitat but did not define the extent 
of that zone in the regulation. The preamble to that rule stated that 
the adjacent riparian zone was limited to ``those areas that provide 
cover and shade.''
    Streams and stream functioning are inextricably linked to adjacent 
riparian and upland (or upslope) areas. Streams regularly submerge 
portions of the riparian zone via floods and channel migration, and 
portions of the riparian zone may contain off-channel rearing habitats 
used by juvenile salmonids, especially during periods of high flow. The 
riparian zone also provides an array of important watershed functions 
that directly benefit salmonids. Vegetation in the zone shades the 
stream, stabilizes banks, and provides organic litter and large woody 
debris. The riparian zone stores sediment, recycles nutrients and 
chemicals, mediates stream hydraulics, and controls microclimate. 
Healthy riparian zones help ensure water quality essential to 
salmonids, as well as the forage species they depend on (Reiser and 
Bjornn, 1979; Meehan, 1991; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
1993; and Spence et al., 1996). Human activities in the adjacent 
riparian zone, or in upslope areas, can harm stream function and can 
harm salmonids, both directly and indirectly, by interfering with the 
watershed functions described here. For example, timber harvest, road-
building, grazing, cultivation, and other activities can increase 
sediment, destabilize banks,

[[Page 24054]]

reduce organic litter and woody debris, increase water temperatures, 
simplify stream channels, and increase peak flows. These adverse 
modifications reduce the value of habitat for salmon and, in many 
instances, may result in injury to, or mortality of, fish. Because 
human activity may adversely affect these watershed functions and 
habitat features, NMFS concluded the adjacent riparian zone could 
require special management consideration, and, therefore, was 
appropriate for inclusion in critical habitat.
    The Snake River salmon critical habitat designation relied on 
analyses and conclusions reached by the Forest Ecosystem Management 
Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993, regarding interim riparian reserves for 
fish-bearing streams on Federal lands within the range of the northern 
spotted owl. The interim riparian reserve recommendations in the FEMAT 
report were based on a systematic review of the available literature, 
primarily for forested habitats, concerning riparian processes as a 
function of distance from stream channels. The interim riparian 
reserves identified in the FEMAT report for fish-bearing streams on 
Federal forest lands are intended to (1) provide protection to 
salmonids, as well as riparian-dependent and associated species, 
through the protection of riparian processes that influence stream 
function, and (2) provide a high level of fish habitat and riparian 
protection until site-specific watershed and project analyses can be 
completed. The FEMAT report identified several alternative ways that 
interim riparian reserves providing a high level of protection could be 
defined, including the 300-ft (91.4 m) slope distance, a distance 
equivalent to two site-potential tree heights, the outer edges of 
riparian vegetation, the 100-year flood plain, or the area between the 
edge of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, 
whichever is greatest. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) ultimately adopted these riparian reserve 
criteria as part of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy aimed at 
conserving fish, amphibians, and other aquatic-and riparian-dependent 
species in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northwest Forest Plan 
(NFP) (FEMAT ROD, 1994).
    While NMFS has used the findings of the FEMAT report to guide its 
analyses in ESA section 7 consultations with USFS and BLM regarding 
management of Federal lands, NMFS recognizes that the interim riparian 
reserves may be conservative with regard to the protection of adjacent 
riparian habitat for salmonids since they are designed to protect 
terrestrial species that are riparian dependent or associated as well 
as salmonids. Moreover, NMFS' analyses have focused more on the stream 
functions important to salmonids and on how proposed activities will 
affect the riparian area's contribution to properly functioning 
conditions for salmonid habitat.
    Since the adoption of the NFP, NMFS has gained experience working 
with Federal and non-Federal landowners to determine the likely effects 
of proposed land management actions on stream functions. In freshwater 
and estuarine areas, these activities include, but are not limited to, 
agriculture; forestry; grazing; diking and bank stabilization; 
construction/urbanization; dam construction/operation; dredging and 
dredged spoil disposal; habitat restoration projects; irrigation 
withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral mining; road building and 
maintenance; sand and gravel mining; wastewater/pollutant discharge; 
wetland and floodplain alteration; and woody debris/structure removal 
from rivers and estuaries. NMFS has developed numerous tools to assist 
Federal agencies in analyzing the likely impacts of their activities on 
anadromous fish habitat. With these tools, Federal agencies are better 
able to judge the impacts of their actions on salmonid habitat, taking 
into account the location and nature of their actions. NMFS' primary 
tool guiding Federal agencies is a document titled ``Making Endangered 
Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions 
at the Watershed Scale'' (NMFS, 1996a). This document presents 
guidelines to facilitate and standardize determinations of ``effect'' 
under the ESA and includes a matrix for determining the condition of 
various habitat parameters. This matrix is being implemented throughout 
northern California and Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to 
help guide efforts to define salmonid risk factors and conservation 
strategies throughout the West Coast.
    Several recent literature reviews have addressed the effectiveness 
of various riparian zone widths for maintaining specific riparian 
functions (e.g., sediment control, large woody debris recruitment) and 
overall watershed processes. These reviews provide additional useful 
information about riparian processes as a function of distance from 
stream channels. For example, Castelle et al. (1994) conducted a 
literature review of riparian zone functions and concluded that 
riparian widths in the range of 30 m (98 ft) appear to be the minimum 
needed to maintain biological elements of streams. They also noted that 
site-specific conditions may warrant substantially larger or smaller 
riparian management zones. Similarly, Johnson and Reba (1992) 
summarized the technical literature and found that available 
information supported a minimum 30-m riparian management zone for 
salmonid protection.
    A recent assessment funded by NMFS and several other Federal 
agencies reviewed the technical basis for various riparian functions as 
they pertain to salmonid conservation (Spence et al., 1996). These 
authors suggest that a functional approach to riparian protection 
requires a consistent definition of riparian ecosystems based on 
``zones of influence'' for specific riparian processes. They noted that 
in constrained reaches where the active channel remains relatively 
stable through time, riparian zones of influences may be defined based 
on site-potential tree heights and distance from the active channel. In 
contrast, they note that, in unconstrained reaches (e.g., streams in 
broad valley floors) with braided or shifting channels, the riparian 
zone of influence is more difficult to define, but recommend that it is 
more appropriate to define the riparian zone based on some measure of 
the extent of the flood plain.
    Spence et al. (1996) reviewed the functions of riparian zones that 
are essential to the development and maintenance of aquatic habitats 
favorable to salmonids and the available literature concerning the 
riparian distances that would protect these functional processes. Many 
of the studies indicate that riparian management widths designed to 
protect one function in particular, recruitment of large woody debris, 
are likely to be adequate to protect other key riparian functions. The 
reviewed studies concluded that the vast majority of large woody debris 
is obtained within one site-potential tree height from the stream 
channel (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade et al., 1990; Robison and 
Beschta, 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; FEMAT, 1993; and 
Cederholm, 1994). Based on the available literature, Spence et al. 
(1996) concluded that fully protected riparian management zones of one 
site-potential tree would adequately maintain 90 to 100 percent of most 
key riparian functions of Pacific Northwest forests if the goal was to 
maintain instream processes over a time frame of years to decades.
    Based on experience gained since the designation of critical 
habitat for Snake River salmon and after considering public comments 
and reviewing

