19862 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: April 16, 2007. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend part 

224, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation of part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

§ 224.101 [Amended] 

2. In § 224.101, amend paragraph (b) 

by adding, ‘‘Cook Inlet distinct 

population segment of beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas)’’ in alphabetical 

order. 

[FR Doc. E7–7577 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 070227047–7047–01; I.D. 

020405C] 

RIN 0648–AS96 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; West 

Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 

14; Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions 

for Pacific Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 14 to the Pacific 

Salmon Fishery Management Plan 

(Salmon FMP) to identify and describe 

essential fish habitat (EFH) for Pacific 

salmon. The intent of this proposed rule 

is to codify the EFH identifications and 

descriptions for freshwater and marine 

habitats of Pacific salmon managed 

under the Salmon FMP, including 

Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. This 

proposed rule complies with an order 

issued by the U.S. District Court of 

Idaho directing NMFS to codify the EFH 

identifications and descriptions 

contained in the Salmon FMP. This 

proposed EFH rule is separate and 

distinct from the December 2004 

proposed critical habitat rules in which 

NMFS proposed critical habitat for 

seven groupings of Chinook and coho 

salmon listed as threatened or 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Where 

EFH and critical habitat overlap, NMFS 

will generally merge the results of both 

consultations into one response package 

to maximize regulatory efficiencies 

whenever possible. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 19, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

or obtain a supplemental regulatory 

impact review to amendment 14 to the 

Pacific Salmon Fishery Management 

Plan by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: EFH.salmon@NOAA.gov. 

Include in the subject line the following 

identifier ‘‘RIN 0648–AS96.’’

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: For submitting paper, disk or 

CD ROM comments. Frank Lockhart, 

NMFS Northwest Region, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Lockhart at 206–526–6142. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Among 

other things, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes 

development of Federal Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs), and Federal 

regulation of domestic fisheries under 

those FMPs, within the 200–mile U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 16 

U.S.C. 1811, 1853. To assist the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in 

carrying out specific management and 

conservation duties, the MagnusonStevens Act created eight regional 

fishery management councils. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, an FMP and any 

amendments are usually originated by 

one of the eight regional fishery 

management councils, 16 U.S.C. 1852, 

and must then be approved by the 

Secretary of Commerce. 16 U.S.C. 1854. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, originally 

enacted in 1976, has been amended 

several times. In 1996, the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act (SFA) amended the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act adding 

provisions aimed at halting overfishing 

and rebuilding overfished fisheries, 

reducing bycatch, and assessing and 

minimizing the impacts of management 

measures on fishing communities. 

Congress articulated in its findings that: 

one of the greatest long-term threats to the 

viability of commercial and recreational 

fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, 

estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat 

considerations should receive increased 

attention for the conservation and 

management of fishery resources of the 

United States. 16 U.S.C. 1801(a). 

In making such findings, Congress 

declared one of the purposes of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act to be the 

promotion of ‘‘the protection of [EFH] in 

the review of projects conducted under 

Federal permits, licenses, or other 

authorities that affect or have the 

potential to affect such habitat.’’ 16 

U.S.C. 1802(b)(7). To ensure habitat 

considerations receive increased 

attention for the conservation and 

management of fishery resources, the 

amended Magnuson-Stevens Act 

required each existing, and any new, 

FMP to: 

describe and identify essential fish habitat 

for the fishery based on the guidelines 

established by the Secretary under section 

1855(b)(1)(A) of this title, minimize to the 

extent practicable adverse effects on such 

habitat caused by fishing, and identify other 

actions to encourage the conservation and 

enhancement of such habitat. 16 U.S.C. 

1853(a)(7). 

‘‘EFH’’ is defined in the MagnusonStevens Act as ‘‘those waters and 

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(10). 

The EFH regulations (50 CFR 600.815) 

establish additional guidance to the 

Councils on how to identify and 

describe EFH. The regulations indicate 

that Councils should: 

obtain information to describe and identify 

EFH from the best available sources, 

including peer reviewed literature, 

unpublished scientific reports, data files of 

government resource agencies, fisheries 

landing reports, and other sources of 

information. 

The regulations identify four 

classification levels to organize 

available information relevant to EFH 

identifications and descriptions. Level 1 

information is limited to species 

distributional data; level 2 information 

includes habitat-related densities; level 

3 includes growth, reproduction or 

survival rates within habitats; and level 

4 consists of production rates by habitat. 

