Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 
[Federal Register: September 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 170)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52629-52858]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02se05-23]
[[Page 52630]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 030716175-5203-04; I.D. No. 070303A]
RIN 0648-AQ77
 
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon 
and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

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

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

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are issuing 
a final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily 
Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon (chum, Oncorhynchus keta; 
sockeye, O. nerka; chinook, O. tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss) 
listed as of the date of this designation under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The specific areas designated in the 
rule text set out below include approximately 20,630 mi (33,201 km) of 
lake, riverine, and estuarine habitat in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, 
as well as approximately 2,312 mi (3,721 km) of marine nearshore 
habitat in Puget Sound, Washington. Some of the areas designated are 
occupied by two or more ESUs. The annual net economic impacts of 
changes to Federal activities as a result of critical habitat 
designation (regardless of whether those activities would also change 
as a result of the ESA's jeopardy requirement) are estimated to be 
approximately $201.2 million. Fish and wildlife conservation actions 
for the Federal Columbia River Power System and other major hydropower 
projects in the Pacific Northwest are expected to generate another 
$500-700 million in annual costs, including forgone power revenues. 
While these hydropower projects are covered by ESA section 7, the 
conservation actions that generate these costs are imposed by a wide 
variety of laws. We solicited information and comments from the public 
in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and on all aspects 
of the proposed rule. This rule is being issued to meet the timeline 
established in litigation between NMFS and Pacific Coast Federation of 
Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA et. al v. NMFS (Civ. No. 03-1883)). In 
the proposed rule, we identified a number of potential exclusions we 
were considering including exclusions for federal lands subject to the 
Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH. We are continuing to 
analyze whether exclusion of those federal lands is appropriate.

DATES: This rule becomes effective January 2, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available 
for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at 
the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, Protected Resources 
Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. The 
final rule, maps, and other materials relating to these designations 
can be found on our website at 
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Stone at the above address, at 
(503) 231-2317, or Marta Nammack at (301) 713-1401 ext. 180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of the Final Rule

    This Federal Register notice describes the final critical habitat 
designations for 12 ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead under the 
ESA. The pages that follow summarize the comments and information 
received in response to proposed designations published on December 14, 
2004 (69 FR 74572), describe any changes from the proposed 
designations, and detail the final designations for 12 ESUs. To assist 
the reader, the content of this document is organized as follows:

I. Background and Previous Federal Action
II. Summary of Comments and Recommendations
    Notification and General Comments
    Identification of Critical Habitat Areas
    Economics Methodology
    Weighing the Benefits of Designation vs. Exclusion
    Effects of Designating Critical Habitat
    ESU-Specific Issues
III. Summary of Revisions
IV. Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    Salmon Life History
    Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and 
Specific Areas Within the Geographical Area
    Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
    Special Management Considerations or Protections
    Unoccupied Areas
    Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat
    Military Lands
    Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams
V. Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)
    Exclusions Based on ``Other Relevant Impacts''
    Impacts to Tribes
    Impacts to Landowners With Contractual Commitments to Conservation
    Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
VI. Critical Habitat Designation
VII. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
    Section 7 Consultation
    Activities Affected by Critical Habitat Designation
VIII. Required Determinations
IX. References Cited

I. Background and Previous Federal Action

    We are responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or 
distinct population segments of West Coast salmon and steelhead 
(Oncorhynchus spp.) are threatened or endangered, and for designating 
critical habitat for them under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). To 
qualify as a distinct population segment, a West Coast salmon or 
steelhead population must be substantially reproductively isolated from 
other conspecific populations and represent an important component in 
the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. According to agency 
policy, a population meeting these criteria is considered to be an 
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991).
    We are also responsible for designating critical habitat for 
species listed under our jurisdiction. Section 3 of the ESA defines 
critical habitat as (1) specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing, on which are found 
those physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the listed species and that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
that are essential for the conservation of a listed species. Our 
regulations direct us to focus on ``primary constituent elements,'' or 
PCEs, in identifying these physical or biological features. Section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each Federal agency shall, in 
consultation with and with the assistance of NMFS, ensure that any 
action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened 
salmon or steelhead ESU or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Section 4 of the ESA requires us to 
consider the economic impacts, impacts on national security, and other 
relevant impacts of

[[Page 52631]]

specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    The timeline for completing the critical habitat designations 
described in this Federal Register document was established pursuant to 
litigation between NMFS and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, the Center for 
Biological Diversity, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Pacific 
Rivers Council, and the Environmental Protection Information Center 
(PCFFA et al.) and is subject to a Consent Decree and Stipulated Order 
of Dismissal (Consent Decree) approved by the D.C. District Court. A 
complete summary of previous court action regarding these designations 
can be found in the proposed rule (69 FR 74578; December 14, 2004).
    In keeping with the Consent Decree, on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 
74572), we published proposed critical habitat designations for eight 
ESUs of salmon and five ESUs of O. mykiss. (For the latter ESUs we used 
the species' scientific name rather than ``steelhead'' because at the 
time they were being proposed for revision to include both anadromous 
(steelhead) and resident (rainbow/redband) forms of the species--see 69 
FR 33101; June 14, 2004). The 13 ESUs addressed in the proposed rule 
were: (1) Puget Sound Chinook salmon; (2) Lower Columbia River Chinook 
salmon; (3) Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon; (4) Upper Columbia 
River spring-run Chinook salmon; (5) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon; 
(6) Columbia River chum salmon; (7) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon; (8) 
Oregon Coast coho salmon; (9) Upper Columbia River O. mykiss; (10) 
Snake River Basin O. mykiss; (11) Middle Columbia River O. mykiss; (12) 
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss; and (13) Upper Willamette River O. 
mykiss. The comment period for the proposed critical habitat 
designations was originally open until February 14, 2005. On February 
7, 2005 (70 FR 6394), we announced a court-approved Amendment to the 
Consent Decree which revised the schedule for completing the 
designations and extended the comment period until March 14, 2005, and 
the date to submit final rules to the Federal Register as August 15, 2005.
    In the critical habitat proposed rule we stated that ``the final 
critical habitat designations will be based on the final listing 
decisions for these 13 ESUs due by June 2005 and thus will reflect 
occupancy `at the time of listing' as the ESA requires.'' All of these 
ESUs had been listed as threatened or endangered between 1997-1999, but 
in 2002 we announced that we would reassess the listing status of these 
and other ESUs (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). We recently published 
final listing decisions for seven of the 13 ESUs and extended the 
deadline for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU and the five ESUs of O. 
mykiss (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). Final listing determinations for 
these six ESUs are expected by December 2005 (70 FR 37217 and 37219, 
June 28, 2005). However, the Consent Decree governing the schedule for 
our final critical habitat designations requires that we complete final 
designations for those of the 13 ESUs identified above that are listed 
as of August 15, 2005. We are not issuing a final critical habitat 
designation for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU because it is only 
proposed for listing at this time (70 FR 37217; June 28, 2005). In 
contrast, because anadromous forms (i.e., ``steelhead'') of the five O. 
mykiss ESUs have been listed since 1997-1999 (see summary in June 14, 
2004 Federal Register notice, 69 FR 33103), we are now issuing final 
critical habitat designations for them in this notice in accordance 
with the Consent Decree. We are able to do so because in developing 
critical habitat designations for this species we have focused on the 
co-occurring range of both anadromous and resident forms. Therefore, 
both the proposed and final designations were restricted to the 
species' anadromous range, although we did consider (but did not 
propose to designate) some areas occupied solely by resident fish (for 
example, areas above Dworshak Dam in Idaho). We focused on the co-
occurring range due to uncertainties about (1) the distribution of 
resident fish outside the range of co-occurrence, (2) the location of 
natural barriers impassable to steelhead and upstream of habitat areas 
proposed for designation, and (3) the final listing status of the 
resident form. Section 4(a)(3)(B) of the ESA provides for the revision 
of critical habitat designations as appropriate, and we will do so if 
necessary after making final listing determinations for those five O. 
mykiss ESUs. Moreover, we intend to actively review critical habitat 
and make revisions as needed for all 12 ESUs to keep them as up-to-date 
as possible. Parties are encouraged to contact NMFS if they have 
questions or need additional information regarding these designations 
(see ADDRESSES).
    In an ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003), we noted that the ESA 
and its supporting regulations require the agency to address a number 
of issues before designating critical habitat: ``What areas were 
occupied by the species at the time of listing? What physical and 
biological features are essential to the species' conservation? Are 
those essential features ones that may require special management 
considerations or protection? Are areas outside those currently 
occupied `essential for conservation'? What are the benefits to the 
species of critical habitat designation? What economic and other 
relevant impacts would result from a critical habitat designation, even 
if coextensive with other causes such as listing? What is the 
appropriate geographic scale for weighing the benefits of exclusion and 
benefits of designation? What is the best way to determine if the 
failure to designate an area as critical habitat will result in the 
extinction of the species concerned?'' We recognized that ``[a]nswering 
these questions involves a variety of biological and economic 
considerations'' and therefore were seeking public input before issuing 
a proposed rule. As we stated in the proposed rule that followed: ``We 
received numerous comments in response to the ANPR and considered them 
during development of this proposed rulemaking. Where applicable, we 
have referenced these comments in this Federal Register notice as well 
as in other documents supporting this proposed rule.'' In the proposed 
rule, we described the methods and criteria we applied to address these 
questions, relying upon the unique life history traits and habitat 
requirements of salmon and steelhead.
    In issuing the final rule, we considered the comments we received 
to determine whether a change in our proposed approach to designating 
critical habitat for salmon and steelhead was warranted. In some 
instances, we concluded based on comments received that a change was 
warranted. For example, in this final rule we have revised our approach 
to allow us to consider excluding areas covered by habitat conservation 
plans in those cases where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation.
    In other instances, we believe the approach taken is supported by 
the best available scientific information, and that given the time and 
additional analyses required, changes to the methods and criteria we 
applied in the proposed rule were not feasible. We recognize there are 
other equally valid approaches to designating critical habitat and for 
answering the myriad questions described above. Nevertheless, issuance 
of the final rule for designating critical habitat for these ESUs is 
subject to a Court Order that requires us to submit the final 
regulation to the Federal

[[Page 52632]]

Register no later than August 15, 2005, less than five months after the 
close of the public comment period. Taking alternative approaches to 
designating critical habitat would have required a retooling of 
multiple interrelated analyses and undertaking additional new analyses 
in support of the final rule, and was not possible given the time 
available to us. We will continue to study alternative methods and 
criteria and may apply them in future rulemakings designating critical 
habitat for these or other species.

II. Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    As described in agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.16 (c) (1), in the 
critical habitat proposed rule we requested that all interested parties 
submit written comments on the proposals. We also contacted the 
appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule. To facilitate public participation we made the 
proposed rule available via the internet as soon as it was signed 
(approximately 2 weeks prior to actual publication) and accepted 
comments by standard mail and fax as well as via e-mail and the 
internet (e.g., http://www.regulations.gov).  In addition, we held four 
public hearings between January 11, 2005, and January 25, 2005, in the 
following locations: Kennewick and Seattle, WA; Boise, ID; and 
Portland, OR. We received a total of 5,230 written comments (5,111 of 
these in the form of e-mail with nearly identical verbiage) during the 
comment period on the proposed rule. Three comments dealt solely with 
Oregon Coast coho salmon and are not addressed in this rule.
    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure, and opportunities for public input (70 FR 2664; January 14, 
2005). The OMB Peer Review Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to provide public oversight 
on the quality of agency information, analyses, and regulatory 
activities, and applies to information disseminated on or after June 
16, 2005. Prior to publishing the proposed rule we submitted the 
initial biological assessments of our Critical Habitat Analytical 
Review Teams (CHARTs) to state and tribal comanagers and asked them to 
review those findings. These co-manager reviews resulted in several 
changes to the CHARTs' preliminary assessments (for example, revised 
fish distribution as well as conservation value ratings) and helped to 
ensure that the CHARTs' revised findings (NMFS, 2005a) incorporated the 
best available scientific data. We later solicited technical review of 
the entire critical habitat proposal (biological, economic, and policy 
bases) from 45 independent experts selected from the academic and 
scientific community, Native American tribal groups, Federal and state 
agencies, and the private sector. We also solicited opinions from three 
individuals with economics expertise to review the draft economics 
analysis supporting the proposed rule. All three of the economics 
reviewers and three of the biological reviewers submitted written 
opinions on our proposal. We have determined that the independent 
expert review and comments received regarding the science involved in 
this rulemaking constitute adequate prior review under section II.2 of 
the OMB Peer Review Bulletin (NMFS, 2005b).
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical 
habitat for the various ESUs, and we address them in the following 
summary. Peer reviewer comments were sufficiently similar to public 
comments that we have responded to their comments through our general 
responses below. For readers' convenience we have assigned comments to 
major issue categories and where possible have combined similar 
comments into single comments and responses.

Notification and General Comments

    Comment 1: Several commenters raised concerns/complaints regarding 
the adequacy of public notification and time to comment.
    Response: We made all reasonable attempts to communicate our 
rulemaking process and the critical habitat proposal to the affected 
public. Prior to the proposed rule we published an ANPR in which we 
identified issues for consideration and evaluation, and solicited 
comments regarding these issues and information regarding the areas and 
species under consideration (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003). We 
considered comments on the ANPR during our development of the proposed 
rule. As soon as the proposed rule was signed on November 29, 2004 (2 
weeks before actual publication in the Federal Register), we posted it 
and supporting information on the agency's internet site to facilitate 
public review, and we have provided periodic updates to that site (see 
ADDRESSES). In response to numerous requests--in particular from 
plaintiffs as well as private citizens, counties, farm bureaus, and 
state legislators in Washington--the original 60-day public comment 
period was extended by 30 days (70 FR 6394; February 7, 2005) to allow 
additional time for the public to submit comments on the critical 
habitat proposals. As required by the ESA, we also provided notice of 
these proposals to affected Federal agencies, states, counties, and 
tribal governments. Further, we provided notice of these proposals to 
professional scientific organizations and media sources in Washington, 
Oregon, and Idaho.
    Additionally, we realize that the statutory scheme provides a short 
time frame for designating critical habitat. Congress amended the ESA 
in 1982 to establish the current time frame for designation. In doing 
so Congress struck a balance between the recognition that critical 
habitat designations are based upon information that may not be 
determinable at the time of listing and the desire to ensure that 
designations occur in a timely fashion. Additionally, the ESA and 
supporting regulations provide that designations may be revised as new 
data become available to the Secretary. We recognize that where the 
designation covers a large geographic area, as is the case here, the 
short statutory time frame provides a short period for the public to 
consider a great deal of factual information. We also recognize that 
this designation takes a new approach by considering relative 
conservation value of different areas and applying a cost-effectiveness 
framework. In this notice we are announcing our intention to consider 
revising the designations as new habitat conservation plans and other 
management plans are developed, and as other new information becomes 
available. Through that process we anticipate continuing to engage the 
interested public and affected landowners in an ongoing dialogue 
regarding critical habitat designations.
    Comment 2: One commenter disapproved of our decision to vacate the 
February 2000 critical habitat designations for these ESUs. Another 
expressed the view that we should have focused only on completing an 
economic analysis (which was lacking in the 2000 designations) rather 
than revising the entire approach to designation.
    Response: We believe that the issues identified in a legal 
challenge to our February 2000 designations warranted withdrawing that 
rule. Moreover, we believe a new approach was needed, unless we were to 
simply disregard the economic analysis once it was

[[Page 52633]]

completed. Developing a cost-effectiveness approach, designed to 
achieve the greatest conservation at the least cost, is in keeping with 
long-standing Executive direction on rulemaking and is a responsible 
and conservation-oriented approach to implementing section 4(b)(2) of 
the ESA. In addition, we had new and better information in 2004 than we 
had in 2000, such as the state fish and wildlife agency data on fish 
distribution. The ESA requires that we use the best available 
information, and the distribution data are the best information 
currently available. Finally, the litigation challenging our 2000 
designation also challenged the lack of specificity in our designation 
of the riparian area, leading us to consider whether there was a better 
approach that was more consistent with our regulations and with the 
best available information. This issue is discussed in greater detail 
in a later response.
    Comment 3: Some commenters stated that we should wait to publish 
final critical habitat designations until after final listing 
determinations have been made and the final hatchery listing policy is 
published.
    Response: The ESA states that the Secretary shall designate 
critical habitat, defined as areas within or outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing and using the best 
available information (emphasis added). These designations follow that 
statutory mandate and have been completed on a schedule established 
under a Consent Decree. Also, the final hatchery listing policy and 
final listing determinations for several salmon ESUs were published on 
June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160 and 37204) in advance of the completion of 
this final critical habitat designation. For reasons described above in 
the ``Background and Previous Federal Action'' section, we are now 
making final designations for those listed salmon and steelhead ESUs in 
the Northwest Region that are subject to the Consent Decree and listed 
as of the date of this designation.
    Comment 4: One peer reviewer disagreed with the agency's approach 
to identifying ESUs and, consequently, found it very difficult to 
comment objectively on the substance of the critical habitat 
designations because how NMFS identifies ESUs affects the criteria one 
would develop to address critical habitat. Another commenter requested 
clarification regarding whether listed hatchery fish will be considered 
genetically the same as wild fish and suggested a change in the ESU 
boundary between Lower Columbia and Middle Columbia River O. mykiss 
ESUs. One commenter disagreed with our inclusion of hatchery fish in an 
ESU and argued that Congress had no intention of using critical habitat 
to afford protection to artificial breeding facilities such as hatchery 
raceways. One commenter did not support the inclusion of resident and 
anadromous O. mykiss in the same ESU.
    Response: For reasons described above, we are subject to a Consent 
Decree to issue these final critical habitat designations. Comments 
regarding whether hatchery fish should be considered as part of an ESU 
are not addressed in this document but are related to issues discussed 
in our hatchery listing policy published on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 
37204), as well as a concurrent listing determination notice (70 FR 
37160, June 28, 2005). With respect to concerns about the possible 
designation of hatchery raceways as critical habitat, we do not believe 
that these and other manmade structures associated with the hatchery 
environment (such as rearing ponds, egg incubation trays, etc.) contain 
the requisite PCEs.
    Comments regarding inclusion of resident trout in O. mykiss ESUs 
are not addressed in this document but are related to issues discussed 
in our hatchery listing policy published on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 
37160). However, for reasons described earlier in this document, we are 
making final critical habitat designations for the anadromous form of 
O. mykiss in five steelhead ESUs because this life history form has 
been listed since as early as 1997 (depending on the ESU). This action 
is in keeping with the Consent Decree which requires us to designate 
critical habitat for all ESUs listed as threatened or endangered as of 
August 15, 2005. We will revise the designations if appropriate 
following the final listing determinations for these five ESUs.

Identification of Critical Habitat Areas

    Comment 5: Several commenters contended that we can only designate 
areas that are essential for species conservation.
    Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA has a two-pronged definition 
of critical habitat: ``(i) The specific areas within the geographical 
area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed * * * 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, at the time it 
is listed * * * upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species'' (emphasis added). 
As described in the proposed rule, and documented in the reports 
supporting it, we have strictly applied this definition and made the 
requisite findings. We requested and received comments on various 
aspects of our identification of areas meeting this definition and 
address those here. Only those areas meeting the definition were 
considered in the designation process. Comments regarding the section 
4(b)(2) process, in which we considered the impacts of designation and 
whether areas should be excluded, are addressed in a subsequent section.
    Comment 6: In the proposed rule we considered occupied streams 
within a fifth field watershed (as delineated by the U.S. Geological 
Survey) as the ``specific area'' in which the physical or biological 
features essential to conservation of the ESUs were found. We also used 
these watershed delineations as the ``particular areas''--the 
analytical unit--for purposes of the section 4(b)(2) analysis. In the 
proposed rule we requested public comment on whether considering 
exclusions on a stream-by-stream approach would be more appropriate. 
Two commenters believed that the watershed scale was too broad for 
making critical habitat designations and suggested that a sixth field 
watershed or a stream-by-stream approach was more appropriate. One 
commenter believed that we should conduct a reach-by-reach assessment 
in their particular watershed.
    Response: Our ESA section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005c) acknowledges 
that the delineation of both specific areas and particular areas should 
be as small as practicable, to ensure our designations are not 
unnecessarily broad and to carry out congressional intent that we fully 
consider the impacts of designation. For reasons described in the 
section below on ``Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat,'' we continue to believe that the specific facts of salmon 
biology and life history make the fifth field watershed an appropriate 
scale to use in delineating the ``specific'' areas in which physical or 
biological features are found. We also believe consideration of the 
impacts of designation on a fifth field watershed scale results in a 
meaningful section 4(b)(2) balancing process. Moreover, congressional 
direction requires that designations be completed in a very short time 
frame by a specified deadline, ``based on such data as may be available 
at that time.'' Given that short time frame and the geographic extent 
of salmon critical habitat (approximately 29,000 stream miles), the 
fifth field

[[Page 52634]]

watershed was the smallest practicable area we were able to analyze.
    Comment 7: Some commenters believed we applied the definition of 
``specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time it is listed'' too narrowly. In their views, this led to 
two errors--failure to designate all ``accessible'' stream reaches and 
failure to designate riparian and upstream areas. The argument raised 
in support of the first assertion is that the ``best scientific data 
available'' support a conclusion that salmon and steelhead will occupy 
all accessible streams in a watershed during a period of time that can 
be reasonably construed as ``at the time it is listed.'' One commenter 
stated that ``[w]hether a particular stream reach is occupied cannot be 
determined with certainty based on `occupation' data alone, especially 
for fragmented, declining, or depressed populations of fish.'' The 
commenter pointed to the rationale provided in our 2000 rule for 
identifying occupied areas as all areas accessible within a subbasin (a 
4th field watershed, using U.S. Geological Survey terminology): ``NMFS 
believes that adopting a more inclusive, watershed based description of 
critical habitat is appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' 
use of diverse habitats and underscores the need to account for all of 
the habitat types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life 
stages, from small headwater streams to migration corridors and 
estuarine rearing areas; (2) takes into account the natural variability 
in habitat use that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g. some 
streams may have fish present only in years with abundant rainfall) (65 
FR 7764; February 16, 2000).''
    The argument raised in support of the second assertion is that in 
delineating ``specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species,'' we need not confine ourselves to areas that are 
literally ``occupiable'' by the species. If there are physical or 
biological features essential to conservation to be found within a 
broadly defined ``geographical area occupied by the species,'' we have 
the duty to delineate specific areas in a way that encompasses them. 
Some argued that limiting the designation to the stream channel fails 
to recognize the biological and hydrological connections between 
streams and riparian areas and would lead to further degradation of the 
latter. Two commenters suggested that we use a fixed distance (e.g., 
300 ft (91.4m)) if a functional description is not used. Some requested 
that we adopt the ``functional zone'' description for lateral extent 
used in the 2000 designations (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000) while 
other commenters felt that our reference to habitat linkages with 
upslope and upstream areas was vague and wondered whether we were 
actually using the old approach anyway. Other commenters believed that 
using the line of ordinary high water or bankfull width was appropriate 
and noted that this would remove prior ambiguities about which areas 
were designated. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) commented that 
regardless of the lateral extent designated, they would continue to 
protect and restore riparian and upslope areas in occupied and 
unoccupied watersheds. Other commenters supported the approach taken in 
this designation, to identify specific areas occupied by the species 
and not broadly designate ``all areas accessible,'' some commenting 
that this was a more rigorous assessment and more in keeping with the ESA.
    Response: The approach we took in the proposed designation is 
different from the approach we took in the vacated 2000 designation for 
a variety of reasons. The ESA directs that we will use the best 
scientific data available in designating critical habitat. Our 
regulations also provide direction: ``[e]ach critical habitat will be 
defined by specific limits using reference points and lines as found on 
standard topographic maps of the area. * * * Ephemeral reference points 
(e.g., trees, sand bars) shall not be used in defining critical 
habitat.'' (50 CFR 424.12(c)) With respect to our approach for 
identifying ``the geographical area occupied by the species,'' we 
recognize that the state fish and wildlife distribution data are 
limited to areas that have been surveyed or where professional judgment 
has been applied to infer distribution, and that large areas of 
watersheds containing fish may not have been observed or considered. We 
also recognize there have been many instances in which previously 
unobserved areas are found to be occupied once they are surveyed (NMFS, 
2005a). Nevertheless, we believe the extensive data compiled by the 
state fish and wildlife agencies, which was not available when we 
completed the 2000 designations, represents the best scientific data 
that is currently available regarding the geographical area occupied by 
the species. Moreover, the CHARTs reviewed the data and had an 
opportunity to interact with the state fish and wildlife biologists to 
confirm the accuracy of the data. We also believe the approach we have 
taken in this designation better conforms to the regulatory direction 
to use ``specific limits'' for the designation. The approach we used in 
2000 used subbasin boundaries to delineate ``specific areas,'' which 
arguably met the requirement to use ``specific limits,'' but we believe 
using latitude-longitude endpoints in stream reaches, as we have done 
here, better adheres to the letter and spirit of our regulations.
    With respect to our approach of limiting the designation to the 
occupied stream itself, not extending the designation into the riparian 
zone or upstream areas, we acknowledge that our regulations contemplate 
situations in which areas that are not literally occupiable may 
nevertheless be designated. Section (d) of 50 CFR 424.12 gives as an 
example a situation in which areas upland of a pond or lake may be 
designated if it is determined that ``the upland areas were essential 
to the conservation of an aquatic species located in the ponds and 
lakes.'' For this designation, however, given the vast amount of 
habitat under consideration (nearly 30,000 stream miles) and the short 
statutory time frames in which to complete the designation, we could 
not determine ``specific limits'' that would allow us to map with 
accuracy what part of the riparian zone or upstream area could be 
considered to contain PCEs. As an alternative, we considered the 
approach we used in 2000, which was to designate riparian areas that 
provide function, but concluded that approach may not have been 
entirely consistent with the regulatory requirement to use ``specific 
limits.'' We believe limiting the designation to streams will not 
compromise the ability of an ESA section 7 consultation to provide for 
conservation of the species. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to 
ensure their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Actions occurring in the riparian zone, upstream 
areas, or upland areas all have the potential to destroy or adversely 
modify the critical habitat in the stream. Although these areas are not 
themselves designated, Federal agencies must nevertheless meet their 
section 7 obligations if they are taking actions in these areas that 
``may affect'' the designated critical habitat in the stream. Thus, 
although this designation is restricted to the stream itself, we will 
continue to be concerned about the same activities we have emphasized 
in the past decade of consultations.
    Comment 8: Several commenters believed we incorrectly applied the 
definition of ``specific areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by the species.'' In the view of some, we failed our duty under the ESA 
by not making a determination that we had identified

[[Page 52635]]

as critical habitat enough areas (occupied and unoccupied) to support 
conservation. In the view of others, it was this failure that led to 
one of the errors described in the previous comment--the failure to 
designate all ``accessible stream reaches.'' Many commenters, without 
identifying the analytical flaw, expressed concern about statements 
made in the press that the change from ``all areas accessible'' to 
areas documented as occupied led to a 90-percent reduction in critical 
habitat. Other commenters supported the approach taken in this 
designation, to identify specific areas occupied by the species and not 
broadly designate ``all areas accessible,'' some commenting that this 
was a more rigorous assessment and more in keeping with the ESA.
    Response: Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA requires us to identify 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
that contain physical or biological features that may require special 
management considerations or protection. Section 3(5)(A)(ii) requires 
that specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species only fall within the definition of critical habitat if the 
Secretary determines that the area is essential for conservation. Our 
regulations further provide that we will designate unoccupied areas 
``only when a designation limited to [the species']
present range would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species (50 CFR 
424.12(e)).'' The ESA requires the Secretary to designate critical 
habitat at the time of listing. If critical habitat is not then 
determinable, the Secretary may extend the period by 1 year, ``but not 
later than the close of such additional year the Secretary must publish 
a final regulation, based on such data as may be available at that 
time, designating, to the maximum extent prudent, such habitat.''
    At the present time, we do not have information allowing us to 
determine that the specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species are inadequate for conservation, such that unoccupied 
areas are essential for conservation, aside from the three areas 
designated for Hood Canal summer-run chum. In this case, we were able 
to determine that these specific areas are essential for conservation 
because summer-run chum have such a restricted geographic area, there 
is a local recovery plan that has been in place for several years, and 
conservation hatchery fish are currently being released in these areas 
in an effort the recovery plan finds is essential for conservation of 
this ESU. We received no comments specifically questioning our findings 
that these unoccupied areas proposed for designation are essential for 
conservation. We anticipate revising our critical habitat designations 
in the future as additional information becomes available through 
recovery planning processes (see Comment 12).
    Regarding the concern about changing the designation from ``all 
areas accessible'' to the delineation of stream reaches actually 
occupied, when we announced the proposal we stated that it represented 
a 90 percent reduction in stream miles designated. The facts are more 
complicated. In those subbasins where we designated all areas 
accessible below dams and long-standing natural barriers, there are 
approximately 127,000 miles (204,400 km) of streams. A large proportion 
of these stream miles are not and have never been ``accessible'' to 
salmon and steelhead. In 2000, when we designated all areas accessible, 
however, we created an impression that every mile of stream in these 
subbasins was designated. We did not have information at that time, nor 
do we presently have information, that allows us to quantify exactly 
how many stream miles may be ``accessible'' and therefore how much of a 
reduction this rule represents over what may have been designated in 
the 2000 rule. Although we acknowledge it is a reduction, it is far 
less than a 90-percent reduction and we regret any confusion our 
statements may have created.
    Comment 9: Some commenters (including one peer reviewer) questioned 
the adequacy of our identification of PCEs, in particular the lack of 
specificity. The peer reviewer agreed that spawning areas were 
essential habitat features but did not believe that the others were 
because they are large and spread out or it is unclear what additional 
protections are needed. One commenter noted that it is difficult using 
the state fish and wildlife agency data to pinpoint PCEs with accuracy 
and that ``[s]ome of this information may require additional review, 
field verification, or confirmation by local sources such as Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists.'' With respect to one 
particular PCE, this commenter pointed out: ``For example, PCE 5 
(nearshore marine areas free of obstruction) includes an element of 
``natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic 
vegetation, large rocks and boulders and side channels. It is not clear 
how nearshore marine areas free of obstruction would possess these 
features.''
    Response: To determine the physical or biological features 
essential to conservation of these ESUs, we first considered their 
complex life cycle. As described in the ANPR and proposed rule, 
``[t]his complex life cycle gives rise to complex habitat needs, 
particularly during the freshwater phase (see review by Spence et al., 
1996).'' We considered these habitat needs in light of our regulations 
regarding criteria for designating critical habitat. Those criteria 
state that the requirements essential to species' conservation include 
such things as ``space * * * [f]ood, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements. * * * cover or 
shelter.'' They further state that we are to focus on the ``primary 
constituent elements'' such as ``spawning sites, feeding sites, * * * 
water quality or quantity,'' etc. In the ANPR and proposed rule we 
identified the features of the habitat that are essential for the 
species to complete each life stage and are therefore essential to its 
conservation. We described the features in terms of sites (spawning, 
rearing, migration) that contain certain elements. We disagree with the 
peer reviewer that rearing and migration habitat is not ``essential to 
the conservation of the species'' or that it is not possible to 
determine where those areas are. The peer reviewer's contention that 
rearing and migration sites do not require ``additional protections'' 
is discussed in a separate comment and response.
    Regarding one commenter's point, we have sought to verify the 
presence of fish and of PCEs with the relevant state, tribal, or 
Federal biologists for each specific area. Before publishing the 
proposed rule we provided the CHART reports to the state fish and 
wildlife agencies for review, and again during the comment period. We 
held further discussions with them where questions were raised. Also to 
clarify the point raised by this commenter regarding our description of 
the nearshore PCE, by free of obstruction we were referring to various 
manmade in-water structures placed in nearshore areas (such as 
seawalls, jetties, tide gates) that modify or simplify the habitat and 
restrict or impede the nearshore movements of salmon. In contrast, 
natural features identified with this PCE, such as aquatic vegetation, 
large wood and rocks, provide important cover to salmon and steelhead 
migrating and foraging in the nearshore area.
    Comment 10: Some commenters believed it was inappropriate to 
designate critical habitat in irrigation returns, drains, or wasteways 
because these are not natural waterbodies and were not historically 
occupied. They argue that critical habitat must be

[[Page 52636]]

limited to areas that were historically occupied by the species.
    Response: The ESA defines critical habitat as ``(i) the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time 
it is listed * * * on which are found those physical or biological 
features * * * essential to the conservation of the species'' (emphasis 
added). The statute does not limit designation to areas that were 
historically occupied. In some cases the historically occupied habitat 
may be unavailable or too degraded to support the species, in which 
case newly created habitat may be the most suitable habitat available. 
Moreover, some of these comments were directed at waterways that were 
historically occupied, have not been occupied in recent decades because 
of habitat degradation, but now may be occupied because of habitat 
restoration or increased water quantity. In light of comments received 
on specific waterways, we asked the CHARTs to review them and confirm 
their determination that the areas were occupied and contained the 
PCEs, and that the PCEs may require special management considerations 
or protection. During our final review of occupied stream reaches we 
found areas in four watersheds where the PCEs were either entirely 
lacking or were so degraded as to be functionally nonexistent, and so 
removed them from consideration as critical habitat.
    Comment 11: One peer reviewer noted that introduced predatory 
fishes should be identified as having a significant impact on critical 
habitat. Another wondered how we were dealing with listed bull trout 
eating listed steelhead.
    Response: We agree that predators, both exotic and native, can have 
an impact on listed salmon and steelhead and initially considered the 
absence of predators as a potential PCE. However, after reviewing our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 we concluded that they are not one of the 
``principal biological or physical constituent elements within the 
defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
We recognize that these predators can have negative impacts on native 
fishes and in 1998 co-chaired a workshop to assess these impacts (NMFS 
and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 1998). As a result, 
we have been working with state and Federal co-managers to address this 
issue, in particular via harvest regulations for introduced fishes. 
Regarding predation by bull trout (a native species), we concur with 
conclusions made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a 
recent final rule: ``[W]e are not aware of any published scientific 
studies or other convincing evidence indicating bull trout predation is 
the leading cause in the decline of other native or introduced 
species.'' If evidence to the contrary becomes available then we will 
work with the USFWS to assess and address the conservation risks.
    Comment 12: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
extent to which specific areas may require special management 
considerations or protection in light of existing management plans. 
Several commenters stated that lands covered by habitat conservation 
plans or other management or regulatory schemes do not require special 
management considerations or protection. Others commented that even 
where management plans are present, there still may be ``methods or 
procedures useful'' for protecting the habitat features.
    Response: The statutory definition and our regulations (50 CFR 
424.02; 424.12) require that specific areas within the geographical 
area occupied by the species must contain ``physical or biological 
features'' that are ``essential to the conservation of the species,'' 
and that ``may require special management considerations or 
protection.'' As described in the proposed rule, and documented in the 
reports supporting it, we first identified the physical or biological 
features essential to conservation (described in our regulations at 50 
CFR 424.12(b)(5) as ``primary constituent elements'' or PCEs). We next 
determined the ``specific areas'' in which those PCEs are found based 
on the occupied stream reaches within a fifth field watershed. We used 
this watershed-scale approach to delineating specific areas because it 
is relevant to the spatial distribution of salmon and steelhead, whose 
innate homing behavior brings them back to spawn in the watersheds 
where they were born (Washington Department of Fisheries et al., 1992; 
Kostow, 1995; McElhany et al., 2000). We then considered whether the 
PCEs in each specific area (watershed) ``may require special management 
considerations or protection.''
    We recognize there are many ways in which ``specific areas'' may be 
delineated, depending upon the biology of the species, the features of 
its habitat and other considerations. In addressing these comments, we 
considered whether to change the approach described in our proposed 
rule and instead delineate specific areas based on ownership. The 
myriad ownerships and state and local regulatory regimes present in any 
watershed, as well as the timing issues discussed previously, made such 
an approach impractical for this rulemaking, as noted in Section I 
above. While there are other equally valid methods for identifying 
areas as critical habitat, we believe that the watershed scale is an 
appropriate scale for identifying specific areas for salmon and 
steelhead, and for then determining whether the PCEs in these areas may 
require special management considerations or protections. We will 
continue to study this issue and alternative approaches in future 
rulemakings designating critical habitat.
    Comment 13: One commenter stated that we could not designate any 
unoccupied areas if we had excluded any occupied areas, relying on the 
regulatory provision cited in a previous comment and response. The 
commenter also asserted that reducing harvest of listed species would 
allow more habitat to be fully seeded and thereby also reduce the 
amount of habitat needed for designation as critical habitat.
    Response: The first comment assumes that all habitat areas are 
equivalent and exchangeable, which they are not. An area may be 
essential for conservation because it was historically the most 
productive spawning area for an ESU and unless access to it is 
restored, the ESU will not fully recover to the point that the 
protections of the ESA are no longer necessary. This area will be 
essential regardless of whether some other specific area has been 
excluded. The second comment reflects the view that if mortality of 
listed fish can be reduced in some life stage outside the spawning 
grounds, then less spawning habitat will be needed to support recovery. 
This comment could apply equally to any activity that affects fish 
survival, not just harvest in fisheries (for example, mortality of fish 
passing through dams). An increased number of returning adults would 
not necessarily result in a decreased need for critical habitat. 
Healthy salmon ESUs rely for their long-term survival on the abundance, 
productivity, spatial distribution and diversity of their constituent 
populations. Well-distributed habitat of high enough quality to ensure 
productivity across cycles of varying ocean survival will remain 
important to salmon conservation, regardless of whether fewer salmon 
are harvested or suffer from other forms of human-induced mortality 
(McElhany et al., 2003).
    Comment 14: Several commenters supported the designation of 
unoccupied areas above dams and some believed that by not designating 
these areas we will make it more difficult to achieve fish passage in 
the future. They

[[Page 52637]]

further noted that excluding these presently blocked areas now may 
promote habitat degradation that will hinder conservation efforts 
should passage be provided in the future. Several commenters identified 
areas above specified dams as being essential for conservation.
    Response: At the present time, we do not have information allowing 
us to determine that the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species are inadequate for conservation, such that we 
can make a determination that currently unoccupied areas above dams are 
essential for conservation. With respect to the particular dams 
identified by the commenters, the Northwest region is actively involved 
in a multi-year, large-scale recovery planning effort that involves 
scientific teams (called technical recovery teams or TRTs), which 
identify biological recovery goals, and policy teams, who actively work 
with local planning groups to identify actions to achieve those goals. 
These local recovery efforts are developing information which will be 
important to inform decisions about whether unoccupied habitat will be 
needed to facilitate conservation beyond what is currently occupied, 
and this work is part of our ongoing effort to work with and seek input 
from those stakeholders directly affected by the salmon listings. We 
accepted the first partial local recovery plan developed under this 
effort in March and anticipate receiving several more by the end of the 
year. Until those processes are more fully developed, we cannot make 
the specific determinations required under the ESA to designate 
critical habitat in ``unoccupied'' areas except for in the few noted 
instances (see Comment 7). We use our authorities under the ESA and 
other statutes to advocate for salmon passage above impassible dams 
where there is evidence such passage would promote conservation. This 
is not the same, however, as making the determinations required by the 
statute and our regulations to support designation.
    Comment 15: In the proposed rule we requested comments regarding 
the use of professional judgment as a basis for identifying areas 
occupied by the species. One commenter indicated that it was 
appropriate to accept the professional judgment of fish biologists who 
are most familiar with fish habitat within a watershed. Others believed 
that limiting the definition of occupied stream reaches to only those 
where fish presence has been observed and documented is overly narrow 
and fails to consider a number of conditions that affect species 
distribution, including natural population fluctuations and habitat 
alterations that affect accessibility or condition (e.g., de-watering 
stream reaches). These commenters also argued that defining occupied 
reaches should be based on a broad time scale that takes into account 
metapopulation processes such as local extinction and recolonization, 
adding along with other commenters that many streams have not been 
adequately surveyed and species may frequent stream reaches but not 
actually be observed by a biologist at the time that critical habitat 
is being assessed.
    Response: We relied on data provided by state fish and wildlife 
agencies as well as the USFS and Bureau of Land Management to determine 
which specific stream reaches were occupied by each ESU. The data sets 
we relied on to define occupancy reported distribution based on two 
general categories: (1) Field observations based on stream surveys or 
(2) professional judgment based on the expert opinion of area 
biologists. We reviewed other classifications used in these data sets, 
such as ``potential,'' suitable habitat blocked, disputed, unknown, and 
historic, but determined that areas classified as such were not 
suitable for defining occupancy. Depending on the source, each used 
similar criteria for the judgment that an unobserved area had fish 
present. For example, in Oregon there are streams considered occupied 
based on ``strong'' or ``modest'' professional opinion, while in 
Washington similar data are classified as ``presumed'' (NMFS, 2005a). 
In all cases the exercise of professional judgment included the 
consideration of habitat suitability for the particular species. Each 
agency's data set was compiled using input principally from state, 
Federal, and tribal biologists. In a few cases the data identify 
streams where local biologists (e.g., private consultants for a county 
or watershed group) had survey data or expertise, and the state 
incorporated the data after its own review. Federal biologists on the 
CHARTs reviewed these data, relying on their first-hand knowledge and 
experience with the watersheds as well as a variety of published and 
unpublished reports (e.g., watershed analyses and recent field survey 
reports). When questions arose about a particular site, we reconfirmed 
the data with the state, tribal, or Federal biologist(s) familiar with 
the area. We received several comments on our proposed rule regarding 
the accuracy of the distribution data in specific locations and, where 
we could confirm that the information provided by the commenter was 
accurate, we accepted it as the best available information and adjusted 
our designation. We view designation of critical habitat as an ongoing 
process and expect to adjust the designations as necessary as new 
information or improved methods become available.
    Comment 16: Several comments addressed the proposed designation of 
nearshore habitats in Puget Sound, including the lateral extent of 
these areas. In the proposed rule we described this extent as the area 
inundated by extreme high tide but requested comments on whether 
ordinary high water line may be more appropriate to use in estuarine 
and nearshore marine areas. We also noted that these zones may be 
excluded from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of designation. Most commenters on this issue supported 
the designation of nearshore areas (in particular the shoreline of 
Vashon and Maury islands) and using the line of extreme high water as 
the lateral extent, although one commenter requested that we extend the 
lateral extent landward to include riparian and other areas, such as 
backshores and bluffs, affecting the nearshore zone. One commenter 
noted that flooding events cause vegetation changes and debris movement 
important to salmon, and some commented that development in this zone 
(bulkheads, seawalls, levees, etc.) needs to be addressed. Others noted 
that this zone is also important spawning habitat for forage fishes and 
provides both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate prey. One commenter 
requested that we extend the designated nearshore zone westward to 
include all shallow waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca while another 
requested that we continue to research whether other marine areas 
warrant designation. One commenter noted that excluding these nearshore 
zones would contradict the CHART findings which identified them as high 
conservation value rearing and migration areas. In contrast, one 
commenter asserted that there is a lack of science to support 
designating nearshore zones as critical habitat.
    Response: We believe that the best available scientific data 
support a designation of nearshore zones in Puget Sound. This unique, 
fjord-like ecosystem contains a variety of habitats with physical or 
biological features essential to Chinook and chum salmon conservation, 
ranging from deep water habitats used by subadult and adults for 
migration and foraging to shallow nearshore areas important for 
juvenile rearing and for migration. In the 2000 critical habitat 
designations we

[[Page 52638]]

designated all marine areas of Puget Sound (as well as a lateral extent 
defined by riparian function) adopting an approach that mirrored our 
designation of all areas accessible in fresh water. However, since then 
we have revised our approach to be more definite about which specific 
areas contain physical or biological features essential to 
conservation, and that may require special management considerations or 
protection and thus warrant designation as critical habitat.
    While all waters of Puget Sound can be occupied by salmon, we have 
far greater certainty that the nearshore areas associated with the 
photic zone are both occupied and contain essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protection. In terms of 
occupation, it is well documented that juvenile salmon leaving their 
natal streams typically stay in nearshore areas where they depend on a 
photic-based food web of plankton and other invertebrates (Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, 1999). While the photic zone layer is 
present throughout Puget Sound, it only penetrates to the bottom in 
nearshore areas to a depth of approximately 30 meters (Williams et al., 
2001). We have defined the PCEs for nearshore marine areas as being 
free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and 
forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth 
and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging 
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side 
channels. This area is also the zone containing important marine 
vegetation and cover (e.g., eelgrass meadows and kelp forests) and in 
which salmon forage species reside (e.g., surf smelt and sand lance) 
(Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, 2000 and 2002). Activities 
potentially affecting PCEs in this zone include the construction of 
overwater structures (e.g., docks and piers), dredging and bank 
armoring (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, 2002).
    Similarly, we believe that the lateral extent of critical habitat 
in nearshore marine areas is best described in terms of tidal 
fluctuations that govern the areas occupied by salmon. We believe that 
the area inundated by extreme high tide is an appropriate delineation 
for the landward extent of critical habitat because it represents a 
regularly-occurring intertidal fringe that is recognizable (e.g., 
vegetation and landform changes), and contains and influences PCE 
elements such as large wood, rocks and boulders, and aquatic 
vegetation. We recognize that other areas landward of the line of 
extreme high tide (e.g., bluffs) have a major influence on the high 
intertidal zone and that activities in this zone could adversely modify 
adjacent designated areas. However, for the reasons described in our 
response to riparian zones we have not designated areas beyond extreme 
high tide.
    Comment 17: Several comments addressed the CHART process although 
few recommended changes to the CHARTs' ratings of watershed 
conservation values. Several commenters supported the process used, in 
particular the recognition that not all habitats have the same 
conservation value for an ESU and that this in turn allows for a more 
meaningful exclusion assessment under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. One 
peer reviewer agreed with the CHART's recognition of the importance of 
connectivity when identifying critical habitat, and emphasized that 
protecting upstream areas accrues benefits to downstream areas. One 
commenter contended that the CHART assessments were compromised by 
restricting them to consider only the stream channel rather than 
upslope areas as well. One commenter and a peer reviewer noted the lack 
of emphasis on the dynamic, process-based character of salmonid habitat 
and suggested that we adopt a model of species persistence across the 
landscape and incorporating metapopulation considerations to identify 
critical habitat.
    Response: The CHART process was an important part of our analytical 
framework in that it allowed us to improve our analysis of the best 
available scientific data and to provide watershed-specific 
conservation ratings useful for the Secretary's exercise of discretion 
in balancing whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. We do not believe that 
designating only the stream channel compromised the CHARTs' ability to 
assess watershed conservation values. As noted in the CHART report 
(NMFS, 2005a), the CHARTs employed a scoring system to assess--among 
other area characteristics--the quality, quantity, and distribution of 
PCEs within a watershed. The PCEs we have defined for these ESUs are 
found within occupied stream channels and therefore it is appropriate 
to focus our assessment on those areas. That said, the CHART scoring 
did include a factor related to the potential improvement of existing 
PCEs and thereby allowed the CHARTs to consider the ability of the 
watershed to contribute PCEs via natural processes such as recruitment 
of large wood and substrate, flow regulation, floodplain connectivity, 
etc. We recognize that salmon habitat is dynamic and that our present 
understanding of areas important for conservation will likely change as 
recovery planning sheds light on areas that can and should be protected 
and restored. We intend to actively update these designations as needed 
so that they reflect the best available scientific data and understanding.
    Comment 18: Two commenters questioned why only Federal biologists 
served on the CHARTs, one noting that including other non-Federal 
biologists would have increased the CHARTs' knowledge base. One 
commenter also suggested improving the CHART process by assembling 
multiple teams of independent scientists and comparing their results 
with the existing CHART conclusions.
    Response: The CHARTs consisted of over 65 Federal biologists from 
NMFS, USFWS, and BLM, and were all well-qualified to conduct critical 
habitat assessments. Nearly all of the biologists have had first hand 
experience with ESA, in particular implementation of section 7 in the 
areas evaluated and have knowledge of the existing management plans and 
protections. We recognize that numerous other non-Federal biologists 
have great experience; however, including them would have potentially 
triggered the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA), which include chartering a committee. We were concerned that 
the FACA's procedural requirements would have prevented our timely 
compliance with the existing Consent Decree. As noted in the proposed 
rule, we sought state and tribal co-manager review of the initial CHART 
findings and believe that opportunity for notice and comment on our 
proposed rule has provided the opportunity for all biologists 
interested in these designations to provide their expertise.
    Comment 19: Some commenters wondered whether the CHARTs considered 
the work of the various Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs), and one 
commenter contended that the CHART assessments should be reviewed by 
the TRTs. One commenter asked how conservation genetic concepts were 
incorporated into the designations.
    Response: We solicited participation and input from the various 
TRTs and salmon recovery coordinators. Given their priorities (i.e., 
providing crucial recovery planning criteria and guidance), and the 
time constraints under which we needed to complete the critical habitat 
assessments, not all of the TRT members were able to participate on the 
CHARTs. However,

