[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24998-25007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 990429112-9112-01; I.D. 040899A]
RIN 0648-AM58


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to designate critical habitat for the Oregon 
Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant 
Unit (ESU) previously listed as a threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed critical habitat occurs in 
Oregon coastal river basins between Cape Blanco and the Columbia River. 
The areas described in this proposed rule represent the current 
freshwater and estuarine range inhabited by the ESU. Freshwater 
critical habitat includes all waterways and substrates below 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural

[[Page 24999]]

waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) and several 
dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats. The economic and 
other impacts resulting from this critical habitat designation are 
expected to be minimal.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed Oregon Coast coho salmon 
critical habitat designation must be received by July 9, 1999. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and times of public hearings. 
Requests for specific locations or additional public hearings must be 
received by June 24, 1999.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for locations of public 
hearings. Written comments on this proposed rule or requests for 
additional public hearings or reference materials should be sent to 
Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 
NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; telefax (503) 
230-5435.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The history of petitions received regarding coho salmon is 
summarized in the proposed rule published on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 
38011). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by the Pacific 
Rivers Council and by 22 co-petitioners on October 20, 1993. In 
response to that petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific 
and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific 
Salmon Biological and Technical Committees (PSBTCs) in Washington, 
Oregon, and California. The PSBTCs consisted of scientists from 
Federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, 
universities, industries, professional societies, and public interest 
groups with technical expertise relevant to coho salmon. NMFS also 
established a Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff from its 
Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional Office, which 
conducted a coastwide status review for coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 
1995; NMFS, 1997).
    Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other 
information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a 
proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) that 
identified six ESUs of coho salmon, ranging from southern British 
Columbia to central California. The Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts ESU, and Central California Coast ESU were 
proposed for listing as threatened species, and the Olympic Peninsula 
ESU was found not to warrant listing. The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia 
ESU and the lower Columbia River/southwest Washington Coast ESU were 
identified as candidates for listing. NMFS is in the process of 
completing status reviews for the latter two ESUs; results and findings 
for both will be announced in an upcoming Federal Register document.
    On August 10, 1998, NMFS issued a final rule listing the Oregon 
coast coho salmon ESU as a threatened species (63 FR 42587). Section 
4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently with a 
determination that a species is endangered or threatened. At the time 
of the final listing, NMFS found that critical habitat was not 
determinable for this ESU. However, NMFS has compiled and reviewed the 
relevant information and now determines that sufficient information 
exists to propose designating critical habitat for the Oregon Coast 
ESU. NMFS will consider all available information and data in 
finalizing this proposal.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon 
a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as defined in 
section 3(3) of the ESA, means `` * * * to use and the use of all 
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.''
    In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following 
requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, 
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or 
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing offspring; 
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of this species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to these 
factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological 
features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These essential 
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food 
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (50 CFR 
424.12(b)).
    Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document refers 
to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused 
with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat 
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

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

[[Page 25000]]

impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or 
migration (63 FR 24148, May 1, 1998).

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

    The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself, 
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific 
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation 
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important 
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are 
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to 
the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a 
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7. 
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g., 
authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not 
affect exclusively state or private activities.
    Under the ESA section 7 provisions, a designation of critical 
habitat would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are 
defined as those actions that ``appreciably diminish the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery'' of the species 
(50 CFR 402.02). Regardless of a critical habitat designation, Federal 
agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the listed species. Activities that 
jeopardize a species are defined as those actions that ``reasonably 
would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the 
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species'' (50 
CFR 402.02). Using these definitions, activities that are likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would also be likely to 
jeopardize the species. Therefore, the protection provided by a 
critical habitat designation generally duplicates the protection 
provided under the section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may 
provide additional benefits to a species in cases where areas outside 
the species' current range have been designated. Federal agencies are 
required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (50 CFR 402.14(a)), when 
these designated areas may be affected by their actions. The effects of 
these actions on designated areas may not have been recognized but for 
the critical habitat designation.
    A designation of critical habitat provides Federal agencies with a 
clear indication as to when consultation under section 7 of the ESA is 
required, particularly in cases where the proposed action would not 
result in immediate mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a 
listed species (e.g., an action occurring within the critical habitat 
area when a migratory species is not present). The critical habitat 
designation, in describing the essential features of the habitat, also 
helps determine which activities conducted outside the designated area 
are subject to section 7 (i.e., activities outside critical habitat 
that may affect essential features of the designated area).
    A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in 
planning future actions because the designation establishes, in 
advance, those habitats that will be given special consideration in 
section 7 consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, 
potential conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or 
threatened species can be identified and possibly avoided early in an 
agency's planning process.
    Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it 
helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management 
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special 
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation 
regulations that restrict private as well as Federal activities. The 
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the 
time regulations are proposed and, therefore, are not considered in the 
critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and local 
authorities, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian lands protection, 
may also benefit critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