Councils are encouraged to identify and 

describe EFH based on the highest level 

of detail (i.e., level 4). Readers are 

encouraged to see the EFH regulations 

(50 CFR 600.815, subpart J) for a 

complete description of each of these 

levels as well as guidance on how the 

Councils should analyze the available 

information. In determinating EFH, the 

regulations advise the Councils to 

interpret the available information in a 

‘‘risk-averse fashion to ensure adequate 

areas are identified as EFH for managed 

species.’’ 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(A). 

For Pacific salmon, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Pacific Council) 

obtained information at all four levels 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19863 

for certain freshwater areas, and the first 

three levels of information for the 

estuaries; only the first level of 

information was available for marine 

areas. 

Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon 

Fishery Management Plan 

The Secretary approved the Salmon 

FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., in 1978. The 

Pacific Council has amended the 

Salmon FMP 14 times since 1978. For 

more information on the FMP process, 

refer to 16 U.S.C. 1651–1654. 

The Pacific Council identified and 

described EFH for Pacific salmon in 

Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP and 

submitted it on June 12, 2000, for 

Secretarial review. After a public 

comment period, NMFS approved 

Amendment 14 on September 27, 2000. 

The Pacific salmon EFH descriptions 

and identifications were not codified 

during the development of Amendment 

14. 

NMFS issues this proposed rule in 

response to a U.S. District Court of 

Idaho (Court) order (Case No. CV02–CEJL, District Court of Idaho) directing 

NMFS to codify the EFH identifications 

and descriptions contained in the 

Salmon FMP. The Court determined 

that the EFH identifications and 

descriptions included in the 

amendment constitute a substantive rule 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA). The Court remanded, but did not 

vacate, the EFH identifications and 

descriptions contained in Amendment 

14 to NMFS, and ordered NMFS to 

undertake notice and comment 

rulemaking to codify identified and 

described EFH for the Pacific salmon 

fishery. 

The intent of this proposed rule is to 

codify, in compliance with the Court’s 

order, the EFH identifications and 

descriptions for freshwater and marine 

habitats of Pacific salmon managed 

under the Salmon FMP for Chinook 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. 

kisutch), and pink (O. gorbuscha) 

salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho 

and California. 

As new information becomes 

available, the Pacific Council will 

consider potential modifications to the 

identifications and descriptions of EFH. 

The Pacific Council is scheduled to 

review salmon EFH, pursuant to the 

review process schedule set up by both 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the EFH 

regulations at 50 CFR 600.815(a)(10). 

Upon completion of this 5–year review, 

the Pacific Council and NMFS may 

propose changes to the EFH 

descriptions depending on the level of 

new information and the effect that 

information has on the existing EFH 

identifications and descriptions. 

This proposed rule does not 

contradict or make obsolete the 

information contained in appendix A of 

Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. 

Rather, this proposed rule summarizes 

key features of appendix A and would 

codify the EFH geographic extent 

descriptions for Pacific salmon. 

Appendix A contains important 

background and supplementary 

information on EFH, and can be found 

on the Council’s website at http:// 

www.pcouncil.org/salmon/salfmp/ 

a14.html. 

Pacific Council Approach to EFH 

Identification 

The Pacific Council chose a 

comprehensive rather than a limiting 

approach in the Amendment 14 

identification of salmon EFH for the 

following reasons, all of which made it 

very difficult to narrowly define EFH 

geographically. In the marine 

environment, Pacific salmon 

distribution is: (1) extensive; (2) varies 

seasonally and interannually; and (3) 

has not been extensively sampled in 

many ocean areas. In estuaries and 

freshwater, there is a high degree of 

natural variability in distribution of 

salmon species and habitat use (e.g., 

fluctuation in population abundance 

that can lead to a wider extent of habitat 

being used during high abundance years 

and a smaller extent of habitat being 

occupied during lower abundance years; 

varying levels of habitat quality; and 

interannual stream flow variation and 

water quality changes). For these 

reasons, the Pacific Council was not 

able to designate EFH based on fixed 

attributes of the streams (e.g., channel 

morphology (channel habitat type), 

streamflow, water quality, riparian 

condition, and temperature) because 

there may be areas of degraded habitat 

that may still be used by Pacific salmon 

and considered EFH. 