[[Page 52639]]

each CHART did receive valuable support and input from at least one TRT 
scientist or recovery coordinator both during the course of CHART 
deliberations as well as informally on numerous occasions where we 
needed up-to-date information to support CHART assessments. Therefore 
we believe that we have been able to integrate much of the TRT findings 
into our final critical habitat designations. These findings include 
population identification and viability criteria (McElhany et al., 
2000; NMFS, 2001; Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team, 
2003; McElhany et al., 2003; Myers et al., 2003; McClure et al., 2005) 
which incorporate conservation genetic concepts and in turn aided the 
CHART's assignment of watershed conservation values. We recognize that 
recovery planning is an ongoing process and that new information from 
the TRTs and recovery planning stakeholders may result in changes to 
our critical habitat assessments and we can and will make needed 
adjustments in the future.
    Comment 20: Two commenters requested that we provide maps that show 
both designated and excluded areas. Another noted that it would be 
helpful to provide the stream length mileages to describe the areas 
designated.
    Response: To avoid confusion in this Federal Register notice--which 
is limited to black and white graphics--we have only depicted 
designated stream reaches in this document. However, we have made color 
maps depicting designated and excluded reaches available in documents 
via the internet (see ADDRESSES). Also, while we recognize the utility 
of providing stream mileages, we have instead relied on defining 
designated stream reaches using endpoints (i.e., latitude and longitude 
coordinates) because they are not subject to the potentially large 
errors associated with estimating mileages at varying map scales. 
However, the CHART report (NMFS, 2005a) does contain larger scale maps 
that may be easier for estimating stream mileages, and we have also 
made geographic information systems (GIS) data available via the 
internet (see ADDRESSES) to further facilitate viewing the geographic 
extent of these designations. Landowners can (and did in the course of 
evaluating our proposal) use these resources to determine if their land 
is designated critical habitat or can contact us for assistance (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Economics Methodology

    Comment 21: Several commenters stated that the economic analysis 
overestimates the actual costs of the rule by including costs that 
should be attributed to the baseline. For example, commenters asserted 
that costs associated with listing and application of the jeopardy 
requirement should not be included in the analysis. Commenters also 
asserted that costs that would have occurred under PACFISH, INFISH, or 
the Northwest Forest Plan should be excluded from the analysis. One 
commenter also stated that costs associated with existing critical 
habitat designations for salmon or other endangered species should be 
considered baseline impacts.
    Response: Regarding costs associated with listing and application 
of ESA section 7's jeopardy requirement, the economic analysis follows 
the direction of the New Mexico Cattlegrowers decision, in which the 
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit called for ``a full analysis of 
all of the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation, 
regardless of whether those impacts are attributable coextensively to 
other causes (New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277, 10th Cir. 2001). Consistent with this 
decision, the economic analysis includes incremental impacts, those 
that are solely attributable to critical habitat designation and would 
not occur without the designation, as well as coextensive impacts, or 
those that are associated with habitat-modifying actions covered by 
both the jeopardy and adverse modification standards under section 7 of 
the ESA. This overestimate of costs does not bias our 4(b)(2) balancing 
for two reasons. On the ``benefit of designation'' side of the balance, 
we consider the benefit of designation to be the entire benefit that 
results from application of section 7's requirements regarding adverse 
modification of critical habitat, regardless of whether application of 
the jeopardy requirement would result in the same impact. Moreover, the 
cost-effectiveness approach we have adopted allows us to consider 
relative benefits of designation or exclusion and prioritize for 
exclusion areas with a relatively low conservation value and a 
relatively high economic cost. With such an approach it is most 
important that we are confident our analysis has accurately captured 
the relative economic impacts. We believe it has.
    In many cases, the protections afforded by PACFISH, the Northwest 
Forest Plan and other regulations are intertwined with those of section 
7. In cases in which the specific regulation or initiative driving the 
salmon and steelhead conservation efforts is uncertain, we considered 
it as an ESA section 7 impact and examined the record of consultations 
with the affected agencies and based our analysis on the habitat 
protection measures routinely incorporated into the consultations. The 
economic analysis therefore assumes that the impacts of these types of 
habitat protection measures are attributable to the implementation of 
section 7. In these instances, to the extent that conservation burdens 
on economic activity are not, in fact, resulting from section 7 
consultation, the economic analysis may overstate costs of the 
designation. We took this possibility into account in conducting the 
4(b)(2) balancing of benefits. Conservation efforts clearly engendered 
by other regulations are included in the regulatory baseline. For 
example, Federal lands management activities in the Northwest Forest 
Plan planning area are affected by PACFISH. As a result, some projects 
that would have affected salmon habitat will not be proposed, and 
therefore will not be subject to section 7 consultation. These changes 
in projects are considered baseline and are not included as a cost of 
section 7 in the economic analysis.
    Commenters correctly note that there are designations currently in 
place protecting critical habitat for salmon, specifically those in the 
Snake River Basin. We acknowledged this in our proposed rule, but also 
noted that the presence of those existing designations weighs equally 
on both sides of the 4(b)(2) balance--that is, the existing 
designations also could be considered as part of the baseline for 
determining the benefit of designation for the ESUs addressed in the 
present rule. This concern is also addressed by the cost-effectiveness 
approach we have adopted since it relies on relative benefits of 
designation and exclusion rather than absolute benefits.
    Comment 22: One commenter and one peer reviewer noted that the 
economic analysis assigns costs to all activities within the geographic 
boundary of the watersheds, though not all activities in this area will 
lead to an ESA section 7 consultation or are equally likely to have 
economic impacts. By doing this, the agency assumed that if the stream 
reaches currently occupied by salmon were designated as critical 
habitat, then activities throughout the watershed would be affected, 
whether or not they are adjacent to critical habitat stream reaches.
    Response: It is possible for activities not directly adjacent to 
the proposed streambanks to affect salmon and steelhead or their 
habitat, for example, by increasing risk of erosion or

[[Page 52640]]

decreased water quality, and may therefore be subject to consultation 
and modification. Thus, the watersheds represent a reasonable proxy for 
the potential boundary of consultation activities. In some cases the 
revised economic analysis applies costs less broadly by refining the 
geographic scale for certain activities. For example, the analysis of 
pesticide impacts and the analysis of potential impacts on Federal 
lands management activities and Federal grazing activities have been 
refined and are now calculated based on stream mile estimates within a 
watershed.
    Comment 23: One commenter asserted that the draft report inflates 
its cost estimates by repeatedly choosing the high-end of a range of 
costs, while a peer reviewer suggested that using the mid-range as a 
representative cost estimate was problematic.
    Response: In determining likely costs associated with modifications 
to activities to benefit salmon and steelhead, the economic analysis 
identifies a range of costs using available data from, for example, 
agency budgets, documented conversations with stakeholders, and 
published literature. The full range of costs of these activities is 
presented in the economic analysis and individual watersheds are 
generally ranked in terms of cost impact by the midpoint of the cost 
range, as opposed to the high end. While we recognize that a formal 
sample of projects costs based on the consultation record or other 
sources is a better approach in theory, available data did not allow 
such an approach. In gathering the cost information that was available, 
we avoided using outliers and sought to construct a typical range of costs.
    Comment 24: Some commenters asserted that the economic analysis 
fails to account for regional economic interactions between watersheds. 
One commenter stated that this would result in an overstatement of the 
costs, while other comments state that this would underestimate the 
costs. One peer reviewer suggested using regional economic models to 
address these interactions.
    Response: We acknowledge that modifications to economic activities 
within one watershed may affect economic activities in other 
watersheds. The economic analysis discusses the potential for regional 
economic impacts associated with each of the potentially affected 
activities. Impacts are assigned to particular areas (watersheds) based 
on where they are generated as opposed to felt. That is, if the 
designation of a watershed causes impacts in multiple nearby 
watersheds, and exclusion of the impact-causing watershed would remove 
those economic impacts from the region, the economic analysis 
appropriately assigns the total cost impact to the impact-causing 
watershed. This method of assigning impacts is most useful to us in 
deciding the relative cost-effectiveness of excluding particular areas 
from critical habitat designation. As we acknowledge in NMFS 2005d, the 
economic analysis does not explicitly analyze the potential for these 
regional interactions to introduce cumulative economic impacts. Data 
are not available to support such an effort, nor would the results 
necessarily be applicable at the level of a particular watershed. If 
these impacts in fact exist, our results are likely to be biased 
downward, in that we have likely underestimated the costs of critical 
habitat designation at the level of the ESU. At the level of a 
watershed, however, the potential error is smaller. For this reason, we 
do not believe the lack of a regional modeling framework introduces a 
significant bias into the results for particular watersheds.
    Comment 25: Several commenters stated that the economic analysis 
underestimates the actual costs of the rule by excluding several 
categories of costs from the estimates. One commenter stated that the 
New Mexico Cattlegrowers decision specifically requires a full analysis 
of all impacts, including those resulting from the species' listing. 
One commenter requested that assessment of impacts stemming from 
activities occurring outside the designated area should be included, 
including indirect and regional impacts. Another commenter stated that 
the analysis should consider direct, indirect, and induced economic 
impacts including: Changes in property values, property takings, water 
rights impacts, business activity and potential economic growth, 
commercial values, county and state tax base, public works project 
impacts, disproportionate economic burdens on society sections, impacts 
to custom and culture, impacts to other endangered species, 
environmental impacts to other types of wildlife, and any other 
relevant impact. One comment more specifically noted that the economic 
analysis of impacts on dredging activities did not take into account 
the potential impact on the barging industry, or how the nation's trade 
balance would be impacted if farmers lose or have less ability to ship 
grain and other products on barges.
    Response: As noted in a previous response, the Court in the New 
Mexico Cattlegrowers decision called for ``a full analysis of all of 
the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation, regardless of 
whether those impacts are attributable coextensively to other causes.'' 
(emphasis added) The economic analysis conducted for this rule 
evaluates direct costs associated with the designation of critical 
habitat and includes: (1) Direct coextensive impacts, or those that are 
associated with habitat-modifying actions covered by both the jeopardy 
(listing) and adverse modification (critical habitat) standards; and 
(2) direct incremental impacts, or those that are solely attributable 
to critical habitat designation.
    We acknowledge that designation of critical habitat may also 
trigger economic impacts outside of the direct effects of section 7 or 
outside of the watersheds subject to the economic analysis. For 
example, state environmental laws may contain provisions that are 
triggered if a state-regulated activity occurs in Federally-designated 
critical habitat. Another possibility is that critical habitat 
designation could have ``stigma'' effects, or impacts on the economic 
value of private land not attributable to any direct restrictions on 
the use of the land. Our economic analysis did not reveal significant 
economic impacts from stigma effects for the designation of salmon and 
steelhead. Further, significant impacts of critical habitat on an 
industry may lead to broader regional economic impacts. All of these 
types of impacts are considered in the analysis, although it was not 
possible to estimate quantitative impacts in every case. We took these 
considerations into account in balancing benefits under section 4(b)(2).
    We acknowledge that designation of critical habitat may also 
trigger impacts on customs, culture, or other wildlife species. We 
concluded that data were not presently available that would allow us to 
quantify these impacts, at the scale of this designation, for the 
economic analysis. Our analysis was further circumscribed by the short 
time frames available, and our primary focus on conservation benefits 
to the listed species that are the subject of this designation. We took 
this limitation into account in the balancing of benefits under section 
4(b)(2).
    Comment 26: Some commenters expressed concern that the economic 
analysis does not address cumulative costs of multiple layers of 
regulation on economic activities.
    Response: Our economic analysis estimates costs associated with 
conducting an ESA section 7 consultation to ensure Federal agency

[[Page 52641]]

actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
We did not have information available at the scale of this designation 
to determine the marginal cost or benefit of such a consultation, in 
addition to any state or local review that may occur, nor did the 
commenter provide data that would allow us to make such a determination.
    Comment 27: One commenter stated that the economic analysis fails 
to factor in subsidies given to industries such as livestock grazing, 
hydropower operations, and irrigation activities, which minimizes true 
costs to the public. Another commenter further stated that the analysis 
does not distinguish between several countervailing cost elements, 
including ``socialized costs'' (costs Congress has decided that the 
public should bear, such as costs to Federal activities), actual costs 
to private entities, incentive costs, subsidies, and offsetting costs. 
As a result, for Federal programs, the analysis miscategorizes 
activities that benefit a small but favored sector of society, but that 
cause costs to the larger society. The analysis assumes that costs to 
these activities are costs to society in general.
    Response: The analysis attempts to measure true social costs 
associated with implementing the critical habitat rule. To accomplish 
this, the analysis uses the measurement of the direct costs associated 
with meeting the regulatory burden imposed by the rule as the best 
available proxy for the measurement of true social costs. We agree that 
it is relevant to consider appropriate countervailing or net cost 
impacts, where possible, in determining the benefit of exclusion. Where 
data are available, our analysis attempts to capture the net economic 
impact (i.e., the increased regulatory burden less any discernable 
offsetting market gains) of section 7 efforts imposed on regulated 
entities and the regional economy. For example, in the economic 
analysis, the revised impact estimates for pesticide use restrictions 
explicitly net out agriculture subsidy payments in the estimation of 
lost agricultural profits.
    Comment 28: One commenter stated that the increase in paperwork as 
a result of re-initiating consultation on potential impacts to critical 
habitat for projects that have already been through section 7 
consultation is a major concern.
    Response: We do consider that all activities may be subject to 
future consultation, regardless of whether past consultation occurred 
on these activities. Designation of critical habitat may result in 
reinitiating consultation on activities that were subject to previous 
consultation to ensure that the adverse modification requirement is 
addressed in addition to the jeopardy requirement. The economic 
analysis estimates the level of administrative effort associated with 
section 7 consultations, whether those consultations concern a new 
activity or readdress the impacts of a previously reviewed activity. 
The revised economic analysis includes a refined estimate of 
administrative costs associated with consultations on West Coast salmon 
and steelhead.
    Comment 29: One commenter and two peer reviewers stated that the 
economic analysis should include a discussion of flow change impacts to 
irrigation and other activities. Excluding these costs underestimates 
total economic impact. A commenter pointed out that low flow years and 
drought years are not discussed in the economic impacts, and 
consideration of these events is especially relevant to estimating 
impacts of instream flow augmentation. Similarly, another commenter 
stated that the analysis should include an analysis of impacts of 
increased spill at hydropower dams on the cost of power in the region.
    Response: The amount of water within particular areas that may be 
diverted from activities such as irrigation, flood control, municipal 
water supply, and hydropower, for the purposes of salmon and steelhead 
conservation is uncertain. As a result, a comprehensive prospective 
analysis of the impacts of potential water diversion from these 
activities would be highly speculative. In addition, the interrelated 
nature of dam and diversion projects, and hydrology, across river 
systems makes it impossible to attribute flow-related impacts from 
salmon and steelhead conservation to specific watersheds. We 
acknowledge this limitation of the economic analysis. The revised 
economic analysis, however, includes an expanded discussion of the 
potential impacts of changes in flow regimes on hydropower production 
and prices and water diversions on irrigation based on historical 
examples. This broader context will assist us in our decision making.
    Comment 30: Some commenters stated that the economic analysis 
estimates impacts using a constant per-capita income basis and that 
doing so is likely to underestimate the impacts on rural communities.
    Response: Per-capita income is not explicitly factored into the 
per-watershed quantitative impact estimates in the economic analysis. 
The commenter is highlighting that equal costs in any given watersheds 
will not likely result in the same relative economic burden to 
residents of those watersheds. This is because the ratio of costs of 
the designation to income may vary across watersheds. In lower income 
areas, the cost of implementing modifications to projects for the 
benefit of the salmon may be more burdensome relative to higher income 
areas. We did consider the extent to which costs of designation within 
a watershed are likely to be borne locally. In addition, information on 
distribution of wealth across the designation is provided contextually 
in the economic analysis, and this information is weighed in 
considering the benefits of exclusion of particular areas.
    Comment 31: One commenter stated that the analysis makes no attempt 
to explain or quantify with any level of precision what the additional 
costs of design and operation modification and mitigation measures 
required by ESA section 7 consultation are.
    Response: The economic analysis focuses on the impacts of section 7 
consultation on economic activities by first identifying the types of 
activities occurring that may be subject to section 7 consultation. The 
analysis then estimates the regulatory burden placed upon these 
activities as a result of these consultations. The burden estimate is 
based upon a review of past modifications to those activities 
undertaken for the benefit of West Coast salmon and steelhead, 
interviews with NMFS' consulting biologists, affected parties, and 
available documents and literature. This research on the potential 
costs of these modifications then determined a typical range of costs 
for potential project modifications that may be associated with section 
7 consultation in the future.
    Comment 32: One commenter stated that the economic analysis assumes 
that the population growth and economy of the impact areas is stagnant, 
and asserted that the analysis should evaluate population and economic 
growth on a regional, state, and county basis, and evaluate the degree 
to which the listing of salmon and steelhead may have contributed to 
any population and economic decline. Another commenter asserted that 
past costs are not good indicators of future costs due to streamlining 
of the consultation process, for example, for fire management on 
Federal lands. One peer reviewer suggested using the consultation 
record to forecast trends in consultations for particular types of 
projects.
    Response: The economic analysis does not uniformly assume that all 
activities and associated consultations

[[Page 52642]]

will occur at the same rate in future years as past, but projects the 
most likely level of future activity using information available at the 
watershed level. Further, the economic analysis does not quantify 
retrospective impacts of West Coast salmon and steelhead conservation 
as the focus of the analysis is the impact associated with the future 
critical habitat designation. Finally, while the consultation record 
may reveal some short-term trends for individual or groups of ESUs, it 
is not adequate to estimate trends for particular types of activities 
at a watershed level.
    Comment 33: Some commenters stated that the economic analysis uses 
data that are overly broad or makes assumptions across geographic areas 
that are too far reaching. For example, one commenter states that the 
economic analysis assumes that the necessity and scope of modifications 
will be constant across ESUs for most activities, when in reality, 
these are actually likely to vary substantially.
    Response: For each activity, the economic analysis examines the 
probability of consultation and the likelihood of modification. A 
variety of activity-specific information sources were used to forecast 
the frequency and geographic distribution of potentially affected 
activities. That is, frequency of consultation was not always assumed 
to be uniform across ESUs. The economic analysis does not, however, 
assume that costs increase in areas of overlapping ESUs. In other 
words, the presence of critical habitat for multiple ESUs is not 
expected to generate a greater impact than if the particular area is 
critical habitat for only a single ESU. Examination of the consultation 
history did not reveal differences in requests for modification to 
projects (reasonable and prudent alternatives) among the ESUs. We 
recognize, however, that the broad scope and scale of the analysis 
required us to make simplifying assumptions in order to complete the 
designations in a timely fashion (see, for example, the summary of 
major assumptions and potential biases of the analysis described in the 
final economic analysis (NMFS, 2005d)).
    Comment 34: Several commenters and a peer reviewer expressed 
concern that the economic analysis fails to consider the full range of 
economic benefits of salmon habitat conservation and therefore provides 
a distorted picture of the economic consequences of designating versus 
excluding each of these areas. Similarly, commenters expressed concerns 
that the economic impact of not designating particular areas to fishers 
and investors in recovery efforts should be considered in the economic 
analysis. Commenters specifically cited the lack of consideration in 
the economic analysis of the potential benefits of critical habitat 
designation on: (1) Decreased risk of extinction; (2) benefits to other 
aquatic and riparian species; (3) water quality; (4) flood control 
values; (5) recreation; (6) commercial fishing; (7) fish harvest for 
tribal uses; and (8) increased public education.
    Response: As described in the economic analysis (NMFS, 2005e) and 
ESA section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005b), we did not have information 
available at the scale of this designation that would allow us to 
quantify the benefits of designation in terms of increased fisheries. 
Such an estimate would have required us to determine the additional 
number of fish likely to be produced as a result of the designation, 
and would have required us to determine how to allocate the economic 
benefit from those additional fish to a particular watershed. Instead, 
we considered the ``benefits of designation'' in terms of conservation 
value ratings for each particular area (see ``Methods and Criteria Used 
to Designate Critical Habitat'' section). We also lacked information to 
quantify and include in the economic analysis the economic benefit that 
might result from such things as improved water quality or flood 
control, or improved condition of other species.
    Moreover, we did not have information at the scale of this 
designation that would allow us to consider the relative ranking of 
these types of benefits on the ``benefits of designation'' side of the 
4(b)(2) balance. Our primary focus was to determine, consider, and 
balance the benefits of designating these areas to conservation of the 
listed species. Given the uncertainties involved in quantifying or even 
ranking these ancillary types of benefits, we were concerned that their 
consideration would interject an element of uncertainty into our 
primary task.
    Comment 35: One commenter asserted that the economic analysis does 
not consider the importance of agriculture in Washington and how many 
communities rely upon the agriculture industry to survive. A number of 
commenters further stated that the analysis should address impacts on 
agriculture of a judicially imposed moratorium on pesticide use near 
salmon-bearing streams. The inability to use pesticides on farmland 
could result directly in decreases in crop yields. More specifically, 
the commenters believed that the economic analysis underestimates the 
impacts of the Washington Toxics litigation (Washington Toxics 
Coalition et. al. v. EPA, No. 04-35138) limiting pesticide use around 
salmon-supporting waters and suggests that the economic analysis should 
analyze the impact of this injunction.
    Response: Regarding impacts to agricultural communities, we 
considered impacts to small businesses in our Regulatory Flexibility 
Act analysis, and also took account of disparate impacts by considering 
per capita impacts as a basis for exclusion in the ESA section 4(b)(2) 
balancing. We did not otherwise separately consider economic impacts to 
various economically or culturally defined communities in the economic 
analysis or in the section 4(b)(2) balancing. For example, we also did 
not separately consider impacts of designation or exclusion on coastal 
fishing communities. As with the consideration of ancillary 
unquantifiable benefits of designation described above, we were 
concerned that including a consideration of these ancillary benefits of 
exclusion would inject an unacceptable level of uncertainty into our 
analysis.
    We agree that the draft economic analysis did not adequately 
consider the impact of pesticide restrictions on the agricultural 
industry. The revised economic analysis (NMFS, 2005d), therefore, 
includes refined estimates of potential lost profits associated with 
reduced crop yields as a result of implementing pesticide restrictions 
across the critical habitat designation. The analysis assumes that the 
agricultural net revenue generated by land within certain distances of 
salmon-supporting waters would be completely lost. That is, the 
analysis assumes that no changes in behavior are undertaken to mitigate 
the impact of pesticide restrictions. This assumption may lead to 
overestimated impacts of restricting pesticide use. On the other hand, 
the analysis may underestimate the impact of pesticide restrictions by 
assuming that farmers outside the designated areas (e.g., upstream) 
will not be restricted in their activities.
    Comment 36: A few commenters and peer reviewers stated that impacts 
associated with changes in the operations of the Federal Columbia River 
Power System (FCRPS) and other major hydropower dams should be 
included. One commenter noted that the FCRPS is an important issue as 
salmon-related conservation at these sites have impacted the price of 
power. Conversely, another stated that modifications to the FCRPS 
projects and

[[Page 52643]]

operations would result in high costs regardless of the presence of 
critical habitat for these salmon and steelhead ESUs due to the listing 
of the species and existing critical habitat for three Snake River ESUs 
in this region (Snake River spring/summer Chinook, fall Chinook, and 
sockeye salmon). This commenter therefore concluded that costs of 
modifications to FCRPS for the three ESUs with existing critical 
habitat should be part of the baseline.
    Response: The revised economic analysis includes an expanded 
discussion of the impacts on the FCRPS and other major hydropower 
projects of section 7 consultations and other conservation measures. We 
have provided more detailed estimated of these impacts and find them to 
be in the range of $500-700 million. We do not apportion these costs to 
a particular watershed, however, because the FCRPS and some other major 
hydropower projects are operated as integrated systems that span 
multiple watersheds. As a result, the impacts of section 7 
consultations on these systems are best considered at a spatial scale 
considerably greater than an individual watershed. We agree that the 
impacts specifically attributable to the listing of the three Snake 
River ESUs are an appropriate part of the baseline, but available 
information did not allow us to distinguish these impacts from impacts 
specifically attributable to the salmon and steelhead ESUs addressed in 
this rule.
    Comment 37: One comment letter contended that the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) mischaracterizes the number of 
potential farms that would be affected by critical habitat designation. 
The analysis states that only three farms in Adams County, Washington, 
may be affected by critical habitat designation, while U.S. Department 
of Agriculture reports that there are 717 farms in the county.
    Response: The IRFA analysis identified potential impacts to small 
entities using data from Dun and Bradstreet's ``Market Identifiers'' on 
the ratio of small businesses to total businesses in potentially 
affected industries within counties containing proposed critical 
habitat. The IRFA listed a single type of agricultural operation: Beef 
Cattle Ranching & Farming. The estimated number of these operations in 
a county was weighted by the proportion of that county covered by the 
critical habitat designation. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 
analysis includes three additional types of agricultural operations.
    Comment 38: Another commenter stated that the IRFA needs more 
citations regarding the applied sources of information.
    Response: We have provided appropriate citations in the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    Comment 39: One commenter stated that the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) analysis assumes that most compliance 
costs would be borne by third parties when, in fact, a significant 
portion of all section 7 related costs are not borne by those entities, 
but rather are borne by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
    Response: In many cases it is uncertain who will bear the costs of 
modification. The potentially burdened parties associated with 
modifications to activities are identified in the economic analysis. 
The BOR may, in fact, bear the cost of modifications to BOR dams, 
Federal land management activities, and so forth. Where information is 
not available on a per-project basis regarding the potentially affected 
party, the analysis takes a conservative approach, assuming that 
impacts may be borne by private entities, a portion of which may be 
small entities.

Weighing the Benefits of Designation vs. Exclusion

    Comment 40: Several commenters supported the use of a cost-
effectiveness framework, one commenter explicitly objected to it, and 
some commenters had concerns with the way we applied it. One commenter 
asserted that the economic analysis ``would have been very different'' 
if we had evaluated the absolute conservation value of an area ``with 
or without [section]
7 requirements,'' rather than relative 
conservation values. One commenter asserted that ``[w]ithout any target 
level of conservation for designation, the framework does not guarantee 
that areas necessary for conservation will be designated.'' Another 
commenter asserted that weighing quantitative economic costs against 
qualitative habitat ratings prejudiced the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis 
in favor of excluding areas lacking a high conservation value. Several 
commenters suggested that the 4(b)(2) process could benefit from more 
explanation regarding how the process was applied.
    Response: We believe the comparison of benefits provides the 
Secretary useful information as to the benefits of any particular 
inclusion or exclusion. The Secretary has discretion in balancing the 
statutory factors, including what weight to give those factors. The ESA 
provides the Secretary with the discretion to exclude areas based on 
the economic impact, or any other relevant impact, so long as a 
determination is made that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation, and so long as the exclusion will not result 
in extinction of the species concerned.
    Subsequent to publication of this rule, we will undertake a review 
of the methods and criteria applied in this rule. If the Secretary 
determines the critical habitat designations should be modified as a 
result of that review, we will propose a revised designation with 
appropriate opportunity for notice and comment.
    Comment 41: In the proposed rule we identified a number of 
potential exclusions that we were considering but were not at that time 
proposing. These potential exclusions included: Federal lands subject 
to Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH (including watersheds 
where 45 percent or more of the land was covered by one of these 
plans); all critical habitat for four ESUs (Snake River O. mykiss, 
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss, Upper Columbia River spring-run 
Chinook salmon, and Oregon Coast coho salmon); areas in the mainstem 
Columbia River that contain or are directly affected by the operation 
of the Federal dams on the river, including reservoir pools above dams, 
tail race areas below dams, and the navigation locks.
    Several commenters opposed these potential exclusions. Some 
disagreed that designation of critical habitat is unnecessary or 
diminished in light of existing management constraints, contending that 
such a position is contrary to the ESA's conservation purpose and our 
implementing regulations and citing recent Court decisions bearing on 
this issue. Several noted that because these species are still listed, 
existing regulatory and voluntary mechanisms are inadequate and noted 
that we concluded as such in our 2000 designations. Some commenters 
believed that the assumptions underlying such exclusions were 
unjustifiable and potentially disastrous for salmon recovery. Some 
commenters noted that INFISH was incorrectly identified in this list 
since that strategy applies only to non-anadromous watersheds. Several 
commenters believed that we failed to adequately describe the benefits 
of designation as they pertain to these potential exclusions. One 
commenter noted that the lack of specificity regarding which areas 
might be excluded as well as the lack of clear exclusion standards 
seriously hindered the public's ability to comment on the proposed 
exclusions. This commenter cited agency

[[Page 52644]]

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(b) and believed that this and other 
potential exclusions did not contain an adequate ``summary of the data 
on which the proposal is based (including, as appropriate, citation of 
pertinent information sources), and shall show the relationship of such 
data to the rule proposed.''
    In contrast, several commenters supported the potential exclusions 
mentioned in the proposed rule. One peer reviewer supported the 
exclusion of Federal lands covered by PACFISH and the Northwest Forest 
Plan and believed that critical habitat designation would have 
negligible benefit in these areas. Some commenters contended that 
designating critical habitat on these Federal lands was duplicative 
with existing ESA section 7 consultation processes, inefficient (e.g., 
citing costs of re-initiating consultation), and offers no additional 
conservation benefit to the listed species. One commenter believed that 
excluding Federal lands would be consistent with our exclusion of lands 
subject to Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans since existing 
land management plans provide similar protections. This commenter also 
cited the USFWS' exclusion of Federal lands for bull trout (69 FR 
59996; October 6, 2004) and provided information supporting their 
belief that we should make the same determination for salmon and 
steelhead ESUs. Several commenters and one peer reviewer contended that 
we are obligated to fully examine the web of private, local, state, 
regional, and Federal protections already in place and only designate 
as critical habitat those areas that are affirmatively in need of 
additional management considerations.
    Response: Section 4(b)(2) provides the Secretary with discretion to 
exclude areas from the designation of critical habitat if the Secretary 
determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
designation, and the Secretary finds that exclusion of the area will 
not result in extinction of the species. In the proposed rule, and the 
reports supporting it, we explained the policies that guided us and 
provided supporting analysis for a number of proposed exclusions. We 
also noted a number of additional potential exclusions, explaining that 
we were considering them because the Secretary of the Interior had 
recently made similar exclusions in designating critical habitat for 
the bull trout: ``On October 6, 2004, the FWS issued a final rule 
designating critical habitat for the bull trout * * * The Secretary of 
the Interior found that a number of conservation measures designed to 
protect salmon and steelhead on Federal, state, tribal and private 
lands would also have significant beneficial impacts to bull trout. 
Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior determined that the benefits 
of excluding those areas exceeded the benefits of including those areas 
as critical habitat. The Secretary of Commerce has reviewed the bull 
trout rule and has recognized the merits of the approach taken by the 
Secretary of the Interior to these emerging issues.'' We acknowledged, 
in the proposed rule, however, that we lacked the analysis to propose 
these potential exclusions for West Coast salmon and steelhead: At this 
time, the Secretary of Commerce still ``has not had an opportunity to 
fully evaluate all of the potential exclusions, the geographical extent 
of such exclusions, or compare the benefits of these exclusions to the 
benefits of inclusion.'' Our regulations require that our proposed and 
final rules provide the data upon which the rule is based (50 CFR 
424.16; 50 CFR 424.18).
    Recently, in response to the Department of Interior's request, a 
District Court has remanded the bull trout rule to the Department of 
Interior for further rulemaking. Alliance for the Wild Rockies and 
Friends of the Wild Swan v. David Allen and United States Fish and 
Wildlife (CV 04-1812). In seeking the remand the Department of Interior 
noted that it intends to reconsider the 4(b)(2) exclusions in the 
proposed rule and that it recently issued a Federal Register notice 
seeking comment on those exclusions (70 FR 29998; May 25, 2005). In 
response, we received extensive comment from those supporting and 
opposing these potential exclusions. Based on our review of the 
information received and the short time between the close of the 
comment period and the court-ordered deadline for completing this 
rulemaking, we are unable to conclude at this time that the benefits of 
excluding these areas outweigh the benefits of designation, with the 
exception of areas covered by three habitat conservation plans, 
discussed below.
    Nevertheless, we will continue to study this issue and alternative 
approaches in future rulemakings designating critical habitat. In 
particular, we intend to analyze the planning and management framework 
for each of the ownership categories proposed for consideration for 
exclusion. In each case, we envision that the planning and management 
framework would be evaluated against a set of criteria, which could 
include at least some or all of the following:
    1. Whether the land manager has specific written policies that 
create a commitment to protection or appropriate management of the 
physical or biological features essential to long-term conservation of 
ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
    2. Whether the land manager has geographically specific goals for 
protection or appropriate management of the physical or biological 
features essential to long-term conservation of ESA-listed salmon and 
steelhead.
    3. Whether the land manager has guidance for land management 
activities designed to achieve goals for protection or appropriate 
management of the physical or biological features essential to long-
term conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
    4. Whether the land manager has an effective monitoring system to 
evaluate progress toward goals for protection or appropriate management 
of the physical or biological features essential to long-term 
conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
    5. Whether the land manager has a management framework that will 
adjust ongoing management to respond to monitoring results and/or 
external review and validation of progress toward goals for protection 
or appropriate management of the physical or biological features 
essential to long-term conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
    6. Whether the land manager has effective arrangements in place for 
periodic and timely communications with NOAA on the effectiveness of 
the planning and management framework in reaching mutually agreed goals 
for protection or appropriate management of the physical or biological 
features essential to long-term conservation of ESA-listed salmon and 
steelhead.
    Comment 42: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential exclusion of lands subject to conservation commitments by 
state and private landowners reflected in habitat conservation plans 
and cooperative agreements approved by NMFS, specifically: (1) Land 
subject to Washington state forest practice rules referred to as the 
Forests and Fish Agreement; (2) lands covered by a Habitat Conservation 
Plan (HCP) approved under section 10 of the ESA (NMFS, 2004f); and (3) 
non-Federal timber lands covered by the Term Sheet in the Snake River 
Basin Adjudication. Several commenters (including three with NMFS-
approved HCPs) concurred with the potential exclusion of lands covered 
by an HCP, believing that we would not likely secure additional 
conservation benefits by designating these areas as critical habitat. 
These and other commenters acknowledged the

[[Page 52645]]

potential education benefits of designation but asserted that 
designating HCP lands could have an unintended consequence of damaging 
existing and future cooperative relationships. Some commenters noted 
that the USFWS had excluded lands addressed in the Washington 
Department of Natural Resources' (WDNR) HCP and the Forest and Fish 
Agreement in their recent bull trout critical habitat designation (69 
FR 59996; October 6, 2004) and requested that we do the same. These 
commenters additionally noted that HCPs have already undergone 
extensive environmental review and ESA section 7 consultation and been 
found to not likely jeopardize the species. With respect to the 
potential exclusion of lands subject to the Forest and Fish Agreement, 
several commenters asserted that Washington Forest Practice regulations 
already provide adequate protections and that excluding these areas 
would promote keeping them in a forested landscape rather than 
converting them to other land uses and smaller parcels that are not as 
good for fish. Several commenters expressed support for the Oregon Plan 
for Salmon and Watersheds. One commenter believed that we should 
consider excluding all basins with water rights adjudications. Some 
commenters believe that such exclusions should be based on the actual 
effectiveness of the habitat conservation strategies and plans, 
including whether they are being fully funded and implemented.
    Several commenters (including one with a NMFS-approved HCP) 
disagreed with the potential exclusion of lands covered by HCPs, 
believing it would be contrary to the ESA, and some cited recent 
litigation bearing on this issue (e.g., Center for Biological Diversity 
v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003); Gifford Pinchot Task 
Force v. FWS, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004). One commenter did not 
support such exclusions because they contended there are no guarantees 
the plans will remain in place, when for example, ownership changes or 
landowners change their minds. Another commenter who presently has a 
NMFS-approved HCP welcomed the critical habitat designation and noted 
that doing so would help ensure that actions by other landowners within 
and adjacent to its HCP lands will help ensure conservation of an area 
that provides fish habitat and valuable drinking water. One commenter 
believed that we should not exclude areas subject to licenses issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), noting in particular 
the Mid-Columbia HCP and uncertainties associated with downstream FERC 
projects at Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams. Another commenter cited 
agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(b) and believed that this and other 
potential exclusions did not contain an adequate ``summary of the data 
on which the proposal is based (including, as appropriate, citation of 
pertinent information sources),'' nor did they ``show the relationship 
of such data to the rule proposed.'' Several commenters believed that 
we failed to adequately describe the benefits of designation as they 
pertain to these potential exclusions.
    Response: The analysis required for these types of exclusions, as 
with all others, first requires careful consideration of the benefits 
of designation versus the benefits of exclusion to determine whether 
benefits of exclusion outweigh benefits of designation. The benefit of 
designating critical habitat on non-Federal areas covered by an 
approved HCP or other type of conservation agreement depends upon the 
type and extent of Federal activities expected to occur in that area in 
the future. Activities may be initiated by the landowner, such as when 
the landowner seeks a permit for bank armoring, water withdrawal, or 
dredging. Where the area is covered by an HCP, the activity for which a 
permit is sought may or may not be covered by the HCP. For example, an 
HCP covering forestry activities may include provisions governing 
construction of roads, but may not include provisions governing bank 
armoring or pesticide application. The activity may be initiated by the 
Federal agency without any landowner involvement, such as when a 
Federal agency is involved in building a road or bridge, dredging a 
navigation channel, or applying a pesticide on Federal land upstream of 
the HCP-covered area. In analyzing the benefits of designation for 
these HCP-covered areas, we must consider which Federal activities are 
covered by the HCP and which are not. Where activities are covered by 
the HCP, we must consider whether an ESA section 7 consultation on that 
particular activity would result in beneficial changes to the proposed 
action over and above what would be obtained under the HCP. Designation 
may also benefit the species by notifying the landowner and the public 
of the importance of an area to species' conservation.
    On the other side of the balance are the benefits of exclusion. We 
believe the primary benefits of exclusion are related to the 
conservation benefits to the species that come from conservation 
agreements on non-Federal land. If a landowner considers exclusion from 
critical habitat as a benefit, exclusion may enhance the partnership 
between NMFS and the landowner and thus enhance the implementation of 
the HCP or other agreement. If other landowners also consider exclusion 
from critical habitat as a benefit, our willingness to exclude such 
areas may provide an incentive for them to seek conservation agreements 
with us. Improved implementation of existing partnerships, and the 
creation of new conservation partnerships, would ultimately benefit 
conservation of the species.
    Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners enhance species 
conservation by extending species' protections beyond those available 
through other ESA provisions. Section 7 applies only to Federal agency 
actions. Its requirements protect listed salmon and steelhead on 
Federal lands and whenever a Federal permit or funding is involved in 
non-Federal actions, but its reach is limited. The vast majority of 
activities occurring in riparian and upland areas on non-Federal lands 
do not require a Federal permit or funding and are not reached by 
section 7 (in contrast to instream activities, most of which do require 
a Federal permit). The ability of the ESA to induce landowners to adopt 
conservation measures lies instead in the take prohibitions of sections 
9(a) and 4(d). Many landowners have chosen to put conservation plans in 
place to avoid any uncertainty regarding whether their actions 
constitute ``take''.
    Beginning in 1994, when we released our draft HCP Handbook for 
public review and comment, we have pursued policies that provide 
incentives for non-Federal landowners to enter into cooperative 
partnerships, based on a view that we can achieve greater species' 
conservation on non-Federal land through HCPs than we can through 
coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996). Before we approve an 
HCP and grant an incidental take permit, we must conduct a rigorous 
analysis under ESA section 10. The HCP must specify the impact likely 
to result from take, what steps the applicant will take to minimize and 
mitigate such impacts, and the funding available to implement such 
steps. The applicant must have considered alternative actions and 
explained why other alternatives are not being pursued, and we may 
require additional actions necessary or appropriate for the purposes of 
the plan. Before an HCP can be finalized, we must conclude that any 
take associated with implementing the

[[Page 52646]]

plan will be incidental, that the impact of such take will be minimized 
and mitigated, that the plan is adequately funded, and that the take 
will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery 
of the species in the wild. The HCP undergoes environmental analysis 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and we conduct a 
section 7 consultation with ourselves to ensure granting the permit is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
    Based on comments received, we could not conclude that all 
landowners view designation of critical habitat as imposing a burden on 
the land, and exclusion from designation as removing that burden and 
thereby strengthening the ongoing relationship. Where an HCP partner 
affirmatively requests designation, exclusion is likely to harm rather 
than benefit the relationship. We anticipate further rulemaking in the 
near future to refine these designations, for example, in response to 
developments in recovery planning. In order to aide in future 
revisions, we will affirmatively request information from those with 
approved HCPs regarding the effect of designation on our ongoing 
partnership. We did not consider pending HCPs (e.g., Washington's 
Forest and Fish Agreement) for exclusion, both because we do not want 
to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing HCP process, and because we 
expect to have future opportunities to refine the designation and 
consider whether exclusion will outweigh the benefit of designation in 
a particular case.
    During the comment period we received comments from only three 
landowners with current HCPs stating that they would consider exclusion 
as a benefit to our ongoing relationship--WDNR, Green Diamond Resources 
Company, and West Fork Timber Company. For those HCPs, we analyzed the 
activities covered by the HCPs, the protections afforded by the HCP 
agreement, and the Federal activities that are likely to occur on the 
affected lands. From this information we determined the benefit of 
designation, which we then weighed against the benefit of exclusion. We 
concluded that the conservation benefits to the species from the HCPs 
outweigh the conservation benefits of designation and therefore have 
excluded lands covered by these agreements in this final designation. 
The analysis is described in further detail (NMFS, 2005e).
    Comment 43: Several commenters addressed the exclusion of Indian 
Lands. All of the commenting Tribes and inter-tribal commissions 
reiterated their support for the exclusions. One non-tribal commenter 
suggested that designation was not needed for Indian lands in 
Bellingham Bay.
    Response: This final rule maintains the exclusion of Indian lands 
for the reasons described in the ``Exclusions Based on Impacts to 
Tribes'' section below.
    Comment 44: A few commenters addressed our assessment of Integrated 
Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) and the exclusion of 
Department of Defense (DOD) areas due to impacts on national security. 
One commenter thought it was reasonable to exclude military lands while 
another commenter asserted that we may not use the general ``national 
security'' language in ESA section 4(b)(2) to remove our obligation to 
comply with the demand for adequate INRMPs. One commenter wondered 
whether we considered the protection of U.S. agriculture in the context 
of national security.
    Response: Pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)), we contacted the DOD and, after evaluating the 
relevant INRMPs, we concluded that, as implemented, they provide 
conservation benefits greater than or equal to what would be expected 
to result from a section 7 consultation (NMFS, 2005f). We also 
determined that these INRMP sites as well as 13 additional DOD sites 
(e.g., Naval security zones and restricted areas in Puget Sound) should 
be excluded from designation due to potential impacts on national 
security (NMFS, 2005f). However, we did not have information available 
to draw a connection between the possible impacts of designation on 
agriculture and food supply and whether doing so might constitute an 
impact on ``national security,'' nor did the commenter provide specific 
information.