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

Critical Habitat of the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

    The Oregon Coast ESU is identified as all naturally spawned 
populations of coho salmon in coastal streams south of the Columbia 
River and north of Cape Blanco (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995). Biological 
information for Oregon Coast coho salmon can be found in species status 
assessments by NMFS (Weitkamp et al., 1995; NMFS, 1997) and by the 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Nickelson et al., 1992; 
Kostow, 1995; and Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI), 
1997), and in species life history summaries by Laufle et al., 1986, 
Emmett et al., 1991, and Sandercock, 1991 and in the proposed rule 
Federal Register document (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995).
    More than one million coho salmon are believed to have returned to 
Oregon coastal rivers in the early 1900s (Lichatowich, 1989), the bulk 
of them originating in this ESU. Current production is estimated to be 
less than 10 percent of historical levels. ODFW recognizes at least 80 
coho salmon populations within the range of this ESU (Kostow, 1995). 
Spawning is distributed over a relatively large number of basins, both 
large and small, with the bulk of the production being skewed to the 
southern portion of the ESU's range. There, the coastal lake systems 
(e.g., the Tenmile, Tahkenitch, and Siltcoos Basins) and the Coos and 
Coquille Rivers have been particularly productive for coho salmon. 
Major hydrologic units inhabited by this ESU include the Necanicum, 
Nehalem, Wilson-Trask-Nestucca, Siletz-Yaquina, Alsea, Siuslaw, 
Siltcoos, Umpqua, Coos, Coquille, and Sixes River Basins. Within these 
basins, numerous small streams, tributaries, and off-channel areas 
provide important habitat for coho salmon.
    Defining specific river reaches that are critical for coho salmon 
is difficult because of the current low abundance of the species and of 
our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater distribution, 
both current and historical. For example, ODFW has conducted systematic 
spawner surveys for the species since the 1950's and has noted that 
fish are often widely scattered in

[[Page 25001]]

larger basins and that marginal habitats may only be inhabited during 
years of high abundance (Kostow, 1995). Several recent efforts have 
been made to characterize the species' status and distribution in 
Oregon (Emmett et al., 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992; The Wilderness 
Society, 1993; Kostow, 1995; Weitkamp et al., 1995; and OCSRI, 1997) or 
to identify watersheds important to at-risk populations of salmonids 
and resident fishes (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 
(FEMAT), 1993). Key among these is the ODFW effort (OCSRI, 1997) to 
develop a series of maps depicting ``core areas'' for coho salmon and 
other species. These core areas are defined as ``reaches or watersheds 
within individual coastal basins that are judged to be of critical 
importance to the sustenance of salmon populations that inhabit those 
basins'' (OCSRI, 1997) and are derived from 1:100,000 U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit maps. The areas depicted are primarily 
river reaches where best available data or professional judgement 
indicate high concentrations of spawning or rearing coho salmon. Within 
the range of the Oregon Coast ESU, more than 80 areas have been 
identified as draft core areas, the vast majority of which are located 
in the larger river basins. Notably missing are core areas for smaller 
coastal streams which comprise approximately half of the populations in 
the ESU (but a small fraction of the overall ESU production). While 
NMFS believes that this mapping effort holds great promise to focus 
habitat protection and restoration efforts, the core areas are still in 
a draft stage and include only a subset of the areas that NMFS believes 
are critical habitat for coho salmon (i.e., they do not specifically 
identify migration corridors or essential habitat for populations in 
smaller streams).
    Based on consideration of the best available information regarding 
the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred 
approach to identifying critical habitat for this ESU is to designate 
all areas accessible to any life stage of the species within the range 
of specified river basins. NMFS believes that adopting a more 
inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is 
appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' extensive use of 
diverse habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the 
habitat types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life 
stages; (2) takes into account the natural variability in habitat use 
that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g., some streams/reaches may 
have fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall); and (3) 
reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas and adjacent 
riparian/upslope areas.
    While NMFS is proposing to focus on accessible river reaches, it is 
important to note that habitat quality is intrinsically related to the 
quality of upland areas and upstream areas (including headwater or 
intermittent streams) which provide key habitat elements (e.g., large 
woody debris, gravel, water quality) crucial for coho salmon in 
downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine habitats are 
critical for coho salmon and has included them in this designation. 
Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward of the mouth 
of coastal rivers) are also vital to the species, and ocean conditions 
may have a major influence on its survival. However, NMFS is still 
evaluating whether these areas currently warrant consideration as 
critical habitat, particularly whether marine areas require special 
management consideration or protection. Therefore, NMFS is not 
proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this time. 
If additional information becomes available that supports the inclusion 
of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
    Essential features of coho salmon critical habitat include adequate 
(1) substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4) water 
temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) 
riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. Given 
the vast geographic range occupied by the Oregon Coast ESU and the 
diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is not 
practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of these 
essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these 
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed 
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by 
Barnhart, 1986, Pauley et al., 1986, California Advisory Committee on 
Salmon and Steelhead Trout (CACSST), 1988, Bjornn and Reiser, 1991, 
Nehlsen et al., 1991, California State Lands Commission, 1993, Reynolds 
et al., 1993, Botkin et al., 1995, McEwan and Jackson, 1996, NMFS, 
1996a, and Spence et al., 1996.