[[Page 24055]]

additional scientific information regarding riparian habitats, NMFS is 
re-defining coho salmon critical habitat based on key riparian 
functions. Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the 
area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade, 
sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and 
input of large woody debris or organic matter. Specific guidance on 
assessing the potential impacts of land use activities on riparian 
functions can be obtained by consulting with NMFS (see ADDRESSES), 
local foresters, conservation officers, fisheries biologists, or county 
extension agents.
    The physical and biological features that create properly 
functioning salmonid habitat vary throughout the range of coho salmon 
and the extent of the adjacent riparian zone may change accordingly, 
depending on the landscape under consideration. While a site-potential 
tree height can serve as a reasonable benchmark in some cases, site-
specific analyses provide the best means to characterize the adjacent 
riparian zone because such analyses are more likely to accurately 
capture the unique attributes of a particular landscape. Knowing what 
may be a limiting factor to the properly functioning condition of a 
stream channel on a land use or land type basis and how that may or may 
not affect the function of the riparian zone will significantly assist 
Federal agencies in assessing the potential for impacts to listed coho 
salmon. On Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl, 
Federal agencies should continue to rely on the Aquatic Conservation 
Strategy of the NFP to guide their consultations with NMFS. Where there 
is a Federal action on non-Federal lands, Federal agencies should 
consider the potential effects of the activities they fund, permit, or 
authorize on the riparian zone adjacent to a stream that may influence 
the following functions: shade, sediment delivery to the stream, 
nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and the input of 
large woody debris or organic matter. In areas where the existing 
riparian zone is seriously diminished (e.g., in many urban settings and 
agricultural settings where flood control structures are prevalent), 
Federal agencies should focus on maintaining any existing riparian 
functions and restoring others where appropriate; (e.g., by cooperating 
with local watershed groups and landowners). NMFS acknowledges in its 
description of riparian habitat function that different land use types 
(e.g., timber, urban, and agricultural) will have varying degrees of 
impact and that activities requiring a Federal permit will be evaluated 
on the basis of disturbance to the riparian zone. In many cases the 
evaluation of an activity may focus on a particular limiting factor for 
a watercourse (e.g., temperature, stream bank erosion, sediment 
transport) and whether that activity may or may not contribute to 
improving or degrading the riparian habitat.
    Finally, NMFS emphasizes that a designation of critical habitat 
does not prohibit landowners from conducting actions that modify 
streams or the adjacent terrestrial habitat. Critical habitat 
designation serves to identify important areas and essential features 
within those areas, thus alerting both Federal and non-Federal entities 
to the importance of the area for listed salmonids. Federal agencies 
are required by the ESA to consult with NMFS to ensure that any action 
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes 
the value of critical habitat for both the survival and the recovery of 
the listed species. The designation of critical habitat will assist 
Federal agencies in evaluating how their actions on Federal or non-
Federal lands may affect listed coho salmon and determining when they 
should consult with NMFS on the impacts of their actions. When a 
private landowner requires a Federal permit that may result in the 
modification of coho salmon habitat, Federal permitting agencies will 
be required to ensure that the permitted action, regardless of whether 
it occurs in the stream channel, adjacent riparian zone, or upland 
areas, does not appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for 
both the survival and recovery of the listed species or jeopardize the 
species' continued existence. For other actions, landowners should 
consider the needs of the listed fish and NMFS will assist them in 
assessing the impacts of actions on listed fish.

