[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57399-57403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 990525143-9277-02; I.D. 120197A]
RIN 0648-AM41


Designated Critical Habitat: Revision of Critical Habitat for 
Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Through this rule, NMFS revises critical habitat for Snake 
River spring/summer chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), pursuant 
to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. After a review of the best 
available scientific information, NMFS determines that Napias Creek 
Falls constitutes a naturally impassable barrier for Snake River 
spring/summer chinook salmon. NMFS, therefore, excludes areas above 
Napias Creek Falls from designated critical habitat for this species.

DATES: The effective date of this determination is November 24, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Requests for information concerning this action should be 
submitted to Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon 
Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232. Copies of the USGS publication 
and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, 
CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources 
Division, 525 NE Oregon Street - Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or 
at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 
Suite 700, Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 27, 1991, NMFS proposed the listing of Snake River spring/
summer chinook salmon as a threatened species under the ESA (56 FR 
29542). The final determination listing Snake River spring/summer 
chinook salmon as a threatened species was published on April 22, 1992 
(57 FR 14653), and corrected on June 3, 1992 (57 FR 23458). Critical 
habitat was designated on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543). In that 
document, NMFS designated all river reaches presently or historically 
accessible to listed spring/summer chinook salmon (except river reaches 
above impassable natural falls, and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams) in 
various hydrologic units as critical habitat (58 FR 68543). Napias 
Creek, the area in question, occurs within one of these designated 
hydrologic units (Middle Salmon-Panther, U.S. Geological Survey 
Hydrologic Unit 17060203).
    On January 6, 1997, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) received 
a petition from Meridian Gold Company (Meridian) to revise critical 
habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon in Napias Creek, a 
tributary to the Salmon River, located near Salmon, Idaho. In 
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(D) of the ESA, NMFS issued a 
determination on April 28, 1997, that the petition presented 
substantial scientific information indicating that a revision may be 
warranted (62 FR 22903). In that document of finding, NMFS solicited 
information and comments from interested parties and interested tribal 
governments concerning the petitioned action (62 FR 22903).
    On September 16, 1997, Meridian submitted additional information in 
support of its petition. Specifically, Meridian submitted three new 
reports entitled: (1) ``Ability of Salmon and Steelhead to Pass Napias 
Creek Falls''; (2) ``Investigation of Physical Conditions at Napias 
Creek Falls''; and (3) ``Historical and Ethnographic Analysis of Salmon 
Presence in the Leesburg Basin, Lemhi County, Idaho.'' This new 
information was added to the administrative record and was considered 
by NMFS in its 12-month determination published on January 30, 1998 (63 
FR 4615).
    On January 30, 1998, NMFS determined that the petitioned action was 
not warranted since available information indicated that the falls was 
likely passable to chinook salmon at some flows and that the presence 
of relict indicator species indicated historical usage by anadromous 
species (63 FR 4615). Subsequent to this determination, Meridian 
submitted a ``petition for reconsideration,'' providing additional data 
and analyses concerning the likelihood Napias Creek Falls constitutes a 
naturally impassable barrier to anadromous salmonid migration 
(Meridian, 1998a, 1998b; Chapman, 1998). While NMFS' ESA implementing 
regulations do not provide a process for reconsidering findings on 
petitions, NMFS nonetheless agreed in a letter dated July 31, 1998, to 
consider Meridian's new information and provide Meridian with a written 
determination regarding its findings (NMFS, 1998a; Meridian, 1998d). On 
October 30, 1998, NMFS staff met with Meridian representatives to 
discuss the new technical information and its interpretations (NMFS, 
1998b).
    On December 29, 1998, Meridian expressed its desire to withdraw its 
``petition for reconsideration'' stating that it interpreted NMFS' 
continuing treatment of the area as critical habitat as a denial of its 
petition (Meridian, 1998c). However, at that time, NMFS had not yet 
reached a conclusion regarding the additional information submitted by 
Meridian, nor had NMFS provided Meridian with a written determination 
on the matter as it had committed to do in its July 31, 1998, letter 
(NMFS, 1998a). NMFS ultimately