The Pacific Council chose to adopt an 

inclusive, watershed-based description 

of EFH using United States Geological 

Survey (USGS) hydrologic units, 

because it recognizes the species’ use of 

diverse habitats, considers the 

variability of freshwater habitat as 

affected by environmental conditions 

(droughts, floods, etc.), and reinforces 

important linkages between aquatic and 

adjacent upslope areas. A more detailed 

background on the Pacific Council’s 

approach can be found in appendix A 

of Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. 

Consideration of Artificial Barriers 

In identifying the upstream extent of 

EFH, the Pacific Council considered 

artificial barriers and dams that affect 

Pacific salmon habitat. Numerous 

hydropower, water storage, and flood 

control systems have been built that 

either block access to areas historically 

accessible to Pacific salmon or alter the 

hydrology of downstream reaches. The 

Pacific Council therefore considered 

whether more than 50 large impassible 

barriers in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

and California should be designated as 

the upstream extent of EFH. These 

barriers are identified in Table 1 to part 

660, subpart H. Should it become 

feasible for Pacific salmon to have 

access to or be reintroduced above the 

impassible dams, the FMP requires the 

Pacific Council to recommend 

identifying and describing the areas 

above the barriers as Pacific salmon 

EFH. The potential for expansion of 

EFH under these circumstances is 

addressed at 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(C) 

and (F). 

Pacific Salmon Biology 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act links EFH 

identifications and descriptions to life 

history stages, and the physiological, 

biological, and habitat parameters on 

which each life stage depends. To 

accomplish the task of linking these 

parameters in a meaningful way, the 

Pacific Council established tables and a 

narrative that present habitat 

requirements as they relate to fish life 

history stage and physiology. The four 

life history stages are eggs, larvae 

(alevins), juveniles, and adults. The 

biological needs include diet, substrate 

type, water quality, and others. These 

tables can be found in appendix A of 

Amendment 14 (Tables A–3, A–4, and 

A–5). 

A brief overview of Pacific salmon life 

history and habitat requirements is 

provided below. This information is not 

intended to be a thorough review of 

Pacific salmon habitat requirements. 

Rather, it is intended to provide a 

sample of the information that 

supported the Pacific Council’s EFH 

identifications and descriptions. See 

appendix A of Amendment 14 to the 

Salmon FMP for more detailed 

information on habitat use specific to 

life stage. 

Chinook, coho, and pink salmon all 

have similar life history and habitat 

requirements; yet all three species have 

unique survival and reproductive 

strategies. They are anadromous, and by 

definition live the first part of their lives 

in freshwater and the adult part of their 

lives in marine waters before returning 

to spawn in freshwater. 

For spawning and rearing, these 

salmon require clean, cold, welloxygenated water with moderate 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

current. Spawning adults need medium 

to coarse gravel in which to deposit 

eggs. Eggs and alevins need welloxygenated interstitial spaces with 

continuous water flow. This life stage is 

susceptible to poor water quality, 

predation, and physical impacts such as 

flooding or excessive siltation, which 

can smother the eggs. 

At an age that varies among species, 

juvenile salmon migrate downstream 

towards the ocean. During this 

migration, the juvenile salmon require 

high water quality and protection from 

predation. Estuaries provide a mixing 

zone of saline and freshwater in which 

the young salmon can adapt to marine 

waters. 

Pacific salmon use large portions of 

the north Pacific during ocean 

migration, although patterns vary 

between species and even between 

different populations of the same 

species. It is clear that ocean migration 

can be extensive. During the ocean 

phase, salmon are susceptible to 

predation, fishing mortality, and lack of 

food resources. The Pacific Council and 

NMFS considered excluding large 

portions of the EEZ from EFH 

designation. However, the best scientific 

information available was insufficient to 

support refinement. They chose, 

therefore, to identify and describe the 

entire EEZ as EFH for Pacific salmon. 

The Pacific Council adopted relatively 

broad EFH descriptions because of the 

wide ranging life history strategy, the 

number of species involved, and the 

limited information on marine 

distribution. 

EFH for Chinook, Coho, and Pink 

Salmon 

Table 1 to part 660, subpart H lists 

those hydrologic units which are 

identified as EFH for Chinook, coho, 

and pink salmon. Table 1 also includes, 

where appropriate, the names of 

impassible barriers that represent the 

upstream extent of Pacific salmon 

distribution. 