Dams and Barriers

    Comment 7: Several commenters requested that NMFS conduct a more 
detailed analysis of areas above existing dams before concluding that 
these areas do not constitute critical habitat. Some suggested that 
NMFS consider installing fish ladders and passage facilities to allow 
coho salmon access to areas historically occupied. Two commenters 
requested that NMFS add additional dams to the lists of impassable 
manmade structures; specifically, Phoenix Dam in the Corte Madera Creek 
basin, California; and Willow Lake, Fish Lake, Agate Lake, Emigrant 
Lake, and Selmac Lake Dams in Oregon's Rogue River basin. One commenter 
provided information indicating that Matthews Dam in the Mad River 
basin should be excluded from the list of barriers because coho salmon 
historically never occupied the areas upstream. One commenter noted 
that Peters Dam was completed in 1953, not 1940 as stated in the 
proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS' ESA implementing regulations specify that 
unoccupied areas are not to be included in critical habitat unless the 
present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species (50 CFR 424.12(e)). As the proposed rule states, dams currently 
block approximately 9 to 11 percent of the historic range of each ESU. 
The six additional dams identified by two commenters do not add 
significantly to these blocked percentages, and the ODFW stated that 
the amount of blocked historic habitat above the five Oregon dams is 
``thought to be low and not essential to maintaining or restoring coho 
salmon in the Rogue River basin.'' While the blocked areas are 
proportionally significant in certain basins, NMFS believes these areas 
are not currently essential for the recovery of either ESU because an 
array of habitat types (i.e., low and high gradient reaches) are still 
accessible in downstream areas historically used by coho salmon.
    NMFS has reviewed, and concurs with, the information submitted by 
commenters requesting that six additional structures be added to the 
list of dams/reservoirs representing the upstream extent of critical 
habitat. Also, for the reasons presented by the commenter, NMFS agrees 
that Matthews Dam should not be included in the list of dams within the 
range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU. NMFS also 
concurs with the corrections regarding the completion date for Peters 
Dam and the naming of Seeger Dam (previously identified as Nicasio 
Dam).
    NMFS' intent in identifying specific dams in each ESU was to 
clarify the upstream extent of known occupied reaches for each ESU and 
to contrast these barriers with smaller, ephemeral barriers (e.g., 
culverts, push-up dams, etc.) that the agency does not view as 
impassable structures. NMFS does not intend to ``write off'' potential 
habitats above these dams, but instead will fully consider the need to 
include these blocked habitats in the recovery planning process and in 
ESA section 7 consultations. If future analyses reveal that these areas 
are essential for the

[[Page 24056]]

species' conservation or could contribute to an expedited recovery of 
either ESU, NMFS will revise the critical habitat designation and 
promote efforts to gain access to blocked habitats.

Marine Habitats

    Comment 8: Numerous commenters questioned why NMFS had not 
designated critical habitat in marine areas. Some recommended that NMFS 
revise its designation based on the recent EFH recommendations which 
include marine areas over portions of the continental shelf.
    Response: NMFS is currently re-evaluating its previous 
determination to exclude ocean areas as critical habitat for these 
ESUs, in particular the issue of whether marine areas require special 
management consideration or protection. If warranted, NMFS will revise 
this designation to include specific marine areas as part of coho 
salmon critical habitat.

Factors for the Species' Decline

    Comment 9: Many commenters challenged the merits of the original 
listings and felt that the true cause of the coho declines lay in 
various spheres aside from freshwater habitat. Among the various causes 
cited were: tribal fishing, commercial fishing, sport fishing, foreign 
fishing, marine mammals, other protected predators, non-native species, 
birds, hatchery practices, dams, ocean conditions, and recent droughts 
and floods. Others provided evidence that mismanagement and pollution 
of freshwater habitats have been principal factors in the species' 
decline. Still others felt that extinction is a natural process and 
that little can (or should) be done about it.
    Response: NMFS believes that the threatened extinction of these 
coho populations is the result of human, rather than natural factors, 
and will continue to encourage all efforts to protect and restore 
imperiled salmon and their habitat. NMFS acknowledges that a multitude 
of factors have contributed to the decline of coho salmon and has 
described these factors in more detail in the listing determinations 
for each ESU (61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997), 
in technical status reviews for the species (Bryant 1994; Weitkamp et 
al., 1995; NMFS 1997), and in documents detailing factors for decline 
for related species (NMFS 1996b and 1998). Many of the causes cited by 
commenters are human-controlled and NMFS believes that these can and 
must be addressed in the near-term to improve the salmon's chances for 
surviving such uncontrollable natural events as droughts, floods, and 
poor ocean conditions.

ESA Definitions and Standards

    Comment 10: Some commenters requested that NMFS clarify the meaning 
of ``harm'' under the ESA, and several commenters took exception to 
NMFS' assertion that adverse modification of critical habitat is 
equivalent to jeopardizing the listed species.
    Response: On May 1, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule to define 
the term ``harm'', which is contained in the definition of ``take'' in 
the ESA (63 FR 24148). Section 9 of the ESA makes it illegal to take an 
endangered species of fish or wildlife. The definition of ``take'' is 
to ``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' (16 U.S.C. 
1532(19)). FWS has promulgated a regulation further defining the term 
``harm'' to eliminate confusion concerning its meaning (50 CFR 17.3). 
FWS' definition of ``harm'' with respect to habitat destruction has 
been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable interpretation of the 
term and supported by the broad purpose of the ESA to conserve 
endangered and threatened species (See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of 
Communities for a Greater Oregon, 115 S. Ct. 2407, 2418 (1995)). With 
the listings of Pacific salmon and anadromous trout stocks, potentially 
affected parties have questioned whether NMFS also interprets ``harm'' 
to include habitat destruction. The May 1, 1998, proposed rule will, if 
adopted, establish NMFS' interpretation of ``harm'' consistent with 
that of FWS.
    NMFS' proposed rule interprets the term ``harm'' in the context of 
habitat destruction as an act that actually kills or injures fish or 
wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or 
degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by 
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including 
breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering 
(Compare 50 CFR 17.3). The habitat modification or degradation 
contained in the definition of ``harm'' is limited to those actions 
that actually kill or injure listed fish or wildlife. NMFS believes 
that this proposed definition is reasonable for the conservation of the 
habitats of listed species and is in keeping with Congress' intent 
under the ESA. Public input has been solicited on this proposed 
definition and a final rule will be published after taking all comments 
into account.
    With regard to comments on the ``adverse modification'' and 
``jeopardy standards'', NMFS did not assert that adverse modification 
of critical habitat is equivalent to jeopardizing listed species. 
Section 7 of the ESA requires that Federal agencies refrain from 
contributing to the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. This requirement is in addition to the prohibition against 
jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species, and it is the 
only mandatory legal consequence of a critical habitat designation. 
Implementing regulations define ``jeopardize the continued existence 
of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification of'' in similar terms. 
``Jeopardize the continued existence of'' means to engage in an action 
``that reasonably would be expected * * * to reduce appreciably the 
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' 50 
CFR 402.02. ``Destruction or adverse modification of'' means an 
``alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' 50 CFR 
402.02. Using these definitions, Federal actions found to cause an 
adverse modification are nearly always found to also jeopardize the 
species concerned, and the existence of critical habitat designation 
does not materially affect the outcome of consultation. Biological 
opinions which conclude that a Federal agency action is likely to 
adversely modify critical habitat but is not likely to jeopardize the 
species for which it is designated are extremely rare historically; 
none have been issued in recent years. However, a situation in which an 
adverse modification did not result in jeopardy could arise. Such a 
situation might involve a Federal action in critical habitat outside of 
current range of the species, where the action would not reduce the 
current reproduction, distribution, or numbers of the species, but 
would appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for survival and 
recovery.