[[Page 57400]]

concluded this information is part of the best scientific information 
available regarding whether the area in question constitutes critical 
habitat for the species. Therefore, in accordance with section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, NMFS considered this information in its review 
of Meridian's ``petition for reconsideration.''
    On June 2, 1999, NMFS published a proposed rule to revise critical 
habitat for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon (64 FR 29618). In 
the proposed rule, NMFS determined that available evidence suggests 
that Napias Creek Falls, while passable at some flows, constitutes an 
effective migrational barrier for chinook salmon. This conclusion was 
based on an analysis of available hydrological and biological data, as 
well as some ethnographical information. In reaching this conclusion, 
NMFS recognized that scientific uncertainty remained whether (1) 
chinook salmon could establish a naturally reproducing population above 
the falls if present in sufficient numbers in Napias Creek; and (2) 
whether chinook salmon historically occurred above the falls.  To help 
resolve this uncertainty, NMFS specifically requested comments and 
information regarding the proposed determination. Discussion of the 
comments received on the proposal follow.

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'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term 
``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, means `` * * * 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
    Defining specific river reaches that constitute critical habitat 
for chinook salmon, and anadromous fish species in general, is 
difficult to do because of our imperfect understanding of the species' 
freshwater distribution, both current and historical, and the lack of 
comprehensive sampling efforts dedicated to monitoring these species. 
Given this scientific uncertainty, NMFS' approach to designating 
critical habitat for chinook salmon is to designate all areas currently 
accessible to the species within the range of the Evolutionarily 
Significant Unit. NMFS believes that this inclusive approach to 
designating 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; and (2) takes into account the 
natural variability in habitat use.

Process for Defining 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. 
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, considering comments on the proposal and impacts 
assessment, is typically published within 1 year of the proposed rule. 
Final critical habitat designations may be revised as new information 
becomes available.

Consultation with Affected Indian Tribes

    The unique and distinctive 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 with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust and treaty 
resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
    As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship 
previously described, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of 
the Interior issued a 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 when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires that 
they consult with, and seek the participation of, affected Indian 
tribes to the maximum extent practicable.
    During the course of this rulemaking, NMFS consulted with, and 
solicited comments from, affected Indian tribes, including the 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes). The Tribes, in turn, provided written 
comments and testimony on the proposed rule a discussion as follows.

Summary of Comments

    During the public comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS 
received seven written comments from a variety of sources. On August 
31, 1999, NMFS held a public hearing in Boise, Idaho at which seven 
people provided testimony concerning the proposed rule. Of the seven 
parties providing comments and testimony, five supported the 
conclusions reached in the proposed rule and two, including the Tribes, 
disagreed with such conclusions. Commenters provided no additional 
scientific information that resolves issues raised in the proposed 
rule. Pertinent comments are summarized here.
     Comment 1: Two parties commented on the historic presence of 
chinook salmon above the falls in question and the historic value of 
this area. The Tribes stated that ``salmon hunting above the falls that 
NMFS presently concludes is a barrier to salmon, has been reported by 
tribal fishermen.'' Another commenter stated that it is possible Tribal 
accounts may reflect historical fishing activities (and, thus, the 
presence of chinook salmon) before the formation of the existing 
barrier.
     Response: The question of historic Tribal usage of areas above the 
falls, and, thus, presence of chinook salmon in this area, is a 
difficult one to analyze. The Tribal oral history indicates chinook 
salmon historically occurred above the falls; however, NMFS does not 
believe, based on current scientific information, that this area has 
supported chinook salmon populations over any appreciable and 
continuous length of time. Current biological information indicates 
that chinook salmon have not occurred above the falls over evolutionary 
time periods. For example, the absence of a native fish community above 
the falls and the presence of non-native fish species indicate that 
areas above the falls have been, and continue to be, isolated from 
areas below the falls. Further, a number