To assist Federal agencies and the 

public, the following three figures 

depict those 4th field USGS Hydrologic 

Unit Codes (HUCs) that contain EFH for 

Pacific salmon. Figure 1 shows HUCs 

and marine waters that contain EFH for 

Chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, 

California, and Idaho. Figure 2 shows 

HUCs and marine waters that contain 

EFH for coho salmon in Washington, 

Oregon, California, and Idaho. Figure 3 

shows HUCs and marine waters that 

contain EFH for pink salmon in 

Washington. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19865 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP20AP07.000</GPH>
19866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP20AP07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19867 

EFH in Alaskan Marine Waters 

In identifying and describing EFH for 

Pacific salmon in Amendment 14, the 

Pacific Council included those areas 

that have been identified and described 

as marine EFH for Pacific salmon by the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (North Pacific Council). While 

the task of identifying and describing 

EFH in Alaskan waters is the 

responsibility of the North Pacific 

Council, the Pacific Council chose to 

include the reference to Alaskan EFH in 

Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP in 

order to emphasize the relationship 

within the Pacific Coast ecosystem used 

by Pacific salmon during their adult 

migrations. This proposed rule, 

however, only codifies EFH for Pacific 

salmon that is within the jurisdiction of 

the Pacific Council, and does not codify 

EFH identified and described by the 

North Pacific Council for Pacific salmon 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP20AP07.002</GPH>
19868 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

that is found in Alaskan waters under 

the North Pacific Council’s jurisdiction. 

Effects of Identifying and Describing 

EFH 

Once EFH is identified and described, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

each FMP minimize to the extent 

practicable adverse effects to EFH. 

Adverse effects are broadly divided into 

effects from fishing and nonfishing 

activities. For impacts to EFH caused by 

fishing activities, each FMP must 

consider measures to minimize adverse 

effects on EFH, including EFH 

identified and described under other 

Federal FMPs. These measures may 

include equipment restrictions, time/ 

area closures, or harvest limits. 

In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires any Federal agency that 

determines that its action may adversely 

affect EFH to consult with NMFS. 

Section 305(b)(2) of the MagnusonStevens Act defines a Federal action as 

‘‘any action authorized, funded, or 

undertaken, or proposed to be 

authorized, funded, or undertaken, by 

such agency that may adversely affect 

any essential fish habitat identified 

under this Act.’’ The consultation 

process is fully described in the EFH 

regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. In order 

for NMFS to conduct this consultation 

the Federal action agency provides an 

EFH assessment commensurate with the 

complexity and magnitude of the 

potential adverse effects of the action. 

After receiving a request for 

consultation and accompanying EFH 

assessment, NMFS must develop 

Conservation Recommendations for 

those actions that would adversely 

affect EFH, aimed at the need to avoid, 

minimize, mitigate, or offset adverse 

effects of the proposed action. NMFS 

must also provide Conservation 

Recommendations for those Federal and 

state actions that would adversely affect 

EFH in situations where consultation 

has not been requested. Upon receiving 

the recommended conservation 

measures, the Federal action agency 

must provide a detailed written 

response within 30 days, indicating the 

proposed measures to avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts on EFH. If 

the response is inconsistent with NMFS 

Conservation Recommendations, the 

Federal agency must explain its reasons 

for not following the recommendations, 

including the scientific justification for 

any disagreements with NMFS over the 

anticipated effects of the action and the 

measures needed to avoid, minimize, 

mitigate, or offset such effects. 

Distinction Between EFH and Critical 

Habitat 

EFH responsibilities under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act should not be 

confused with the mandate to designate 

critical habitat under the ESA. Congress 

enacted these two statutes with very 

different purposes in mind. One of the 

purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

is to promote domestic commercial and 

recreational fisheries. In amending the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress found 

that: 

[o]ne of the greatest long-term threats to the 

viability of commercial and recreational 

fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, 

estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat 

considerations should receive increased 

attention for the conservation and 

management of fishery resources of the 

United States. 16 U.S.C 1801(a)(9). 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

Congress established the mandate to 

identify and describe EFH in order to 

support the habitat needs of federally 

managed fish stocks to aid in ensuring 

long-term sustainable fisheries. 

The definition of EFH within the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as the 

EFH implementing regulations (EFH 

Final Rule), establishes a basis for 

broader geographic areas to be identified 

and described as EFH, compared with 

those areas designated as critical 

habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

defines EFH as ‘‘those areas necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(10). 