Adequacy of Existing Conservation Plans and Efforts

    Comment 11: Several commenters stated that existing management 
plans and conservation initiatives were sufficient to protect coho 
salmon and its habitat, and, therefore, the proposed critical habitat 
designation is not warranted. Some commenters admonished NMFS to engage 
in local salmon conservation programs and warned that designating 
critical habitat could dampen these efforts.
    Response: The designation of critical habitat relies on evaluating 
which areas are occupied and essential for the species' conservation 
(see Definition of

[[Page 24057]]

Critical Habitat). Moreover, NMFS considered existing regulatory 
mechanisms and conservation plans applicable to Central California 
Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho salmon and 
their habitats in the final listing determinations (61 FR 56138, 
October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997). In those Federal Register 
documents, a variety of Federal and state laws and programs were found 
to have affected the abundance and survival of anadromous fish 
populations in both ESUs. NMFS concluded that available regulatory 
mechanisms were inadequate and that regulated activities continued to 
represent a potential threat to the species' existence.
    NMFS agrees with commenters that state and local watershed efforts 
are key to the coho salmon's recovery and long-term survival. Species 
listings and critical habitat designations under the ESA should in no 
way hamper efforts to help coho salmon and other imperiled species in 
the Pacific Northwest and California. NMFS encourages such efforts, as 
evidenced by our involvement with an array of programs in the range of 
both ESUs, including: helping to fund watershed coordinators through 
the Oregon Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, working with 
numerous Resource Conservation Districts and watershed restoration 
efforts (including the Mattole River Restoration Council, and the 
Salmon, South Fork Trinity, Shasta, and Scott River Coordinated 
Resource Management Plans), participating in the development of 
California's recovery and strategic management plans for coastal 
salmonids, working with the California Governor's Biodiversity Councils 
and assisting with implementation of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 
Watersheds (OPSW). NMFS recognizes the significant benefits that will 
accrue to salmon as a result of these efforts. In fact, NMFS has 
promulgated interim protection regulations (i.e., ESA 4(d) rule) that 
provide specific exceptions for the significant harvest, hatchery, 
habitat restoration, and monitoring efforts contained in the OPSW and 
other efforts currently underway in the range of the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts ESU (62 FR 38479). All parties interested in 
obtaining technical assistance in support of salmon conservation (or 
other information related to NMFS' ESA activities) are encouraged to 
contact NMFS field office personnel in Roseburg, Oregon, and in Eureka, 
Long Beach, and Santa Rosa, California (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Tribal Lands

    Comment 12: On June 3, 1998, the Hoopa Valley Tribe (HVT) 
specifically requested that NMFS not designate critical habitat on 
their reservation and that NMFS waive ESA section 7 consultation 
requirements when the tribe has a plan in place which protects fish 
habitat and meets the requirements of the Secretarial Order entitled 
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act'' on June 5, 1997 (Secretarial Order).
    Response: The unique and distinctive relationship between the 
United States and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes, 
executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, that 
differentiates tribes from the other entities that deal with, or are 
affected by, the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise 
to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the legal 
responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian 
tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with 
respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 
tribal rights. Pursuant to the treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, 
executive orders and other agreements that define the relationship 
between the United States and tribes, lands have been retained by 
Indian tribes or have been set aside for tribal use. These lands are 
managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and 
objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.
    As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship 
between the United States and Indian tribes, the Secretaries of 
Commerce and Interior issued the Secretarial Order entitled ``American 
Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' on June 5, 1997 (Secretarial Order). The 
Secretarial Order clarifies the responsibilities of NMFS and FWS when 
carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires that they consult 
with, and seek participation of, the affected Indian tribes to the 
maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order further provides that 
the Services * * * ``shall consult with the affected Indian tribe(s) 
when considering the designation of critical habitat in an area that 
may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or the 
exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be designated in 
such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve a listed 
species.''
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Secretarial Order and in 
response to written and verbal comments provided by the Hoopa Valley 
Tribe (HVT) and other tribes in California, as well as the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA), NMFS engaged several tribes in government-to-
government consultation concerning the inclusion of tribal lands in the 
final critical habitat designation for coho salmon. Prior to initiating 
government-to-government consultation, NMFS reviewed available 
information from the BIA and concluded that the tribal lands most 
likely to be affected by a final critical habitat designation for coho 
salmon were the Yurok Reservation, Hoopa Valley Reservation, Karuk 
Reservation, and the Round Valley Reservation, all of which are located 
in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU. The major river 
basins containing these reservation lands and listed coho salmon 
populations are the Klamath, Trinity, and Eel River basins. 
Accordingly, NMFS' government-to-government consultation efforts 
concerning coho salmon critical habitat were focused on these tribes. 
In addition to these larger tribal reservations, there are a large 
number of smaller Indian rancherias located in both the Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coasts and Central California Coast ESUs 
which could potentially be affected, depending on their specific 
locations.
    As part of the government-to-government consultation process called 
for in the Secretarial Order, NMFS solicited written comments from the 
Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe of California, HVT, and the Round Valley Tribe 
regarding the inclusion of tribal lands in the final critical habitat 
designation, and also met with representatives from each tribe to 
discuss the issue and their concerns in greater detail. In the course 
of these discussions, each tribe expressed its opposition to the 
inclusion of tribal lands in the final critical habitat designation. 
The Yurok Tribe expressed its support for the recovery of coho salmon 
and other non-listed species, but felt that its current resource 
management plans and practices already promoted the conservation and 
recovery of these species. They were also concerned that designating 
tribal lands as critical habitat would place an additional burden upon 
the Tribe, but recognized that impacts to critical habitat would only 
be considered in the course of section 7 consultations. Similarly, HVT 
expressed its support for coho salmon recovery, but argued that its 
existing resource management plans and other efforts already contribute 
to the recovery of coho salmon and other species on the reservation, 
and more