Adjacent Riparian Zones

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

[[Page 25002]]

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

[[Page 25003]]

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

Barriers Within the Species' Range

    Within the range of the Oregon Coast ESU, coho salmon face a 
multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile and adult fish 
to essential freshwater habitats. In some cases these are natural 
barriers (e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity barriers) that 
have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years. Some pose an 
obvious physical barrier to any anadromous salmonids while others may 
only be surmountable during years when extreme river conditions (e.g., 
floods) provide passage.
    Man-made barriers created in the past several decades can create 
significant problems for anadromous salmonids (California Department of 
Fish and Game (CDFG), 1965; CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 
1995; and National Research Council, 1996). The extent of barriers such 
as culverts and road crossing structures that impede or block fish 
passage appears to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence 
surveys conducted in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey 
season, nearly 15 percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due 
to human barriers, principally road culverts (OCSRI, 1997). Pushup 
dams/diversions and irrigation withdrawals also present significant 
barriers or lethal conditions (e.g., stranding, high water 
temperatures) to coho salmon. However, because these manmade barriers 
can, under certain flow conditions, be surmounted by fish or present 
only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS does not consider them to 
delineate the upstream extent of critical habitat.
    Since man-made impassable barriers are widely distributed 
throughout the range of the ESU, they can have a major downstream 
influence on coho salmon. Such impacts may include (1) depletion and 
storage of natural flows which can drastically alter natural 
hydrological cycles; (2) increased juvenile and adult mortality due to 
migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or habitat 
blockages; (3) loss of sufficient habitat due to delay and blockage; 
(4) stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow fluctuations; (5) 
entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or unscreened diversions; 
and (6) increased mortality resulting from increased water temperatures 
(CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991; Reynolds et al., 
1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; and NMFS, 1996a). In 
addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively affect fish 
habitats in some areas due to increased deposition of fine sediments in 
spawning gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and 
spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic 
vegetation into spawning and rearing areas resulting in reduced 
available habitat (CASST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; and 
NMFS, 1996a). These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed 
through ESA section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.
    Several hydropower and water storage projects have been built which 
either block access to areas used historically by coho salmon or alter 
the hydrograph of downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified several 
dams within the range of the Oregon Coast ESU that currently have no 
fish passage facilities to allow coho salmon access to former spawning 
and rearing habitats (see Table 27 to this part). While these blocked 
areas are potentially significant in certain basins (e.g., areas above 
several dams in the Umpqua River basin), NMFS believes that currently 
accessible habitat may be sufficient for the conservation of the ESU. 
NMFS has concluded that the potential for restoring access to former 
spawning and rearing habitat above currently impassable man-made 
barriers is a significant factor to be considered in determining 
whether such habitat is essential for the conservation of species. NMFS 
solicits comments and scientific information on this issue and will 
consider such information prior to

[[Page 25004]]

issuing any final critical habitat designation. This may result in the 
inclusion of areas above some man-made impassable barriers in a future 
critical habitat designation.
    In the range of this ESU, at least one hydropower dam (e.g., Soda 
Springs Dam) is undergoing or is scheduled for relicensing by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NMFS will evaluate 
information developed during the process of relicensing to determine 
whether fish passage facilities are needed at such dams to restore 
access to historically available habitat. Even though habitat above 
such barriers is not currently designated as critical, this conclusion 
does not foreclose the potential importance of restoring access to 
these areas. Therefore, NMFS will determine on a case-by-case basis 
during FERC relicensing proceedings whether fish passage facilities 
will be required to provide access to habitat that is essential for the 
conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Land Ownership Within the Species' Range

