Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62741

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 971029257–7257–01; I.D. No.

101097A]

RIN 0648–AG56

Designated Critical Habitat; Central

California Coast and Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast Coho

Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments and notice of public hearings.

SUMMARY: The NMFS proposes to

designate critical habitat for two

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)

of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973 (ESA). Critical habitat for the

Central California Coast ESU

encompasses accessible reaches of all

rivers (including estuarine areas and

tributaries) between Punta Gorda and

the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in

California. Also included are two rivers

entering San Francisco Bay: Mill Valley

Creek and Corte Madera Creek. Critical

habitat for the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESU

encompasses accessible reaches of all

rivers (including estuarine areas and

tributaries) between the Mattole River in

California and the Elk River in Oregon,

inclusive.

The areas described in this proposed

rule represent the current freshwater

and estuarine range of the listed species.

For both ESUs, critical habitat includes

all waterways, substrate, and adjacent

riparian zones below longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,

natural waterfalls in existence for at

least several hundred years). NMFS has

identified twelve dams in the range of

these ESUs that currently block access

to habitats historically occupied by coho

salmon. However, NMFS has not

designated these inaccessible areas as

critical habitat because areas

downstream are believed to be sufficient

for the conservation of the ESUs. The

economic and other impacts resulting

from this critical habitat designation are

expected to be minimal.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 26, 1998. Public

hearings on this proposed action are

scheduled for the month of December

1997. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for dates and times of public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Protected

Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St.,

Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232–2737; or

Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest

Region, Protected Species Management

Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite

4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

locations of public hearings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin at (503) 231–2005, Craig

Wingert at (562) 980–4021, or Joe Blum

at (301) 713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 31, 1996, NMFS

published its determination to list

Central California Coast coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) as threatened

under the ESA (61 FR 56138). In a

technical correction to the final listing

determination (62 FR 1296, January 9,

1997), NMFS defined the Central

California Coast coho salmon ESU to

include all coho salmon naturally

reproduced in streams between Punta

Gorda in Humboldt County, California,

and the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz

County, California. Subsequently, on

May 6, 1997, NMFS published its

determination to list the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast coho

salmon ESU as threatened under the

ESA (62 FR 24588) and defined the ESU

to include all coho salmon naturally

reproduced in streams between Cape

Blanco in Curry County, Oregon, and

Punta Gorda in Humboldt County,

California.

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires

that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, NMFS designate

critical habitat concurrently with a

determination that a species is

endangered or threatened. On July 25,

1995, NMFS published a Federal

Register notice (60 FR 38011) soliciting

information and data regarding the

biological status of West Coast coho

salmon, available salmon conservation

measures, and information on areas that

may qualify as critical habitat. At the

time of final listing for each of these two

ESUs, critical habitat was not

determinable, since information

necessary to perform the required

analyses was lacking. NMFS has

determined that sufficient information

now exists to designate critical habitat

for the two listed coho salmon ESUs.

NMFS has considered all available

information and data in making this

proposal.

Use of the term ‘‘essential habitat’’

within this Notice refers to critical

habitat as defined by the ESA and

should not be confused with the

requirement to describe and identify

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) pursuant to

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act, 16

U.S.C. 1801 et sec.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section

3(5)(A) of the ESA as ‘‘(i) the specific

areas within the geographical area

occupied by the species * * * on which

are found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) which may

require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographical

area occupied by the species * * *

upon a determination by the Secretary

of Commerce (Secretary) that such areas

are essential for the conservation of the

species.’’ (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The

term ‘‘conservation,’’ as defined in

section 3(3) of the ESA, means ‘‘* * *

to use and the use of all methods and

procedures which are necessary to bring

any endangered species or threatened

species to the point at which the

measures provided pursuant to this Act

are no longer necessary.’’ (see U.S.C.

1532(3)).

In designating critical habitat, NMFS

considers 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 historic

geographical and ecological

distributions of this species (see 50 CFR

424.12(b)). In addition to these factors,

NMFS also focuses on the known

physical and biological features

(primary constituent elements) within

the designated area that are essential to

the conservation of the species and may

require special management

considerations or protection. These

essential features may include, but are

not limited to, spawning sites, food

resources, water quality and quantity,

and riparian vegetation (see 50 CFR

424.12(b))).

Consideration of Economic and Other

Factors

The economic and other impacts of a

critical habitat designation have been

considered and evaluated in this

proposed rulemaking. NMFS identified

present and anticipated activities that

may adversely modify the area(s) being

considered or be affected by a
62742 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

designation. An area may be excluded

from a critical habitat designation if

NMFS determines that the overall

benefits of exclusion outweigh the

benefits of designation, unless the

exclusion will result in the extinction of

the species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).

The impacts considered in this

analysis are only those incremental

impacts specifically resulting from a

critical habitat designation, above the

economic and other impacts attributable

to listing the species or resulting from

other authorities. Since listing a species

under the ESA provides significant

protection to a species’ habitat, in many

cases, the economic and other impacts

resulting from the critical habitat

designation, over and above the impacts

of the listing itself, are minimal (see

Significance of Designating Critical

Habitat section of this notice). In

general, the designation of critical

habitat highlights geographical areas of

concern and reinforces the substantive

protection resulting from the listing

itself.

Impacts attributable to listing include

those resulting from the ‘‘take’’

prohibitions contained in section 9 of

the ESA and associated regulations.

‘‘Take,’’ as defined in the ESA, means to

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or

to attempt to engage in any such

conduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm

can occur through destruction or

modification of habitat (whether or not

designated as critical) that significantly

impairs essential behaviors, including

breeding, feeding, rearing, or migration.