[[Page 24058]]

than compensate for the small impact that tribal activities have on the 
listed species when compared with non-tribal activities in the Trinity 
River basin (e.g., Federal water project operations, timber harvest, 
etc). In its view, NMFS should give deference to tribal management 
efforts in accordance with the Secretarial Order and thereby recognize 
the contribution that tribal management makes for the recovery of 
listed coho salmon. In addition, the tribe asserted that including 
tribal lands in the critical habitat designation would infringe on its 
sovereignty and was inconsistent with the approach taken by FWS when it 
excluded HVT lands from the critical habitat designation for the 
marbled murrelet.
    Based on a consideration of the Federal Government's trust 
responsibilities to Indian tribes, particularly as addressed in the 
Secretarial Order, and following government-to-government consultation 
with affected Indian tribes, NMFS has determined that tribal lands 
should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation for coho 
salmon. Although NMFS continues to believe that habitat on tribal lands 
which is currently accessible to coho salmon is important for the long-
term survival and recovery of the species, we believe that ESA section 
7 consultations through BIA and other Federal agencies, in combination 
with the continued development and implementation of tribal resource 
management programs that support coho salmon conservation represent an 
alternative to designating critical habitat that will result in a 
proportionate and essential contribution to coho salmon conservation 
that is also consistent with the goals of the Secretarial Order.
    The tribal lands (reservations or rancherias) which are excluded 
from the final critical habitat designation for coho salmon are 
identified in Tables 5 (Central California Coast ESU) and 6 (Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU) by individual USGS hydrologic 
unit. Excluded tribal lands in the Central California Coast ESU 
include: the Cloverdale Rancheria, Coyote Valley Rancheria, Dry Creek 
Rancheria, Guidiville Rancheria, Hopland Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria, 
Manchester/Point Arena Rancheria, Pinoleville Rancheria, and Stewarts 
Point Rancheria. Excluded tribal lands in the Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coast ESU include: the Big Lagoon Rancheria, Blue Lake 
Rancheria, Elk Valley Rancheria, Hoopa Valley Reservation, Karuk 
Reservation, Laytonville Rancheria, Quartz Valley Reservation, 
Resighini Rancheria, Round Valley Reservation, Sherwood Valley 
Rancheria, Smith River Rancheria, and Yurok Reservation.
    Consistent with the provisions of the Secretarial Order, NMFS will 
respect the exercise of tribal sovereignty over the management of 
Indian lands and tribal trust resources, and give deference to tribal 
conservation and management plans for tribal trust resources to the 
extent that they address the conservation needs of coho salmon or other 
listed species. NMFS is currently engaged in a programmatic ESA section 
7 consultation with BIA and a government-to-government consultation 
with HVT regarding its Forest Management Plan (FMP) and its associated 
standards and guidelines. Through these consultation processes, NMFS is 
working with HVT and BIA to determine the effects of FMP implementation 
on coho salmon and its habitat, including adjacent riparian and upslope 
habitat, as well as to ensure that FMP implementation on tribal lands 
supports the conservation of coho salmon.

Agencies Affected by Critical Habitat Designation

    Comment 13: NPS requested that NMFS include them as an agency 
affected by the critical habitat designation due to the fact that they 
manage and fund salmonid restoration projects at Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Redwood National and 
State Parks. The U.S. Department of Interior requested that the Natural 
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and FEMA be identified as well, 
because both agencies can conduct or authorize activities that alter 
coho salmon critical habitat. In addition, they requested that NMFS 
identify an ``emergency communications network'' which would allow NMFS 
to provide these agencies with fisheries technical expertise during 
cleanups associated with floods and other emergencies.
    Response: NMFS has reviewed, and concurs with, the information 
submitted by both commenters and will add the NPS, NRCS, and FEMA to 
the list of affected agencies.
    NMFS agrees with the commenters requesting that guidelines be 
established so that emergency response agencies (e.g., FEMA) can avoid 
adversely modifying critical habitat during their mitigation actions 
after a natural disaster. To that end, NMFS is in contact with the NRCS 
and is giving input on their Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement on Emergency Watershed Protection actions. NMFS hopes that 
through such input it will be able to help establish a strong set of 
guidelines for protecting critical habitat when a natural disaster 
strikes and immediate action must be taken to protect human life and 
property. Further, it is NMFS' position that with such a set of 
guidelines in place, there will be no reason for NMFS to become 
involved in making on-the-ground decisions regarding disaster 
mitigation actions. The guidelines will protect critical habitat in 
advance and, in most cases, thereby take the place of the difficult and 
potentially time-consuming process of emergency consultation. Thus, the 
guidelines themselves will largely obviate the need for an emergency 
communications network.

Changes to the Proposed Rule

    Based on comments and new information received on the proposed 
rule, NMFS is modifying the final critical habitat designation for 
these two ESUs as follows:
    (1) Phoenix, Willow Lake, Fish Lake, Agate Lake, Emigrant Lake, and 
Selmac Lake Dams have been added to the list of dams/reservoirs 
representing the upstream extent of critical habitat for these ESUs.
    (2) Matthews Dam is removed from the list of dams/reservoirs 
representing the upstream extent of critical habitat for the Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU.
    (3) Nicasio Dam is corrected to ``Seeger Dam.''
    (4) Mill Valley Creek is corrected to ``Arroyo Corte Madera Del 
Presidio.''
    (5) Adjacent riparian zones have been re-defined and are now based 
on a functional (rather than quantitative) description.
    (6) NPS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NRCS, FEMA, and BIA 
have been included as agencies affected by the critical habitat 
designation.
    (7) Beaver removal, diking, and streambank stabilization have been 
identified as activities that may require special management 
consideration.
    (8) Tribal lands in northern California are excluded from the 
critical habitat designations.