[[Page 57401]]

of ethnographic studies indicate that chinook have not occurred in this 
area in recent times (i.e., within the last 100 years) (e.g., Larhen, 
1999).
    While available scientific evidence supports the conclusion that 
areas above the falls have not supported self-sustaining populations of 
chinook salmon, it is possible that this species may have periodically 
inhabited this area under certain environmental conditions. Such a 
possibility is supported by NMFS' passage analysis (a discussion 
follows) that indicates the falls is likely passable to chinook salmon 
under certain flow conditions. This intermittent habitation of chinook 
would likewise be consistent with Tribal accounts of fishing above the 
falls.
     Comment 2: Two commenters, including the Tribes, expressed concern 
about potential impacts to water quality and other critical habitat 
elements in Napias Creek and areas downstream as a result of revising 
this designation. The Tribes also expressed concern that revision of 
critical habitat may hinder efforts to reestablish chinook salmon in 
Panther Creek.
     Response: NMFS has previously stated that Napias Creek constitutes 
an important source of dilution water within the Panther Creek system 
and that any degradation of dilution flows from Napias Creek would 
likely hinder efforts to reestablish anadromous fisheries in Panther 
Creek (63 FR 4615, 4618). Recognizing this, NMFS intends to carefully 
evaluate proposed actions that may adversely affect salmonid habitat in 
this area (See Special Management Considerations).
     Comment 3: Several parties commented on NMFS' conclusion that 
Napias Creek Falls is likely passable to chinook salmon at certain flow 
conditions. The Tribes concurred with NMFS' assessment, stating that 
such conclusions are consistent with reports from tribal fishermen of 
salmon above the falls during the months of May and June. One commenter 
disagreesed with NMFS' assessment, stating that existing hydrologic 
studies refute this conclusion.
     Response: Aside from providing hydrographs that simply validate 
assumptions made in previous modeling exercises, commenters present no 
additional scientific information that NMFS has not considered in its 
passage assessments. Furthermore, NMFS has thoroughly reviewed 
available technical information and analyses, and has conducted on-site 
investigations to verify the validity of its conclusions. In doing so, 
NMFS has consistently concluded that chinook salmon can likely migrate 
past Napias Creek Falls under certain flow conditions (i.e., at about 
49 cfs) (NMFS, 1997; NMFS, 1998; NMFS, 1999a).
    Even though NMFS concludes that the falls in question are passable 
to chinook salmon at certain flows, NMFS recognizes that it is 
difficult to determine whether the falls constitutes an ``effective'' 
migrational barrier for the species, thus, precluding the species from 
colonizing areas above the falls (NMFS, 1999a). Since chinook salmon do 
not presently occur in Napias Creek, NMFS must rely on historical 
accounts and other biological and ecological information to infer 
whether Napias Creek Falls effectively constitutes a migrational 
barrier to the species. Such information indicates that chinook salmon 
have not historically colonized habitat above the falls, thus, leading 
1 to the conclusion that the falls constitute an effective migrational 
barrier.