Effects of Designating Critical Habitat

    Comment 45: One commenter questioned whether there exists an 
acceptable or unacceptable level of negative economic impact to 
communities, landowners, or local governments and whether the 
government must consider the impacts that their decisions will have on 
local economies.
    Response: The economic analysis provides information regarding the 
impact to potentially affected economic activities of the proposed 
critical habitat designation. This information is used to identify the 
particular areas according to their relative cost burden. We weighed 
this information against the relative conservation value of the 
particular areas, considering the economic and any other relevant 
impact of designating critical habitat. Further, concurrent with the 
economic analysis, we prepared an analysis of potential impacts to 
small entities, including small businesses and government. This 
analysis identified the number of small businesses and governments 
likely impacted by the proposed critical habitat using county-specific 
data on the ratio of small businesses to total businesses in each 
potentially affected economic sector.
    Comment 46: Some commenters noted that the success of watershed 
management and restoration efforts is dependent on critical habitat 
protections, noting that designations assist local recovery planning 
efforts and leverage needed money and cooperation. Several expressed 
concern that excluding areas from designation--in particular areas 
identified in existing recovery efforts as important for salmon--would 
undermine ongoing regional and local recovery planning efforts (e.g., 
Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan, 
WRIA 8, Elwha River Restoration Project) by signaling that these areas 
are not important for recovery.
    Response: We acknowledge that critical habitat designations can 
serve an important educational role and that they can assist local 
recovery efforts as stated. The ESA requires that we use the best 
available scientific data to evaluate which areas warrant designation 
and that we balance the benefits of designation against the benefits of 
excluding particular areas. In so doing, it is possible that some areas 
subject to ongoing restoration activities may have been excluded from 
designation. However, such exclusion does not indicate that the area is 
unimportant to salmon or steelhead, but instead reflects the practical 
result of following the ESA's balancing of benefits as required under 
section 4(b)(2). We are hopeful that the information gathered and the 
analyses conducted to support these final designations (such as species 
distribution, watershed conservation value, and economic impacts from 
section 7 consultations) will be viewed as valuable resources for local 
recovery planners. As recovery planning proceeds and if we find that 
additional or different areas warrant designation or exclusion, we can 
and will make needed revisions using the same rulemaking process.
    Comment 47: Several commenters asked for clarification regarding 
how we will make adverse modification determinations in ESA 
consultations. One commenter also suggested that a

[[Page 52647]]

finding of adverse modification would need to be contingent on the 
habitat conditions existing at the time of designation. They noted that 
where such conditions are the result of past and present management 
actions, and where those existing conditions would not be altered 
through proposed future actions, it is their belief that consultation 
on such future actions would result in a ``no adverse modification'' 
determination.
    Response: In Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the USFWS' regulatory definition 
of ``destruction or adverse modification'' of critical habitat, which 
is also NMFS' regulatory definition (50 CFR 402.02), is contrary to 
law. Pending issuance of a new regulatory definition, we are relying on 
the statutory standard, which relates critical habitat to conservation 
of the species. The related point raised by one commenter regarding the 
relevance of habitat conditions at the time of listing when making an 
adverse modification determination cannot be answered in a generic way 
and would depend on the facts associated with a specific consultation.
    Comment 48: Some commenters objected to the potential land use 
regulations that critical habitat designation would prompt, citing 
specific cases where county and Federal agencies imposed buffers and 
other restrictions to protect ESA-listed fish. One commenter asked what 
forms of compensation are available for landowners if their lands are 
designated as critical habitat. One commenter asserted that specific 
guidelines should be developed and applied fairly and consistently in 
all areas, urban or rural.
    Response: The ESA requires that we designate critical habitat and 
these designations follow that statutory mandate and have been 
completed on a schedule established under a Consent Decree. Whether and 
if local jurisdictions will implement their authorities to issue land 
use regulations is a separate matter and is not under our control.
    Comment 49: Several commenters urged us to commit to monitoring the 
effects of the designations and exclusions and to describe how we will 
respond to new information and make needed future revisions to critical 
habitat.
    Response: We are actively engaged with an array of private and 
public stakeholders in recovery planning throughout the range of West 
Coast salmon and steelhead. As a result of this involvement and our 
regular contact with Federal, state and tribal comanagers (e.g., via 
section 7 consultations and other forums) we believe we will be able to 
effectively monitor the effects of these designations. Moreover, we 
intend to actively revise critical habitat designations as needed for 
all 12 ESUs to keep them as up-to-date as possible. We encourage all 
parties to contact us (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT) if they have information indicating that these designations 
warrant revision.
    Comment 50: Several commenters believed that we fail to (or 
inadequately) address required determinations related to a number of 
laws, regulations, and executive orders, including the NEPA, Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, and Data Quality Act. One commenter requested that we 
name Franklin County, Washington, as a joint lead or cooperating agency 
in the development of an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement pursuant to NEPA.
    Response: Our responses to each of these issues are described 
below, and we also direct the reader to the ``Required Determinations'' 
section below to review our response to each of the determinations 
relevant to this rulemaking.
    (a) NEPA--We believe that in Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996) the Court 
correctly interpreted the relationship between NEPA and critical 
habitat designation under the ESA. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit rejected the suggestion that irreconcilable statutory conflict 
or duplicative statutory procedures are the only exceptions to 
application of NEPA to Federal actions. The court held that the 
legislative history of the ESA demonstrated that Congress intended to 
displace NEPA procedures with carefully crafted procedures specific to 
critical habitat designation. Further, the Douglas County Court held 
that the critical habitat mandate of the ESA conflicts with NEPA in 
that, although the Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat 
designation if such exclusion would be more beneficial than harmful, 
the Secretary has no discretion to exclude areas from designation if 
such exclusion would result in extinction. The court noted that the ESA 
also conflicts with NEPA's demand for impact analysis, in that the ESA 
dictates that the Secretary ``shall'' designate critical habitat for 
listed species based upon an evaluation of economic and other 
``relevant'' impacts, which the Court interpreted as narrower than 
NEPA's directive. Finally, the court, based upon a review of precedent 
from several circuits including the Fifth Circuit, held that an 
environmental impact statement is not required for actions that do not 
change the physical environment.
    (b) Regulatory Flexibility Act--We have prepared a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis that estimates the number of regulated small 
entities potentially affected by this rulemaking and the estimated 
coextensive costs of section 7 consultation incurred by small entities. 
As described in the analysis, we considered various alternatives for 
designating critical habitat for these 12 ESUs. After considering these 
alternatives in the context of the section 4(b)(2) process of weighing 
benefits of exclusion against benefits of designation, we determined 
that our current approach to designation provides an appropriate 
balance of conservation and economic mitigation and that excluding the 
areas identified in this rulemaking would not result in extinction of 
the ESUs. Our final regulatory flexibility analysis estimates how much 
small entities will save in compliance costs due to the exclusions made 
in these final designations.
    (c) Data Quality Act--One commenter asked if we had complied with 
the Data Quality Act. We have reviewed this rule for compliance with 
that Act and found that it complies with NOAA and OMB guidance.
    (d) Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.)--One commenter 
asserted that we should have engaged in negotiated rulemaking to issue 
this final critical habitat designation. This is an interesting idea 
and could be pursued in future critical habitat rulemaking. However, 
because a court approved consent decree governs the time frame for 
completion of this final rule, we do not feel that there was ample time 
to comply with the numerous processes defined in the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act for this rulemaking. For example, the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act provides that if the agency decides to use this tool, it 
must follow Federal Advisory Committee Act procedures for selection of 
a committee, conduct of committee activities, as well as specific 
documentation processes (See Negotiated Rulemaking Source Book, 1990).
    (e) Intergovernmental Cooperation Act--One commenter asserted that 
we did not properly and fully coordinate with local governments and did 
not comply with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. First, the 
commenter did not provide a statutory citation for the 
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.

[[Page 52648]]

Although we are reluctant to speculate on that Act, we believe the 
comment is in reference to the Intergovernmental Cooperative Act, 
Public Law 90-577, 82 Stat. 1098 (1968) as amended by Public Law 97-258 
(1982) (codified at 31 U.S.C. section 6501-08 and 40 U.S.C. section 
531-35 (1988)). This Act addresses Federal grants and development 
assistance. Accordingly we do not find it relevant to the mandatory 
designation of critical habitat under the ESA. To the extent that the 
commenter's concern is assuring that state, local and regional 
viewpoints be solicited during the designation process, the ESA and our 
implementing regulations provide explicitly for public outreach. 16 
U.S.C. 1533 (b)(3)(A); 50 CFR 424.16. As noted in response to Comment 
1, we actively sought input from all sectors beginning with meetings 
with many stakeholders to inform an ANPR (68 FR 55926, September 29, 
2003), and culminating in four public hearings to facilitate comment 
from the interested public in response to the proposed rule. In 
addition we met with several local governments and made ourselves 
available to meet with others.
    (f) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)--One commenter 
asserted that we failed to comply with the NHPA (16 U.S.C. sections 
470-470x-6). The NHPA does not apply to this designation. The NHPA 
applies to ``undertakings.'' ``Undertakings'' are defined under the 
implementing regulations as ``a project, activity or program funded in 
whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal 
agency * * * .'' (emphasis added) (50 CFR 800.16). The mandatory 
designation of specific areas pursuant to the criteria defined in the 
ESA does not constitute an ``undertaking'' under the NHPA.
    (g) Farmland Protection Policy (FPPA)--One commenter asserted that 
we failed to comply with FPPA (7 U.S.C. 4201). The FFPA does not apply 
to this designation. The FPPA applies to Federal programs. Federal 
programs under the Act are defined as ``those activities or 
responsibilities of a department, agency, independent commission, or 
other unit of the Federal Government that involve (A) undertaking, 
financing, or assisting construction or improvement projects; or (B) 
acquiring, managing or disposing of Federal lands and facilities. The 
designation of critical habitat does not constitute a ``Federal 
program'' under the FFPA.
    (h) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--One commenter asserted that we 
failed to properly conduct and provide an unfunded mandates analysis 
because, they contend, we based our decision solely on public awareness 
of the salmon listings. This is not the case. In the proposed rule, we 
found that the designation of critical habitat is not subject to the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) We then explained 
in detail why this is the case. The commenter does not take issue with 
these findings and we find nothing in the commenter's assertions to 
warrant changing our original determination.
    (i) Federalism--One commenter asserted that we failed to properly 
comply with E.O. 13132.
    In the proposed rule, we found that the designation of critical 
habitat does not have significant Federalism effects as defined under 
that order and, therefore, a Federalism assessment is not required. We 
find nothing in the commenter's assertions to warrant changing our 
original determination.
    (j) Takings--One commenter disputed our conclusion in the proposed 
rule that the designations would not result in a taking. The commenter 
offered no information or analysis that would provide a basis for a 
different conclusion.
    (k) Civil Justice Reform--One commenter asserted that we failed to 
properly conduct and provide a Civil Justice Reform analysis pursuant 
to E.O. 12988. In relevant part, Section 3 of E.O. 12988 requires 
agencies, within current budgetary constraints and existing executive 
branch coordination procedures such as E.O. 12866, to review new 
regulations pursuant to certain specified requirements. The review is 
conducted to eliminate unnecessary litigation over agency rules. As 
called for by Section (3)(a), we reviewed both the proposed and final 
rules to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, and we drafted both 
rules so as to minimize legal issues that would occasion litigation. 
This critical habitat designation does not of itself circumscribe 
conduct, but we have designated critical habitat as clearly as possible 
and, through our comprehensive 4(b)(2) analysis, have produced the 
least burdensome critical habitat designation that is also ESA 
compliant. As required by the applicable portions of Section (3)(b)(2), 
we have also described the changes to the regulatory language and 
attempted to clearly define key terms used in the regulation, either 
explicitly or with reference to other regulations or statutes that 
explicitly define those terms.

ESU-Specific Issues

ESU Specific Comments--Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
    Comment 51: Several commenters believed that unoccupied areas above 
the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams should be designated as critical 
habitat for this ESU.
    Response: The CHART agreed that these unoccupied areas may be 
essential for conservation of this ESU, especially given the relatively 
limited number of populations and available habitat for them in the 
North Olympic region. The CHART noted that Elwha Dam is scheduled for 
removal as early as 2007 and has been the subject of comprehensive 
environmental studies. Also, recent recovery planning assessments for 
this area (Shared Strategy, 2004a) indicate that the Elwha River and 
Dungeness River Chinook salmon populations must achieve the planning 
targets and other viable salmonid population parameters established by 
the TRT. However, as described in the general comments above (see 
``Identification of Critical Habitat Areas'' section), at the present 
time we do not have information allowing us to determine that the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species are 
inadequate for conservation, such that we can make a determination that 
currently unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation. 
We will revise the designation if ongoing recovery planning indicates 
that specific areas above these dams warrant designation as critical 
habitat.
    Comment 52: One commenter requested clarification as to why the 
Skokomish River watershed was designated as critical habitat and asked 
whether occupied areas were based on professional judgment or 
observation. Another commenter said that the Skokomish River watershed, 
including mainstem and tributary spawning areas, should not be excluded 
from designation.
    Response: According to fish distribution data from Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for this watershed, all but 
approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) of habitat (in upper Purdy Creek) is 
identified as occupied based on documented observation. We agree with 
comments that this watershed should not be excluded from designation. 
The CHART reviewed these comments and maintained that this watershed is 
of high conservation value to this ESU, especially in light of the 
relatively limited number of populations and available habitat for them 
in the Hood

[[Page 52649]]

Canal region as well as the importance of the early returning life 
history type (Puget Sound TRT, 2004). The CHART noted that recent 
recovery planning assessments for this area (Shared Strategy, 2004b) 
indicate that the Skokomish River and Dosewallips River Chinook salmon 
populations must achieve the planning targets and other viable salmonid 
population parameters established by the TRT.
    Comment 53: One commenter questioned the exclusion of Bellingham 
Bay noting that it contains the estuary for two very depressed stocks 
of Chinook salmon.
    Response: Our proposed exclusions were for the freshwater streams, 
not for the nearshore and estuarine areas which the CHART concluded 
were of high conservation value to rearing and migrating Chinook 
salmon. The CHART considered this comment and maintained that the 
Bellingham Bay watershed is still of low conservation value to this 
ESU, in particular noting that there is a limited amount of freshwater 
habitat here, and that exclusion of these habitat areas from 
designation would not significantly impede conservation of the ESU. 
This finding includes an implicit determination that exclusion will not 
lead to extinction of the species.
    Comment 54: One commenter and a peer reviewer recommended that 
critical habitat on the Middle Fork Nooksack River be extended above 
the City of Bellingham's diversion dam to include all areas occupied by 
Chinook salmon.
    Response: The CHART reviewed the new data and determined that the 
areas are occupied and contain spawning and rearing PCEs which may 
require special management considerations or protection (NMFS, 2005a). 
The CHART noted that WDFW has been placing fish into this portion of 
the river annually since 2001 in order to increase returns and that 
plans are underway to allow passage at the diversion dam (Shared 
Strategy, 2005; WDFW, 2004). The resultant changes are identified below 
under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 55: Two commenters provided information indicating mapping 
errors in our Chinook salmon distribution in the Lower Snoqualmie River 
watershed, noting that distribution is limited by a canyon and gradient 
barrier at RM 2.5 on the South Fork Tolt River.
    Response: The CHART reviewed the comments as well as maps and 
information in Washington Department of Fisheries' (WDF) catalog of 
Washington streams (WDF, 1975) and concluded that the species' 
distribution in the proposed rule was in error. The CHART concurred 
with the commenter's assessment that a gradient barrier likely exists 
as indicated, and the resultant changes are summarized below under 
``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 56: One commenter provided information indicating mapping 
errors in our Chinook salmon distribution in the Cedar River watershed, 
noting that distribution above Landsburg Dam should be extended to 
Lower Cedar Falls based on recent fish passage above the dam and 
spawning surveys in the vicinity of the falls.
    Response: The CHART reviewed the comments as well as recent spawner 
survey information (Burton et al., 2005) and concluded that the 
species' distribution in the proposed rule was in error. The CHART 
concurred with the commenter's assessment that spawning and rearing 
PCEs and fish distribution should be extended above Landsburg Diversion 
Dam to the natural barrier falls indicated. Similarly, in reviewing 
distribution for this and nearby subbasins, the CHART also noted that 
Chinook salmon distribution in the South Fork Stillaguamish River 
should extend up to at least RM 67 to near confluence of Buck and 
Palmer Creeks as well as farther up Canyon Creek. Sources supporting 
this correction include WDF's stream catalog (WDF, 1975) and the June 
2004 Draft Stillaguamish Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan (Stillaguamish 
Implementation Review Committee, 2004). The resultant changes are 
summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 57: Several commenters objected to our rating of North Lake 
Washington as medium and the resulting proposed exclusion due to 
economic impacts. One commenter contended that excluding North Lake 
Washington tributaries could jeopardize that population and compromise 
recovery of the entire ESU. One commenter also asked that we reconsider 
the exclusion of the Sammamish River watershed. One commenter asked 
whether we had considered data collected by the Watershed Resource 
Inventory Assessment (WRIA) 8 Technical Committee.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments, as well as information 
prepared by the WRIA 8 Technical Committee (WRIA8 Steering Committee, 
2002) and Washington Conservation Commission's Limiting Factors Report 
(Kerwin, 2001), and maintained that the Lake Sammamish, Sammamish 
River, and Lake Washington watersheds were of medium conservation value 
relative to other watersheds in the range of this ESU. The CHART also 
underscored that the medium rating for the Lake Washington watershed 
related to the tributaries to the lake, but that Lake Washington itself 
was of high conservation value due to its connectivity with the high-
value Cedar River watershed and its support of rearing and migration 
habitat for fish from all four watersheds in the subbasin. The CHART 
concluded that excluding the Lake Sammamish and Sammamish River 
watersheds, and the tributary habitats to Lake Washington, would not 
significantly impede conservation of the ESU. This finding includes an 
implicit determination that exclusion will not lead to extinction of 
the species concerned.
    Comment 58: One commenter wondered whether we analyzed the 
potential impacts of proposed exclusions on the prospects for achieving 
recovery of this ESU by meeting delisting criteria and asked what 
assurances we can make that the exclusions will not preclude recovery.
    Response: The CHART was specifically tasked with reviewing the best 
available scientific data for this ESU and determining the relative 
conservation value of occupied watersheds. During our consideration of 
exclusions, as required by ESA section 4(b)(2), the CHARTs provided 
their best professional judgment as to whether any exclusions being 
considered due to economic impacts would significantly impede 
conservation. If so, then the area was not recommended for exclusion. 
We will revise the designation for this ESU if ongoing recovery 
planning efforts indicate that previously excluded areas warrant 
designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 59: One commenter provided a minor clarification regarding 
the proposed rule's reference to the ``White Acclimation Pond,'' noting 
that there are actually four acclimation ponds for White River spring 
Chinook in the upper White River basin. Another noted that our ESU 
description contained a typographical error in defining the boundaries 
of this ESU.
    Response: We appreciate receiving the clarifications and 
corrections and have updated the CHART report for this ESU to reflect 
these changes.
    Comment 60: Several commenters objected to the potential exclusion 
of all nearshore zones for this ESU and noted these areas have been 
identified by Puget Sound watershed planners and scientists as crucial 
for juvenile salmon. One noted that excluding these zones would run 
contrary to our 4(b)(2) approach since all of the Puget Sound nearshore 
areas were identified as high-

[[Page 52650]]

conservation value areas. One commenter requested that we extend the 
designated nearshore zone westward to include all shallow waters in the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca
    Response: We agree with the commenters' concerns and are going 
forward with designating nearshore areas as critical habitat for this 
ESU. The CHART also noted that additional nearshore areas west of the 
Elwha River may be essential for the conservation of this ESU, but 
based on the best information available at this time, we cannot 
conclude that the area is either occupied and contains the PCEs, or is 
unoccupied and is essential for conservation. If we determine that 
these or other nearshore areas warrant designation or revision, we will 
do so under subsequent rulemaking.
    Comment 61: One commenter objected to the exclusion of streams on 
Vashon Island based on genetic concerns or small numbers of fish. This 
commenter believed that more documentation was needed to substantiate 
the assertion that these fish are not part of the ESU.
    Response: The CHART considered these comments and determined that 
the limited number of habitat areas in the Puget Sound/East Passage 
watershed remain of low conservation value to the ESU. In addition, the 
CHART concluded that exclusion of these areas would not significantly 
impede the conservation of the ESU. Given these findings and the 
relatively high economic impacts associated with these areas, we 
conclude that exclusion is warranted.
    Comment 62: Two commenters requested that we expand the designation 
for this ESU to include estuarine areas located behind tide gates in 
the Skagit River basin.
    Response: The CHART concurred that these and other currently 
unoccupied estuarine areas were historically occupied and may be 
essential to the conservation of this ESU. However, we presently lack 
the information needed to prioritize and map the specific areas that 
warrant designation as critical habitat. We welcome such information 
and will revise our designations if new information--in particular, 
scientific assessments accompanying a recovery plan(s) involving 
affected landowners and other stakeholders--supports designating these 
and other unoccupied areas.
ESU Specific Comments--Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon
    Comment 63: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied areas upstream of Condit, Merwin, 
Swift, Yale, and Bull Run Dams. We noted that the CHART believed that 
each of these unoccupied areas may be essential to the conservation of 
this ESU. Several commenters supported the designation of areas above 
Condit Dam on the Big White Salmon River. Several commenters also 
supported the designation of areas above Merwin, Swift, and Yale Dams 
in the Lewis River Basin while one opposed it and contended that there 
was no biological basis for such designation and that even if there 
were, the benefits of designation are outweighed by the benefits of 
exclusion. This commenter also cited the USFWS' exclusion of these 
areas for bull trout and requested that we do so as well. Another 
commenter believed that critical habitat should not be designated above 
Bull Run Dam, citing recent modeling estimates indicating that these 
blocked areas are not likely to be as productive as other areas in the 
Sandy River Basin and that the costs of such designation could be 
substantial.
    Response: The CHART maintained that unoccupied areas above all of 
these dams, except Bull Run Dam, may be essential for the conservation 
of this ESU. In the latter case the CHART concurred with the 
information provided by the commenter and believed that these areas 
were not likely to be as important to the conservation of the ESU 
(especially the spring-run fish) as unoccupied areas in the upper Lewis 
River above Merwin, Swift and Yale Dams. Moreover, the CHART noted that 
the recent interim recovery plan for the Washington portion of this ESU 
supports the reintroduction of fish to areas above the Lewis River dams 
(Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004). The CHART also agreed that 
the areas above Condit Dam may be essential to ESU conservation, given 
the unique ecological setting of that drainage and the limited number 
of populations and habitat areas in the Columbia River Gorge (Rawding, 
2000; Haring, 2003; McElhany et al., 2003). However, as described in 
the general comments above (see ``Identification of Critical Habitat 
Areas'' section), at the present time we do not have information 
allowing us to determine that the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species are inadequate for 
conservation, such that we can make a determination that currently 
unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation. We will 
revise the designation if ongoing recovery planning indicates that 
specific areas above these dams warrant designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 64: Two commenters disagreed with the exclusion of habitat 
areas in the Washougal River and Germany/Abernethy watersheds, citing 
concerns for fall-run fish in these watersheds and noting that they 
were deemed important in a recent interim recovery plan for this region 
of the lower Columbia River (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004).
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments, as well as information 
contained in the cited interim recovery plan, and maintained that both 
watersheds were of medium conservation value relative to other 
watersheds in the range of this ESU. All habitat areas in both 
watersheds had been proposed for exclusion due to economic impacts, and 
they still exceed these economic thresholds (NMFS, 2005c). After 
reviewing these and other comments received on the proposed rule, the 
CHART now concludes that excluding habitat areas in the Washougal River 
watershed would significantly impede the conservation of the ESU, but 
that excluding areas in the Germany/Abernethy watershed would not. The 
CHART noted that the interim recovery plan (Lower Columbia Fish 
Recovery Board, 2004) specifies that the Washougal River fall-run 
population is targeted to achieve a high viability level, while the 
population in the Germany/Abernethy watershed is proposed to achieve a 
reduced goal of medium viability. In addition, it believed that other 
watersheds in the coastal region of this ESU and adjacent to Germany/
Abernethy (e.g., Big Creek and Skamokawa/Elochoman watersheds) had a 
higher conservation value for the ESU because they support fall-run 
populations identified by the Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT (McElhany 
et al., 2003) as core populations (historically abundant and may offer 
the most likely path to recovery). The resultant changes are summarized 
below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 65: One commenter disagreed with the designation of Riffe 
Lake in the Cowlitz River Basin, contending that it is unoccupied by 
this ESU because fish are trapped and hauled around the lake and it is 
not essential for recovery of the ESU.
    Response: The CHART disagreed that Riffe Lake is unoccupied and 
noted a recent report (Tacoma Public Utilities, 2003) noting that 
juvenile fish do escape capture at the upstream dam and transit the 
lake on their downstream migration. Furthermore, the CHART underscored 
that the designation of Riffe Lake maintains the connectivity of a high 
value rearing and migration corridor for Chinook salmon spawning in 
five high-value watersheds upstream.

[[Page 52651]]

ESU Specific Comments--Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon
    Comment 66: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied areas upstream of Big Cliff and 
Detroit dams. We noted that the CHART believed that each of these 
unoccupied areas may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. No 
comments disputed this conclusion and one commenter noted that the 
Willamette/Lower Columbia River TRT's viability assessments indicate a 
relatively high risk of extinction for this ESU and thereby support 
designating, and re-gaining access to, unoccupied historical areas 
upstream of these dams as well as Green Peter Dam on the South Santiam 
River.
    Response: The CHART maintained that areas above the North Santiam 
dams may be essential for the conservation of this ESU and agreed that 
the TRT's viability assessment (McElhany et al., 2003) strongly 
suggests that these areas may warrant designation. The CHART also noted 
that recent reintroduction efforts underscore the importance of these 
areas and, if continued, may warrant considering them as occupied 
habitat areas. The CHART also agreed that areas upstream of Green Peter 
Dam may be essential for the conservation of this ESU, especially given 
the limited number of populations in this ESU (Myers et al., 2003) and 
the likely productivity of that historical habitat. However, as 
described in the general comments above (see ``Identification of 
Critical Habitat Areas'' section), at the present time we do not have 
information allowing us to determine that the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species are inadequate for 
conservation, such that we can make a determination that currently 
unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation. We will 
revise the designation if ongoing recovery planning indicates that 
specific areas above these dams warrant designation as critical habitat.
ESU Specific Comments--Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon
    Comment 67: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied areas upstream of Enloe Dam. We 
noted that the CHART believed that these unoccupied areas may be 
essential for the conservation of this ESU. One commenter supported the 
designation of critical habitat above this dam, citing the area's 
historic use and potential recovery opportunities. Another commenter 
questioned whether salmon or steelhead ever occurred upstream of the 
dam, citing in particular a report by Chapman et al. (1995) that did 
not find evidence of historic occupation.
    Response: The CHART maintained that habitat areas upstream of Enloe 
Dam may be essential for the conservation of this ESU, and noted that 
while there are some uncertainties regarding the ESU's historical 
distribution in this area, that the extensive habitat would likely be 
productive for this species. However, as described in the general 
comments above (see ``Identification of Critical Habitat Areas'' 
section), at the present time we do not have information allowing us to 
determine that the specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species are inadequate for conservation, such that we can make a 
determination that currently unoccupied areas above dams are essential 
for conservation. We will revise the designation if ongoing recovery 
planning indicates that specific areas above this dam warrant 
designation as critical habitat.
ESU Specific Comments--Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon
    Comment 68: One commenter strongly supported our designation of 
several creeks and streams in Hood Canal, but they and another 
commenter disagreed with the exclusion of the Skokomish River and noted 
that this large stream likely has the highest production potential of 
any Hood Canal summer-run chum stream.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments and maintained that 
this watershed is of medium conservation value to this ESU relative to 
other occupied watersheds. All habitat areas in the Skokomish River 
watershed had been proposed for exclusion due to economic impacts, and 
they still exceed these economic thresholds (NMFS, 2005c). However, 
after reviewing these comments the CHART now concludes that excluding 
habitat areas in this watershed would significantly impede the 
conservation of the ESU. The CHART noted that the watershed contains 
the largest intact estuary in Hood Canal and that designation was 
warranted given the limited amount of habitat available to these fish 
throughout the ESU's range and our earlier determination that several 
unoccupied streams/reaches in other watersheds were essential for the 
ESU's conservation. The resultant changes are summarized below under 
``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 69: Several commenters objected to the potential exclusion 
of all nearshore zones for this ESU and noted these areas have been 
identified by Puget Sound watershed planners and scientists as crucial 
for juvenile salmon. One noted that excluding these zones would run 
contrary to our 4(b)(2) approach since all of the Puget Sound nearshore 
areas were identified as high-conservation value areas. One commenter 
requested that we extend the designated nearshore zone westward to 
include all shallow waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' concerns and are going 
forward with designating nearshore areas as critical habitat for this 
ESU. The CHART also noted that additional nearshore areas west of the 
Elwha River may be essential for the conservation of this ESU, but 
based on the best information available at this time, we cannot 
conclude that the area is either occupied and contains the PCEs, or is 
unoccupied and is essential for conservation. If we determine that 
these or other nearshore areas warrant designation or revision we will 
do so under subsequent rulemaking.
    Comment 70: One commenter questioned whether areas above Elwha Dam 
had been proposed for designation, but believed that we should 
nonetheless designate these unoccupied areas for this ESU.
    Response: The areas above Elwha Dam were not proposed for 
designation and the CHART did not identify these areas as essential for 
the conservation of the ESU.
    Comment 71: One commenter provided an update and edits pertaining 
to three hatchery programs that have been discontinued consistent with 
the provisions of the Hood Canal Summer Chum Restoration Initiative 
(WDFW and PNPTT, 2000).
    Response: We appreciate receiving the updates and have made 
corrections to the CHART report for this ESU to reflect this information.
ESU Specific Comments--Columbia River Chum Salmon
    Comment 72: One commenter believed that we should designate 
unoccupied areas for this ESU above Condit Dam on the Big White Salmon 
River. Two commenters believed that we should designate unoccupied 
areas for this ESU on the Wind River up to Shipherd Falls.
    Response: The CHART agreed that each of these unoccupied areas may 
be essential for the conservation of this ESU, especially given the 
limited amount of habitat in the Columbia River Gorge region for this 
ESU (McElhany et al., 2003). However, as described in the general 
comments above (see

[[Page 52652]]

``Identification of Critical Habitat Areas'' section), we did not have 
information presently available to allow us to determine that the 
currently unoccupied areas are inadequate to support conservation, such 
that designation of these unoccupied areas is essential for 
conservation. We will revise the designation for this ESU if ongoing 
recovery planning efforts indicate that specific areas above these dams 
warrant designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 73: Two commenters believed that we should designate 
unoccupied areas for this ESU above Merwin Dam on the Lewis River while 
one opposed it.
    Response: The CHART considered these comments but concluded that 
these unoccupied areas are not essential for conservation of this ESU. 
They noted that there is a significant amount of extant habitat 
accessible and occupied by this ESU in other major tributaries to the 
Lower Columbia River (e.g., lowermost portions of the Lewis River, and 
the Cowlitz, Washougal, and Grays Rivers) and that the historic areas 
above Merwin Dam are presently, and will likely continue to be, 
inundated and unsuitable for this species.
ESU Specific Comments--Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon
    Comment 74: One commenter agreed with the CHART finding that the 
Ozette Lake watershed was a high conservation value, but argued that 
the assessment was incomplete and inaccurate. This commenter provided 
data regarding spawning and rearing locations throughout the watershed. 
They also urged us to designate all fluvial waters in the watershed due 
to their influence on sockeye habitat downstream, and, in particular, 
feeder streams adjacent to spawning beaches in the lake, and asserted 
that restricting the designations to only occupied areas will not 
recover this ESU.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments and has updated the 
references and made corrections in its final report (NMFS, 2005a). 
These corrections include edits to the species' life history and 
habitat use descriptions, and distribution changes to incorporate more 
recent spawning surveys (Makah Tribe, 2005). The CHART appreciated the 
commenter's concern for the entire fluvial hydrosystem in this basin 
(including sediment feeder streams, riparian zones, floodplains, and 
alluvial aquifers), but concluded that most of the areas identified 
therein were not occupied at the time of listing nor were they likely 
to have been occupied historically. In addition, the CHART did not 
identify areas that could be occupied and are essential for the 
conservation of this ESU. Based on this assessment we believe that the 
specific areas identified in this final designation are those that meet 
the ESA's definition of critical habitat (see also Comment 7).
ESU Specific Comments--Upper Columbia River Steelhead
    Comment 75: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied areas upstream of Enloe Dam. We 
noted that the CHART believed that these unoccupied areas may be 
essential to the conservation of this ESU. One commenter supported the 
designation of critical habitat above this dam, citing the area's 
historic use and potential recovery opportunities, while another 
commenter cited several references that suggest the areas above Enloe 
Dam were not historically occupied by steelhead.
    Response: The CHART maintained that habitat areas upstream of Enloe 
Dam may be essential for the conservation of this ESU, and noted that 
while there are some uncertainties regarding the ESU's historical 
distribution in this area, the extensive habitat would likely be 
productive for this species. However, as described in the general 
comments above (see ``Identification of Critical Habitat Areas'' 
section), at the present time we do not have information allowing us to 
determine that the specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species are inadequate for conservation, such that we can make a 
determination that currently unoccupied areas above dams are essential 
for conservation. We will revise the designation if ongoing recovery 
planning indicates that specific areas above this dam warrant 
designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 76: Two commenters questioned whether upper Salmon Creek in 
the Okanogan subbasin was occupied by steelhead, citing flow conditions 
that they believed may limit access. One of these commenters also 
questioned whether upper Chumstick Creek in the Wenatchee subbasin was 
occupied by steelhead.
    Response: The CHART confirmed that both Salmon and Chumstick creeks 
are occupied by steelhead based on information from the Colville 
Confederated Tribes (2003 and 2005) and USFWS (2004). The CHART 
acknowledged that flow conditions may occasionally limit access to some 
habitat areas in the lower Okanogan River but underscored that the 
relatively few remaining tributary habitats in this area are crucial 
for the conservation of this ESU. For both watersheds the CHART 
considered the quality of the PCEs and factored their condition into 
the overall medium conservation value assigned to each watershed.
    As a result of reviewing the best available information for these 
and other areas occupied by this ESU the CHART determined that Henry 
Creek was not occupied by the species and that the Entiat River (Entiat 
River watershed, proposed for designation) contained spawning PCEs 
downstream from the vicinity of Marical Canyon. The resultant changes 
are summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 77: Three commenters asserted that it was inappropriate to 
designate critical habitat in the Sand Hollow wasteway (Columbia River/
Sand Hollow watershed) and in Crab Creek (Lower Crab Creek watershed). 
These commenters argued that habitat conditions make these areas 
unsuitable for salmonids.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments and concluded that 
these areas are occupied based on area surveys described in NMFS'' 2000 
FCRPS biological opinion (NMFS, 2000). The CHART acknowledged that flow 
and temperature conditions may occasionally limit access to some 
habitat areas in these watersheds but underscored that the relatively 
few remaining tributary habitats are important to steelhead. The CHART 
also maintained that it was reasonable to conclude that steelhead 
originating from this watershed may be uniquely adapted to the high 
temperatures cited by the commenters. Also, the CHART noted that NMFS 
has maintained that when fish are found here that the BOR should pursue 
an appropriate course of action when fish are present (i.e. ensuring 
flows), not necessarily just minimizing attraction to the area (as 
suggested by the commenter).
ESU Specific Comments--Snake River Steelhead
    Comment 78: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied areas upstream of Dworshak Dam. We 
noted that the CHART believed that this area (presently unoccupied by 
anadromous O. mykiss) may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. 
One commenter did not believe it was appropriate to designate these 
areas to protect resident O. mykiss.
    Response: Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River is a 
barrier to the upstream migration of steelhead. The CHART reviewed 
these areas as part of its habitat assessment for this ESU and 
concluded that they may be essential for conservation. Although many 
areas are now inundated, the

[[Page 52653]]

CHART concluded that most of the blocked watersheds are still in good 
condition. The CHART also noted that the Interior Columbia Basin TRT 
identified these areas as part of a historically independent population 
and underscored that the resident O. mykiss above Dworshak Dam are 
genetically unique relative to other O. mykiss in the Clearwater River 
Basin. A recently completed status review update of this ESU (NMFS, 
2003) noted that ``recent genetic data suggest that native resident O. 
mykiss above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater should be 
considered part of this ESU, but hatchery rainbow trout that have been 
introduced to that and other areas would not.'' Given these 
considerations, the CHART concluded that these blocked watersheds may 
be essential for ESU conservation, but it was uncertain which specific 
areas within them may warrant consideration as critical habitat. 
Because the areas above the dam are unoccupied by steelhead (but do 
support resident O. mykiss which were not part of the steelhead ESU 
listed in 1997), and the status of all proposed O. mykiss ESUs is still 
under review (70 FR 37219, June 28, 2005), there is considerable 
uncertainty regarding whether these areas will be considered essential 
for the conservation of this ESU and we are not designating critical 
habitat in these areas at this time.
    In addition, the CHART further assessed the occupied stream reaches 
immediately downstream of Dworshak Dam (Lower North Fork Clearwater) 
and determined that this short (approximately 2 miles (3.2 km)) segment 
does not contain PCEs for steelhead. The CHART cited the fact that this 
area is primarily a tailrace of the dam and that juvenile steelhead 
probably have little chance of survival in this reach of the river. The 
resultant changes are summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 79: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied reaches of the Pahsimeroi River 
subbasin, specifically in the following watersheds: Big Creek, 
Pahsimeroi River/Goldberg Creek, and Upper Pahsimeroi River. Similarly, 
we requested comments on unoccupied reaches in the Lemhi River subbasin 
in the Big Timber Creek, Eighteen Mile Creek, Hawley Creek, and Texas 
Creek watersheds. We noted that the CHART believed that these 
unoccupied areas may be essential to the conservation of this ESU. One 
commenter supported the designation of these streams while another 
stated that these areas have been disconnected from the lower 
Pahsimeroi River and mainstem Lemhi River for as long as 100 years (due 
to irrigation dewatering and/or natural dewatering), were not occupied 
at the time of listing, and should not be considered essential for the 
conservation of this ESU.
    Response: The areas in question consist of the upper Pahsimeroi and 
Lemhi Rivers and adjacent tributaries in the watersheds identified 
above. These areas may support resident O. mykiss, but this life form 
(for reasons discussed previously in this document) was not part of the 
steelhead ESU listed in 1997. Comments received from the USFS indicate 
that the upper Pahsimeroi River naturally sinks above Furey Lane (near 
river mile 24) for a distance of several miles upstream. In most years 
this creates a natural barrier to fish migration (although upstream 
areas are occasionally accessible to steelhead during extreme flow 
events). The CHART reviewed the conservation value of unoccupied areas 
within the Lemhi and Pahsimeroi River subbasins and determined that 
they may be essential for conservation but that the sporadic access to 
these areas does not support a conclusion that they are occupied or 
that they are unoccupied but essential for conservation.
    In the case of the Texas Creek watershed the CHART did review new 
information from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM, 2005) 
identifying occupied habitat areas with spawning and rearing PCEs and 
that may require special management consideration or protection (NMFS, 
2005a). The CHART noted that this is the only remaining unfragmented 
headwater stream serving as a primary tributary of origin for the upper 
Lemhi River and that steelhead have been observed returning to Purcell 
Springs (a spring-fed tributary to Texas Creek) about ten miles 
upstream from the Lemhi River's origin at Leadore. This watershed was 
considered to be of high conservation value to the ESU, and occupied 
habitat areas within this watershed are now being designated as 
critical habitat. The resultant changes are summarized below under 
``Summary of Revisions.''
    The CHART also noted that the Agency Creek watershed (tributary to 
the lower Lemhi River) warranted elevation from a low to a medium 
conservation value based on recent model watershed rankings (Upper 
Salmon Basin Watershed Project, 2002 and 2004) that place this as a 
high priority tributary with important juvenile rearing PCEs and 
thermal refugia. This watershed was proposed for designation and is 
designated in this final rule.
    Comment 80: One commenter believed that Sweetwater and Webb creeks 
(Upper Sweetwater Creek watershed) should be excluded from designation. 
They contended that the construction and subsequent operation of the 
Lewiston Orchards Project diverts flows from most of the habitat that 
may once have been potentially accessible to steelhead in Sweetwater 
and Webb creeks during the summer. The existing diversions result in 
summer/fall dewatering of these streams and thus strongly influence the 
current quality and extent of PCEs.
    Response: The CHART maintained that this watershed warrants a 
medium conservation value. The CHART noted that Sweetwater and Webb 
creeks flow into Lapwai Creek (in a high conservation value watershed) 
and provide the best spawning and rearing habitat for A-run steelhead 
in the Lapwai Creek drainage. As one of the few remaining drainages in 
the Clearwater River basin that produces A-run steelhead, the CHART 
concluded that these watersheds are of high or medium conservation 
value to this ESU. Therefore, we found that the benefits of exclusion 
of this area did not outweigh the benefits of its inclusion.
    Comment 81: One commenter believed that Big Mallard Creek and Wind 
River should not be excluded from designation. This commenter also 
contended that the South Fork Clearwater River and tributaries (e.g., 
the Potlatch River) were erroneously classified as unoccupied and 
excluded. They concluded that all streams in the Clearwater and Salmon 
River basins should be designated critical habitat.
    Response: These watersheds were classified as occupied and as 
containing PCEs that may require special management considerations or 
protection, but they received a low conservation value rating because 
they have very limited amounts of PCEs (approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) 
total). Accordingly they were proposed for exclusion. We received no 
new information to change the CHART's assessment, and the CHART 
maintained that the exclusion of these watersheds would not 
significantly impede conservation of the ESU. This finding includes an 
implicit determination that exclusion will not lead to extinction of 
the species concerned.
    Comment 82: One commenter believed that steelhead occupy the 
mainstem of Morgan Creek (Upper Salmon River subbasin) upstream of the 
confluence with the West Fork Morgan Creek. The commenter noted that a 
biologist from the Salmon-Challis National Forest has documented the

[[Page 52654]]

presence of steelhead in the upstream habitat areas.
    Response: The CHART reviewed documentation from the Salmon-Challis 
National Forest and found additional occupied habitat areas upstream of 
the areas identified in the proposed rule for critical habitat (Salmon 
Challis National Forest, 2001-2004). The CHART reviewed the new data 
and determined that the areas are occupied and contain rearing PCEs 
(and likely spawning PCEs) which may require special management 
considerations or protection. All of the streams are either tributary 
to or upstream extensions of other occupied habitat areas. The 
resultant changes are summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 83: One peer reviewer agreed with the designations 
identified in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River basins and another 
identified several locations where ODFW biologists had recently 
identified additional occupied reaches in the Grande Ronde River subbasin.
    Response: The CHART reviewed the new data and determined that the 
areas are occupied and contain rearing PCEs (and likely spawning PCEs) 
which may require special management considerations or protection. All 
of the streams are either tributary to or upstream extensions of other 
occupied habitat areas. The resultant changes are summarized below 
under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 84: During its final deliberations the CHART reviewed 
recent information from the BLM (BLM, 2005) that included steelhead 
survey data for several watersheds in the following subbasins: Hells 
Canyon, Lower Salmon, Little Salmon River, South Fork Clearwater, and 
Clearwater. These data were not available for review prior to issuance 
of our proposed rule last year.
    Response: The CHART reviewed the new data and determined that the 
areas are occupied and contain rearing PCEs (and likely spawning PCEs) 
which may require special management considerations or protection. Most 
of the streams are either tributary to or upstream extensions of other 
occupied habitat areas. In a few cases the survey data identified 
occupied stream reaches in three watersheds in the Clearwater subbasin 
previously thought to be unoccupied, specifically Upper Big Bear Creek, 
Upper Lapwai Creek, and Mission Creek. These areas are expanded 
accordingly and the resultant changes are summarized below under 
``Summary of Revisions.''
ESU Specific Comments--Middle Columbia River Steelhead
    Comment 85: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied upper reaches of Wilson and Naneum 
creeks and areas upstream of Bumping, Cle Elum, Keechelus, Kachess, and 
Tieton Dams. We noted that the CHART believed that these unoccupied 
areas may be essential for the conservation of this ESU. One commenter 
did not support designating critical habitat above these dams, citing 
concerns regarding the feasibility of providing passage and potential 
habitat limitations. In contrast, another commenter supported 
designations above all of the dams except Tieton Dam, citing the 
recovery potential afforded by these habitats. Two commenters believed 
that unoccupied areas above Pelton Dam in the Deschutes River basin 
should be designated as critical habitat for this ESU, citing agency 
statements regarding FERC relicensing at this project. Several 
commenters supported the designation of areas above Condit Dam on the 
Big White Salmon River (erroneously ascribed to the Lower Columbia ESU 
in our proposed rule) while one opposed it. One commenter requested 
that we designate critical habitat on the lower White Salmon River 
below Condit Dam, noting that this area provides cold-water refuge for 
summer-run steelhead migrating to areas within and upstream of this ESU.
    Response: The CHART maintained their earlier findings that 
unoccupied areas in the upper reaches of Wilson and Naneum creeks and 
areas upstream of Bumping, Cle Elum, Kacheelus, Kachess, Tieton, and 
Condit Dams may be essential to the conservation of the ESU. The 
comment that did not support this conclusion did not provide compelling 
information that the CHART's conclusion was in error. Also, the CHART 
agreed with the comments that areas upstream of Pelton Dam may be 
essential for this ESU as well, citing recent efforts to re-establish 
steelhead into historical habitat above this dam. However, as described 
in the general comments above (see ``Identification of Critical Habitat 
Areas'' section), at the present time we do not have information 
allowing us to determine that the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species are inadequate for 
conservation, such that we can make a determination that currently 
unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation. We will 
revise the designation if ongoing recovery planning indicates that 
specific areas above these dams warrant designation as critical habitat.
    The CHART agreed with the comments regarding the importance of the 
habitat areas downstream of Condit Dam and these occupied stream 
reaches are being designated as critical habitat for this ESU.
    Comment 86: One commenter noted an error in the base map used to 
depict the location and confluence of several streams (Caribou Creek, 
Park Creek, and Cooke Creek) near their property in the Yakima River basin.
    Response: We note the error, which is based on a separate 
hydrography data set from the State of Washington. The CHART concluded 
that the extent of steelhead distribution in Cooke Creek was accurate 
and noted that the confluence error cited did not affect the 
delineation of critical habitat in this stream.
    Comment 87: One commenter questioned whether areas on the Little 
Klickitat River above a waterfall at RM 6.1 warrant designation as 
critical habitat, contending that PCEs are not present in this area.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments, as well as its own 
observations of the falls, and concluded that it is not impassable to 
steelhead, although it acknowledges that it can be a partial barrier 
under certain flow conditions (i.e., when flows are extremely low or 
high). They noted that the commenters acknowledge that steelhead might 
be able to pass under certain flow conditions and cited evidence of 
recent spawning activity above the falls to confirm the CHART's 
conclusion (NMFS, 2005a).
    Comment 88: One commenter questioned whether areas on Swale Creek 
(a tributary to the Klickitat River) warrant designation as critical 
habitat, contending that PCEs are not present in this area due to warm 
water conditions.
    Response: The CHART reviewed the information submitted by the 
commenter and agreed that at certain times the low flow and thermal 
conditions in this creek can make the PCEs unsuitable for steelhead. 
The CHART did not believe that this was always the case throughout the 
drainage but concluded that the PCEs could be considered nonexistent in 
the uppermost reaches, in particular above the upper end of Swale 
Canyon. Therefore, we have removed approximately 1 stream mile 
previously considered for designation. The resultant changes are 
summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 89: One commenter requested that we not designate critical 
habitat in the Sulphur Creek, Spring

[[Page 52655]]

Creek, Snipes Creek, and Corral Creek wasteways in the Yakima River/
Spring Creek watershed, contending there is limited fish use and that 
PCEs are not suitable or present in these areas.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments and maintained that 
these areas are occupied and contain PCEs, noting that the occupied 
lowermost portions of these tributaries provide important year-round 
thermal refugia for this ESU. However, the CHART also noted that PCEs 
in two of these streams are likely more limited than originally 
proposed for the reasons cited by the commenter, e.g., substrate 
embeddedness and flow conditions. Therefore, we have revised our maps 
to reflect the lack of PCEs in Snipes and Sulphur creeks. The resultant 
changes are summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 90: One commenter questioned the designation of critical 
habitat in the McKay Creek watershed in the Umatilla River basin, 
contending there is limited fish use due to lack of fish passage and 
insufficient flows. This commenter also questioned the extent and 
quality of PCEs in the Stanfield Drain (Stage Gulch watershed). The 
commenter also suggested corrections to the list of management 
activities identified in the CHART report for this and other watersheds 
in the range of this ESU.
    Response: The CHART reviewed and disagreed with these comments, 
noting that a weir at the river mouth is not an effective barrier for 
adults (e.g., debris jams create passage) and cited evidence in a 
recent NMFS biological opinion regarding minimum flows in Mckay Creek 
(Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 2001). The 
CHART also noted that cold water temperatures in this creek underscore 
its classification as a high conservation value HUC5. We appreciate the 
comments and corrections to the list of management activities and have 
made corresponding changes to the CHART report (NMFS, 2005a).
    Comment 91: One commenter questioned whether Bachelor Creek, a side 
channel/irrigation conveyance to Ahtanum Creek, warranted designation 
as critical habitat since it had been screened to prevent fish access.
    Response: The CHART reviewed this comment and, based on its own 
field observations of the site, agreed that this creek is not likely to 
be occupied by the ESU and that regardless, the PCEs would not likely 
be suitable here for steelhead. We have revised our maps accordingly 
and the resultant changes are summarized below under ``Summary of 
Revisions.''
    Comment 92: One peer reviewer agreed with the designations 
identified in the John Day River basin, and another commenter 
recommended designating tributaries to the lower John Day River and 
identified several locations where ODFW biologists had recently 
identified additional occupied reaches in the Upper and North Fork John 
Day River subbasins.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these data and determined that the 
areas are occupied and contain spawning and rearing PCEs which may 
require special management considerations or protection (NMFS, 2005a). 
All of the streams are either tributary to or upstream extensions of 
other occupied habitat areas. The CHART also concluded that in light of 
comments from ODFW, as well as the importance and uniqueness of low-
elevation spawning habitat in tributaries to the lower John Day River, 
that two watersheds (Lower John Day River/Ferry Canyon and Lower John 
Day River/Scott Canyon) should be elevated from low to medium 
conservation value. The resultant changes are summarized below under 
``Summary of Revisions.''
ESU Specific Comments--Lower Columbia River Steelhead
    Comment 93: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the 
potential designation of unoccupied areas upstream of Bull Run, Condit, 
Merwin, Swift, and Yale Dams. We noted that the CHART believed that 
each of these unoccupied areas may be essential to the conservation of 
this ESU. One commenter opposed the designation of areas upstream of 
Bull Run Dam in the Sandy River basin. Four commenters supported the 
designation of areas above Merwin, Swift, and Yale Dams in the Lewis 
River basin while one opposed it.
    Response: We note that in the proposed rule we erred in identifying 
Condit Dam as within the range of this ESU when in fact it should have 
been noted for the Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU. The CHART 
maintained that unoccupied areas above all of these dams, except Bull 
Run Dam, may be essential for the conservation of this ESU. In the 
latter case the CHART concurred with the information provided by the 
commenter and believed that these areas were not likely to be as 
important to the conservation of the ESU as unoccupied areas in the 
upper Lewis River above Merwin, Swift and Yale Dams. Moreover, the 
CHART noted that a recent interim recovery plan supports the 
reintroduction of fish to areas above the Lewis River dams (Lower 
Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004). However, as described in the 
general comments above (see ``Identification of Critical Habitat 
Areas'' section), at the present time we do not have information 
allowing us to determine that the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species are inadequate for 
conservation, such that we can make a determination that currently 
unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation. We will 
revise the designation if ongoing recovery planning indicates that 
specific areas above these dams warrant designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 94: Two commenters disagreed with the exclusion of the 
lower Gorge tributaries noting that they were deemed important in a 
recent interim recovery plan for this region of the lower Columbia 
River (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004). Another commenter 
identified several locations where ODFW biologists had recently 
identified additional occupied reaches in the Columbia Gorge tributaries.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments, as well as information 
contained in the cited interim recovery plan, and maintained that both 
watersheds in this area (i.e., the Columbia Gorge Tributaries and 
Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek watersheds) were of medium conservation 
value relative to other watersheds in the range of this ESU. All 
habitat areas in both watersheds had been proposed for exclusion due to 
economic impacts, but only the former watershed still exceeds these 
thresholds (NMFS, 2005c). After reviewing these and other comments for 
this ESU received on the proposed rule, the CHART now concludes that 
excluding habitat areas in the Columbia Gorge Tributaries watershed 
would significantly impede the conservation of the ESU. As support for 
this conclusion the CHART noted that the interim recovery plan (Lower 
Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004) specifies that the lower Gorge 
tributaries winter-run population is targeted to achieve a high 
viability level, and there are a small number of demographically 
independent populations in this region and each will be important for 
recovery (McElhany et al., 2003).
    The CHART reviewed the data from ODFW and determined that the areas 
are occupied and contain spawning and rearing PCEs which may require 
special management considerations or protection. All of the streams are 
either tributary to or upstream extensions of other occupied habitat 
areas. The resultant changes are summarized below under ``Summary of 
Revisions.''