Critical Habitat of California and Southern Oregon Coho Salmon

    Biological information for listed coho salmon can be found in NMFS' 
species status reviews (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995; NMFS, 
1997), species life history summaries (Shapavalov and Taft, 1954; 
Laufle et al., 1986; Hassler, 1987; Anderson, 1995; Sandercock, 1991), 
and in Federal Register notices of proposed and final listing 
determinations (59 FR 21744, April 26, 1994; 60 FR 38011, July 25, 
1995; 61 FR

[[Page 24059]]

56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997).
    The current geographic range of coho salmon from the Oregon and 
California coasts includes vast areas of the North Pacific ocean, 
nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine areas. The 
marine distribution south of Punta Gorda, California, appears to 
encompass a relatively narrow, nearshore strip approximately 100 km 
wide (Taft, 1937; Shapovalov and Taft, 1954; Laufle et al., 1986; NOAA, 
1990; Weitkamp et al., 1995). North of Punta Gorda, the distribution 
widens to encompass nearly all marine areas north of 41 deg. latitude 
(Wright, 1968; Godfrey et al., 1975; NOAA, 1990). Major rivers, 
estuaries, and bays known to support coho salmon within the Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU include the Rogue River, Smith 
River, Klamath River, Mad River, Humboldt Bay, Eel River, and Mattole 
River. Within the range of the Central California Coast ESU, major 
rivers, estuaries, and bays include the Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, 
Garcia, Gualala, and Russian Rivers, and Tomales and San Francisco Bays 
(Emmett et al., 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992; Brown and Moyle, 1991; 
Bryant, 1994; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1994; 
Weitkamp et al., 1995). Many smaller coastal rivers and streams in each 
ESU also provide essential estuarine habitat for coho salmon, but 
access is often constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrologic 
conditions.
    Any attempt to describe the current distribution of coho salmon 
must take into account the fact that extant populations and densities 
are a small fraction of historical levels. All coho salmon stocks in 
the Central California Coast ESU are extremely depressed relative to 
past abundance and there are limited data to assess population numbers 
or trends. The main coho salmon stocks in this region are from the Ten 
Mile River, Big River, Nolo River, Navarro River, Garcia River, Gualala 
River, Russian River, Lagunitas Creek, Waddell Creek, and Scott Creek. 
Several of these stocks are heavily influenced by hatcheries and, 
apparently, have little natural production in mainstem reaches. 
Historically, coho salmon abundance within this region was estimated 
from 50,000 to 125,000 native coho salmon. Presently, coho salmon 
abundance within this region is estimated to be less than 5,000 
naturally reproducing fish, and a vast majority of these are considered 
to be hatchery origin fish (Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bryant, 1994; CDFG, 
1994).
    All coho salmon stocks between Punta Gorda and Cape Blanco in the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU are also depressed 
relative to past abundance, and there are limited data to assess 
population numbers or trends currently. The main coho salmon stocks in 
this region are from the Rogue, Klamath, and Trinity Rivers, and the 
latter two are heavily influenced by hatcheries and have little natural 
production in mainstem reaches. Other important stocks within this ESU 
include the Winchuck, Chetco, Smith, Mad, Elk, Eel, and the Mattole 
Rivers. Historically, coho salmon abundance within this region was 
estimated from 150,000 to 400,000 native fish. Presently, abundance is 
estimated to be less than 30,000 naturally reproducing coho salmon, and 
a vast majority of these (roughly 20,000) are considered to be hatchery 
origin fish (Brown and Moyle, 1991, Bryant, 1994; CDFG, 1994; Weitkamp 
et al., 1995).
    Within the range of both ESUs, the species' life cycle can be 
separated into five essential habitat types: (1) Juvenile summer and 
winter rearing areas ; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for 
growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; and 
(5) spawning areas. Areas 1 and 5 are often located in small headwater 
streams and side channels, while areas 2 and 4 include these 
tributaries as well as mainstem reaches and estuarine zones. Growth and 
development to adulthood (area 3) occurs primarily in near-and off-
shore marine waters, although final maturation takes place in 
freshwater tributaries when the adults return to spawn. Within these 
areas, essential features of coho salmon critical habitat include 
adequate; (1) substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4) 
water temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) 
riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. Given 
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these coho salmon ESUs 
and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is 
not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of 
these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these 
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed 
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by 
CDFG, 1965; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead 
Trout, 1988; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991; Nehlsen et 
al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; California State Lands Commission, 
1993; Botkin et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996b; and Spence et al., 1996.
    NMFS believes that the current range of the species encompasses all 
essential habitat features and is adequate to ensure the species' 
conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat areas outside the 
species' current range (i.e., historical habitats above the 17 dams 
identified in Tables 5 and 6) is not necessary. For reasons described 
earlier in this document, NMFS has revised its designation of 
freshwater and estuarine critical habitat to include riparian areas 
that provide the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or 
chemical regulation, streambank stability, and input of large woody 
debris or organic matter. It is important to note that habitat quality 
in this range is intrinsically related to the quality of riparian and 
upland areas and of inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams 
which provide key habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, 
water quality) crucial for coho in downstream reaches. Marine habitats 
(i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward of the mouth of coastal 
rivers) are also vital to the species, and ocean conditions are 
believed to have a major influence on coho salmon survival (see review 
in Pearcy, 1992). Although NMFS has not included the ocean as critical 
habitat in this final rule, the agency will be re-evaluating this issue 
and may propose including specific marine zones for each ESU in a 
separate Federal Register document.
    The regulatory descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU can be 
found at the end of this Federal Register document.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    To ensure that the essential areas and features are maintained or 
restored, special management may be needed. Activities that may require 
special management considerations for freshwater and estuarine life 
stages of listed coho salmon include, but are not limited to (1) land 
management; (2) timber harvest; (3) point and non-point water 
pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat restoration; (6) beaver 
removal; (7) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (8) mining; (9) 
road construction; (10) dam operation and maintenance; (11) diking and 
streambank stabilization; and (12) dredge and fill activities. Not all 
of these activities are necessarily of current concern within every 
watershed; however, they indicate the potential types of activities 
that will require consultation in the future. No special management 
considerations have been identified for listed coho salmon while