The EFH Final Rule provides a 

mechanism for aiding the fishery 

management councils in determining 

the extent of EFH for the managed 

species. While the EFH Final Rule 

emphasizes that EFH should be 

distinguished from all habitats 

potentially used by the managed 

species, it also states that ‘‘[a]reas 

described as EFH will normally be 

greater than or equal to aquatic areas 

that have been identified as ’critical 

habitat’ for any managed species listed 

as threatened or endangered under the 

[ESA].’’ 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iv)(D). In 

addition, the EFH Final Rule provides 

the opportunity to increase the size of 

the area identified as EFH to include 

historic and/or degraded habitats where 

habitat loss may be contributing to 

reduced yield of the managed species. 

In contrast, the ESA was enacted ‘‘to 

provide a means whereby the 

ecosystems upon which endangered 

species and threatened species depend 

may be conserved’’ and ‘‘to provide a 

program for the conservation of such 

endangered species and threatened 

species.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1531(b). The ESA 

specifically articulates that: 

the term ’critical habitat’ for a threatened 

or endangered species means - 

1. the specific areas within the geographic 

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 and . . . which 

may require special management 

considerations and protections; and 

2. specific areas outside the geographic 

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. 16 U.S.C. 

1532(5)(A). 

The definition of critical habitat in the 

ESA also indicates that ‘‘except in those 

situations determined by the Secretary, 

critical habitat shall not include the 

entire geographic area which can be 

occupied by the threatened or 

endangered species.’’ 16 U.S.C. 

1532(5)(C). While the ESA’s 

implementing regulations regarding 

critical habitat set forth procedures for 

designating areas outside the current 

area occupied by the species, unlike 

EFH in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 

ESA regulations also allow the agency to 

exclude certain areas from critical 

habitat, or not designate at all, in certain 

situations. 

When the geographic locations of EFH 

and critical habitat overlap, the 

individual consultation requirements 

under the ESA and the MagnusonStevens Act both apply. If a Federal 

agency determines that its action may 

adversely affect EFH and may affect 

critical habitat, it must consult with 

NMFS under the ESA and MagnusonStevens Act. In these circumstances, 

NMFS will generally merge the 

consultations into one response 

package, whenever possible, to 

maximize efficiency. 

Classification 

This proposed rule is published under 

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

The NMFS Northwest Region 

completed an ESA section 7 

consultation on November 18, 1999, on 

the effects of Amendment 14 on listed 

salmon evolutionarily significant units. 

Amendment 14 does not by itself 

authorize any fishing or other activity 

that would result in adverse effects to 

listed fish or designated critical habitat. 

Based on this and other considerations, 

NMFS concluded that Amendment 14 

and its implementing regulations are not 

likely to adversely affect listed salmon 

or their critical habitat. This proposed 

rule is consistent with the 

determination in Amendment 14 that 

the action does not jeopardize the 

continued existence of ESA listed 

salmon. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19869 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

as follows: 

The objective of this rule is to codify 

essential fish habitat (EFH) descriptions and 

identifications that were previously approved 

by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)for 

Amendment 14 to the Pacific Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan. EFH descriptions and 

identifications are required under the 

Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(b)(7). All 

vessels harvesting salmon from this fishery 

are considered small under the Small 

Business Act approved definition of a small 

fish harvester (average gross receipts not in 

excess of $4.0 million). Therefore, there can 

be no disproportionate impacts between 

small and large vessels. Furthermore, there 

are no disproportionate impacts based on 

homeport, gear type, or vessel size from the 

promulgation of this proposed rule. In 2004, 

there were 3,008 permits issued for this 

fishery, with a total exvessel value of 

$28,961,275. Of the 3,008 permits, only 910 

actually landed salmon. There were 1508 

vessel permits issued in California, 738 of 

which landed salmon, for an exvessel value 

of $17,883,216. There were 1,181 vessel 

permits issued in Oregon, 595 of which 

landed salmon, for an exvessel value of 

$9,893,065. There were 160 vessel permits 

issued in Washington, 86 of which landed 

salmon, for an exvessel value of $1,184,994. 

This rule would not result in any immediate 

impacts on revenues or costs for the small 

entities participating in the Pacific salmon 

fishery because it does not contain any new 

management measures that would have 

specific economic impact on the fishery. 

