Federal Register, Volume 64 Issue 89 (Monday, May 10, 1999)

[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