Significance of Designating Critical

Habitat

The designation of critical habitat

does not, in and of itself, restrict human

activities within an area or mandate any

specific management or recovery

actions. A critical habitat designation

contributes to species conservation

primarily by identifying important areas

and by describing the features within

those areas that are essential to the

species, thus alerting public and private

entities to the area’s importance. Under

the ESA, the only regulatory impact of

a critical habitat designation is through

the provisions of section 7. Section 7

applies only to actions with Federal

involvement (e.g., authorized, funded,

or conducted by a Federal agency) and

does not affect exclusively state or

private activities.

Under the section 7 provisions, a

designation of critical habitat would

require Federal agencies to ensure that

any action they authorize, fund, or carry

out is not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated critical habitat.

Activities that destroy or adversely

modify critical habitat are defined as

those actions that ‘‘appreciably

diminish the value of critical habitat for

both the survival and recovery’’ of the

species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless

of a critical habitat designation, Federal

agencies must ensure that their actions

are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the listed

species. Activities that jeopardize a

species are defined as those actions that

‘‘reasonably would be expected, directly

or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and

recovery’’ of the species (see 50 CFR

402.02). Using these definitions,

activities that would destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat would

also be likely to jeopardize the species.

Therefore, the protection provided by a

critical habitat designation generally

duplicates the protection provided

under the section 7 jeopardy provision.

Critical habitat may provide additional

benefits to a species in cases where

areas outside the species’ current range

have been designated. When actions

may affect these areas, Federal agencies

are required to consult with NMFS

under section 7 (see 50 CFR 402.14(a)),

a requirement which may not have been

recognized but for the critical habitat

designation.

A designation of critical habitat

provides a clear indication to Federal

agencies as to when section 7

consultation is required, particularly in

cases where the action would not result

in immediate mortality, injury, or harm

to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an

action occurring within the critical area

when a migratory species is not

present). The critical habitat

designation, describing the essential

features of the habitat, also assists in

determining which activities conducted

outside the designated area are subject

to section 7, i.e., activities that may

affect essential features of the

designated area.

A critical habitat designation will also

assist Federal agencies in planning

future actions, since the designation

establishes, in advance, those habitats

that will be given special consideration

in section 7 consultations. With a

designation of critical habitat, potential

conflicts between Federal actions and

endangered or threatened species can be

identified and possibly avoided early in

the agency’s planning process.

Another indirect benefit of a critical

habitat designation is that it helps focus

Federal, state, and private conservation

and management efforts in such areas.

Management efforts may address special

considerations needed in critical habitat

areas, including conservation

regulations to restrict private as well as

Federal activities. The economic and

other impacts of these actions would be

considered at the time of those proposed

regulations and, therefore, are not

considered in the critical habitat

designation process. Other Federal,

state, and local management programs,

such as zoning or wetlands and riparian

lands protection, may also provide

special protection for critical habitat

areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

Developing a proposed critical habitat

designation involves three main

considerations. First, the biological

needs of the species are evaluated and

habitat areas and features that are

essential to the conservation of the

species are identified. If alternative

areas exist that would provide for the

conservation of the species, such

alternatives are also identified. Second,

the need for special management

considerations or protection of the

area(s) or features is evaluated. Finally,

the probable economic and other

impacts of designating these essential

areas as ‘‘critical habitat’’ are evaluated.

After considering the requirements of

the species, the need for special

management, and the impacts of the

designation, the proposed critical

habitat is published in the Federal

Register for comment. The final critical

habitat designation, considering

comments on the proposal and impacts

assessment, is typically published

within one year of the proposed rule.

Final critical habitat designations may

be revised, using the same process, as

new information becomes available.

A description of the critical habitat,

need for special management, impacts

of designating critical habitat, and the

proposed action are described in the

following sections.

Critical Habitat of California and

Southern Oregon Coho Salmon

Biological information for listed coho

salmon can be found in NMFS species’

status reviews (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp

et al., 1995; NMFS, 1997), species life

history summaries (Shapavalov and

Taft, 1954; Laufle et al., 1986; Hassler,

1987; Anderson, 1995; Sandercock,

1991), and in Federal Register notices of

proposed and final listing

determinations (59 FR 21744, April 26,

1994; 60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995; 61 FR

56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588,

May 6, 1997).

The current geographic range of coho

salmon from the Oregon and California

coasts includes vast areas of the North

Pacific ocean, nearshore marine zone,

and extensive estuarine and riverine
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62743

areas. The marine distribution south of

Punta Gorda, California, appears to

encompass a relatively narrow,

nearshore strip approximately 100 km

wide (Taft, 1937; Shapovalov and Taft,

1954; Laufle et al., 1986; NOAA, 1990;

Weitkamp et al., 1995). North of Punta

Gorda, the distribution widens to

encompass nearly all marine areas north

of 41 ° N latititude (Wright, 1968;

Godfrey et al., 1975; NOAA, 1990).

Major rivers, estuaries, and bays known

to support coho salmon within the

Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU include the Rogue River,

Smith River, Klamath River, Mad River,

Humboldt Bay, Eel River, and Mattole

River. Within the range of the Central

California Coast ESU, major rivers,

estuaries, and bays include the Ten

Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia,

Gualala, and Russian Rivers, and

Tomales and San Francisco Bays

[Emmett et al., 1991; Nickelson et al.,

1992; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bryant,

1994; California Department of Fish and

Game (CDFG), 1994; Weitkamp et al.,

1995]. Many smaller coastal rivers and

streams in each ESU also provide

essential estuarine habitat for coho

salmon, but access is often constrained

by seasonal fluctuations in hydrologic

conditions.