However, future rulemakings that are 

promulgated by NMFS on behalf of the 

Secretary may be based in part on the 

identification and description of the EFH and 

such actions would likely have specific 

measurable impacts on the small entities 

participating in the fishery. 

As a result, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required and 

none has been prepared. NMFS will 

conduct the appropriate analyses for 

any subsequent rulemakings stemming 

from this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule is not significant 

for the purposes of Executive Order 

12866 (Supplemental Regulatory Impact 

Review to Amendment 14 to the Pacific 

Salmon Fishery Management Plan was 

prepared, see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 12, 2007. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 

CFR part 660 as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

2. Section 660.412 is added under 

subpart H to read as follows: 

§ 660.412 EFH identifications and 

descriptions for Pacific salmon. 

Pacific salmon essential fish habitat 

(EFH) includes all those water bodies 

occupied or historically accessible in 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 

California in hydrologic units identified 

in Table 1 of this subpart. Exceptions 

include cases in which man-made 

barriers (dams) identified in Table 1 of 

this subpart represent the upstream 

extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH 

also includes the EEZ (from zero to 200 

miles) off the coasts of California, 

Oregon, and Washington State. 

(a) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) EFH includes all streams, 

estuaries, marine waters, and other 

water bodies occupied or historically 

accessible to Chinook salmon in 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 

California, in hydrologic units identified 

in Table 1 of this subpart. Exceptions 

include cases in which man-made 

barriers (dams) identified in Table 1 of 

this subpart represent the upstream 

extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH 

also includes the EEZ (from zero to 200 

miles) off the coasts of Washington, 

Oregon, and California north of Point 

Conception. 

(b) Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) EFH includes all streams, 

estuaries, marine waters, and other 

water bodies occupied or historically 

accessible to coho in Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, and California, in 

hydrologic units identified in Table 1 of 

this subpart. Exceptions include cases 

in which man-made barriers (dams) 

identified in Table 1 of this subpart 

represent the upstream extent of Pacific 

salmon access. EFH also includes the 

EEZ (from zero to 200 miles) off the 

coasts Washington, Oregon, and 

California north of Point Conception. 

(c) Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha) EFH includes all streams, 

estuaries, marine waters, and other 

water bodies occupied or historically 

accessible to pink salmon within 

Washington State, in hydrologic units 

identified in Table 1 of this subpart. 

Exceptions include cases in which manmade barriers (dams) identified in Table 

1 of this subpart represent the upstream 

extent of Pacific salmon access. EFH 

also includes waters north and east of 

Cape Flattery, Washington, including 

Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

and the Strait of Georgia. 

3. Table 1 to part 660, subpart H is 

added to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC) 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

17110001 WA Fraser (Whatcom) Coho salmon n/a 

17110002 WA Strait of Georgia Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110003 WA San Juan Islands Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110004 WA Nooksack River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110005 WA Upper Skagit Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

Gorge Lake Dam 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19870 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)—

Continued 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

17110006 WA Sauk River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110007 WA Lower Skagit River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110008 WA Stillaguamish River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110009 WA Skykomish River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110010 WA Snoqualmie Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

Tolt Dam (S. Fork Tolt R.) 

17110011 WA Snohomish River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110012 WA Lake Washington Chinook and coho salmon Cedar Falls (Masonry) Dam 

(Cedar R.) 

17110013 WA Duwamish River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17110014 WA Puyallup River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110015 WA Nisqually River Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110016 WA Deschutes River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17110017 WA Skokomish River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17110018 WA Hood Canal Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110019 WA Puget Sound Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110020 WA Dungeness - Elwha Chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon 

n/a 

17110021 WA Hoko - Crescent Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100101 WA Hoh Quillayute Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100102 WA Queets - Quinault Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100103 WA Upper Chehalis River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100104 WA Lower Chehalis River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100105 WA Grays Harbor Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100106 WA Willapa Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17080001 OR/WA Lower Columbia Sandy 

River 

Chinook and coho salmon Bull Run Project (Sandy R., 

Little Sandy R., Bull Run R.) 