[[Page 52656]]

    Comment 95: One commenter disagreed with the exclusion of habitat 
areas in the Salmon Creek watershed.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these comments as well as the 
information in the interim recovery plan for this area ((Lower Columbia 
Fish Recovery Board, 2004) and maintained that this watershed still 
warrants a medium conservation value and that exclusion would not 
significantly impede the conservation of the ESU. The CHART noted that 
this population is targeted for ``stabilizing,'' which underscores that 
it is not presently considered as high a conservation concern as others 
in this ESU. Given that finding and the relatively high economic 
impacts associated with this watershed, we conclude that exclusion is 
warranted for this watershed.
    Comment 96: One commenter identified several locations where ODFW 
biologists had recently identified additional occupied reaches in the 
Lower, Upper and North Fork John Day River subbasins.
    Response: The CHART reviewed these data and determined that the 
areas are occupied and contain spawning and rearing PCEs which may 
require special management considerations or protection (NMFS, 2005a). 
All of the streams are either tributary to or upstream extensions of 
other occupied habitat areas. The resultant changes are summarized 
below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 97: One commenter noted mapping errors in Boody Creek and 
that natural barriers on their property prevent fish from occupying 
some areas proposed for designation on their property. This commenter 
noted that our data conflict with maps contained in the recent subbasin 
plan by the Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery Board (Lower Columbia 
Fish Recovery Board, 2004).
    Response: The CHART reviewed the comments and maps and information 
in the cited report and concluded that the species' distribution was in 
error. The CHART noted that a gradient barrier does exist at the site 
indicated by the landowner/commenter. The resultant changes are 
summarized below under ``Summary of Revisions.''
    Comment 98: One commenter disagreed with the designation of Riffe 
Lake in the Cowlitz River basin, contending that it is unoccupied by 
this ESU because fish are trapped and hauled around the lake, and the 
lake is not essential for recovery of the ESU.
    Response: The CHART disagreed that Riffe Lake is unoccupied and 
noted a recent report (Tacoma Public Utilities, 2003) noting that 
juvenile fish do escape capture at the upstream dam and transit the 
lake on their downstream migration. Furthermore, the CHART underscored 
that the designation of Riffe Lake maintains the connectivity of a high 
value rearing and migration corridor for Chinook salmon spawning in 
five high-value watersheds upstream.
ESU Specific Comments--Upper Willamette River Steelhead
    Comment 99: One commenter believed that unoccupied areas above Big 
Cliff, Detroit and Green Peter Dams should be designated as critical 
habitat for this ESU, noting that the TRT viability assessments 
indicate a relatively high risk of extinction for this ESU and thereby 
support designating, and regaining access to, unoccupied historical 
areas upstream of these dams as well as Green Peter Dam on the South 
Santiam River.
    Response: The CHART concurred that areas above the North Santiam 
dams may be essential for the conservation of this ESU and agreed that 
the Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT's viability assessment (McElhany et 
al., 2003) strongly suggests that these areas may warrant designation. 
The CHART also agreed that areas upstream of Green Peter Dam may be 
essential for the conservation of this ESU, especially given the 
limited number of populations in this ESU and the likely productivity 
of that historical habitat. However, as described in the general 
comments above (see ``Identification of Critical Habitat Areas'' 
section), at the present time we do not have information allowing us to 
determine that the specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species are inadequate for conservation, such that we can make a 
determination that currently unoccupied areas above dams are essential 
for conservation. We will revise the designation if ongoing recovery 
planning indicates that specific areas above these dams warrant 
designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 100: One peer reviewer agreed with the designations 
identified in the Willamette River basin. Another commenter disagreed 
with the designations identified in westside tributaries of the 
Willamette River basin, in particular the Luckiamute and Yamhill 
Rivers, noting that the CHART and TRT acknowledged that it was 
questionable whether these streams supported a historically independent 
population of steelhead.
    Response: The CHART disagreed with these comments, noting that the 
information cited in the comments does not provide compelling evidence 
that these westside tributaries are unoccupied. The CHART acknowledged 
that there is some longstanding uncertainty regarding whether these 
tributaries ever supported a demographically independent population 
(Fulton, 1970; McElhany et al., 2003; Myers et al., 2003), and this 
factored into their conclusion that most westside watersheds were only 
of low conservation value to the ESU. However, the CHART maintained 
that the areas do contain PCEs that support steelhead (Fulton, 1970; 
ODFW, 1990 and 1995; and Busby et al., 1996) and that the rearing 
habitat in these tributaries is important to juvenile fish from 
elsewhere in the Willamette River Basin because of the loss of rearing 
areas in the mainstem Willamette River. The CHART also noted that 
westside tributaries may be important to protect the ESU against 
catastrophes (e.g., earthquake events, see McElhany et al. 2003) that 
would affect eastside populations. Given that concern, the CHART 
maintained that of the westside tributaries, the Luckiamute River, 
Upper Yamhill, and Gales Creek watersheds were of higher (medium) 
conservation value to this ESU, especially since they had habitat that 
was relatively widespread compared to other westside tributaries (NMFS, 
2005a).
    Comment 101: One commenter disagreed with the designation of the 
Spring Hill Pumping Station intake canal off of Gales Creek in the 
Tualatin River subbasin. This commenter contended that there was no 
biological basis for the designation and noted the CHART and TRT 
acknowledged that it was questionable whether this area supported a 
historically independent population of steelhead (Myers et al., 2003). 
The commenter also asserted that the steelhead present are most likely 
non-listed hatchery fish.
    Response: The CHART disagreed and maintained that the Gales Creek 
watershed is still of medium conservation value to this ESU and pointed 
out that data submitted by the commenter demonstrates that listed 
steelhead are known to spawn and rear in the Tualatin River drainage 
and to use this canal.
    Comment 102: The CHART received and reviewed new information from 
the Molalla River basin indicating that its initial watershed ratings 
may need revision.
    Response: The CHART received recent data from a watershed 
assessment underway in this basin (NMFS, 2005a). As a result, the CHART 
believed that the Abiqua Creek watershed should be elevated from a low 
to a medium conservation value, and the Butte Creek and Rock Creek 
watersheds should be

[[Page 52657]]

reduced from a medium to a low conservation. The CHART believed that 
these changes more accurately reflect the best scientific data 
available regarding the distribution, quality, and utilization of PCEs 
by steelhead in this subbasin.

III. Summary of Revisions

    We evaluated the comments and new information received on the 
proposed rule to ensure that they represented the best scientific data 
available and made a number of general types of changes to the critical 
habitat designations, including:
    (1) We revised habitat maps and related biological assessments 
based on a final CHART assessment (NMFS, 2005a) of information provided 
by commenters, peer reviewers, and agency biologists (including CHART 
members). We also evaluated watersheds to determine how well the 
conservation value rating corresponded to the benefit of designation, 
in particular the likelihood of a section 7 consultation occurring in 
that area and whether the consultation would yield conservation 
benefits if it was likely to occur. Where appropriate, we adjusted our 
consideration of these ``low section 7 leverage watersheds'' in the 
final 4(b)(2) analysis (NMFS, 2005c). In addition, we consulted with 
the DOD regarding the delineation of nearshore marine areas in Puget 
Sound and revised the designations to include a narrow nearshore zone 
within some Navy security/restricted zones.
    (2) We revised our economic analysis based on information provided 
by commenters and peer reviewers as well as our own efforts as 
referenced in the proposed rule and described in the final economic 
analysis (NMFS, 2005d). Major changes included assessing new impacts 
associated with pesticide consultations, revising Federal land 
consultation costs to take into account wilderness areas, and modifying 
the analysis of Federal grazing land impacts to more accurately reflect 
the likely geographic extent of ESA section 7 implementation. We also 
documented the economic costs of changes in flow regimes for some 
hydropower projects.
    (3) We conducted a new ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis based on 
economic impacts to take into account the above revisions. This 
resulted in the final exclusion of many of the same watersheds proposed 
for exclusion. It also resulted in some areas originally proposed for 
exclusion not being excluded and some areas proposed for designations 
now being excluded. The analysis is described further in the 4(b)(2) 
report (NMFS, 2005c).
    (4) We conducted a 4(b)(2) analysis of lands covered by three 
approved HCPs--WDNR, Green Diamond Resources Company, and West Fork 
Timber Company. Our analysis concluded that the benefits of excluding 
these lands outweigh the benefits of designating them, based in part 
upon evidence received during the comment period that exclusion would 
strengthen our relationship with these landowners. Critical habitat 
within lands covered by these HCPs is excluded in the final 
designation. We did not receive sufficient information to make similar 
conclusions about the benefits of exclusion for other areas, beyond 
those proposed for exclusion in the proposed rule, with the 
modifications noted in number 3.
    (5) In the regulations, we've removed reference to ``units'' to 
avoid possible confusion with the concept of ``recovery units'' as 
described in the agency's section 7 handbook.
    The following sections summarize the ESU-specific changes to the 
proposed critical habitat rule. These changes are also reflected in 
final agency reports pertaining to the biological, economic, and policy 
assessments supporting these designations (NMFS, 2005a; NMFS, 2005c; 
and NMFS, 2005d). We conclude that these changes are warranted based on 
new information and analyses that constitute the best scientific data 
available.
ESU Specific Changes--Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
    The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any 
watershed or nearshore zone within the geographical area occupied by 
this ESU. However, based on public comments and new information 
reviewed by the CHART, we have identified changes to the delineation of 
occupied habitat areas in several watersheds. Also, after consulting 
with the DOD, we are now designating a narrow nearshore zone in some 
marine areas within Navy security/restricted zones (see ``Exclusions 
Based on National Security Impacts'' section). Additionally, as a 
result of revised economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) 
assessment, we are excluding tributaries in one watershed that were 
previously proposed for designation and excluding habitat areas 
overlapping with the WDNR and Green Diamond Company HCP lands. Table 1 
summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU (not including the 
HCP-related exclusions which are identified along with all other types 
of exclusions in Table 13).

                           Table 1.--ESU Specific Changes--Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code     Watershed/Area name       Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nooksack..............................      1711000402  Middle Fork Nooksack.....  Added 12 miles (19.2 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Stillaguamish.........................      1711000802  South Fork Stillaguamish.  Added 47 miles (75.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Snoqualmie............................      1711001004  Lower Snoqualmie River...  Removed 6 miles (9.6 km) of
                                                                                    unoccupied stream reaches.
Lake Washington.......................      1711001201  Cedar River..............  Added 12 miles (19.2 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Lake Washington.......................      1711001203  Lake Washington..........  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
                                                        Marine Nearshore Zones...  Included the narrow nearshore
                                                                                    zone from extreme high tide
                                                                                    to mean lower low tide
                                                                                    within several Navy security/
                                                                                    restricted zones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon
    The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any 
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU, and there 
were no changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas. However, 
as a result of revised economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) 
assessment, we are excluding tributary habitat areas in one watershed 
and all habitat areas in two watersheds that were previously proposed 
for designation. Also, we are designating occupied habitat areas in one 
watershed that were previously proposed for exclusion, designating the 
connectivity corridor in another (North Fork Toutle River--erroneously 
excluded in the proposed rule) and excluding habitat areas overlapping 
with the WDNR and West Fork Timber Company HCP lands. Table 2

[[Page 52658]]

summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU (not including the 
HCP-related exclusions which are identified along with all other types 
of exclusions in Table 14).

                          Table 2.--ESU Specific Changes--Lower Columbia Chinook Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Columbia/Hood..................      1707010512  Middle Columbia/Grays      Excluded tributaries from
                                                         Creek.                     final designation.
Lower Columbia/Sandy..................      1708000106  Washougal River..........  Included all occupied habitat
                                                                                    areas in final designation.
Cowlitz...............................      1708000501  Tilton River.............  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Cowlitz...............................      1708000504  North Fork Toutle River..  Excluded tributaries only
                                                                                    from the final designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon
    The CHART changed the conservation value rating for one watershed 
within the geographical area occupied by this ESU, but there were no 
changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas. Also, as a result 
of revised economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, 
we are excluding tributary habitat areas in four watersheds and all 
habitat areas in two watersheds that were previously proposed for 
designation. Table 3 summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.

                         Table 3.--ESU Specific Changes--Upper Willamette Chinook Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Willamette......................      1709000304  Oak Creek................  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
Mckenzie..............................      1709000406  Mohawk River.............  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Middle Willamette.....................      1709000701  Mill Creek/Willamette      Excluded tributaries from
                                                         River.                     final designation.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000901  Abiqua Creek/Pudding       Changed conservation rating
                                                         River.                     value from Low to Medium.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000902  Butte Creek/Pudding River  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000903  Rock Creek/Pudding River.  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000904  Senecal Creek/Mill Creek.  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon
    The CHART changed the conservation value rating for one watershed 
within the geographical area occupied by this ESU, but there were no 
changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas. Also, as a result 
of revised economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, 
we did not make any changes to the areas that were previously proposed 
for designation. Table 4 summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.

                 Table 4.--ESU Specific Changes--Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Joseph..........................      1702000505  Upper Columbia/Swamp       Changed conservation rating
                                                         Creek.                     from Medium to High.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon
    The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any 
watershed or nearshore zone within the geographical area occupied by 
this ESU, and there were no changes to the delineation of occupied 
habitat areas. However, after consulting with the DOD, we are now 
designating a narrow nearshore zone in some marine areas within Navy 
security/restricted zones (see ``Exclusions Based on National Security 
Impacts'' section). Also, as a result of revised economic data for this 
ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are designating all occupied 
habitat areas in one watershed that were previously proposed for 
exclusion and excluding habitat areas overlapping with the WDNR HCP 
lands. Table 5 summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU (not 
including the HCP-related exclusions which are identified along with 
all other types of exclusions in Table 17).

                        Table 5.--ESU Specific Changes--Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code     Watershed/Area name       Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skokomish.............................      1711001701  Skokomish River..........  Included all occupied habitat
                                                                                    areas.
                                                        Marine Nearshore Zones...  Included the narrow nearshore
                                                                                    zone from extreme high tide
                                                                                    to mean lower low tide
                                                                                    within several Navy security/
                                                                                    restricted zones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 52659]]

ESU Specific Changes--Columbia River Chum Salmon
    The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any 
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU, and there 
were no changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas. However, 
as a result of revised economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) 
assessment, we are excluding all habitat areas in one watershed that 
were previously proposed for designation and excluding habitat areas 
overlapping with the WDNR HCP lands. Table 6 summarizes the specific 
changes made for this ESU (not including the HCP-related exclusions 
which are identified along with all other types of exclusions in Table 18).

                           Table 6.--ESU Specific Changes--Columbia River Chum Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowlitz...............................      1708000505  Green River..............  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon
    The CHART did not change the conservation value rating for the lone 
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU, and there 
were only minor changes (approximately 4 miles (6.6 km)) to the 
delineation of occupied habitat areas based on new information 
submitted by the Makah Tribe. Also, as a result of revised economic 
data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are now 
excluding habitat areas overlapping with the WDNR HCP lands (which are 
identified along with all other types of exclusions in Table 19).
ESU Specific Changes--Upper Columbia River Steelhead
    The CHART changed the conservation value rating for one watershed 
within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. Additionally, based 
on public comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we have 
identified changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas in one 
watershed. Also, as a result of revised economic data for this ESU and 
our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are designating all habitat areas in 
one watershed that were previously proposed for exclusion. Table 7 
summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.

                         Table 7.--ESU Specific Changes--Upper Columbia River Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                  Watershed cod        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Joseph..........................      1702000504  Jordan/Tumwater..........  Included all habitat areas in
                                                                                    final designation.
Chief Joseph..........................      1702000505  Upper Columbia/Swamp       Changed conservation rating
                                                         Creek.                     from Medium to High.
Wenatchee.............................      1702001103  Nason/Tumwater...........  Removed 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    unoccupied stream reach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Snake River Steelhead
    The CHART changed the conservation value rating for one watershed 
within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. Additionally, based 
on public comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we have 
identified changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas 
(including reductions associated with areas lacking PCEs) in numerous 
watersheds and identified four watersheds that were previously 
considered to be unoccupied. As a result of revised economic data for 
this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are designating habitat 
areas in two watersheds that were previously proposed for exclusion. 
Also, we are excluding habitat areas in four watersheds that were 
previously proposed for designation. Table 8 summarizes the specific 
changes made for this ESU.

                              Table 8.--ESU Specific Changes--Snake River Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hells Canyon..........................      1706010101  Snake River/Granite Creek  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Hells Canyon..........................      1706010102  Snake River/Getta Creek..  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Hells Canyon..........................      1706010104  Snake River/Divide Creek.  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Upper Grande Ronde River..............      1706010408  Phillips Creek/Willow      Added 10 miles (16.1 km) of
                                                         Creek.                     occupied habitat areas.
Lower Snake/Tucannon..................      1706010704  Flat Creek...............  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Palouse River.........................      1706010808  Lower Palouse River......  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Upper Salmon..........................      1706020118  Salmon River/Fourth of     Added 4 miles (6.4 km) of
                                                         July Creek.                occupied habitat areas.
Upper Salmon..........................      1706020132  Morgan Creek.............  Added 15 miles (24.1 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Middle Salmon-Panther.................      1706020321  Big Deer Creek...........  Included all habitat areas in
                                                                                    final designation.
Lemhi.................................      1706020404  Agency Creek.............  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
                                                                                    Changed conservation rating
                                                                                    from Low to Medium.
Lemhi.................................      1706020408  Big Eight Mile Creek.....  Added 6 miles (9.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Lemhi.................................      1706020412  Texas Creek..............  Added 14 miles (22.5 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas. This
                                                                                    watershed was considered to
                                                                                    be unoccupied in the
                                                                                    proposed designation.

[[Page 52660]]

Middle Salmon-Chamberlain.............      1706020702  Wind River...............  Included all habitat areas in
                                                                                    final designation.
Lower Salmon..........................      1706020911  Slate Creek..............  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Little Salmon.........................      1706021001  Lower Little Salmon River  Added 3 miles (4.8 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
South Fork Clearwater.................      1706030503  South Fork Clearwater      Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                         River/Peasley Creek.       occupied habitat areas.
South Fork Clearwater.................      1706030507  Red River................  Added 3 miles (4.8 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
South Fork Clearwater.................      1706030508  Crooked River............  Added 4 miles (6.4 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
South Fork Clearwater.................      1706030510  John's Creek.............  Added 10 miles (16.1 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
South Fork Clearwater.................      1706030511  Mill Creek...............  Added 8 miles (12.9 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
South Fork Clearwater.................      1706030513  Cottonwood Creek.........  Added 11 miles (17.7 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030602  Clearwater River/Lower     Added 11 miles (17.7 km) of
                                                         Potlatch River.            occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030604  Lower Big Bear Creek.....  Added 22 miles (35.4 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030605  Upper Big Bear Creek.....  Added 12 miles (19.3 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas. This
                                                                                    watershed was considered to
                                                                                    be unoccupied in the
                                                                                    proposed designation.
Clearwater............................      1706030606  Potlatch River/Pine Creek  Added 5 miles (8.0 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030607  Upper Potlatch River.....  Added 7 miles (11.3 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030608  Clearwater River/Bedrock   Added 8 miles (12.9 km) of
                                                         Creek.                     occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030610  Big Canyon Creek.........  Added 9 miles (14.5 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030613  Upper Orofino Creek......  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
                                                                                    Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030614  Jim Ford Creek...........  Added 6 miles (9.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030615  Lower Lolo Creek.........  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030620  Clearwater River/Fivemile  Added 2 miles (3.2 km) of
                                                         Creek.                     occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030623  Lower Lawyer Creek.......  Added 4 miles (6.4 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030627  Cottonwood Creek.........  Added 2 miles (3.2 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030628  Upper Lapwai Creek.......  Added 12 miles (19.3 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas. This
                                                                                    watershed was considered to
                                                                                    be unoccupied in the
                                                                                    proposed designation.
Clearwater............................      1706030629  Mission Creek............  Added 14 miles (22.5 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas. This
                                                                                    watershed was considered to
                                                                                    be unoccupied in the
                                                                                    proposed designation.
Clearwater............................      1706030630  Upper Sweetwater Creek...  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Clearwater............................      1706030801  Lower North Fork           Removed 2 miles (3.2 km) of
                                                         Clearwater River.          occupied stream reaches
                                                                                    lacking PCEs.
Clearwater............................      1706030631  Lower Sweetwater.........  Added 2 miles (3.2 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Middle Columbia River Steelhead
    The CHART changed the conservation value rating for two watersheds 
within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. Based on public 
comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we have identified 
changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas in several 
watersheds (including reductions associated with areas lacking PCEs). 
Also, as a result of revised economic data for this ESU and our final 
4(b)(2) assessment, we are including habitat areas in two watersheds 
that were previously proposed for exclusion. Additionally, we are 
excluding habitat areas in six watersheds that were previously proposed 
for designation. Table 9 summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.

                         Table 9.--ESU Specific Changes--Middle Columbia River Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Yakima..........................      1703000102  Teanaway River...........  Added 6 miles (9.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Upper Yakima..........................      1703000103  Middle Upper Yakima River  Added 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
Naches................................      1703000201  Little Naches............  Added less than 1 mile (1.6
                                                                                    km) of occupied habitat
                                                                                    areas.
Lower Yakima..........................      1703000301  Ahtanum Creek............  Removed 17 miles (27.4 km) of
                                                                                    occupied stream reaches
                                                                                    lacking PCEs.
Lower Yakima..........................      1703000306  Yakima River/Spring Creek  Removed 23 miles (37.0 km) of
                                                                                    occupied stream reaches
                                                                                    lacking PCEs.
Walla Walla...........................      1707010211  Lower Walla Walla River..  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
Umatilla..............................      1707010308  Stage Gulch..............  Exclude all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Umatilla..............................      1707010310  Lower Butter Creek.......  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
Middle Columbia/Hood..................      1707010512  Middle Columbia/Grays      Excluded tributaries from
                                                         Creek.                     final designation.
Klickitat.............................      1707010604  Little Klickitat River...  Removed 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    occupied stream reaches
                                                                                    lacking PCEs.

[[Page 52661]]

Upper John Day........................      1707020103  Middle South Fork John     Added 4 miles (6.4 km) of
                                                         Day River.                 occupied habitat areas.
North Fork John Day...................      1707020201  Upper North Fork John Day  Added 2 miles (3.2 km) of
                                                         River.                     occupied habitat areas.
North Fork John Day...................      1707020203  North Fork John Day River/ Added 2 miles (3.2 km) of
                                                         Big Creek.                 occupied habitat areas.
North Fork John Day...................      1707020206  Lower Camas Creek........  Added 15 miles (24.1 km) of
                                                                                    occupied habitat areas.
North Fork John Day...................      1707020207  North Fork John Day River/ Added 3 miles (4.8 km) of
                                                         Potamus Creek.             occupied habitat areas.
Middle Fork John Day..................      1707020305  Lower Middle Fork John     Excluded tributaries from
                                                         Day River.                 final designation.
Lower John Day........................      1707020409  Lower John Day River/      Included all habitat areas in
                                                         Ferry Canyon.              final designation. Changed
                                                                                    conservation rating from Low
                                                                                    to Medium.
Lower John Day........................      1707020410  Lower John Day River/      Included all habitat areas in
                                                         Scott Canyon.              final designation. Changed
                                                                                    conservation rating from Low
                                                                                    to Medium.
Trout.................................      1707030704  Mud Springs Creek........  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Lower Columbia River Steelhead
    The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any 
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. However, 
based on public comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we 
have identified changes to the delineation of occupied habitat areas in 
two watersheds. As a result of revised economic data for this ESU and 
our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are designating habitat areas in two 
watersheds that were previously proposed for exclusion. Additionally, 
we are excluding all habitat areas in one watershed that were 
previously proposed for designation and excluding habitat areas 
overlapping with the WDNR and West Fork Timber Company HCP lands. Table 
10 summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU (not including the 
HCP-related exclusions which are identified along with all other types 
of exclusions in Table 23).

                         Table 10.--ESU Specific Changes--Lower Columbia River Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Columbia/Hood..................      1707010512  Middle Columbia/Grays      Added 4 miles (6.4 km) of
                                                         Creek.                     occupied habitat areas.
Middle Columbia/Hood..................      1707010513  Middle Columbia/Eagle      Included all habitat areas in
                                                         Creek.                     final designation.
Lower Columbia/Sandy..................      1708000107  Columbia Gorge             Included all habitat areas in
                                                         Tributaries.               final designation.
Lewis.................................      1708000206  Lower Lewis River........  Removed 1 mile (1.6 km) of
                                                                                    unoccupied stream reach.
Cowlitz...............................      1708000501  Tilton River.............  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESU Specific Changes--Upper Willamette River Steelhead
    The CHART changed conservation value ratings for three watersheds 
within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. There were no public 
comments or new information to indicate changes in the delineation of 
occupied habitat areas for this ESU. However, as a result of revised 
economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are 
designating habitat areas in one watershed that were previously 
proposed for exclusion. Also, we are excluding habitat areas in six 
watersheds that were previously proposed for designation. Table 11 
summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.

                        Table 11.--ESU Specific Changes--Upper Willamette River Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Subbasin                 Watershed code        Watershed name         Changes from Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Willamette.....................      1709000701  Mill Creek/Willamette      Excluded tributaries from
                                                         River.                     final designation.
Yamhill...............................      1709000803  Mill Creek/South Yamhill   Excluded all habitat areas
                                                         River.                     from final designation.
Yamhill...............................      1709000804  Lower South Yamhill River  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000901  Abiqua Creek/Pudding       Included all habitat areas in
                                                         River.                     final designation. Changed
                                                                                    conservation rating from Low
                                                                                    to Medium.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000902  Butte Creek/Pudding River  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation. Changed
                                                                                    conservation rating from
                                                                                    Medium to Low.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000903  Rock Creek/Pudding River.  Excluded all habitat areas
                                                                                    from final designation.
                                                                                    Changed conservation rating
                                                                                    from Medium to Low.
Molalla/Pudding.......................      1709000904  Senecal Creek/Mill Creek.  Excluded tributaries from
                                                                                    final designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 52662]]

IV. Methods and Criteria Used To Designate Critical Habitat

    The following sections describe the relevant definitions and 
guidance found in the ESA and our implementing regulations, and the key 
methods and criteria we used to make these final critical habitat 
designations after incorporating, as appropriate, comments and 
information received on the proposed rule. Section 4 of the ESA (16 
U.S.C. 1533 (b)(2) and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a) require that 
we designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, ``on the 
basis of the best scientific data available.''
    Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) defines critical habitat 
as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species, at the time it is listed * * * 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 at the time it is listed upon 
a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) 
also defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and 
``conservation'' to mean ``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 chapter are no longer necessary.''
    Pursuant to our regulations, when identifying physical or 
biological features essential to conservation, we consider 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 
of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from 
disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and 
ecological distributions of the species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In 
addition to these factors, we also focus on the known physical and 
biological features (primary constituent elements or PCEs) within the 
occupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the species. 
The regulations identify PCEs as including, but not limited to: ``roost 
sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland 
or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant 
pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific 
soil types.'' For an area containing PCEs to meet the definition of 
critical habitat, we must conclude that the PCEs in that area ``may 
require special management considerations or protection.'' Our 
regulations define special management considerations or protection as 
``any methods or procedures useful in protecting physical and 
biological features of the environment for the conservation of listed 
species.'' Both the ESA and our regulations, in recognition of the 
divergent biological needs of species, establish criteria that are fact 
specific rather than a ``one size fits all'' approach.
    Our regulations state that, ``[t]he Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species' (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not 
demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we 
will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic 
area occupied by the species.
    Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533 (b)(2)) requires that before 
designating critical habitat we must consider the economic impacts, 
impacts on national security and other relevant impacts of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat, and the Secretary may exclude 
any area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of designation, unless excluding an area from critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. This exercise of 
discretion must be based upon the best scientific and commercial data. 
Once critical habitat for a salmon or steelhead ESU is designated, 
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each Federal agency shall, in 
consultation with and with the assistance of NMFS, ensure that any 
action they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Salmon Life History

    Pacific salmon are anadromous fish, meaning adults migrate from the 
ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where their offspring 
hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the ocean to forage until 
maturity. The migration and spawning times vary considerably across and 
within species and populations (Groot and Margolis, 1991). At spawning, 
adults pair to lay and fertilize thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel 
nests or ``redds'' excavated by females. Depending on lake/stream 
temperatures, eggs incubate for several weeks to months before hatching 
as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk 
sac). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as 
young juveniles called ``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Depending on 
the species and location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to 
several years in freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The 
physiological and behavioral changes required for the transition to 
salt water result in a distinct ``smolt'' stage in most species. On 
their journey juveniles must migrate downstream through every riverine 
and estuarine corridor between their natal lake or stream and the 
ocean. For example, smolts from Idaho will travel as far as 900 miles 
(1,448 km) from the inland spawning grounds. En route to the ocean the 
juveniles may spend from a few days to several weeks in the estuary, 
depending on the species. The highly productive estuarine environment 
is an important feeding and acclimation area for juveniles preparing to 
enter marine waters.
    Juveniles and subadults typically spend from 1 to 5 years foraging 
over thousands of miles in the North Pacific Ocean before returning to 
spawn. Some species, such as coho and Chinook salmon, have precocious 
life history types (primarily male fish known as ``jacks'') that mature 
and spawn after only several months in the ocean. Spawning migrations 
known as ``runs'' occur throughout the year, varying by species and 
location. Most adult fish return or ``home'' with great fidelity to 
spawn in their natal stream, although some do stray to non-natal 
streams. Salmon species die after spawning, except anadromous O. mykiss 
(steelhead), which may return to the ocean and make one or more repeat 
spawning migrations. This complex life cycle gives rise to complex 
habitat needs, particularly during the freshwater phase (see review by 
Spence et al., 1996). Spawning gravels must be of a certain size and 
free of sediment to allow successful incubation of the eggs. Eggs also 
require cool, clean, and well-oxygenated waters for proper development. 
Juveniles need abundant food sources, including insects, crustaceans, 
and other small fish. They need places to hide from predators (mostly 
birds and bigger fish) in the stream, estuary and nearshore zone, such 
as under logs, root wads and boulders, and beneath overhanging 
vegetation. In the stream they also need places to seek refuge from 
periodic high

[[Page 52663]]

flows (side channels and off channel areas) and from warm summer water 
temperatures (coldwater springs and deep pools). In the estuary and 
nearshore zone, juveniles need freshwater mixing that allows them to 
make the transition from fresh to salt water. Returning adults 
generally do not feed in fresh water but instead rely on limited energy 
stores to migrate, mature, and spawn. Like juveniles, they also require 
cool water and places to rest and hide from predators. During all life 
stages salmon require cool water that is free of contaminants. They 
also require rearing and migration corridors with adequate passage 
conditions (water quality and quantity available at specific times) to 
allow access to the various habitats required to complete their life cycle.
    The homing fidelity of salmon has created a metapopulation 
structure with distinct populations distributed among watersheds 
(McElhany et al., 2000). Low levels of straying result in regular 
genetic exchange among populations, creating genetic similarities among 
populations in adjacent watersheds. Maintenance of the metapopulation 
structure requires a distribution of populations among watersheds where 
environmental risks (e.g., from landslides or floods) are likely to 
vary. It also requires migratory connections among the watersheds to 
allow for periodic genetic exchange and alternate spawning sites in the 
case that natal streams are inaccessible due to natural events such as 
a drought or landslide. More detailed information describing life 
history characteristics of the ESUs and the requisite habitat needs is 
contained in the proposed rule (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2005), agency 
status reviews (Busby et al., 1996; Gustafson, et al., 1997; Johnson et 
al., 1997; Myers et al., 1998; NMFS, 2003), technical recovery team 
products (McElhany et al., 2000; NMFS, 2001; Interior Columbia Basin 
Technical Recovery Team, 2003; McElhany et al., 2003; Myers et al., 
2003; McClure et al., 2005), and in a biological report supporting 
these designations (NMFS, 2005a).

Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific 
Areas Within the Geographical Area

    In past critical habitat designations, we had concluded that the 
limited availability of species distribution data prevented mapping 
salmonid critical habitat at a scale finer than occupied river basins 
(65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000). Therefore, the 2000 designations 
defined the ``geographical area occupied by the species, at the time of 
listing'' as all accessible river reaches within the current range of 
the listed species.
    In the proposed rule we described in greater detail that since the 
previous designations in 2000, we can now be more precise about the 
``geographical area occupied by the species'' because Federal, state, 
and tribal fishery biologists have made progress documenting and 
mapping actual species distribution at the level of stream reaches. 
Moreover, much of the available data can now be accessed and analyzed 
using GIS to produce consistent and fine-scale maps (NMFS, 2005a; 
StreamNet, 2005). The current mapping documents fish presence by 
identifying occupied stream reaches where the species has been 
observed. It also identifies stream reaches where the species is 
presumed to occur based on the professional judgment of biologists 
familiar with the watershed (although in some cases there are streams 
classified as occupied based on professional judgment when in fact the 
species has been observed but the GIS data have not been updated). We 
made use of these finer-scale data for the current critical habitat 
designations, and we now believe that they enable a more accurate 
delineation of the ``geographical area occupied by the species'' 
referred to in the ESA definition of critical habitat. We received some 
comments on this approach, some in support and some against it. 
However, none of the latter describe a specific methodology that would 
yield a better approach than what we used.
    We are now also able to identify ``specific areas'' (ESA section 
3(5)(a)) and ``particular areas'' (ESA section 4(b)(2)) at a finer 
scale than in 2000. Since 2000, various Federal agencies have mapped 
fifth field hydrologic units (referred to as ``HUC5s'' or 
``watersheds'') throughout the Pacific Northwest using U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) mapping conventions (Seaber et al., 1986). This 
information is now generally available via the internet (NMFS, 2005a), 
and we have expanded our GIS resources to use these data. As in the 
2000 designations (in which we used larger fourth field hydrologic 
units), we used the HUC5s to organize critical habitat information 
systematically and at a scale that is applicable to the spatial 
distribution of salmon. Organizing information at this scale is 
especially relevant to salmonids, since their innate homing ability 
allows them to return to the watersheds where they were born. Such site 
fidelity results in spatial aggregations of salmonid populations that 
generally correspond to the area encompassed by subbasins or HUC5 
watersheds (Washington Department of Fisheries et al., 1992; Kostow, 
1995; McElhany et al., 2000). As noted above regarding our use of finer 
scale data, none of the comments received provided us with a specific 
alternative methodology that would yield a better approach than the 
watershed-scale approach we adopted.
    The USGS maps watershed units as polygons, bounding a drainage area 
from ridge-top to ridge-top, encompassing streams, riparian areas and 
uplands. Within the boundaries of any watershed, there are stream 
reaches not occupied by the species. Land areas within the HUC5 
boundaries are also generally not ``occupied'' by the species (though 
certain areas such as flood plains or side channels may be occupied at 
some times of some years). We used the watershed boundaries as a basis 
for aggregating occupied stream reaches, for purposes of delineating 
``specific'' areas at a scale that often corresponds well to salmonid 
population structure and ecological processes. Although we are 
designating only the streams and not the entire watershed, our 
documents frequently refer to the ``specific areas'' as ``watersheds'' 
because that is the term often used as a convenient shorthand. We also 
refer to the stream reaches as ``habitat areas.'' Each watershed was 
reviewed by the CHARTs to verify occupation, PCEs, and special 
management considerations (see ``Critical Habitat Analytical Review 
Teams'' section below).
    The watershed-scale aggregation of stream reaches also allowed us 
to analyze the impacts of designating a ``particular area,'' as 
required by ESA section 4(b)(2). As a result of watershed processes, 
many activities occurring in riparian or upland areas and in non-fish-
bearing streams may affect the physical or biological features 
essential to conservation in the occupied stream reaches. The watershed 
boundary thus describes an area in which Federal activities have the 
potential to affect critical habitat (Spence et al., 1996). Using 
watershed boundaries for the economic analysis ensured that all 
potential economic impacts were considered. Section 3(5) defines 
critical habitat in terms of ``specific areas,'' and section 4(b)(2) 
requires the agency to consider certain factors before designating 
``particular areas.'' In the case of West Coast salmon and steelhead, 
the biology of the species, the characteristics of its habitat, the 
nature of the impacts, and the limited information currently available 
at finer geographic scales made it appropriate to consider ``specific 
areas'' and ``particular areas'' as the same unit.

[[Page 52664]]

    Occupied estuarine and marine areas were also considered in the 
context of defining ``specific areas.'' In our proposed rule we noted 
that estuarine areas are crucial for juvenile salmonids, given their 
multiple functions as areas for rearing/feeding, freshwater-saltwater 
acclimation, and migration (Simenstad et al., 1982; Marriott et al., 
2002). In most cases estuaries fall within the boundaries of a HUC5 and 
so were assessed along with upstream freshwater habitats within the 
watershed. In the case of the Columbia River estuary (which was not 
part of an identified HUC5) we assessed it as part of a lower Columbia 
River habitat area extending from the mouth at the Pacific Ocean 
upstream to its confluence with the Sandy and Washougal rivers. In all 
occupied estuarine areas we were able to identify physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and 
that may require special management considerations or protection. For 
those estuarine areas designated as critical habitat we are again 
delineating them in similar terms to our past designations, as being 
defined by a line connecting the furthest land points at the estuary mouth.
    Marine areas also provide important habitat for rearing/feeding and 
migrating salmon and steelhead. As noted in our proposed rule, Puget 
Sound is a unique marine area in that it is a sheltered fjord 
containing abundant nearshore areas that are used year round by the 
listed ESUs. Specifically, we reviewed information regarding habitat 
use by Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon 
(Bakkala, 1970; Healey, 1982; Simenstad et al., 1982; Salo, 1991, as 
cited in Johnson et al., 1997; Beamish et al., 1998; Pacific Fishery 
Management Council, 1999; WDFW and Point No Point Treaty Tribes 
(PNPTT), 2000; Batelle Marine Sciences Laboratory et al., 2001; 
Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001; Williams and Thom, 2001; Puget Sound 
Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Program, 2003; Williams et al., 2003; 
Brennan et al., 2004; Washington State Conservation Commission, 1999-
2003) within 19 nearshore marine zones (i.e., areas beyond estuary 
mouths) adjacent to water resource inventory areas defined by the State 
of Washington (NMFS, 2005a; Washington Department of Ecology, 2004). 
Based on this review we determined that waters adjacent to the 
shoreline and extending out to the maximum depth of the photic zone 
(i.e., from the line of extreme high tide out to a depth no greater 
than 30 m relative to the mean lower low water) are occupied and 
contain essential features that may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    In previous designations of salmonid critical habitat we did not 
designate offshore marine areas (with the exception of deep waters in 
Puget Sound (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000). In the Pacific Ocean, we 
concluded that there may be essential habitat features, but we could 
not identify any special management considerations or protection 
associated with them as required under section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA 
(65 FR 7776; February 16, 2000). Since that time we have carefully 
considered the best available scientific information, and related 
agency actions, such as the designation of Essential Fish Habitat under 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. We 
believe that forage species are a feature in the Pacific Ocean or deep 
water of Puget Sound that are essential for salmon conservation and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, at 
least for those forage species that are a target of human harvest. 
However, because salmonids are opportunistic feeders we could not 
identify ``specific areas'' beyond the nearshore marine zone where 
these or other essential features are found within this vast geographic 
area occupied by salmon and steelhead. Moreover, prey species move or 
drift great distances throughout the ocean and would be difficult to 
link to any ``specific'' areas. In contrast to estuarine and nearshore 
areas, we conclude that it is not possible to identify ``specific 
areas'' in the Pacific Ocean or deep water of Puget Sound that contain 
essential features for salmonids and, therefore, we are not designating 
critical habitat in offshore marine areas. We requested comment on this 
issue in our proposed rule but did not receive comments or information 
that would change our conclusion.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In determining what areas are critical habitat, agency regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require that we must ``consider those physical or 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given 
species * * *, including space for individual and population growth and 
for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for 
breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical 
geographical and ecological distribution of a species.'' The 
regulations further direct us to ``focus on the principal biological or 
physical constituent elements * * * that are essential to the 
conservation of the species,'' and specify that the ``known primary 
constituent elements shall be listed with the critical habitat 
description.'' The regulations identify primary constituent elements 
(PCEs) as including, but not limited to: ``roost sites, nesting 
grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, 
water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological 
formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.''
    NMFS biologists developed a list of PCEs that are essential to the 
species' conservation and based on the unique life history of salmon 
and steelhead and their biological needs (Hart, 1973; Beauchamp et al., 
1983; Laufle et al., 1986; Pauley et al., 1986, 1988, and 1989; Groot 
and Margolis, 1991; Spence et al., 1996). Guiding the identification of 
PCEs was a decision matrix we developed for use in ESA section 7 
consultations (NMFS, 1996) which describes general parameters and 
characteristics of most of the essential features under consideration 
in this critical habitat designation. We identified these PCEs and 
requested comment on them in the ANPR (68 FR 55931; September 29, 2003) 
and proposed rule (69 FR 74636; December 14, 2005) but did not receive 
information to support changing them. The ESUs addressed in this final 
rule share many of the same rivers and estuaries and have similar life 
history characteristics and, therefore, many of the same PCEs. These 
PCEs include sites essential to support one or more life stages of the 
ESU (sites for spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). These sites 
in turn contain physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the ESU (for example, spawning gravels, water quality 
and quantity, side channels, forage species). The specific PCEs include:
    1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality 
conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval 
development. These features are essential to conservation because 
without them the species cannot successfully spawn and produce offspring.
    2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain 
connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and 
support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage 
supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, 
submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic 
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels,

[[Page 52665]]

and undercut banks. These features are essential to conservation 
because without them juveniles cannot access and use the areas needed 
to forage, grow, and develop behaviors (e.g., predator avoidance, 
competition) that help ensure their survival.
    3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water 
quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and 
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, 
side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult 
mobility and survival. These features are essential to conservation 
because without them juveniles cannot use the variety of habitats that 
allow them to avoid high flows, avoid predators, successfully compete, 
begin the behavioral and physiological changes needed for life in the 
ocean, and reach the ocean in a timely manner. Similarly, these 
features are essential for adults because they allow fish in a non-
feeding condition to successfully swim upstream, avoid predators, and 
reach spawning areas on limited energy stores.
    4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water 
quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult 
physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover 
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large 
rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, 
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and 
maturation. These features are essential to conservation because 
without them juveniles cannot reach the ocean in a timely manner and 
use the variety of habitats that allow them to avoid predators, compete 
successfully, and complete the behavioral and physiological changes 
needed for life in the ocean. Similarly, these features are essential 
to the conservation of adults because they provide a final source of 
abundant forage that will provide the energy stores needed to make the 
physiological transition to fresh water, migrate upstream, avoid 
predators, and develop to maturity upon reaching spawning areas.
    5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality 
and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and 
fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as 
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks 
and boulders, and side channels. As in the case with freshwater 
migration corridors and estuarine areas, nearshore marine features are 
essential to conservation because without them juveniles cannot 
successfully transition from natal streams to offshore marine areas. We 
have focused our designation on nearshore areas in Puget Sound because 
of its unique and relatively sheltered fjord-like setting (as opposed 
to the more open coastlines of Washington and Oregon).
    6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, 
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and 
maturation. These features are essential for conservation because 
without them juveniles cannot forage and grow to adulthood. However, 
for the reasons stated previously in this document, it is difficult to 
identify specific areas containing this PCE as well as human activities 
that may affect the PCE condition in those areas. Therefore, we have 
not designated any specific areas based on this PCE but instead have 
identified it because it is essential to the species' conservation and 
specific offshore areas may be identified in the future (in which case 
any designation would be subject to separate rulemaking).
    The occupied habitat areas designated in this final rule contain 
PCEs required to support the biological processes for which the species 
use the habitat. The CHARTs verified this for each watershed/nearshore 
zone by relying on the best available scientific data (including 
species distribution maps, watershed analyses, and habitat surveys) 
during their review of occupied areas and resultant assessment of area 
conservation values (NMFS, 2005a). The contribution of the PCEs varies 
by site and biological function such that the quality of the elements 
may vary within a range of acceptable conditions. The CHARTs took this 
variation into account when they assessed the conservation value of an 
area. In this final designation we have identified some areas that, 
while occupied, have PCEs that are so severely degraded as to be non-
existent. They therefore do not meet the statutory definition of 
critical habitat and are not being designated as critical habitat (see 
``Summary of Revisions'').