Any attempt to describe the current

distribution of coho salmon must take

into account the fact that extant

populations and densities are a small

fraction of historical levels. All coho

salmon stocks in the Central California

Coast ESU are extremely depressed

relative to past abundance and there are

limited data to assess population

numbers or trends. The main coho

salmon stocks in this region are from the

Ten Mile River, Big River, Noyo River,

Navarro River, Garcia River, Gualala

River, Russian River, Lagunitas Creek,

Waddell Creek, and Scott Creek. Several

of these stocks are heavily influenced by

hatcheries and apparently have little

natural production in mainstem reaches.

Historically, coho salmon abundance

within this region was estimated from

50,000 to 125,000 native coho salmon.

Presently, coho salmon abundance

within this region is estimated to be less

than 5,000 naturally reproducing fish,

and a vast majority of these are

considered to be non-native fish (Brown

and Moyle, 1991; Bryant, 1994; CDFG,

1994).

All coho salmon stocks between

Punta Gorda and Cape Blanco in the

Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU are also depressed relative to

past abundance, and there are limited

data to assess population numbers or

trends currently. The main coho salmon

stocks in this region are from the Rogue,

Klamath, and Trinity Rivers, and the

latter two are heavily influenced by

hatcheries and apparently have little

natural production in mainstem reaches.

Other important stocks within this ESU

include the Winchuck, Chetco, Smith,

Mad, Elk, Eel, and the Mattole Rivers.

Historically, coho salmon abundance

within this region was estimated from

150,000 to 400,000 native fish.

Presently, abundance is estimated to be

less than 30,000 naturally reproducing

coho salmon, and a vast majority of

these (roughly 20,000) are considered to

be non-native fish (Brown and Moyle,

1991, Bryant, 1994; CDFG, 1994;

Weitkamp et al., 1995). Within the range

of both ESUs, the species’ life cycle can

be separated into five essential habitat

types: (1) Juvenile summer and winter

rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration

corridors; (3) areas for growth and

development to adulthood; (4) adult

migration corridors; and (5) spawning

areas. Areas 1 and 5 are often located in

small headwater streams, while areas 2

and 4 include these tributaries as well

as mainstem reaches and estuarine

zones. Growth and development to

adulthood (area 3) occurs primarily in

near- and off-shore marine waters,

although final maturation takes place in

freshwater tributaries when the adults

return to spawn. Within these areas,

essential features of coho salmon critical

habitat include adequate; (1) substrate,

(2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4)

water temperature, (5) water velocity,

(6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) riparian

vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe

passage conditions. Given the vast

geographic range occupied by each of

these coho salmon ESUs and the diverse

habitat types used by the various life

stages, it is not practical to describe

specific values or conditions for each of

these essential habitat features.

However, good summaries of these

environmental parameters and

freshwater factors that have contributed

to the decline of this and other

salmonids can be found in reviews by

CDFG, 1965; California Advisory

Committee on Salmon and Steelhead

Trout (CACSST), 1988; Brown and

Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991;

Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et al.,

1992; California State Lands

Commission (CSLC), 1993; Botkin et al.,

1995; NMFS, 1996; and Spence et al.,

1996.

NMFS believes that the current

freshwater and estuarine range of the

species encompasses all essential

habitat features and is adequate to

ensure the species’ conservation.

Therefore, designation of habitat areas

outside the species’ current range is not

necessary. It is important to note that

habitat quality in this current range is

intrinsically related to the quality of

upland areas and of inaccessible

headwater or intermittent streams

which provide key habitat elements

(e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water

quality) crucial for coho in downstream

reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine

habitats are important for rearing and

migrating coho salmon and has

included them in this designation.

Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or

nearshore areas seaward of the mouth of

coastal rivers) are also vital to the

species, and ocean conditions are

believed to have a major influence on

coho salmon survival (see review in

Pearcy, 1992). However, no need

appears to be necessary for special

management consideration or protection

of this habitat. Therefore, NMFS is not

proposing to designate critical habitat in

marine areas at this time. If additional

information becomes available that

supports the inclusion of such areas,

NMFS may revise this designation.

Defining specific river reaches that are

critical for coho salmon is difficult

because of the current low abundance of

the species and of our imperfect

understanding of the species’ freshwater

distribution, both current and historical.

The latter is due, in large part, to the

lack of comprehensive sampling effort

dedicated to monitoring the species. For

example, in contrast to coho salmon

spawner surveys in index and randomly

selected stream reaches north of Cape

Blanco, Oregon, information on adult

coho salmon distribution in California

and southwest Oregon streams has been

typically gathered secondarily to

chinook salmon surveys. Some surveys

concerning juveniles have been

conducted. However, they are rarely

conducted in a consistent, systematic

and comprehensive manner and

typically do not give an accurate

estimate of future adult escapement.

In California and Oregon, several

recent efforts have been made to

characterize the species’ distribution

[Brown and Moyle, 1991; Hassler et al.,

1991; The Wilderness Society (TWS),

1993; Bryant, 1994; CDFG, 1994;

Weitkamp et al., 1995; Adams et al.,

1996; Oregon Coastal Salmon

Restoration Initiative (OCSRI), 1997] or

to identify watersheds important to atrisk populations of salmonids and

resident fishes [Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT), 1993]. In southwest Oregon,

the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW) has developed a draft

series of maps depicting ‘‘core areas’’ for

coho salmon and other species. These

core areas are defined as ‘‘reaches or
62744 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

watersheds within individual coastal

basins that are judged to be of critical

importance to the sustenance of salmon

populations that inhabit those basins’’

(OCSRI, 1997) and are derived from

1:100,000 U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) hydrologic unit maps. The areas

depicted are primarily river reaches

where best available data or professional

judgement indicate high concentrations

of spawning or rearing coho salmon.