17080002 WA Lewis River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17080003 OR/WA Lower Columbia - 

Clatskanie River 

Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17080004 WA Upper Cowlitz River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17080005 WA Lower Cowlitz River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17080006 OR/WA Lower Columbia Chinook and coho salmon n/a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19871 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)—

Continued 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

17090001 OR Middle Fork Willamette 

River 

Chinook salmon Dexter Dam 

17090002 OR Coast Fork Willamette River Chinook salmon Dorena Dam 

17090003 OR Upper Willamette River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17090004 OR McKenzie River Chinook and coho salmon Cougar Dam 

17090005 OR N. Santiam River Chinook and coho salmon Big Cliff Dam 

17090006 OR S. Santiam River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17090007 OR Mid. Willamette River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17090008 OR Yamhill River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17090009 OR Molalla - Pudding River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17090010 OR Tualatin River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17090011 OR Clackamas River Chinook and coho salmon Oak Grove Dam 

17090012 OR Lower Willamette River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17070101 OR/WA Mid. Columbia - Lake 

Wallula 

Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17070102 OR/WA Walla Walla River Chinook salmon n/a 

17070103 OR Umatilla River Chinook salmon n/a 

17070104 OR Willow Chinook salmon n/a 

17070105 OR/WA Mid. Columbia - Hood Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17070106 WA Klickitat River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17070301 OR Upper Deschutes River Chinook salmon n/a 

17070305 OR Lower Crooked River Chinook salmon Opal Springs Dam 

17070306 OR Lower Deschutes River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17070307 OR Trout Creek Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17070201 OR Upper John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 

17070202 OR North Fork John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 

17070203 OR Middle Fork John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 

17070204 OR Lower John Day River Chinook salmon n/a 

17030001 WA Upper Yakima River Chinook and coho salmon Keechelus Dam 

Kachess Dam (Kachess R.) 

Cle Elum Dam (Cle Elum 

R.) 

17030002 WA Naches River Chinook and coho salmon Rimrock Dam (Tieton R.) 

17030003 WA Lower Yakima River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17020005 WA Columbia River Chinook and coho salmon Chief Joseph Dam 

17020006 WA Okanogan River Chinook salmon n/a 

17020007 WA Similkameen Chinook salmon n/a 

17020008 WA Methow River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19872 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)—

Continued 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

17020010 WA Upper Columbia - Entiat 

River 

Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17020011 WA Wenatchee River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17020016 WA Upper Columbia - Priest 

Rapids 

Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060101 OR/ID Hells Canyon Chinook salmon Hells Canyon Complex 

(Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and 

Brownlee Dams) 

17060102 OR Imnaha River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060103 OR/WA/ID Lower Snake - Asotin Creek Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060104 OR Upper Grande Ronde Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060105 OR Wallowa River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060106 OR/WA Lower Grande Ronde Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060107 OR Lower Snake - Tucannon 

River 

Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060110 OR Lower Snake River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17060201 ID Upper Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060202 ID Pahsimeroi River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060203 ID Mid. Salmon - Panther River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060204 ID Lemhi River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060205 ID Upper Middle Fork Salmon 

River 

Chinook salmon n/a 

17060206 ID Lower Middle Fork Salmon 

River 

Chinook salmon n/a 

17060207 ID Mid. Salmon - Chamberlain Chinook salmon n/a 

17060208 ID S.F. Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060209 ID Lower Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060210 ID Little Salmon River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060301 ID Upper Selway River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060302 ID Lower Selway River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060303 ID Lochsa River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060304 ID M.F. Clearwater River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060305 ID S.F. Clearwater River Chinook salmon n/a 

17060306 WA/ID Clearwater River Chinook and coho salmon Dworshak Dam (at border of 

HUCs 17060306 and 

17060308) 

17100201 OR Necanicum River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100202 OR Nehalem River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100203 OR Wilson - Trask - Nestucca Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100204 OR Siletz Yaquina River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19873 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)—

Continued 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

17100205 OR Alsea River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100206 OR Siuslaw River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100207 OR Siltcoos River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100301 OR N. Umpqua River Chinook and coho salmon Soda Springs Dam 

17100302 OR S. Umpqua River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100303 OR Umpqua River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100304 OR Coos River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100305 OR Coquille River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100306 OR Sixes River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100307 OR Upper Rogue River Chinook and coho salmon Lost Creek Dam 

17100308 OR Middle Rogue River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100309 CA/OR Applegate River Chinook and coho salmon Applegate Dam 

17100310 OR Lower Rogue River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100311 CA/OR Illinois River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

17100312 CA/OR Chetco River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010101 CA/OR Smith River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010206 CA/OR Upper Klamath River Chinook and coho salmon Iron Gate Dam 