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    An occupied area meets the definition of critical habitat only if 
it contains physical and biological features that ``may require special 
management considerations or protection.'' Agency regulations at 50 CFR 
424.02(j) define ``special management considerations or protection'' to 
mean ``any methods or procedures useful in protecting physical and 
biological features of the environment for the conservation of listed 
species.''
    As part of the biological assessment described below under 
``Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams,'' teams of biologists 
examined each habitat area to determine whether the physical or 
biological features may require special management consideration. These 
determinations are identified for each area in the CHART report (NMFS, 
2005a). In the case of salmon and steelhead, the CHARTs identified a 
variety of activities that threaten the physical and biological 
features essential to listed salmon and steelhead (see review by Spence 
et al., 1996), including: (1) Forestry; (2) grazing; (3) agriculture; 
(4) road building/maintenance; (5) channel modifications/diking; (6) 
urbanization; (7) sand and gravel mining; (8) mineral mining; (9) dams; 
(10) irrigation impoundments and withdrawals; (11) river, estuary, and 
ocean traffic; (12) wetland loss/removal; (13) beaver removal; (14) 
exotic/invasive species introductions. In addition to these, the 
harvest of salmonid prey species (e.g., forage fishes such as herring, 
anchovy, and sardines) may present another potential habitat-related 
management activity (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1999). In 
response to our proposed designation we received one set of comments 
specific to the CHART determinations of activities (and based on the 
list above), and we have incorporated the needed revisions into the 
final CHART report (NMFS, 2005a).

Unoccupied Areas

    ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to include 
``specific areas outside the geographical area occupied'' if the areas 
are determined by the Secretary to be ``essential for the conservation 
of the species.'' NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) emphasize that 
we ``shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical 
area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to 
its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.'' With one exception, we are not designating unoccupied areas 
at this time. For the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU, we are 
proposing approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) of unoccupied (but 
historically utilized) stream reaches determined to be essential for 
the conservation of this ESU. However, the CHARTs did identify several 
areas that may be essential for the conservation of specific ESUs, 
including:

[[Page 52666]]

    ? Areas upstream of Elwha Dam in Washington's Elwha River 
drainage (Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU)
    ? Areas upstream of Merwin, Swift, and Yale Dams in 
Washington's Lewis River drainage (Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon 
and steelhead ESUs)
    ? Areas upstream of Condit Dam in Washington's White Salmon 
River drainage (Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon and Middle Columbia 
River steelhead ESUs)
    ? Areas upstream of Keechelus, Kachess, Cle Elum, Bumping, 
and Tieton Dams in Washington's Yakima River drainage (Middle Columbia 
River steelhead ESU)
    ? Areas upstream of Enloe Dam in Washington's Similkameen 
River drainage (Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU)
    ? Areas upstream of Pelton Dam in Oregon's Deschutes River 
drainage (Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU)
    ? Areas upstream of Big Cliff and Detroit Dams in Oregon's 
North Santiam River drainage (Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon and 
steelhead ESUs)
    ? Areas upstream of Green Peter Dam in Oregon's South 
Santiam River drainage (Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon and 
steelhead ESUs)
    ? Historically occupied areas in Washington's Wind River 
(Columbia River chum salmon ESU) and Wilson and Naneum Creeks (Middle 
Columbia River steelhead ESU)
    ? Historically occupied areas in Idaho's Lemhi River 
drainage (Snake River steelhead ESU)
    While it is not possible to conclude at this time that any of these 
historically occupied areas warrant designation, we believe it is 
useful to signal to the public that these specific areas may be 
considered for possible designation in the future. Throughout the range 
of these ESUs a number of technical recovery teams are evaluating the 
conservation needs of these ESUs and providing guidance on what will be 
needed for their conservation. We will revise critical habitat 
designations as new information is developed through this process. Any 
designation of unoccupied areas would be based on the required 
determination that such area is essential for the conservation of an 
ESU and would be subject to separate rulemaking with the opportunity 
for notice and comment.

Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat

    In past designations we have described the lateral extent of 
critical habitat in various ways, ranging from fixed distances to 
``functional'' zones defined by important riparian functions (65 FR 
7764; February 16, 2000). Both approaches presented difficulties, and 
this was highlighted in several comments (most of which requested that 
we focus on aquatic areas only) received in response to the ANPR (68 FR 
55926; September 29, 2003). Designating a set riparian zone width will 
(in some places) accurately reflect the distance from the stream on 
which PCEs might be found, but in other cases may over-or understate 
the distance. Designating a functional buffer avoids that problem, but 
makes it difficult for Federal agencies to know in advance what areas 
are critical habitat. To address these issues we are proposing to 
define the lateral extent of designated critical habitat as the width 
of the stream channel defined by the ordinary high-water line as 
defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in 33 CFR 329.11. 
This approach is consistent with the specific mapping requirements 
described in agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(c). In areas for which 
ordinary high-water has not been defined pursuant to 33 CFR 329.11, the 
width of the stream channel shall be defined by its bankfull elevation. 
Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the 
channel and move into the floodplain (Rosgen, 1996) and is reached at a 
discharge which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on 
the annual flood series (Leopold et al., 1992). Such an interval is 
commensurate with nearly all of the juvenile freshwater life phases of 
most salmon and steelhead ESUs. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude 
that for an occupied stream reach this lateral extent is regularly 
``occupied''. Moreover, the bankfull elevation can be readily discerned 
for a variety of stream reaches and stream types using recognizable 
water lines (e.g., marks on rocks) or vegetation boundaries (Rosgen, 1996).
    As underscored in previous critical habitat designations, the 
quality of aquatic habitat within stream channels is intrinsically 
related to the adjacent riparian zones and floodplain, to surrounding 
wetlands and uplands, and to non-fish-bearing streams above occupied 
stream reaches. Human activities that occur outside the stream can 
modify or destroy physical and biological features of the stream. In 
addition, human activities that occur within and adjacent to reaches 
upstream (e.g., road failures) or downstream (e.g., dams) of designated 
stream reaches can also have demonstrable effects on physical and 
biological features of designated reaches.
    In the relatively few cases where we are designating lake habitats 
(e.g., Lake Ozette), we believe that the lateral extent may best be 
defined as the perimeter of the water body as displayed on standard 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps or the elevation of ordinary high 
water, whichever is greater. In estuarine and nearshore marine areas we 
believe that extreme high water is the best descriptor of lateral 
extent. For nearshore marine areas we focused particular attention on 
the geographical area occupied by the Puget Sound ESUs (Chinook and 
Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon) because of the unique ecological 
setting and well-documented importance of the area's nearshore habitats 
to these species. We are designating the area inundated by extreme high 
tide because it encompasses habitat areas typically inundated and 
regularly occupied during the spring and summer when juvenile salmon 
are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying heavily on forage, 
cover, and refuge qualities provided by these occupied habitats. As 
noted above for stream habitat areas, human activities that occur 
outside the area inundated by extreme or ordinary high water can modify 
or destroy physical and biological features of the nearshore habitat 
areas, and Federal agencies must be aware of these important habitat 
linkages as well.

Military Lands

    The Sikes Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each 
military installation that includes land and water suitable for the 
conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by 
November 17, 2001, an INRMP. An INRMP integrates implementation of the 
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural 
resources found there. Each INRMP includes: an assessment of the 
ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for 
the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and 
priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and 
adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the 
extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 
management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification, 
wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to 
support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural 
resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the ESA to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not

[[Page 52667]]

designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
    To address this new provision we contacted the DOD and requested 
information on all INRMPs that might benefit salmon and steelhead. (In 
response to the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003) we had already 
received a letter from the U.S. Marine Corps regarding this and other 
issues associated with a possible critical habitat designation on its 
facilities in the range of the Southern California steelhead ESU, which 
is not addressed in this notice). The military services identified 16 
installations in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho with INRMPs in place or 
under development. We determined that the following 11 facilities with 
final INRMPs overlap with habitat areas under consideration for 
critical habitat designation: (1) Naval Submarine Base, Bangor; (2) 
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport; (3) Naval Ordnance Center, Port 
Hadlock (Indian Island); (4) Naval Radio Station, Jim Creek; (5) Naval 
Fuel Depot, Manchester; (6) Naval Air Station Whidbey Island; (7) Naval 
Air Station, Everett; (8) Bremerton Naval Hospital; (9) Fort Lewis 
(Army); (10) Pier 23 (Army); and (11) Yakima Training Center (Army). 
The first ten facilities are located within the range of the Puget 
Sound chinook salmon ESU, and two of these sites--Bangor and Port 
Hadlock (Indian Island)--are also within the range of the Hood Canal 
summer-run chum salmon ESU. The Army's Yakima Training Center is 
located within the range of the Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU.
    We identified habitat of value to listed salmonids in each INRMP 
and reviewed these plans, as well as other information available 
regarding the management of these military lands. Our review indicates 
that each of these INRMPs addresses habitat for salmonids, and all 
contain measures that provide benefits to ESA-listed salmon and 
steelhead (NMFS, 2005f). Examples of the types of benefits include 
actions that control erosion, protect riparian zones, minimize 
stormwater and construction impacts, reduce contaminants, and monitor 
listed species and their habitats. Also, we have received information 
from the DOD identifying national security impacts at all of their 
affected sites if designated as critical habitat. Our consideration of 
such impacts is separate from our assessment of INRMPs, but serves as 
an independent and sufficient basis for our determination not to 
designate critical habitats.

Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams

    To assist in the designation of critical habitat, we convened 
several CHARTs organized by major geographic domains that roughly 
correspond to salmon recovery planning domains. The CHARTs consisted of 
Federal biologists and habitat specialists from NMFS, the USFWS, USFS, 
and BLM, with demonstrated expertise regarding salmonid habitat and 
related protective efforts within the domain. The CHARTs were tasked 
with assessing biological information pertaining to areas under 
consideration for designation as critical habitat. The CHARTs also 
reconvened to review the public comments and any new information 
regarding the ESUs and habitat in their domain. Their work and 
determinations are documented in a final CHART report (NMFS, 2005a).
    The CHARTs examined each habitat area within the watershed to 
determine whether the stream reaches or lakes occupied by the species 
contain the physical or biological features essential to conservation. 
As noted previously, the CHARTs also relied on their experience 
conducting ESA section 7 consultations and existing management plans 
and protective measures to determine whether these features may require 
special management considerations or protection.In addition to occupied 
areas, the definition of critical habitat also includes unoccupied 
areas if we determine the area is essential for conservation. 
Accordingly, the CHARTs were next asked whether there were any 
unoccupied areas within the historical range of the ESUs that may be 
essential for conservation. Where information was currently available 
to make this determination, the CHARTs identified those currently 
unoccupied areas essential for conservation (i.e., in Hood Canal for 
the summer-run chum salmon ESU). In most cases, the CHARTs did not have 
information available that would allow them to draw that conclusion. 
Information important to making these determinations is currently being 
developed through the recovery planning processes. The CHARTs 
nevertheless identified several areas they believe may be determined 
essential through future recovery planning efforts (see ``Unoccupied 
Areas'' section above).
    The CHARTs were next asked to determine the relative conservation 
value of each area for each ESU. The CHARTs scored each habitat area 
based on several factors related to the quantity and quality of the 
physical and biological features. They next considered each area in 
relation to other areas and with respect to the population occupying 
that area. Based on a consideration of the raw scores for each area, 
and a consideration of that area's contribution in relation to other 
areas and in relation to the overall population structure of the ESU, 
the CHARTs rated each habitat area as having a ``high,'' ``medium,'' or 
``low'' conservation value. The preliminary CHART ratings were reviewed 
by several state and tribal comanagers in advance of the proposed rule, 
and the CHARTs made needed changes prior to that rule. State and tribal 
comanagers also evaluated our proposed rule and provided comments and 
new information which were also reviewed and incorporated as needed by 
the CHARTs in the preparation of the final designations.
    The rating of habitat areas as having a high, medium or low 
conservation value provided information useful to inform the 
Secretary's exercise of discretion in determining whether the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation in ESA section 
4(b)(2). The higher the conservation value for an area, the greater the 
likely benefit of the ESA section 7 protections. We recognized that the 
``benefit of designation'' would also depend on the likelihood of a 
consultation occurring and the improvements in species' conservation 
that may result from changes to proposed Federal actions. To address 
this concern, we asked the CHARTs to develop a profile for a ``low 
leverage'' watershed--that is, a watershed where it was unlikely there 
would be a section 7 consultation, or where a section 7 consultation, 
if it did occur, would yield few conservation benefits (cite CHART 
report). For watersheds not meeting the ``low leverage'' profile, we 
considered their conservation rating to be a fair assessment of the 
benefit of designation. For watersheds meeting the ``low leverage'' 
profile, we considered the benefit of designation to be an increment 
lower than the conservation rating. For example, a watershed with a 
``high'' conservation value but ``low leverage'' was considered to have 
a ``medium'' benefit of designation, and so forth (NMFS, 2005a; NMFS, 
2005c).
    As discussed earlier, the scale chosen for the ``specific area'' 
referred to in section 3(5)(a) was a watershed, as delineated by USGS 
methodology.

[[Page 52668]]

There were some complications with this delineation that required us to 
adapt the CHARTs' approach for some areas. In particular, a large 
stream or river might serve as a rearing and migration corridor to and 
from many watersheds, yet be embedded itself in a watershed. In any 
given watershed through which it passes, the stream may have a few or 
several tributaries. For rearing/migration corridors embedded in a 
watershed, the CHARTs were asked to rate the conservation value of the 
watershed based on the tributary habitat. We assigned the rearing/
migration corridor the rating of the highest-rated watershed for which 
it served as a rearing/migration corridor. The reason for this 
treatment of migration corridors is the role they play in the salmon's 
life cycle. Salmon are anadromous--born in fresh water, migrating to 
salt water to feed and grow, and returning to fresh water to spawn. 
Without a rearing/migration corridor to and from the sea, salmon cannot 
complete their life cycle. It would be illogical to consider a spawning 
and rearing area as having a particular conservation value and not 
consider the associated rearing/migration corridor as having a similar 
conservation value.

V. Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1533 (b)(2))

    The foregoing discussion describes those areas that are eligible 
for designation as critical habitat--the specific areas that fall 
within the ESA section 3(5)(A) definition of critical habitat, minus 
those lands owned or controlled by the DOD, or designated for its use, 
that are covered by an INRMP that we have determined in writing 
provides a benefit to the species.
    Specific areas eligible for designation are not automatically 
designated as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 
Secretary to first consider the economic impact, impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impact of designation. The Secretary 
has the discretion to exclude an area from designation if he determines 
the benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding the impact that would 
result from designation), outweigh the benefits of designation based 
upon best scientific and commercial data. The Secretary may not exclude 
an area from designation if exclusion will result in the extinction of 
the species. Because the authority to exclude is discretionary, 
exclusion is not required for any areas. In this rulemaking, the 
Secretary has applied his statutory discretion to exclude areas from 
critical habitat for several different reasons (NMFS, 2005c).
    In this exercise of discretion, the first issue we must address is 
the scope of impacts relevant to the 4(b)(2) evaluation. As discussed 
in the Background and Previous Federal Action section, we are 
redesignating critical habitat for these 12 ESUs because the previous 
designations were vacated. (National Association of Homebuilders v. 
Evans, 2002 WL 1205743 No. 00-CV-2799 (D.D.C.) (NAHB)). The NAHB court 
had agreed with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth 
Circuit in New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). In that decision, the 
Tenth Circuit stated ``[t]he statutory language is plain in requiring 
some kind of consideration of economic impact in the critical habitat 
designation phase.'' The court concluded that, given the USFWS' failure 
to distinguish between ``adverse modification'' and ``jeopardy'' in its 
4(b)(2) analysis, the USFWS must analyze the full impacts of critical 
habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are 
coextensive with other impacts (such as the impact of the jeopardy 
requirement).
    In redesignating critical habitat for these salmon ESUs, we have 
followed the Tenth Circuit Court's directive regarding the statutory 
requirement to consider the economic impact of designation. Areas 
designated as critical habitat are subject to ESA section 7 
requirements, which provide that Federal agencies ensure that their 
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
To evaluate the economic impact of critical habitat we first examined 
our voluminous section 7 consultation record for these as well as other 
ESUs of salmon. (For thoroughness, we examined the consultation record 
for other ESUs to see if it shed light on the issues.) That record 
includes consultations on habitat-modifying Federal actions both where 
critical habitat has been designated and where it has not. We could not 
discern a distinction between the impacts of applying the jeopardy 
provision versus the adverse modification provision in occupied 
critical habitat. Given our inability to detect a measurable difference 
between the impacts of applying these two provisions, the only 
reasonable alternative seemed to be to follow the recommendation of the 
Tenth Circuit, approved by the NAHB court--to measure the coextensive 
impacts; that is, measure the entire impact of applying the adverse 
modification provision of section 7, regardless of whether the jeopardy 
provision alone would result in the identical impact.
    The Tenth Circuit's opinion only addressed ESA section 4(b)(2)'s 
requirement that economic impacts be considered. The court did not 
address how ``other relevant impacts'' were to be considered, nor did 
it address the benefits of designation. Because section 4(b)(2) 
requires a consideration of other relevant impacts of designation, and 
the benefits of designation, and because our record did not support a 
distinction between impacts resulting from application of the adverse 
modification provision versus the jeopardy provision, we are uniformly 
considering coextensive impacts and coextensive benefits, without 
attempting to distinguish the benefit of a critical habitat 
consultation from the benefit that would otherwise result from a 
jeopardy consultation that would occur even if critical habitat were 
not designated. To do otherwise would distort the balancing test 
contemplated by section 4(b)(2).
    The principal benefit of designating critical habitat is that 
Federal activities that may affect such habitat are subject to 
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Such consultation 
requires every Federal agency to ensure that any action it authorizes, 
funds or carries out is not likely to result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat. This complements the section 
7 provision that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. 
Another benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can serve 
to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an 
area and thereby focus and contribute to conservation efforts by 
clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain 
species. It is unknown to what extent this process actually occurs, and 
what the actual benefit is, as there are also concerns, noted above, 
that a critical habitat designation may discourage such conservation 
efforts.
    The balancing test in ESA section 4(b)(2) contemplates weighing 
benefits that are not directly comparable--the benefit associated with 
species conservation balanced against the economic benefit, benefit to 
national security, or other relevant benefit that results if an area is 
excluded from designation. Section 4(b)(2) does not specify a method 
for the weighing process. Agencies are frequently required to balance 
benefits of regulations against impacts; E.O. 12866 established this 
requirement for Federal agency regulation. Ideally such a balancing 
would involve first translating

[[Page 52669]]

the benefits and impacts into a common metric. Executive branch 
guidance from the OMB suggests that benefits should first be monetized 
(i.e., converted into dollars). Benefits that cannot be monetized 
should be quantified (for example, numbers of fish saved). Where 
benefits can neither be monetized nor quantified, agencies are to 
describe the expected benefits (OMB, 2003).
    It may be possible to monetize benefits of critical habitat 
designation for a threatened or endangered species in terms of 
willingness-to-pay (OMB, 2003). However, we are not aware of any 
available data that would support such an analysis for salmon. In 
addition, ESA section 4(b)(2) requires analysis of impacts other than 
economic impacts that are equally difficult to monetize, such as 
benefits to national security of excluding areas from critical habitat. 
In the case of salmon designations, impacts to Northwest tribes are an 
``other relevant impact'' that also may be difficult to monetize.
    An alternative approach, approved by OMB (OMB, 2003), is to conduct 
a cost-effectiveness analysis. A cost-effectiveness analysis ideally 
first involves quantifying benefits, for example, percent reduction in 
extinction risk, percent increase in productivity, or increase in 
numbers of fish. Given the state of the science, it would be difficult 
to quantify reliably the benefits of including particular areas in the 
critical habitat designation. Although it is difficult to monetize or 
quantify benefits of critical habitat designation, it is possible to 
differentiate among habitat areas based on their relative contribution 
to conservation. For example, habitat areas can be rated as having a 
high, medium, or low conservation value. The qualitative ordinal 
evaluations can then be combined with estimates of the economic costs 
of critical habitat designation in a framework that essentially adopts 
that of cost-effectiveness. Individual habitat areas can then be 
assessed using both their biological evaluation and economic cost, so 
that areas with high conservation value and lower economic cost might 
be considered to have a higher priority for designation, while areas 
with a low conservation value and higher economic cost might have a 
higher priority for exclusion. While this approach can provide useful 
information to the decision-maker, there is no rigid formula through 
which this information translates into exclusion decisions. Every 
geographical area containing habitat eligible for designation is 
different, with a unique set of ``relevant impacts'' that may be 
considered in the exclusion process. Regardless of the analytical 
approach, ESA section 4(b)(2) makes clear that what weight the agency 
gives various impacts and benefits, and whether the agency excludes 
areas from the designation, is discretionary.

Exclusions Based on Impacts to Tribes

    The principal benefit of designating critical habitat is that 
Federal activities that may affect such habitat are subject to 
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. There is a broad array 
of activities on Indian lands that may trigger section 7. For this 
analysis, we considered what those activities may be and what the 
likely effect would be on conservation of each ESU if the activities 
were not subject to section 7 consultation. (We realize that the 
activities in question would still be subject to section 7 consultation 
and to the requirement that Federal agencies not jeopardize species' 
continued existence. However, as described above, because we cannot 
discern a difference in the application of the jeopardy and adverse 
modification requirements in our consultations for salmon and 
steelhead, we are considering coextensive impacts and coextensive 
benefits.) To determine the benefit of designation, we considered the 
number of stream miles within Indian lands, whether those stream miles 
were located in high, medium, or low conservation value areas, and the 
number of expected section 7 consultations in those areas (NMFS, 2005g).
    In addition, in more than 20 letters to NMFS--several in response 
to the agency's ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003) and proposed 
rule (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2004)--the tribes have documented how 
they are already working to address the habitat needs of the species on 
these lands as well as in the larger ecosystem, and are fully aware of 
the conservation value of their lands.
    There are several benefits to excluding Indian lands. The 
longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal and 
tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, 
judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal 
governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by, 
the Federal government. This relationship has given rise to a special 
Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and 
obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and the 
application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian 
lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. 
Pursuant to these authorities, Indian lands are recognized as unique 
and have been retained by Indian Tribes or have been set aside for 
tribal use. These lands are managed by Indian Tribes in accordance with 
tribal goals and objectives within the framework of applicable treaties 
and laws.
    In addition to the distinctive trust relationship, for salmon and 
steelhead in the Northwest, there is a unique partnership between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes regarding salmon management. 
Northwest Indian tribes are regarded as ``co-managers'' of the salmon 
resource, along with Federal and state managers. This co-management 
relationship evolved as a result of numerous court decisions clarifying 
the tribes' treaty right to take fish in their usual and accustomed places.
    The tribes have stated in letters and meetings that designation of 
Indian lands as critical habitat will undermine long-term working 
relationships and reduce the capacity of tribes to participate at 
current levels in the many and varied forums across four states 
addressing ecosystem management and conservation of fisheries resources.
    The benefits of excluding Indian lands from designation include: 
(1) The furtherance of established national policies, our Federal trust 
obligations and our deference to the tribes in management of natural 
resources on their lands; (2) the maintenance of effective long-term 
working relationships to promote the conservation of salmonids on an 
ecosystem-wide basis across four states; (3) the allowance for 
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work 
to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an 
ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for tribal sovereignty 
over management of natural resources on Indian lands through 
established tribal natural resource programs.
    We believe that the current co-manager process addressing 
activities on an ecosystem-wide basis across three states is currently 
beneficial for the conservation of the listed ESUs. Because the co-
manager process provides for coordinated ongoing focused action through 
a variety of forums, we find the benefits of this process to be greater 
than the benefits of applying ESA section 7 to Federal activities on 
Indian lands (NMFS, 2005g). Additionally, we have determined that the 
exclusion of tribal lands will not result in the extinction of the 
species concerned. We also believe that maintenance of our

[[Page 52670]]

current co-manager relationship consistent with existing policies is an 
important benefit to continuation of our tribal trust responsibilities 
and relationship. Based upon our consultation with the Tribes, we 
believe that designation of Indian lands as critical habitat would 
adversely impact our working relationship and the benefits resulting 
from this relationship.
    Based upon these considerations, we have decided to exercise agency 
discretion under ESA section 4(b)(2) and exclude Indian lands from the 
critical habitat designation for these ESUs of salmonids. The Indian 
lands specifically excluded from critical habitat are those defined in 
the Secretarial Order, including: (1) Lands held in trust by the United 
States for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) land held in trust by 
the United States for any Indian Tribe or individual subject to 
restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3) fee lands, 
either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the 
tribal government; and (4) fee lands within the reservation boundaries 
owned by individual Indians. We have determined that these exclusions, 
together with the other exclusions described in this rule, will not 
result in extinction of the species (NMFS, 2005c).

Impacts to Landowners With Contractual Commitments to Conservation

    Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., HCPs) 
enhance species conservation by extending species' protections beyond 
those available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade we 
have encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation 
agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species' 
conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can 
through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA authorizes us to issue to non-
Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and 
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to 
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that 
results in the incidental taking of a listed species (i.e., take that 
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 
otherwise lawful activity). The ESA specifies that an application for 
an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a conservation plan, 
and specifies the content of such a plan. The purpose of such an HCP is 
to describe and ensure that the effects of the permitted action on 
covered species are adequately minimized and mitigated, and that the 
action does not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the species.
    To date we have not excluded critical habitat on lands covered by 
an HCP, but we acknowledged in our proposed rule that this was an 
emerging issue and that the benefits of such exclusions may outweigh 
the benefits of designation (69 FR 74623; December 14, 2004). As 
described in greater detail above (see Comment 42) and in our 
assessment of HCPs associated with this final rulemaking (NMFS, 2005e), 
the analysis required for these types of exclusions requires careful 
consideration of the benefits of designation versus the benefits of 
exclusion to determine whether benefits of exclusion outweigh benefits 
of designation. The benefits of designation typically arise from 
additional section 7 protections as well as enhanced public awareness 
once specific areas are identified as critical habitat. The benefits of 
exclusion generally relate to relieving regulatory burdens on existing 
conservation partners, maintaining good working relationships with 
them, and encouraging the development of new partnerships.
    Based on comments received on our proposed rule, we could not 
conclude that all landowners view designation of critical habitat as 
imposing a burden, and exclusion from designation as removing that 
burden and thereby strengthening the ongoing relationship. Where an HCP 
partner affirmatively requests designation, exclusion is likely to harm 
rather than benefit the relationship. Where an HCP partner has remained 
silent on the benefit of exclusion of its land, we do not believe the 
record supports a presumption that exclusion will enhance the 
relationship. Similarly, we do not believe it provides an incentive to 
other landowners to seek an HCP if our exclusions are not in response 
to an expressed landowner preference. We anticipate further rulemaking 
in the near future to refine these designations, for example, in 
response to developments in recovery planning. As part of future 
revisions, we will consider information we receive from those with 
approved HCPs regarding the effect of designation on our ongoing 
partnership. We did not consider pending HCPs for exclusion, both 
because we do not want to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing HCP 
process, and because we expect to have future opportunities to refine 
the designation and consider whether exclusion will outweigh the 
benefit of designation in a particular case.
    During the comment period we received comments from only three 
landowners with current HCPs that they would consider exclusion as a 
benefit to our ongoing relationship--WDNR, Green Diamond Resources 
Company, and West Fork Timber Company. For those HCPs, we analyzed the 
activities covered by the HCPs, the protections afforded by the HCP 
agreement, and the Federal activities that are likely to occur on the 
affected lands. We considered the number of stream miles within these 
lands, whether those stream miles were located in high, medium, or low 
conservation value areas, and the number of expected section 7 
consultations in those areas. From this information we determined the 
benefit of designation, which we then weighed against the benefit of 
exclusion. We concluded that the conservation benefits to the species 
outweigh the conservation benefits of designation and therefore have 
excluded lands covered by these agreements in this final designation. 
The analysis is described in further detail in NMFS (2005e). We have 
determined that these exclusions, together with the other exclusions 
described in this rule, will not result in extinction of the species 
(NMFS, 2005c).

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

    As noted previously (see Military Lands section), we evaluated 11 
DOD sites with draft or final INRMPs and determined that each INRMP 
provides a benefit to the listed salmon or steelhead ESUs under 
consideration at the site. Therefore, we conclude that those areas 
subject to final INRMPs are not eligible for designation pursuant to 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)). At the 
request of the DOD (and in the case that an INRMP might not provide a 
benefit to the species), we also assessed the impacts on national 
security that may result from designating these and other DOD sites as 
critical habitat.
    We contacted the DOD by letter and requested information about the 
impacts to national security that may result from designating critical 
habitat at the following 24 military sites in Washington: (1) Naval 
Submarine Base, Bangor; (2) Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport; (3) 
Naval Ordnance Center, Port Hadlock (Indian Island); (4) Naval Radio 
Station, Jim Creek; (5) Naval Fuel Depot, Manchester; (6) Naval Air 
Station Whidbey Island; (7) Naval Air Station, Everett; (8) Bremerton 
Naval Hospital; (9) Fort Lewis (Army); (10) Pier 23 (Army); (11) Yakima 
Training Center (Army); (12) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard; (13) Naval 
Submarine Base

[[Page 52671]]

Bangor security zone; (14) Strait of Juan de Fuca naval air-to-surface 
weapon range, restricted area; (15) Hood Canal and Dabob Bay naval non-
explosive torpedo testing area; (16) Strait of Juan de Fuca and Whidbey 
Island naval restricted areas; (17) Admiralty Inlet naval restricted 
area; (18) Port Gardner Naval Base restricted area; (19) Hood Canal 
naval restricted areas; (20) Port Orchard Passage naval restricted 
area; (21) Sinclair Inlet naval restricted areas; (22) Carr Inlet naval 
restricted areas; (23) Dabob Bay/Whitney Point naval restricted area; 
and (24) Port Townsend/Indian Island/Walan Point naval restricted area. 
All of these sites overlap with habitat areas occupied by one or more 
of the 12 ESUs and under consideration for critical habitat 
designation. A number of other sites (primarily armories and small Army 
facilities) were also assessed and were determined to be outside the 
areas under consideration.
    In response to our letter, both the Army and Navy provided 
information clarifying site locations and describing the types of 
military activities that occur at these sites. They also listed the 
potential changes in these activities and consequent national security 
impacts that critical habitat designation would cause in these areas. 
Both military agencies concluded that critical habitat designation at 
any of these sites would likely impact national security by diminishing 
military readiness. The possible impacts include: Preventing, 
restricting, or delaying training or testing exercises or access to 
such sites; restricting or delaying activities associated with vehicle/
vessel/facility maintenance and ordnance loading; delaying response 
times for ship deployments and overall operations; and creating 
uncertainties regarding ESA consultation (e.g., reinitiation 
requirements) or imposing compliance conditions that would divert 
military resources. Also, both military agencies cited their ongoing 
and positive consultation history with NMFS and underscored cases where 
they are implementing best management practices to reduce impacts on 
listed salmonids.
    Most of the affected DOD sites overlap habitat areas in nearshore 
zones occupied by Puget Sound Chinook or Hood Canal summer-run chum 
salmon. The overlap consists of approximately 64 miles (103 km) of 
shoreline out of the 2,376 miles (3,824 km) of total occupied shoreline 
for these two ESUs. Freshwater and estuarine overlap areas include 
approximately 20 miles (32 km) of stream used by Puget Sound Chinook 
salmon and 10 miles (16 km) used by Upper Columbia River steelhead, 
representing less than one percent of the total freshwater and 
estuarine habitat area for these two ESUs. The CHARTs assessing 
conservation values for these overlap areas concluded that all of them 
were of high conservation value to the respective ESUs. However, the 
overlap areas are a small percentage of the total area for the affected 
ESUs. Designating these DOD sites will likely reduce the readiness 
capability of the Army and Navy, both of which are actively engaged in 
training, maintaining, and deploying forces in the current war on 
terrorism. Therefore we conclude that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation and are not designating these DOD 
sites as critical habitat.
    Between the time of the proposed rule and this final rule we 
discussed with the DOD the importance of the nearshore areas to these 
ESUs (especially for juvenile chum and Chinook salmon) and asked 
whether national security impacts could still be avoided adjacent to 
Navy security zones in Puget Sound if critical habitat was confined to 
a narrow nearshore zone from the line of extreme high tide down to the 
line of mean lower low water (except in areas associated with an 
approved INRMP or in areas with related DOD easements or right-of-
ways). The DOD concurred that limiting the designation in this way will 
avoid the national security concerns associated with these sites while 
retaining critical habitat in tidal areas important to juvenile salmon 
in areas with lesser security restrictions. The final designation 
accordingly includes these tidal areas. We have determined that these 
exclusions, together with the other exclusions described in this rule, 
will not result in extinction of the species (NMFS, 2005c).

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Our assessment of economic impact generated considerable interest 
from commenters on the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003) and the 
proposed rule (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2004). Based on new 
information and comments received on the proposed rule we have updated 
our estimates of economic impacts of designating each of the particular 
areas found to meet the definition of critical habitat (NMFS, 2005d). 
This report is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    The first step in the overall economic analysis was to identify 
existing legal and regulatory constraints on economic activity that are 
independent of critical habitat designation, such as Clean Water Act 
(CWA) requirements. Coextensive impacts of the ESA section 7 
requirement to avoid jeopardy were not considered part of the baseline. 
Also, we have stated our intention to revisit the existing critical 
habitat designations for Snake River Chinook and sockeye salmon ESUs 
(58 FR 68543; December 28, 1993), if appropriate, following completion 
of related rulemaking (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). Given the 
uncertainty that these designations will remain in place in their 
current configuration, we decided not to consider them as part of the 
baseline for the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis.
    Next, from the consultation record, we identified Federal 
activities that might affect habitat and that might result in an ESA 
section 7 consultation. (We did not consider Federal actions, such as 
the approval of a fishery, that might affect the species directly but 
not affect its habitat.) We identified ten types of activities 
including: Hydropower dams; non-hydropower dams and other water supply 
structures; Federal lands management, including grazing (considered 
separately); transportation projects; utility line projects; instream 
activities, including dredging (considered separately); activities 
permitted under EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; 
sand & gravel mining; residential and commercial development; and 
agricultural pesticide applications. Based on our consultation record 
and other available information, we determined the modifications each 
type of activity was likely to undergo as a result of section 7 
consultation (regardless of whether the modification might be required 
by the jeopardy or the adverse modification provision). We developed an 
expected direct cost for each type of action and projected the likely 
occurrence of each type of project in each watershed, using existing 
spatial databases (e.g., the COE 404(d) permit database). Finally, we 
aggregated the costs from the various types of actions and estimated an 
annual impact, taking into account the probability of consultation 
occurring and the likely rate of occurrence of that project type.
    This analysis allowed us to estimate the coextensive economic 
impact of designating each ``particular area'' (that is, each habitat 
area, or aggregated occupied stream reaches in a watershed). Expected 
annual economic impacts ranged from zero to $15.3 million per habitat 
area, with a median of $163.3 thousand. Where a watershed included both 
tributaries and a migration corridor that served other watersheds, we 
estimated the separate impacts of designating the tributaries and the 
migration corridor. We did this

[[Page 52672]]

by identifying those categories of activities most likely to affect 
tributaries and those most likely to affect larger migration corridors.
    Because of the methods we selected and the data limitations, 
portions of our analysis both under-and over-estimate the coextensive 
economic impact of ESA section 7 requirements. For example, we lacked 
complete data on the likely impact on flows at non-Federal hydropower 
projects, which would increase economic impacts. In addition, operation 
and maintenance of the FCRPS has changed in response to ESA section 7 
requirements. Federal agencies estimate direct costs of the FCRPS fish 
and wildlife program and other conservation measures have averaged 
almost $250 million annually over the period 1995-2004, while the power 
costs during that same period have averaged approximately $320 million 
annually. Many of these costs would occur without the requirements of 
section 7, but there is currently no estimate available of what portion 
of these costs are attributable to section 7. Finally, we did not have 
information about potential changes in irrigation flows associated with 
section 7 consultation. These impacts would increase the estimate of 
coextensive costs. On the other hand, we estimated an impact on all 
activities occurring within the geographic boundaries of a watershed, 
even though in some cases activities would be far removed from occupied 
stream reaches and so might not require modification (or even consultation).
    In addition, we were unable to document significant costs of 
critical habitat designation that occur outside the section 7 
consultation process, including costs resulting from state or local 
regulatory burdens imposed on developers and landowners as a result of 
a Federal critical habitat designation.
    In determining whether the economic benefit of excluding a habitat 
area might outweigh the benefit of designation to the species, we took 
into account the many data limitations described above. The ESA 
requires that we make critical habitat designations within a short time 
frame ``with such data as may be available'' at the time. Moreover, the 
cost-effectiveness approach we adopted accommodated many of these data 
limitations by considering the relative benefits of designation and 
exclusion, giving priority to excluding habitat areas with a relatively 
lower benefit of designation and a relatively higher economic impact 
(NMFS, 2005c).
    The circumstances of most of the listed ESUs seem well suited to a 
cost-effectiveness approach. West Coast salmon are wide-ranging species 
and occupy numerous habitat areas with thousands of stream miles. Not 
all occupied areas, however, are of equal importance to conserving an 
ESU. Within the currently occupied range there are areas that support 
highly productive populations, areas that support less productive 
populations, and areas that support production in only some years. Some 
populations within an ESU may be more important to long-term 
conservation of the ESU than other populations. Therefore, in many 
cases it may be possible to construct different scenarios for achieving 
conservation. Scenarios might have more or less certainty of achieving 
conservation, and more or less economic impact.
    Our first step in constructing an exclusion scenario was to 
identify all areas we would consider for an economic exclusion, based 
on dollar thresholds. The next step was to examine the overall picture 
and consider whether any of the areas eligible for exclusion make an 
important contribution to conservation, in the context of what areas 
remained (that is, those areas not identified as eligible for 
exclusion). We did not consider habitat areas for exclusion if they had 
a high conservation value rating. Based on the rating process used by 
the CHARTs, we judged that all of the high value areas make an 
important contribution to conservation.
    In developing criteria for the first step, we chose dollar 
thresholds that we anticipated would lead most directly to a cost-
effective scenario. We considered for exclusion low value habitat areas 
with an economic impact greater than $85,000 and medium value habitat 
areas with an economic impact greater than $300,000. (These amounts 
were adjusted for habitat areas within the range of the Snake River 
steelhead ESU to account for the smaller-sized watersheds.)
    The criteria we selected for identifying habitat areas eligible for 
exclusion do not represent an objective judgment that, for example, a 
low value area is worth a certain dollar amount and no more. The 
statute directs us to balance dissimilar values with a limited amount 
of time (and, therefore, information). It emphasizes the discretionary 
nature of the balancing task. Moreover, while our approach follows the 
Tenth Circuit's direction to consider coextensive economic impacts, we 
nevertheless must acknowledge that not all of the costs will be avoided 
by exclusion from designation. Finally, the cost estimates developed by 
our economic analysis do not have obvious break points that would lead 
to a logical division between ``high,'' ``medium,'' and ``low'' costs. 
Given these factors, a judgment that any particular dollar threshold is 
objectively ``right,'' would be neither necessary nor possible. Rather, 
what economic impact is ``high'' and, therefore, might outweigh the 
benefit of designating a medium or low value habitat area is a matter 
of discretion and depends on the policy context. The policy context in 
which we carry out this task led us to select dollar thresholds that 
would likely lead to a cost-effective designation in a limited amount 
of time with a relatively simple process.
    In the second step of the process, we asked the CHARTs whether any 
of the habitat areas eligible for exclusion make an important 
contribution to conservation. The CHARTs considered this question in 
the context of all of the areas eligible for exclusion as well as the 
information they had developed in providing the initial conservation 
ratings. The following section describes the results of applying the 
two-step process to each ESU. The results are discussed in greater 
detail in a separate report that is available for public review and 
comment (NMFS, 2005c). We have determined that these exclusions, 
together with the other exclusions described in this rule, will not 
result in extinction of the species (NMFS, 2005c).

VI. Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating approximately 20,630 mi (33,201 km) of lake, 
riverine, and estuarine habitat in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and 
2,312 mi (3,721 km) of nearshore marine habitat in Puget Sound within 
the geographical areas presently occupied by the 12 ESUs. Some of the 
areas designated overlap with two or more ESUs (Table 12), and 
approximately 906 mi (1,458 km) overlap with Indian lands. Some of 
these areas also overlap with military lands (described in the Military 
Lands section), which are not designated either because they are 
subject to INRMPs that benefit listed species (NMFS, 2005f) or were 
determined to have national security impacts that outweigh the benefit 
of designation. The annual net economic impacts (coextensive with ESA 
section 7) associated with the areas designated for all ESUs are 
estimated to be approximately $201.2 million.

[[Page 52673]]

          Table 12.--Approximate Quantity of Habitat* and Ownership Within Watersheds Containing Habitat Areas Designated as Critical Habitat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Nearshore                  Ownership  (percent)
                             ESU                                Streams     Lakes  (sq   Marine  (m) ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               (mi)  (km)  mi)  (sq km)      (km)       Federal       Tribal       State       Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound, Chinook Salmon.................................        1,683          41          2,182         46.4          1.0         10.0         42.6
                                                                    2,709         106          3,512
Lower Columbia, River Chinook, Salmon.......................        1,311          33    ...........         37.3          0.0          8.0         54.7
                                                                    2,110          85.5
Upper Willamette, River Chinook, Salmon.....................        1,472          18    ...........         38.6          0.4          0.9         60.1
                                                                    2,369          46.6
Upper Columbia, River Spring-run, Chinook Salmon............          974           4    ...........         53.4          0.0          7.3         39.2
                                                                    1,568          10.4
Hood Canal, Summer-run Chum, Salmon.........................           79  ............          377         49.1          0.7         11.9         37.6
                                                                      127  ............          607
Columbia River, Chum Salmon.................................          708  ............  ...........         15.8          0.0         14.0         69.8
                                                                    1,139
Ozette Lake, Sockeye Salmon.................................           42          12    ...........         19.0          1.2          7.0         71.5
                                                                       68          31
Upper Columbia, River Steelhead.............................        1,262           7    ...........         45.3          5.7          8.3         40.7
                                                                    2,031          18.1
Snake River Basin, Steelhead................................        8,049           4    ...........         65.7          3.9          2.1         28.3
                                                                   12,954          10
Middle Columbia, River Steelhead............................        5,815  ............  ...........         26.0         13.2          3.7         57.1
                                                                    9,358
Lower Columbia, River Steelhead.............................        2,324          27    ...........         44.5          0.5          5.9         49.2
                                                                    3,740          70
Upper Willamette, River Steelhead...........................        1,276           2    ...........          9.7          0.3          1.9        88.1
                                                                    2,054           5.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These estimates are the total amount for each ESU. They do not account for overlapping areas (e.g., the Columbia River corridor) designated for
  multiple ESUs.

    These areas designated, summarized below by ESU, are either (1) 
occupied and contain physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations or protection, or (2) are not presently occupied but are 
considered essential for the conservation of the species.

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon

    There are 61 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Twelve 
watersheds received a low rating, 9 received a medium rating, and 40 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
Nineteen nearshore marine areas also received a rating of high 
conservation value.
    Habitat areas for this ESU include 2,216 mi (3,566 km) of stream 
and 2,376 mi (3,824 km) of nearshore marine areas. Of these, 19 stream 
miles (31 km) and 48 nearshore miles (175 km) are not being designated 
because they are within lands controlled by the military that contain 
qualifying INRMPs or they would result in national security impacts 
that outweigh the benefits of designation. Fifty-two miles (85 km) of 
stream and 146 mi (237 km) of nearshore marine areas are being excluded 
because they overlap with Indian lands (see Government-to-Government 
Relationship With Tribes). Also, we are excluding approximately 98 
miles (158 km) of stream covered by two HCPs because the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 13. Of the habitat areas eligible for designation, 
approximately 377 stream miles (606 km) are being excluded because the 
economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. 
Total potential estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be 
$93.2 million. The exclusions identified in Table 13 would reduce the 
total estimated economic impact to $71.3 million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 13.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Puget
       Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1711000201....................  Bellingham Bay........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711000202....................  Samish River..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711000204....................  Birch Bay.............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711000401....................  Upper North Fork        WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Nooksack River.
1711000402....................  Middle Fork Nooksack    WDNR HCP lands.
                                 River.
1711000403....................  South Fork Nooksack     WDNR HCP lands,
                                 River.                  Indian lands.
1711000404....................  Lower North Fork        WDNR HCP lands,
                                 Nooksack River.         Indian lands.
1711000405....................  Nooksack River........  Indian lands.