Within the Oregon portion of the

Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU, 17 areas have been

identified as core areas, and the vast

majority of these (14 of 17) are located

in the mid-to-upper portions of the

Rogue River basin. Notably missing are

core areas for this species in the Chetco,

Pistol, and Winchuck River basins. The

ODFW recognizes that coho salmon do

inhabit these other southwest Oregon

basins, but considers the species ‘‘rare’’

in coastal streams draining the Siskiyou

Mountains (ODFW, 1995). While NMFS

believes that this mapping effort holds

great promise to focus habitat protection

and restoration efforts, the core areas are

only a subset of the areas that NMFS

believes are critical habitat for coho

salmon.

In California, the NMFS and U.S.

Forest Service (Bryant and Olsen, in

prep.) have developed a series of

Geographic Information System maps

depicting coho salmon historic and

current distribution by using data and

information NMFS had compiled for the

west coast coho salmon status review

and information previously developed

on fish distributions by ODFW,

California Department of Fish and

Game, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. These coho

salmon distribution maps, depicted on

USGS hydrologic units at a scale of

1:100,000, are the first attempt to

develop a comprehensive distribution

profile of coho salmon throughout

California’s watersheds and are an

important step in the development of

conservation and recovery efforts.

The limited data across the range of

both ESUs, as well as dissimilarities in

data types within the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESU, make it

difficult to define this species

distribution at a fine scale. However,

through consultations with other

Federal and State biologists, NMFS has

been able to construct a clearer picture

of coho salmon distribution at the scale

of fifth, sixth, and seventh field

watersheds (Bryant and Olsen, in prep.).

These watersheds and drainages provide

a finer scale of geographic resolution

than the larger USGS hydrologic units

they are nested within. NMFS explored

using these data to more accurately

characterize the coho salmon’s

distribution in these listed ESUs. Except

in a very few cases, the assessment

revealed that coho salmon, though

considerably reduced in population

size, are still distributed or have the

potential for distribution throughout

nearly all watersheds within the

geographic range of both ESUs. Notable

exceptions are areas above several

impassable dams (see Barriers Within

the Species’ Range section of this

notice) and some streams that have had

only sporadic presence/absence

sampling.

Based on consideration of the best

available information regarding the

species’ current distribution, NMFS

believes that the preferred approach to

identifying critical habitat is to

designate all areas (and their adjacent

riparian zones) accessible to the species

within the range of each ESU. The

NMFS has taken this approach in

previous critical habitat designations for

other species (e.g., Snake River salmon

and proposed for Umpqua River

cutthroat trout) which inhabit a wide

range of freshwater habitats, in

particular small tributary streams (58 FR

68543, December 28, 1993; 62 FR 40786,

July 30, 1997). NMFS believes that

adopting a more inclusive, watershedbased 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 (e.g.,

some streams may have fish present

only in years with plentiful rainfall) that

makes precise mapping difficult; and (3)

reinforces the important linkage

between aquatic areas and adjacent

riparian/upslope areas.

An array of management issues

encompass these habitats, and special

management considerations will be

necessary, especially on lands and

streams under Federal ownership (see

Activities that May Affect Critical

Habitat and Need for Special

Management Considerations or

Protection sections of this notice). While

marine areas are also a critical link in

this cycle, NMFS does not believe that

special management considerations are

needed to conserve the habitat features

in these areas. Hence, only the

freshwater and estuarine areas are being

proposed for critical habitat at this time.

Barriers Within the Species’ Range

Within the range of both ESUs, coho

salmon face a multitude of barriers that

limit the access of juvenile and adult

fish to essential freshwater habitats.

While some of these are natural barriers

(e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity

barriers) that have been in existence for

hundreds or thousands of years, more

significant are the manmade barriers

that have been created in the past

several decades (CACSST, 1988;

FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995;

National Research Council, 1996). The

extent of such barriers as culverts and

road crossing structures that impede or

block fish passage appears to be

substantial. For example, of 532 fish

presence surveys conducted in Oregon

coastal basins during the 1995 survey

season, nearly 15 percent of the

confirmed end of fish use were due to

human barriers, principally road

culverts (OCSRI, 1997). Pushup dams/

diversions and irrigation withdrawals

also present significant barriers or lethal

conditions (e.g., high water

temperatures) to coho salmon in

southern Oregon and California.

However, because these manmade

barriers can, under certain flow

conditions, be surmounted by fish or

present only a temporary/seasonal

barrier, NMFS does not consider them

to delineate the upstream extent of

critical habitat.

Numerous hydropower and water

storage projects have been built which

either block access to areas used

historically by coho salmon or alter the

hydrograph of downstream river

reaches. NMFS has identified a total of

12 dams within the range of both ESUs

which currently have no fish passage

facilities to allow coho access to former

spawning and rearing habitats. Blocked

habitat constitutes approximately 9 to

11 percent of the historic range of each

ESU. While these blocked areas are

proportionally significant in certain

basins, NMFS believes this blocked

habitat is not currently essential for the

recovery of either ESU. NMFS will reevaluate this conclusion during the

recovery planning process and in

section 7 consultation.