    Table 27 to this part summarizes the major river basins inhabited 
by the Oregon Coast ESU, as well as counties containing basins 
designated as critical habitat. Major river basins containing spawning 
and rearing habitat for this ESU comprise approximately 10,606 square 
miles in Oregon. The following counties lie partially or wholly within 
these basins: Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, 
Josephine, Lane, Lincoln, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill. 
NMFS has also derived estimates of land ownership for each of the major 
river basins in the range of this ESU. Due to data limitations which 
prevent mapping the precise river reaches inhabited by coho salmon, the 
ownership estimates were based on land area within entire river basins. 
Aggregating all basins in the Oregon Coast ESU yields ownership 
estimates of approximately 35 percent Federal, 9 percent state/local, 
56 percent private/other, and less than 1 percent tribal lands. These 
data underscore that all landholders have a role to play in protecting 
and restoring coho salmon and their habitat in the Oregon Coast ESU.

Critical Habitat and Indian Lands

    The unique and distinctive political relationship between the 
United States and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes, 
executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and 
differentiates tribes from the other entities that deal with, or are 
affected by, the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise 
to a special Federal trust responsibility, involving the legal 
responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian 
tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care with 
respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 
tribal rights.
    Indian lands (Indian lands are defined in the Secretarial Order of 
June 5, 1997, as ``any lands title to which is either: (1) held in 
trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 
individual; or (2) held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to 
restrictions by the United States against alienation'') were retained 
by tribes or have been set aside for tribal use pursuant to treaties, 
statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders, or agreements. These 
lands are managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and 
objectives, within the framework of applicable laws.
    As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship 
described here and implementing the Presidential Memorandum of April 
24, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American 
Tribal Governments, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of the 
Interior issued the Secretarial Order entitled ``American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act'' on June 5, 1997. The Secretarial Order clarifies the 
responsibilities of NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Services) when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires 
that they consult with, and seek the participation of, the affected 
Indian tribes to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order 
further provides that the Services ``shall consult with the affected 
Indian tribe(s) when considering the designation of critical habitat in 
an area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee 
lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve 
a listed species.''
    NMFS has determined that the Indian tribes potentially affected by 
a critical habitat designation for the Oregon Coast ESU include the 
Siletz Tribe, Cow Creek Tribe, Coquille Tribe, and Coos/Lower Umpqua/
Siuslaw Tribe. The major river basins containing reservation lands are 
identified in Table 27 to this part. NMFS has not yet identified 
tribally owned fee lands or other areas where designation of critical 
habitat may impact tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal 
rights. NMFS will identify any such lands during government-to-
government consultation with affected tribes.
    NMFS will notify and work with these tribes in accordance with the 
agency's trust responsibilities and the Secretarial Order concerning 
critical habitat designation in this ESU, but the agency is not 
proposing to designate critical habitat on the described tribal lands 
at this time. In addition, tribally owned fee lands and other areas 
where critical habitat designation may impact the exercise of tribal 
rights or trust resources may be identified and included or excluded 
from critical habitat designation in a subsequent action. If any such 
lands are determined to be essential to conserve listed coho salmon, 
such lands may be designated critical habitat in a subsequent action.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their 
features, and special management considerations will be needed 
(especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership) to ensure 
that the essential areas and features are maintained or restored. 
Activities that may require special management considerations for 
freshwater and estuarine life stages of listed coho salmon include, but 
are not limited to, (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3) point 
and non-point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat 
restoration; (6) beaver removal; (7) irrigation water withdrawals and 
returns; (8) mining; (9) road construction; (10) dam operation and 
maintenance; (11) diking and streambank stabilization; and (12) dredge 
and fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily of 
current concern within every watershed; however, they indicate the 
potential types of activities that will require consultation in the 
future. Activities that are conducted on private or state lands that 
are not federally permitted or funded, are not subject to any 
additional regulations under this proposed rule. However, non-Federal 
landowners should be aware that any significant habitat modifications 
that could adversely affect listed fish, could result in a ``taking'' 
(i.e., harming or killing) of the listed species, which is prohibited 
under section 9 of the ESA. While marine areas are also a critical link 
in the species' life cycle, NMFS has not yet concluded that special 
management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features 
in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas (and 
their adjacent