[[Page 24060]]

they are residing in the ocean environment.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

    A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat 
requirements of listed coho salmon in freshwater and estuarine 
habitats. More in-depth discussions are contained in the response to 
comments under ``Scope and Extent of Critical Habitat'' and in Federal 
Register documents announcing the listing determinations for each ESU 
(61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997). These 
activities include water and land management actions of Federal 
agencies (i.e., USFS, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHA), NRCS, NPS, BIA, and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC)) and related or similar actions of other 
federally regulated projects and lands, including livestock grazing 
allocations by the USFS and BLM; hydropower sites licensed by the FERC; 
dams built or operated by COE or BOR; timber sales conducted by the 
USFS and BLM; road building activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, 
BLM, and NPS; and mining and road building activities authorized by the 
states of California and Oregon. Other actions of concern include 
dredge and fill, mining, diking, and bank stabilization activities 
authorized or conducted by COE, habitat modifications authorized by the 
FEMA, and approval of water quality standards and pesticide labeling 
and use restrictions administered by EPA.
    The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this 
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, COE, FHA, 
NRCS, NPS, BIA, FEMA, EPA, and FERC. This designation will provide 
these agencies, private entities, and the public with clear 
notification of critical habitat designated for listed coho salmon and 
the boundaries of the habitat and protection provided for that habitat 
by the ESA section 7 consultation process. This designation will also 
assist these agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of 
their activities on listed coho salmon and their critical habitat and 
in determining if consultation with NMFS is needed.

Expected Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat

    The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat 
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation 
above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to 
authorities other than the ESA (see response to comments under Economic 
Considerations). Incremental impacts result from special management 
activities in those areas, if any, outside the present distribution of 
the listed species that NMFS has determined to be essential to the 
conservation of the species. For these coho salmon ESUs NMFS has 
determined that the present geographic extent of their freshwater and 
estuarine range is likely sufficient to provide for conservation of the 
species, although the quality of that habitat needs improvement on many 
fronts. Because NMFS is not designating any areas beyond the current 
range of these coho ESUs as critical habitat, the designation will 
result in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond those that 
may have been caused by listing and by other statutes.

Change in Designation of Critical Habitat and Need for Correction

    In the proposed rule issued on November 25, 1997, (62 FR 62741), 
Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts 
coho salmon ESUs were added to part 226, subpart C as Secs. 226.24 and 
226.25 respectively. Since November 25, NMFS has issued a final rule 
(64 FR 140525, March 23, 1999) consolidating and reorganizing existing 
regulations regarding implementation of the ESA. In this final rule, 
critical habitat designations for the Central California Coast and 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESUs have been added as 
Sec. 226.210 paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.
    This document also corrects the date for the USGS citation for 
Hydrologic units as defined by the Department of the Interior (DOI), 
U.S. Geological Survey contained in Sec. 226.23. The final rule 
consolidating and reorganizing existing regulations regarding 
implementation of the ESA (64 FR 14052, March 23, 1999) also 
redesignated Sec. 226.23 as Sec. 226.206.

References

    The complete citations for the references used in this document can 
be obtained by contacting Garth Griffin, NMFS (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Classification

    NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
critical habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 
S.Ct. 698 (1996).
    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS is designating only the current range of these coho salmon 
ESUs as critical habitat. Given the affinity of this species to spawn 
in small streams, this current range encompasses a wide range of 
habitat, including small tributary reaches, as well as mainstem, off-
channel and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this designation 
include historically-occupied areas above 17 impassable dams and 
headwater areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, 
natural waterfalls). Since NMFS is designating the current range of the 
listed species as critical habitat, this designation will not impose 
any additional requirements or economic effects upon small entities, 
beyond those which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 
requires Federal agencies to insure that any action they carry out, 
authorize, or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The 
consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA are nondiscretionary 
and are effective at the time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal 
agencies must consult with NMFS and ensure their actions do not 
jeopardize a listed species, regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated.
    In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation 
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action 
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
the action on local businesses, organizations, and governments.
    Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of 
Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration with the proposed rule that, if adopted, this 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. NMFS received two comments, addressed above, 
concerning this certification. These comments did not result in any 
change regarding the certification. As a result, no final Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis was prepared.

[[Page 24061]]

    This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: April 28, 1999.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

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

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

Sec. 226.206  [Corrected]

    2. In Sec. 226.206(a), in the fourth sentence, remove ``1986'' and 
add in its place, ``1987''.
    3. Section 226.210 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 226.210  Central California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus 
kisutch), Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon 
(Oncorhynchus kisutch).

    Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed coho within the range of the ESUs listed, except 
for reaches on Indian lands defined in Tables 5 and 6 to this part. 
Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent 
riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches in hydrologic units and 
counties identified in Tables 5 and 6 to this part for all of the coho 
ESUs listed in this section. Accessible reaches are those within the 
historical range of the ESUs that can still be occupied by any life 
stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years) and specific dams 
within the historical range of each ESU identified in Tables 5 and 6 to 
this part. Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the 
Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic 
Unit Maps,'' Water Supply Paper 2294, 1987, and the following DOI, 
USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps: State of Oregon, 1974 and 
State of California, 1978 which are incorporated by reference. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map 
Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, 
Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street--Suite 500, 
Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 
DC.
    (a) Central California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). 
Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches accessible 
to listed coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern California south to 
the San Lorenzo River in central California, including Arroyo Corte 
Madera Del Presidio and Corte Madera Creek, tributaries to San 
Francisco Bay. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and 
adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches (including 
off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and counties identified in 
Table 5 of this part. Accessible reaches are those within the 
historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied by any life 
stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above specific 
dams identified in Table 5 of this part or above longstanding, 
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence 
for at least several hundred years).
    (b) Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon 
(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape Blanco, 
Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the 
water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine 
reaches (including off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and 
counties identified in Table 6 of this part. Accessible reaches are 
those within the historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied 
by any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above 
specific dams identified in Table 6 of this part or above longstanding, 
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence 
for at least several hundred years).
    3. Tables 5 and 6 are added to part 226 to read as follows: Table 5 
to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat 
for Central California Coast Coho Salmon, Tribal Lands within the Range 
of the ESU, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of 
Critical Habitat

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Counties and tribal lands
        Hydrologic  unit name           Hydrologic   contained in hydrologic unit        Dams (reservoirs)
                                         unit No.    and within the range of ESU1
------------------------------------------------------------------2---------------------------------------------
San Lorenzo-Soquel...................     18060001  Santa Cruz (CA), San Mateo     Newell Dam (Loch Lomond).
                                                     (CA).
San Francisco Coastal South..........     18050006  San Mateo (CA)...............
San Pablo Bay........................     18050002  Marin (CA), Napa (CA)........  Phoenix Dam (Phoenix Lake).
Tomales-Drake Bays...................     18050005  Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)......  Peters Dam (Kent Lake);
                                                                                    Seeger Dam (Nicasio
                                                                                    Reservoir).
Bodega Bay...........................     18010111  Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)......
Russian..............................     18010110  Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA)--  Warm Springs Dam (Lake
                                                     Cloverdale Rancheria; Coyote   Sonoma); Coyote Dam (Lake
                                                     Valley Rancheria; Dry Creek    Mendocino).
                                                     Rancheria; Guidiville
                                                     Rancheria; Hopland
                                                     Rancheria; Lytton Rancheria;
                                                     Pinoleville Rancheria;
                                                     Stewarts Point Rancheria.
Gualala-Salmon.......................     18010109  Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA)..
Big-Navarro-Garcia...................     18010108  Mendocino (CA)-- Manchester/
                                                     Point Arena Rancheria;.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical
  habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and
  basin boundaries.
2 Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.

    Table 6 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing 
Critical Habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho 
Salmon, Tribal Lands within the Range of the ESU, and Dams/Reservoirs 
Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat.

[[Page 24062]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Counties and tribal lands
         Hydrologic unit name           Hydrologic   contained in hydrologic unit        Dams (reservoirs)
                                         unit No.    and within the range of ESU1
------------------------------------------------------------------2---------------------------------------------
Mattole..............................     18010107  Humboldt (CA), Mendocino (CA)
South Fork Eel.......................     18010106  Mendocino (CA), Humboldt
                                                     (CA)--Laytonville Rancheria;
                                                     Sherwood Valley Rancheria.
Lower Eel............................     18010105  Mendocino (CA), Humboldt
                                                     (CA), Trinity (CA).
Middle Fork Eel......................     18010104  Mendocino (CA), Trinity (CA),
                                                     Glenn (CA), Lake (CA)--Round
                                                     Valley Reservation.
Upper Eel............................     18010103  Mendocino (CA), Glenn (CA),    Scott Dam (Lake Pillsbury).
                                                     Lake (CA).
Mad-Redwood..........................     18010102  Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)--
                                                     Big Lagoon Rancheria; Blue
                                                     Lake Rancheria.
Smith................................     18010101  Del Norte (CA), Curry (OR)--
                                                     Elk Valley Rancheria; Smith
                                                     River Rancheria.
South Fork Trinity...................     18010212  Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)..
Trinity..............................     18010211  Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)--  Lewiston Dam (Lewiston
                                                     Hoopa Valley Reservation.      Reservoir).
Salmon...............................     18010210  Siskiyou (CA)................
Lower Klamath........................     18010209  Del Norte (CA), Humboldt
                                                     (CA), Siskiyou (CA)--Karuk
                                                     Reservation; Resighini
                                                     Rancheria; Yurok Reservation.
Scott................................     18010208  Siskiyou (CA)--Quartz Valley
                                                     Reservation.
Shasta...............................     18010207  Siskiyou (CA)................  Dwinnell Dam (Dwinnell
                                                                                    Reservoir).
Upper Klamath........................     18010206  Siskiyou (CA), Jackson (OR)..  Irongate Dam (Irongate
                                                                                    Reservoir).
Chetco...............................     17100312  Curry (OR), Del Norte (CA)...
Illinois.............................     17100311  Curry (OR), Josephine (OR),    Selmac Lake Dam (Lake
                                                     Del Norte (CA).                Selmac).
Lower Rogue..........................     17100310  Curry (OR), Josephine (OR),
                                                     Jackson (OR).
Applegate............................     17100309  Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR),  Applegate Dam (Applegate
                                                     Siskiyou (CA).                 Reservoir).
Middle Rogue.........................     17100308  Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR).  Emigrant Lake Dam (Emigrant
                                                                                    Lake).
Upper Rogue..........................     17100307  Jackson (OR), Klamath (OR),    Agate Lake Dam (Agate Lake);
                                                     Douglas (OR).                  Fish Lake Dam (Fish Lake);
                                                                                    Willow Lake Dam (Willow
                                                                                    Lake); Lost Creek Dam (Lost
                                                                                    Creek Reservoir).
Sixes................................     17100306  Curry (OR)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical
  habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and
  basin boundaries.
2 Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.

[FR Doc. 99-11187 Filed 5-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P