Because these projects are widely

distributed throughout the range of each

ESU, they can have a major downstream

influence on coho salmon. Such impacts

can include the following: Depletion

and storage of natural flows which can

drastically alter natural hydrological

cycles; increase juvenile and adult

mortality due to migration delays

resulting from insufficient flows or

habitat blockages; loss of sufficient

habitat due to deterring and blockage;

stranding of fish resulting from rapid

flow fluctuations; entrainment of

juveniles into poorly screened or

unscreened diversions; and increased
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62745

mortality resulting from increased water

temperatures (CACSST, 1988; Bergren

and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991;

Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman et al.,

1994; Cramer et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996).

In addition to these factors, reduced

flows negatively affect fish habitats due

to increased deposition of fine

sediments in spawning gravels,

decreased recruitment of large woody

debris and spawning gravels, and

encroachment of riparian and nonendemic vegetation into spawning and

rearing areas resulting in reduced

available habitat (CACSST, 1988;

FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995;

NMFS, 1996). These dam-related factors

will be effectively addressed through

section 7 consultations. Following are

brief summaries of the 12 dams (by ESU,

ordered from south to north) identified

within the range of both ESUs and the

habitats these dams effectively remove

from coho salmon production.

Dams in the Range of the Central

California Coast ESU

There are five dams within the range

of this ESU that currently block access

to historical spawning and rearing areas

of coho salmon. Combined, these

blocked areas amount to approximately

9 percent of the freshwater and

estuarine range of the ESU.

1. Newell Dam is located on Newell

Creek (tributary to the San Lorenzo

River), approximately 18 miles (29 km)

upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and

forms Loch Lomond reservoir in Santa

Cruz County, California. The dam does

not have a fish passage facility, and

upon its completion in 1960, blocked

access to approximately 5 miles (8 km)

of mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

26 percent of the entire San Lorenzo

River basin.

2. Peters Dam is located on Lagunitas

Creek, approximately 14 miles (23 km)

upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and

forms Kent Lake in Marin County,

California. The dam does not have a fish

passage facility, and upon its

completion in 1940, blocked access to

approximately 8 miles (13 km) of

mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

6 percent of the entire Lagunitas Creek

basin.

3. Nicasio Dam is located on Nicasio

Creek (tributary to Lagunitas Creek),

approximately 8 miles (13 km) upstream

from the Pacific Ocean, and forms

Nicasio Reservoir in Marin County,

California. The dam does not have a fish

passage facility, and upon its

completion in 1961, blocked access to

approximately 5 miles (8 km) of

mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

10 percent of the entire Lagunitas Creek

basin.

4. Warm Springs Dam is located on

Dry Creek (tributary to the Russian

River), approximately 45 miles (72 km)

upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and

forms Sonoma Lake in Sonoma County,

California. The dam does not have a fish

passage facility, and upon its

completion in 1982, blocked access to

approximately 50 miles (80 km) of

upstream habitat. These blocked areas

constitute approximately 9 percent of

the entire Russian River basin.

5. Coyote Dam is located on the

mainstem Russian River, approximately

95 miles (153 km) upstream from the

Pacific Ocean, and forms Lake

Mendocino in Mendocino County,

California. The dam does not have a fish

passage facility, and upon its

completion in 1959, blocked access to

approximately 36 miles (58 km) of

mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

7 percent of the entire Russian River

basin.

Dams in the Range of the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU

There are seven dams within the

range of this ESU that currently block

access to historical spawning and

rearing areas of coho salmon. Combined,

these blocked areas amount to

approximately 11 percent of the

freshwater and estuarine range of the

ESU.

1. Scott Dam is located on the

mainstem Eel River, approximately 169

miles (272 km) upstream from the

Pacific Ocean, and forms Lake Pillsbury

in Lake County, California. The dam

does not have a fish passage facility, and

upon its completion in 1922, blocked

access to approximately 36 miles (58

km) of upstream habitat. These blocked

areas constitute approximately 8 percent

of the entire Eel River basin.

2. Matthews Dam is located on the

mainstem Mad River, approximately 79

miles (127 km) upstream from the

Pacific Ocean, and forms Ruth Lake in

Trinity County, California. The dam

does not have a fish passage facility, and

upon its completion in 1961, blocked

access to approximately 2 miles (3 km)

of mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

13 percent of the entire Mad River

basin.

3. Lewiston Dam is located on the

Trinity River (tributary to the lower

Klamath River), approximately 110

miles (177 km) upstream from the

Pacific Ocean, and forms Lewiston

Reservoir in Trinity County, California.

The dam does not have a fish passage

facility, and upon its completion in

1963, blocked access to approximately

109 miles (175 km) of upstream habitat.

These blocked areas constitute

approximately 24 percent of the Trinity

River subbasin and 9 percent of the

entire Klamath River basin.

4. Dwinnell Dam is located on the

Shasta River (tributary to the upper

Klamath River), approximately 214

miles (345 km) upstream from the

Pacific Ocean, and forms Dwinnell

Reservoir in Siskiyou County,

California. The dam does not have a fish

passage facility, and upon its

completion in 1928, blocked access to

approximately 17 miles (27 km) of

upstream habitat. These blocked areas

constitute approximately 17 percent of

the Shasta River subbasin and 2 percent

of the entire Klamath River basin.

5. Iron Gate Dam is located on the

mainstem Klamath River, approximately

190 miles (306 km) upstream from the

Pacific Ocean, and forms Iron Gate

Reservoir in Siskiyou County,

California. The dam does not have a fish

passage facility, and upon its

completion in 1961, blocked access to

approximately 30 miles (48 km) of

mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

8 percent of the entire Klamath River

basin.