[[Page 25005]]

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

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

    A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat 
requirements of listed coho salmon and other salmonids. More in-depth 
discussions are contained in the Federal Register documents announcing 
the proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) as well 
as NMFS' document entitled ``Steelhead Factors for Decline: A 
Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead'' 
(NMFS, 1996a). These activities include water and land management 
actions of Federal agencies (i.e., USFS, BLM, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps), Federal Highway Administration (FHA), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natural Resource Conservation 
Service (NRCS), and FERC and related or similar actions of other 
federally regulated projects and lands including livestock grazing 
allocations by USFS and BLM; hydropower sites licensed by FERC; dams 
built or operated by the Corps; timber sales conducted by the USFS and 
BLM; road building activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, and BLM; and 
mining and road building activities authorized by the State of Oregon. 
Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, diking, and 
bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the Corps, and 
habitat modifications authorized by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA). Additionally, actions of concern could include approval 
of water quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions 
administered by EPA.
    The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this 
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, Corps, FHA, NRCS, 
FEMA, EPA, and FERC. This designation will provide clear notification 
to these agencies, private entities, and the public of critical habitat 
designated for Oregon Coast coho salmon and of the boundaries of the 
habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7 
consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies 
and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on 
coho salmon and their critical habitat and in determining if 
consultation with NMFS is needed.

Expected Economic Impacts

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

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments 
and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
    NMFS requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality and 
extent of marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (including 
adjacent riparian zones) for juvenile and adult coho salmon as well as 
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat in coastal 
Oregon. Areas that include the physical and biological features 
essential to the recovery of the species should be identified. 
Essential features include, but are not limited to, (1) habitat for 
individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and 
rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from 
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and 
ecological distributions of the species. NMFS is also requesting 
information regarding coho salmon distribution and habitat requirements 
within the range of Indian lands identified in this proposal and 
whether these lands should be considered essential for the conservation 
of the listed species or whether recovery can be achieved by limiting 
the designation to other lands.
    NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries 
of the ESU that historically constituted coho salmon habitat but may 
not be currently occupied. NMFS requests information about coho salmon 
in these currently unoccupied areas and whether these habitats should 
be considered essential to the recovery of the species or excluded from 
designation.
    For areas where natural barriers are believed to pose a migration 
barrier for the species, NMFS specifically requests data and analyses 
concerning the following: (1) Historic accounts indicating coho salmon 
or other anadromous salmonids occurred above the barrier; (2) data or 
reports analyzing the likelihood that coho salmon or other anadromous 
salmonids would migrate above the barrier; and (3) other information 
indicating that a particular barrier is or is not naturally impassable 
to anadromous salmonid migration. NMFS will evaluate all new 
information received concerning this issue and will reconsider this 
issue in its final critical habitat designation.
    For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is 
requesting the following information: (1) The activities that affect 
the area or could be affected by the designation and (2) the economic 
costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures 
likely to result from the designation. The economic cost to be 
considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the 
probable economic impact ``of the [critical habitat] designation upon 
proposed or ongoing activities'' (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider 
the incremental costs resulting specifically from a critical habitat 
designation that are above the economic effects attributable to listing 
the species. Economic effects attributable to listing include actions 
resulting from section 7 consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy 
to the species and from the taking prohibitions under section 9 of

[[Page 25006]]

the ESA. Comments concerning economic impacts should distinguish the 
costs of listing from the incremental costs that can be directly 
attributed to the designation of specific areas as critical habitat.
    NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information 
regarding critical habitat of the Oregon Coast ESU and complete a final 
rule as soon as practicable. The availability of new information may 
cause NMFS to reassess the proposed critical habitat designation of 
this ESU.

Public Hearings

    Joint Department of Commerce and Interior ESA implementing 
regulations state that the Secretaries shall promptly hold at least one 
public hearing if any person so requests within 45 days of publication 
of a proposed regulation to list species or to designate critical 
habitat (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Public hearings on the proposed rule 
provide the opportunity for the public to give comments and to permit 
an exchange of information and opinion among interested parties. NMFS 
encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.
    The public hearings on this action are scheduled as follows:
    1. Monday, May 24, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Tillamook County 
Courthouse, Commissioners Conference Room, 201 Laurel Avenue, 
Tillamook, Oregon.
    2. Tuesday, May 25, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Umpqua Discovery 
Center, 409 Riverfront Way, Reedsport, Oregon.
    3. Wednesday, May 26, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Douglas County 
Courthouse, Room 216, 1036 SE Douglas Avenue, Roseburg, Oregon.
    4. Thursday, May 27, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Eugene City Hall, 
Council Chambers, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon.
    These hearings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other aids 
should be directed to Garth Griffin (see ADDRESSES) by 7 days prior to 
each meeting date.
    Requests for specific locations or additional public hearings must 
be received by June 24, 1999 (see ADDRESSES).