Analysis of Available Information

    Two lines of evidence suggest that habitat above Napias Creek Falls 
is not presently accessible or essential for the conservation or 
recovery of the listed species. This evidence includes (1) current 
passage conditions at the falls; and (2) surveys of salmonid presence 
above the falls.
    On several previous occasions, NMFS analyzed the specific 
hydrologic conditions present at Napias Creek Falls (NMFS 1997; 1998; 
1999a). NMFS also conducted on-site evaluations of the falls to verify 
its theoretical analysis. During the public comment period, no 
additional information was presented that changes NMFS' previous 
conclusion that chinook salmon can likely migrate past Napias Creek 
Falls under certain flow conditions (i.e., at about 49 cfs). However, 
NMFS recognizes that it is difficult to predict the likelihood that 
chinook salmon would in fact colonize areas above the falls if present 
in Napias Creek. Since chinook salmon do not presently occur in Napias 
Creek, NMFS must rely on historical accounts and other biological 
information to infer whether Napias Creek Falls effectively constitutes 
a migrational barrier to the species.
    Studies submitted by Meridian, as well as the opinions of Federal 
and state resource agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service [USFS], Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality) 
indicate that Napias Creek Falls is a historic barrier to anadromous 
salmonid passage. However, this conclusion is in conflict with comments 
from a USFS fishery biologist. In a report dated February 8, 1996, 
Bruce Smith, Salmon and Challis National Forest Fisheries Biologist, 
concludes that Napias Creek historically contained chinook salmon 
(Smith, 1996a). Smith also states that areas above Napias Creek Falls 
currently contain relict indicator species (Smith, 1996a), indicating 
pre-historic accessibility of this area to anadromous salmonid species 
(Smith, 1996b).
    In its January 30, 1998, determination, NMFS found Smith's analysis 
persuasive on the question of the historical presence of chinook salmon 
above Napias Creek Falls (63 FR 4615, 4617). However, since that time, 
NMFS has reconsidered its reliance on this information. While such 
relict indicator species as rainbow trout occur above the falls, other 
native fish species (e.g., mountain whitefish, westslope cutthroat 
trout, sculpins, and dace) do not presently occur above the falls, 
indicating that salmonids in the area may have been the result of 
hatchery introductions or transfers (Chapman 1998). This explanation is 
supported by the presence of other nonnative fish species above the 
falls (i.e., brook trout), and the apparent history of fish stocking in 
Napias Creek (Smith 1996a).
    Available ethnographic information supports the conclusion that 
chinook salmon have not historically used habitat above Napias Creek 
Falls in recent times. Furthermore, available historic literature and 
surveys of nearby residents indicate chinook salmon have not occurred 
above the falls in recent times (Larhen, 1999).
    After considering comments received on the proposed rule, NMFS 
concludes that habitat above Napias Creek Falls is outside the current 
range of listed spring/summer chinook salmon and that habitat in this 
area is not now essential for the conservation of the species. This 
conclusion is based on several considerations. First, while NMFS 
concludes the falls is likely passable to chinook salmon at certain 
flows, historic evidence suggests that chinook salmon have not used 
areas above the falls with any frequency in recorded history. Second, 
while relict indicator species occur above the falls suggesting 
historic use, the origin of these indicator species is uncertain.
    Even though uncertainty remains regarding NMFS' conclusions, 
chinook salmon do not presently occur in Napias Creek, and therefore, 
habitat above the falls would not likely be used by the species in the 
near-term even if it were accessible. Furthermore, any potential long-
term risk of harm to the species is lessened by the fact NMFS may 
revise its determination if in the future additional information 
indicates that

[[Page 57402]]

habitat above Napias Creek Falls constitutes critical habitat for the 
species.

Special Management Considerations

    Section 424.12(b) of NMFS' ESA implementing regulations states that 
in determining what areas constitute critical habitat, NMFS shall 
consider ``physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of a given species and that may require special management 
considerations or protection.'' (Emphasis added). As discussed earier, 
NMFS concludes that areas above the falls are outside the current range 
of chinook salmon, and are not now essential for conservation of the 
species. While these conclusions essentially end NMFS' inquiry into 
whether areas above the falls constitute critical habitat, in this case 
it is useful to consider the management implications of this 
conclusion.
    NMFS believes that Napias Creek constitutes an important source of 
dilution water within the Panther Creek system and that any degradation 
of dilution flows from Napias Creek would likely hinder efforts to 
reestablish anadromous fisheries in Panther Creek (63 FR 4615, 4618; 
January 30, 1998). NMFS recently completed a section 7 biological 
opinion (BO) concerning the operation of the Beartrack Gold Project 
owned by Meridian Gold Company (NMFS, 1999b). In this BO, NMFS 
concluded that the proposed operation of the mine would jeopardize 
listed chinook, and recommended a reasonable and prudent alternative 
that requires Meridian to monitor and protect water quality in Napias 
Creek over the long-term. It is NMFS' belief that while mitigative 
measures contained in this BO will change as a result of this revision, 
such changes will not result in substantial impacts to salmonid habitat 
below the falls.
    In addition to the presence of listed steelhead and chinook salmon 
in Napias Creek, bull trout also occur above Napias Creek Falls (Smith, 
1996a). On June 10, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
listed the Columbia River distinct population segment of bull trout 
(including populations in Panther Creek) as a threatened species (63 FR 
31647). Consequently, the practical significance of excluding areas 
above Napias Creek Falls from chinook salmon critical habitat is 
debatable because federal agencies must ensure their actions do not 
jeopardize bull trout located in this area.

