[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