[[Page 52674]]

1711000506....................  Cascade River.........  WDNR HCP lands.
1711000507....................  Skagit River/Illabot    WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Creek.
1711000508....................  Baker River...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711000603....................  Lower Suiattle River..  WDNR HCP lands.
1711000604....................  Lower Sauk River......  WDNR HCP lands,
                                                         Indian lands.
1711000701....................  Middle Skagit River/    WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Finney Creek.
1711000702....................  Lower Skagit River/     WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Nookachamps Creek.
1711000801....................  North Fork              WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Stillaguamish River.
1711000802....................  South Fork              DOD lands, WDNR
                                 Stillagaumish River.    HCP lands.
1711000901....................  Tye and Beckler Rivers  WDNR HCP lands.
1711000903....................  Skykomish River/        WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Wallace River.
1711000904....................  Sultan River..........  WDNR HCP lands.
1711000905....................  Skykomish River/Woods   WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Creek.
1711001003....................  Middle Fork Snoqualmie  WDNR HCP lands.
                                 River.
1711001004....................  Lower Snoqualmie River  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001101....................  Pilchuck River........  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001102....................  Snohomish River.......  Indian lands.
1711001202....................  Lake Sammamish........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001203....................  Lake Washington.......  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1711001204....................  Sammamish River.......  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001301....................  Upper Green River.....  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001302....................  Middle Green River....  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001303....................  Lower Green River.....  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001401....................  Upper White River.....  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001402....................  Lower White River.....  Indian lands.
1711001405....................  Lower Puyallup River..  Indian lands.
1711001503....................  Lowland...............  DOD lands,
                                                         Indian lands.
1711001601....................  Prairie...............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001602....................  Prairie...............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001701....................  Skokomish River.......  WDNR HCP lands,
                                                         Green Diamond
                                                         HCP lands,
                                                         Indian lands.
1711001802....................  Lower West Hood Canal   Entire
                                 Frontal.                watershed.
1711001804....................  Duckabush River.......  WDNR HCP lands.
1711001806....................  Big Quilcene River....  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001808....................  West Kitsap...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001900....................  Kennedy/Goldsborough..  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001901....................  Puget.................  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001902....................  Prairie...............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711001904....................  Puget Sound/East        Entire
                                 Passage.                watershed.
1711002003....................  Dungeness River.......  WDNR HCP lands.
1711002004....................  Port Angeles Harbor...  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1711002007....................  Elwha River...........  Indian lands.
N01...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   Indian lands.
                                 #1.
N03...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   Indian lands.
                                 #3.
N04...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   Indian lands.
                                 #4.
N05...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands.
                                 #5.
N06...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands,
                                 #6.             Indian lands.
N09...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands,
                                 #9.             Indian lands.
N11...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands.
                                 #11.
N13...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   Indian lands.
                                 #13.
N14...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands,
                                 #14.            Indian lands.
N15...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands,
                                 #15.            Indian lands.
N17...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   Indian lands.
                                 #17.
N18...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands.
                                 #18.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

    There are 48 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Four 
watersheds received a low rating, 13 received a medium rating, and 31 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The lower Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the 
spawning range is considered to have a high conservation value and is 
the only habitat area designated in one of the high value watersheds.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 14. Of the 1,655 miles (2,663 km) of habitat areas 
eligible for designation, approximately 228 stream miles (367 km) are 
being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding approximately 162 miles 
(261 km) of stream covered by one HCP because the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential estimated 
economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $37.6 million. The 
exclusions identified in Table 14 would reduce the total estimated 
economic impact to $28.2 million (NMFS, 2005c).

[[Page 52675]]

   Table 14.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Lower
  Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1707010510....................  Little White Salmon     Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1707010511....................  Wind River............  WDNR HCP lands.
1707010512....................  Middle Columbia/Grays   Tributaries
                                 Creek.                  only.
1708000106....................  Washougal River.......  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000109....................  Salmon Creek..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1708000302....................  Beaver Creek/Columbia   Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1708000304....................  Germany/Abernathy.....  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1708000305....................  Skamokawa/Elochoman...  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000403....................  Cowlitz Valley Frontal  WDNR and West
                                                         Fork Timber.
                                                        Company HCP
                                                         lands.
1708000501....................  Tilton River..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1708000504....................  North Fork Toutle       Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1708000506....................  South Fork Toutle       WDNR HCP lands.
                                 River.
1708000507....................  East Willapa..........  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000601....................  Youngs River..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1708000603....................  Grays Bay.............  WDNR HCP lands.
1709000704....................  Abernethy Creek.......  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709001105....................  Eagle Creek...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU

    There are 60 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Nineteen 
watersheds received a low rating, 18 received a medium rating, and 23 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The lower Willamette/Columbia River rearing/migration corridor 
downstream of the spawning range is also considered to have a high 
conservation value and is the only habitat designated in four of the 
high value watersheds.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 15. Of the 1,796 miles (2,890 km) of habitat areas 
eligible for designation, approximately 324 stream miles (521 km) are 
being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact, 
with no exclusions, would be $32.2 million. The exclusions identified 
in Table 15 would reduce the total estimated economic impact to $25.6 
million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 15.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Upper
 Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1709000104....................  Salmon Creek..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000201....................  Row River.............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000202....................  Mosby Creek...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000203....................  Upper Coast Fork        Entire
                                 Willamette River.       watershed.
1709000205....................  Lower Coast Fork        Entire
                                 Willamette River.       watershed.
1709000301....................  Long Tom River........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000302....................  Muddy Creek...........  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1709000304....................  Oak Creek.............  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1709000404....................  Blue River............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000406....................  Mohawk River..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000701....................  Mill Creek/Willamette   Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1709000702....................  Rickreall Creek.......  Tributaries
                                                         only.
0709000703....................  Willamette River/       Tributaries
                                 Chehalem Creek.         only.
1709000704....................  Abernethy Creek.......  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1709000804....................  Lower South Yamhill     Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1709000805....................  Salt Creek/South        Entire
                                 Yamhill River.          watershed.
1709000806....................  North Yamhill River...  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000807....................  Yamhill River.........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000901....................  Abiqua Creek/Pudding    Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1709000902....................  Butter Creek/Pudding    Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1709000903....................  Rock Creek/Pudding      Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1709000904....................  Senecal Creek/Mill      Tributaries
                                 Creek.                  only.
1709001105....................  Eagle Creek...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU

    There are 31 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Five 
watersheds received a medium rating and 26 received a high rating of 
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). The Columbia River 
rearing/migration corridor downstream of the spawning range is 
considered to have a high conservation value and is the only habitat 
area designated in 15 of the high value watersheds identified above.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above,

[[Page 52676]]

the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat areas shown 
in Table 16. Of the 1,002 miles (1,613 km) of habitat areas eligible 
for designation, approximately 28 stream miles (45 km) are being 
excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact, 
with no exclusions, would be $17.6 million. The exclusions identified 
in Table 16 would reduce the total estimated economic impact to $14.2 
million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 16.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Upper
 Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical
                                 Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1702000807....................  Lower Methow River....  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1702001002....................  Lake Entiat...........  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1702001104....................  Icicle/Chumstick......  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1702001105....................  Lower Wenatchee River.  Tributaries
                                                         only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU

    There are 12 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Three 
watersheds received a medium rating and nine received a high rating of 
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). Five nearshore marine 
areas also received a rating of high conservation value.
    Habitat areas for this ESU include 88 mi (142 km) of stream and 402 
mi (647 km) of nearshore marine areas. Of these, 16 nearshore miles (26 
km) are not being designated because they are within lands controlled 
by the military that contain qualifying INRMPs or they would result in 
national security impacts that outweigh the benefits of designation. 
Four miles (6 km) of stream and 9 mi (14 km) of nearshore marine areas 
are being excluded because they overlap with Indian lands (see 
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes). Also, we are 
excluding approximately 5 miles (8 km) of stream covered by one HCP 
because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 17. Total potential estimated economic impact, 
with no exclusions, would be $7.1 million. The exclusions identified in 
Table 17 would reduce the total estimated economic impact to $6.8 
million (NMFS, 2005c).

Table 17.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Hood Canal
      Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1711001701....................  Skokomish River.......  Indian lands.
1711001802....................  Lower West Hood Canal   WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Frontal.
1711001808....................  West Kitsap...........  WDNR HCP lands.
1711002003....................  Dungeness River.......  WDNR HCP lands.
N15...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands,
                                 #15.            Indian lands.
N17...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   Indian lands.
                                 #17.
N18...........................  Nearshore Marine Area   DOD lands.
                                 #18.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU

    There are 20 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Three 
watersheds received a medium rating and 17 received a high rating of 
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). The lower Columbia River 
rearing/migration corridor downstream of the spawning range is 
considered to have a high conservation value and is the only habitat 
area designated in one of the high value watersheds identified above.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 18. Of the 725 miles (1,167 km) of habitat areas 
eligible for designation, approximately 3 stream miles (5 km) are being 
excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding approximately 4 miles 
(6 km) of stream covered by one HCP because the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential estimated 
economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $17.1 million. The 
exclusions identified in Table 18 would reduce the total estimated 
economic impact to $16.5 million (NMFS, 2005c).

 Table 18.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Columbia
        River Chum Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1708000106....................  Washougal River.......  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000305....................  Skamokawa/Elochoman...  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000504....................  North Fork Toutle       Entire
                                 River.                  Watershed.
1708000505....................  Green River...........  Entire
                                                         Watershed.
1708000507....................  East Willapa..........  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000603....................  Grays Bay.............  WDNR HCP lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 52677]]

Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon ESU

    There is one watershed supporting the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU and 
it was rated as having a high conservation value (NMFS, 2005a). As a 
result of the balancing process described above, no habitat is being 
excluded due to economic impacts. However, we are excluding 
approximately < 1 mile (1.6 km) of stream because it overlaps with 
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes). 
Also, we are excluding approximately 2 miles (3 km) of stream covered 
by one HCP because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
designation. Total potential estimated economic impact, with no 
exclusions, would be $2.7 thousand. The exclusions identified in Table 
19 would not reduce the total estimated economic impact (NMFS, 2005c).

  Table 19.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Ozette
       Lake Sockeye Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1710010102....................  Hoh/Quillayute........  WDNR HCP lands,
                                                         Indian Lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU

    There are 42 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Three 
watersheds received a low rating, 8 received a medium rating, and 31 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the 
spawning range is considered to have a high conservation value and is 
the only habitat area designated in 11 of the high value watersheds 
identified above.
    Habitat areas for this ESU include 1,332 miles (2,144 km) of 
stream. Of these, 10 stream miles (17 km) are not being designated 
because they are within lands controlled by the military that contain 
qualifying INRMPs or they would result in national security impacts 
that outweigh the benefits of designation. Approximately 6 stream miles 
(10 km) are being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding 
approximately 54 miles (87 km) of stream because they overlap with 
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes).
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 20. Total potential estimated economic impact, 
with no exclusions, would be $27.1 million. The exclusions identified 
in Table 20 would reduce the total estimated economic impact to $20.7 
million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 20.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Upper
     Columbia River Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1702000503....................  Foster Creek..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1702000504....................  Jordan/Tumwater.......  Indian lands.
1702000505....................  Upper Columbia/Swamp    Indian lands.
                                 Creek.
1702000603....................  Salmon Creek..........  Indian lands.
1702000604....................  Okanogan River/Omak     Indian lands.
                                 Creek.
1702000605....................  Lower Okanogan River..  Indian lands.
1702000903....................  Lower Chelan..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1702001002....................  Lake Entiat...........  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1702001004....................  Columbia River/Sand     DOD lands.
                                 Hollow.
1702001204....................  Rattlesnake Creek.....  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1702001604....................  Yakima River/Hanson     DOD lands.
                                 Creek.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snake River Basin Steelhead ESU

    There are 289 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Fourteen 
watersheds received a low rating, 44 received a medium rating, and 231 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The lower Snake/Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of 
the spawning range is considered to have a high conservation value and 
is the only habitat area designated in 15 of the high value watersheds 
identified above.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 21. Of the 8,225 miles (13,237 km) of habitat 
areas eligible for designation, approximately 134 miles (216 km) of 
stream are being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding 
approximately 39 miles (63 km) of stream because they overlap with 
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes). 
Total potential estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be 
$30.0 million. The exclusions identified in Table 21 would reduce the 
total estimated economic impact to $29.2 million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 21.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Snake
         River Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1706010402....................  Meadow Creek..........  Indian lands.
1706010704....................  Flat Creek............  Entire
                                                         watershed.

[[Page 52678]]

1706010705....................  Pataha Creek..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706010808....................  Lower Palouse River...  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706020107....................  Road Creek............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706020202....................  Pahsimeroi River/Falls  Entire
                                 Creek.                  watershed.
1706020319....................  Napias Creek..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706020404....................  Agency Creek..........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706020707....................  Big Mallard Creek.....  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706020904....................  Salmon River/           Indian lands.
                                 Cottonwood Creek.
1706020917....................  Rice Creek............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706030401....................  Middle Fork Clearwater  Indian lands.
                                 River/Maggie Creek.
1706030402....................  Clear Creek...........  Indian lands.
1706030501....................  Lower South Fork        Indian lands.
                                 Clearwater River.
1706030503....................  South Fork Clearwater   Tributaries
                                 River/Peasley Creek.    only.
1706030512....................  Three Mile Creek......  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706030513....................  Cottonwood Creek......  Indian lands.
1706030601....................  Lower Clearwater River  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1706030602....................  Clearwater River/Lower  Indian lands.
                                 Potlatch River.
1706030603....................  Potlatch River/Middle   Indian lands.
                                 Potlatch Creek.
1706030608....................  Clearwater River/       Indian lands.
                                 Bedrock Creek.
1706030610....................  Big Canyon Creek......  Indian lands.
1706030613....................  Upper Orofino Creek...  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1706030614....................  Jim Ford Creek........  Indian lands.
1706030620....................  Clearwater River/       Indian lands.
                                 Fivemile Creek.
1706030621....................  Clearwater River/       Indian lands.
                                 Sixmile Creek.
1706030622....................  Clearwater River/Tom    Indian lands.
                                 Taha Creek.
1706030623....................  Lower Lawyer Creek....  Indian lands.
1706030627....................  Cottonwood Creek......  Indian lands.
1706030628....................  Upper Lapwai Creek....  Indian lands.
1706030629....................  Mission Creek.........  Indian lands.
1706030630....................  Upper Sweetwater Creek  Indian lands.
1706030631....................  Lower Sweetwater Creek  Indian lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU

    There are 114 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Nine 
watersheds received a low rating, 24 received a medium rating, and 81 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The lower Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the 
spawning range is considered to have a high conservation value and is 
the only habitat area designated in three of the high value watersheds 
identified above.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 22. Of the 6,529 miles (10,507 km) of habitat 
areas eligible for designation, approximately 115 miles (185 km) of 
stream are being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding 
approximately 599 miles (964 km) of stream because they overlap with 
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes). 
Total potential estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be 
$43.1 million. The exclusions identified in Table 22 would reduce the 
total estimated economic impact to $38.4 million (NMFS, 2005c).

  Table 22.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Middle
     Columbia River Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1703000301....................  Ahtanum Creek.........  Indian lands.
1703000303....................  Upper Toppenish Creek.  Indian lands.
1703000304....................  Lower Toppenish Creek.  Indian lands.
1703000305....................  Satus Creek...........  Indian lands.
1703000306....................  Yakima River/Spring     Indian lands.
                                 Creek.
1707010209....................  Pine Creek............  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1707010211....................  Lower Walla Walla       Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1707010301....................  Upper Umatilla River..  Indian lands.
1707010302....................  Meacham Creek.........  Indian lands.
1707010303....................  Umatilla River/Mission  Indian lands.
                                 Creek.
1707010304....................  Wildhorse Creek.......  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1707010308....................  Stage Gulch...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1707010310....................  Lower Butter Creek....  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1707010502....................  Fifteenmile Creek.....  Indian lands.
1707010510....................  Little White Salmon     Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1707010512....................  Middle Columbia/Grays   Tributaries only
                                 Creek.
1707010601....................  Upper Klickitat River.  Indian lands.


[[Continued on page 52679]]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]]
 
[[pp. 52679-52728]]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon 
and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

[[Continued from page 52678]]

[[Page 52679]]

1707010602....................  Middle Klickitat River  Indian lands.
1707020305....................  Lower Middle Fork John  Tributaries
                                 Day River.              only.
1707020405....................  Lower John Day River/   Tributaries
                                 Clarno.                 only.
1707020410....................  Lower John Day River/   Indian lands.
                                 Scott Canyon.
1707020414....................  Lower John Day River/   Indian lands.
                                 McDonald Ferry.
1707030603....................  Upper Deschutes River.  Indian lands.
1707030604....................  Mill Creek............  Indian lands.
1707030605....................  Beaver Creek..........  Indian lands.
1707030606....................  Warm Springs River....  Indian lands.
1707030607....................  Middle Deschutes River  Indian lands.
1707030610....................  White River...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1707030704....................  Mud Springs Creek.....  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1707030705....................  Lower Trout Creek.....  Indian lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU

    There are 32 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Two 
watersheds received a low rating, 11 received a medium rating, and 29 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The lower Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the 
spawning range is considered to have a high conservation value and is 
the only habitat area designated in one of the high value watersheds 
identified above.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 23. Of the 2,673 miles (4,302 km) of habitat areas 
eligible for designation, approximately 227 stream miles (365 km) are 
being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding approximately 110 miles 
(177 km) of stream covered by one HCP because the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential estimated 
economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $36.6 million. The 
exclusions identified in Table 23 would reduce the total estimated 
economic impact to $29.3 million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 23.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Lower
     Columbia River Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1707010511....................  Wind River............  WDNR HCP lands.
1707010512....................  Middle Columbia/Grays   Tributaries
                                 Creek.                  only.
1707010513....................  Middle Columbia/Eagle   WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Creek.
1708000105....................  Bull Run River........  Entire watershed
1708000106....................  Washougal River.......  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000107....................  Columbia Gorge          WDNR HCP lands.
                                 Tributaries.
1708000109....................  Salmon Creek..........  Entire
                                                         Watershed.
1708000205....................  East Fork Lewis River.  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000206....................  Lower Lewis River.....  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000301....................  Kalama River..........  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000402....................  Upper Cowlitz River...  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000403....................  Cowlitz Valley Frontal  WDNR HCP and
                                                         West Fork
                                                         Timber Company
                                                         lands.
1708000501....................  Tilton River..........  Entire
                                                         Watershed.
1708000503....................  Jackson Prairie.......  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000504....................  North Fork Toutle       WDNR HCP lands.
                                 River.
1708000505....................  Green River...........  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000506....................  South Fork Toutle       WDNR HCP lands.
                                 River.
1708000507....................  East Willapa..........  WDNR HCP lands.
1708000508....................  Coweeman..............  WDNR HCP lands.
1709000704....................  Abernethy Creek.......  Entire
                                                         Watershed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU

    There are 38 watersheds within the range of this ESU. Seventeen 
watersheds received a low rating, 6 received a medium rating, and 15 
received a high rating of conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). 
The lower Willamette/Columbia River rearing/migration corridor 
downstream of the spawning range is also considered to have a high 
conservation value and is the only habitat area designated in four of 
the high value watersheds identified above.
    As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described 
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat 
areas shown in Table 24. Of the 1,830 miles (2,945 km) of habitat areas 
eligible for designation, approximately 545 stream miles (877 km) are 
being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding approximately 11 miles 
(18 km) of stream because they overlap with Indian lands. (see 
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes). Total potential 
estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $15.2 million. 
The exclusions identified in Table 24 would reduce the total

[[Page 52680]]

estimated economic impact to $10.7 million (NMFS, 2005c).

   Table 24.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Upper
    Willamette River Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Watershed code              Watershed name        Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1709000701....................  Mill Creek/Willamette   Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1709000702....................  Rickreall Creek.......  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1709000703....................  Willamette River/       Tributaries
                                 Chehalem Creek.         only.
1709000704....................  Abernethy Creek.......  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1709000801....................  Upper South Yamhill     Indian lands.
                                 River.
1709000802....................  Willamina Creek.......  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000803....................  Mill Creek/South        Entire
                                 Yamhill River.          watershed.
1709000804....................  Lower South Yamhill     Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1709000805....................  Salt Creek/South        Entire
                                 Yamhill River.          watershed.
1709000806....................  North Yamhill River...  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709000807....................  Yamhill River.........  Tributaries
                                                         only.
1709000902....................  Butte Creek/Pudding     Tributaries
                                 River.                  only.
1709000903....................  Rock Creek/Pudding      Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1709000904....................  Senecal Creek/Mill      Tributaries
                                 Creek.                  only.
1709001001....................  Dairy Creek...........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709001003....................  Scoggins Creek........  Entire
                                                         watershed.
1709001004....................  Rock Creek/Tualatin     Entire
                                 River.                  watershed.
1709001005....................  Lower Tualatin River..  Entire
                                                         watershed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

ESA Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including NMFS, 
to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed 
or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing 
this provision of the ESA are codified at 50 CFR 402. Section 7(a)(4) 
of the ESA requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action 
that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation 
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may 
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a 
conference report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion that is prepared 
according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species were listed or critical 
habitat designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the 
biological opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat 
designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action 
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, ESA 
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we 
would review actions to determine if they would destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat.
    If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we will also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to 
the project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions 
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent 
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and 
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and 
that we believe would avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from 
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent 
alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect these ESUs or their 
critical habitat will require ESA section 7 consultation. Activities on 
private or state lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such 
as a permit from the COE under section 404 of the CWA, a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit from NMFS, or some other Federal action, including 
funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration (FHA) or Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding), will also be subject to 
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal and 
private lands that are not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted 
do not require section 7 consultation.

Activities Affected by Critical Habitat Designation

    Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that we evaluate briefly and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. A wide 
variety of activities may affect critical habitat and, when carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, require that an ESA

[[Page 52681]]

section 7 consultation be conducted. Generally these include water and 
land management actions of Federal agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM, COE, BOR, 
the FHA, NRCS, National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) and related 
or similar actions of other Federally regulated projects and lands, 
including livestock grazing allotments by the USFS and BLM; hydropower 
sites licensed by the FERC; dams built or operated by the COE or BOR; 
timber sales and other vegetation management activities conducted by 
the USFS, BLM, and BIA; irrigation diversions authorized by the USFS 
and BLM; road building and maintenance activities authorized by the 
FHA, USFS, BLM, NPS, and BIA; and mining and road building/maintenance 
activities authorized by the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. 
Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, diking, and 
bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the COE, 
habitat modifications authorized by the FEMA, and approval of water 
quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions 
administered by the EPA.
    The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this 
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, COE, FHA, 
NRCS, NPS, BIA, FEMA, EPA, and the FERC. This designation will provide 
these agencies, private entities, and the public with clear 
notification of critical habitat designated for listed salmonids and 
the boundaries of the habitat. This designation will also assist these 
agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of their 
activities on listed salmon and their critical habitat and in 
determining if ESA section 7 consultation with NMFS is needed.
    As noted above, numerous private entities also may be affected by 
this critical habitat designation because of the direct and indirect 
linkages to an array of Federal actions, including Federal projects, 
permits, and funding. For example, private entities may harvest timber 
or graze livestock on Federal land or have special use permits to 
convey water or build access roads across Federal land; they may 
require Federal permits to armor stream banks, construct irrigation 
withdrawal facilities, or build or repair docks; they may obtain water 
from Federally funded and operated irrigation projects; or they may 
apply pesticides that are only available with Federal agency approval. 
These activities will need to be analyzed with respect to their 
potential to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In some 
cases, proposed activities may require modifications that may result in 
decreases in activities such as timber harvest and livestock and crop 
production. The transportation and utilities sectors may need to modify 
the placement of culverts, bridges and utility conveyances (e.g., 
water, sewer and power lines) to avoid barriers to fish migration. 
Developments occurring in or near salmon streams (e.g., marinas, 
residential, or industrial facilities) that require Federal 
authorization or funding may need to be altered or built in a manner 
that ensures that critical habitat is not destroyed or adversely 
modified as a result of the construction, or subsequent operation, of 
the facility. These are just a few examples of potential impacts, but 
it is clear that the effects will encompass numerous sectors of private 
and public activities. If you have questions regarding whether specific 
activities will constitute destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat, contact NMFS (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

VIII. Required Determinations

Administrative Procedure Act

    This rulemaking covers over 20,000 miles of streams across three 
states. Unlike the previous critical habitat designations it contains 
several thousand geographic points identifying the extent of the 
designations. The proposed rule generated substantial public interest. 
In addition to comments received during four public hearings we 
received a total of 5,230 written comments (5,111 of these in the form 
of email with nearly identical language). Many commenters expressed 
concerns about how the rule would be implemented. Additionally, our 
experience in implementing the 2000 critical habitat designations 
suggests that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and critical 
habitat regulations' minimum 30-day delay in effective date nor the 60-
day delay required by the Congressional Review Act for a ``major rule'' 
such as this are sufficient for this rule. In view of the geographic 
scope of this rule, our prior experience with a rule of this scope, the 
current level of public interest in this rule, and in order to provide 
for efficient administration of the rule once effective, we are 
providing a 120-day delay in effective date. As a result this rule will 
be effective on January 2, 2006. This will allow us the necessary time 
to provide for outreach to and interaction with the public, to minimize 
confusion and educate the public about activities that may be affected 
by the rule, and to work with Federal agencies and applicants to 
provide for an orderly transition in implementing the rule.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule 
and has been reviewed by the OMB. As noted above, we have prepared 
several reports to support the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) 
of the ESA. The economic costs of the critical habitat designations are 
described in our economic report (NMFS, 2005d). The benefits of the 
designations are described in the CHART report (NMFS, 2005a) and the 
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005c). The CHART report uses a biologically-
based ranking system for gauging the benefits of applying section 7 of 
the ESA to particular watersheds. Because data are not available to 
express these benefits in monetary terms, we have adopted a cost-
effectiveness framework, as outlined in the 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 
2005c). This approach is in accord with OMB's guidance on regulatory 
analysis (U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4, 
Regulatory Analysis, September 17, 2003). By taking this approach, we 
seek to designate sufficient critical habitat to meet the biological 
goal of the ESA while imposing the least burden on society, as called 
for by E.O. 12866.
    In assessing the overall cost of critical habitat designation for 
the 12 salmon and steelhead ESUs addressed in this rule, the annual 
total impact figures given in the final economic analysis (NMFS, 2005d) 
cannot be added together to obtain an aggregate annual impact. Because 
some watersheds are included in more than one ESU, a simple summation 
would entail duplication, resulting in an overestimate. Accounting for 
this duplication, the aggregate annual coextensive economic impact of 
the 12 critical habitat designations is $201.7 million (in contrast to 
a $243.6 million aggregate annual economic impact from designating all 
areas considered in the 4(b)(2) process for these ESUs). These amounts 
include impacts that are coextensive with the implementation of the 
jeopardy requirement of section 7 (NMFS, 2005d).
    In addition, there are approximately $500-700 million in annual 
costs related to salmon and steelhead conservation borne by the FCRPS 
and other major hydropower projects in the Pacific Northwest. The 
proportion of these costs attributable to ESA section 7 implementation 
is unknown, but the share of incremental costs from critical habitat 
designation alone is unlikely to be significant.

[[Page 52682]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
We have prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis, and this 
document is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). This analysis 
estimates that the number of regulated small entities potentially 
affected by this rulemaking ranges from zero to 2,945 depending on the 
ESU. The estimated coextensive costs of section 7 consultation incurred 
by small entities is estimated to range from $2,375 to $59.4 million 
depending on the ESU. As described in the analysis, we considered 
various alternatives for designating critical habitat for these 12 
ESUs. We considered and rejected the alternative of not designating 
critical habitat for any of the ESUs because such an approach did not 
meet the legal requirements of the ESA. We also examined and rejected 
an alternative in which all the potential critical habitat of the 12 
salmon and steelhead ESUs is designated (i.e., no areas are excluded) 
because many of the areas considered to have a low conservation value 
also had relatively high economic impacts that might be mitigated by 
excluding those areas from designation. A third alternative we examined 
and rejected would exclude all habitat areas with a low or medium 
conservation value. While this alternative furthers the goal of 
reducing economic impacts, we could not make a determination that the 
benefits of excluding all habitat areas with low and medium 
conservation value outweighed the benefits of designation. Moreover, 
for some habitat areas the incremental economic benefit from excluding 
that area is relatively small. Therefore, after considering these 
alternatives in the context of the section 4(b)(2) process of weighing 
benefits of exclusion against benefits of designation, we determined 
that the current approach to designation (i.e., designating some but 
not all areas with low or medium conservation value) provides an 
appropriate balance of conservation and economic mitigation and that 
excluding the areas identified in this rulemaking would not result in 
extinction of the ESUs. It is estimated that small entities will save 
from zero to $18.0 million in compliance costs, depending on the ESU, 
due to the exclusions made in these final designations.
    As noted above, we will continue to study alternative approaches in 
future rulemakings designating critical habitat. As part of that 
assessment, we will examine alternative methods for analyzing the 
economic impacts of designation on small business entities, which will 
inform our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as well as our analysis 
under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA.

E.O. 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.) on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule may be a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. We have determined, 
however, that the energy effects of the regulatory action are unlikely 
to exceed the energy impact thresholds identified in E.O. 13211.
    In the final rule we note that nine of the ESUs addressed in these 
critical habitat designations occupy the Columbia River and four of 
these migrate through one or more of the hydropower dams comprising the 
FCRPS, as well as through other major hydropower projects on the 
Columbia River. While the annual impacts of salmon and steelhead 
conservation measures on these projects is in the range of $500-700 
million, the proper focus under E.O. 13211 is on the incremental 
impacts of critical habitat designation. The available data do not 
allow us to separate precisely these incremental impacts from the 
impacts of all conservation measures on energy production and costs. 
There is historical evidence, however, that the ESA section 7 jeopardy 
standard alone is capable of imposing all of these costs (NMFS, 2005h). 
While this evidence is indirect, it is sufficient to draw the 
conclusion that the designation of critical habitat for the 12 West 
Coast salmon and steelhead ESUs does not significantly affect energy 
supply, distribution, or use.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the 
following findings:
    (a) This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, 
a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon state, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding'' and the state, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.'' The designation of critical habitat does 
not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or 
private parties. Under the ESA, the only regulatory effect is that 
Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal 
entities who receive Federal funding, assistance, permits or otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement

[[Page 52683]]

programs listed above to state governments.
    (b) Due to current public knowledge of salmon protection and the 
prohibition against take of these species both within and outside of 
the designated areas, we do not anticipate that this final rule will 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. The designation of critical habitat affects only Federal 
agency actions. This final rule will not increase or decrease the 
current restrictions on private property concerning take of salmon. As 
noted above, due to widespread public knowledge of salmon protection 
and the prohibition against take of the species both within and outside 
of the designated areas, we do not anticipate that property values will 
be affected by these critical habitat designations. While real estate 
market values may temporarily decline following designation, due to the 
perception that critical habitat designation may impose additional 
regulatory burdens on land use, we expect any such impacts to be short 
term (NMFS, 2005d). Additionally, critical habitat designation does not 
preclude development of HCPs and issuance of incidental take permits. 
Owners of areas that are included in the designated critical habitat 
will continue to have the opportunity to use their property in ways 
consistent with the survival of listed salmon.

Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of Commerce policies, we requested 
information from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat 
designation with appropriate state resource agencies in Washington, 
Oregon, and Idaho. These designations may have some benefit to the 
states and local resource agencies in that the areas essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the PCEs of 
the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are specifically 
identified. While making these clarifications does not alter where and 
what Federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    One commenter asserted that we failed to properly conduct and 
provide a Civil Justice Reform analysis pursuant to E.O. 12988, the 
Department of Commerce has determined that this final rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the ESA. This final rule 
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of the 12 salmon and steelhead ESUs.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This final rule does not contain new or revised information 
collection for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. This final rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on state or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we need not prepare environmental analyses 
as provided for under the NEPA of 1969 for critical habitat 
designations made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 
48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    As a means of recognizing the responsibilities and relationship 
between the United States and Indian tribes, the Secretaries of 
Commerce and Interior issued the June 5, 1997, Secretarial Order 
entitled ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (Secretarial Order). 
The Secretarial Order clarifies the responsibilities of NMFS and the 
USFWS when carrying out authorities under the ESA and requires that 
they consult with, and seek participation of, the affected Indian 
tribes to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretarial Order further 
provides that the Services * * * ``shall consult with the affected 
Indian tribe(s) when considering the designation of critical habitat in 
an area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee 
lands, or the exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve 
a listed species.'' Pursuant to the Secretarial Order and in response 
to written and verbal comments provided by various tribes in 
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, we met and corresponded with many of the 
affected tribes concerning the inclusion of Indian lands in final 
critical habitat designations. These discussions resulted in 
significant clarifications regarding the tribes' general position to 
exclude their lands, as well as specific issues regarding our 
interpretation of Indian lands under the Secretarial Order.
    As described above (see Exclusions Based on Impacts to Tribes) and 
in our assessment of Indian lands associated with this final rulemaking 
(NMFS, 2005g), we have determined that Indian lands should be excluded 
from the final critical habitat designations for these 12 ESUs of 
salmon and steelhead. The Indian lands specifically excluded from 
critical habitat are those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: 
(1) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any 
Indian tribe; (2) land held in trust by the United States for any 
Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United States 
against alienation; (3) fee lands, either within or outside the 
reservation boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and (4) fee 
lands within the reservation boundaries owned by individual Indians. We 
have determined that these exclusions, together with the other 
exclusions described in this rule, will not result in extinction of the 
species (NMFS, 2005c).

IX. References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be 
found on our website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/
crithab/CHsite.htm  and is available upon request from the NMFS office 
in Portland, OR (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species.

    Dated: August 12, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

? For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend part 226, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 226-[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

[[Page 52684]]

? 2. Add Sec.  226.212 to read as follows:

Sec.  226.212  Critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units 
(ESUs) of salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Washington, 
Oregon and Idaho.

    Critical habitat is designated in the following states and counties 
for the following ESUs as described in paragraph (a) of this section, 
and as further described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. 
The textual descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU are included 
in paragraphs (i) through (t) of this section, and these descriptions 
are the definitive source for determining the critical habitat 
boundaries. General location maps are provided at the end of each ESU 
description (paragraphs (i) through (t) of this section) and are 
provided for general guidance purposes only, and not as a definitive 
source for determining critical habitat boundaries.
    (a) Critical habitat is designated for the following ESUs in the 
following states and counties:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ESU                            State--Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Puget Sound chinook salmon.........  WA--Clallam, Jefferson, King,
                                          Mason, Pierce, Skagit,
                                          Snohomish, Thurston, and
                                          Whatcom.
(2) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon  (i) OR--Clackamas, Clatsop,
                                          Columbia, Hood River, and
                                          Multnomah.
                                         (ii) WA--Clark, Cowlitz,
                                          Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific,
                                          Skamania, and Wahkiakum.
(3) Upper Willamette River chinook       (i) OR--Benton, Clackamas,
 salmon.                                  Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Linn,
                                          Marion, Multnomah, Polk, and
                                          Yamhill.
                                         (ii) WA--Clark, Cowlitz,
                                          Pacific, and Wahkiakum.
(4) Upper Columbia River spring-run      (i) OR--Clatsop, Columbia,
 chinook salmon.                          Gilliam, Hood River, Morrow,
                                          Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla,
                                          and Wasco.
                                         (ii) WA--Benton, Chelan, Clark,
                                          Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin,
                                          Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat,
                                          Okanogan, Pacific, Skamania,
                                          Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and
                                          Yakima.
(5) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon..  WA--Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap,
                                          and Mason.
(6) Columbia River chum salmon.........  (i) OR--Clatsop, Columbia, Hood
                                          River, and Multnomah.
                                         (ii) WA--Clark, Cowlitz,
                                          Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific,
                                          Skamania, and Wahkiakum.
(7) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon.........  WA--Clallam.
(8) Upper Columbia River steelhead.....  (i) OR--Clatsop, Columbia,
                                          Gilliam, Hood River, Morrow,
                                          Multnomah, Umatilla, and
                                          Wasco.
                                         (ii) WA--Adams, Benton, Chelan,
                                          Clark, Cowlitz, Douglas,
                                          Franklin, Grant, Kittitas,
                                          Klickitat, Okanogan, Pacific,
                                          Skamania, Wahkiakum, Walla
                                          Walla, and Yakima.
(9) Snake River Basin steelhead........  (i) ID--Adams, Blaine,
                                          Clearwater, Custer, Idaho,
                                          Latah, Lemhi, Lewis, Nez
                                          Perce, and Valley.
                                         (ii) OR--Clatsop, Columbia,
                                          Gilliam, Hood River, Morrow,
                                          Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla,
                                          Union, Wallowa, and Wasco.
                                         (iii) WA--Asotin, Benton,
                                          Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz,
                                          Franklin, Garfield, Klickitat,
                                          Pacific, Skamania, Walla
                                          Walla, Wahkiakum, and Whitman.
(10) Middle Columbia River steelhead...  (i) OR--Clatsop, Columbia,
                                          Crook, Gilliam, Grant, Hood
                                          River, Jefferson, Morrow,
                                          Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla,
                                          Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and
                                          Wheeler.
                                         (ii) WA--Benton, Clark,
                                          Cowlitz, Columbia, Franklin,
                                          King, Kittitas, Klickitat,
                                          Lewis, Pacific, Pierce,
                                          Skamania, Wahkiakum, Walla
                                          Walla, and Yakima.
(11) Lower Columbia River steelhead....  (i) OR--Clackamas, Clatsop,
                                          Columbia, Hood River, Marion,
                                          and Multnomah.
                                         (ii) WA--Clark, Cowlitz,
                                          Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific,
                                          Skamania, and Wahkiakum.
(12) Upper Willamette River steelhead..  (i) OR--Benton, Clackamas,
                                          Clatsop, Columbia, Linn,
                                          Marion, Multnomah, Polk,
                                          Tillamook, Washington, and
                                          Yamhill.
                                         (ii) WA--Clark, Cowlitz,
                                          Pacific, and Wahkiakum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Critical habitat boundaries. Critical habitat includes the 
stream channels within the designated stream reaches, and includes a 
lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high-water line (33 CFR 
319.11). In areas where ordinary high-water line has not been defined, 
the lateral extent will be defined by the bankfull elevation. Bankfull 
elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and 
move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge which generally 
has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series. 
Critical habitat in lake areas is defined by the perimeter of the water 
body as displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps or the 
elevation of ordinary high water, whichever is greater. In estuarine 
and nearshore marine areas critical habitat includes areas contiguous 
with the shoreline from the line of extreme high water out to a depth 
no greater than 30 meters relative to mean lower low water.
    (c) Primary constituent elements. Within these areas, the primary 
constituent elements essential for the conservation of these ESUs are 
those sites and habitat components that support one or more life 
stages, including:
    (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality 
conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval 
development;
    (2) Freshwater rearing sites with:
    (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain 
physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;
    (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and
    (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large 
wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic

[[Page 52685]]

vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
    (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and 
excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and 
natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic 
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks 
supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival;
    (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with:
    (i) Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions 
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- 
and saltwater;
    (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, 
aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and
    (iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates 
and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
    (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive 
predation with:
    (i) Water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including 
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and
    (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, 
aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels.
    (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, 
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and 
maturation.
    (d) Exclusion of Indian lands. Critical habitat does not include 
habitat areas on Indian lands. The Indian lands specifically excluded 
from critical habitat are those defined in the Secretarial Order, including:
    (1) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any 
Indian tribe;
    (2) Land held in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe or 
individual subject to restrictions by the United States against alienation;
    (3) Fee lands, either within or outside the reservation boundaries, 
owned by the tribal government; and
    (4) Fee lands within the reservation boundaries owned by individual 
Indians.
    (e) Land owned or controlled by the Department of Defense. Critical 
habitat does not include any areas subject to an approved Integrated 
Natural Resource Management Plan or associated with Department of 
Defense easements or right-of-ways. In areas within Navy security zones 
identified at 33 CFR 334 that are outside the areas described above, 
critical habitat is only designated within a narrow nearshore zone from 
the line of extreme high tide down to the line of mean lower low water. 
The specific sites addressed include:
    (1) Naval Submarine Base, Bangor;
    (2) Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport;
    (3) Naval Ordnance Center, Port Hadlock (Indian Island);
    (4) Naval Radio Station, Jim Creek;
    (5) Naval Fuel Depot, Manchester;
    (6) Naval Air Station Whidbey Island;
    (7) Naval Air Station, Everett;
    (8) Bremerton Naval Hospital;
    (9) Fort Lewis (Army);
    (10) Pier 23 (Army);
    (11) Yakima Training Center (Army);
    (12) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard;
    (13) Naval Submarine Base Bangor security zone;
    (14) Strait of Juan de Fuca naval air-to-surface weapon range, 
restricted area;
    (15) Hood Canal and Dabob Bay naval non-explosive torpedo testing area;
    (16) Strait of Juan de Fuca and Whidbey Island naval restricted areas;
    (17) Admiralty Inlet naval restricted area;
    (18) Port Gardner Naval Base restricted area;
    (19) Hood Canal naval restricted areas;
    (20) Port Orchard Passage naval restricted area;
    (21) Sinclair Inlet naval restricted areas;
    (22) Carr Inlet naval restricted areas;
    (23) Dabob Bay/Whitney Point naval restricted area; and
    (24) Port Townsend/Indian Island/Walan Point naval restricted area.
    (f) Land subject to the Washington Department of Natural Resources 
Habitat Conservation Plan. Critical habitat is excluded on lands 
covered by the incidental take permit issued by NMFS under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
    (g) Land subject to the Green Diamond Company Habitat Conservation 
Plan. Critical habitat is excluded on lands covered by the incidental 
take permit issued by NMFS under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the 
Green Diamond Resources Company (formerly Simpson Timber Company).
    (h) Land subject to the West Fork Timber Company Habitat 
Conservation Plan. Critical habitat is excluded on lands covered by the 
incidental take permit issued by NMFS under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
ESA to the West Fork Timber Company (formerly Murray Pacific Corporation).
    (i) Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Critical 
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following 
subbasins:
    (1) Nooksack Subbasin 17110004--(i) Upper North Fork Nooksack River 
Watershed 1711000401. Outlet(s) = North Fork Nooksack River (Lat 
48.9055, Long -121.9886) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boyd Creek 
(48.8998, -121.8640); Canyon Creek (48.9366, -121.9451); Cascade Creek 
(48.8996, -121.8621); Cornell Creek (48.8882, -121.9594); Deadhorse 
Creek (48.9024, -121.8359); Gallop Creek (48.8849, -121.9447); Glacier 
Creek (48.8197, -121.8931); Hedrick Creek (48.8953, -121.9705); 
Thompson Creek (48.8837, -121.9028); Wells Creek (48.8940, -121.7976).
    (ii) Middle Fork Nooksack River Watershed 1711000402. Outlet(s) = 
Middle Fork Nooksack River (Lat 48.8342, Long -122.1540) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Canyon Creek (48.8374, -122.1198); Clearwater Creek 
(48.7841, -122.0293); Middle Fork Nooksack River (48.7249, -121.8999); 
Porter Creek (48.7951, -122.1098); Sister Creek (48.7492, -121.9736); 
Unnamed (48.7809, -122.1157); Unnamed (48.7860, -122.1214); Warm Creek 
(48.7559, -121.9741).
    (iii) South Fork Nooksack River Watershed 1711000403. Outlet(s) = 
South Fork Nooksack River (Lat 48.8095, Long -122.2026) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Black Slough (48.7715, -122.1931); Cavanaugh Creek 
(48.6446, -122.1094); Deer Creek (48.6041, -122.0912); Edfro Creek 
(48.6607, -122.1206); Fobes Creek (48.6230, -122.1139); Hard Scrabble 
Falls Creek (48.7601, -122.2273); Howard Creek (48.6118, -121.9639); 
Hutchinson Creek (48.7056, -122.1663); Jones Creek (48.7186, -
122.2130); McCarty Creek (48.7275, -122.2188); Plumbago Creek (48.6088, 
-122.0949); Pond Creek (48.6958, -122.1651); Skookum Creek (48.6871, -
122.1029); South Fork Nooksack River (48.6133, -121.9000); Standard 
Creek (48.7444, -122.2191); Sygitowicz Creek (48.7722, -122.2269); 
Unnamed (48.6048, -121.9143); Unnamed (48.6213, -122.1039); Unnamed 
(48.7174, -122.1815); Unnamed (48.7231, -122.1968); Unnamed (48.7843, -
122.2188).
    (iv) Lower North Fork Nooksack River Watershed 1711000404. 
Outlet(s) = Nooksack River (Lat 48.8711, Long -122.3227) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Anderson Creek (48.8088, -122.3410); Boulder Creek 
(48.9314, -122.0258); Coal Creek (48.8889, -122.1506); Kendall Creek 
(48.9251, -122.1455); Kenney Creek (48.8510, -122.1368); Macaulay Creek 
(48.8353, -122.2345); Maple Creek (48.9262, -122.0751); Mitchell Creek 
(48.8313, -122.2174); North Fork Nooksack River (48.9055, -121.9886); 
Racehorse Creek (48.8819,

[[Page 52686]]

