Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 070227047-7047-01; I.D. 020405C]
RIN 0648-AS96
 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 
                    ( print page 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-C-EJL, 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, well-oxygenated water with moderate 
                    ( print page 19864)
                    current.  Spawning adults need medium to coarse gravel in which to deposit eggs.  Eggs and alevins need well-oxygenated 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. 
 
  
 
  
 
  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 
                    ( print page 19868)
                    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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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.
                    ( print page 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
  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 man-made 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/a17110002
WA
Strait of Georgia
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110003
WA
San Juan Islands
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110004
WA
Nooksack River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110005
WA
Upper Skagit
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
Gorge Lake Dam( print page 19870)17110006
WA
Sauk River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110007
WA
Lower Skagit River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110008
WA
Stillaguamish River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110009
WA
Skykomish River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110010
WA
Snoqualmie
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
Tolt Dam (S. Fork Tolt R.)17110011
WA
Snohomish River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110012
WA
Lake Washington
Chinook and coho salmon
Cedar Falls (Masonry) Dam (Cedar R.)17110013
WA
Duwamish River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17110014
WA
Puyallup River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110015
WA
Nisqually River
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110016
WA
Deschutes River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17110017
WA
Skokomish River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17110018
WA
Hood Canal
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110019
WA
Puget Sound
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110020
WA
Dungeness - Elwha
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon
n/a17110021
WA
Hoko - Crescent
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100101
WA
Hoh   Quillayute
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100102
WA
Queets - Quinault
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100103
WA
Upper Chehalis River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100104
WA
Lower Chehalis River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100105
WA
Grays Harbor
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100106
WA
Willapa Bay
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17080001
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/a17080003
OR/WA
Lower Columbia - Clatskanie River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17080004
WA
Upper Cowlitz River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17080005
WA
Lower Cowlitz River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17080006
OR/WA
Lower Columbia
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a( print page 19871)17090001
OR
Middle Fork Willamette River
Chinook salmon
Dexter Dam17090002
OR
Coast Fork Willamette River
Chinook salmon
Dorena Dam17090003
OR
Upper Willamette River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17090004
OR
McKenzie River
Chinook and coho salmon
Cougar Dam17090005
OR
N. Santiam River
Chinook and coho salmon
Big Cliff Dam17090006
OR
S. Santiam River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17090007
OR
Mid. Willamette River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17090008
OR
Yamhill River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17090009
OR
Molalla - Pudding River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17090010
OR
Tualatin River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17090011
OR
Clackamas River
Chinook and coho salmon
Oak Grove Dam17090012
OR
Lower Willamette River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17070101
OR/WA
Mid. Columbia - Lake Wallula
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17070102
OR/WA
Walla Walla River
Chinook salmon
n/a17070103
OR
Umatilla River
Chinook salmon
n/a17070104
OR
Willow
Chinook  salmon
n/a17070105
OR/WA
Mid. Columbia - Hood
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17070106
WA
Klickitat River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17070301
OR
Upper Deschutes River
Chinook salmon
n/a17070305
OR
Lower Crooked River
Chinook salmon
Opal Springs Dam17070306
OR
Lower Deschutes River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17070307
OR
Trout Creek
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17070201
OR
Upper John Day River
Chinook salmon
n/a17070202
OR
North Fork John Day River
Chinook salmon
n/a17070203
OR
Middle Fork John Day River
Chinook salmon
n/a17070204
OR
Lower John Day River
Chinook salmon
n/a17030001
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/a17020005
WA
Columbia River
Chinook and coho salmon
Chief Joseph Dam17020006
WA
Okanogan River
Chinook salmon
n/a17020007
WA
Similkameen
Chinook   salmon
n/a17020008
WA
Methow River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a( print page 19872)17020010
WA
Upper Columbia - Entiat River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17020011
WA
Wenatchee River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17020016
WA
Upper Columbia - Priest Rapids
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060101
OR/ID
Hells Canyon
Chinook salmon
Hells Canyon Complex (Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee Dams)17060102
OR
Imnaha River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060103
OR/WA/ID
Lower Snake - Asotin Creek
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060104
OR
Upper Grande Ronde
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060105
OR