Expected Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires NMFS to consider the economic 
impact of specifying any particular areas as critical habitat. However, 
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA prohibits NMFS from considering economic 
impacts associated with species listings. Consequently, when 
designating critical habitat, NMFS considers only the incremental 
economic impacts associated with the designation above the economic 
impacts attributable to the listing of the species or authorities other 
than the ESA. 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 for the 
conservation of the species.
    In this particular case, positive economic impacts will likely 
result to parties in the subject area. Meridian owns and operates 
Beartrack Mine, which is adjacent to Upper Napias Creek (Napias Creek 
above the Falls), within the Salmon National Forest. Meridian is 
subject to a BO that contains measures to protect designated critical 
habitat in Napias Creek. NMFS is not aware of any other business 
operating in Upper Napias Creek whose operations might adversely modify 
potential salmon habitat. This action would reduce the ESU's critical 
habitat, by eliminating Upper Napias Creek from critical habitat. In 
turn, measures contained in the BO that relate to this designate are no 
longer applicable. Therefore, the reduction of critical habitat would 
lessen Meridian's economic burden resulting from measures contained in 
the BO.

Determination

    After considering the best available scientific and commercial 
information, NMFS concludes that Napias Creek Falls likely constitutes 
a naturally impassable barrier for Snake River spring/summer chinook 
salmon. While the falls may be passable to chinook salmon at certain 
flows, available evidence suggests this species has not mounted this 
falls with any regularity in the recent past, nor is it likely do so in 
the future. NMFS will reevaluate this conclusion in the future if 
information indicates areas above the falls are essential for 
conservation of chinook salmon in the Panther Creek drainage.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein and maps describing 
the range of proposed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon are 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined 
this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
    Through this rule, NMFS designates only the current range of this 
chinook salmon 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 
any historically occupied areas above impassable natural barriers 
(e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS concludes that the 
currently inhabited areas within the range of this ESU are the minimum 
habitat necessary to ensure the species' conservation and recovery.
    Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
requirements or economic effects upon small entities beyond those which 
may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal 
agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements 
of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of 
species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS 
and ensure 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.
    Meridian owns and operates Beartrack Mine, which is adjacent to 
Upper Napias Creek (Napias Creek above the Falls), within the Salmon 
National Forest. NMFS is not aware of any other business operating in 
Upper Napias Creek whose operations might adversely modify potential 
salmon habitat. This

[[Page 57403]]

revision would reduce the ESU's critical habitat, by eliminating Upper 
Napias Creek from critical habitat. To the extent that Meridian may be 
impacted by the current designation of Upper Napias Creek as critical 
habitat, the reduction of critical habitat would lessen Meridian's 
economic burden, if any, from that impact.
    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 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 final rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments or an 
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species.

    Dated: October 15, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is amended 
as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 226.205, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 226.205  Critical habitat for Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake 
River fall chinook salmon, and Snake River spring/summer chinook 
salmon.

* * * * *
    (b) Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Geographic Boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to 
include the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west end 
of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the 
Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) and including all Columbia 
River estuarine areas and river reaches proceeding upstream to the 
confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers; all Snake River reaches 
from the confluence of the Columbia River upstream to Hells Canyon Dam. 
Critical habitat also includes river reaches presently or historically 
accessible (except reaches above impassable natural falls (including 
Napias Creek Falls) and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams) to Snake River 
spring/summer chinook salmon in the following hydrologic units: Hells 
Canyon, Imnaha, Lemhi, Little Salmon, Lower Grande Ronde, Lower Middle 
Fork Salmon, Lower Salmon, Lower Snake-Asotin, Lower Snake-Tucannon, 
Middle Salmon-Chamberlain, Middle Salmon-Panther, Pahsimeroi, South 
Fork Salmon, Upper Middle Fork Salmon, Upper Grande Ronde, Upper 
Salmon, Wallowa. Critical habitat borders on or passes through the 
following counties in Oregon: Baker, Clatsop, Columbia, Gillium, Hood 
River, Morrow, Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco; the 
following counties in Washington: Asotin, Benton, Clark, Columbia, 
Cowlitz, Franklin, Garfield, Klickitat, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, 
Walla, Whitman; and the following counties in Idaho: Adams, Blaine, 
Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Lewis, Nez Perce, Valley.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-27585 Filed 10-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F