-122.1272); Smith Creek (48.8439, -122.2544); Unnamed (48.8103, -
122.1855); Unnamed (48.9002, -122.1205); Unnamed (48.9040, -122.0875); 
Unnamed (48.9131, -122.0127); Unnamed (48.9158, -122.0091); Unnamed 
(48.9162, -122.0615); Unnamed (48.9200, -122.0463); Wildcat Creek 
(48.9058, -121.9995); Deer Creek (48.8439, -122.4839).
    (v) Nooksack River Watershed 1711000405. Outlet(s) = Lummi River 
(Lat 48.8010, Long -122.6582); Nooksack River (48.7737, -122.5986); 
Silver Creek (48.7786, -122.5635); Slater Slough (48.7759, -122.6029); 
Unnamed (48.7776, -122.5708); Unnamed (48.7786, -122.5677); Unnamed 
(48.7973, -122.6717); Unnamed (48.8033, -122.6771) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Fishtrap Creek (49.0025, -122.4053); Fourmile Creek 
(48.8890, -122.4213); Lummi River (48.8198, -122.6049); Nooksack River 
(48.8711, -122.3227); Pepin Creek (49.0024, -122.4724); Slater Slough 
(48.7778, -122.6041); Tenmile Creek (48.8457, -122.3661); Unnamed 
(48.8191, -122.5705); Unnamed (48.8453, -122.6071); Unnamed (48.8548, -
122.4749); Unnamed (48.9609, -122.5312); Unnamed (48.9634, -122.3928); 
Unnamed (49.0024, -122.4730); Unnamed (49.0025, -122.5218).
    (2) Upper Skagit Subbasin 17110005--(i) Skagit River/Gorge Lake 
Watershed 1711000504. Outlet(s) = Skagit River (Lat 48.6725, Long -
121.2633) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Goodell Creek (48.6890, -
121.2718); Skagit River (48.6763, -121.2404).
    (ii) Skagit River/Diobsud Creek Watershed 1711000505. Outlet(s) = 
Skagit River (Lat 48.5218, Long -121.4315) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Bacon Creek (48.6456, -121.4244); Diobsud Creek (48.5761, -121.4309); 
Falls Creek (48.6334, -121.4258); Skagit River (48.6725, -121.2633).
    (iii) Cascade River Watershed 1711000506. Outlet(s) = Cascade River 
(Lat 48.5218, Long -121.4315) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Found Creek 
(48.4816, -121.2437); Kindy Creek (48.4613, -121.2094); Marble Creek 
(48.5398, -121.2612); North Fork Cascade River (48.4660, -121.1641); 
South Fork Cascade River (48.4592, -121.1494).
    (iv) Skagit River/Illabot Creek Watershed 1711000507. Outlet(s) = 
Skagit River (Lat 48.5333, Long -121.7370) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Illabot Creek (48.4498, -121.4551); Jackman Creek (48.5294, -121.6957); 
Skagit River (48.5218, -121.4315); Unnamed (48.5013, -121.6598).
    (3) Sauk Subbasin 17110006--(i) Upper Sauk River Watershed 
1711000601. Outlet(s) = Sauk River (Lat 48.1731, Long -121.4714) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Camp Creek (48.1559, -121.2909); North Fork 
Sauk River (48.0962, -121.3710); Owl Creek (48.1623, -121.2948); South 
Fork Sauk River (48.0670, -121.4088); Swift Creek (48.1011, -121.3975); 
Unnamed (48.1653, -121.3288); White Chuck River (48.1528, -121.2645).
    (ii) Upper Suiattle River Watershed 1711000602. Outlet(s) = 
Suiattle River (Lat 48.2586, Long -121.2237) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Downey Creek (48.2828, -121.2083); Milk Creek (48.2207, -121.1634); 
Suiattle River (48.2211, -121.1609); Sulphur Creek (48.2560, -
121.1773); Unnamed (48.2338, -121.1792).
    (iii) Lower Suiattle River Watershed 1711000603. Outlet(s) = 
Suiattle River (Lat 48.3384, Long -121.5482) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Big Creek (48.3435, -121.4416); Buck Creek (48.2753, -121.3268); 
Circle Creek (48.2555, -121.3395); Lime Creek (48.2445, -121.2933); 
Straight Creek (48.2594;-121.4009); Suiattle River (48.2586, -
121.2237); Tenas Creek (48.3371, -121.4304).
    (iv) Lower Sauk River Watershed 1711000604. Outlet(s) = Sauk River 
(Lat 48.4821, Long -121.6060) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dan Creek 
(48.2702, -121.5473); Sauk River (48.1731, -121.4714); Unnamed 
(48.2247, -121.5826); Unnamed (48.3187, -121.5480).
    (4) Lower Skagit Subbasin 17110007--(i) Middle Skagit River/Finney 
Creek Watershed 1711000701. Outlet(s) = Skagit River (Lat 48.4891, Long 
-122.2178) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (48.5280, -
121.9498); Day Creek (48.4689, -122.0216); Finney Creek (48.4655, -
121.6858); Grandy Creek (48.5510, -121.8621); Hansen Creek (48.5600, -
122.2069); Jims Slough (48.5274, -122.0227); Jones Creek (48.5418, -
122.0494); Mannser Creek (48.5260, -122.0430); Muddy Creek (48.5278, -
122.0007); Pressentin Creek (48.5099, -121.8449); Skagit River 
(48.5333, -121.7370); Sorenson Creek (48.4875, -122.1029); Unnamed 
(48.4887, -122.0747); Unnamed (48.5312, -122.0149); Wiseman Creek 
(48.5160, -122.1286).
    (ii) Lower Skagit River/Nookachamps Creek Watershed 1711000702. 
Outlet(s) = Browns Slough (Lat 48.3305, Long -122.4194); Freshwater 
Slough (48.3109, -122.3883); Hall Slough (48.3394, -122.4426); Isohis 
Slough (48.2975, -122.3711); North Fork Skagit River (48.3625, -
122.4689); South Fork Skagit River (48.2920, -122.3670); Unnamed 
(48.3085, -122.3868); Unnamed (48.3831, -122.4842) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Britt Slough (48.3935, -122.3571); Browns Slough 
(48.3411, -122.4127); East Fork Nookachamps Creek (48.4044, -122.1790); 
Hall Slough (48.3437, -122.4376); Mundt Creek (48.4249, -122.2007); 
Skagit River (48.4891, -122.2178); Unnamed (48.3703, -122.3081); 
Unnamed (48.3827, -122.1893); Unnamed (48.3924, -122.4822); Walker 
Creek (48.3778, -122.1899).
    (5) Stillaguamish Subbasin 17110008--(i) North Fork Stillaguamish 
River Watershed 1711000801. Outlet(s) = North Fork Stillaguamish River 
(Lat 48.2037, Long -122.1256) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ashton Creek 
(48.2545, -121.6708); Boulder River (48.2624, -121.8090); Deer Creek 
(48.2835, -121.9255); French Creek (48.2534, -121.7856); Furland Creek 
(48.2624, -121.6749); Grant Creek (48.2873, -122.0118); North Fork 
Stillaguamish River (48.3041, -121.6360); Rollins Creek (48.2908, -
121.8441); Squire Creek (48.2389, -121.6374); Unnamed (48.2393, -
121.6285); Unnamed (48.2739, -121.9948).
    (ii) South Fork Stillaguamish River Watershed 1711000802. Outlet(s) 
= South Fork Stillaguamish River (Lat 48.2037, Long -122.1256) upstream 
to endpoint(s) in: Jim Creek (48.2230, -121.9483); North Fork Canyon 
Creek (48.1697, -121.8194); Siberia Creek (48.1731, -122.0377); South 
Fork Canyon Creek (48.1540, -121.7840); South Fork Stillaguamish River 
(48.0454, -121.4819); Unnamed (48.1463, -122.0162).
    (iii) Lower Stillaguamish River Waterhed 1711000803. Outlet(s) = 
Stillaguamish River (Lat 48.2385, Long -122.3749); Unnamed (48.1983, -
122.3579) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Armstrong Creek (48.2189, -
122.1347); Pilchuck Creek (48.2983, -122.1672); Stillaguamish River 
(48.2037, -122.1256).
    (6) Skykomish Subbasin 17110009--(i) Tye and Beckler River 
Watershed 1711000901. Outlet(s) = South Fork Skykomish River (Lat 
47.7147, Long -121.3393) upstream to endpoint(s) in: East Fork Foss 
River (47.6522, -121.2792); Rapid River (47.8131, -121.2470) Tye River 
(47.7172, -121.2254) Unnamed (47.8241, -121.2979); West Fork Foss River 
(47.6444, -121.2972).
    (ii) Skykomish River Forks Watershed 1711000902. Outlet(s) = North 
Fork Skykomish River (Lat 47.8133, Long -121.5782) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Bridal Veil Creek (47.7987, -121.5597);

[[Page 52687]]

Lewis Creek (47.8223, -121.5160); Miller River (47.7018, -121.3950); 
Money Creek (47.7208, -121.4062); North Fork Skykomish River (47.9183, 
-121.3073); South Fork Skykomish River (47.7147, -121.3393); Unnamed 
(47.7321, -121.4176); Unnamed (47.8002, -121.5548).
    (iii) Skykomish River/Wallace River Watershed 1711000903. Outlet(s) 
= Skykomish River (Lat 47.8602, Long-121.8190) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Deer Creek (47.8191, -121.5805); Olney Creek (47.8796, -121.7163); 
Proctor Creek (47.8216, -121.6460); Skykomish River (47.8133, -
121.5782); Unnamed (47.8507, -121.8010); Wagleys Creek (47.8674, -
121.7972); Wallace River (47.8736, -121.6491).
    (iv) Sultan River Watershed 1711000904. Outlet(s) = Sultan River 
(Lat 47.8602, Long -121.8190) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Sultan River 
(47.9598, -121.7951).
    (v) Skykomish River/Woods Creek Watershed 1711000905. Outlet(s) = 
Skykomish River (Lat 47.8303, Long -122.0451) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Elwell Creek (47.8038, -121.8524); Skykomish River (47.8602, -
121.8190); Unnamed (47.8890, -121.8637); West Fork Woods Creek 
(47.9627, -121.9707); Woods Creek (47.8953, -121.8742); Youngs Creek 
(47.8081, -121.8332).
    (7) Snoqualmie Subbasin 17110010--(i) Middle Fork Snoqualmie River 
Watershed 1711001003. Outlet(s) = Snoqualmie River (Lat 47.6407, Long -
121.9261) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Canyon Creek (47.5837, -
121.9623); Deep Creek (47.4764, -121.8905); Griffin Creek (47.6164, -
121.9014); Lake Creek (47.5036, -121.9035); Patterson Creek (47.6276, -
121.9855); Raging River (47.4795, -121.8691); Snoqualmie River 
(47.5415, -121.8362); Tokul Creek (47.5563, -121.8285).
    (ii) Lower Snoqualmie River Watershed 1711001004. Outlet(s) = 
Snoqualmie River (Lat 47.8303, Long -122.0451) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Cherry Creek (47.7465, -121.8953); Margaret Creek (47.7547, -
121.8933); North Fork Tolt River (47.7060, -121.7957); Snoqualmie River 
(47.6407, -121.9261); South Fork Tolt River (47.6969, -121.7861); Tuck 
Creek (47.7442, -122.0032); Unnamed (47.6806, -121.9730); Unnamed 
(47.6822, -121.9770); Unnamed (47.7420, -122.0084); Unnamed (47.7522, -
121.9745); Unnamed (47.7581, -121.9586).
    (8) Snohomish Subbasin 17110011--(i) Pilchuck River Watershed 
1711001101. Outlet(s) = Pilchuck River (Lat 47.9013, Long -122.0917) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Pilchuck River (48.0052, -121.7718).
    (ii) Snohomish River Watershed 1711001102. Outlet(s) = Quilceda 
Creek (Lat 48.0556, Long -122.1908); Skykomish River (48.0173, -
122.1877); Steamboat Slough (48.0365, -122.1814); Union Slough 
(48.0299, -122.1794); Unnamed (48.0412, -122.1723) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Allen Creek (48.0767, -122.1404); Quilceda Creek 
(48.1124, -122.1540); Skykomish River (47.8303, -122.0451); Unnamed 
(47.9545, -122.1969); Unnamed (47.9777, -122.1632); Unnamed (48.0019, -
122.1283); Unnamed (48.0055, -122.1303); Unnamed (48.1330, -122.1472).
    (9) Lake Washington Subbasin 17110012--(i) Cedar River Watershed 
1711001201. Outlet(s) = Cedar River (Lat 47.5003, Long -122.2146) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cedar River (47.4192, -121.7805); Rock 
Creek (47.3673, -122.0132); Unnamed (47.4092, -122.0358); Webster Creek 
(47.3857, -121.9845).
    (ii) Lake Washington Watershed 1711001203. Outlet(s) = Lake 
Washington (Lat 47.6654, Long -122.3960) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Cedar River (47.5003, -122.2146); Sammamish River (47.7543, -122.2465).
    (10) Duwamish Subbasin 17110013--(i) Upper Green River Watershed 
1711001301. Outlet(s) = Green River (Lat 47.2234, Long -121.6081) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Friday Creek (47.2204, -121.4559); Intake 
Creek (47.2058, -121.4049); McCain Creek (47.2093, -121.5292); Sawmill 
Creek (47.2086, -121.4675); Smay Creek (47.2508, -121.5872); Snow Creek 
(47.2607, -121.4046); Sunday Creek (47.2587, -121.3659); Tacoma Creek 
(47.1875, -121.3630); Unnamed (47.2129, -121.4579).
    (ii) Middle Green River Watershed 1711001302. Outlet(s) = Green 
River (Lat 47.2911, Long -121.9714) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear 
Creek (47.2774, -121.7990); Cougar Creek (47.2439, -121.6442); Eagle 
Creek (47.3051, -121.7219); Gale Creek (47.2644, -121.7085); Green 
River (47.2234, -121.6081); Piling Creek (47.2820, -121.7553); 
Sylvester Creek (47.2457, -121.6537); Unnamed (47.2360, -121.6333).
    (iii) Lower Green River Watershed 1711001303. Outlet(s) = Duwamish 
River (Lat 47.5113, Long -122.2951) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big 
Soos Creek (47.4191, -122.1599); Burns Creek (47.2779, -122.1087); 
Covington Creek (47.3341, -122.0399); Crisp Creek (47.2897, -122.0590); 
Green River (47.2911, -121.9714); Jenkins Creek (47.3791, -122.0899); 
Little Soos Creek (47.4031, -122.1235); Mill Creek (47.3263, -
122.2455); Newaukum Creek (47.2303, -121.9518); Unnamed (47.2765, -
121.9730); Unnamed (47.2891, -122.1557); Unnamed (47.3007, -122.1774); 
Unnamed (47.3250, -122.1961); Unnamed (47.3464, -122.2397); Unnamed 
(47.3751, -122.2648); Unnamed (47.4046, -122.2134); Unnamed (47.4525, -
122.2354); Unnamed (47.4618, -122.2315); Unnamed (47.4619, -122.2554); 
Unnamed (47.4876, -122.2781).
    (11) Puyallup Subbasin 17110014--(i) Upper White River Watershed 
1711001401. Outlet(s) = White River (Lat 47.1588, Long -121.6587) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Greenwater River (47.1204, -121.5055); 
Huckleberry Creek (47.0612, -121.6033); Pinochle Creek (47.0478, -
121.7043); Unnamed (46.9935, -121.5295); West Fork White River 
(47.0483, -121.6916); Wrong Creek (47.0403, -121.6999).
    (ii) Lower White River Watershed 1711001402. Outlet(s) = White 
River (Lat 47.2001, Long -122.2579) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boise 
Creek (47.1958, -121.9467); Camp Creek (47.1430, -121.7012); Clearwater 
River (47.0852, -121.7823); Unnamed (47.1509, -121.7236); Unnamed 
(47.2247, -122.1072); Unnamed (47.2307, -122.1079); Unnamed (47.2383, -
122.2234); Unnamed (47.2498, -122.2346); White River (47.1588, -121.6587).
    (iii) Carbon River Watershed 1711001403. Outlet(s) = Carbon River 
(Lat 47.1308, Long -122.2315) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Carbon River 
(46.9965, -121.9198); South Fork South Prairie Creek (47.1203, -
121.9963); Voight Creek (47.0751, -122.1285); Wilkeson Creek (47.0972, 
-122.0245).
    (iv) Upper Puyallup River Watershed 1711001404. Outlet(s) = 
Puyallup River (Lat 47.1308, Long -122.2315) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Deer Creek (46.8547, -121.9680); Kapowsin Creek (46.9854, -
122.2008); Kellog Creek (46.9164, -122.0652); Mowich River (46.9209, -
121.9739); Rushingwater Creek (46.8971, -121.9439); Unnamed (46.8867, -
122.0194); Unnamed (46.8899, -121.9657).
    (v) Lower Puyallup River Watershed 1711001405. Outlet(s) = Hylebos 
Creek (Lat 47.2611, Long -122.3591); Puyallup River (47.2501, -
122.4131) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Canyonfalls Creek (47.1421, -
122.2186); Clarks Creek (47.1757.-122.3168); Clear Creek (47.2187, -
122.3727); Fennel Creek (47.1495, -122.1849); Puyallup River (47.1308, 
-122.2315); Unnamed (47.1779, -122.1992); Unnamed (47.1799, -122.3066); 
Unnamed (47.1928, -122.3371); Unnamed

[[Page 52688]]

(47.2723, -122.3216); West Hylebos Creek (47.2736, -122.3289).
    (12) Nisqually Subbasin 17110015--(i) Mashel/Ohop Watershed 
1711001502. Outlet(s) = Nisqually River (Lat 46.8646, Long -122.4776) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Little Mashel River (46.8504, -122.2724); 
Lynch Creek (46.8760, -122.2625); Mashel River (46.8431, -122.1205); 
Nisqually River (46.8303, -122.3225); Ohop Creek (46.9264, -122.2603); 
Powell Creek (46.8528, -122.4505); Tanwax Creek (46.8630, -122.4549); 
Twentyfive Mile Creek (46.9274, -122.2558).
    (ii) Lowland Watershed 1711001503. Outlet(s) = McAllister Creek 
(Lat 47.1120, Long -122.7215); Nisqually River (47.1110, -122.7026); 
Unnamed (47.0071, -122.6556); Yelm Creek (46.9712, -122.6263) upstream 
to endpoint(s) in: Horn Creek (46.9042, -122.4776); McAllister Creek 
(47.0299, -122.7236); Nisqually River (46.8646, -122.4776); Unnamed 
(46.9108, -122.5032); Unnamed (47.0001, -122.6510); Unnamed (47.0055, -
122.6520); Yelm Creek (46.9629, -122.6194). Excluded is that segment of 
the Nisqually River from Lat 47.0703, Long -122.7017, to Lat 46.9668, 
Long -122.5640.
    (13) Skokomish Subbasin 17110017--Skokomish River Watershed 
1711001701. Outlet(s) = Skokomish River (Lat 47.3543, Long -123.1122); 
Unnamed (47.3420, -123.1092); Unnamed (47.3471, -123.1275); Unnamed 
(47.3509, -123.1101) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Brown Creek (47.4238, 
-123.3052); Fir Creek (47.3363, -123.3016); McTaggert Creek (47.3749, -
123.2318); North Fork Skokomish River (47.5197, -123.3329); Purdy 
Canyon (47.3021, -123.1803); Unnamed (47.3048, -123.1528); Unnamed 
(47.3077, -123.2012); Unnamed (47.3146, -123.1353); Unnamed (47.3209, -
123.2212); Unnamed (47.3222, -123.3060); Unnamed (47.3237, -123.1467); 
Unnamed (47.3250, -123.1250); Vance Creek (47.3300, -123.3137); Weaver 
Creek (47.3097, -123.2384).
    (14) Hood Canal Subbasin 17110018--(i) Hamma Hamma River Watershed 
1711001803. Outlet(s) = Hamma Hamma River (Lat 47.5471, Long -123.0440) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Hamma Hamma River (47.5590, -123.0632); 
North Fork John Creek (47.5442, -123.0696)
    (ii) Duckabush River Watershed 1711001804. Outlet(s) = Duckabush 
River (Lat 47.6502, Long -122.9348) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Duckabush River (47.6825, -123.0675).
    (iii) Dosewallips River Watershed 1711001805. Outlet(s) = 
Dosewallips River (Lat 47.6881, Long -122.8945); Unnamed (47.6857, -
122.8967) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dosewallips River (47.7289, -
123.1111); Rocky Brook (47.7212, -122.9405); Unnamed (47.6886, -122.8977).
    (15) Dungeness/Elwha 17110020--(i) Dungeness River Watershed 
1711002003. Outlet(s) = Dungeness River (Lat 48.1506, Long -123.1311); 
Unnamed (48.1537, -123.1267) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dungeness 
River (47.9386, -123.0885); Gray Wolf River (47.9168, -123.2409); 
Matriotti Creek (48.1368, -123.1428); Unnamed (48.1514, -123.1216).
    (ii) Elwha River Watershed 1711002007. Outlet(s) = Elwha River (Lat 
48.1466, Long -123.5671); Unnamed (48.1483, -123.5599) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Elwha River (48.0927, -123.5614).
    (16) Nearshore Marine Areas--Except as provided in paragraph (e) of 
this section, critical habitat includes all nearshore marine areas 
(including areas adjacent to islands) of the Strait of Georgia (south 
of the international border), Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait 
of Juan de Fuca (to the western end of the Elwha River delta) from the 
line of extreme high tide out to a depth of 30 meters.
    (17) Maps of critical habitat for the Puget Sound chinook salmon 
ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52689]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.069
[[Page 52690]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.070
[[Page 52691]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.071
[[Page 52692]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.072
[[Page 52693]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.073
[[Page 52694]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.074
[[Page 52695]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.075
[[Page 52696]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.076
[[Page 52697]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.077
[[Page 52698]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.078
[[Page 52699]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.079
[[Page 52700]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.080
[[Page 52701]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.081
[[Page 52702]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.082
[[Page 52703]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.083
[[Page 52704]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.084
[[Page 52705]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.085
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 52706]]

    (j) Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 
Critical habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the 
following subbasins:
    (1) Middle Columbia/Hood Subbasin 17070105--(i) East Fork Hood 
River Watershed 1707010506. Outlet(s) = Hood River (Lat 45.6050, Long -
121.6323) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dog River (45.4655, -121.5656); 
East Fork Hood River (45.4665, -121.5669); Pinnacle Creek (45.4595, -
121.6568); Tony Creek (45.5435, -121.6411).
    (ii) West Fork Hood River Watershed 1707010507. Outlet(s) = West 
Fork Hood River (Lat 45.6050, Long -121.6323) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Divers Creek (45.5457, -121.7447); Elk Creek (45.4277, -121.7889); 
Indian Creek (45.5375, -121.7857); Jones Creek (45.4629, -121.7942); 
Lake Branch (45.5083, -121.8485); McGee Creek (45.4179, -121.7675); No 
Name Creek (45.5347, -121.7929); Red Hill Creek (45.4720, -121.7705), 
Unnamed (45.5502, -121.7014).
    (iii) Hood River Watershed 1707010508. Outlet(s) = Hood River (Lat 
45.7205, Long -121.5055) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Hood River 
(45.6050, -121.6323).
    (iv) White Salmon River Watershed 1707010509. Outlet(s) = White 
Salmon River (Lat 45.7226, Long -121.5214) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
White Salmon River (45.7677, -121.5374).
    (v) Wind River Watershed 1707010511. Outlet(s) = Wind River (Lat 
45.7037, Long -121.7946) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 
(45.7620, -121.8293); Big Hollow Creek (45.9399, -121.9996); Dry Creek 
(45.9296, -121.9721); Falls Creek (45.9105, -121.9222); Little Wind 
River (45.7392, -121.7772); Ninemile Creek (45.8929, -121.9526); 
Paradise Creek (45.9527, -121.9408); Trapper Creek (45.8887, -
122.0065); Trout Creek (45.8021, -121.9313); Wind River (45.9732, -
121.9031).
    (vi) Middle Columbia/Grays Creek Watershed 1707010512. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 45.7044, Long -121.7980) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (45.7205, -121.5056).
    (vii) Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek Watershed 1707010513. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 45.6447, Long -121.9395) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Camp Creek (45.6676, -121.8167); Carson Creek (45.7206, -121.8184); 
Columbia River (45.7044, -121.7980); Dry Creek (45.6717, -121.8732); 
Eagle Creek (45.6365, -121.9171); East Fork Herman Creek (45.6538, -
121.8122); Herman Creek (45.6749, -121.8477); Rock Creek (45.6958, -
121.8915); Unnamed (45.6654, -121.8164); Unnamed (45.6674, -121.8487); 
Unnamed (45.6689, -121.8444); Unnamed (45.6762, -121.9350); Unnamed 
(45.6902, -121.9034); Unnamed (45.6948, -121.9424).
    (2) Lower Columbia/Sandy Subbasin 17080001--(i) Salmon River 
Watershed 1708000101. Outlet(s) = Salmon River (Lat 45.3768, Long -
122.0293) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cheeney Creek (45.3104, -
121.9561); Copper Creek (45.2508, -121.9053); Salmon River (45.2511, -
121.9025); South Fork Salmon River (45.2606, -121.9474); Unnamed 
(45.3434, -121.9920).
    (ii) Zigzag River Watershed 1708000102. Outlet(s) = Zigzag River 
(Lat 45.3489, Long -121.9442) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Henry Creek 
(45.3328, -121.9110); Still Creek (45.2755, -121.8413); Unnamed 
(45.3019, -121.8202); Zigzag River (45.3092, -121.8642).
    (iii) Upper Sandy River Watershed 1708000103. Outlet(s) = Sandy 
River (Lat 45.3489, Long -121.9442) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clear 
Creek (45.3712, -121.9246); Clear Fork Sandy River (45.3994, -
121.8525); Horseshoe Creek (45.3707, -121.8936); Lost Creek (45.3709, -
121.8150); Sandy River (45.3899, -121.8620).
    (iv) Middle Sandy River Watershed 1708000104. Outlet(s) = Sandy 
River (Lat 45.4464, Long -122.2459) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder 
Creek (45.3776, -122.0994); Bear Creek (45.3368, -121.9265); Cedar 
Creek (45.4087, -122.2617); North Boulder Creek (45.3822, -122.0168); 
Sandy River (45.3489, -121.9442).
    (v) Bull Run River Watershed 1708000105. Outlet(s) = Bull Run River 
(Lat 45.4464, Long -122.2459) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bull Run 
River (45.4455, -122.1561); Little Sandy Creek (45.4235, -122.1975).
    (vi) Washougal River (1708000106). Outlet(s) = Washougal River (Lat 
45.5795, Long -122.4022) upstream(s) to endpoint(s) in: Cougar Creek 
(45.6265, -122.2987); Dougan Creek (45.6770, -122.1522); Lacamas Creek 
(45.5972, -122.3933); Little Washougal River (45.6315, -122.3767); 
Washougal River (45.6729, -122.1524); West Fork Washougal River 
(45.6205, -122.2149).
    (vii) Columbia Gorge Tributaries Watershed 1708000107. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 45.5735, Long -122.3945) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Bridal Veil Creek (45.5542, -122.1793); Columbia River (45.6447, -
121.9395); Coopey Creek (45.5656, -122.1671); Government Cove (45.5948, 
-122.0630); Hamilton Creek (45.6414, -121.9764); Hardy Creek (45.6354, 
-121.9987); Horsetail Creek (45.5883, -122.0675); Latourell Creek 
(45.5388, -122.2173); McCord Creek (45.6115, -121.9929); Moffett Creek 
(45.6185, -121.9662); Multnomah Creek (45.5761, -122.1143), Oneonta 
Creek (45.5821, -122.0718); Tanner Creek (45.6264, -121.9522); Turnaft 
Creek (45.6101, -122.0284); Unnamed (45.5421, -122.2624); Unnamed 
(45.5488, -122.3504); Unnamed (45.6025, -122.0443); Unnamed (45.6055, -
122.0392); Unnamed (45.6083, -122.0329); Unnamed (45.6118, -122.0216); 
Unnamed (45.6124, -122.0172); Unnamed (45.6133, -122.0055); Wahkeena 
Creek (45.5755, -122.1266); Young Creek (45.5480, -122.1997).
    (viii) Lower Sandy River Watershed 1708000108. Outlet(s) = Sandy 
River (Lat 45.5680, Long -122.4023) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver 
Creek (45.5258, -122.3822); Gordon Creek (45.4915, -122.2423); Sandy 
River (45.4464, -122.2459); Trout Creek (45.4844, -122.2785); Unnamed 
(45.5542, -122.3768); Unnamed (45.5600, -122.3650).
    (3) Lewis Subbasin 17080002--(i) East Fork Lewis River Watershed 
1708000205. Outlet(s) = East Fork Lewis River (Lat 45.8664, Long -
122.7189) upstream to endpoint(s) in: East Fork Lewis River (45.8395, -
122.4463).
    (ii) Lower Lewis River Watershed 1708000206. Outlet(s) = Lewis 
River (Lat 45.8519, Long -122.7806) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cedar 
Creek (45.9049, -122.3684); Chelatchie Creek (45.9169, -122.4130); 
Johnson Creek (45.9385, -122.6261); Lewis River (45.9570, -122.5550); 
Pup Creek (45.9391, -122.5440); Unnamed (45.8882, -122.7412); Unnamed 
(45.9153, -122.4362).
    (4) Lower Columbia/Clatskanie Subbasin 17080003--(i) Kalama River 
Watershed 1708000301. Outlet(s) = Burris Creek (45.8926, -122.7892); 
Kalama River (46.0340, -122.8695) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arnold 
Creek (46.0463, -122.5938); Burris Creek (45.9391, -122.7780); Elk 
Creek (46.0891, -122.5117); Gobar Creek (46.0963, -122.6042); Hatchery 
Creek (46.0459, -122.8027); Kalama River (46.1109, -122.3579); Little 
Kalama River (45.9970, -122.6939); North Fork Kalama River (46.1328, -
122.4118); Wild Horse Creek (46.0626, -122.6367).
    (ii) Clatskanie River Watershed 1708000303. Outlet(s) = Clatskanie 
River (Lat 46.1398, Long -123.2303) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Clatskanie River (46.0435, -123.0829); Merrill Creek (46.0916, -
123.1727); Perkins Creek (46.0826, -123.1678).
    (iii) Skamokawa/Elochoman Watershed 1708000305. Outlet(s) = 
Elochoman River (Lat 46.2269, Long -123.4040); Skamokawa Creek (46.2677,

[[Page 52707]]

-123.4562); Unnamed (46.2243, -123.3975) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Beaver Creek (46.2256, -123.3071); Elochoman River (46.3503, -
123.2428); Falk Creek (46.2954, -123.4413); Left Fork Skamokawa Creek 
(46.3249, -123.4538); McDonald Creek (46.3398, -123.4116); Standard 
Creek (46.3292, -123.3999); West Fork Elochoman River (46.3211, -
123.2605); West Fork Skamokawa Creek (46.2871, -123.4654); Wilson Creek 
(46.2970, -123.3434).
    (iv) Plympton Creek Watershed 1708000306. Outlet(s) = Westport 
Slough (Lat 46.1434, Long -123.3816) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Plympton Creek (46.1261, -123.3842); Westport Slough (46.1195, -123.2797).
    (5) Upper Cowlitz Subbasin 17080004--(i) Headwaters Cowlitz River 
1708000401. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River (Lat 46.6580, Lat -121.6032) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clear Fork Cowlitz River (46.6858, -
121.5668); Muddy Fork Cowlitz River (46.6994, -121.6169); Ohanapecosh 
River (46.6883, -121.5809).
    (ii) Upper Cowlitz River Watershed 1708000402. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz 
River (Lat 46.5763, Long -121.7051) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cowlitz 
River (46.6580, -121.6032).
    (iii) Cowlitz Valley Frontal Watershed 1708000403. Outlet(s) = 
Cowlitz River (Lat 46.4765, Long -122.0952) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Cowlitz River (46.5763, -121.7051); Silver Creek (46.5576, -121.9178).
    (iv) Upper Cispus River Watershed 1708000404. Outlet(s) = Cispus 
River (Lat 46.4449, Long -121.7954) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cispus 
River (46.3410, -121.6709); East Canyon Creek (46.3454, -121.7031); 
North Fork Cispus River (46.4355, -121.654).
    (v) Lower Cispus River Watershed 1708000405. Outlet(s) = Cispus 
River (Lat 46.4765, Long -122.0952) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cispus 
River (46.4449, -121.7954); McCoy Creek (46.3892, -121.8190); 
Yellowjacket Creek (46.3871, -121.8335).
    (6) Cowlitz Subbasin 17080005--(i) Riffe Reservoir Watershed 
1708000502. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River (Lat 46.5033, Long -122.5870) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cowlitz River (46.4765, -122.0952).
    (ii) Jackson Prairie Watershed 1708000503. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz 
River (Lat 46.3678, Long -122.9337) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear 
Creek (46.4215, -122.9224); Blue Creek (46.4885, -122.7253); Cowlitz 
River (46.5033, -122.5870); Lacamas Creek (46.5118, -122.8113); Mill 
Creek (46.4701, -122.8557); Mill Creek (46.5176;-122.6209); Otter Creek 
(46.4800, -122.6996); Salmon Creek (46.4237, -122.8400); Skook Creek 
(46.5035, -122.7556).
    (iii) North Fork Toutle River Watershed 1708000504. Outlet(s) = 
North Fork Toutle River (Lat 46.3669, Long -122.5859) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: North Fork Toutle River (46.3718, -122.5847).
    (iv) Green River Watershed 1708000505. Outlet(s) = Green River (Lat 
46.3718, Long -122.5847) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cascade Creek 
(46.3924, -122.3530); Devils Creek (46.3875, -122.5113); Elk Creek 
(46.3929, -122.3224); Green River (46.3857, -122.1815); Miners Creek 
(46.3871, -122.2091); Shultz Creek (46.3744, -122.2987); Unnamed 
(46.3796, -122.3632).
    (v) South Fork Toutle River Watershed 1708000506. Outlet(s) = South 
Fork Toutle River (Lat 46.3282, Long -122.7215) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Johnson Creek (46.3100, -122.6338); South Fork Toutle River 
(46.2306, -122.4439); Studebaker Creek (46.3044, -122.6777).
    (vi) East Willapa Watershed 1708000507. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River 
(Lat 46.2660, Long -122.9154) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arkansas 
Creek (46.3275, -123.0123); Baxter Creek (46.3034, -122.9709); Brim 
Creek (46.4263, -123.0139); Campbell Creek (46.3756, -123.0401); 
Cowlitz River (46.3678, -122.9337); Delameter Creek (46.2495, -
122.9916); Hemlock Creek (46.2585, -122.7269); Hill Creek (46.3724, -
122.9211); King Creek (46.5076, -122.9885); Monahan Creek (46.2954, -
123.0286); North Fork Toutle River (46.3669, -122.5859); Olequa Creek 
(46.5174, -122.9042); Stillwater Creek (46.3851, -123.0478); Sucker 
Creek (46.2628, -122.8116); Unnamed (46.5074, -122.9585); Unnamed 
(46.5405, -122.9090); Wyant Creek (46.3424, -122.6302).
    (vii) Coweeman Watershed 1708000508. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River (Lat 
46.0977, Long -122.9141); Owl Creek (46.0771, -122.8676) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Baird Creek (46.1704, -122.6119); Coweeman River 
(46.1505, -122.5792); Cowlitz River (46.2660, -122.9154); Leckler Creek 
(46.2092, -122.9206); Mulholland Creek (46.1932, -122.6992); North Fork 
Goble Creek (46.1209, -122.7689); Ostrander Creek (46.2095, -122.8623); 
Owl Creek (46.0914, -122.8692); Salmon Creek (46.2547, -122.8839); 
South Fork Ostrander Creek (46.1910, -122.8600); Unnamed (46.0838, -
122.7264).
    (7) Lower Columbia Subbasin 17080006--(i) Big Creek Watershed 
1708000602. Outlet(s) = Bear Creek (Lat 46.1719; Long -123.6642); Big 
Creek (46.1847, -123.5943); Blind Slough (46.2011, -123.5822); John Day 
River (46.1820, -123.7392) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 
(46.1181, -123.6388); Big Creek (46.1475, -123.5819); Gnat Creek 
(46.1614, -123.4813); John Day River (46.1763, -123.7474).
    (ii) Grays Bay Watershed 1708000603. Outlet(s) = Crooked Creek (Lat 
46.2962, Long -123.6795); Deep River (46.3035, -123.7092); Grays River 
(46.3035, -123.6867); Sisson Creek (46.3011, -123.7237); Unnamed 
(46.3042, -123.6870) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Crooked Creek 
(46.3033, -123.6222); East Fork Grays River (46.4425, -123.4081); 
Fossil Creek (46.3628, -123.5530); Grays River (46.4910, -123.4334); 
Hull Creek (46.3725, -123.5866); Johnson Canyon (46.3699, -123.6659); 
Klints Creek (46.3562, -123.5675); Malone Creek (46.3280, -123.6545); 
Mitchell Creek (46.4512, -123.4371) South Fork Grays River (46.3813, -
123.4581); Sweigiler Creek (46.4195, -123.5375); Unnamed (46.3283, -
123.7376); Unnamed (46.3651, -123.6839); Unnamed (46.4701, -123.4515); 
West Fork Grays River (46.4195, -123.5530).
    (8) Clackamas Subbasin 17090011--(i) Lower Clackamas River 
Watershed 1709001106. Outlet(s) = Clackamas River (Lat 45.3719, Long -
122.6071) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clackamas River (45.2440, -
122.2798); Clear Creek (45.3568, -122.4781); Deep Creek (45.3916, -
122.4028); Richardson Creek (45.3971, -122.4712); Rock Creek (45.4128, 
-122.5043).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (9) Lower Willamette Subbasin 17090012--(i) Johnson Creek Watershed 
1709001201. Outlet(s) = Willamette River (Lat 45.4423, Long -122.6453) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Crystal Springs Creek (45.4770, -122.6403); 
Kellogg Creek (45.4344, -122.6314); Tryon Creek (45.4239, -122.6595); 
Unnamed (45.4002, -122.6423); Willamette River (45.3719, -122.6071).
    (ii) Scappoose Creek Watershed 1709001202. Outlet(s) = Multnomah 
Channel (Lat 45.8577, Long -122.7919) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Cunningham Slough (45.8250, -122.8069); Multnomah Channel (45.6188, -
122.7921); North Scappoose Creek (45.8014, -122.9340).
    (iii) Columbia Slough/Willamette River Watershed 1709001203. 
Outlet(s) = Willamette River (Lat 45.6530, Long -122.7646) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Bybee/Smith Lakes (45.6189, -122.7333); Columbia Slough 
(45.5979, -122.7137); Willamette River (45.4423, -122.6453).
    (10) Lower Columbia River Corridor--Lower Columbia River Corridor.

[[Page 52708]]

Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 46.2485, Long -124.0782) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Columbia River (45.5709, -122.4021).
    (11) Maps of critical habitat for the Lower Columbia River chinook 
salmon ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52709]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.086
[[Page 52710]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.087
[[Page 52711]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.088
[[Page 52712]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.089
[[Page 52713]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.090
[[Page 52714]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.091
[[Page 52715]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.092
[[Page 52716]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.093
[[Page 52717]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.094
[[Page 52718]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.095
[[Page 52719]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.096
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 52720]]

    (k) Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Critical habitat is to include the areas defined in the 
following subbasins:
    (1) Middle Fork Willamette Subbasin 17090001--(i) Upper Middle Fork 
Willamette River Watershed 1709000101. Outlet(s) = Middle Fork 
Willamette River (Lat 43.4961, Long -122.3989) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Echo Creek (43.4670, -122.3172); Found Creek (43.5048, -122.2831); 
Middle Fork Willamette River (43.4801, -122.2534); Noisy Creek 
(43.5083, -122.3016); Simpson Creek (43.5031, -122.3801); Skunk Creek 
(43.5069, -122.2866); Staley Creek (43.4527, -122.3650); Swift Creek 
(43.5438, -122.2431); Tumblebug Creek (43.4740, -122.2549); Unnamed 
(43.4967, -122.2645); Unnamed (43.4986, -122.2686); Unnamed (43.5020, -
122.2764).
    (ii) Hills Creek Watershed 1709000102. Outlet(s) = Hills Creek (Lat 
43.7071, Long -122.4195) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Hills Creek 
(43.6718, -122.3502).
    (iii) Salt Creek/Willamette River Watershed 1709000103. Outlet(s) = 
Salt Creek (Lat 43.7261, Long -122.4381) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Coyote Creek (43.6682, -122.2378); Eagle Creek (43.6795, -122.2293); 
Salt Creek (43.6204, -122.1413); South Fork Salt Creek (43.6518, -122.2261).
    (iv) Hills Creek Reservoir Watershed 1709000105. Outlet(s) = Middle 
Fork Willamette River (Lat 43.7589, Long -122.5242) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Big Willow Creek (43.6341, -122.4139); Buck Creek 
(43.5945, -122.4272); Bull Creek (43.6598, -122.4014); Coal Creek 
(43.4882, -122.4246); Coffeepot Creek (43.6182, -122.4160); Gold Creek 
(43.5860, -122.4768); Indian Creek (43.5034, -122.4638); Larison Creek 
(43.6851, -122.4760); Middle Fork Willamette River (43.4961, -
122.3989); Packard Creek (43.6516, -122.4904); Snake Creek (43.5388, -
122.4554) Snow Creek (43.6061, -122.4585); Windfall Creek (43.5984, -
122.4638).
    (v) North Fork of Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed 
1709000106. Outlet(s) = North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River (Lat 
43.7589, Long -122.5242) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cayuse Creek 
(43.8651, -122.1856); Chalk Creek (43.8750, -122.4044); Christy Creek 
(43.9079, -122.3796); Fisher Creek (43.8699, -122.1551); North Fork 
Middle Fork Willamette River (43.8671, -122.0711).
    (vi) Middle Fork Willamette/Lookout Point Watershed 1709000107. 
Outlet(s) = Middle Fork Willamette River (Lat 43.9495, Long -122.8471) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Anthony Creek (43.8799, -122.8498); 
Bannister Creek (43.8743, -122.6538); Buckhead Creek (43.7753, -
122.5253); Burnt Bridge Creek (43.7900, -122.5334); Carr Creek 
(43.8558, -122.8177); Deception Creek (43.7551, -122.5541); East Fork 
Minnow Creek (43.8902, -122.7342); Goodman Creek (43.8309, -122.6940); 
Gosage Creek (43.8446, -122.8129); Guiley Creek (43.8419, -122.7962); 
Hazel Creek (43.8637, -122.6891); Lost Creek (43.8427, -122.7781); 
Middle Creek (43.8624, -122.8323); Middle Fork Willamette River 
(43.7589, -122.5242); Minnow Creek (43.8872, -122.7458); North Creek 
(43.8247, -122.6236); Rolling Riffle Creek (43.8750, -122.7052); School 
Creek (43.8604, -122.6099); South Creek (43.8230, -122.6216); Unnamed 
(43.8329, -122.6775); Unnamed (43.8427, -122.6643); Unnamed (43.8433, -
122.6950).
    (vii) Little Fall Creek Watershed 1709000108. Outlet(s) = Little 
Fall Creek (Lat 43.9577, Long -122.8166) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Little Fall Creek (44.0579, -122.5440); Norton Creek (44.0006, -
122.7044); Sturdy Creek (44.0196, -122.6475).
    (viii) Fall Creek Watershed 1709000109. Outlet(s) = Fall Creek (Lat 
43.9707, Long -122.8677) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 
(44.0000, -122.4993); Fall Creek (43.9922, -122.3758); Gold Creek 
(43.9772, -122.4051); Logan Creek (43.9447, -122.4504); Nelson Creek 
(43.9285, -122.6850); Portland Creek (43.9331, -122.4655); Sunshine 
Creek (43.9943, -122.4672); Winberry Creek (43.9142, -122.6890).
    (ix) Lower Middle Fork Willamette River Wateshed 1709000110. 
Outlet(s) = Middle Fork Willamette River (Lat 44.0226, Long -123.0169) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Hills Creek (43.9945, -122.8651); Middle 
Fork Willamette River (43.9495, -122.8471); Mill Race (44.0407, -
123.0004); Pudding Creek (44.0173, -122.9501); Rattlesnake Creek 
(43.9352, -122.8608); Wallace Creek (44.0074, -122.8984).
    (2) Upper Willamette Subbasin 17090003--(i) Muddy Creek Watershed 
1709000302. Outlet(s) = Willamette River (Lat 44.6400, Long -123.1096) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Willamette River (44.0226, -123.0169).
    (ii) Calapooia River Watershed 1709000303. Outlet(s) = Calapooia 
River (Lat 44.5088, Long -123.1101) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Calapooia River (44.2354, -122.4128).
    (iii) Oak Creek Watershed 1709000304. Outlet(s) = Willamette River 
(Lat 44.7504, Long -123.1421) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Calapooia 
River (44.5088, -123.1101); Willamette River (44.6400, -123.1096).
    (iv) Marys River Watershed 1709000305. Outlet(s) = Marys River (Lat 
44.5566, Long -123.2597) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek 
(44.4554, -123.3748); Marys River (44.5373, -123.3762); Oak Creek 
(44.5636, -123.2932).
    (v) Luckiamute River Watershed 1709000306. Outlet(s) = Luckiamute 
River (Lat 44.7561, Long -123.1468) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Soap 
Creek (44.7317, -123.2151); Unnamed (44.7661, -123.2011).
    (3) McKenzie Subbasin 17090004--(i) Upper McKenzie River Watershed 
1709000401. Outlet(s) = McKenzie River (Lat 44.1721, Long -122.2058) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Deer Creek (44.2677, -122.0712); Frissell 
Creek (44.2288, -122.0699); Lost Creek (44.1729, -122.0401); McKenzie 
River (44.3109, -122.0199); Scott Creek (44.1981, -122.0195); Smith 
River (44.2824, -122.0506).
    (ii) Horse Creek Watershed 1709000402. Outlet(s) = West Fork Horse 
Creek (Lat 44.1721, Long -122.2058) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cedar 
Swamp Creek (44.1563, -122.1132); Horse Creek (44.0602, -122.0087); 
King Creek (44.1635, -122.1693); Separation Creek (44.1274, -122.0077).
    (iii) South Fork McKenzie River Watershed 1709000403. Outlet(s) = 
South Fork McKenzie River (Lat 44.1595, Long -122.2946) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Augusta Creek (43.9562, -122.1632); Cougar Creek 
(44.1397, -122.2437); East Fork South Fork McKenzie (44.0850, -
122.0997); Elk Creek (43.9455, -122.0384); French Pete Creek (44.0402, 
-122.1854); Hardy Creek (44.0345, -122.2047); Rebel Creek (44.0167, -
122.1505); Roaring River (43.9479, -122.0811); South Fork McKenzie 
River (43.9533, -121.9995).
    (iv) McKenzie River/Quartz Creek Watershed 1709000405. Outlet(s) = 
McKenzie River (Lat 44.1112, Long -122.4209) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Cone Creek (44.1528, -122.3649); McKenzie River (44.1721, -
122.2058); Quartz Creek (44.0188, -122.3015); Wycoff Creek (44.0846, -
122.3143).
    (v) Lower McKenzie River Watershed 1709000407. Outlet(s) = McKenzie 
River (Lat 44.1255, Long -123.1059) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boulder 
Creek (44.0601, -122.7825); Camp Creek (44.0896, -122.8544); Deer Creek 
(44.0895, -122.4234); Ennis Creek (44.0804, -122.3754); Finn Creek 
(44.1471, -122.5972); Forest Creek (44.0861, -122.7153); Haagen Creek 
(44.0880, -122.7126); Hatchery Creek (44.1449, -122.6056); Holden Creek

[[Page 52721]]