6. Applegate Dam is located on the

Applegate River (tributary to the Rogue

River), approximately 140 miles (225

km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean,

and forms Applegate Reservoir in

Jackson County, Oregon. The dam does

not have a fish passage facility, and

upon its completion in 1980, blocked

access to approximately 30 miles (48

km) of upstream habitat. These blocked

areas constitute approximately 29

percent of the Applegate River subbasin

and approximately 5 percent of the

entire Rogue River basin that was

historically accessible to coho salmon.

7. Lost Creek Dam is located on the

Rogue River, approximately 156 miles

(252 km) upstream from the Pacific

Ocean, and forms Lost Creek Reservoir

in Jackson County, Oregon. The dam

does not have a fish passage facility, and

upon its completion in 1977, blocked

access to approximately 6 miles (10 km)

of mainstem upstream habitat. These

blocked areas constitute approximately

1 percent of the entire Rogue River basin

that was historically accessible to coho

salmon.

Land Ownership Within the Species’

Range

Tables 5 and 6 summarize the major

river basins inhabited by each coho

salmon ESU as well as counties

containing basins designated as critical
62746 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

habitat. NMFS has also derived

estimates of land ownership by Federal,

State, and Private/Other (primarily

private and tribal) landholders for each

of the major river basins. Due to data

limitations which prevent mapping the

precise river reaches inhabited by coho

salmon, the ownership estimates were

based on land area within entire river

basins. Aggregating all basins in the

Central California Coast ESU yields

ownership estimates of approximately 5

percent Federal; 6 percent State, and 89

percent Private/Other lands. In contrast,

ownership for the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESU is

approximately 53 percent Federal, 1

percent State, and 46 percent Private/

Other lands. These data clearly indicate

that the role of Federal land/water

management agencies will be greater in

the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast ESU while private

landholders will play a major role in

protecting and restoring coho salmon

habitat in the Central California Coast

ESU.

Need for Special Management

Considerations or Protection

In order to assure that the essential

areas and features are maintained or

restored, special management may be

needed. Activities that may require

special management considerations for

freshwater and estuarine life stages of

listed coho salmon include, but are not

limited to (1) land management; (2)

timber harvest; (3) point and non-point

water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5)

habitat restoration; (6) irrigation water

withdrawals and returns; (7) mining; (8)

road construction; (9) dam operation

and maintenance; and (10) dredge and

fill activities. Not all of these activities

are necessarily of current concern

within every watershed; however, they

indicate the potential types of activities

that will require consultation in the

future. No special management

considerations have been identified for

listed coho salmon while they are

residing in the ocean environment.

Activities That May Affect Critical

Habitat

A wide range of activities may affect

the essential habitat requirements of

listed coho salmon. More in-depth

discussions are contained in the Federal

Register notices announcing the listing

determinations for each ESU (61 FR

56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588,

May 6, 1997). These activities include

water and land management actions of

Federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

the Federal Highway Administration,

and the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission) and related or similar

actions of other federally regulated

projects and lands, including livestock

grazing allocations by the U.S. Forest

Service and U.S. Bureau of Land

Management; hydropower sites licensed

by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission; dams built or operated by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; timber

sales conducted by the U.S. Forest

Service and U.S. Bureau of Land

Management; road building activities

authorized by the Federal Highway

Administration, U.S. Forest Service, and

U.S. Bureau of Land Management; and

mining and road building activities

authorized by the states of California

and Oregon. Other actions of concern

include dredge and fill, mining, and

bank stabilization activities authorized

or conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

The Federal agencies that will most

likely be affected by this critical habitat

designation include the U.S. Forest

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, the Federal Highway

Administration, and the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission. This

designation will provide these agencies,

private entities, and the public with

clear notification of critical habitat

designated for listed coho salmon and

the boundaries of the habitat and

protection provided for that habitat by

the section 7 consultation process. This

designation will also assist these

agencies and others in evaluating the

potential effects of their activities on

listed coho salmon and their critical

habitat and in determining when

consultation with NMFS is appropriate.

Expected Economic Impacts

The economic impacts to be

considered in a critical habitat

designation are the incremental effects

of critical habitat designation above the

economic impacts attributable to either

listing or to authorities other than the

ESA (see Consideration of Economic

and Other Factors section of this notice).

Incremental impacts result from special

management activities in areas outside

the present distribution of the listed

species that have been determined to be

essential to the conservation of the

species. However, NMFS has

determined that the species’ present

freshwater and estuarine range contains

sufficient habitat for conservation of the

species. Therefore, the economic

impacts associated with this critical

habitat designation are expected to be

minimal.

The Forest Service, Bureau of Land

Management, Bureau of Reclamation,

and Army Corps of Engineers manage

areas of proposed critical habitat for the

listed coho salmon ESUs. The Corps of

Engineers and other Federal agencies

that may be involved with funding or

permits for projects in critical habitat

areas may also be affected by this

designation. Because NMFS believes

that virtually all ‘‘adverse modification’’

determinations pertaining to critical

habitat would also result in ‘‘jeopardy’’

conclusions, designation of critical

habitat is not expected to result in

significant incremental restrictions on

Federal agency activities. Critical

habitat designation will, therefore,

result in few, if any, additional

economic effects beyond those that may

have been caused by listing and by other

statutes. Additionally, previously

completed biological opinions would

not require re-initiation to reconsider

any critical habitat designated in this

rulemaking.

Public Comments Solicited; Public

Hearings

NMFS is soliciting information,

comments and/or recommendations on

any aspect of this proposal from all

concerned parties (see ADDRESSES). In

particular, NMFS is requesting any data,

maps, or reports describing areas that

should be excluded from the critical

habitat designation due to either the

species’ historic absence or the lack of

special management considerations

required in a particular area. NMFS will

consider all information, comments, and

recommendations received before

reaching a final decision.