Wallowa River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060106
OR/WA
Lower Grande Ronde
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060107
OR
Lower Snake - Tucannon River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060110
OR
Lower Snake River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17060201
ID
Upper Salmon River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060202
ID
Pahsimeroi River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060203
ID
Mid. Salmon - Panther River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060204
ID
Lemhi River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060205
ID
Upper Middle Fork Salmon River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060206
ID
Lower Middle Fork Salmon River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060207
ID
Mid. Salmon - Chamberlain
Chinook salmon
n/a17060208
ID
S.F. Salmon River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060209
ID
Lower Salmon River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060210
ID
Little Salmon River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060301
ID
Upper Selway River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060302
ID
Lower Selway River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060303
ID
Lochsa River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060304
ID
M.F. Clearwater River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060305
ID
S.F. Clearwater River
Chinook salmon
n/a17060306
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/a17100202
OR
Nehalem River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100203
OR
Wilson - Trask - Nestucca
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100204
OR
Siletz Yaquina River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a( print page 19873)17100205
OR
Alsea River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100206
OR
Siuslaw River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100207
OR
Siltcoos River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100301
OR
N. Umpqua River
Chinook and coho salmon
Soda Springs Dam17100302
OR
S. Umpqua River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100303
OR
Umpqua River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100304
OR
Coos River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100305
OR
Coquille River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100306
OR
Sixes River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100307
OR
Upper Rogue River
Chinook and coho salmon
Lost Creek Dam17100308
OR
Middle Rogue River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100309
CA/OR
Applegate River
Chinook and coho salmon
Applegate Dam17100310
OR
Lower Rogue River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100311
CA/OR
Illinois River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a17100312
CA/OR
Chetco River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010101
CA/OR
Smith River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010206
CA/OR
Upper Klamath River
Chinook and coho salmon
Iron Gate Dam18010207
CA
Shasta River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010208
CA
Scott River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010209
CA/OR
Lower Klamath River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010210
CA
Salmon River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010211
CA
Trinity River
Chinook and coho salmon
Lewiston Dam18010212
CA
S.F. Trinity River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010102
CA
Mad Redwood
Chinook and coho salmon
Robert W. Matthews Dam18010103
CA
Upper Eel River
Chinook and coho salmon
Scott Dam18010104
CA
Middle Fork Eel River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010105
CA
Lower Eel River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010106
CA
South Fork Eel River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010107
CA
Mattole River
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010108
CA
Big-Navarro-Garcia
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010109
CA
Gualala - Salmon Creek
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18010110
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/a18060001
CA
San Lorenzo Soquel
Coho salmon
Newell Dam (Newell Cr.)( print page 19874)18060006
CA
Central Coastal
Coho salmon
n/a18050001
CA
Suisun Bay
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18050002
CA
San Pablo Bay
Chinook and coho salmon
San Pablo Dam (San Pablo Cr.)18050003
CA
Coyote Creek
Chinook and coho salmon
LeRoy Anderson Dam18050004
CA
San Francisco Bay
Chinook and coho salmon
n/a18050005
CA
Tomales-Drakes Bay
Coho salmon
Nicasio Dam (Nicasio Cr.)
                             Peters Dam (Lagunitas Cr.)18050006
CA
San Francisco-Coastal South
Coho salmon
n/a18020101
CA
Sac.-Lower Cow-Lower Clear
Chinook salmon
n/a18020102
CA
Lower Cottonwood Creek
Chinook salmon
n/a18020103
CA
Sacramento - Lower Thomes
Chinook salmon
n/a18020104
CA
Sacramento - Stone Corral
Chinook salmon
n/a18020105
CA
Lower Butte Creek
Chinook salmon
n/a18020106
CA
Lower Feather River
Chinook salmon
n/a18020107
CA
Lower Yuba River
Chinook salmon
n/a18020108
CA
Lower Bear River
Chinook salmon
n/a18020109
CA
Lower Sacramento River
Chinook salmon
n/a18020110
CA
Lower Cache
Chinook salmon
n/a18020111
CA
Lower American River
Chinook salmon
Nimbus Dam18020112
CA
Sacramento-Upper Clear
Chinook salmon
Keswick Dam (Sacramento R.)
                             Whiskeytown Dam (Clear Cr.)18020113
CA
Cottonwood Headwaters
Chinook salmon
n/a18020114
CA
Elder Creek
Chinook salmon
n/ap
CA
River
Chinook salmon
n/a18020118
CA
Upper Cow - Battle Creek
Chinook salmon
n/a18020119
CA
Mill - Big Chico
Chinook salmon
n/a18020120
CA
Upper Butte Creek
Chinook salmon
n/a18020125
CA
Upper Yuba
Chinook salmon
n/a18040001
CA
Mid. San Joaquin- L. Cowchilla
Chinook salmon
n/a18040002
CA
Mid. San Joaquin- L. Merced- L. Stanislaus
Chinook salmon
La Grange Dam (Tuolumne R.)18040003
CA
San Joaquin Delta
Chinook salmon
n/a18040004
CA
L. Calaveras - Mormon Slough
Chinook salmon
n/a( print page 19875)18040005
CA
L. Consumnes- L. Mokelumne
Chinook salmon
Comanche Dam18040010
CA
Upper Stanislaus
Chinook salmon
Goodwin Dam18040011
CA
Upper Calveras
Chinook salmon
New Hogan Dam18040013
CA
Upper Cosumnes
Chinook salmon
n/a1.
                         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