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing 
the range of listed coho salmon ESUs are available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES) or via the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Classification

    NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
this critical habitat designation made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 
S.Ct. 698 (1996).
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of the Oregon 
Coast ESU as critical habitat. Given the affinity of this species to 
spawn in small tributaries, this current range encompasses a wide range 
of habitat, including headwater streams, as well as mainstem, off-
channel, and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this proposed 
designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and 
historically occupied areas above 6 impassable dams and headwater areas 
above impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural 
waterfalls). Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed 
species as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any 
additional requirements or economic effects upon small entities beyond 
those which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize, 
or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
listed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation 
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the 
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with 
NMFS and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
    In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation 
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action 
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and 
governments.
    Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of 
Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration that the proposed critical habitat designation, 
if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
    This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: May 4, 1999.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

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

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533


Secs. 226.211--226.214  [Added and reserved]

    2. Sections 226.211 through 226.214 are added and reserved.
    3. Section 226.215 is added to read as follows:


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

    Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed coho salmon within the range of this ESU, except 
for reaches on Indian lands defined in Table 27 to this part. Critical 
habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of 
estuarine and riverine reaches in hydrologic units and counties 
identified in Table 27 to this part. Accessible reaches are those 
within the historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied by 
any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years) and specific dams 
within the historical range of the ESU identified in Table 27 to this 
part. Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the 
Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic 
Unit Maps,'' Water Supply Paper 2294, 1987, and by the following DOI, 
USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit map: State of Oregon (1974), 
which is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the USGS publication and

[[Page 25007]]

maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 
80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 
525 NE Oregon Street--Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, 
Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 
MD 20910, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (a) Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical 
habitat is designated to include all river reaches accessible to listed 
coho salmon from coastal streams south of the Columbia River and north 
of Cape Blanco, Oregon. Critical habitat consists of the water, 
substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches 
(including off-channel habitats) in hydrologic units and counties 
identified in Table 27 of this part. Accessible reaches are those 
within the historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied by 
any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above 
specific dams identified in Table 27 of this part or above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (b) [Reserved]


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

    4. Tables 7 through 26 to this part are added and reserved.
    5. Table 27 is added to part 226 to read as follows:

 Table 27 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon, Tribal Lands Within the Range of the ESU,
                                        and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Counties and tribal lands
           Hydrologic unit name             Hydrologic   contained in hydrologic unit and                               Dams
                                             unit No.      within the Range of ESU 1, 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Necanicum................................     17100201  Clatsop (OR), Tillamook (OR).....
Nehalem..................................     17100202  Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR),
                                                         Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR).
Wilson-Trask-Nestucca....................     17100203  Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR),           McGuire Dam.
                                                         Tillamook (OR), Washington (OR),
                                                         Yamhill (OR).
Siletz-Yaquina...........................     17100204  Benton (OR), Lincoln (OR), Polk
                                                         (OR), Tillamook (OR); Siletz
                                                         Tribe.
Alsea....................................     17100205  Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Lincoln
                                                         (OR).
Siuslaw..................................     17100206  Benton (OR), Douglas (OR), Lane
                                                         (OR).
Siltcoos.................................     17100207  Douglas (OR), Lane (OR)..........
North Umpqua.............................     17100301  Douglas (OR), Lane (OR)..........  Cooper Creek Dam; Soda Springs Dam.
South Umpqua.............................     17100302  Coos (OR), Douglas (OR), Jackson   Ben Irving Dam; Galesville Dam.
                                                         (OR), Josephine (OR); Cow Creek
                                                         Tribe.
Umpqua...................................     17100303  Coos (OR), Douglas (OR), Lane
                                                         (OR).
Coos.....................................     17100304  Coos (OR), Douglas (OR); Coos,     Lower Pony Creek Dam.
                                                         Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribe;
                                                         Coquille Tribe.
Coquille.................................     17100305  Coos (OR), Curry (OR), Douglas
                                                         (OR).
Sixes....................................     17100306  Coos (OR), Curry (OR)............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS
  hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.
2 Tribal lands are specifically excluded from critical habitat for this ESU.

[FR Doc. 99-11696 Filed 5-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P