Joint Commerce-Interior ESA

implementing regulations state that the

Secretary ‘‘shall promptly hold at least

one public hearing if any person so

requests within 45 days of publication

of a proposed regulation to * * *

designate or revise critical habitat.’’ (see

50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Public hearings on

the proposed rule provide the

opportunity for the public to give

comments and to permit an exchange of

information and opinion among

interested parties. NMFS encourages the

public’s involvement in such ESA

matters.

The public will have the opportunity

to provide oral and written testimony at

the public hearings. Written comments

on the proposed rule may also be

submitted to Garth Griffin (see

ADDRESSES and DATES). The hearings are

scheduled from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62747

1. Monday, December 8, 1997—Gold

Beach City Hall, City Council Chambers,

29592 Ellensburg Avenue, Gold Beach,

Oregon.

2. Tuesday, December 9, 1997—

Eureka Inn, 518 7th Street, Eureka,

California.

3. Thursday, December 11, 1997—

Days Inn, 185 Railroad Street, Santa

Rosa, California.

These hearings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other aids should be

directed to Garth Griffin or Craig

Wingert (see ADDRESSES).

Compliance With Existing Statutes

NMFS has determined that

Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as

defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared 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).

Classification

The Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined

that this rule is not significant for

purposes of Executive Order (E.O.)

12866.

NMFS proposes to designate only the

current range of these coho salmon

ESUs as critical habitat. Given the

affinity of this species to spawn in small

streams, this current range encompasses

a wide range of habitat, including small

tributary reaches, as well as mainstem,

off-channel and estuarine areas. Areas

excluded from this proposed

designation include nearshore habitats

in the Pacific Ocean, historicallyoccupied areas above 12 extant and

impassable dams, and headwater areas

above impassable natural barriers (e.g.,

long-standing, natural waterfalls).

NMFS has concluded that currently

inhabited areas within the range of each

ESU are the minimum habitat necessary

to ensure conservation and recovery of

the listed species.

Since NMFS is designating the

current range of the listed species as

critical habitat, this designation will not

impose any additional requirements or

economic effects upon small entities,

beyond those which may accrue from

section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires

Federal agencies to insure that any

action they carry out, authorize, or fund

is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any listed species or result

in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat (ESA

section 7(a)(2)). The consultation

requirements of section 7 are

nondiscretionary and are effective at the

time of species’ listing. Therefore,

Federal agencies must consult with

NMFS and ensure their actions do not

jeopardize a listed species, regardless of

whether critical habitat is designated.

In the future, should NMFS determine

that designation of habitat areas outside

the species’ current range is necessary

for conservation and recovery, NMFS

will analyze the incremental costs of

that action and assess its potential

impacts on small entities, as required by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that

time, a more detailed analysis would be

premature and would not reflect the

true economic impacts of the proposed

action on local businesses,

organizations, and governments.

Accordingly, the Assistant General

Counsel for Legislation and Regulation

of the Department of Commerce has

certified to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration that the proposed rule,

if adopted, would not have a significant

economic impact of a substantial

number of small entities, as described in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rule does not contain a

collection-of-information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

The AA has determined that the

proposed designation is consistent to

the maximum extent practicable with

the approved Coastal Zone Management

Program of the states of Oregon and

California. This determination will be

submitted for review by the responsible

state agencies under section 307 of the

Coastal Zone Management Act.

References

The complete citations for the

references used in this document can be

obtained by contacting Garth Griffin,

NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species,

Incorporation by reference.

Dated: November 19, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL

HABITAT

1. The authority citation for part 226

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

2. Sections 226.24 and 226.25 are

added to subpart C to read as follows:

§ 226.24 Central California Coast Coho

Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Critical habitat is designated to

include all river reaches accessible to

listed coho salmon from Punta Gorda in

northern California south to the San

Lorenzo River in central California,

including Mill Valley and Corte Madera

Creeks, tributaries to San Francisco Bay.

Critical habitat consists of the water,

substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of

estuarine and riverine reaches in

hydrologic units and counties identified

in Table 5 of this part. Accessible

reaches are those within the historical

range of the ESU that can still be

occupied by any life stage of coho

salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those

above specific dams identified in Table

5 of this part or above longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,

natural waterfalls in existence for at

least several hundred years). Adjacent

riparian zones are defined as those areas

within a horizontal distance of 300 ft

(91.4 m) from the normal line of high

water of a stream channel or adjacent

off-channel habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m,

when both sides of the channel are

included). Figure 10 of this part

identifies the general geographic extent

of larger rivers and streams within

hydrologic units designated as critical

habitat for Central California Coast coho

salmon. Note that Figure 10 of this part

does not constitute the definition of

critical habitat but, instead, is provided

as a general reference to guide Federal

agencies and interested parties in

locating the boundaries of critical

habitat for listed Central California

Coast coho salmon. Hydrologic units are

those defined by the Department of the

Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) publication, ‘‘Hydrologic Unit

Maps,’’ Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986,

and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000

scale hydrologic unit maps: State of

Oregon, 1974 and State of California,

1978 which are incorporated by

reference. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

Copies of the USGS publication and

maps may be obtained from the USGS,

Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO

80225. Copies may be inspected at

NMFS, Protected Resources Division,

525 NE Oregon Street—Suite 500,

Portland, OR 97232–2737, or NMFS,

Office of Protected Resources, 1335

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910, or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

Suite 700, Washington, DC.
62748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Note: The incorporation by reference and

availability of inspection copies are pending

approval by the Office of the Federal

Register.

