[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