(44.1056, -122.7061); Indian Creek (44.1526, -122.5816); Lane Creek 
(44.0928, -122.7323); Marten Creek (44.1075, -122.5046); McKenzie River 
(44.1112, -122.4209); North Fork Gate Creek (44.1718, -122.5248); 
Osborn Creek (44.0565, -122.7880); Ritchie Creek (44.1028, -122.6567); 
South Fork Gate Creek (44.1667, -122.4980); Taylor Creek (44.0783, -
122.7481); Toms Creek (44.1316, -122.5586); Unnamed (44.0646, -
122.9399); Walterville Canal (44.0765, -122.7537).
    (4) North Santiam Subbasin 17090005--(i) Middle North Santiam River 
Watershed 1709000504. Outlet(s) = North Santiam River (Lat 44.7852, 
Long -122.6079) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mad Creek (44.7453, -
122.3898); North Santiam River (44.7510, -122.2821); Rock Creek 
(44.7077, -122.4171); Snake Creek (44.7477, -122.4905).
    (ii) Little North Santiam River Watershed 1709000505. Outlet(s) = 
Little North Santiam River (Lat 44.7852, Long -122.6079) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Elkhorn Creek (44.8134, -122.3561); Little North 
Santiam River (44.8390, -122.3364); Little Sinker Creek (44.8191, -
122.4111); Sinker Creek (44.8166, -122.4174).
    (iii) Lower North Santiam River Watershed 1709000506. Outlet(s) = 
Santiam River (Lat 44.7504, Long -123.1421) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Bear Branch (44.7559, -122.7974); Cold Creek (44.7522, -122.8848); 
Morgan Creek (44.7500, -123.0376); North Santiam River (44.7852, -
122.6079); Salem Ditch (44.8000, -122.8120); Smallman Creek (44.7300, -
122.9098); Stout Creek (44.7930, -122.6177); Trask Creek (44.7725, -
122.6152); Unnamed (44.7672, -123.0517); Valentine Creek (44.8013, -
122.7176).
    (5) South Santiam Subbasin 17090006--(i) Hamilton Creek/South 
Santiam River Watershed 1709000601. Outlet(s) = South Santiam River 
(Lat 44.6869, Long -123.0052) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Hamilton 
Creek (44.5037, -122.7667); McDowell Creek (44.4580, -122.7128); Mill 
Creek (44.6750, -122.9721); Noble Creek (44.4519, -122.7976); South 
Santiam River (44.4163, -122.6693); Spring Branch (44.6821, -122.9811); 
Unnamed (44.6703, -122.9870); Unnamed (44.6801, -122.9786).
    (ii) Crabtree Creek Watershed 1709000602. Outlet(s) = Crabtree 
Creek (Lat 44.6756, Long -122.9557) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bald 
Peter Creek (44.5682, -122.5825); Beaver Creek (44.6271, -122.8504); 
Crabtree Creek (44.6058, -122.5405); Roaring River (44.6251, -
122.7283); South Fork Crabtree Creek (44.5741, -122.5744).
    (iii) Thomas Creek Watershed 1709000603. Outlet(s) = Thomas Creek 
(Lat 44.6778, Long -122.9654) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Jordan Creek 
(44.7531, -122.6595); Mill Creek (44.7055, -122.7842); Neal Creek 
(44.7101, -122.6912); South Fork Neal Creek (44.7033, -122.7078); 
Thomas Creek (44.6776, -122.4650).
    (iv) South Santiam River Watershed 1709000606. Outlet(s) = South 
Santiam River (Lat 44.3977, Long -122.4491) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Falls Creek (44.4007, -122.3828); South Santiam River (44.3980, -122.2610).
    (v) South Santiam River/Foster Reservoir Watershed 1709000607. 
Outlet(s) = South Santiam River (Lat 44.4163, Long -122.6693) upstream 
to endpoint(s) in: Middle Santiam River (44.4498, -122.5479); South 
Santiam River (44.3977, -122.4491).
    (vi) Wiley Creek Watershed 1709000608. Outlet(s) = Wiley Creek (Lat 
44.4140, Long -122.6752) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Little Wiley Creek 
(44.3673, -122.5916); Wiley Creek (44.3488, -122.5900).
    (6) Middle Willamette Subbasin 17090007--(i) Mill Creek/Willamette 
River Watershed 1709000701. Outlet(s) = Mill Creek (Lat 44.9520, Long -
123.0381) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mill Creek (44.8255, -122.8226).
    (ii) Rickreall Creek Watershed 1709000702. Outlet(s) = Willamette 
River (Lat 44.9288, Long -123.1124) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Willamette River (44.7504, -123.1421).
    (iii) Willamette River/Chehalem Creek Watershed 1709000703. 
Outlet(s) = Willamette River (Lat 45.2552, Long -122.8806) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Willamette River (44.9288, -123.1124).
    (iv) Abernethy Creek Watershed 1709000704. Outlet(s) = Willamette 
River (Lat 45.3719, Long -122.6071) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Willamette River (45.2552, -122.8806).
    (7) Molalla/Pudding Subbasin 17090009--(i) Butte Creek/Pudding 
River Watershed 1709000902. Outlet(s) = Pudding River (Lat 45.1907, 
Long -122.7527) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Pudding River (45.0740, -
122.8525).
    (ii) Senecal Creek/Mill Creek Watershed 1709000904. Outlet(s) = 
Pudding River (Lat 45.2843, Long -122.7149) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Pudding River (45.1907, -122.7527).
    (iii) Upper Molalla River Watershed 1709000905. Outlet(s) = Molalla 
River (Lat 45.1196, Long -122.5342) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Molalla 
River (44.9124, -122.3228); North Fork Molalla River (45.0872, -
122.3849); Table Rock Fork Molalla River (44.9876, -122.2741).
    (iv) Lower Molalla River Watershed 1709000906. Outlet(s) = Molalla 
River (Lat 45.2979, Long -122.7141) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Gribble 
Creek (45. 2146, -122.6988); Milk Creek (45.2278, -122.5670); Molalla 
River (45.1196, -122.5342).
    (8) Clackamas Subbasin 17090011--(i) Collawash River Watershed 
1709001101. Outlet(s) = Collawash River (Lat 45.0321, Long -122.0600) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Blister Creek (44.9594, -122.1590); 
Collawash River (44.9507, -122.0350); Hot Springs Fk Collawash River 
(44.9385, -122.1721); Nohorn Creek (44.9442, -122.1957).
    (ii) Upper Clackamas River 1709001102. Outlet(s) = Clackamas River 
(Lat 45.0321, Long -122.0600) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cabin Creek 
(45.0087, -121.8958); Clackamas River (44.8966, -121.8800); Cub Creek 
(44.8969, -121.8876); Granite Creek (45.0184, -121.9885); Hunter Creek 
(44.9086, -121.8929); Last Creek (44.9715, -121.8547); Lowe Creek 
(44.9487, -121.8983); Pot Creek (45.0149, -121.9084); Unnamed (44.9469, 
-121.8691); Wall Creek (44.9555, -121.8843).
    (iii) Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River Watershed 1709001103. 
Outlet(s) = Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River (Lat 45.0746, Long -
122.0520) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River 
(45.0822, -121.9859).
    (iv) Middle Clackamas River Watershed 1709001104. Outlet(s) = 
Clackamas River (Lat 45.2440, Long -122.2798) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Clackamas River (45.0321, -122.0600); Fish Creek (45.0962, -
122.1683); North Fork Clackamas River (45.2361, -122.2186); Roaring 
River (45.1773, -122.0650); South Fork Clackamas River (45.1939, -
122.2257); Tag Creek (45.0607, -122.0512); Tar Creek (45.0494, -122.0570).
    (v) Lower Clackamas River Watershed 1709001106. Outlet(s) = 
Clackamas River (Lat 45.3719, Long -122.6071) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Clackamas River (45.2440, -122.2798); Clear Creek (45.3568, -
122.4781); Deep Creek (45.3937, -122.4095); Richardson Creek (45.3971, 
-122.4712).
    (9) Lower Willamette/Columbia River Corridor--Lower Willamette/
Columbia River Corridor. Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 46.2485, Long 
-124.0782) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Willamette River (45.3719, -
122.6071).
    (10) Maps of critical habitat for the Upper Willamette River 
chinook salmon ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52722]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.097
[[Page 52723]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.098
[[Page 52724]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.099
[[Page 52725]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.100
[[Page 52726]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.101
[[Page 52727]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.102
[[Page 52728]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.103

[[Continued on page 52729]]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]]
 
[[pp. 52729-52778]]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon 
and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

[[Continued from page 52728]]

[[Page 52729]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.104
[[Page 52730]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.105
[[Page 52731]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.106

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    (l) Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Critical habitat is to

[[Page 52732]]

include the areas defined in the following subbasins:
    (1) Chief Joseph Subbasin 17020005--Upper Columbia/Swamp Creek 
Watershed 1702000505. Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 47.8077, Long -
119.9754) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Columbia River (48.0502, -119.8942).
    (2) Methow Subbasin 17020008--(i) Lost River Watershed 1702000801 
Outlet(s) = Lost River Gorge (Lat 48.6501, Long -120.5103) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Eureka Creek (48.7020, -120.4986); Lost River Gorge 
(48.7324, -120.4475).
    (ii) Upper Methow River Watershed 1702000802. Outlet(s) = Methow 
River (Lat 48.6015, Long -120.4376) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Early 
Winters Creek (48.5999, -120.5840); Methow River (48.6417, -120.6150); 
Rattlesnake Creek (48.6523, -120.5733); Robinson Creek (48.6680, -
120.5394); South Fork Trout Creek (48.6448, -120.6030).
    (iii) Upper Chewuch River Watershed 1702000803. Outlet(s) = Chewuch 
River (Lat 48.7501, Long -120.1356) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Andrews 
Creek (48.7855, -120.1087); Chewuch River (48.8614, -120.0288); Dog 
Creek (48.8218, -120.0151); Lake Creek (48.8258, -120.1996); Thirtymile 
Creek (48.8109, -120.0199).
    (iv) Lower Chewuch River Watershed 1702000804. Outlet(s) = Chewuch 
River (Lat 48.4751, Lat -120.1790) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boulder 
Creek (48.5797, -120.1538); Chewuch River (48.7501, -120.1356); Cub 
Creek (48.5513, -120.1899); Eightmile Creek (48.6071, -120.1775); Lake 
Creek (48.4926, -120.1629); Twentymile Creek (48.7029, -120.1117).
    (v) Twisp River Watershed 1702000805. Outlet(s) = Twisp River (Lat 
48.3682, Long -120.1176) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Buttermilk Creek 
(48.3528, -120.3239); Eagle Creek (48.3584, -120.3914); North Creek 
(48.4587, -120.5595); Poorman Creek (48.3674, -120.1997); South Creek 
(48.4330, -120.5431); Twisp River (48.4615, -120.5764); War Creek 
(48.3649, -120.4030).
    (vi) Middle Methow River Watershed 1702000806. Outlet(s) = Methow 
River (Lat 48.2495, Long -120.1156) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear 
Creek (48.4527, -120.1423); Goat Creek (48.5888, -120.3705); Little 
Boulder Creek (48.5700, -120.3797); Methow River (48.6015, -120.4376); 
Wolf Creek (48.4776, -120.2840) Unnamed (48.4896, -120.2116).
    (vii) Lower Methow River Watershed 1702000807. Outlet(s) = Methow 
River (Lat 48.0502, Long -119.8942) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Methow 
River (48.2495, -120.1156).
    (3) Upper Columbia/Entiat Subbasin 17020010--(i) Entiat River 
Watershed 1702001001. Outlet(s) = Entiat River (Lat 47.6585, Long -
120.2194) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Entiat River (47.9855, -
120.5749); Hornet Creek (47.7714, -120.4403); Mad River (47.7804, -
120.4403); Tillicum Creek (47.7295, -120.4304).
    (ii) Lake Entiat Watershed 1702001002. Outlet(s) = Columbia River 
(Lat 47.3438, Long -120.0929) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Columbia 
River (47.8077, -119.9754).
    (4) Wenatchee Subbasin 17020011--(i) White River Watershed 
1702001101. Outlet(s) = White River (Lat 47.8088, Long -120.7159) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Little Wenatchee River (47.8526, -
120.9541); Napeequa River (47.9285, -120.8829); Panther Creek (47.9355, 
-120.9482); White River (47.9535, -120.9380).
    (ii) Chiwawa River Watershed 1702001102. Outlet(s) = Chiwawa River 
(Lat 47.7880, Long -120.6589) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 
(47.8483, -120.6587); Chikamin Creek (47.9785, -120.7194); Chiwawa 
River (48.1048, -120.8773); Goose Creek (47.8392, -120.6461); Minnow 
Creek (47.9137, -120.7182); Phelps Creek (48.0794, -120.8400); Unnamed 
(48.0366, -120.7615).
    (iii) Nason/Tumwater Watershed 1702001103. Outlet(s) = Wenatchee 
River (Lat 47.5801, Long -120.6660) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Chiwaukum Creek (47.7039, -120.7791); Nason Creek (47.7769, -120.9103); 
Skinney Creek (47.6894, -120.7351).
    (iv) Icicle/Chumstick Watershed 1702001104. Outlet(s) = Wenatchee 
River (Lat 47.5575, Long -120.5729) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Wenatchee River (47.5801, -120.6660).
    (v) Lower Wenatchee River Watershed 1702001105. Outlet(s) = 
Wenatchee River (Lat 47.4553, Long -120.3185) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Wenatchee River (47.5575, -120.5729).
    (5) Columbia River Corridor--Columbia River Corridor Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 46.2485, Long -124.0782) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (47.3438, -120.0929).
    (6) Maps of critical habitat for the Upper Columbia River Spring-
run chinook salmon ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52733]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.107
[[Page 52734]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.108
[[Page 52735]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.109
[[Page 52736]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.110
[[Page 52737]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.111
[[Page 52738]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.112
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 52739]]

    (m) Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Critical 
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following 
subbasins:
    (1) Skokomoish Subbasin 17110017--Skokomish River 1711001701. 
Outlet(s) = Skokomish River (Lat 47.3543, Long -123.1122), Unnamed 
(47.3420, -123.1092), Unnamed (47.3471, -123.1275), Unnamed (47.3509. -
123.1101) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mussel Sheel Creek (47.3039, -
123.1590); Skokomish (47.3199, -123.2198); Unnamed (47.3209, -123.2211).
    (2) Hood Canal Subbasin 17110018--(i) Lower West Hood Canal Frontal 
Watershed 1711001802. Outlet(s)= Eagle Creek (Lat 47.4849, Long -
123.0766); Finch Creek (47.4067, -123.1377); Fulton Creek (47.6183, -
122.9736); Jorsted Creek (47.5263, -123.0489); Lilliwaup Creek 
(47.4689, -123.1136); Unnamed (47.4576, -123.1117) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Eagle Creek (47.4905, -123.0830); Finch Creek (47.4076, 
-123.1586); Fulton Creek (47.6275, -122.9805); Jorsted Creek (47.5246, 
-123.0649); Lilliwaup Creek (47.4704, -123.1166); Unnamed (47.4585, -
123.1186).
    (ii) Hamma Hamma River Watershed 1711001803. Outlet(s) = Hamma 
Hamma River (Lat 47.5471, Long -123.0440) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Hamma Hamma River (47.5547, -123.0623); John Creek (47.5369, -123.0619).
    (iii) Duckabush River Watershed 1711001804. Outlet(s) = Duckabush 
River (Lat 47.6502, Long -122.9348) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Duckabush River (47.6654, -122.9728).
    (iv) Dosewallips River Watershed 1711001805. Outlet(s) = 
Dosewallips River (Lat 47.6880, Long -122.8949) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Dosewallips River (47.7157, -122.9396).
    (v) Big Quilcene River Watershed 1711001806. Outlet(s) = Big 
Quilcene River (Lat 47.8188, Long -122.8605) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Big Quilcene River (47.8102, -122.9119).
    (vi) Upper West Hood Canal Frontal Watershed 1711001807. Outlet(s) 
= Little Quilcene River (Lat 47.8266; Long -122.8608) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Little Quilcene River (47.8374, -122.8854).
    (vii) West Kitsap Watershed 1711001808. Outlet(s) = Anderson Creek 
(Lat 47.5670, Long -122.9664); Big Beef Creek (47.6521, -122.7823); 
Dewatto River (47.4538, -123.0474); Little Anderson Creek (47.6653, -
122.7554); Tahuya River (47.3767, -123.0355); Union River (47.4484, -
122.8368); Unnamed (47.3767, -123.0372); Unnamed (47.4537, -123.0474) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Anderson Creek (47.5596, -122.9354); Bear 
Creek (47.4980, -122.8074); Big Beef Creek (47.6385, -122.7868); 
Dewatto River (47.4937, -122.9914); East Fork Union River (47.5056, -
122.7897); Hazel Creek (47.5170, -122.7945); Little Anderson Creek 
(47.6606, -122.7543); North East Fork Union River (47.4954, -122.7819); 
Tahuya River (47.4510, -122.9597); Union River (47.5273, -122.7846); 
Unnamed (47.4492, -122.9229); Unnamed (47.4527, -122.8294); Unnamed 
(47.4553, -122.8301); Unnamed (47.4594, -122.8396); Unnamed (47.4700, -
122.8300); Unnamed (47.4852, -122.8313); Unnamed (47.4966, -122.8393); 
Unnamed (47.4971, -122.8315); Unnamed (47.6600, -122.7559); Unnamed 
(47.6642, -122.7534).
    (3) Puget Sound Subbasin 17110019--Port Ludlow/Chimacum Creek 
Watershed 1711001908. Outlet(s) = Chimacum Creek (Lat 48.0507, Long -
122.7832) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Chimacum Creek (47.9743, -122.7764).
    (4) Dungeness/Elwha Subbasin 17110020--(i) Discovery Bay Watershed 
1711002001. Outlet(s) = Salmon Creek (Lat 47.9895, Long -122.8879); 
Snow Creek (47.9900, -122.8834) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Salmon 
Creek (47.9775, -122.9191); Snow Creek (47.9638, -122.8827).
    (ii) Sequim Bay Watershed 1711002002. Outlet(s) = Jimmycomelately 
Creek (Lat 48.0235, Long -123.0039) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Jimmycomelately Creek (48.0125, -123.0026).
    (iii) Dungeness River Watershed 1711002003. Outlet(s) = Dungeness 
River (Lat 48.1506, Long -123.1311); Unnamed (48.1537, -123.1267) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dungeness River (48.0258, -123.1358); 
Matriotti Creek (48.1369, -123.1488); Unnamed (48.1167, -123.1403); 
Unnamed (48.1514, -123.1216).
    (5) Nearshore Marine Areas--Except as provided in paragraph (e) of 
this section, critical habitat includes all nearshore marine areas 
(including areas adjacent to islands) of Hood Canal and the Strait of 
Juan de Fuca (to Dungeness Bay) from the line of extreme high tide out 
to a depth of 30 meters.
    (6) Maps of critical habitat for the Hood Canal summer-run chum 
salmon ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52740]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.113
[[Page 52741]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.114
[[Page 52742]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.115
[[Page 52743]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.116
[[Page 52744]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.117
[[Page 52745]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.118
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 52746]]

    (n) Columbia River Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Critical 
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following 
subbasins:
    (1) Middle Columbia/Hood Subbasin 17070105--(i) White Salmon River 
Watershed 1707010509. Outlet(s) = White Salmon River (Lat 45.7267, Long 
-121.5209) upstream to endpoint(s) in: White Salmon River (45.7677, -
121.5374).
    (ii) Middle Columbia/Grays Creek Watershed 1707010512. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 45.7074, Long -121.7965) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (45.7267, -121.5209).
    (iii) Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek 1707010513. Outlet(s) = Columbia 
River (Lat 45.6453, Long -121.9395) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Columbia River (45.7074, -121.7965).
    (2) Lower Columbia/Sandy Subbasin 17080001--(i) Washougal River 
Watershed 1708000106. Outlet(s) = Unnamed (Lat 45.5812, Long -
122.4077); Washougal River (45.5795, -122.4023) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Lacamas Creek (45.5972, -122.3933); Little Washougal River 
(45.6210, -122.3750); Unnamed (45.5861, -122.4083); Washougal River 
(45.6232, -122.2738).
    (ii) Columbia Gorge Tributaries Watershed 1708000107. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 45.5709, Long -122.4020) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (45.6453, -121.9395); Duncan Creek (45.6136, -
122.0539); Gibbons Creek (45.5710, -122.3147); Greenleaf Creek 
(45.6548, -121.9569); Hamilton Creek (45.6535, -121.9879); Hardy Creek 
(45.6354, -121.9987); Indian Mary Creek (45.6066, -122.0716); Lawton 
Creek (45.5746, -122.2501); Unnamed (45.5673, -122.3033); Unnamed 
(45.6017, -122.1106); Unnamed (45.6017, -122.1087); Unnamed (45.6483, -
121.9725); Unnamed (45.6509, -121.9502); Walton Creek (45.5757, -122.2618).
    (iii) Salmon Creek Watershed 1708000109. Outlet(s) = Lake River 
(Lat 45.8437, Long -122.7800); Love Creek (45.5976, -122.5443); Unnamed 
(45.5867, -122.5015); Unnamed (45.5919, -122.5241); Unnamed (45.5952, -
122.5366) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Love Creek (45.5981, -122.5444); 
Salmon Creek (45.7089, -122.6480); Unnamed (45.5873, -122.5015); 
Unnamed (45.5924, -122.5242); Unnamed (45.5955, -122.5360).
    (3) Lewis Subbasin 17080002--(i) East Fork Lewis River Watershed 
1708000205. Outlet(s) = East Fork Lewis River (Lat 45.8664, Long -
122.7189); Gee Creek (45.8462, -122.7803) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Brezee Creek (45.8622, -122.6667); East Fork Lewis River (45.8395, -
122.4463); Gee Creek (45.8264, -122.7458); Lockwood Creek (45.8578, -
122.6259); Mason Creek (45.8410, -122.5919); McCormick Creek (45.8521, 
-122.6907); Riley Creek (45.8663, -122.6349); Unnamed (45.8076, -
122.5878); Unnamed (45.8076, -122.6286); Unnamed (45.8090, -122.6089); 
Unnamed (45.8111, -122.5860); Unnamed (45.8149, -122.5654); Unnamed 
(45.8201, -122.5991); Unnamed (45.8241, -122.6380); Unnamed (45.8280, -
122.6431); Unnamed (45.8292, -122.6040); Unnamed (45.8389, -122.6456); 
Unnamed (45.8439, -122.6478); Unnamed (45.8439, -122.6605).
    (ii) Lower Lewis River Watershed 1708000206. Outlet(s) = Lewis 
River (Lat 45.8519, Long -122.7806) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cedar 
Creek (45.9383, -122.5818); Colvin Creek (45.9400, -122.6081); Houghton 
Creek (45.9395, -122.6478); Johnson Creek (45.9385, -122.6261); Lewis 
River (45.9570, -122.5550); Ross Creek (45.9340, -122.7076).
    (4) Lower Columbia/Clatskanie Subbasin 17080003--(i) Kalama River 
Watershed 1708000301. Outlet(s) = Kalama River (Lat 46.0340, Long -
122.8696) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Kalama River (46.0449, -122.8034).
    (ii) Germany/Abernathy Watershed 1708000304. Outlet(s) = Abernethy 
Creek (Lat 46.1908, Long -123.1661); Germany Creek (46.1895, -
123.1244); Mill Creek (46.1888, -123.1745) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Abernethy Creek (46.2263, -123.1467); Germany Creek (46.2221, -
123.1353); Mill Creek (46.1932, -123.1834).
    (iii) Skamokawa/Elochoman Watershed 1708000305. Outlet(s) = 
Elochoman River (Lat 46.2269, Long -123.4039); Jim Crow Creek (46.2662, 
-123.5511); Skamokawa Creek (46.2677, -123.4562); Unnamed (46.2243, -
123.3975) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek (46.2262, -
123.3239); Brooks Slough (46.2502, -123.4094); Clear Creek (46.2611, -
123.2996); Duck Creek (46.2517, -123.3159); Eggman Creek (46.3248, -
123.4951); Elochoman River (46.2615, -123.2965); Indian Jack Slough 
(46.2371, -123.3955); Jim Crow Creek (46.2891, -123.5553); Kelly Creek 
(46.3109, -123.4797); Left Fork Skamokawa Creek (46.3331, -123.4610); 
Quarry Creek (46.3292, -123.4241); Skamokawa Creek (46.3277, -
123.4236); Unnamed (46.2338, -123.3282); Unnamed (46.3293, -123.4534); 
West Fork Skamokawa Creek (46.3119, -123.4889); West Valley Creek 
(46.2981, -123.4698); Wilson Creek (46.3006, -123.3787).
    (5) Lower Cowlitz Subbasin 17080005--(i) Jackson Prairie Watershed 
1708000503. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River (Lat 46.3678, Long -122.9337) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek (46.4544, -122.9187); Blue Creek 
(46.4885, -122.7253); Coon Creek (46.4272, -122.9109); Cowlitz River 
(46.5033, -122.5871); Lacamas Creek (46.5564, -122.6878); Mill Creek 
(46.5025, -122.8017); Salmon Creek (46.4130, -122.8165); Skook Creek 
(46.4708, -122.7594); Unnamed (46.4191, -122.8205); Unnamed (46.4205, -
122.8662); Unnamed (46.4280, -122.8380); Unnamed (46.4707, -122.7713); 
Unnamed (46.4885, -122.8068); Unnamed (46.5076, -122.6675); Unnamed 
(46.5311, -122.8194); Unnamed (46.5432, -122.7466).
    (ii) South Fork Toutle River Watershed 1708000506. Outlet(s) = 
South Fork Toutle River (Lat 46.3282, Long -122.7215) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Johnson Creek (46.3102, -122.6444); South Fork Toutle 
River (46.2817, -122.6420).
    (iii) East Willapa Watershed 1708000507. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River 
(Lat 46.2660, Long -122.9154) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arkansas 
Creek (46.3032, -122.9801); Cowlitz River (46.3678, -122.9337); 
Delameter Creek (46.2598, -122.9679); Hill Creek (46.3704, -122.9267); 
McMurphy Creek (46.4082, -122.9520); Monahan Creek (46.2636, -
122.9727); North Fork Toutle River (46.3669, -122.5859); Olequa Creek 
(46.4324, -122.9688); Unnamed (46.2606, -122.9551); Unnamed (46.2642, -
122.9291); Unnamed (46.2689, -122.9589); Unnamed (46.2880, -122.9051); 
Unnamed (46.2892, -122.9626); Unnamed (46.3294, -122.9085); Unnamed 
(46.3371, -122.8922); Unnamed (46.3491, -122.7052); Unnamed (46.3571, -
122.7684); Unnamed (46.3587, -122.7478); Unnamed (46.3683, -122.7503); 
Unnamed (46.3814, -122.6091); Wyant Creek (46.3314, -122.6768).
    (iv) Coweeman Watershed 1708000508. Outlet(s) = Cowlitz River (Lat 
46.0977, Long -122.9141); Owl Creek (46.0768, -122.8679) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Baird Creek (46.1789, -122.5822); Butler Creek 
(46.1491, -122.5170); Cowlitz River (46.2660, -122.9154); Goble Creek 
(46.1074, -122.7068);Leckler Creek (46.2164, -122.9325); Mulholland 
Creek (46.2004, -122.6484); Nineteen Creek (46.1593, -122.6095); North 
Fork Goble Creek (46.1208, -122.7691); Owl Creek (46.0914, -122.8692); 
Salmon Creek (46.2547, -122.8839); Sandy Bend Creek (46.2318, -
122.9143); Skipper Creek

[[Page 52747]]

(46.1625, -122.5915); Turner Creek (46.1167, -122.8150); Unnamed 
(46.0719, -122.8607); Unnamed (46.0767, -122.8604); Unnamed (46.0897, -
122.7355); Unnamed (46.1295, -122.8993); Unnamed (46.1369, -122.8034); 
Unnamed (46.1441, -122.5816); Unnamed (46.1478, -122.8649); Unnamed 
(46.1516, -122.8749); Unnamed (46.1558, -122.7803); Unnamed (46.1727, -
122.7716); Unnamed (46.1753, -122.7657); Unnamed (46.1940, -122.7068); 
Unnamed (46.2021, -122.6941); Unnamed (46.2416, -122.8869).
    (6) Lower Columbia Subbasin 17080006--(i) Big Creek Watershed 
1708000602. Outlet(s) = Big Creek (Lat 46.1848, Long -123.5943) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big Creek (46.1476, -123.5820); Little 
Creek (46.1510, -123.6007).
    (ii) Grays Bay Watershed 1708000603. Outlet(s) = Deep River (Lat 
46.3035, Long -123.7092); Grays River (46.3035, -123.6867); Unnamed 
(46.2419, -123.8842); Unnamed (46.3026, -123.9702) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (46.4279, -123.4621); Blaney Creek 
(46.3957, -123.4607); Campbell Creek (46.3435, -123.7087); Chinook 
River (46.2685, -123.9233); Deep River (46.3480, -123.6865); East Fork 
Grays River (46.4424, -123.4120); Fossil Creek (46.3612, -123.5217); 
Grays River (46.4628, -123.4602); Johnson Creek (46.4544, -123.4732); 
Kessel Creek (46.3336, -123.5850); King Creek (46.3444, -123.5774); 
Lassila Creek (46.3343, -123.7108); Mitchell Creek (46.4512, -
123.4269); South Fork Grays River (46.3836, -123.4592); Thadbar Creek 
(46.3331, -123.6092); Unnamed (46.2502, -123.8833); Unnamed (46.2847, -
123.9402); Unnamed (46.2901, -123.9368); Unnamed (46.3605, -123.5228); 
Unnamed (46.3838, -123.5454); Unnamed (46.4328, -123.4444); West Fork 
Grays River (46.3942, -123.5611).
    (7) Lower Columbia River Corridor--Lower Columbia River Corridor
    Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 46.2485, Long -124.0782) upstream 
to endpoint(s) in: Columbia River (45.5709, -122.4020).
    (8) Maps of critical habitat for the Columbia River chum salmon ESU 
follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52748]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.119
[[Page 52749]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.120
[[Page 52750]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.121
[[Page 52751]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.122
[[Page 52752]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.123
[[Page 52753]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.124
[[Page 52754]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.125
[[Page 52755]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.126
[[Page 52756]]

    (o) Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Critical 
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following 
subbasin:
    (1) Hoh/Quillayute Subbasin 17100101--(i) Ozette Lake Watershed 
1710010102. Outlet(s) = Ozette River (Lat 48.1818, Long -124.7076) 
upstream to endpoints in: Big River (48.1844, -124.4987); Coal Creek 
(48.1631, -124.6612); East Branch Umbrella Creek (48.1835, -124.5659); 
North Fork Crooked Creek (48.1020, -124.5507); Ozette River (48.0370, -
124.6218); South Fork Crooked Creek (48.0897, -124.5597); Umbrella 
Creek (48.2127, -124.5787); Unnamed (48.1771, -124.5967); Unnamed 
(48.1740, -124.6005); Unnamed (48.1649, -124.5208).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) A map of critical habitat for the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon 
ESU follows:

[[Page 52757]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.128
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52758]]

    (p) Upper Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Critical 
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following 
subbasins:
    (1) Chief Joseph Subbasin 17020005--Upper Columbia/Swamp Creek 
Watershed 1702000505. Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 47.8077, Long -
119.9754) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Columbia River (48.0828, -119.7062).
    (2) Okanogan Subbasin 17020006--(i) Upper Okanogan River Watershed 
1702000601. Outlet(s) = Okanogan River (Lat 48.7350, Long -119.4280) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Antoine Creek (48.7474, -119.3655); 
Ninemile Creek (48.9755, -119.3834); Okanogan River (49.0002, -
119.4409); Similkameen River (48.9345, -119.4411); Tomasket Creek 
(48.9502, -119.3618); Whitestone Creek (48.7773, -119.4170).
    (ii) Okanogan River/Bonaparte Creek Watershed 1702000602. Outlet(s) 
= Okanogan River (Lat 48.5612, Long -119.4863) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Aeneas Creek (48.6629, -119.4953); Bonaparte Creek (48.6824, -
119.3947); Okanogan River (48.7350, -119.4280); Tunk Creek (48.5644, -
119.4718).
    (iii) Salmon Creek Watershed 1702000603. Outlet(s) = Salmon Creek 
(Lat 48.3593, Long -119.5805) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Salmon Creek 
(48.5374, -119.7465).
    (iv) Okanogan River/Omak Creek Watershed 1702000604. Outlet(s) = 
Okanogan River (Lat 48.3593, Long -119.5805) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Okanogan River (48.5612, -119.4863); Omak Creek (48.3698, -
119.4365); Unnamed (48.3802, -119.4915).
    (v) Lower Okanogan River Watershed 1702000605. Outlet(s) = Okanogan 
River (Lat 48.0976, Long -119.7352) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Chiliwist Creek (48.2643, -119.7304); Loup Loup Creek (48.3080, -
119.7128); Okanogan River (48.3593, -119.5805).
    (3) Similkameen Subbasin 17020007--Lower Similkameen River 
Watershed 1702000704. Outlet(s) = Similkameen River (Lat 48.9345, Long 
-119.4411) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Similkameen River (48.9657, -
119.5009).
    (4) Methow Subbasin 17020008--(i) Lost River Watershed 1702000801. 
Outlet(s) = Lost River Gorge (Lat 48.6501, Long -120.5103) upstream to 
endpoint(s) in: Lost River Gorge (48.7324, -120.4475).
    (ii) Upper Methow River Watershed 1702000802. Outlet(s) = Methow 
River (Lat 48.6015, Long -120.4376) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Early 
Winters Creek (48.5889, -120.4711); Methow River (48.6597, -120.5368).
    (iii) Upper Chewuch River Watershed 1702000803. Outlet(s) = Chewuch 
River (Lat 48.7501, Long -120.1356) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Andrews 
Creek (48.7855, -120.1087); Chewuch River (48.8614, -120.0288); Lake 
Creek (48.8258, -120.1996).
    (iv) Lower Chewuch River Watershed 1702000804. Outlet(s) = Chewuch 
River (Lat 48.4751, Long -120.1790) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boulder 
Creek (48.5804, -120.1521); Chewuch River (48.7501, -120.1356); 
Eightmile Creek (48.6167, -120.1975); Twentymile Creek (48.7025, -120.1087).
    (v) Twisp River Watershed 1702000805. Outlet(s) = Twisp River (Lat 
48.3682, Long -120.1176) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Buttermilk Creek 
48.3414, -120.3034); Eagle Creek (48.3579, -120.3953); Little Bridge 
Creek (48.4289, -120.3552); South Creek (48.4329, -120.5434); Twisp 
River (48.4545, -120.5621); War Creek (48.3626, -120.4106).
    (vi) Middle Methow River Watershed 1702000806. Outlet(s) = Methow 
River (Lat 48.2495, Long -120.1156) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Goat 
Creek (48.6101, -120.3692); Hancock Creek (48.5338, -120.3310); Little 
Boulder Creek (48.5569, -120.3847); Methow River (48.6015, -120.4376); 
North Fork Beaver Creek (48.4340, -120.0228); Wolf Creek (48.4777, -
120.2844).
    (vii) Lower Methow River Watershed 1702000807. Outlet(s) = Methow 
River (Lat 48.0502, Long -119.8942) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Black 
Canyon Creek (48.0721, -120.0168); Foggy Dew Creek (48.1869, -
120.2344); Gold Creek (48.2113, -120.2021); Libby Creek (48.2548, -
120.1653); Methow River (48.2495, -120.1156); South Fork Gold Creek 
(48.1468, -120.1650).
    (5) Upper Columbia/Entiat Subbasin 17020010--(i) Entiat River 
Watershed 1702001001. Outlet(s) = Entiat River (Lat 47.6585, Long -
120.2194) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Entiat River (47.9855, -
120.5749); Mad River (47.8254, -120.5301); Potato Creek (47.7944, -
120.3889); Roaring Creek (47.6795, -120.4163); Stormy Creek (47.8246, -
120.4125); Tamarack Creek (47.6699, -120.4041); Tillicum Creek 
(47.7295, -120.4303).
    (ii) Lake Entiat Watershed 1702001002. Outlet(s) = Columbia River 
(Lat 47.3539, Long -120.1105) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Columbia 
River (47.8077, -119.9754).
    (iii) Columbia River/Lynch Coulee Watershed 1702001003. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 47.0494, Long -120.0241) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Brushy Creek (47.1316, -120.1493); Colockum Creek (47.2919, -
120.1592); Columbia River (47.3539, -120.1105); Lynch Coulee (47.2320, 
-119.9943); Quilomene Creek (47.1105, -120.0379); Tarpiscan Creek 
(47.2264, -120.0922); Tekison Creek (47.1816, -120.0206).
    (iv) Columbia River/Sand Hollow Watershed 1702001004. Outlet(s) = 
Columbia River (Lat 46.8159, Long -119.9255) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (47.0494, -120.0241); Sand Hollow (46.9296, -
119.9365); Whiskey Dick Creek (47.0302, -120.0331).
    (6) Wenatchee Subbasin 17020011--(i) White River Watershed 
1702001101. Outlet(s) = White River (Lat 47.8088, Long -120.7159) 
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Little Wenatchee River (47.8526, -
120.9541); Napeequa River (47.9359, -120.8712); Panther Creek (47.9375, 
-120.9408); White River (47.9535, -120.9380).
    (ii) Chiwawa River Watershed 1702001102. Outlet(s) = Chiwawa River 
(Lat 47.7880, Long -120.6589) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 
(47.8565, -120.6564); Alpine Creek (48.0823, -120.8683); Buck Creek 
(48.1045, -120.8815); Chikamin Creek (47.9111, -120.7165); Chiwawa 
River (48.1140, -120.8775); Clear Creek (47.8016, -120.6210); James 
Creek (48.0748, -120.8598); Phelps Creek (48.0743, -120.8484); Unnamed 
(47.9727, -120.7878).
    (iii) Nason/Tumwater Watershed 1702001103. Outlet(s) = Wenatchee 
River (Lat 47.5801, Long -120.6660) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver 
Creek (47.7649, -120.6553); Chiwaukum Creek (47.7038, -120.7788); 
Coulter Creek (47.7594, -120.7969); Gill Creek (47.7716, -120.8237); 
Kahler Creek (47.7691, -120.7558); Mill Creek (47.7744, -121.0117); 
Nason Creek (47.7825, -121.0464); Roaring Creek (47.7572, -120.8203); 
Skinney Creek (47.7247, -120.7370).
    (iv) Icicle/Chumstick Watershed 1702001104. Outlet(s) = Wenatchee 
River (Lat 47.5575, Long -120.5729) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Chumstick Creek (47.6785, -120.6385); Derby Canyon (47.6036, -
120.5623); Eagle Creek (47.6342, -120.6261); Icicle Creek (47.6460, -
120.9833); Wenatchee River (47.5801, -120.6660).
    (v) Lower Wenatchee River Watershed 1702001105. Outlet(s) = 
Wenatchee River (Lat 47.4553, Long -120.3185) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Brender Creek (47.5214, -120.4844); Ingalls Creek (47.4612, -
120.6776); King Canyon (47.3522, -120.4423); Mill Creek (47.5139, -
120.6724); Mission Creek (47.3289, -120.4771); Peshastin Creek 
(47.4380, -120.6590); Sand Creek (47.4321, -120.5307); Wenatchee River 
(47.5575, -120.5729).
    (7) Lower Crab Subbasin 17020015--Lower Crab Creek Watershed 
1702001509. Outlet(s) = Lower Crab

[[Page 52759]]

Creek (Lat 46.8159, Long -119.9255) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Hayes 
Creek (46.8821, -119.2703); Lower Crab Creek (46.9028, -119.2785); 
Unnamed (46.8157, -119.4326); Unnamed (46.8243, -119.4429); Unnamed 
(46.8353, -119.3750); Unnamed (46.8658, -119.3757); Unnamed (46.8770, -
119.5863).
    (8) Upper Columbia/Priest Rapids Subbasin 17020016--(i) Yakima 
River/Hanson Creek Watershed 1702001604. Outlet(s) = Columbia River 
(Lat 46.7159, Long -119.5294) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Columbia 
River (46.8159, -119.9255).
    (ii) Middle Columbia/Priest Rapids Watershed 1702001605. Outlet(s) 
= Columbia River (Lat 46.5091, Long -119.2661) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (46.7159, -119.5294).
    (iii) Columbia River/Zintel Canyon Watershed 1702001606. Outlet(s) 
= Columbia River (Lat 46.2534, Long -119.2268) upstream to endpoint(s) 
in: Columbia River (46.5091, -119.2661).
    (9) Columbia River Corridor--Columbia River Corridor
    Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 46.2485, Long -124.0782) upstream 
to endpoint(s) in: Columbia River (46.2534, -119.2268).
    (10) Maps of critical habitat for the Upper Columbia River 
Steelhead ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 52760]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.129
[[Page 52761]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.130
[[Page 52762]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.131
[[Page 52763]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.132
[[Page 52764]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.133
[[Page 52765]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.134
[[Page 52766]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.135
[[Page 52767]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.136
[[Page 52768]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.137
[[Page 52769]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.138

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    (q) Snake River Basin Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Critical 
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following 
subbasins:

[[Page 52770]]

    (1) Hells Canyon Subbasin 17060101--(i) Snake River/Granite Creek 
Watershed 1706010101. Outlet(s) = Snake River (Lat 45.467, Long -
116.554) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Battle Creek (45.307, -116.697); 
Bernard Creek (45.387, -116.569); Brush Creek (45.275, -116.657); Bull 
Creek (45.329, -116.673); Deep Creek (45.237, -116.674); Devils Farm 
Creek (45.301, -116.611); Granite Creek (45.277, -116.630); Hells 
Canyon (45.254, -116.698); Lightning Creek (45.440, -116.500); Little 
Granite Creek (45.335, -116.636); North Fork Battle Creek (45.316, -
116.687); Rattlesnake Creek (45.457, -116.610); Rough Creek (45.397, -
116.638); Rush Creek (45.468, -116.596); Saddle Creek (45.375, -
116.721); Sheep Creek (45.406, -116.523); Sluice Creek (45.445, -
116.622); Snake River (45.243, -116.700); Stud Creek (45.267, -
116.693); Three Creek (45.353, -116.610); Unnamed (45.468, -116.610); 
Unnamed (45.4787, -116.4799); Wild Sheep Creek (45.326, -116.676).
    (ii) Snake River/Getta Creek Watershed 1706010102. Outlet(s) = 
Snake River (Lat 45.747, Long -116.543) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big 
Canyon Creek (45.689, -116.467); Corral Creek (45.588, -116.433); Cove 
Creek (45.553, -116.574); Durham Creek (45.595, -116.472); Getta Creek 
(45.736, -116.421); Highrange Creek (45.738, -116.518); Indian Creek 
(45.744, -116.449); Jones Creek (45.703, -116.526); Kirby Creek 
(45.575, -116.454); Kirkwood Creek (45.548, -116.457); Klopton Creek 
(45.627, -116.434); Kurry Creek (45.656, -116.426); Lookout Creek 
(45.713, -116.542); Lost Valley Creek (45.550, -116.482); Pleasant 
Valley Creek (45.647, -116.492); Salt Creek (45.576, -116.554); SCreek 
(45.491, -116.574); Snake River (45.468, -116.554); Somers Creek 
(45.645, -116.553); Temperance Creek (45.537, -116.571); Tryon Creek 
(45.694, -116.540); Two Corral Creek (45.561, -116.526); Unnamed 
(45.5817, -116.5098); West Creek (45.664, -116.453); West Fork West 
Creek (45.669, -116.463).
    (iii) Snake River/Divide Creek Watershed 1706010104. Outlet(s) = 
Snake River (Lat 45.857 Long -116.794) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 
Divide Creek (45.859, -116.741); Dry Creek (45.842, -116.598); Snake 
River (45.747, -116.543); Unnamed (45.7599, -116.6456); Wolf Creek 
(45.776, -116.567).
    (2) Imnaha River Subbasin 17060102--(i) Upper Imnaha River 
Watershed 1706010201. Outlet(s) = Imnaha River (Lat 45.232, Long -
116.844) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Crazyman Creek (45.190, -116.811); 
Dry Creek (45.123, -116.867); Gumboot Creek (45.147, -116.968); 
Mahogany Creek (45.201, -116.905); North Fork Dry Creek (45.143, -
116.850); North Fork Gumboot Creek (45.184, -116.928); North Fork 
Imnaha River (45.118, -117.129); Skookum Creek (45.117, -116.938); 
South Fork Imnaha River (45.111, -117.230); Unnamed (45.188, -116.923); 
Unnamed (45.208, -116.890).
    (ii) Middle Imnaha River Watershed 1706010202. Outlet(s) = Imnaha 
River (Lat 45.557, Long -116.834) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Freezeout 
Creek (45.352, -116.761); Grouse Creek (45.179, -116.976); Imnaha River 
(45.232, -116.844); Morgan Creek (45.261, -116.948); Rich Creek 
(45.243, -116.869); Road Creek (45.279, -116.932); Shadow Canyon 
(45.295, -116.860); Summit Creek (45.228, -116.793); Unnamed (45.203, -
116.978); Unnamed (45.203, -116.943); Unnamed (45.250, -116.923).
    (iii) Big Sheep Creek Watershed 1706010203. Outlet(s) = Big Sheep 
Creek (Lat 45.520, Long -116.859) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big Sheep 
Creek (45.171, -117.086); Carrol Creek (45.240, -117.063); Griffith 
Creek (45.273, -117.061); Lick Creek (45.133, -117.056); Marr Creek 
(45.299, -116.949); North Fork Carrol Creek (45.295, -116.993); South 
Fork Squaw Creek (45.354, -116.872); Tyee Creek (45.188, -116.991); 
Unnamed (45.164, -117.023); Unnamed (45.239, -117.045); Unnamed 
(45.297, -116.940).
    (iv) Little Sheep Creek Watershed 1706010204. Outlet(s) = Big Sheep 
Creek (Lat 45.557, Long -116.834) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear 
Gulch (45.379, -116.955); Big Sheep Creek (45.520, -116.859); Camp 
Creek (45.544, -116.959); Canal Creek (45.256, -117.103); Devils Gulch 
(45.428, -116.962); Downey Gulch (45.405, -116.958); Ferguson Creek 
(45.267, -117.106); Lightning Creek (45.475, -117.020); Little Sheep 
Creek (45.236, -117.083); McCully Creek (45.295, -117.107); Redmont 
Creek (45.250, -117.099); South Fork Lightning Creek (45.473, -
117.019); Summit Creek (45.390, -116.930); Threebuck Creek (45.395, -
117.012); Trail Creek (45.563, -116.898).
    (v) Lower Imnaha River Watershed 1706010205. Outlet(s) = Imnaha 
River (Lat 45.817, Long -116.764) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Corral 
Creek (45.708, -116.815); Cottonwood Creek (45.659, -116.865); Cow 
Creek (45.573, -116.628); Do