§ 226.25 Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast Coho Salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Critical habitat is designated to

include all river reaches accessible to

listed coho salmon between Cape

Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda,

California. Critical habitat consists of

the water, substrate, and adjacent

riparian zone of estuarine and riverine

reaches in hydrologic units and counties

identified in Table 6 of this part.

Accessible reaches are those within the

historical range of the ESU that can still

be occupied by any life stage of coho

salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those

above specific dams identified in Table

6 of this part or above longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,

natural waterfalls in existence for at

least several hundred years). Adjacent

riparian zones are defined as those areas

within a horizontal distance of 300 ft

(91.4 m) from the normal line of high

water of a stream channel or adjacent

off-channel habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m,

when both sides of the channel are

included). Figure 11 of this part

identifies the general geographic extent

of larger rivers and streams within

hydrologic units designated as critical

habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast coho salmon. Note that

Figure 11 of this part does not constitute

the definition of critical habitat but,

instead, is provided as a general

reference to guide Federal agencies and

interested parties in locating the

boundaries of critical habitat for listed

Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast coho salmon. Hydrologic units are

those defined by the Department of the

Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) publication, ‘‘Hydrologic Unit

Maps,’’ Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986,

and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000

scale hydrologic unit maps: State of

Oregon (1974) and State of California

(1978) which are incorporated by

reference.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the

USGS publication and maps may be

obtained from the USGS, Map Sales,

Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies

may be inspected at NMFS, Protected

Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon

Street—Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232–

2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected

Resources, 1335 East-West Highway,

Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,

Washington, DC.

Note: The incorporation by reference and

availability of inspection copies are pending

approval by the Office of the Federal

Register.

3. Tables 5 and 6 are added in

numerical order to part 226 to read as

follows:

TABLE 5 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED CENTRAL

CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICAL

HABITAT

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic

unit No.

Counties contained in hydrologic unit and

within range of ESU 1 Dams (reservoirs)

San Lorenzo-Soquel .................................. 18060001 Santa Cruz (CA), San Mateo (CA) ........... 1. Newell Dam (Loch Lomond).

San Francisco Coastal South ................... 18050006 San Mateo (CA).

San Pablo Bay .......................................... 18050002 Marin (CA), Napa (CA).

Tomales-Drake Bays ................................. 18050005 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA) ........................ 2. Peters Dam (Kent Lake).

3. Nicasio Dam (Nicasio Reservoir).

Bodega Bay ............................................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).

Russian ...................................................... 18010110 Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA) ............... 4. Warm Springs Dam (Sonoma Lake)

5. Coyote Dam (Lake Mendocino).

Gualala-Salmon ......................................... 18010109 Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA).

Big-Navarro-Garcia .................................... 18010108 Mendocino (CA).

1Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS

hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.

TABLE 6 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED SOUTHERN OREGON/NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic

unit No.

Counties contained in hydrologic unit and

within range of ESU 1 Dams (reservoirs)

Mattole ....................................................... 18010107 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino (CA).

South Fork Eel .......................................... 18010106 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt (CA).

Lower Eel .................................................. 18010105 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt (CA), Trinity

(CA).

Middle Fork Eel ......................................... 18010104 Mendocino (CA), Trinity (CA), Glenn

(CA), Lake (CA).

Upper Eel .................................................. 18010103 Mendocino (CA), Glenn (CA), Lake (CA) 1. Scott Dam (Lake Pillsbury).

Mad-Redwood ........................................... 18010102 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA) ..................... 2. Matthews Dam (Ruth Lake).

Smith ......................................................... 18010101 Del Norte (CA), Curry (OR).

South Fork Trinity ...................................... 18010212 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA).

Trinity ......................................................... 18010211 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA) ..................... 3. Lewiston Dam (Lewiston Resevoir).

Salmon ...................................................... 18010210 Siskiyou (CA).

Lower Klamath .......................................... 18010209 Del Norte (CA), Humboldt (CA), Siskiyou

(CA).

Scott .......................................................... 18010208 Siskiyou (CA).

Shasta ....................................................... 18010207 Siskiyou (CA) ............................................ 4. Dwinnell Dam (Dwinnell Reservoir).

Upper Klamath .......................................... 18010206 Siskiyou (CA), Jackson (OR) ................... 5. Irongate Dam (Irongate Reservoir).

Chetco ....................................................... 17100312 Curry (OR), Del Norte (CA).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62749

TABLE 6 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED SOUTHERN OREGON/NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT—Continued

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic

unit No.

Counties contained in hydrologic unit and

within range of ESU 1 Dams (reservoirs)

Illinois ......................................................... 17100311 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR), Del Norte

(CA).

Lower Rogue ............................................. 17100310 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR), Jackson

(OR).

Applegate .................................................. 17100309 Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR), Siskiyou

(CA).

6. Applegate Dam (Applegate Reservoir).

Middle Rogue ............................................ 17100308 Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR).

Upper Rogue ............................................. 17100307 Jackson (OR), Klamath (OR), Douglas

(OR).

7. Lost Creek Dam (Lost Creek Reservoir).

Sixes .......................................................... 17100306 Curry (OR).

1Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS

hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.

4. Figures 10 and 11 are added in

numerical order to part 226 to read as

follows:

Figures to Part 226

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
62750 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Figure 10 to Part 226.—Critical Habitat for Central California Coast Coho Salmon
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62751

Figure 11 to Part 226.—Critical Habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon

[FR Doc. 97–30865 Filed 11-20-97; 12:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C