18010207 CA Shasta River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010208 CA Scott River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010209 CA/OR Lower Klamath River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010210 CA Salmon River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010211 CA Trinity River Chinook and coho salmon Lewiston Dam 

18010212 CA S.F. Trinity River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010102 CA Mad Redwood Chinook and coho salmon Robert W. Matthews Dam 

18010103 CA Upper Eel River Chinook and coho salmon Scott Dam 

18010104 CA Middle Fork Eel River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010105 CA Lower Eel River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010106 CA South Fork Eel River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010107 CA Mattole River Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010108 CA Big-Navarro-Garcia Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010109 CA Gualala - Salmon Creek Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18010110 CA Russian River Chinook and coho salmon Coyote Valley Dam (E. Fork 

Russian R.) 

Warm Springs Dam (Dry 

Cr.) 

18010111 CA Bodega Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18060001 CA San Lorenzo Soquel Coho salmon Newell Dam (Newell Cr.) 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19874 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)—

Continued 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

18060006 CA Central Coastal Coho salmon n/a 

18050001 CA Suisun Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18050002 CA San Pablo Bay Chinook and coho salmon San Pablo Dam (San Pablo 

Cr.) 

18050003 CA Coyote Creek Chinook and coho salmon LeRoy Anderson Dam 

18050004 CA San Francisco Bay Chinook and coho salmon n/a 

18050005 CA Tomales-Drakes Bay Coho salmon Nicasio Dam (Nicasio Cr.) 

Peters Dam (Lagunitas Cr.) 

18050006 CA San Francisco-Coastal 

South 

Coho salmon n/a 

18020101 CA Sac.-Lower Cow-Lower 

Clear 

Chinook salmon n/a 

18020102 CA Lower Cottonwood Creek Chinook salmon n/a 

18020103 CA Sacramento - Lower 

Thomes 

Chinook salmon n/a 

18020104 CA Sacramento - Stone Corral Chinook salmon n/a 

18020105 CA Lower Butte Creek Chinook salmon n/a 

18020106 CA Lower Feather River Chinook salmon n/a 

18020107 CA Lower Yuba River Chinook salmon n/a 

18020108 CA Lower Bear River Chinook salmon n/a 

18020109 CA Lower Sacramento River Chinook salmon n/a 

18020110 CA Lower Cache Chinook salmon n/a 

18020111 CA Lower American River Chinook salmon Nimbus Dam 

18020112 CA Sacramento-Upper Clear Chinook salmon Keswick Dam (Sacramento 

R.) 

Whiskeytown Dam (Clear 

Cr.) 

18020113 CA Cottonwood Headwaters Chinook salmon n/a 

18020114 CA Elder Creek Chinook salmon n/a 

p CA River Chinook salmon n/a 

18020118 CA Upper Cow - Battle Creek Chinook salmon n/a 

18020119 CA Mill - Big Chico Chinook salmon n/a 

18020120 CA Upper Butte Creek Chinook salmon n/a 

18020125 CA Upper Yuba Chinook salmon n/a 

18040001 CA Mid. San Joaquin- L. 

Cowchilla 

Chinook salmon n/a 

18040002 CA Mid. San Joaquin- L. 

Merced- L. Stanislaus 

Chinook salmon La Grange Dam (Tuolumne 

R.) 

18040003 CA San Joaquin Delta Chinook salmon n/a 

18040004 CA L. Calaveras - Mormon 

Slough 

Chinook salmon n/a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19875 

TABLE 1 TO PART 660, SUBPART H—PACIFIC SALMON EFH IDENTIFIED BY USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)—

Continued 

USGS HUC1 State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon Species Impassible Man-made Barrier (if present) 

18040005 CA L. Consumnes- L. 

Mokelumne 

Chinook salmon Comanche Dam 

18040010 CA Upper Stanislaus Chinook salmon Goodwin Dam 

18040011 CA Upper Calveras Chinook salmon New Hogan Dam 

18040013 CA Upper Cosumnes Chinook salmon n/a 

1.To clearly identify watersheds that contain EFH, NMFS uses fourth field hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (defined in the Department of the Interior, USGS publication; Hydrologic Unit Maps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1987). The geographic extent of HUCs range from first field (largest geographic extent) to sixth field (smallest geographic extent). Fourth field HUCs divide the 

landscape into distinct geographic areas that are identified by eight numbers unique to that hydrologic unit. 

[FR Doc. 07–1946 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS