7816 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 226 

[Docket No. 071227892–7894–01] 

RIN 0648–AW39 

Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Final Threatened Listing 

Determination, Final Protective 

Regulations, and Final Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho 

Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are issuing a final 

determination to list the Oregon Coast 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) as 

a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We are 

also issuing final protective regulations 

and a final critical habitat designation 

for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

DATES: The listing determination, 

protective regulations, and designated 

critical habitat are effective on May 12, 

2008. With respect to the protective 

regulations, the take prohibitions for the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU do not apply to 

research and enhancement activities 

specified in an application for a permit 

or approval under the protective 

regulations, provided that the 

application has been received by the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

(AA), NOAA, no later than June 10, 

2008. This ‘‘grace period’’ for pending 

research and enhancement applications 

will remain in effect until the issuance 

or denial of authorization, or March 31, 

2009, whichever occurs earliest. 

ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources 

Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, 

Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97232. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest 

Region, Protected Resources Division, at 

(503) 872–2791, or Marta Nammack, 

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, at 

(301) 713–1401. Reference materials 

regarding this determination are 

available upon request or on the Internet 

at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related 

to Oregon Coast Coho 

In 1995, we completed a 

comprehensive status review of West 

Coast coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 

1995) that resulted in proposed listing 

determinations for three coho ESUs, 

including a proposal to list the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU as a threatened species 

(60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). On 

October 31, 1996, we announced a 6- 

month extension of the final listing 

determination for the ESU, pursuant to 

section 4(b)(6)(B)(I) of the ESA, noting 

substantial disagreement regarding the 

sufficiency and accuracy of the available 

data relevant to the assessment of 

extinction risk and the evaluation of 

protective efforts (61 FR 56211). On May 

6, 1997, we withdrew the proposal to 

list the Oregon Coast coho ESU as 

threatened, based in part on 

conservation measures contained in the 

Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration 

Initiative (later renamed the Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; 

hereafter referred to as the Oregon Plan) 

and an April 23, 1997, Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and 

the State of Oregon which further 

defined Oregon’s commitment to 

salmon conservation (62 FR 24588). We 

concluded that implementation of 

harvest and hatchery reforms, and 

habitat protection and restoration efforts 

under the Oregon Plan and the MOA 

substantially reduced the risk of 

extinction faced by the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. On June 1, 1998, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Oregon 

issued an opinion finding that our May 

6, 1997, determination to not list Oregon 

Coast coho was arbitrary and capricious 

(Oregon Natural Resources Council v. 

Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. Or. 1998)). 

The Court vacated our determination to 

withdraw the proposed rule to list the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU and remanded 

the determination to NMFS for further 

consideration. On August 10, 1998, we 

issued a final rule listing the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU as threatened (63 FR 

42587), basing the determination solely 

on the information and data contained 

in the 1995 status review (Weitkamp et 

al., 1995) and the 1997 proposed rule. 

In 2001 the U.S. District Court in 

Eugene, Oregon, set aside the 1998 

threatened listing of the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU (Alsea Valley Alliance v. 

Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, (D. Or. 

2001)) (Alsea). In response to the Alsea 

ruling and several listing and delisting 

petitions, we announced that we would 

conduct an updated status review of 27 

West Coast salmonid ESUs, including 

the Oregon Coast coho ESU (67 FR 6215, 

February 11, 2002; 67 FR 48601, July 25, 

2002). 

In 2003 we convened the Pacific 

Salmonid Biological Review Team 

(BRT) (an expert panel of scientists from 

several Federal agencies including 

NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS)) to review the extinction 

risks of naturally spawning populations 

in the 27 ESUs under review, including 

the Oregon Coast coho ESU (Good et al., 

2005; NMFS, 2003a). In making its 

recommendation, the BRT used a 

process where each member of the BRT 

was given 10 votes to divide among 

three conclusions. Members were 

allowed to assign votes to more than one 

conclusion, allowing them to express 

their relative degree of confidence in 

particular conclusions. The three 

options were ‘‘In Danger of Extinction,’’ 

‘‘Likely to Become Endangered,’’ and 

‘‘Not Warranted.’’ Fifty-six percent of 

the votes supported the conclusion that 

naturally spawning Oregon coast coho 

were likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future, and 44 percent 

supported the conclusion that naturally 

spawning Oregon coast coho was ‘‘Not 

Warranted’’ (that is, not likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future). The BRT noted 

considerable uncertainty regarding the 

future viability of the ESU given the 

uncertainty in predicting future ocean 

conditions for coho survival, as well as 

uncertainty in whether current 

freshwater habitats are of sufficient 

quality and quantity to support the 

recent high abundance levels and 

sustain populations during future 

downturns in ocean conditions. 

Although the BRT couched its 

conclusion in terms of the statutory 

definition of a threatened species (that 

is, not in danger of extinction, but likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future), the BRT’s conclusion did not 

constitute a recommendation to list the 

species. Our listing determination also 

considered the risks and benefits from 

artificial propagation programs included 

in the ESU, efforts being made to protect 

the species, and the five factors listed 

under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 

On June 14, 2004, based primarily on 

the BRT voting results, we proposed to 

list the Oregon Coast coho ESU as a 

threatened species (69 FR 33102). 

However, the proposed listing 

recognized that further information 

would likely become available and that 

this information could affect the 

outcome of the final determination. In 

the proposed rule, we noted that Oregon 

was initiating a comprehensive 

assessment of the viability of the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU and of the adequacy of 

actions under the Oregon Plan for 

conserving Oregon Coast coho. As part 

of that proposed rule we proposed 

amendments to existing protective 

regulations issued under ESA section 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7817 

4(d) (‘‘4(d) regulations’’) for all 

threatened West Coast salmon and 

steelhead (50 CFR 223.203). These 

amendments were needed to: (1) 

Provide flexibility in fisheries and 

hatchery management; and (2) simplify 

and clarify the existing regulations so 

that they may be more efficiently and 

effectively accessed and interpreted by 

all affected parties. 

On December 14, 2004, we proposed 

designations of critical habitat for 13 

ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in 

the Pacific Northwest, including the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR 74572). 

We proposed critical habitat in 72 of 80 

occupied watersheds, contained in 13 

subbasins, totaling approximately 6,665 

stream miles along the Oregon Coast, 

south of the Columbia River and north 

of Cape Blanco (Oregon). The estimated 

economic impact of the areas proposed 

for critical habitat was approximately 

$15.7 million. Eight occupied 

watersheds were proposed for exclusion 

because the high benefits of exclusion 

(due to economic impacts) outweighed 

the low benefits of inclusion (due to the 

low inherent conservation value for the 

listed species). These excluded 

watersheds included approximately 134 

stream miles and represented a 15 

percent reduction (approximately $2.75 

million) in the economic impact of the 

proposed designation. To assess 

economic impacts we measured the coextensive impacts because, based on the 

existing record, we could not 

distinguish between the costs associated 

with the species’ listing from the costs 

of separately designating critical habitat. 

In January 2005 the State of Oregon 

released a draft Oregon Coastal Coho 

Assessment (Oregon’s Draft Viability 

Assessment), which (1) evaluated the 

current viability of the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU, and (2) evaluated the 

certainty of implementation and 

effectiveness of the Oregon Plan 

measures in addressing the factors for 

decline of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

The latter evaluation was intended to 

satisfy the joint NMFS—FWS Policy on 

Evaluating Conservation Efforts 

(‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). 

Oregon’s Draft Viability Assessment 

concluded that the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU is currently viable and that 

measures under the Oregon Plan have 

stopped, if not reversed, the 

deterioration of Oregon Coast coho 

habitats. The Draft Viability Assessment 

also concluded that it is highly likely 

that existing monitoring efforts would 

detect any significant future 

deterioration in the ESU’s viability, or 

degradation of environmental condition, 

allowing a timely and appropriate 

response to conserve the ESU. On 

February 9, 2005, we published a notice 

of availability of Oregon’s Draft Viability 

Assessment for public review and 

comment in the Federal Register (70 FR 

6840) and noted that information 

presented in the draft and final 

assessments would be considered in 

making the final listing determination 

for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

We forwarded the public comments 

we received on Oregon’s Draft Viability 

Assessment, as well as our technical 

reviews, for Oregon’s consideration in 

developing its final assessment. The 

public comments and our review 

highlighted areas of uncertainty or 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

and accuracy of Oregon’s Draft Viability 

Assessment, including: the assumption 

that Oregon Coast coho populations are 

inherently resilient at low abundance, 

and that this compensatory response 

will prevent extinction during periods 

of low marine survival; the apparent deemphasis of abundance as a useful 

indicator of extinction risk; assumptions 

regarding the duration and severity of 

future periods of unfavorable marine 

and freshwater conditions; the ability of 

monitoring and adaptive management 

efforts to detect population declines or 

habitat degradation, and to identify and 

implement necessary protective 

measures; and the ability of Oregon Plan 

measures to halt or reverse habitat 

degradation once detected. 

On May 13, 2005, Oregon issued its 

final Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment 

(Oregon’s Final Viability Assessment). 

Oregon’s Final Viability Assessment 

included several changes intended to 

address concerns raised regarding the 

sufficiency and accuracy of the draft 

assessment. Oregon’s Final Viability 

Assessment concluded that: (1) The 

Oregon Coast coho ESU is viable under 

current conditions, and should be 

sustainable through a future period of 

adverse environmental conditions 

(including a prolonged period of poor 

ocean productivity); (2) given the 

assessed viability of the ESU, the quality 

and quantity of habitat is necessarily 

sufficient to support a viable ESU; and 

(3) the integration of laws, adaptive 

management programs, and monitoring 

efforts under the Oregon Plan will 

maintain and improve environmental 

conditions and the viability of the ESU 

into the foreseeable future. 

On June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37217), we 

announced a 6-month extension of the 

final listing determination for the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU, finding that 

‘‘there is substantial disagreement 

regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 

the available data relevant to the 

determination * * * for the purposes of 

soliciting additional data’’ (section 

4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA). We announced 

a 30-day public comment period to 

solicit information regarding the 

validity of Oregon’s Final Viability 

Assessment, particularly in light of the 

concerns raised with respect to Oregon’s 

Draft Viability Assessment. In 

September 2005 we issued final critical 

habitat designations for 12 Pacific 

Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52685; 

September 2, 2005), but we did not 

issue a final critical habitat designation 

for Oregon Coast coho because it was 

only proposed for listing at that time. 

On January 19, 2006, we issued a final 

determination that listing the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU under the ESA was not 

warranted (71 FR 3033). As part of this 

determination, we withdrew the 

proposed ESA section 4(d) regulations 

and critical habitat designation for the 

ESU. In reaching our determination not 

to list Oregon Coast coho, we found that 

the BRT’s slight majority opinion that 

the ESU is ‘‘likely to become 

endangered’’ and the conclusion of the 

Oregon Final Viability Assessment that 

the ESU is viable represented competing 

reasonable inferences from the available 

scientific information and considerable 

associated uncertainty. The difference of 

opinion centered on whether the ESU 

was at risk because of the ‘‘threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range.’’ We 

conducted an analysis of current habitat 

status and likely future habitat trends 

(NMFS, 2005a) and found that: (1) The 

sufficiency of current habitat conditions 

was unknown; and (2) likely future 

habitat trends were mixed (i.e., some 

habitat elements were likely to improve, 

some were likely to decline, others were 

likely to remain in their current 

condition). We concluded that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the 

conclusion that the ESU was more likely 

than not to become an endangered 

species in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Our decision not to list the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU was challenged in Trout 

Unlimited. On October 9, 2007, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Oregon 

invalidated our January 2006 decision 

not to list Oregon Coast coho (Trout 

Unlimited v. Lohn, Civ. No. 06–01493 

ST (D. Oreg., October 9, 2007). The 

Court found that Oregon’s Viability 

Assessment does not represent the best 

available science, and that we 

improperly considered it in reaching 

our final listing decision. The Court 

ordered us to issue a new final listing 

rule consistent with the ESA. This 

listing decision has been made in 

compliance with the Court’s order. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7818 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

ESA Statutory Provisions 

Listing Determinations 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and a threatened 

species as one that is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

(sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). 

The statute requires us to determine 

whether any species is endangered or 

threatened because of any of five factors: 

the present or threatened destruction of 

its habitat, overexploitation, disease or 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or any other 

natural or manmade factors (section 

4(a)(1)(A)–(E)). We are to make this 

determination based solely on the best 

available scientific information after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account any 

efforts being made by states or foreign 

governments to protect the species. The 

focus of our evaluation of these five 

factors is to evaluate whether and to 

what extent a given factor represents a 

threat to the future survival of the 

species. The focus of our consideration 

of protective efforts is to evaluate 

whether these efforts substantially have 

and will continue to address the 

identified threats and so ameliorate a 

species’ risk of extinction. In making 

our listing determination, we must 

consider all factors that may affect the 

future viability of the species, including 

whether regulatory and conservation 

programs are inadequate and allow 

threats to the species to persist or 

worsen, or whether these programs are 

likely to mitigate threats to the species 

and reduce its extinction risk. The steps 

we follow in implementing this 

statutory scheme are to: review the 

status of the species, analyze the factors 

listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA to 

identify threats facing the species, 

assess whether certain protective efforts 

mitigate these threats, and make our 

best prediction about the species’ future 

persistence. 

As indicated above, the PECE 

provides direction for considering 

protective efforts identified in 

conservation agreements, conservation 

plans, management plans, or similar 

documents (developed by Federal 

agencies, state and local governments, 

tribal governments, businesses, 

organizations, and individuals) that 

have not yet been implemented, or have 

been implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness. The policy 

articulates several criteria for evaluating 

the certainty of implementation and 

effectiveness of protective efforts to aid 

in determining whether a species 

warrants listing under the ESA. 

Evaluation of the certainty that an effort 

will be implemented includes whether: 

the necessary resources (e.g., funding 

and staffing) are available; the requisite 

agreements have been formalized such 

that the necessary authority and 

regulatory mechanisms are in place; 

there is a schedule for completion and 

evaluation of the stated objectives; and 

(for voluntary efforts) the necessary 

incentives are in place to ensure 

adequate participation. The evaluation 

of the certainty of an effort’s 

effectiveness is made on the basis of 

whether the effort or plan: Establishes 

specific conservation objectives; 

identifies the necessary steps to reduce 

threats or factors for decline; includes 

quantifiable performance measures for 

the monitoring of compliance and 

effectiveness; incorporates the 

principles of adaptive management; and 

is likely to improve the species’ viability 

at the time of the listing determination. 

PECE also notes several important 

caveats. Satisfaction of the above 

mentioned criteria for implementation 

and effectiveness establishes a given 

protective effort as a candidate for 

consideration, but does not mean that 

an effort will ultimately change the risk 

assessment. The policy stresses that, just 

as listing determinations must be based 

on the viability of the species at the time 

of review, so they must be based on the 

state of protective efforts at the time of 

the listing determination. The PECE 

does not provide explicit guidance on 

how protective efforts affecting only a 

portion of a species’ range may affect a 

listing determination, other than to say 

that such efforts will be evaluated in the 

context of other efforts being made and 

the species’ overall viability. 

Protective Regulations 

ESA section 9(a) take and other 

prohibitions (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) 

apply to all species listed as 

endangered. Hatchery stocks 

determined to be part of endangered 

ESUs are afforded all of the full section 

9 protections. In the case of threatened 

species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the 

Secretary of Commerce’s (Secretary) 

discretion to determine whether and to 

what extent regulatory requirements 

may be appropriate, by directing the 

Secretary to issue regulations 

determined to be necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of the 

species. We have flexibility under 

section 4(d) to tailor protective 

regulations based on the contributions 

of available conservation measures. The 

4(d) regulations may prohibit, with 

respect to threatened species, some or 

all of the acts which section 9(a) of the 

ESA prohibits with respect to 

endangered species. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3 of the ESA defines critical 

habitat as (1) specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the listed species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and (2) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of a listed species. In 

designating critical habitat our 

regulations direct us to focus on 

‘‘primary constituent elements,’’ or 

PCEs, in identifying these physical or 

biological features. Section 4 of the ESA 

requires us to consider the economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

and other relevant impacts of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

We may exclude any area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 

of specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such an area will result in the 

extinction of the species. 

At the time of a proposed listing 

determination, ESA section 4(a)(3) and 

our regulations require us to specify 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

‘‘prudent and determinable.’’ Critical 

habitat designation is not prudent if: (1) 

The species is threatened by taking or 

other human activity and the 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase such threat(s); or 

(2) critical habitat designation would 

not be beneficial to the species. Critical 

habitat is not determinable if: (1) 

Sufficient information is lacking to 

perform the required analyses of the 

impact of the designation; or (2) the 

biological needs of the species are not 

sufficiently well known to identify an 

area as critical habitat. In our proposed 

rule to designate specific areas as 

critical habitat (69 FR 74572; December 

14, 2004), we determined that 

designating critical habitat for this 

species is prudent and determinable. 

The record continues to support this 

determination. 

The ESA requires that a final 

regulation designating critical habitat be 

published concurrently with the final 

determination listing a species as 

threatened or endangered, unless: (1) It 

is essential to the conservation of such 

species that the species be listed 

promptly (e.g., in instances when a 

species is listed by emergency rule); or 

(2) critical habitat of such species is not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7819 

then determinable. Section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA requires that each Federal agency 

shall, in consultation with, and with the 

assistance of, NMFS, ensure that any 

action authorized, funded or carried out 

by such agency is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

its designated critical habitat. 

Summary of Public and Independent 

Review 

Our regulations require that we allow 

a period of at least 60 days for the 

public to review and comment on a 

proposed rule to list, delist, or reclassify 

a species, or to designate or revise 

critical habitat. We may extend or 

reopen the comment period upon 

finding that there is good cause to do so 

by publishing notice in the Federal 

Register. We are required to hold at 

least one public hearing if any person so 

requests within 45 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule. Notice of 

the location and time of any hearings is 

published in the Federal Register. 

A 1994 joint NMFS–FWS policy 

(Independent Review Policy) requires us 

to solicit independent expert review 

from at least three qualified specialists, 

concurrent with the public comment 

period following a proposed rule (59 FR 

34270; July 1, 1994). In December 2004 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) issued a Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Peer 

Review Bulletin), establishing minimum 

peer review standards, a transparent 

process for public disclosure, and 

opportunities for public input. The 

OMB Peer Review Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554), is 

intended to ensure the quality of agency 

information, analyses, and regulatory 

activities and provide for a more 

transparent review process. 

Listing Determination and Protective 

Regulations 

We solicited public comment on the 

proposed listing determination and ESA 

section 4(d) regulations for the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU for a total of 208 days 

(69 FR 33102, June 14, 2004; 69 FR 

53031, August 31, 2004; 69 FR 61348, 

October 18, 2004; 70 FR 6840, February 

9, 2005; 70 FR 37217, June 28, 2005). In 

addition, we held eight public hearings 

in the Pacific Northwest concerning the 

June 2004 West Coast salmon and 

steelhead proposed 4(d) regulations and 

proposed listing determinations, 

including the proposed determination 

for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR 

53031, August 31, 2004; 69 FR 61348, 

October 18, 2004). In compliance with 

the 1994 Independent Review Policy we 

solicited technical review of the June 

2004 proposed 4(d) regulations and 

listing determinations, including the 

proposed determination for the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU, from over 50 

independent experts selected from the 

academic and scientific community, 

Native American tribal groups, Federal 

and state agencies, and the private 

sector. The individuals from whom we 

solicited review of the proposals and the 

underlying science were selected 

because of their demonstrated expertise 

in a variety of disciplines including: 

Artificial propagation; salmonid 

biology, taxonomy, and ecology; genetic 

and molecular techniques and analyses; 

population demography; quantitative 

methods of assessing extinction risk; 

fisheries management; local and 

regional habitat conditions and 

processes; and conducting scientific 

analyses in support of ESA listing 

determinations. The individuals 

solicited represent a broad spectrum of 

perspectives and expertise. The 

individuals solicited include those who 

have been critical of past agency actions 

in implementing the ESA for West Coast 

salmon and steelhead, as well as those 

who have been supportive of these 

actions. These individuals were not 

involved in producing the scientific 

information for our determinations and 

were not employed by the agency. We 

received comments from four of these 

experts. In addition to these solicited 

reviews, several independent scientific 

panels and academic societies provided 

technical review of the proposals and 

the supporting documentation. With 

respect to the Peer Review Bulletin’s 

requirements for ‘‘adequate [prior] peer 

review,’’ we believe the independent 

expert review under the 1994 

Independent Review Policy, and the 

comments received from several 

academic societies and expert advisory 

panels, collectively satisfy the Peer 

Review Bulletin’s requirements (NMFS, 

2005b). 

In response to our requests for 

information and comments on the June 

2004 proposed listing determinations, 

we received over 28,250 comments by 

fax, standard mail, and e-mail. The 

majority of the comments received were 

from interested individuals who 

submitted form letters or form e-mails 

that addressed general issues not 

specific to the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

Comments were also submitted by state 

and tribal natural resource agencies, 

fishing groups, environmental 

organizations, home builder 

associations, academic and professional 

societies, expert advisory panels, 

farming groups, irrigation groups, and 

individuals with expertise in Pacific 

salmonids. The majority of commenters 

focused on the consideration of 

hatchery-origin fish in ESA listing 

determinations, with only a few 

comments specifically addressing the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. We also 

received comments from 4 of the 50 

independent experts from whom we had 

requested technical review of the 

scientific information underlying the 

June 2004 proposed listing 

determinations. Their comments did not 

specifically address the proposed 

determination for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU. The reader is referred to the final 

hatchery listing policy (70 FR 37204; 

June 28, 2005) and the final listing 

determinations and ESA section 4(d) 

regulations for 16 salmon ESUs (70 FR 

37160; June 28, 2005) for a summary 

and discussion of issues raised by the 

comments that were not specific to the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. The comments 

addressing the proposed listing 

determination for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU are summarized below. We did not 

receive any comments that addressed 

the proposed 4(d) regulations in the 

specific context of the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. 

Critical Habitat 

We solicited public comment on the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

Oregon Coast coho for a total of 105 

days (69 FR 74578, December 14, 2004; 

70 FR 6394; February 7, 2005). We also 

contacted the appropriate Federal, state, 

and local agencies, scientific 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule. To facilitate public 

participation, we made the proposed 

rule available via the Internet as soon as 

it was signed by the AA of NMFS 

(approximately 2 weeks prior to actual 

publication). In addition, we held four 

public hearings in the Pacific Northwest 

between January 11, 2005, and January 

25, 2005. We received 5,230 written 

comments (5,111 of these were ‘‘form 

e-mails’’ with nearly identical verbiage) 

during the comment period on the 

proposed rule. Eight comments 

addressed specifically, or in part, the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

In compliance with the Peer Review 

Bulletin, prior to publishing the 

proposed rule we submitted the initial 

biological assessments of our Critical 

Habitat Analytical Review Teams 

(CHARTs) to state and tribal comanagers 

and asked them to review those 

findings. These comanager reviews 

resulted in several changes to the 

CHARTs’ preliminary assessments (for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7820 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

example, revised fish distribution as 

well as conservation value ratings) and 

helped ensure that the CHARTs’ revised 

findings incorporated the best available 

scientific data. Consistent with the 1994 

Independent Review Policy, we later 

solicited technical review of the entire 

critical habitat proposal (including the 

underlying biological and economic 

reports) from 45 independent experts 

selected from the academic and 

scientific community, Native American 

tribal groups, Federal and state agencies, 

and the private sector. We also solicited 

opinions from three individuals with 

economics expertise to review the draft 

economics analysis supporting the 

proposed rule. All three of the 

economics reviewers and three of the 

biological reviewers submitted written 

opinions on our proposal. We have 

determined that the independent expert 

review and comments received 

regarding the science involved in this 

rulemaking constitute adequate prior 

review under section II.2 of the OMB 

Peer Review Bulletin (NMFS, 2005c) 

and satisfy the 1994 Independent 

Review Policy. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

all 13 ESUs addressed in the proposed 

rule. The reader is referred to the final 

critical habitat designations for 12 

Pacific Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52685; 

September 2, 2005) for a summary and 

discussion of general issues, or issues 

specific to other ESUs. The comments 

addressing the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU are summarized below. 

Comments Specific to Oregon Coast 

Coho 

Below we address the comments 

received that directly pertain to: (1) The 

listing determination for the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU, and (2) the designation 

of critical habitat for the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. (Copies of the full text of 

comments received are available upon 

request, see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above.) 

Comments Regarding the Listing 

Determination 

Comment 1: The Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) expressed 

concern regarding the proposed 

inclusion of the North Fork Nehalem 

River coho hatchery program in the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. ODFW 

explained that the hatchery program 

propagates two different stocks: The 

North Fork Nehalem River hatchery 

coho stock (ODFW stock #32) and the 

Fishhawk Lake hatchery coho stock 

(ODFW stock #99). ODFW noted that 

both stocks, although founded using 

local natural-origin fish, are presently 

managed as isolated broodstocks. 

Although the level of divergence 

between these hatchery stocks and the 

local wild populations is not known, 

ODFW noted that our hatchery reviews 

(NMFS, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b) 

acknowledged that the level of 

divergence may be substantial. ODFW 

recommended that both the North Fork 

Nehalem River and Fishhawk Lake 

hatchery stocks be excluded from the 

ESU. 

ODFW also noted that the recently 

founded Calapooya Creek (Umpqua 

River basin, Oregon) hatchery coho 

stock was not included in our hatchery 

reviews. The Calapooya Creek program 

was a small, short-term (in operation 

from 2001–2003), research hatchery 

program conducted to evaluate the use 

of hatchery-reared fish in the 

supplementation of a wild coho 

population. The program is no longer 

releasing fish, and had adults returning 

through 2006. ODFW suggested that, 

had we included this stock in our initial 

evaluations, the progeny expected to 

return through 2006 would have been 

considered as part of the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. 

Response: We agree with ODFW’s 

comments that the North Fork Nehalem 

River and Fishhawk Lake stocks 

propagated by the Nehalem hatchery 

coho program are substantially 

reproductively isolated from the local 

natural populations, and diverged 

substantially from the evolutionary 

legacy of the ESU. Moreover, since our 

2006 final determination these two 

programs have been discontinued, with 

the last adults returning in 2007 (NMFS, 

2007a). We conclude that the North 

Fork Nehalem River and Fishhawk Lake 

hatchery coho stocks are not part of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

We did not include the Calapooya 

Creek coho hatchery stock in our 

hatchery reviews as the program is no 

longer collecting fish for broodstock or 

releasing smolts. We agree with ODFW 

that returns from Calapooya Creek 

hatchery stock, having been derived 

from local natural-origin fish, likely 

were no more than moderately diverged 

from the local natural populations. 

However, given that the program has 

been terminated, and 2006 was the last 

year of returns, the Calapooya Creek 

hatchery stock will not be considered 

part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

At the time of the 2004 proposed rule 

and our January 2006 final 

determination not to list the ESU, Cow 

Creek (ODFW stock #37), the North 

Umpqua River (ODFW stock #18), the 

Coos Basin (ODFW stock #37), and the 

Coquille River (ODFW stock #44) 

hatchery coho programs were 

considered part of the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. The latter three of these 

programs have been discontinued since 

our 2006 final determination (NMFS, 

2007a). The last year of returns for these 

programs is 2007. Given that the North 

Umpqua River, Coos Basin, and 

Coquille River hatchery programs have 

been terminated, and this winter (2007) 

is the last year of returns, these stocks 

will not be considered part of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

Comment 2: A comment submitted by 

the Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) 

included a July 2003 report 

investigating the potential benefits of a 

modeled conservation hatchery program 

in supplementing Oregon Coast coho 

(Oosterhout and Huntington, 2003). PRC 

asserted that the report supports their 

position that hatchery fish should be 

considered as only a threat to wild 

salmonid populations, and that any 

potential short-term benefits of artificial 

propagation are outweighed by the longterm damaging genetic and ecological 

effects on wild populations. The 

Oosterhout and Huntington (2003) 

report modeled an ‘‘idealized 

conservation hatchery’’ program and 

evaluated the success of 

supplementation efforts under different 

scenarios of habitat quality and marine 

survival. The authors conclude from 

their modeling study that 

supplementation, even under optimized 

model assumptions, poses long-term 

ecological and genetic risks, and any 

short-term gains in salmon abundance 

are temporary. 

Response: The use of artificial 

propagation represents a broad 

spectrum of hatchery practices and 

facilities, as well as a variety of 

ecological settings into which hatcheryorigin fish are released. For this reason 

it is essential to assess hatchery 

programs on a case-by-case basis. Our 

assessment of the benefits, risks, and 

uncertainties of artificial propagation 

concluded that the specific hatchery 

programs considered to be part of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU collectively do 

not substantially reduce the extinction 

risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004b). 

We noted that these hatchery programs 

likely contribute to an increased 

abundance of total natural spawners in 

the short term, although their 

contribution to the productivity of the 

supplemented populations is unknown. 

Our assessment is consistent with the 

findings of Oosterhout and Huntington 

(2003). The findings of scientific 

studies, such as the subject study on 

simulated conservation hatchery 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7821 

programs and their impacts on natural 

coho populations, inform our 

consideration of the benefits and risks to 

be expected from artificial propagation. 

However, it would be inappropriate to 

rely on theoretical conclusions about 

the effectiveness of hatchery programs 

while ignoring program-specific 

information regarding broodstock origin, 

hatchery practices, and performance of 

hatchery- and natural-origin fish. 

Comment 3: Douglas County Board of 

Commissioners (Oregon) submitted a 

report (Cramer et al., 2004) that 

concludes that NMFS’ earlier viability 

analyses overstate the risks to Oregon 

Coast coho populations, and that the 

2003 BRT’s findings warrant 

reconsideration. The Cramer et al. 

(2004) report asserts that previous 

viability assessments failed to 

adequately consider connectivity among 

spawner aggregations, underestimated 

juvenile over-winter survival in smaller 

stream reaches, and underestimated 

coho population stability. The report 

asserts that sharp reductions in ocean 

harvest rates since 1994, declining 

influence of hatchery-origin fish, and 

improved monitoring and evaluation 

under the Oregon Plan confer a very low 

risk of extinction even if future marine 

survival rates are low and remain low. 

Response: The Cramer et al. (2004) 

report does not present any substantial 

new information, other than including 

an additional year of abundance data 

that was not available to the BRT. The 

report emphasizes selective aspects of 

the available data including: reduction 

of threats by changes in fishery and 

harvest management; and improved 

biological status evidenced by 

increasing spawning escapements and 

successful juvenile rearing throughout 

the ESU. These observations and 

analyses were fully considered in the 

BRT’s review (Good et al., 2005; NMFS, 

2003a). The Cramer et al. (2004) report 

does not, by itself, add to our 

consideration of the BRT’s findings. 

Comment 4: Several commenters felt 

that effective regulatory controls and 

monitoring programs are in place to 

ensure that harvest and hatchery 

practices no longer threaten the ESU. 

Response: Many noteworthy and 

important regulatory changes have been 

made that adequately address 

historically harmful practices. Changes 

in ocean and freshwater fisheries 

management have resulted in sharp 

reductions in fishing mortality in 

Oregon Coast coho populations, and 

likely have contributed to recent 

population increases. It is unlikely that 

those harvest controls will weaken in 

the future, in light of Federal 

management of ocean fisheries. Reforms 

in hatchery management practices have 

limited the potential for adverse 

ecological interactions between 

hatchery-origin and natural fish, and 

have markedly reduced risks to the 

genetic diversity and reproductive 

fitness for the majority of naturally 

spawned populations in the ESU. It is 

also unlikely those reforms will be 

weakened in the future. 

Comment 5: One commenter was 

critical of the Oregon Forest Practices 

Act, and argued that it is inadequate to 

prevent the future degradation of 

riparian habitats, particularly on private 

non-industrial forestlands. The 

commenter noted that the Forest 

Practices Act applies only to the 

commercial harvest of trees, and that 

non-commercial land owners may cut 

riparian trees without restriction if they 

do not sell the wood. The commenter 

noted that this unregulated practice is 

particularly evident in areas with 

increased rural residential development 

along streambanks. 

Other commenters doubted whether 

regulations, restoration programs, and 

other protective efforts would improve 

habitat conditions in the foreseeable 

future. One commenter noted that there 

is an insufficient data record to evaluate 

the success of protective efforts aimed at 

restoring riparian habitats, particularly 

in increasing the recruitment of large 

woody debris. Several other 

commenters doubted whether forest 

management under the Oregon Plan has 

resulted, or will result, in an increased 

amount of large-diameter trees 

(important for the recruitment of large 

woody debris in coho rearing areas). 

The commenters argued that the shorter 

rotations being implemented on private 

industrial forest lands reduce the size of 

trees delivered to streams in landslides, 

and thus may result in diminished 

stream complexity in important coho 

rearing habitats. 

Response: Our review suggests that 

there are likely to be improvements in 

some aspects of habitat condition, 

declines in others, and a continuation of 

current conditions in still others 

(NMFS, 2005a). For example, the 

Northwest Forest Plan instituted 

riparian habitat buffers and other 

measures on Federal lands that 

improved many of the historical forestry 

practices that led to the loss and 

degradation of riparian habitats. 

Development and implementation of 

Total Maximum Daily Loads under the 

Federal Clean Water Act are likely to 

result in improved water quality. 

Restoration efforts have treated 

approximately seven percent of the 

stream miles within the range of the 

ESU over the last 7 years with the intent 

of restoring stream complexity and 

riparian habitats and improving water 

quality, though it is unclear how much 

restoration is likely to occur in the 

future, given funding uncertainties. 

Forest practices on state and private 

land include some improvements over 

historically harmful practices, such as 

the establishment of riparian 

management areas under revisions to 

Oregon forest practice rules in the 

1990s. However, there are also offsetting 

practices that are expected to degrade 

habitat conditions and complexity, such 

as shorter harvest rotations, road 

construction, and logging on unstable 

slopes and along debris flow paths 

(NMFS, 2005a). 

For agricultural lands, riparian 

management is governed by agricultural 

water quality management plans under 

Oregon Senate Bill 1010, as well as by 

subsequently developed riparian rules 

which synthesize elements of individual 

Senate Bill 1010 plans for a given basin. 

These agricultural plans and rules do 

not specify the vegetation composition 

or size of the riparian areas to be 

established. The lack of specificity of 

these agricultural plans makes the 

enforcement and effectiveness of these 

plans uncertain (NMFS, 2005a). Any 

modest improvements in riparian 

vegetation on agricultural lands under 

current rules that might be expected 

may be offset by habitat declines 

resulting from urban and rural 

development (NMFS, 2005a). On 

balance, habitat conditions on 

agricultural lands are not likely to show 

significant improvement or decline. 

Future urbanization and development 

within the range of the ESU is projected 

at approximately 20 percent population 

growth, representing slightly more than 

30,000 people over the next 40 years 

(NMFS, 2005a). Most of this 

development is expected to be 

concentrated in lowland areas with high 

intrinsic potential for rearing coho. 

Current urban or rural growth 

boundaries encompass approximately 

nine percent of high intrinsic potential 

riparian habitat areas, so future 

urbanization and development activities 

could have significant implications for 

some coho populations. The degree of 

potential impacts on coho habitat (both 

positive and negative) is highly 

uncertain and depends largely on the 

spatial distribution of future 

urbanization and development 

activities, their proximity to riparian 

areas, and the kinds of development 

activities undertaken and the land 

management practices used. 

Comment 6: Several commenters 

expressed concern that inadequate 

funding has limited the ability of many 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Oregon agencies to monitor nonpermitted habitat-affecting activities, 

effectively enforce regulations, and 

ensure proper reporting of permitted 

activities. The commenters felt that 

these inadequacies should be 

considered evidence of uncertainty that 

some as yet, unproven elements under 

the Oregon Plan will be implemented. 

Response: The commenters are correct 

that the availability of necessary 

funding and staffing resources is an 

important consideration in evaluating 

how likely it is that a given protective 

effort will be implemented. Our review 

has noted that funding declines have led 

to the loss of staff at the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Department of Forestry, and ODFW 

(NMFS, 2005a). The reduced funding 

has slowed the completion of Total 

Maximum Daily Load water quality 

standards, and reduced the ability to 

monitor water quality, habitat structure 

and complexity, and fish populations. 

Comments Regarding the Designation of 

Critical Habitat 

Comment 7: One Federal commenter 

provided information recommending 

changes to designated stream reaches in 

several watersheds due to errors in 

interpreting existing salmon distribution 

maps, recent field surveys, and the 

location of impassible barriers. This 

commenter also questioned the 

inclusion of Jackson and Josephine 

counties as within the range of areas 

designated as critical habitat for Oregon 

Coast coho salmon. 

Response: In light of the specific 

comments received, we have reviewed 

all the data regarding habitat areas 

occupied by coho salmon and the 

location of impassible barriers. This 

review included discussions with local 

ODFW biologists familiar with the areas 

in question. The majority of suggested 

revisions were found to be warranted, 

and, as a result, we have updated the 

endpoints delineating areas occupied by 

coho salmon, including those 

designated as critical habitat, in ten 

watersheds (see ‘‘Summary of Changes 

from the Proposed Critical Habitat 

Designation’’). We have also removed 

Josephine and Jackson counties from the 

relevant critical habitat table in our 

regulations. These counties overlap 

slightly with upland areas in watersheds 

occupied by Oregon Coast coho salmon, 

but they do not contain stream reaches 

designated as critical habitat for this 

ESU. 

Comment 8: Two commenters 

questioned the ‘‘medium’’ conservationvalue rating assigned by the CHART to 

the habitat area for Devils Lake coho. 

These areas are within a larger Devils 

Lake/Moolack Frontal watershed. The 

commenters cited recent genetic data 

establishing that coho from Rock Creek/ 

Devils Lake are genetically distinct from 

other populations in the ESU. The 

commenters believed that the coho in 

Devils Lake possess a unique and 

distinct genetic heritage warranting a 

‘‘high’’ conservation value rating. 

Response: The CHART considered 

these comments along with recent 

population identification work (Lawson 

et al., 2007) and genetic analyses by 

Johnson and Banks (2007). The team 

maintained that the Devils Lake/ 

Moolack Frontal watershed (which 

contains Devils Lake) was still of 

medium conservation value, noting that 

Devil’s Lake coho are one of ten small 

and dependent populations in this 

watershed and appear to be most closely 

related to coho in the nearby Siletz 

River. The team acknowledged that 

Devils Lake was the most productive of 

these ten populations but that the 

overall watershed did not warrant a 

high conservation value relative to other 

adjacent watersheds with more 

extensive habitat areas and functionally 

independent populations (e.g., the Siletz 

River and Yaquina River watersheds). 

Regardless, Devils Lake and all other 

habitat areas in the Devils Lake/Moolack 

Frontal watershed are designated as 

critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon. 

Comment 9: One tribal government 

expressed support of the proposed 

exclusion of Indian lands from the area 

eligible for critical habitat designation. 

The tribe agreed with our proposal that 

designating Indian lands as critical 

habitat would adversely impact tribal 

partnerships with us and limit the 

benefits that result from collaboration. 

Additionally, the tribe felt that the 

proposal to not designate Indian lands 

as critical habitat appropriately 

acknowledges tribal sovereignty and 

authority in managing natural resources 

on their lands. 

Response: This final rule maintains 

the exclusion of Indian lands for the 

reasons described in the Exclusions 

Based on Impacts to Tribes section 

below. 

Comment 10: Several commenters 

argued that the conservation benefits 

provided by certain conservation 

measures on non-Federal lands provide 

sufficient protections so that there 

would be minimal benefit of designating 

the affected areas as critical habitat. One 

commenter felt that existing forest 

protections under the Oregon Forest 

Protection Act and associated best 

management practices adequately 

protect the PCEs found on private and 

state forest lands in the State of Oregon. 

Another commenter felt that protections 

under the Oregon Plan have 

demonstrated conservation benefits that 

warrant the exclusion of affected areas 

from designation as critical habitat. 

Another commenter felt that existing 

regulatory and other mechanisms under 

these conservation measures are 

inadequate to protect the ESU and its 

habitats. The commenter argued that it 

is essential to designate critical habitat 

in these areas where existing regulatory 

mechanisms do not prevent or alter 

certain activities that would adversely 

modify habitat. 

Response: The comments imply that if 

an area is covered by a management 

plan, it either does not meet the ESA 

section 3(5)(a) definition of critical 

habitat or it must be excluded from 

critical habitat under ESA section 

4(b)(2). Neither assertion is correct. 

Section 3(5)(a) of the ESA defines 

critical habitat as occupied areas 

containing physical or biological 

features that are (1) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (2) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protections. 

Consistent with the statute, in 

identifying areas meeting the definition 

of critical habitat for this ESU, we 

identified the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the ESU, identified the occupied areas 

where these features are present, and 

then determined whether these features 

in each area may require special 

management considerations and 

protections. The bases for these 

conclusions are described further below 

and in a separate report (NMFS, 2007b). 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA gives the 

Secretary discretion to exclude areas 

from critical habitat if he determines 

that benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation. Exercising the 

discretion to exclude an area from 

critical habitat requires evidence of a 

benefit of exclusion. Section 4(b)(2) and 

the supporting legislative history make 

clear that the consideration and weight 

given to impacts are within the 

Secretary’s (H.R. 95–1625) discretion 

and that exclusion is not required even 

when the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of designation. In other 

critical habitat designations for Pacific 

salmon and steelhead, the Secretary 

excluded areas from critical habitat on 

private lands covered by habitat 

conservation plans because there was 

evidence in the record that exclusion 

would enhance the relationship 

between the landowner and the agency. 

That improved relationship was 

expected to result in improved 

implementation of the plan and 

incentives for the development of other 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7823 

plans, increasing conservation benefits 

for fish (70 FR 52630; September 2, 

2005). Regarding private and state lands 

subject to Oregon’s forest practice laws, 

there is no conservation agreement in 

place between landowners and NMFS, 

nor any evidence in the record 

supporting a conclusion that 

conservation actions of landowners 

subject to these laws would improve as 

a result of exclusion. The same is true 

for lands generally covered by the 

Oregon Plan. Based on our review of 

available information, we found there 

were insufficient data and analysis to 

conclude that there is a benefit of 

exclusion. Absent evidence of a benefit 

of exclusion, we could not conclude 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion. 

Comment 11: Two Federal 

commenters felt that all Federal lands 

merited exclusion from designation as 

critical habitat. They contended that 

conservation benefits under PACFISH, 

the Northwest Forest Plan, and National 

Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LRMPs) provide necessary 

protection and special management that 

eliminates the need to designate habitats 

on Federal lands as critical. These 

commenters contended that designating 

critical habitat on these Federal lands 

was unnecessarily duplicative of 

existing ESA section 7 consultation 

processes, inefficient (e.g., citing costs 

of re-initiating consultation), while 

offering no additional conservation 

benefit to the listed species. They 

believed that excluding Federal lands 

would be consistent with our exclusion 

of military lands that are subject to 

Integrated Natural Resource 

Management Plans, which they felt 

contain similar provisions for the 

protection and restoration of listed 

species. 

Response: ESA section 4(b)(2) 

provides the Secretary with discretion 

to exclude areas from the designation of 

critical habitat if the Secretary 

determines that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of designation, 

and the Secretary finds that exclusion of 

the area will not result in extinction of 

the species. In the proposed rule, and 

the reports supporting it, we explained 

the policies that guided us and provided 

supporting analysis for a number of 

proposed exclusions. We also noted a 

number of additional potential 

exclusions, including those associated 

with the Oregon Coast coho salmon due 

to conservation measures within the 

Northwest Forest Plan on Federal lands, 

explaining that we were considering 

them because the Secretary of the 

Interior had recently made similar 

exclusions in designating critical habitat 

for the bull trout. In the final rule 

designating critical habitat for 12 Pacific 

Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52630; 

September 2, 2005), we considered 

extensive comments supporting and 

opposing the exclusion of Federal lands, 

as well as comments concerning 

alternative approaches for assessing the 

benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of 

lands as critical habitat. That final rule 

also stated the following with regard to 

the potential exclusion of Federal lands 

and alternative approaches to 

designation: 

We will continue to study this issue and 

alternative approaches in future rulemakings 

designating critical habitat. In particular, we 

intend to analyze the planning and 

management framework for each of the 

ownership categories proposed for 

consideration for exclusion. In each case, we 

envision that the planning and management 

framework would be evaluated against a set 

of criteria, which could include at least some 

or all of the following: 

1. Whether the land manager has specific 

written policies that create a commitment to 

protection or appropriate management of the 

physical or biological features essential to 

long-term conservation of ESA-listed salmon 

and steelhead. 

2. Whether the land manager has 

geographically specific goals for protection or 

appropriate management of the physical or 

biological features essential to long-term 

conservation of ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead. 

3. Whether the land manager has guidance 

for land management activities designed to 

achieve goals for protection or appropriate 

management of the physical or biological 

features essential to long-term conservation 

of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. 

4. Whether the land manager has an 

effective monitoring system to evaluate 

progress toward goals for protection or 

appropriate management of the physical or 

biological features essential to long-term 

conservation of ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead. 

5. Whether the land manager has a 

management framework that will adjust 

ongoing management to respond to 

monitoring results and/or external review 

and validation of progress toward goals for 

protection or appropriate management of the 

physical or biological features essential to 

long-term conservation of ESA-listed salmon 

and steelhead. 

6. Whether the land manager has effective 

arrangements in place for periodic and timely 

communications with NOAA on the 

effectiveness of the planning and 

management framework in reaching mutually 

agreed goals for protection or appropriate 

management of the physical or biological 

features essential to long-term conservation 

of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. 

NMFS has continued dialogue with the 

Federal land management agencies 

since that time. Although we have not 

yet developed the type of information 

that would allow us to exclude Federal 

lands at this time, we will work with the 

land management agencies to develop 

the information and consider exclusion 

of Federal lands, as well as alternative 

approaches to designation, where the 

analysis provides appropriate support. 

We anticipate that further analyses 

using principles such as those above can 

result in additional data to inform the 

ESA Section 4(b)(2) analysis regarding 

possible exclusion of Federal lands from 

critical habitat designations. 

Comment 12: One commenter and a 

peer reviewer expressed concern that 

the economic analysis failed to consider 

the full range of economic benefits of 

salmon habitat conservation and, 

therefore, provided a distorted picture 

of the economic consequences of 

designating versus excluding eligible 

habitat areas. The commenter expressed 

concern that the economic impact of not 

designating particular areas would 

impede recovery efforts, and this cost 

should be considered in the economic 

analysis. The commenter cited the lack 

of consideration in the economic 

analysis of the potential benefits of 

critical habitat designation to: (1) Other 

aquatic and riparian species; (2) water 

quality; (3) recreation; and (4) increased 

recreational, commercial, and tribal 

harvest opportunities that would be 

available with recovery. 

Response: As described in the 

economic analysis (NMFS, 2007c) and 

ESA section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 

2007d), we did not have information 

available at the scale of this designation 

that would allow us to quantify the 

benefits of designation in terms of 

increased fisheries. Such an estimate 

would have required us to estimate the 

additional number of fish likely to be 

produced as a result of the designation, 

and would have required us to 

determine how to allocate the economic 

benefit from those additional fish to a 

particular watershed. Instead, we 

considered the ‘‘benefits of designation’’

in terms of conservation value ratings 

for each particular area (see ‘‘Methods 

and Criteria Used to Designate Critical 

Habitat’’ section below). We also lacked 

information to quantify and include in 

the economic analysis the economic 

benefit that might result from such 

things as improved water quality or 

flood control, or improved condition of 

other species. 

Moreover, we did not have 

information at the scale of this 

designation that would allow us to 

consider the relative ranking of these 

types of benefits on the ‘‘benefits of 

designation’’ side of the ESA section 

4(b)(2) balancing process. Our primary 

focus was to determine, consider, and 

balance the benefits of designating these 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

areas to the conservation of the listed 

species. Given the uncertainties 

involved in quantifying or even ranking 

these ancillary types of benefits, we did 

not include them in our analysis. 

Final Species Determination 

The Oregon Coast coho ESU includes 

all naturally spawned populations of 

coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams 

south of the Columbia River and north 

of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August 

10, 1998). One hatchery stock is 

considered part of the ESU: The Cow 

Creek (ODFW stock # 37) hatchery coho 

stock. 

On June 14, 2004, we proposed that 

five artificial propagation programs 

should be considered part of the ESU 

(69 FR 33102), including the North Fork 

Nehalem River (ODFW stock # 32), the 

North Umpqua River (ODFW stock # 

18), Coos Basin (ODFW stock # 37), and 

the Coquille River (ODFW stock # 44) 

coho hatchery programs. Informed by 

our analysis of the comments received 

from ODFW, and other recently 

available information (see Comment 1 

and response, above), we conclude that 

these four hatchery programs are not 

part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

Assessment of the Species’ Status 

The steps we follow in making a 

listing determination are to: Review the 

status of the species, analyze the factors 

listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA to 

identify threats facing the species, 

assess whether certain protective efforts 

mitigate these threats, and predict the 

species’ future persistence. Below we 

summarize the information we 

evaluated in reviewing the status of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. We considered 

the information included in the record 

for our January 2006 determination in a 

manner consistent with the Court’s 

ruling in Trout Unlimited. We also 

considered additional status 

information that was readily available 

since our January 2006 decision, to 

determine if this new information is 

consistent with our conclusion based on 

the January 2006 (as the Court has 

ordered us to consider it). 

We begin a typical listing 

determination for a salmon ESU by 

gathering the most recent available and 

relevant biological information and 

appointing a panel of Federal scientists 

(the BRT) familiar with the biology and 

population dynamics of salmon. This 

panel reviews the status information, 

considers and discusses various 

possible interpretations of the 

information, and prepares a written 

report containing its recommendations 

as well as the basis for them. In 

addition, the documents underlying the 

BRT’s conclusions are made available to 

the decision maker for consideration. 

Typically, the BRT’s review takes about 

3–6 months to complete. 

At the same time, regulatory staff 

gather updated information about the 

status and trends for other related 

factors, including the potential 

contributions (both positive and 

negative) from hatchery programs, the 

condition of the habitat, and the 

expected implementation and 

effectiveness of conservation efforts. 

This information is considered together 

with the BRT’s recommendations in 

forming a final determination and 

preparing a written explanation of that 

determination. 

While the above steps were conducted 

for Oregon Coast coho prior to the 

issuance of the 2004 proposed rule, the 

court order in Trout Unlimited requiring 

a final determination and the time 

allowed for making that final 

determination do not permit us to 

follow our typical practice anew for 

Oregon Coast coho. The available record 

contains a BRT recommendation and 

report made in 2003, based on status 

information through 2002. The 

information in the record about the 

condition of the habitat and the 

effectiveness of conservation efforts is 

also mostly data collected prior to 2003. 

We have also considered draft reports of 

the Technical Recovery Team for the 

Oregon Coast. These draft reports are 

directed primarily at the population 

structure of and recovery criteria for the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU, rather than the 

determination required for a listing 

decision. 

Quantitative information available to 

us for this determination also includes 

numerical information on the 

abundance of Oregon Coast coho 

through 2006, preliminary spawner 

survey information for 2007, and 

estimates of the ocean survival for coho 

through 2006. Comparison of the 

abundance of the naturally-produced 

coho with the marine survival index 

suggests the possibility that much of the 

variability in coho numbers over the last 

decade or so may be due to fluctuations 

in the availability of food in the nearshore ocean (NMFS, 2007k). In addition, 

there is some indication that juvenile 

survival is limited by the supply of 

nutrients from the carcasses of 

spawning adult coho (Bilby et al., 2001). 

It is possible that existing freshwater 

habitat is adequate to support a viable 

ESU, and that the fluctuations observed 

in Oregon Coast coho populations are 

partially driven by the supply of 

carcasses. The 2003 BRT did not 

explicitly consider the relationship 

between coho abundance and marine 

food availability, or the relationship 

between juvenile survival and the 

supply of carcasses. Our current record 

lacks the information and analyses 

necessary to assess the present status of 

freshwater habitat conditions and 

functional processes in the ESU. Oregon 

has aggressively implemented habitat 

conservation efforts, yet we lack the 

data necessary to resolve the benefits 

realized from these efforts by coho 

populations given the considerable 

variability in other environmental 

processes. In short, the recently 

available abundance information is not 

necessarily indicative of degraded 

freshwater habitat conditions, nor is it 

convincingly suggestive of a declining 

long-term trend for the ESU. Given the 

opportunity for further scientific review, 

it is possible that an improved 

understanding of the roles marine 

conditions and stream-nutrient supply 

play in determining coho population 

dynamics, might require revision of this 

determination. In summary, if we had 

been permitted to consider all the 

scientific information in the record, and 

if we had been allowed more time to do 

a complete scientific review of new 

information in a manner consistent with 

our typically thorough and 

comprehensive analytical processes, 

there is a reasonable possibility that we 

would have reached a different final 

listing determination. 

Consideration of Information in the 

January 2006 Record 

Biological Review Team Findings—

The 2003 BRT considered data available 

through 2002. The abundance and 

productivity of Oregon Coast coho since 

the previous status review (NMFS, 

1997a) represented some of the best and 

worst years on record. Yearly adult 

returns for the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

were in excess of 160,000 natural 

spawners in 2001 and 2002, far 

exceeding the abundance observed for 

the past several decades. These 

encouraging increases in spawner 

abundance in 2000–2002 were 

preceded, however, by three 

consecutive brood years (the 1994–1996 

brood years returning in 1997–1999, 

respectively) exhibiting recruitment 

failure (recruitment failure is when a 

given year class of natural spawners 

fails to replace itself when its offspring 

return to the spawning grounds 3 years 

later). These 3 years of recruitment 

failure were the only such instances 

observed thus far in the entire 55-year 

abundance time series for Oregon Coast 

coho salmon (although comprehensive 

population-level survey data have only 

been available since 1980). The 

encouraging 2000–2002 increases in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7825 

natural spawner abundance occurred in 

many populations in the northern 

portion of the ESU, populations that 

were the most depressed at the time of 

the last review (NMFS, 1997a). 

Although encouraged by the increase in 

spawner abundance in 2000–2002, the 

BRT noted that the long-term trends in 

ESU productivity were still negative due 

to the low abundances observed during 

the 1990s. 

The majority of the BRT felt that the 

recent increases in coho returns were 

most likely attributable to favorable 

ocean conditions and reduced harvest 

rates. The BRT was uncertain as to 

whether such favorable marine 

conditions would continue into the 

future. Despite the likely benefits to 

spawner abundance levels gained by the 

dramatic reduction of harvest rates on 

Oregon Coast coho populations (PFMC, 

1998), harvest cannot be significantly 

further reduced in the future to 

compensate for declining productivity 

due to other factors. The BRT was 

concerned that if the long-term decline 

in productivity reflected deteriorating 

conditions in freshwater habitat, this 

ESU could face very serious risks of 

local extirpations if ocean conditions 

reverted back to poor productivity 

conditions. Approximately 30 percent of 

the ESU has suffered habitat 

fragmentation by culverts and thermal 

barriers, generating concerns about ESU 

spatial structure. Additionally, the lack 

of response to favorable ocean 

conditions for some populations in 

smaller streams and the different 

patterns between north and south coast 

populations may indicate compromised 

connectivity among populations. The 

degradation of many lake habitats and 

the resultant impacts on several lake 

populations in the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU also pose risks to ESU diversity. 

The BRT noted that hatchery closures, 

reductions in the number of hatchery 

smolt releases, and improved marking 

rates of hatchery fish have significantly 

reduced risks to diversity associated 

with artificial propagation. 

The BRT found high risk to the ESU’s 

productivity, and comparatively lower 

risk to the ESU’s abundance, spatial 

structure, and diversity. Informed by 

this risk assessment, a slight majority of 

the BRT concluded that the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU was ‘‘likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future.’’ However, a substantial minority 

of the BRT concluded that the ESU was 

‘‘not in danger of extinction or likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future.’’ The minority 

believed that the large number of 

spawners in 2001–2002 and a high 

projected abundance for 2003 suggested 

that this ESU was not ‘‘in danger of 

extinction’’ or ‘‘likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future.’’ Furthermore, the minority 

believed that recent strong returns 

following 3 years of recruitment failure 

demonstrated that populations in this 

ESU are resilient. 

Consideration of Artificial 

Propagation—Our review of the five 

hatchery programs that were proposed 

to be listed as part of the ESU concluded 

that they collectively do not 

substantially reduce the extinction risk 

of the ESU (NMFS, 2003a, 2004a, 2004b; 

see proposed rule for a more detailed 

explanation of this assessment, 69 FR 

33102; June 14, 2004). Our final 

determination that the North Umpqua 

River, Coos Basin, Coquille River, North 

Fork Nehalem River, and Fishhawk 

Lake coho hatchery programs are not 

part of the ESU does not alter our 

previous conclusion that artificial 

propagation does not contribute 

appreciably to the viability of the ESU. 

In Trout Unlimited v. Lohn (Civ. No. 

06–0483–JCC (W. D. Wash., June 13, 

2006), the U.S. District Court for the 

Western District of Washington set aside 

our 2005 Hatchery Listing Policy, 

finding that the Policy’s consideration 

of both natural and hatchery fish in ESA 

listing determinations departs from the 

ESA’s central purpose to promote and 

conserve naturally self-sustaining 

populations. Although the extinction 

risk assessment in the 2006 record 

evaluated the status of the ESU in-total 

(including both within-ESU natural and 

hatchery fish), we found that 

consideration of artificial propagation 

does not reduce the risk of extinction of 

the ESU. Therefore, the above described 

assessment of extinction risk does not 

require revision in light of the ruling in 

the above case. 

Preliminary Results of Oregon Coast 

Coho Recovery Planning—NMFS’

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) for the 

Oregon and Northern California Coast is 

charged with describing the historical 

population structure, developing 

biological recovery criteria with which 

to evaluate the status of an ESU relative 

to recovery, and identifying those 

factors limiting or impeding recovery. 

Prior to our 2006 determination not to 

list the Oregon Coast coho ESU, the TRT 

provided a preliminary report on its 

progress in developing these products 

for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (NMFS, 

2005d). The TRT’s preliminary report 

underscored the uncertainty associated 

with assessing the future status of the 

ESU. The TRT stated that ‘‘at this time 

our evaluation indicates, with a 

moderate degree of uncertainty, that the 

ESU is persistent’’ (the TRT defines a 

‘‘persistent’’ ESU as one that is able to 

persist (i.e., not go extinct) over a 100- 

year period without artificial support, 

relating the term to ‘‘the simple risk of 

extinction, which is the primary 

determination of endangered status 

under the ESA’’). The TRT further stated 

that ‘‘our evaluation of biological 

viability based on current and recent 

past conditions shows a high degree of 

uncertainty with respect to the 

statement that the ESU is sustainable’’

(the TRT defines a ‘‘sustainable’’ ESU as 

‘‘one that, in addition to being 

persistent, is able to maintain its genetic 

legacy and long-term adaptive potential 

for the foreseeable future * * * so that 

risk of extinction will not increase in 

the future,’’ relating the term to 

‘‘threatened status under the ESA’’). 

Biological Implications of OceanClimate Conditions—In an August 12, 

2005, memorandum, NMFS’ Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) 

summarized the most recent 

information available on West Coast 

ocean conditions, described 

observations of impacts on marine 

communities, and offered predictions of 

the implications of recent ocean 

conditions on West Coast salmon stocks, 

including the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

(NMFS, 2005e). The memorandum 

described recent observations of 

anomalous ocean conditions that may 

portend lower returns of coho salmon 

for the fall of 2005 and the next several 

years. The memorandum noted that 

indices of ocean-climate variation are 

suggestive of a regime shift in oceanclimate conditions that in the past have 

been associated with warmer water 

temperature, poor primary productivity, 

and generally less favorable conditions 

for coho marine survival. The recent insitu observations confirm delayed 

coastal upwelling, anomalously warm 

sea surface temperatures, altered 

zooplankton community structure, and 

low survey abundances of juvenile 

salmon, possibly indicating low marine 

survival. Strong upwelling occurred in 

mid-July 2005 resulting in cooler sea 

surface temperatures, increased primary 

productivity, and generally more 

favorable conditions for salmon 

survival. It was unclear whether this 

delayed onset of coastal upwelling 

would compensate for earlier 

unfavorable conditions which occurred 

during critical life-history stages for 

coho salmon. The memorandum noted 

that model projections indicate that fish 

populations that prey on juvenile coho 

salmon may be reduced, possibly 

compensating somewhat for unfavorable 

marine survival conditions for coho 

returns in 2006. The memorandum 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7826 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

concluded that the NWFSC was 

relatively confident that the negative 

biological implications of recent ocean 

conditions for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU would be dramatic over the next 

few years. 

Conclusions Regarding the Status of the 

Oregon Coast Coho ESU 

We conclude, after considering the 

above information contained in the 

record of our January 2006 

determination (in a manner consistent 

with the Court’s order), that the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU is likely to become an 

endangered species in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. This finding is 

based, in part, on the BRT’s slight 

majority conclusion that the ESU is 

‘‘likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future.’’ The TRT’s 

subsequent preliminary assessment of 

ESU viability (NMFS, 2005d) was 

consistent with the BRT’s assessment, 

finding a high degree of uncertainty 

whether the ESU is sustainable for the 

foreseeable future. Although returns in 

2001 and 2002 were extremely 

encouraging, there remained concern 

whether future ocean conditions would 

favor such high levels of recruitment. 

The NWFSC’s August 2005 

memorandum describing the 

implications of recent ocean-climate 

conditions (NMFS, 2005e) did not 

assuage this concern, concluding that 

recent ocean conditions portended 

unfavorable marine survival conditions 

for Oregon Coast coho in the near term. 

Consideration of New Information Since 

the January 2006 Determination 

The ESA requires that listing 

determinations be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. To that end, 

we also considered new status and trend 

information made available since the 

2003 BRT report, and since our January 

2006 ‘‘not warranted’’ determination to 

ensure that our present listing 

determination for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU has considered the best 

information available. We evaluated 

these new data to determine whether 

they supported our risk assessment 

based on the information contained in 

the January 2006 record alone. 

Since the BRT convened in January 

2003, the total abundance of natural 

spawners in the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

has declined each year (i.e., 2003–2006). 

The abundance of total natural 

spawners in 2006 (111,025 spawners) 

was approximately 43 percent of the 

recent peak abundance in 2002 (255,372 

spawners). In 2003, ESU-level 

productivity (evaluated in terms of the 

number of spawning recruits resulting 

from spawners 3 years earlier) was 

above replacement (approximately 3.2 

recruits per spawner). ESU-level 

productivity was essentially at 

replacement in 2004 (approximately 

0.99 recruits per spawner), but below 

replacement in 2005 and 2006. The 

productivity observed in 2006 

(approximately 0.49 recruits per 

spawner) is the lowest observed since 

1991. From 2003–2006 harvest rates 

remained low, averaging approximately 

12 percent of the total run. Marine 

survival from 2003–2006 (estimated in 

terms of the number of returning 

hatchery adults resulting from the 

number of hatchery smolts released 2 

years earlier) was generally at or above 

the average during 1990–2006. The 

decline in ESU productivity from 2003–

2006, while marine survival conditions 

were generally favorable, suggests that 

factors other than ocean conditions are 

responsible for the decline. 

In August 2007, the Oregon and 

Northern California Coast TRT released 

a draft report entitled ‘‘Biological 

Recovery Criteria for the Oregon Coast 

coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit’’ (Wainwright et al., 2007). This 

draft report presents biological criteria 

for assessing the ESU’s progress toward 

recovery, and also applies these criteria 

in assessing the current biological status 

of the ESU. The TRT considered the 

population data available through 2004. 

This draft report thus represents a more 

recent assessment of the ESU’s status 

relative to the 2003 BRT’s review. The 

results of the recent draft report are 

consistent with the TRT’s preliminary 

progress report described above (NMFS, 

2005d), finding that there is low to 

moderate certainty that the ESU is 

sustainable for the foreseeable future. 

The recent draft report considered the 

population data available through 2004, 

and thus does not reflect the declining 

abundance and productivity observed in 

2005 and 2006. 

Preliminary spawner survey data for 

2007 (the average peak number of 

spawners per mile observed during 

random coho spawning surveys in 41 

streams) suggest that the 2007–2008 

return of Oregon Coast coho is either (1) 

much reduced from abundance levels in 

2006, or (2) exhibiting delayed run 

timing from previous years. As of 

December 13, 2007, the average peak 

number of spawners per mile was below 

2006 levels in 38 of 41 surveyed streams 

(ODFW, 2007). It is possible that the 

timing of peak spawner abundance is 

delayed relative to previous years, and 

that increased spawner abundance in 

late December 2007 and January 2008 

will compensate for the low levels 

observed thus far in the 2007–2008 

spawning season. 

Our review of the above new 

abundance and productivity 

information and the TRT’s 2007 draft 

report does not indicate that the status 

of the Oregon Coast coho ESU has 

improved since the 2003 BRT report. 

The recent 5-year geometric mean 

abundance (2002–2006) of 

approximately 152,960 total natural 

spawners remains well above that of a 

decade ago (approximately 52,845 from 

1992–1996). However, the decline in 

productivity from 2003 to 2006, despite 

generally favorable marine survival 

conditions and low harvest rates, is of 

concern. 

After reviewing the scientific and 

commercial information available in the 

record concerning the status of the 

Oregon Coast Coho (in a manner 

consistent with the Court’s order) and 

adding to the record the Draft 2007 TRT 

report, 2003–2006 abundance and 

marine survival information, and 

preliminary spawner survey information 

for 2007, we conclude that this 

information requires a conclusion that 

the ESU is likely to become an 

endangered species in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The recent declines 

in the ESU’s abundance and 

productivity are not necessarily 

indicative of a substantial degradation 

of the ESU’s status. Similar interannual 

variability in abundance and 

productivity has been observed 

previously for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU, and similar variability is expected 

to occur in the future. The principal 

inquiry in determining if the ESU 

warrants listing is whether present 

habitat conditions are sufficient to 

support a viable ESU, and whether 

future freshwater habitat conditions are 

expected to degrade. The present and 

future status of freshwater habitat for 

the Oregon Coast coho ESU remains 

uncertain. As noted above, we believe 

that if we had been permitted to 

consider all the scientific information in 

the record, and if we had been allowed 

more time for a complete scientific 

review of new information in a manner 

consistent with our typically thorough 

and comprehensive analytical 

processes, there is a reasonable 

possibility that we would have reached 

a different final listing determination. 

Final Listing Determination 

Consideration of ESA Section 4(a)(1) 

Factors 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS’

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) requires us to add a species to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7827 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Species if it is endangered or threatened 

because of any one or a combination of 

the following factors: (1) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or 

human-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. We have 

previously detailed the impacts of 

various factors contributing to the 

decline of Pacific salmonids as part of 

our prior listing determinations for 27 

ESUs, as well as in supporting technical 

reports (e.g., NMFS, 1997b, ‘‘Coastal 

coho habitat factors for decline and 

protective efforts in Oregon;’’ NMFS, 

1997c, ‘‘Factors Contributing to the 

Decline of Chinook Salmon—An 

Addendum to the 1996 West Coast 

Steelhead Factors for Decline Report;’’

NMFS, 1996a, ‘‘Factors for Decline—A 

Supplement to the Notice of 

Determination for West Coast Steelhead 

Under the Endangered Species Act’’). 

Our prior listing determinations and 

technical reports concluded that all of 

the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) 

of the ESA have played a role in the 

decline of West Coast salmon and 

steelhead. In our 1998 threatened listing 

determination for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU (63 FR 42588; August 10, 1998), we 

concluded that the decline of Oregon 

Coast coho populations is the result of 

several longstanding, human-induced 

factors (e.g., habitat degradation, water 

diversions, harvest, and artificial 

propagation) that exacerbate the adverse 

effects of natural environmental 

variability (e.g., floods, drought, and 

poor ocean conditions). The following 

discussion briefly summarizes our 

findings regarding the threats currently 

facing the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

While these threats are treated in 

general terms, it is important to 

underscore that impacts from certain 

threats are more acute for some 

populations in the ESU. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

In many Oregon coastal streams, past 

human activities (e.g., logging, 

agriculture, gravel mining, urbanization) 

have resulted in impediments to fish 

passage, degradation of stream 

complexity, increased sedimentation, 

reduced water quality and quantity, loss 

and degradation of riparian habitats, 

and loss and degradation of lowland, 

estuarine, and wetland coho rearing 

habitats. The relevant issues are 

whether current habitat conditions are 

adequate to support the ESU’s 

persistence (that is, whether the species 

is endangered or threatened because of 

present destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range) and 

whether habitat conditions are likely to 

worsen in the future (that is, whether 

the species is endangered or threatened 

because of threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range). Regarding the first 

issue, the 2003 BRT noted uncertainty 

about the adequacy of current habitat 

conditions, and this uncertainty 

contributed to the slight majority 

finding that the ESU was likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future. 

Regarding the second issue, the threat 

of future habitat declines, the 2003 BRT 

noted that ‘‘if the long-term decline in 

productivity [of the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU] reflects deteriorating conditions in 

freshwater habitat, this ESU could face 

very serious risks of local extinction 

during the next cycle of poor ocean 

conditions.’’ The BRT thus identified 

potential future habitat declines as a 

potential concern. As part of our 

January 2006 determination we 

evaluated the likely future trend of 

various habitat elements and the likely 

impact of future population growth 

(NMFS, 2005a). With respect to 

population growth and urbanization, we 

found that approximately 3.4 percent of 

‘‘high intrinsic potential’’ habitat areas 

for coho (e.g., lowland stream reaches 

particularly important to juvenile coho 

rearing and overwintering survival) are 

within currently designated urban 

growth areas, suggesting that future 

human population growth may not 

represent a significant threat to the ESU 

(NMFS, 2005a). With respect to lowland 

and upland habitat areas under various 

types of land use and ownership, we 

found that some areas are likely to 

improve, some are likely to decline, and 

others are likely to remain in their 

current condition. Overall, there is a 

high level of uncertainty associated with 

projections of future habitat conditions 

due to underlying economic and 

sociopolitical factors influencing forest 

harvest and restoration rates, urban 

conversion of agricultural and forest 

lands, and the enforcement and 

implementation of land-use plans and 

regulations. Based on our analysis, we 

found that there is insufficient evidence 

to conclude that the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU was more likely than not to become 

an endangered species because of the 

‘‘threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range.’’

It remains uncertain whether future 

freshwater habitat conditions will be 

adequate to support a viable coho ESU, 

particularly during periods of 

unfavorable ocean conditions and poor 

marine survival. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

Harvest rates on Oregon Coast coho 

populations ranged between 60 and 90 

percent between the 1960s and 1980s 

(Good et al., 2005). Modest harvest 

restrictions were imposed in the late 

1980s, but harvest rates remained high 

until most directed coho salmon harvest 

was prohibited in 1994. These 

restrictive harvest regulations, 

developed concurrently with the Oregon 

Plan and subsequently revised, have 

imposed conservative restrictions on 

directed and incidental fishery 

mortality, and appropriately consider 

marine survival conditions and the 

biological status of naturally produced 

coho populations. Under these revised 

regulations, harvest rates are stipulated 

to be between 0 and 8 percent during 

critically low spawner abundance, and 

may increase to a maximum 

exploitation rate of 45 percent under 

high survival and abundance conditions 

(Oregon, 2005). Empirical data over the 

last 10 years show that harvest mortality 

for Oregon Coast coho has been 

maintained below 15 percent since the 

adoption of the revised regulations 

(Oregon, 2005). We agree with the 2003 

BRT’s finding that overutilization has 

been effectively addressed for Oregon 

Coast coho populations. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Past species introductions and habitat 

modifications have resulted in increased 

non-native predator populations, 

notably in coastal lake habitats. 

Predation by increased populations of 

marine mammals (principally sea lions) 

may influence salmon abundance in 

some local populations when other prey 

species are absent and where physical 

conditions lead to the concentration of 

adults and juveniles (e.g., Cooper and 

Johnson, 1992). However, the extent to 

which marine mammal predation 

threatens the persistence of Oregon 

coast coho populations is unknown. 

Infectious disease is one of many 

factors that can influence adult and 

juvenile salmon survival. Salmonids are 

exposed to numerous bacterial, 

protozoan, viral, and parasitic 

organisms in spawning and rearing 

areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and 

the marine environment. Specific 

diseases such as bacterial kidney 

disease, ceratomyxosis, columnaris, 

furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7828 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot 

disease, erythrocytic inclusion body 

syndrome, and whirling disease, among 

others, are present and known to affect 

West Coast salmonids (Rucker et al., 

1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et 

al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, 

undated). In general, very little current 

or historical information exists to 

quantify trends over time in infection 

levels and disease mortality rates. 

However, studies have shown that 

naturally spawned fish tend to be less 

susceptible to pathogens than hatcheryreared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; 

Sanders et al., 1992). Native salmon 

populations have co-evolved with 

specific communities of these 

organisms, but the widespread use of 

artificial propagation has introduced 

exotic organisms not historically present 

in a particular watershed. Habitat 

conditions such as low water flows and 

high temperatures can exacerbate 

susceptibility to infectious diseases. 

Aggressive hatchery reform efforts 

implemented by the State of Oregon 

have reduced the magnitude and 

distribution of hatchery fish releases in 

the ESU, and, consequently, the 

interactions between hatchery- and 

natural-origin fish and the potential 

transmission of infectious diseases. 

Additionally, regulations controlling 

hatchery effluent discharges into 

streams have reduced the potential of 

pathogens being released into coho 

habitats. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Existing regulations governing coho 

harvest have dramatically improved the 

ESU’s likelihood of persistence. These 

regulations are unlikely to be weakened 

in the future. Of the wide range of land 

uses and other activities affecting 

salmon habitat, however, some are more 

amenable to regulation than others. In 

the range of Oregon Coast coho, the 

regulation of some activities and land 

uses will alter past harmful practices, 

resulting in habitat improvements; the 

regulation of other activities is 

inadequate to alter past harmful 

practices, resulting in habitat conditions 

continuing in their present state; and 

the regulation of still other activities 

and land uses will lead to further 

degradation (NMFS, 2005a). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Natural variability in ocean and 

freshwater conditions has at different 

times exacerbated or mitigated the 

effects on Oregon Coast coho 

populations of habitat limiting factors. 

There is considerable uncertainty in 

predicting ocean-climate conditions into 

the foreseeable future and their 

biological impacts on the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. Variability in ocean-climate 

conditions is expected, and coho 

productivity and abundance are 

similarly expected to fluctuate in 

response to this natural environmental 

variability. It is unknown whether 

unfavorable ocean conditions will 

predominate in the foreseeable future. 

Prior to the 1990s, coho hatchery 

programs along the Oregon coast posed 

substantial risks to the survival, 

reproductive fitness, and diversity of 

natural populations. High numbers of 

hatchery coho were released in most of 

the basins in the ESU, most programs 

propagated non-native broodstocks, and 

naturally spawning hatchery-origin 

strays were common in most natural 

production areas. Oregon’s aggressive 

hatchery reform efforts have resulted in 

substantial reductions of this threat. 

Hatchery coho are released in less than 

half of the populations in the ESU, and 

the magnitude of releases has declined 

from a peak of 35 million smolts in 

1981, to approximately 800,000 in 2005. 

Hatchery programs are currently 

constrained to releasing no more than 

200,000 smolts in any basin. The 

reduction in the number of hatchery fish 

released has reduced the potential for 

competition with, and predation on, 

natural coho. The proportion of 

hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning 

areas has been reduced to below 10 

percent in all but two populations in the 

ESU. All hatchery coho releases in the 

ESU are now marked, affording 

improved monitoring and assessment of 

the co-existing naturally produced coho 

populations. Broodstock management 

practices have been modified to 

minimize the potential for hatcheryorigin fish to pose risks to the genetic 

diversity of local natural populations. 

We conclude the ESU is not in danger 

of extinction or likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

because of hatchery practices. 

Efforts Being Made To Protect the 

Species 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

the Secretary to make listing 

determinations solely on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available after taking into account 

efforts being made to protect a species. 

In making listing determinations we 

first assess the species’ level of 

extinction risk, identify factors that 

threaten its continued existence, and 

assess existing efforts being made to 

protect the species to determine if those 

measures ameliorate the risks it faces. 

The reader is referred to the June 14, 

2004, proposed rule for a summary of 

efforts, including those under the 

Oregon Plan, being made to protect 

Oregon Coast coho populations (69 FR 

33102, at 33142). Harvest reductions 

and improvements in hatchery 

management are noteworthy in that they 

have been fully implemented and their 

effectiveness is manifested in the 

improved status of Oregon Coast coho 

populations. The benefits of these 

accomplishments in hatchery and 

harvest management under the Oregon 

Plan, however, were fully considered in 

the 2003 BRT’s assessment of ESU 

extinction risk. In our June, 14, 2004, 

proposed listing for the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU (69 FR 33102), we evaluated 

all other relevant protective efforts and 

determined that they did not 

substantially alter our finding that the 

ESU is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Since our January 2006 

determination, the State of Oregon 

released a draft Coho Conservation Plan 

for Oregon Coast coho. The draft 

Conservation Plan culminated a 2-year 

development process including 

significant input and involvement from 

local stakeholders. The draft 

conservation plan establishes ambitious 

conservation goals and is an important 

step in describing limiting factors and 

threats, identifying specific 

conservation actions to address these 

factors and threats, and designing a 

robust research and monitoring program 

to evaluate the effectiveness of 

conservation actions that contribute to 

rebuilding the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

As reflected in the comments that we 

provided on the draft Conservation Plan 

(NMFS, 2007e), the plan lacks the 

necessary detail, specificity, and 

commitment of resources to provide 

sufficient certainty of implementation 

and effectiveness to alter our assessment 

that the ESU is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Final Listing Determination 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as any species in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and a threatened 

species as any species likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Section 

4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the 

listing determination be based solely on 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, after conducting a review of 

the status of the species and taking into 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7829 

account those efforts, if any, being made 

to protect such species. 

The information included in the 

record of our January 2006 

determination (as the Court has ordered 

us to consider it) indicates that the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. New 

abundance and productivity data do not 

suggest that the ESU’s biological status 

has improved since our January 2006 

determination. Efforts being made to 

protect the species, at present, do not 

provide sufficient certainty of 

implementation or effectiveness to 

mitigate the assessed level of extinction 

risk. Therefore, we conclude that the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU warrants listing 

under the ESA as a threatened species. 

Prohibitions and Protective Regulations 

On June 28, 2005, as part of the final 

listing determinations for 16 ESUs of 

West Coast salmon, we amended and 

streamlined the previously promulgated 

ESA section 4(d) regulations for 

threatened salmon and steelhead (70 FR 

37160). We finalized an amendment to 

provide the necessary flexibility to 

ensure that fisheries and artificial 

propagation programs are managed 

consistently with the conservation 

needs of threatened salmon and 

steelhead. Under this change the section 

4(d) protections apply to natural and 

hatchery fish with an intact adipose fin, 

but not to listed hatchery fish that have 

had their adipose fin removed prior to 

release into the wild. Additionally, we 

made several simplifying and clarifying 

changes to the 4(d) regulations, 

including updating an expired limit 

(section 223.203(b)(2)), providing a 

temporary exemption for ongoing 

research and enhancement activities, 

and applying the same set of 14 limits 

to all threatened salmon and steelhead. 

Description of Protective Regulations 

Being Afforded Oregon Coast Coho 

Consistent with the June 2005 

amended ESA section 4(d) regulations, 

this final rule applies the ESA section 

9(a)(1) take and other prohibitions 

(subject to the ‘‘limits’’ discussed below) 

to unmarked members of the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU with an intact adipose 

fin. (The clipping of adipose fins in 

juvenile hatchery fish just prior to 

release into the natural environment is 

a commonly employed method for the 

marking of hatchery production). We 

believe this approach provides needed 

flexibility to appropriately manage the 

artificial propagation and directed take 

of threatened salmon and steelhead for 

the conservation and recovery of the 

listed species. 

The June 2005 amended ESA section 

4(d) regulations simplified the 

previously promulgated 4(d) rules by 

applying the same set of 14 ‘‘limits’’ to 

all threatened salmon and steelhead. 

These limits allow us to exempt certain 

activities from the take prohibitions, 

provided that the applicable programs 

and regulations meet specific conditions 

to adequately protect the listed species. 

In this final rule we are applying this 

same set of 14 limits to the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU. Comprehensive descriptions 

of each 4(d) limit are contained in ‘‘A 

Citizen’s Guide to the 4(d) Rule’’

(available on the Internet at http:// 

www.nwr.noaa.gov), and in previously 

published Federal Register notices (65 

FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, 

July 10, 2000; 69 FR 33102; June 14, 

2004; 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005). 

These ‘‘limits’’ include: activities 

conducted in accordance with ESA 

section 10 incidental take authorization 

(50 CFR 223.203(b)(1)); scientific or 

artificial propagation activities with 

pending permit applications at the time 

of rulemaking (§ 223.203(b)(2)); 

emergency actions related to injured, 

stranded, or dead salmonids 

(§ 223.203(b)(3)); fishery management 

activities (§ 223.203(b)(4)); hatchery and 

genetic management programs 

(§ 223.203(b)(5)); activities in 

compliance with joint tribal/state plans 

developed within United States (U.S.) v. 

Washington or U.S. v. Oregon 

(§ 223.203(b)(6)); scientific research 

activities permitted or conducted by the 

states (§ 223.203(b)(7)); state, local, and 

private habitat restoration activities 

(§ 223.203(b)(8)); properly screened 

water diversion devices 

(§ 223.203(b)(9)); routine road 

maintenance activities 

(§ 223.203(b)(10)); certain park pest 

management activities 

(§ 223.203(b)(11)); certain municipal, 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

development and redevelopment 

activities (§ 223.203(b)(12)); 

management activities on state and 

private lands within the State of 

Washington (§ 223.203(b)(13)); and 

activities undertaken consistent with an 

approved tribal resource management 

plan (§ 223.204). 

Limit § 223.203(b)(2) exempts 

scientific or artificial propagation 

activities with pending applications for 

ESA section 4(d) approval. The limit 

was amended as part of the June 28, 

2005, final rule to temporarily exempt 

such activities from the take 

prohibitions during a ‘‘grace period,’’

provided that a complete application for 

4(d) approval was received within a 

specified period from the notice’s 

publication (70 FR 37160). The limit 

was again modified in February 2006 

when the 4(d) regulations were 

extended to the Upper Columbia River 

steelhead DPS (71 FR 5178; February 1, 

2006). The deadlines associated with 

this exemption have expired. Consistent 

with the 2004 proposed rule to list 

Oregon Coast coho and extend 4(d) 

regulations to the ESU (69 FR 33102; 

June 14, 2004), we believe it is 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation and recovery of Oregon 

Coast coho to allow research and 

enhancement activities to continue 

uninterrupted while we process the 

necessary permits and approvals. 

Provided we receive a complete 

application by June 10, 2008, the take 

prohibitions will not apply to research 

and enhancement activities which affect 

Oregon Coast coho until the application 

is rejected as insufficient, a permit or 

4(d) approval is issued, or until March 

31, 2009, whichever occurs earliest. The 

length of this ‘‘grace period’’ is 

necessary because we process 

applications for 4(d) approval annually. 

Other Protective ESA Provisions 

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires 

that Federal agencies confer with NMFS 

on any actions likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing and on actions 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. For listed species, 

section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies 

to ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or conduct are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or to destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a proposed 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with NMFS or the 

FWS, as appropriate. Examples of 

Federal actions likely to affect salmon 

include authorized land management 

activities of the USFS and the BLM, as 

well as operation of hydroelectric and 

storage projects of the Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR) and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE). Such 

activities include timber sales and 

harvest, permitting livestock grazing, 

hydroelectric power generation, and 

flood control. Federal actions, including 

the USACE section 404 permitting 

activities under the Clean Water Act, 

USACE permitting activities under the 

River and Harbors Act, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses 

for non-Federal development and 

operation of hydropower, and Federal 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7830 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

salmon hatcheries, may also require 

consultation. 

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of 

the ESA provide NMFS with authority 

to grant exceptions to the ESA’s ‘‘take’’

prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific research and enhancement 

permits may be issued to entities 

(Federal and non-Federal) conducting 

research that involves a directed take of 

listed species. A directed take refers to 

the intentional take of listed species. We 

have issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research/ 

enhancement permits for currently 

listed ESUs for a number of activities, 

including trapping and tagging, 

electroshocking to determine population 

presence and abundance, removal of 

fish from irrigation ditches, and 

collection of adult fish for artificial 

propagation programs. Section 

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may 

be issued to non-Federal entities 

performing activities which may 

incidentally take listed species. The 

types of activities potentially requiring 

a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permit include the operation and release 

of artificially propagated fish by state or 

privately operated and funded 

hatcheries, state or academic research 

that may incidentally take listed 

species, the implementation of state 

fishing regulations, logging, road 

building, grazing, and diverting water 

into private lands. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

NMFS and the FWS published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), a policy that NMFS shall 

identify, to the maximum extent 

practicable at the time a species is 

listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of this listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the species’

range. At the time of the final rule, we 

must identify to the extent known 

specific activities that will not be 

considered likely to result in violation 

of section 9, as well as activities that 

will be considered likely to result in 

violation. We believe that, based on the 

best available information, the following 

actions will not result in a violation of 

section 9: 

1. Possession of fish from the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU that are acquired 

lawfully by permit issued by NMFS 

pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by 

the terms of an incidental take statement 

issued pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; 

or 

2. Federally funded or approved 

projects that involve activities such as 

silviculture, grazing, mining, road 

construction, dam construction and 

operation, discharge of fill material, 

stream channelization or diversion for 

which section 7 consultation has been 

completed, and when activities are 

conducted in accordance with any terms 

and conditions provided by NMFS in an 

incidental take statement accompanying 

a biological opinion. 

There are many activities that we 

believe could potentially take salmon by 

harming them. ‘‘Harm’’ is defined by 

our regulations as ‘‘an act which 

actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. 

Such an act may include significant 

habitat modification or degradation 

which actually kills or injures fish or 

wildlife by significantly impairing 

essential behavioral patterns, including, 

breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, 

feeding or sheltering’’ (50 CFR 222.102 

(harm)). Activities that may harm the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU resulting in a 

violation of the section 9 take and other 

prohibitions, include, but are not 

limited to: 

1. Land-use activities that degrade 

habitats for the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

(e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban 

development, road construction in 

riparian areas and areas susceptible to 

mass wasting and surface erosion); 

2. Destruction/alteration of the 

habitats for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, 

such as removal of large woody debris 

and ‘‘sinker logs’’ or riparian shade 

canopy, dredging, discharge of fill 

material, draining, ditching, diverting, 

blocking, gravel mining, or altering 

stream channels or surface or ground 

water flow; 

3. Discharges or dumping of toxic 

chemicals or other pollutants (e.g., 

sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or 

riparian areas supporting the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU; 

4. Violation of discharge permits; 

5. Application of pesticides affecting 

water quality or riparian areas for the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU; 

6. Interstate and foreign commerce of 

fish from the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

and import/export of fish from the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU without a 

threatened or endangered species 

permit; 

7. Collecting or handling of fish from 

the Oregon Coast coho ESU. Permits to 

conduct these activities are available for 

purposes of scientific research or to 

enhance the conservation or survival of 

the species; and 

8. Introduction of non-native species 

likely to prey on fish from the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU or displace them from 

their habitat. 

These lists are not exhaustive. They 

are intended to provide some examples 

of the types of activities that might or 

might not be considered by NMFS as 

constituting a take of fish in the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU under the ESA and its 

regulations. Questions regarding 

whether specific activities would 

constitute a violation of the section 9 

take and other prohibitions, and general 

inquiries regarding prohibitions and 

permits, should be directed to NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Designating Critical Habitat 

Methods and Criteria Used to Designate 

Critical Habitat 

The following paragraphs and 

sections describe the relevant 

definitions and guidance found in the 

ESA and our implementing regulations, 

and the key methods and criteria we 

used to designate critical habitat after 

incorporating, as appropriate, comments 

and information received on the 

proposed rule. 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(2) and our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(a) require that we designate 

critical habitat, and make revisions 

thereto, ‘‘on the basis of the best 

scientific data available.’’ Section 3 of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) defines 

critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed 

* * * on which are found those 

physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed 

upon a determination by the Secretary 

that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species.’’ Section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also 

defines the terms ‘‘conserve,’’

‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ to 

mean ‘‘to use, and the use of, all 

methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to this chapter are no longer 

necessary.’’

Pursuant to our regulations, when 

identifying physical or biological 

features essential to conservation, we 

consider the following requirements of 

the species: (1) Space for individual and 

population growth, and for normal 

behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) cover or 

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 

reproduction, or rearing of offspring; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7831 

and, generally, (5) habitats that are 

protected from disturbance or are 

representative of the historical 

geographical and ecological 

distributions of the species (see 50 CFR 

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

we also focus on the more specific 

primary constituent elements (PCEs) 

within the occupied areas that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The regulations identify PCEs 

as including, but not limited to: ‘‘roost 

sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, 

feeding sites, seasonal wetland or 

dryland, water quality or quantity, host 

species or plant pollinator, geological 

formation, vegetation type, tide, and 

specific soil types.’’ For an area 

containing PCEs to meet the definition 

of critical habitat, we must conclude 

that the PCEs in that area ‘‘may require 

special management considerations or 

protection.’’ Our regulations define 

special management considerations or 

protection as ‘‘any methods or 

procedures useful in protecting physical 

and biological features of the 

environment for the conservation of 

listed species.’’ Both the ESA and our 

regulations, in recognition of the 

divergent biological needs of species, 

establish criteria that are species 

specific rather than a ‘‘one size fits all’’

approach. 

Our regulations state that, ‘‘[t]he 

Secretary shall designate as critical 

habitat areas outside the geographic area 

presently occupied by the species only 

when a designation limited to its 

present range would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species’

(50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when 

the best available scientific data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species so require, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

the species. 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(2)) requires that, before 

designating critical habitat, we consider 

the economic impacts, impacts on 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat, and the Secretary may 

exclude any area from critical habitat if 

the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation, unless 

excluding an area from critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. This exercise of discretion must 

be based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data. Once critical habitat 

for a salmon or steelhead ESU is 

designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

requires that each Federal agency, in 

consultation with and with the 

assistance of NMFS, ensure that any 

action they authorize, fund, or carry out 

is not likely to result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. 

Identifying the Geographical Area 

Occupied by the Species and Specific 

Areas Within the Geographical Area 

In past critical habitat designations, 

we had concluded that the limited 

availability of species distribution data 

prevented mapping salmonid critical 

habitat at a scale finer than occupied 

river basins (65 FR 7764; February 16, 

2000). Therefore, the 2000 designations 

defined the ‘‘geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time of listing’’ as 

all accessible river reaches within the 

current range of the listed species. 

In the 2004 proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for 13 ESUs of Pacific 

salmon and steelhead (69 FR 74572; 

December 14, 2004) we described in 

greater detail that, since the previous 

designations in 2000, we can now be 

more precise about the ‘‘geographical 

area occupied by the species’’ because 

Federal, state, and tribal fishery 

biologists have made progress 

documenting and mapping actual 

species distribution at the level of 

stream reaches. Moreover, much of the 

available data can now be accessed and 

analyzed using Geographic Information 

System (GIS) software to produce 

consistent and fine-scale maps (NMFS, 

2007b; StreamNet, 2005). The current 

maps document fish presence by 

identifying occupied stream reaches 

where the species has been observed. It 

also identifies stream reaches where the 

species is presumed to occur based on 

the professional judgment of biologists 

familiar with the watershed (although in 

some cases there are streams classified 

as occupied based on professional 

judgment when in fact the species has 

been observed but the GIS data have not 

been updated). We made use of these 

finer-scale data for the final critical 

habitat designations for 12 Pacific 

Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52630; 

September 2, 2005), as well as for the 

current critical habitat designation. We 

believe that this approach enables a 

more accurate delineation of the 

‘‘geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ referred to in the ESA 

definition of critical habitat. We 

received some comments on this 

approach, some in support and some 

against it (see comments in final critical 

habitat designations for 12 Pacific 

Northwest ESUs, 70 FR 52630, 

September 2, 2005). However, none of 

the latter comments described a specific 

methodology that would yield a better 

approach than what we used. 

We are now also able to identify 

‘‘specific areas’’ (ESA section 3(5)(a)) 

and ‘‘particular areas’’ (ESA section 

4(b)(2)) at a finer scale than in 2000. 

Since 2000, various Federal agencies 

have mapped fifth field hydrologic units 

(referred to as ‘‘HUC5s’’ or 

‘‘watersheds’’) throughout the Pacific 

Northwest using USGS mapping 

conventions (Seaber et al., 1986). This 

information is now generally available 

via the internet (NMFS, 2007b), and we 

have expanded our GIS resources to use 

these data. As in the 2000 designations 

(in which we used larger fourth field 

hydrologic units), we used the HUC5s to 

organize critical habitat information 

systematically and at a scale that is 

applicable to the spatial distribution of 

salmon. Organizing information at this 

scale is especially relevant to salmonids, 

since their innate homing ability allows 

them to return to the watersheds where 

they were born. Such site fidelity results 

in spatial aggregations of salmonid 

populations that generally correspond to 

the area encompassed by subbasins or 

HUC5 watersheds (Washington 

Department of Fisheries et al., 1992; 

Kostow, 1995; McElhany et al., 2000). 

As noted above regarding our use of 

finer scale data, none of the comments 

received provided us with a specific 

alternative methodology that would 

yield a better approach than the 

watershed-scale approach we adopted. 

The USGS maps watershed units as 

polygons, bounding a drainage area 

from ridge-top to ridge-top, 

encompassing streams, riparian areas 

and uplands. Within the boundaries of 

any watershed, there are stream reaches 

not occupied by the species. Land areas 

within the HUC5 boundaries are also 

generally not ‘‘occupied’’ by the species 

(though certain areas such as flood 

plains or side channels may be occupied 

at some times of some years). We used 

the watershed boundaries as a basis for 

aggregating occupied stream reaches, for 

purposes of delineating ‘‘specific’’ areas 

at a scale that often corresponds well to 

salmonid population structure and 

ecological processes. Although we are 

designating only the streams and not the 

entire watershed, our documents 

frequently refer to the ‘‘specific areas’’

as ‘‘watersheds’’ because that is the term 

often used as a convenient shorthand. 

We also refer to the stream reaches as 

‘‘habitat areas.’’ Each watershed was 

reviewed by the CHART to verify 

occupation, PCEs, and special 

management considerations (see 

‘‘Critical Habitat Analytical Review 

Team’’ section below). 

The watershed-scale aggregation of 

stream reaches also allowed us to 

analyze the impacts of designating a 

‘‘particular area,’’ as required by ESA 

section 4(b)(2). As a result of watershed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7832 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

processes, many activities occurring in 

riparian or upland areas and in nonfish-bearing streams may affect the 

physical or biological features essential 

to conservation in the occupied stream 

reaches. The watershed boundary thus 

describes an area in which Federal 

activities have the potential to affect 

critical habitat (Spence et al., 1996). 

Using watershed boundaries for the 

economic analysis ensured that all 

potential economic impacts were 

considered. Section 3(5) defines critical 

habitat in terms of ‘‘specific areas,’’ and 

section 4(b)(2) requires the agency to 

consider certain factors before 

designating ‘‘particular areas.’’ In the 

case of West Coast salmon and 

steelhead, the biology of the species, the 

characteristics of their habitat, the 

nature of the impacts, and the limited 

information currently available at finer 

geographic scales made it appropriate to 

consider ‘‘specific areas’’ and 

‘‘particular areas’’ as the same unit for 

purposes of economic exclusions. 

Occupied estuarine and marine areas 

were also considered in the context of 

defining ‘‘specific areas.’’ In our 

proposed rule (69 FR 74572; December 

14, 2004) we noted that estuarine areas 

are crucial for juvenile salmonids, given 

their multiple functions as areas for 

rearing/feeding, freshwater-saltwater 

acclimation, and migration (Simenstad 

et al., 1982; Marriott et al., 2002). 

Within the geographic range of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU all estuaries fall 

within the boundaries of a HUC5 and so 

were assessed along with upstream 

freshwater habitats within the 

watershed. In all occupied estuarine 

areas we were able to identify physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. For those 

estuarine areas designated as critical 

habitat we are again delineating them in 

similar terms to our past designations, 

as being defined by a line connecting 

the furthest land points at the estuary 

mouth. 

In previous designations of salmonid 

critical habitat we did not designate 

offshore marine areas (with the 

exception of deep waters in Puget 

Sound (65 FR 7764, February 16, 2000; 

70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). In the 

Pacific Ocean, we concluded that there 

may be essential habitat features, but we 

could not identify any special 

management considerations or 

protection associated with them as 

required under section 3(5)(A)(I) of the 

ESA (65 FR 7776; February 16, 2000). 

Since that time we have carefully 

considered the best available scientific 

information, and related agency actions, 

such as the designation of Essential Fish 

Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. We believe that forage species are 

a feature in the Pacific Ocean that are 

essential for salmon conservation and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, at least for 

those forage species that are a target of 

human harvest. However, because 

salmonids are opportunistic feeders we 

could not identify ‘‘specific areas’’

beyond the nearshore marine zone 

where these or other essential features 

are found within this vast geographic 

area occupied by salmon and steelhead. 

In contrast to estuarine and nearshore 

areas, we conclude that it is not possible 

to identify ‘‘specific areas’’ in the Pacific 

Ocean that contain essential features for 

salmonids, and, therefore, we are not 

designating critical habitat in offshore 

marine areas. We requested comment on 

this issue in our proposed rule but did 

not receive comments or information 

that would change our conclusion (70 

FR 52630, September 2, 2005). 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In determining what areas are critical 

habitat, agency regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b) require that we ‘‘consider 

those physical or biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of a 

given species * * *, including space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing of offspring; and habitats 

that are protected from disturbance or 

are representative of the historical 

geographical and ecological distribution 

of a species.’’ The regulations further 

direct us to ‘‘focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements * * * that are essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ and 

specify that the ‘‘known primary 

constituent elements shall be listed with 

the critical habitat description.’’ The 

regulations identify PCEs as including, 

but not limited to: ‘‘roost sites, nesting 

grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, 

seasonal wetland or dryland, water 

quality or quantity, host species or plant 

pollinator, geological formation, 

vegetation type, tide, and specific soil 

types.’’

NMFS biologists developed a list of 

PCEs that are essential to the species’

conservation and based on the unique 

life history of salmon and steelhead and 

their biological needs (Hart, 1973; 

Beauchamp et al., 1983; Laufle et al., 

1986; Pauley et al., 1986, 1988, and 

1989; Groot and Margolis, 1991; Spence 

et al., 1996). Guiding the identification 

of PCEs was a decision matrix we 

developed for use in ESA section 7 

consultations (NMFS, 1996b) which 

describes general parameters and 

characteristics of most of the essential 

features under consideration in this 

critical habitat designation. We 

identified these PCEs and requested 

comment on them in the advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)(68 FR 

55931; September 29, 2003) and 

proposed rule (69 FR 74636; December 

14, 2005) but did not receive 

information to support changing them. 

These PCEs include sites essential to 

support one or more life stages of the 

ESU (sites for spawning, rearing, 

migration and foraging). These sites in 

turn contain physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the ESU (for example, spawning gravels, 

water quality and quantity, side 

channels, forage species). The specific 

PCEs include: 

1. Freshwater spawning sites with 

water quantity and quality conditions 

and substrate supporting spawning, 

incubation, and larval development. 

These features are essential to 

conservation because without them the 

species cannot successfully spawn and 

produce offspring. 

2. Freshwater rearing sites with water 

quantity and floodplain connectivity to 

form and maintain physical habitat 

conditions and support juvenile growth 

and mobility; water quality and forage 

supporting juvenile development; and 

natural cover such as shade, submerged 

and overhanging large wood, log jams 

and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, 

large rocks and boulders, side channels, 

and undercut banks. These features are 

essential to conservation because 

without them juveniles cannot access 

and use the areas needed to forage, 

grow, and develop behaviors (e.g., 

predator avoidance, competition) that 

help ensure their survival. 

3. Freshwater migration corridors free 

of obstruction with water quantity and 

quality conditions and natural cover 

such as submerged and overhanging 

large wood, aquatic vegetation, large 

rocks and boulders, side channels, and 

undercut banks supporting juvenile and 

adult mobility and survival. These 

features are essential to conservation 

because without them juveniles cannot 

use the variety of habitats that allow 

them to avoid high flows, avoid 

predators, successfully compete, begin 

the behavioral and physiological 

changes needed for life in the ocean, 

and reach the ocean in a timely manner. 

Similarly, these features are essential for 

adults because they allow fish in a nonfeeding condition to successfully swim 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7833 

upstream, avoid predators, and reach 

spawning areas on limited energy stores. 

4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction 

with water quality, water quantity, and 

salinity conditions supporting juvenile 

and adult physiological transitions 

between fresh- and saltwater; natural 

cover such as submerged and 

overhanging large wood, aquatic 

vegetation, large rocks and boulders, 

and side channels; and juvenile and 

adult forage, including aquatic 

invertebrates and fishes, supporting 

growth and maturation. These features 

are essential to conservation because 

without them juveniles cannot reach the 

ocean in a timely manner and use the 

variety of habitats that allow them to 

avoid predators, compete successfully, 

and complete the behavioral and 

physiological changes needed for life in 

the ocean. Similarly, these features are 

essential to the conservation of adults 

because they provide a final source of 

abundant forage that will provide the 

energy stores needed to make the 

physiological transition to fresh water, 

migrate upstream, avoid predators, and 

develop to maturity upon reaching 

spawning areas. 

5. Nearshore marine areas free of 

obstruction with water quality and 

quantity conditions and forage, 

including aquatic invertebrates and 

fishes, supporting growth and 

maturation; and natural cover such as 

submerged and overhanging large wood, 

aquatic vegetation, large rocks and 

boulders, and side channels. As in the 

case with freshwater migration corridors 

and estuarine areas, nearshore marine 

features are essential to conservation 

because without them juveniles cannot 

successfully transition from natal 

streams to offshore marine areas. We 

have focused our designation on 

nearshore areas in Puget Sound because 

of its unique and relatively sheltered 

fjord-like setting (as opposed to the 

more open coastlines of Washington and 

Oregon). 

6. Offshore marine areas with water 

quality conditions and forage, including 

aquatic invertebrates and fishes, 

supporting growth and maturation. 

These features are essential for 

conservation because without them 

juveniles cannot forage and grow to 

adulthood. However, for the reasons 

stated previously in this document, it is 

difficult to identify specific areas 

containing this PCE as well as human 

activities that may affect the PCE 

condition in those areas. Therefore, we 

have not designated any specific areas 

based on this PCE but instead have 

identified it because it is essential to the 

species’ conservation, and specific 

offshore areas may be identified in the 

future (in which case any revision to 

this designation would be subject to 

separate rulemaking). 

The occupied habitat areas designated 

in this final rule contain PCEs required 

to support the biological processes for 

Oregon Coast coho using the habitat. 

The CHART verified this for each 

watershed/nearshore zone by relying on 

the best available scientific data 

(including species distribution maps, 

watershed analyses, and habitat 

surveys) during its review of occupied 

areas and resultant assessment of area 

conservation values (NMFS, 2007b). The 

contribution of the PCEs varies by site 

and biological function such that the 

quality of the elements may vary within 

a range of acceptable conditions. The 

CHART took this variation into account 

when it assessed the conservation value 

of an area. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

An occupied area meets the definition 

of critical habitat only if it contains 

physical and biological features that 

‘‘may require special management 

considerations or protection.’’ Agency 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j) define 

‘‘special management considerations or 

protection’’ to mean ‘‘any methods or 

procedures useful in protecting physical 

and biological features of the 

environment for the conservation of 

listed species.’’

As part of the biological assessment 

described below under ‘‘Critical Habitat 

Analytical Review Team,’’ a team of 

biologists examined each habitat area to 

determine whether the physical or 

biological features may require special 

management consideration. These 

determinations are identified for each 

area in the final CHART report for the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU (NMFS, 2007b). 

Consistent with the final critical habitat 

designations for 12 Pacific Northwest 

ESUs (70 FR 52630; September 2, 2005), 

the CHART identified a variety of 

activities that threaten the physical and 

biological features essential to listed 

salmon and steelhead (see review by 

Spence et al., 1996), including: (1) 

Forestry; (2) grazing; (3) agriculture; (4) 

road building/maintenance; (5) channel 

modifications/diking; (6) urbanization; 

(7) sand and gravel mining; (8) mineral 

mining; (9) dams; (10) irrigation 

impoundments and withdrawals; (11) 

river, estuary, and ocean traffic; (12) 

wetland loss/removal; (13) beaver 

removal; and (14) exotic/invasive 

species introductions. In addition to 

these, the harvest of salmonid prey 

species (e.g., forage fishes such as 

herring, anchovy, and sardines) may 

present another potential habitat-related 

management activity (Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 1999). 

Unoccupied Areas 

ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical 

habitat to include ‘‘specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied’’

if the areas are determined by the 

Secretary to be ‘‘essential for the 

conservation of the species.’’ NMFS 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) 

emphasize that we ‘‘shall designate as 

critical habitat areas outside the 

geographical area presently occupied by 

a species only when a designation 

limited to its present range would be 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species.’’ For the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU we are not designating unoccupied 

areas at this time. The CHART did not 

identify any unoccupied areas that may 

be essential for the conservation of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. Thus, we are 

not designating any unoccupied areas at 

this time. Any future designation of 

unoccupied areas would be based on the 

required determination that such area is 

essential for the conservation of the ESU 

and would be subject to separate 

rulemaking with the opportunity for 

notice and comment. 

Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat 

In past designations we have 

described the lateral extent of critical 

habitat in various ways, ranging from 

fixed distances to ‘‘functional’’ zones 

defined by important riparian functions 

(65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000). Both 

approaches presented difficulties, and 

this was highlighted in several 

comments (most of which requested that 

we focus on aquatic areas only) received 

in response to the ANPR (68 FR 55926; 

September 29, 2003). Designating a set 

riparian zone width will (in some 

places) accurately reflect the distance 

from the stream on which PCEs might 

be found, but in other cases may overor understate the distance. Designating 

a functional buffer avoids that problem, 

but makes it difficult for Federal 

agencies to know in advance what areas 

are critical habitat. To address these 

issues we have defined the lateral extent 

of designated critical habitat as the 

width of the stream channel defined by 

the ordinary high-water line as defined 

by the USACE in 33 CFR 329.11. This 

approach is consistent with the specific 

mapping requirements described in 

agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(c)). 

In areas for which ordinary high-water 

has not been defined pursuant to 33 

CFR 329.11, the width of the stream 

channel shall be defined by its bankfull 

elevation. Bankfull elevation is the level 

at which water begins to leave the 

channel and move into the floodplain 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7834 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(Rosgen, 1996) and is reached at a 

discharge which generally has a 

recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the 

annual flood series (Leopold et al., 

1992). Such an interval is 

commensurate with the juvenile 

freshwater life phases of coho salmon. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude 

that for an occupied stream reach this 

lateral extent is regularly ‘‘occupied.’’

Moreover, the bankfull elevation can be 

readily discerned for a variety of stream 

reaches and stream types using 

recognizable water lines (e.g., marks on 

rocks) or vegetation boundaries (Rosgen, 

1996). 

As underscored in previous critical 

habitat designations, the quality of 

aquatic habitat within stream channels 

is intrinsically related to the adjacent 

riparian zones and floodplain, to 

surrounding wetlands and uplands, and 

to non-fish-bearing streams above 

occupied stream reaches. Human 

activities that occur outside the stream 

can modify or destroy physical and 

biological features of the stream. In 

addition, human activities that occur 

within and adjacent to reaches upstream 

(e.g., road failures) or downstream (e.g., 

culverts and dams) of designated stream 

reaches can also have demonstrable 

effects on physical and biological 

features of designated reaches. 

In the relatively few cases where we 

are designating lake habitats (e.g., 

Devils, Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, Sand, and 

Tenmile lakes), we believe that the 

lateral extent may best be defined as the 

perimeter of the water body as 

displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale 

topographic maps or the elevation of 

ordinary high water, whichever is 

greater. In estuarine areas we believe 

that extreme high water is the best 

descriptor of lateral extent. As noted 

above for stream habitat areas, human 

activities that occur outside the area 

inundated by extreme or ordinary high 

water can modify or destroy physical 

and biological features of the estuarine 

habitat areas, and Federal agencies must 

be aware of these important habitat 

linkages as well. 

Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team 

To assist in the designation of critical 

habitat, we convened a CHART for the 

Oregon Coast domain. The CHART 

consisted of eight Federal biologists and 

habitat specialists from NMFS, USFS, 

and BLM, with demonstrated expertise 

regarding salmonid habitat and related 

protective efforts within the domain. 

The CHART was tasked with assessing 

biological information pertaining to 

areas under consideration for 

designation as critical habitat. The 

CHART also reconvened to review the 

public comments and any new 

information regarding the ESU and its 

habitat. Its work and determinations are 

documented in a final CHART report 

(NMFS, 2007b). 

The CHART examined each habitat 

area within a watershed to determine 

whether the stream reaches or lakes 

occupied by the Oregon Coast coho 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to conservation. As 

noted previously, the CHART also relied 

on its experience conducting ESA 

section 7 consultations and existing 

management plans and protective 

measures to determine whether these 

features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. In addition to occupied 

areas, the definition of critical habitat 

also includes unoccupied areas if we 

determine the area is essential for 

conservation. Accordingly, the CHART 

was next asked whether there were any 

unoccupied areas within the historical 

range of the ESU that may be essential 

for conservation. The CHART did not 

identify any such unoccupied areas. 

The CHART was next asked to 

determine the relative conservation 

value of each area for each ESU. The 

CHART scored each habitat area based 

on several factors related to the quantity 

and quality of the physical and 

biological features. It next considered 

each area in relation to other areas and 

with respect to the population 

occupying that area. Based on a 

consideration of the raw scores for each 

area, and a consideration of that area’s 

contribution in relation to other areas 

and in relation to the overall population 

structure of the ESU, the CHART rated 

each habitat area as having a ‘‘high,’’

‘‘medium,’’ or ‘‘low’’ conservation 

value. The preliminary CHART ratings 

were reviewed by several state and 

tribal comanagers in advance of the 

proposed rule, and the CHART made 

needed changes prior to that rule. State 

and tribal comanagers also evaluated 

our proposed rule (69 FR 74572; 

December 14, 2004) and provided 

comments and new information which 

were also reviewed and incorporated as 

needed by the CHART in the 

preparation of this final designation. 

The rating of habitat areas as having 

a high, medium, or low conservation 

value provided information useful to 

inform the Secretary’s exercise of 

discretion in determining whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation (i.e., ESA section 

4(b)(2)). The higher the conservation 

value for an area, the greater the likely 

benefit of the ESA section 7 protections. 

We recognized that the ‘‘benefit of 

designation’’ would also depend on the 

likelihood of a consultation occurring 

and the improvements in species’

conservation that may result from 

changes to proposed Federal actions. To 

address this concern, we asked the 

CHART to develop a profile for a ‘‘low 

leverage’’ watershed—that is, a 

watershed where it was unlikely there 

would be a section 7 consultation, or 

where a section 7 consultation, if it did 

occur, would yield few conservation 

benefits. For watersheds not meeting the 

‘‘low leverage’’ profile, we considered 

their conservation rating to be a fair 

assessment of the benefit of designation. 

For watersheds meeting the ‘‘low 

leverage’’ profile, we considered the 

benefit of designation to be an 

increment lower than the conservation 

rating. For example, a watershed with a 

‘‘high’’ conservation value but ‘‘low 

leverage’’ was considered to have a 

‘‘medium’’ benefit of designation, and 

so forth (NMFS, 2007b). 

As discussed earlier, the scale chosen 

for the ‘‘specific area’’ referred to in 

section 3(5)(a) was a watershed, as 

delineated by USGS methodology. 

There were some complications with 

this delineation that required us to 

adapt the CHARTs’ approach for some 

areas. In particular, a large stream or 

river might serve as a rearing and 

migration corridor to and from many 

watersheds, yet be embedded itself in a 

watershed. In any given watershed 

through which it passes, the stream may 

have a few or several tributaries. For 

rearing/migration corridors embedded 

in a watershed, the CHART was asked 

to rate the conservation value of the 

watershed based on the tributary 

habitat. We assigned the rearing/ 

migration corridor the rating of the 

highest-rated watershed for which it 

served as a rearing/migration corridor. 

The reason for this treatment of 

migration corridors is the role they play 

in the salmon’s life cycle. Salmon are 

anadromous—born in fresh water, 

migrating to salt water to feed and grow, 

and returning to fresh water to spawn. 

Without a rearing/migration corridor to 

and from the sea, salmon cannot 

complete their life cycle. It would be 

illogical to consider a spawning and 

rearing area as having a particular 

conservation value and not consider the 

associated rearing/migration corridor as 

having a similar conservation value. 

Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2) (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)) 

The foregoing discussion describes 

those areas that are eligible for 

designation as critical habitat—the 

specific areas that fall within the ESA 

section 3(5)(A) definition of critical 

habitat. However, specific areas eligible 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7835 

for designation are not automatically 

designated as critical habitat. Section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary 

to first consider the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of designation. 

The Secretary has the discretion to 

exclude an area from designation if he 

determines the benefits of exclusion 

(that is, avoiding the impact that would 

result from designation) outweigh the 

benefits of designation based upon best 

scientific and commercial data. The 

Secretary may not exclude an area from 

designation if exclusion will result in 

the extinction of the species. Because 

the authority to exclude is discretionary, 

exclusion is not required for any areas. 

In this rulemaking, the Secretary has 

applied his statutory discretion to 

exclude areas from critical habitat for 

several different reasons (NMFS, 

2007d). 

In this exercise of discretion, the first 

issue we must address is the scope of 

impacts relevant to the ESA section 

4(b)(2) evaluation. We proposed new 

critical habitat designations for 13 

Pacific Northwest ESUs, including the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR 74572; 

December 14, 2004), because the 

previous designations were vacated 

following a Court ruling that we had 

inadequately considered the economic 

impacts of designating critical habitat. 

(National Association of Homebuilders 

v. Evans, 2002 WL 1205743 No. 00–CV–

2799 (D.D.C.) (NAHB)). The NAHB court 

had agreed with the reasoning of the 

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 

in New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). 

In that decision, the Tenth Circuit stated 

‘‘[t]he statutory language is plain in 

requiring some kind of consideration of 

economic impact in the critical habitat 

designation phase.’’ The court 

concluded that, given the FWS’ failure 

to distinguish between ‘‘adverse 

modification’’ and ‘‘jeopardy’’ in its 

4(b)(2) analysis, the FWS must analyze 

the full impacts of critical habitat 

designation, regardless of whether those 

impacts are coextensive with other 

impacts (such as the impact of the 

jeopardy requirement). 

In redesignating critical habitat for the 

13 Pacific Northwest ESUs, we followed 

the Tenth Circuit Court’s directive 

regarding the statutory requirement to 

consider the economic impact of 

designation. Areas designated as critical 

habitat are subject to ESA section 7 

requirements, which provide that 

Federal agencies ensure that their 

actions are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. To 

evaluate the economic impact of critical 

habitat we first examined our 

voluminous section 7 consultation 

record for Oregon Coast coho as well as 

other ESUs of salmon and steelhead. 

(For thoroughness, we examined the 

consultation record for other ESUs to 

see if it provided information relevant to 

Oregon Coast coho.) That record 

includes consultations on habitatmodifying Federal actions both where 

critical habitat has been designated and 

where it has not. We could not discern 

a distinction between the impacts of 

applying the jeopardy provision versus 

the adverse modification provision in 

occupied critical habitat. Given our 

inability to detect a measurable 

difference between the impacts of 

applying these two provisions, the only 

reasonable alternative seemed to be to 

follow the recommendation of the Tenth 

Circuit, approved by the NAHB court—

to measure the coextensive impacts; that 

is, measure the entire impact of 

applying the adverse modification 

provision of section 7, regardless of 

whether the jeopardy provision alone 

would result in the identical impact. 

The Tenth Circuit’s opinion only 

addressed ESA section 4(b)(2)’s 

requirement that economic impacts be 

considered. The court did not address 

how ‘‘other relevant impacts’’ were to be 

considered, nor did it address the 

benefits of designation. Because section 

4(b)(2) requires a consideration of other 

relevant impacts of designation, and the 

benefits of designation, and because our 

record did not support a distinction 

between impacts resulting from 

application of the adverse modification 

provision versus the jeopardy provision, 

we are uniformly considering 

coextensive impacts and coextensive 

benefits, without attempting to 

distinguish the benefit of a critical 

habitat consultation from the benefit 

that would otherwise result from a 

jeopardy consultation that would occur 

even if critical habitat were not 

designated. To do otherwise would 

distort the balancing test contemplated 

by section 4(b)(2). 

The principal benefit of designating 

critical habitat is that Federal activities 

that may affect such habitat are subject 

to consultation pursuant to section 7 of 

the ESA. Such consultation requires 

every Federal agency to ensure that any 

action it authorizes, funds or carries out 

is not likely to result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. This complements the section 7 

provision that Federal agencies ensure 

that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species. Another benefit is that 

the designation of critical habitat can 

serve to educate the public regarding the 

potential conservation value of an area 

and thereby focus and contribute to 

conservation efforts by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for certain species. It is unknown 

to what extent this process actually 

occurs for Oregon Coast coho, and what 

the actual benefit is to Oregon Coast 

coho, as there are also concerns, noted 

above, that a critical habitat designation 

may discourage such conservation 

efforts. 

The balancing test in ESA section 

4(b)(2) contemplates weighing benefits 

that are not directly comparable—the 

benefit associated with species 

conservation balanced against the 

economic benefit, benefit to national 

security, or other relevant benefit that 

results if an area is excluded from 

designation. Section 4(b)(2) does not 

specify a method for the weighing 

process. Agencies are frequently 

required to balance benefits of 

regulations against impacts; Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866 established this 

requirement for Federal agency 

regulations. Ideally such a balancing 

would involve first translating the 

benefits and impacts into a common 

metric. Executive branch guidance from 

the OMB suggests that benefits should 

first be monetized (i.e., converted into 

dollars). Benefits that cannot be 

monetized should be quantified (for 

example, numbers of fish saved). Where 

benefits can neither be monetized nor 

quantified, agencies are to describe the 

expected benefits (OMB, 2003). 

It may be possible to monetize 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

for a threatened or endangered species 

in terms of willingness-to-pay (OMB, 

2003). However, we are not aware of any 

available data that would support such 

an analysis for salmon. In addition, ESA 

section 4(b)(2) requires analysis of 

impacts other than economic impacts 

that are equally difficult to monetize, 

such as benefits to national security of 

excluding areas from critical habitat. In 

the case of salmon designations, impacts 

to Northwest tribes are an ‘‘other 

relevant impact’’ that also may be 

difficult to monetize. 

An alternative approach, approved by 

OMB (OMB, 2003), is to conduct a costeffectiveness analysis. A costeffectiveness analysis ideally first 

involves quantifying benefits, for 

example, percent reduction in 

extinction risk, percent increase in 

productivity, or increase in numbers of 

fish. Given the state of the science, it 

would be difficult to quantify reliably 

the benefits of including particular areas 

in the critical habitat designation. 

Although it is difficult to monetize or 

quantify benefits of critical habitat 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7836 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

designation, it is possible to 

differentiate among habitat areas based 

on their relative contribution to 

conservation. For example, habitat areas 

can be rated as having a high, medium, 

or low conservation value. The 

qualitative ordinal evaluations can then 

be combined with estimates of the 

economic costs of critical habitat 

designation in a framework that 

arguably moves the designation to a 

more efficient outcome. Individual 

habitat areas are assessed using both 

their biological evaluation and 

economic cost, so that areas with high 

conservation value and lower economic 

cost might be considered to have a 

higher priority for designation, while 

areas with a low conservation value and 

higher economic cost might have a 

higher priority for exclusion. While this 

approach can provide useful 

information to the decision-maker, there 

is no rigid formula through which this 

information translates into exclusion 

decisions. Every geographical area 

containing habitat eligible for 

designation is different, with a unique 

set of ‘‘relevant impacts’’ that may be 

considered in the exclusion process. 

Regardless of the analytical approach, 

ESA section 4(b)(2) makes clear that 

what weight the agency gives various 

impacts and benefits, and whether the 

agency excludes areas from the 

designation, is discretionary. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts to Tribes 

A broad array of activities on Indian 

lands may trigger section 7 consultation 

under the ESA. For this analysis, we 

considered what those activities may be 

and what the likely effect would be on 

conservation of the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU if the activities were not subject to 

section 7 consultation. (We realize that 

the activities in question would still be 

subject to section 7 consultation and to 

the requirement that Federal agencies 

not jeopardize species’ continued 

existence. However, as described above, 

because we cannot discern a difference 

in the application of the jeopardy and 

adverse modification requirements in 

our consultations for Oregon coast coho, 

we are considering coextensive impacts 

and coextensive benefits.) To determine 

the benefit of designation, we 

considered the number of stream miles 

within Indian lands, whether those 

stream miles were located in high, 

medium, or low conservation value 

areas, and the number of expected 

section 7 consultations in those areas 

(NMFS, 2007f). 

There are several benefits to 

excluding Indian lands. The 

longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

treaties, statutes, executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and agreements, 

which differentiate tribal governments 

from the other entities that deal with, or 

are affected by, the Federal Government. 

This relationship has given rise to a 

special Federal trust responsibility 

involving the legal responsibilities and 

obligations of the United States toward 

Indian Tribes and the application of 

fiduciary standards of due care with 

respect to Indian lands, tribal trust 

resources, and the exercise of tribal 

rights. Pursuant to these authorities, 

Indian lands are recognized as unique 

and have been retained by Indian Tribes 

or have been set aside for tribal use. 

These lands are managed by Indian 

Tribes in accordance with tribal goals 

and objectives within the framework of 

applicable treaties and laws. 

In addition to the distinctive trust 

relationship, for salmon and steelhead 

in the Northwest, there is a unique 

partnership between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes regarding 

salmon management. Two of the four 

tribes with land in Oregon coast coho 

critical habitat are active participants in 

local watershed restoration and 

management aimed at coho 

conservation (NMFS, 2007f). 

The benefits of excluding Indian 

lands from designation include: (1) The 

furtherance of established national 

policies, our Federal trust obligations, 

and our deference to the tribes in 

management of natural resources on 

their lands; (2) the maintenance of 

effective long-term working 

relationships to promote the 

conservation of Oregon coast coho; and 

(3) continued respect for tribal 

sovereignty over management of natural 

resources on Indian lands through 

established tribal natural resource 

programs. Regarding benefits of 

designation, many actions on Indian 

lands involve the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), triggering a section 7 

consultation. This means the benefit of 

designating Indian land is potentially 

high. However, coho habitat on Indian 

lands represents a tiny proportion of 

overall habitat—2.7 stream miles (4.35 

km) out of a total of 6,652. Accordingly, 

we find the benefits of promoting tribal 

sovereignty and the trust responsibility 

outweigh the benefits of applying ESA 

section 7 to Federal activities on these 

2.7 miles (4.35 km) of coho habitat 

(NMFS, 2007f). 

The Indian lands specifically 

excluded from critical habitat are those 

defined in the Secretarial Order, 

including: (1) Lands held in trust by the 

United States for the benefit of any 

Indian tribe; (2) land held in trust by the 

United States for any Indian Tribe or 

individual subject to restrictions by the 

United States against alienation; (3) fee 

lands, either within or outside the 

reservation boundaries, owned by the 

tribal government; and (4) fee lands 

within the reservation boundaries 

owned by individual Indians. We have 

determined that these exclusions, 

together with the other exclusions 

described in this rule, will not result in 

extinction of the species (NMFS, 

2007d). 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Our assessment of economic impact 

generated considerable interest from 

commenters on the ANPR (68 FR 55926; 

September 29, 2003) and the proposed 

rule (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2004). 

Based on new information and 

comments received on the proposed 

rule we have updated our estimates of 

economic impacts of designating each of 

the particular areas found to meet the 

definition of critical habitat (NMFS, 

2007d). This report is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

The first step in the overall economic 

analysis was to identify existing legal 

and regulatory constraints on economic 

activity that are independent of critical 

habitat designation, such as Clean Water 

Act (CWA) requirements. Coextensive 

impacts of the ESA section 7 

requirement to avoid jeopardy were not 

considered part of the baseline. 

Next, from the consultation record, 

we identified Federal activities that 

might affect habitat and that might 

result in an ESA section 7 consultation. 

(We did not consider Federal actions, 

such as the approval of a fishery, that 

might affect the species directly but not 

affect its habitat.) We identified ten 

types of activities including: 

Hydropower dams; non-hydropower 

dams and other water supply structures; 

Federal lands management, including 

grazing (considered separately); 

transportation projects; utility line 

projects; instream activities, including 

dredging (considered separately); 

activities permitted under the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System; sand and gravel 

mining; residential and commercial 

development; and agricultural pesticide 

applications. Based on our consultation 

record and other available information, 

we determined the modifications each 

type of activity was likely to undergo as 

a result of section 7 consultation 

(regardless of whether the modification 

might be required by the jeopardy or the 

adverse modification provision). We 

developed an expected direct cost for 

each type of action and projected the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7837 

likely occurrence of each type of project 

in each watershed, using existing spatial 

databases (e.g., the USACE 404(d) 

permit database). Finally, we aggregated 

the costs from the various types of 

actions and estimated an annual impact, 

taking into account the probability of 

consultation occurring and the likely 

rate of occurrence of that project type. 

This analysis allowed us to estimate 

the coextensive economic impact of 

designating each ‘‘particular area’’ (that 

is, each habitat area, or aggregated 

occupied stream reaches in a 

watershed). Expected annual economic 

impacts in the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

ranged from zero to $869,861 per habitat 

area, with a median of $222,419. Where 

a watershed included both tributaries 

and a migration corridor that served 

other watersheds, we estimated the 

separate impacts of designating the 

tributaries and the migration corridor. 

We did this by identifying those 

categories of activities most likely to 

affect tributaries and those most likely 

to affect larger migration corridors. 

Because of the methods we selected 

and the data limitations, portions of our 

analysis both under- and over-estimate 

the coextensive economic impact of 

ESA section 7 requirements. For 

example, we lacked complete data on 

the likely impact on flows at nonFederal hydropower projects, which 

would increase economic impacts. Also, 

we did not have information about 

potential changes in irrigation flows 

associated with section 7 consultation. 

These impacts would increase the 

estimate of coextensive costs. On the 

other hand, we estimated an impact on 

all activities occurring within the 

geographic boundaries of a watershed, 

even though in some cases activities 

would be far removed from occupied 

stream reaches and so might not require 

modification (or even consultation). In 

addition, we were unable to document 

significant costs of critical habitat 

designation that occur outside the 

section 7 consultation process, 

including costs resulting from state or 

local regulatory burdens imposed on 

developers and landowners as a result 

of a Federal critical habitat designation. 

In determining whether the economic 

benefit of excluding a habitat area might 

outweigh the benefit of designation to 

the species, we took into account many 

data limitations, including those 

described above. The ESA requires that 

we make critical habitat designations 

within a short time frame ‘‘with such 

data as may be available’’ at the time. 

Moreover, the approach we adopted 

accommodated many of these data 

limitations by considering the relative 

benefits of designation and exclusion, 

giving priority to excluding habitat areas 

with a relatively lower benefit of 

designation and a relatively higher 

economic impact (NMFS, 2007d). 

The circumstances of the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU are well suited to this 

approach. Coho salmon is a wideranging species that occupies numerous 

habitat areas with thousands of stream 

miles. Not all occupied areas, however, 

are of equal importance to conserving 

the ESU. Within the currently occupied 

range there are areas that support highly 

productive populations, areas that 

support less productive populations, 

and areas that support production in 

only some years. Some populations 

within the ESU may be more important 

to long-term conservation of the ESU 

than other populations. Therefore, in 

many cases it may be possible to 

construct different scenarios for 

achieving conservation. Different 

scenarios might have more or less 

certainty of achieving conservation, and 

more or less economic impact. 

Our first step in constructing an 

exclusion scenario was to identify all 

areas we would consider for an 

economic exclusion, based on dollar 

thresholds. The next step was to 

examine whether any of the areas 

eligible for exclusion make an important 

contribution to conservation, in the 

context of the areas that remained (that 

is, those areas not identified as eligible 

for exclusion). We did not consider 

habitat areas for exclusion if they had a 

high conservation value rating. Based on 

the rating process used by the CHART 

we judged that all of the high value 

areas make an important contribution to 

conservation. 

In developing criteria for the first 

step, we chose dollar thresholds that we 

anticipated would lead most directly to 

a more cost-effective scenario. We 

considered for exclusion low value 

habitat areas with an economic impact 

greater than $91,556 and medium value 

habitat areas with an economic impact 

greater than $323,138. These criteria we 

selected for identifying habitat areas as 

eligible for exclusion do not represent 

an objective determination that, for 

example, a given low value area is 

worth a certain dollar amount and no 

more. The statute directs us to balance 

dissimilar values under a statutorilylimited time frame. The statute 

emphasizes the discretionary nature of 

the section 4(b)(2) balancing task. 

Moreover, while our approach follows 

the Tenth Circuit’s direction to consider 

coextensive economic impacts, we 

nevertheless must acknowledge that not 

all of the costs will be avoided by 

exclusion from designation. Finally, the 

cost estimates developed by our 

economic analysis do not have obvious 

break points that would lead to a logical 

division between ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’

and ‘‘low’’ costs. Given these factors, a 

judgment that any particular dollar 

threshold is objectively ‘‘right,’’ would 

be neither necessary nor possible. 

Rather, what economic impact is 

‘‘high,’’ and therefore might outweigh 

the benefit of designating a medium or 

low conservation value habitat area, is 

a matter of agency discretion and policy. 

In the second step of the process, we 

asked the CHART whether any of the 

habitat areas eligible for exclusion make 

an important contribution to 

conservation. The CHART considered 

this question in the context of all of the 

areas eligible for exclusion as well as 

the information they had developed in 

providing the initial conservation 

ratings. The following section describes 

the results of applying the two-step 

process to the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

The results are discussed in greater 

detail in a separate report that is 

available for public review and 

comment (NMFS, 2007d). We have 

determined that the exclusions, together 

with the other exclusions described in 

this rule (i.e., Indian lands), will not 

result in extinction of the species 

(NMFS, 2007d). 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We evaluated the comments and new 

information received on the proposed 

rule to ensure that they represented the 

best scientific data available and made 

a number of general types of changes to 

the critical habitat designations, 

including: 

(1) We revised habitat maps and 

related biological assessments based on 

a final CHART assessment (NMFS, 

2007b) of information provided by 

commenters, peer reviewers, and agency 

biologists (including CHART members). 

We also evaluated watersheds to 

determine how well the conservation 

value rating corresponded to the benefit 

of designation, in particular the 

likelihood of an ESA section 7 

consultation occurring in that area and 

whether the consultation would yield 

conservation benefits if it was likely to 

occur. 

(2) We revised our economic analysis 

based on information provided by 

commenters and peer reviewers as well 

as our own efforts as referenced in the 

proposed rule and described in the final 

economic analysis (NMFS, 2007c). 

Major changes included assessing new 

impacts associated with pesticide 

consultations, revising Federal land 

management costs to take into account 

wilderness areas, and modifying the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7838 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

analysis of Federal grazing land impacts 

to more accurately reflect the likely 

geographic extent of ESA section 7 

implementation. We also documented 

the economic costs of changes in flow 

regimes for some hydropower projects. 

To account for inflationary changes in 

the economic impacts, we adjusted the 

cost estimates based on changes in a 

producer price index over the period 

2005 to 2007 (NMFS 2007c). 

(3) We conducted a new ESA section 

4(b)(2) analysis based on economic 

impacts to take into account the above 

revisions. This resulted in the final 

exclusion of many of the same 

watersheds proposed for exclusion. It 

also resulted in some areas originally 

proposed for exclusion not being 

excluded. The analysis is described 

further in the 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 

2007d). 

(4) In the regulations, we’ve removed 

reference to ‘‘units’’ to avoid possible 

confusion with the concept of ‘‘recovery 

units’’ as described in our section 7 

handbook. 

The following section summarizes the 

changes to the proposed critical habitat 

rule. These changes are also reflected in 

final agency reports pertaining to the 

biological, economic, and policy 

assessments supporting these 

designations (NMFS, 2007b; NMFS, 

2007c; and NMFS, 2007d). We conclude 

that these changes are warranted based 

on new information and analyses that 

constitute the best scientific data 

available. 

Description of Specific Changes 

The CHART elevated the conservation 

value rating for five watersheds within 

the Umpqua River basin. The changes 

were made as a result of recent 

population identification work (Lawson 

et al., 2007) that further subdivides this 

basin into four (versus two) 

independent populations. We made 

several changes to the delineation of 

occupied habitat areas based on 

comments and field surveys indicating 

that our original coho distribution 

maps/data were in error. As a result of 

revised economic data for this ESU and 

our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we are no 

longer excluding habitat areas in three 

watersheds that were previously 

proposed for designation. We have also 

removed Josephine and Jackson 

counties from the relevant critical 

habitat table in our regulations. These 

counties overlap slightly with upland 

areas in watersheds occupied by Oregon 

Coast coho salmon, but they do not 

contain stream reaches designated as 

critical habitat for this ESU. Table 1 

summarizes the changes made for 

specific watersheds in the range of this 

ESU. 

TABLE 1.—CHANGES TO CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR OREGON COAST COHO

Subbasin Watershed 

code Watershed name Changes from proposed rule 

NEHALEM ................................ 1710020206 Lower Nehalem River/Cook 

Creek.

Added 1.3 miles (2.1 km) of occupied habitat areas. 

WILSON/TRASK/NESTUCCA 1710020302 Nestucca River ........................ Added 4.2 miles (6.8 km) of occupied habitat areas and removed 3 miles (4.8 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

NORTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030106 Boulder Creek ......................... No longer excluded from designation. 

NORTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030110 Rock Creek/North Umpqua 

River.

Added 1.8 miles (2.9 km) of occupied habitat areas. 

SOUTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030202 Jackson Creek ........................ Elevated HUC5 conservation value from Low to Medium. No 

longer excluded from designation. 

SOUTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030204 Elk Creek/South Umpqua ....... Elevated HUC5 conservation value from Low to Medium. No

longer excluded from designation. 

SOUTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030205 South Umpqua River ............... Removed 2 miles (3.2 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

SOUTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030207 Middle Cow Creek ................... Elevated HUC5 conservation value from Medium to High. 

SOUTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030209 Lower Cow Creek ................... Removed 3 miles (4.8 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

SOUTH UMPQUA .................... 1710030211 Myrtle Creek ............................ Elevated HUC5 conservation value from Medium to High. 

UMPQUA ................................. 1710030301 Upper Umpqua River .............. Removed 2 miles (3.2 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

UMPQUA ................................. 1710030303 Elk Creek ................................. Removed 1 mile (1.6 km) of unoccupied stream reaches and 

elevated HUC5 conservation value from Medium to High. 

UMPQUA ................................. 1710030304 Middle Umpqua River ............. Removed 1.5 mile (2.4 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

UMPQUA ................................. 1710030305 Lake Creek .............................. Removed 5.3 mile (8.5 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

COQUILLE ............................... 1710030504 East Fork Coquille ................... Removed 1.5 mile (2.4 km) of unoccupied stream reaches. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 

6,568 stream miles (10,570 km) and 15 

square miles (38.8 sq km) of lake habitat 

within the geographical area presently 

occupied by the Oregon Coast coho ESU 

(see Table 2). The Oregon Coast coho 

ESU is the only listed species in this 

domain, so the areas designated as 

critical habitat do not overlap with 

critical habitat areas designated for 

other listed ESUs. 

TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE QUANTITY OF HABITAT AND OWNERSHIP WITHIN WATERSHEDS CONTAINING HABITAT AREAS

DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT OF OREGON COAST COHO SALMON

(ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH) 

Streams 

mi 

(km) 

Lakes 

sq mi 

(sq km) 

Nearshore 

marine 

mi (km) 

Land ownership type 

(percent) 

Federal Tribal State Private 

6,568 (10,570) 15 (38.8) n/a 32.9 <0.1 9.1 58.0 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7839 

The areas designated, summarized 

below, are all occupied and contain 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. No unoccupied areas were 

identified that are considered essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

There are 80 watersheds within the 

range of this ESU. Eight watersheds 

received a low conservation value 

rating, 27 received a medium rating, and 

45 received a high rating to the ESU 

(NMFS, 2007b). As a result of the 

balancing process for economic impacts 

described above, the Secretary is 

excluding from the designation the five 

watersheds listed in Table 3. Of the 

habitat areas eligible for designation, 

approximately 84 stream miles (135 km) 

or 1.3 percent are being excluded 

because the economic benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

designation. Total potential estimated 

economic impact, with no exclusions, 

would be $22.2 million. The exclusions 

identified in Table 3 would reduce the 

total estimated economic impact to 

$20.1 million (NMFS, 2007d). 

TABLE 3.—HABITAT AREAS WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE OF THE EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT OF OREGON

COAST COHO SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH) AND EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT

Subbasin Watershed 

code Watershed name 

Area 

proposed for 

exclusion 

North Fork Umpqua River subbasin .......................... 1710030108 Steamboat Creek ...................................................... Entire watershed. 

North Fork Umpqua River subbasin .......................... 1710030109 Canton Creek ............................................................ Entire watershed. 

South Fork Umpqua River subbasin ......................... 1710030201 Upper South Umpqua River ..................................... Entire watershed. 

Umpqua River subbasin ............................................ 1710030305 Lake Creek ................................................................ Entire watershed. 

Coquille River subbasin ............................................. 1710030501 Coquille South Fork, Lower ...................................... Entire watershed. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

ESA Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies, including NMFS, to 

evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this provision of the ESA 

are codified at 50 CFR 402. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, ESA section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. Through this 

consultation, we would review actions 

to determine if they would destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

If we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, we will 

also provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 

402.02 as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that we 

believe would avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where critical 

habitat is subsequently designated and 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action or such discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law. Consequently, some Federal 

agencies may request reinitiation of 

consultation or conference with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Activities on Federal lands that may 

affect these ESUs or their critical habitat 

will require ESA section 7 consultation. 

Activities on private or state lands 

requiring a permit from a Federal 

agency, such as a permit from the 

USACE under section 404 of the CWA, 

a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from NMFS, 

or some other Federal action, including 

funding (e.g., Federal Highway 

Administration (FHA) or Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) funding), will also be subject to 

the section 7 consultation process. 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat and actions on 

non-Federal and private lands that are 

not Federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted do not require section 7 

consultation. 

Activities Affected by Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires 

that we evaluate briefly and describe, in 

any proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may adversely modify such habitat or 

that may be affected by such 

designation. A wide variety of activities 

may affect critical habitat and, when 

carried out, funded, or authorized by a 

Federal agency, require that an ESA 

section 7 consultation be conducted. 

Generally these include water and land 

management actions of Federal agencies 

(e.g., USFS, BLM, USACE, BOR, the 

FHA, the National Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS), National 

Park Service (NPS), BIA, and FERC) and 

related or similar actions of other 

Federally regulated projects and lands, 

including livestock grazing allotments 

by the USFS and BLM; hydropower 

sites licensed by the FERC; dams built 

or operated by the USACE or BOR; 

timber sales and other vegetation 

management activities conducted by the 

USFS, BLM, and BIA; irrigation 

diversions authorized by the USFS and 

BLM; road building and maintenance 

activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, 

BLM, NPS, and BIA; and mining and 

road building/maintenance activities 

authorized by the states of Washington, 

Oregon, and Idaho. Other actions of 

concern include dredge and fill, mining, 

diking, and bank stabilization activities 

authorized or conducted by the USACE, 

habitat modifications authorized by the 

FEMA, and approval of water quality 

standards and pesticide labeling and use 

restrictions administered by the EPA. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7840 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The Federal agencies that will most 

likely be affected by this critical habitat 

designation include the USFS, BLM, 

BOR, USACE, FHA, NRCS, NPS, BIA, 

FEMA, EPA, and the FERC. This 

designation will provide these agencies, 

private entities, and the public with 

clear notification of critical habitat 

designated for listed salmonids and the 

boundaries of the habitat. This 

designation will also assist these 

agencies and others in evaluating the 

potential effects of their activities on 

listed salmon and their critical habitat 

and in determining if ESA section 7 

consultation with NMFS is needed. 

As noted above, numerous private 

entities also may be affected by this 

critical habitat designation because of 

the direct and indirect linkages to an 

array of Federal actions, including 

Federal projects, permits, and funding. 

For example, private entities may 

harvest timber or graze livestock on 

Federal land or have special use permits 

to convey water or build access roads 

across Federal land; they may require 

Federal permits to armor stream banks, 

construct irrigation withdrawal 

facilities, or build or repair docks; they 

may obtain water from Federally funded 

and operated irrigation projects; or they 

may apply pesticides that are only 

available with Federal agency approval. 

These activities will need to be analyzed 

with respect to their potential to destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat. In 

some cases, proposed activities may 

require modifications that may result in 

decreases in activities such as timber 

harvest and livestock and crop 

production. The transportation and 

utilities sectors may need to modify the 

placement of culverts, bridges, and 

utility conveyances (e.g., water, sewer 

and power lines) to avoid barriers to fish 

migration. Developments occurring in or 

near salmon streams (e.g., marinas, 

residential, or industrial facilities) that 

require Federal authorization or funding 

may need to be altered or built in a 

manner that ensures that critical habitat 

is not destroyed or adversely modified 

as a result of the construction, or 

subsequent operation, of the facility. 

These are just a few examples of 

potential impacts, but it is clear that the 

effects will encompass numerous 

sectors of private and public activities. 

If you have questions regarding whether 

specific activities will constitute 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, contact NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Classification 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The proposed listing determination, 

proposed protective regulations, and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

addressing 27 ESUs generated 

substantial public interest. In addition 

to comments received during 12 public 

hearings, we received 33,480 written 

comments. Many of the comments 

addressing the critical habitat 

designation expressed concerns about 

how the rule would be implemented. 

Our experience in implementing 

previous listing determinations, 

protective regulations, and critical 

habitat designations suggests that 

neither the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) and ESA implementing 

regulations’ minimum of a 30-day delay 

in effective date, nor the 60-day delay in 

effective date required by the 

Congressional Review Act for a ‘‘major 

rule,’’ are sufficient for this final rule. In 

order to provide for efficient 

administration of the rule once effective, 

we are providing a 90-day delay in 

effective date. As a result this rule will 

be effective on May 12, 2008. This will 

allow us the necessary time to provide 

for outreach to and interaction with the 

public, to minimize confusion and 

educate the public about activities that 

may be affected by the rule, and to work 

with Federal agencies and applicants to 

provide for an orderly implementation 

of the rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

ESA listing decisions are exempt from 

the requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

the NEPA. See NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6.03(e)(1) and Pacific Legal 

Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 825 

(6th Cir. 1981). Thus, we have 

determined that the final listing 

determination for Oregon Coast coho 

described in this notice is exempt from 

the requirements of the NEPA. 

Similarly, we have determined that we 

need not prepare environmental 

analyses for critical habitat designations 

made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas 

County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 

1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1042 

(1996). 

We conducted Environmental 

Assessments (EAs) under the NEPA 

analyzing the ESA section 4(d) 

regulations promulgated in 2000 for 

Pacific salmonids (65 FR at 42422 and 

42481; July 10, 2000) and the 

amendments to the 4(d) regulations 

promulgated in 2005 (70 FR 37160; June 

28, 2005). Both EAs analyzed the 

protective regulations for the Oregon 

Coast coho ESU which are being 

finalized in this notice. We solicited 

comment on the EAs as part of the 

proposed rules, as well as during a 

subsequent comment period following 

formal notice in the Federal Register of 

the availability of the draft EAs for 

review. We have reviewed new 

information available since the 2000 

and 2005 analyses and determined that 

none of the new information would 

change the earlier analyses, nor would 

it change our conclusion that adoption 

of the 4(d) rule will have no significant 

impacts on the human environment 

(NMFS, 2007g). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). For the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 13 

ESUs, including Oregon coast coho, we 

published an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis for public 

comment. We received comments 

specific to some of the ESUs, but not to 

Oregon Coast coho. We received one 

general comment, stating that our 

analysis should include more 

references. We have prepared a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

designation of critical habitat, which is 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES) 

and which includes additional 

references. This analysis estimates that 

the number of regulated small entities 

potentially affected by the final critical 

habitat designation for the Oregon Coast 

coho salmon ESU is 920, and the 

estimated coextensive costs of section 7 

consultation incurred by small entities 

is $5,072,840. As described in the 

analysis, we considered various 

alternatives for designating critical 

habitat for this ESU. We considered and 

rejected the alternative of not 

designating critical habitat for the ESU 

because such an approach did not meet 

the legal requirements of the ESA. We 

also examined and rejected an 

alternative in which all the eligible 

habitat areas in the ESU are designated 

(i.e., no areas are excluded) because 

many of the areas considered to have a 

low conservation value also had 

relatively high economic impacts that 

might be mitigated by excluding those 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7841 

areas from designation. A third 

alternative we examined and rejected 

would exclude all habitat areas with a 

low or medium conservation value. 

While this alternative furthers the goal 

of reducing economic impacts, we could 

not make a determination that the 

benefits of excluding all habitat areas 

with low and medium conservation 

value outweighed the benefits of 

designation. Moreover, for some habitat 

areas the incremental economic benefit 

from excluding that area is relatively 

small. Therefore, after considering these 

alternatives in the context of the section 

4(b)(2) process of weighing benefits of 

exclusion against benefits of 

designation, we determined that the 

current approach to designation (i.e., 

designating some but not all areas with 

low or medium conservation value) 

provides an appropriate balance of 

conservation and economic mitigation 

and that excluding the areas identified 

in this rulemaking would not result in 

extinction of the ESU. It is estimated 

that small entities will save $281,687 in 

compliance costs due to the exclusions 

made in the final designation. 

ESA section 4(d) regulations for 

Oregon Coast coho were originally 

proposed on December 30, 1999 (64 FR 

73479). The rule adopted here is 

substantially the same as that proposed 

in 1999. At that time we published an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

analysis, which considered four 

alternative approaches to protective 

regulations. We concluded that there 

were no legally viable alternative to the 

one we proposed in 1999 that would 

have less impact on small entities and 

still fulfill agency obligations to protect 

listed salmonids. We received five 

public comments on the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

4(d) rule. When the rule was adopted in 

2000, we completed a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis, which 

responded to public comments, and 

reached the same conclusion as the 

initial analysis. The 2000 4(d) 

regulations for Oregon Coast coho were 

invalidated when the underlying listing 

was vacated in 2001. In 2004 when we 

proposed to again list Oregon Coast 

coho, we also proposed to reinstate the 

4(d) regulations. We did not conduct a 

new Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis 

at that time because there were no new 

issues to consider. 

In preparing the final ESA section 

4(d) regulations adopted here, we 

determined it was advisable to update 

our Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, 

to ensure that we were considering 

current information. Our updated 

analysis led us to again conclude that 

among the available alternative 

approaches, the one adopted here 

minimizes economic costs, disruptions, 

and burdens, for the reasons expressed 

in the 2000 analysis (attached to NMFS, 

2007i) and summarized at 65 FR 42422, 

42473 (July 10, 2000). The economic 

assessment and analysis (NMFS, 2007i) 

are available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

This final rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for purposes of the PRA. 

Regulatory Planning and Review—E.O. 

12866 

We prepared a Regulatory Impact 

Review in 2000 when the ESA section 

4(d) regulations were initially adopted 

and concluded that among the 

alternative regulatory approaches, the 

proposed 4(d) rule would maximize net 

benefits and minimize costs, within the 

constraints of the ESA. We have 

reviewed that analysis and new 

information available since the analysis 

was initially prepared, including OMB 

Circular A–4 (2003). We have 

determined that none of the new 

information would change the earlier 

analysis or conclusion (NMFS, 2007i). 

The critical habitat component of this 

notice is a significant rule and has been 

reviewed by the OMB. As noted above, 

we have prepared several reports to 

support the exclusion process under 

section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. The 

economic costs of the critical habitat 

designations are described in our 

economic report (NMFS, 2007c). The 

benefits of the designations are 

described in the CHART report (NMFS, 

2007b) and the 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 

2007d). The CHART report uses a 

biologically-based ranking system for 

gauging the benefits of applying section 

7 of the ESA to particular watersheds. 

Because data are not available to 

monetize these benefits, we have 

adopted a framework that implicitly 

evaluates the benefits and costs based 

on a biological metric as outlined in the 

section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2007b). 

This approach is consistent with the 

spirit of OMB’s Circular A–4 in that it 

attempts to assess the benefits and costs 

even when limitations in data may not 

allow quantification or monetization. By 

taking this approach, we seek to 

designate sufficient critical habitat to 

meet the biological goal of the ESA 

while imposing the least burden on 

society, as called for by E.O. 12866. 

The annual total coextensive 

economic impact of the critical habitat 

designations is approximately $15.7 

million (in contrast to a $18.4 million 

annual economic impact from 

designating all eligible areas considered 

in the 4(b)(2) process for this ESU). This 

amount includes impacts that are 

coextensive with the implementation of 

the jeopardy requirement of section 7 

(NMFS, 2007c). 

We did not estimate the economic 

impacts associated solely with the 

listing of Oregon Coast coho ESU under 

the ESA. 

E.O. 13084—Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

E.O. 13084 requires that, if we issue 

a regulation that significantly or 

uniquely affects the communities of 

Indian tribal governments and imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

those communities, we must consult 

with those governments or the Federal 

Government must provide the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by the tribal 

governments. The final listing 

determination and protective 

regulations included in this rule do not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on the communities of Indian 

tribal governments. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 

13084 do not apply to the listing and 

protective regulations components of 

this final rule. Nonetheless, we intend 

to inform potentially affected tribal 

governments and to solicit their input 

and coordinate on future management 

actions. 

The Departments of Commerce and 

Interior Secretarial Order ‘‘American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997) 

provides that the Services * * * ‘‘shall 

consult with the affected Indian tribe(s) 

when considering the designation of 

critical habitat in an area that may 

impact tribal trust resources, tribally 

owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal 

rights. Critical habitat shall not be 

designated in such areas unless it is 

determined essential to conserve a listed 

species.’’ Pursuant to the Secretarial 

Order and in response to written and 

oral comments provided by various 

tribes in Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho, we met and corresponded with 

many of the affected tribes concerning 

the inclusion of Indian lands in final 

critical habitat designations. These 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7842 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

discussions resulted in significant 

clarifications regarding the tribes’

general position to exclude their lands, 

as well as specific issues regarding our 

interpretation of Indian lands under the 

Secretarial Order. 

As described above (see Exclusions 

Based on Impacts to Tribes) and in our 

assessment of Indian lands associated 

with this final rulemaking (NMFS, 

2007f), we have determined that Indian 

lands should be excluded from the final 

critical habitat designations for the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. The Indian 

lands specifically excluded from critical 

habitat are those defined in the 

Secretarial Order, including: (1) Lands 

held in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) land held 

in trust by the United States for any 

Indian Tribe or individual subject to 

restrictions by the United States against 

alienation; (3) fee lands, either within or 

outside the reservation boundaries, 

owned by the tribal government; and (4) 

fee lands within the reservation 

boundaries owned by individual 

Indians. We have determined that these 

exclusions, together with the other 

exclusions described in this final rule, 

will not result in extinction of the 

species (NMFS, 2007d). 

E.O. 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. This rule may be a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866. We have determined, however, 

that the energy effects of the regulatory 

action are unlikely to exceed the energy 

impact thresholds identified in E.O. 

13211. 

The available data do not allow us to 

separate precisely these incremental 

impacts from the impacts of all 

conservation measures on energy 

production and costs. There is historical 

evidence, however, that the ESA section 

7 jeopardy standard alone is capable of 

imposing all of these costs (NMFS, 

2007j). While this evidence is indirect, 

it is sufficient to draw the conclusion 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for this one ESU does not significantly 

affect energy supply, distribution, or 

use. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, we make the 

following findings: 

(a) This final rule listing Oregon Coast 

coho and designating critical habitat 

will not produce a Federal mandate. In 

general, a Federal mandate is a 

provision in legislation, statute, or 

regulation that would impose an 

enforceable duty upon state, local, tribal 

governments, or the private sector and 

includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the state, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement). ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’

ESA listing and the designation of 

critical habitat do not impose a legally 

binding duty on non-Federal 

government entities or private parties. 

Under the ESA, the only regulatory 

effect is that Federal agencies must 

ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat under section 7. 

While non-Federal entities who receive 

Federal funding, assistance, permits or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the listing or designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid jeopardy and the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

rests squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply; nor would 

the listing or critical habitat shift the 

costs of the large entitlement programs 

listed above to state governments. 

(b) The ESA section 4(d) regulations 

prohibit any person from taking a listed 

member of the Oregon Coast coho ESU, 

except under certain circumstances. 

This prohibition applies to state and 

local government actions as well as 

private individuals. The 4(d) regulations 

prohibit certain activities, but do not 

impose an ‘‘enforceable duty’’ with 

associated costs to implement. As such, 

the 4(d) regulations are not considered 

an unfunded mandate for the purposes 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

The final threatened listing 

determination is a non-discretionary 

action and therefore is not subject to the 

requirements of E.O. 12630. In 

accordance with E.O. 12630, this final 

rule does not have significant takings 

implications. Under E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Actions undertaken by governmental 

officials that result in a physical 

invasion or occupancy of private 

property, and regulations imposed on 

private property that substantially affect 

its value or use, may constitute a taking 

of property’’ [emphasis added]. Neither 

the critical habitat designation nor 4(d) 

regulations can be expected to 

substantially affect the value or use of 

property. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. 

The designation of critical habitat 

confers the ESA section 7 protection 

against ‘‘the destruction or adverse 

modification of [critical] habitat.’’ The 

designation of critical habitat in this 

rule affects only Federal agency actions, 

and will not increase or decrease the 

current restrictions on private property 

concerning take of salmon. While it is 

possible that real estate market values 

may temporarily decline following 

designation, due to the perception that 

critical habitat designation may impose 

additional regulatory burdens on land 

use, our experience is that such impacts 

do not occur or are short lived (NMFS, 

2007d). Owners of areas that are 

included in the designated critical 

habitat will continue to have the 

opportunity to use their property in 

ways consistent with the survival of 

listed salmon. Therefore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

substantially affect the value or use of 

private property, and does not 

constitute a taking. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7843 

The adoption of ESA section 4(d) 

regulations includes a prohibition 

against ‘‘take’’ of a listed species (the 

definition of ‘‘take’’ is to ‘‘harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.’’). The take 

prohibition applies to any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States, and may be perceived as 

affecting the value or use of property. 

However, the 4(d) regulations do not 

substantially affect the value or use of 

property for the following reasons. First, 

private property is already subject to 

state and local land-use regulations. 

Second, any action on private property 

authorized, funded, or carried out by a 

Federal agency that may take listed 

species is already subject to the section 

7 ‘‘no jeopardy’’ protection by virtue of 

the listing determination. Third, our 

experience with Pacific salmonid 4(d) 

regulation since 1997 is that any 

declines in property value are either in 

perception only or short lived. Land 

owners quickly realize that the 4(d) 

regulations do not impose restrictions in 

addition to pre-existing land-use laws 

and the listing itself, or they conduct 

actions on their property in ways 

consistent with the survival of listed 

salmon by availing themselves to the 

exceptions provided under the 4(d) 

limits. 

E.O. 13132—Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any Federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific consultation directives 

for situations where a regulation will 

preempt state law, or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments (unless required by 

statute). Neither of those circumstances 

is applicable to this final rule. In fact, 

the adopted ESA section 4(d) 

regulations provide mechanisms by 

which NMFS, in the form of limits to 

take prohibitions, may defer to state and 

local governments where they provide 

adequate protections for threatened 

salmonids. 

With respect to the designation of 

critical habitat, this final rule does not 

have significant federalism effects. In 

keeping with Department of Commerce 

policies, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate state resource agencies in 

the State of Oregon. The designation 

may have some benefit to the State and 

local resource agencies in that the areas 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are more clearly defined, and 

the PCEs of the habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species are 

specifically identified. While making 

these clarifications does not alter where 

and what federally sponsored activities 

may occur, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

One commenter asserted that we 

failed to properly conduct and provide 

a Civil Justice Reform analysis pursuant 

to E.O. 12988. The Department of 

Commerce has determined that this 

final rule does not unduly burden the 

judicial system and meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the E.O. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the ESA. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the PCEs within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

References 

A list of the referenced materials is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 223 and 

226 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 1, 2008. 

Samuel Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 226 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543. 

■ 2. In § 223.102, the table heading is 

revised and paragraph (c)(24) of the 

table is added to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

Species 1

Where listed Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Citation(s) for critical 

habitat designation(s) Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(24) Oregon Coast 

Coho.

Oncorhynchus kisutch U.S.A., OR, all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal 

streams south of the Columbia River and 

north of Cape Blanco, including the Cow 

Creek (ODFW stock #37) coho hatchery 

program.

73 FR [Insert FR page 

number where the 

document begins]; 

2/11/08.

73 FR [Insert FR page 

number where the 

document begins]; 

2/11/08. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 223.203, paragraph (b)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 223.203 Anadromous fish. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) 

of this section relating to Oregon Coast 

coho salmon, listed in § 223.102(a)(24), 

do not apply to activities specified in an 

application for a permit for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the conservation 

or survival of the species, provided that 

the application has been received by the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NOAA (AA), no later than June 10, 

2008. The prohibitions of this section 

apply to these activities upon the 

Assistant Administrator’s rejection of 

the application as insufficient, upon 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7844 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

issuance or denial of a permit, or March 

31, 2009, whichever occurs earliest. 

* * * * * 

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL 

HABITAT 

■ 4. The authority citation of part 226 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533. 

■ 5. In § 226.212, the section’s heading 

and introductory text are revised and 

paragraphs (a)(13) and (u) are added to 

read as follows: 

§ 226.212 Critical habitat for 13 

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of 

salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) 

in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. 

Critical habitat is designated in the 

following states and counties for the 

following ESUs as described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, and as 

further described in paragraphs (b) 

through (g) of this section. The textual 

descriptions of critical habitat for each 

ESU are included in paragraphs (i) 

through (u) of this section, and these 

descriptions are the definitive source for 

determining the critical habitat 

boundaries. General location maps are 

provided at the end of each ESU 

description (paragraphs (i) through (u) 

of this section) and are provided for 

general guidance purposes only, and not 

as a definitive source for determining 

critical habitat boundaries. 

(a) * * * 

ESU State—Counties 

* * * * * * * 

(13) Oregon Coast coho salmon .............................................................. OR—Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Oregon 

Lincoln, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill. 

* * * * * 

(u) Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical habitat 

is designated to include the areas 

defined in the following subbasins: 

(1) Necanicum Subbasin 17100201—

Necanicum River Watershed 

1710020101. Outlet(s) = Arch Cape 

Creek (Lat 45.8035, Long¥123.9656); 

Asbury Creek (45.815,¥123.9624); 

Ecola Creek (45.8959,¥123.9649); 

Necanicum River (46.0113,¥123.9264); 

Short Sand Creek (45.7595,¥123.9641) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arch Cape 

Creek (45.8044,¥123.9404); Asbury 

Creek (45.8150,¥123.9584); Beerman 

Creek (45.9557,¥123.8749); Bergsvik 

Creek (45.8704,¥123.7650); Brandis 

Creek (45.8894,¥123.8529); Charlie 

Creek (45.9164,¥123.7606); Circle 

Creek (45.9248,¥123.9436); Circle 

Creek Trib A (45.9335,¥123.9457); 

North Fork Ecola Creek 

(45.8705,¥123.9070); West Fork Ecola 

Creek (45.8565,¥123.9424); Grindy 

Creek (45.9179,¥123.7390); Hawley 

Creek (45.9259,¥123.8864); Joe Creek 

(45.8747,¥123.7503); Johnson Creek 

(45.8885,¥123.8816); Klootchie Creek 

(45.9450,¥123.8413); Klootchie Creek 

Trib A (45.9250,¥123.8447); Lindsley 

Creek (45.9198,¥123.8339); Little 

Humbug Creek (45.9235,¥123.7653); 

Little Joe Creek (45.8781,¥123.7852); 

Little Muddy Creek 

(45.9551,¥123.9559); Mail Creek 

(45.8887,¥123.8655); Meyer Creek 

(45.9279,¥123.9135); Mill Creek 

(46.0245,¥123.8905); Mill Creek Trib 1 

(46.0142,¥123.8967); Neacoxie Creek 

(46.0245,¥123.9157); Neawanna Creek 

(45.9810,¥123.8809); Necanicum River 

(45.9197,¥123.7106); North Fork 

Necanicum River (45.9308,¥123.7986); 

North Fork Necanicum River Trib A 

(45.9398,¥123.8109); South Fork 

Necanicum River (45.8760,¥123.8122); 

Shangrila Creek (45.9706,¥123.8778); 

Short Sand Creek (45.7763,¥123.9406); 

Thompson Creek (46.0108,¥123.8951); 

Tolovana Creek (45.8581,¥123.9370); 

Unnamed (45.8648,¥123.9371); 

Unnamed (45.8821,¥123.9318); 

Unnamed (45.8881,¥123.7436); 

Unnamed (45.8883,¥123.9366); 

Unnamed (45.8906,¥123.7460); 

Unnamed (45.8912,¥123.9433); 

Unnamed (45.8950,¥123.8715); 

Unnamed (45.9026,¥123.9540); 

Unnamed (45.9046,¥123.9578); 

Unnamed (45.9050,¥123.9585); 

Unnamed (45.9143,¥123.8656); 

Unnamed (45.9161,¥123.9000); 

Unnamed (45.9210,¥123.8668); 

Unnamed (45.9273,¥123.8499); 

Unnamed (45.9292,¥123.8900); 

Unnamed (45.9443,¥123.9038); 

Unnamed (45.9850,¥123.8999); 

Unnamed (46.0018,¥123.8998); Volmer 

Creek (45.9049,¥123.9139); Warner 

Creek (45.8887,¥123.7801); Williamson 

Creek (45.9522,¥123.9060). 

(2) Nehalem Subbasin 17100202—(i) 

Upper Nehalem River Watershed 

1710020201. Outlet(s) = Nehalem River 

(Lat 45.9019, Long ¥123.1442) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(45.7781,¥123.4252); Bear Creek 

(45.8556,¥123.2205); Beaver Creek 

(45.7624,¥123.2073); Beaver Creek Trib 

A (45.8071,¥123.2143); Beaver Creek 

Trib B (45.7711,¥123.2318); Carlson 

Creek (45.7173,¥123.3425); Castor 

Creek (45.7103,¥123.2698); Cedar 

Creek (45.8528,¥123.2928); Clear 

Creek, Lower North Fork 

(45.8229,¥123.3111); Clear Creek 

(45.8239,¥123.3531); Coal Creek Trib B 

(45.8149,¥123.1174); Coal Creek 

(45.7978,¥123.1293); Coon Creek 

(45.8211,¥123.1446); Dell Creek 

(45.7919,¥123.1559); Derby Creek 

(45.7225,¥123.3857); Dog Creek 

(45.8957,¥123.0741); Elk Creek 

(45.8256,¥123.1290); Fall Creek 

(45.8626,¥123.3247); Ginger Creek 

(45.8520,¥123.3511); Ivy Creek 

(45.8938,¥123.3160); Jim George Creek 

(45.8009,¥123.1041); Kenusky Creek 

(45.8859,¥123.0422); Kist Creek 

(45.7826,¥123.2507); Lousignont Creek 

(45.7424,¥123.3722); Lousignont Creek, 

North Fork (45.7463,¥123.3576); 

Martin Creek (45.8474,¥123.4025); 

Maynard Creek (45.8556,¥123.3038); 

Military Creek (45.8233,¥123.4812); 

Nehalem River (45.7269,¥123.4159); 

Nehalem River, East Fork 

(45.8324,¥123.0502); Olson Creek 

(45.8129,¥123.3853); Pebble Creek 

(45.7661,¥123.1357); Pebble Creek, 

West Fork (45.7664,¥123.1899); 

Robinson Creek (45.7363,¥123.2512); 

Rock Creek (45.8135,¥123.5201); Rock 

Creek, North Fork (45.8616,¥123.4560); 

Rock Creek, South Fork 

(45.7598,¥123.4249); Rock Creek Trib C 

(45.7957,¥123.4882); South Fork Rock 

Creek Trib A (45.7753,¥123.4586); 

South Fork Nehalem River 

(45.7073,¥123.4017); Selder Creek 

(45.8975,¥123.3806); South Fork Clear 

Creek (45.8141,¥123.3484); South 

Prong Clear Creek (45.7832,¥123.2975); 

Step Creek (45.6824,¥123.3348); 

Swamp Creek (45.8217,¥123.2004); 

Unnamed (45.7270,¥123.3419); 

Unnamed (45.8095,¥123.0908); 

Unnamed (45.7558,¥123.2630); 

Unnamed (45.7938,¥123.3847); 

Unnamed (45.7943,¥123.4059); 

Unnamed (45.8197,¥123.0679); 

Unnamed (45.8477,¥123.0734); 

Unnamed (45.8817,¥123.1266); 

Unnamed (45.8890,¥123.3817); 

Unnamed (45.9019,¥123.1346); Weed 

Creek (45.8707,¥123.4049); Wolf Creek, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7845 

South Fork (45.7989,¥123.4028); Wolf 

Creek (45.7768,¥123.3556). 

(ii) Middle Nehalem River Watershed 

1710020202. Outlet(s) = Nehalem River 

(Lat 45.9838, Long ¥123.4214) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Adams 

Creek (46.0263,¥123.2869); Archibald 

Creek (45.9218,¥123.0829); Beaver 

Creek (46.0554,¥123.2985); Boxler 

Creek (46.0486,¥123.3521); Calvin 

Creek (45.9514,¥123.2976); Cedar 

Creek (45.9752,¥123.1143); Cook Creek 

(45.9212,¥123.1087); Cow Creek 

(46.0500,¥123.4326); Crooked Creek 

(45.9043,¥123.2689); Deep Creek 

(45.9461,¥123.3719); Deep Creek Trib 

A (45.9127,¥123.3794); Deep Creek 

Trib B (45.9314,¥123.3809); Deer Creek 

(45.9033,¥123.3142); Eastman Creek 

(46.0100,¥123.2262); Fall Creek 

(45.9438,¥123.2012); Fishhawk Creek 

(46.0596,¥123.3857); Fishhawk Creek, 

North Fork (46.0907,¥123.3675); 

Fishhawk Creek, Trib C 

(46.0808,¥123.3692); Ford Creek 

(46.0570,¥123.2872); Gus Creek 

(45.9828,¥123.1453); Johnson Creek 

(46.0021,¥123.2133); Lane Creek 

(45.9448,¥123.3253); Little Deer Creek 

(45.9378,¥123.2780); Lousignont Creek 

(46.0342,¥123.4186); Lundgren Creek 

(46.0240,¥123.2092); McCoon Creek 

(46.0665,¥123.3043); Messing Creek 

(46.0339,¥123.2260); Nehalem River 

(45.9019,¥123.1442); Northrup Creek 

(46.0672,¥123.4377); Oak Ranch Creek 

(45.9085,¥123.0834); Sager Creek 

(45.9388,¥123.4020); Unnamed 

(45.9039,¥123.2044); Unnamed 

(45.9067,¥123.0595); Unnamed 

(45.9488,¥123.2220); Unnamed 

(45.9629,¥123.3845); Unnamed 

(45.9999,¥123.1732); Unnamed 

(46.0088,¥123.4508); Unnamed 

(46.0208,¥123.4588); Unnamed 

(46.0236,¥123.2381); Unnamed 

(46.0308,¥123.3135); Unnamed 

(46.0325,¥123.4650); Unnamed 

(46.0390,¥123.3648); Unnamed 

(46.0776,¥123.3274); Unnamed 

(46.0792,¥123.3409); Unnamed 

(46.0345,¥123.2956); Warner Creek 

(46.0312,¥123.3817); Wrong Way Creek 

(46.0789,¥123.3142). 

(iii) Lower Nehalem River Watershed 

1710020203. Outlet(s) = Nehalem River 

(Lat 45.7507, Long ¥123.6530) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(45.9069,¥123.5907); Beaver Creek 

(45.8949,¥123.6764); Big Creek 

(45.8655,¥123.6476); Bull Heifer Creek 

(45.9908,¥123.5322); Buster Creek 

(45.9306,¥123.4165); Cedar Creek 

(45.8931,¥123.6029); Cow Creek 

(45.8587,¥123.5206); Crawford Creek 

(45.9699,¥123.4725); Cronin Creek, 

Middle Fork (45.7719,¥123.5747); 

Cronin Creek, North Fork 

(45.7795,¥123.6064); Cronin Creek, 

South Fork (45.7456,¥123.5596); 

Destruction Creek (45.8750,¥123.6571); 

East Humbug Creek 

(45.9454,¥123.6358); Fishhawk Creek 

(45.9666,¥123.5895); Fishhawk Creek 

(46.0224,¥123.5374); George Creek 

(45.8461,¥123.6226); George Creek 

(45.9118,¥123.5766); Gilmore Creek 

(45.9609,¥123.5372); Hamilton Creek 

(46.0034,¥123.5881); Klines Creek 

(45.8703,¥123.4908); Larsen Creek 

(45.8757,¥123.5847); Little Fishhawk 

Creek (45.9256,¥123.5501); Little Rock 

Creek (45.8886,¥123.4558); McClure 

Creek (45.8560,¥123.6227); Moores 

Creek (45.8801,¥123.5178); Nehalem 

River (45.9838,¥123.4214); Quartz 

Creek (45.8414,¥123.5184); Spruce Run 

Creek (45.8103,¥123.6028); Squaw 

Creek (45.9814,¥123.4529); Stanley 

Creek (45.8861,¥123.4352); Strum 

Creek (45.9321,¥123.4275); Trailover 

Creek (46.0129,¥123.4976); Unnamed 

(45.8083,¥123.6280); Unnamed 

(45.8682,¥123.6168); Unnamed 

(45.9078,¥123.6630); Unnamed 

(45.9207,¥123.4534); Unnamed 

(45.9405,¥123.6338); Unnamed 

(45.9725,¥123.5544); West Humbug 

Creek (45.9402,¥123.6726); Walker 

Creek (45.9266,¥123.4423); Walker 

Creek (46.0391,¥123.5142); West Brook 

(45.9757,¥123.4638). 

(iv) Salmonberry River Watershed 

1710020204. Outlet(s) = Salmonberry 

River (Lat 45.7507, Long ¥123.6530) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Pennoyer 

Creek (45.7190,¥123.4366); 

Salmonberry River 

(45.7248,¥123.4436); Salmonberry 

River, North Fork (45.7181,¥123.5204); 

Wolf Creek (45.6956,¥123.4485). 

(v) North Fork of Nehalem River 

Watershed 1710020205. Outlet(s) = 

Nehalem River, North Fork (Lat 45.7317, 

Long ¥123.8765) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Acey Creek 

(45.7823,¥123.8292); Anderson Creek 

(45.7643,¥123.9073); Big Rackheap 

Creek (45.7546,¥123.8145); Boykin 

Creek (45.8030,¥123.8595); Buchanan 

Creek (45.8270,¥123.7901); Coal Creek 

(45.7897,¥123.8676); Coal Creek, West 

Fork (45.7753,¥123.8871); Cougar 

Creek (45.8064,¥123.8090); Fall Creek 

(45.7842,¥123.8547); Fall Creek 

(45.8226,¥123.7054); Gods Valley 

Creek (45.7689,¥123.7793); Grassy Lake 

Creek (45.7988,¥123.8193); Gravel 

Creek (45.7361,¥123.8126); Henderson 

Creek (45.7932,¥123.8548); Jack Horner 

Creek (45.8531,¥123.7837); Lost Creek 

(45.7909,¥123.7195); Nehalem River, 

Little North Fork (45.9101,¥123.6972); 

Nehalem River, North Fork 

(45.8623,¥123.7463); Nehalem River, 

North Fork, Trib R 

(45.8287,¥123.6625); Nehalem River, 

North Fork, Trib T 

(45.8492,¥123.6796); Rackheap Creek 

(45.7677,¥123.8008); Sally Creek 

(45.8294,¥123.7468); Soapstone Creek 

(45.8498,¥123.7469); Soapstone Creek, 

Trib A (45.8591,¥123.7616); 

Sweethome Creek (45.7699,¥123.6616); 

Unnamed (45.7457,¥123.8490); 

Unnamed (45.7716,¥123.7691); 

Unnamed (45.7730,¥123.7789); 

Unnamed (45.7736,¥123.7607); 

Unnamed (45.7738,¥123.7534); 

Unnamed (45.7780,¥123.7434); 

Unnamed (45.7784,¥123.7742); 

Unnamed (45.7794,¥123.7315); 

Unnamed (45.7824,¥123.7396); 

Unnamed (45.7833,¥123.7680); 

Unnamed (45.7841,¥123.7299); 

Unnamed (45.7858,¥123.7660); 

Unnamed (45.7898,¥123.7424); 

Unnamed (45.7946,¥123.7365); 

Unnamed (45.7966,¥123.7953); 

Unnamed (45.8008,¥123.7349); 

Unnamed (45.8193,¥123.7436); 

Unnamed (45.8322,¥123.7789); 

Unnamed (45.8359,¥123.7766); 

Unnamed (45.8569,¥123.7235); 

Unnamed (45.8629,¥123.7347); 

Unnamed (45.8662,¥123.7444); 

Unnamed (45.8962,¥123.7189). 

(vi) Lower Nehalem River/Cook Creek 

Watershed 1710020206. Outlet(s) = 

Nehalem River (Lat 45.6577, Long 

¥123.9355) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Alder Creek (45.7286,¥123.9091); 

Anderson Creek (45.6711,¥123.7470); 

Bastard Creek (45.7667,¥123.6943); 

Bob’s Creek (45.7444,¥123.9038); Cook 

Creek (45.6939,¥123.6146); Cook Creek, 

East Fork (45.6705,¥123.6440); Daniels 

Creek (45.6716,¥123.8606); Dry Creek 

(45.6449,¥123.8507); Dry Creek 

(45.6985,¥123.7422); East Foley Creek 

(45.6621,¥123.8068); Fall Creek 

(45.7489,¥123.7778); Foley Creek 

(45.6436,¥123.8933); Gallagher Slough 

(45.7140,¥123.8657); Hanson Creek 

(45.6611,¥123.7179); Harliss Creek 

(45.6851,¥123.7249); Helloff Creek 

(45.7545,¥123.7603); Hoevett Creek 

(45.6894,¥123.6276); Jetty Creek 

(45.6615,¥123.9103); Lost Creek 

(45.7216,¥123.7164); Neahkahnie Creek 

(45.7197,¥123.9247); Nehalem River 

(45.7507,¥123.6530); Peterson Creek 

(45.6975,¥123.8098); Piatt Canyon 

(45.6844,¥123.6983); Roy Creek 

(45.7174,¥123.8038); Snark Creek 

(45.7559,¥123.6713); Unnamed 

(45.6336,¥123.8549); Unnamed 

(45.6454,¥123.8663); Unnamed 

(45.6483,¥123.8605); Unnamed 

(45.6814,¥123.8786); Unnamed 

(45.7231,¥123.9016). 

(3) Wilson/Trask/Nestucca Subbasin 

17100203—(i) Little Nestucca River 

Watershed 1710020301. Outlet(s) = 

Little Nestucca River (Lat 45.1827, Long 

¥123.9543) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Austin Creek (45.1080,¥123.8748); 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7846 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Austin Creek, West Fork 

(45.1074,¥123.8894); Baxter Creek 

(45.1149,¥123.7705); Bear Creek 

(45.1310,¥123.8500); Bowers Creek 

(45.1393,¥123.9198); Cedar Creek 

(45.0971,¥123.8094); Fall Creek 

(45.1474,¥123.8767); Hiack Creek 

(45.0759,¥123.8042); Kautz Creek 

(45.0776,¥123.8317); Kellow Creek 

(45.1271,¥123.9072); Little Nestucca 

River (45.0730,¥123.7825); Little 

Nestucca River, South Fork 

(45.0754,¥123.8393); Louie Creek 

(45.1277,¥123.7869); McKnight Creek 

(45.1124,¥123.8363); Small Creek 

(45.1151,¥123.8227); Sourgrass Creek 

(45.0917,¥123.7623); Sourgrass Creek, 

Trib A (45.1109,¥123.7664); Squaw 

Creek (45.1169,¥123.8938); Stillwell 

Creek (45.0919,¥123.8141); Unnamed 

(45.1169,¥123.7974). 

(ii) Nestucca River Watershed 

1710020302. Outlet(s) = Nestucca Bay 

(Lat 45.1607, Long ¥123.9678) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(45.1436,¥123.7998); Alder Creek 

(45.2436,¥123.7364); Bays Creek 

(45.3197,¥123.7240); Bear Creek 

(45.3188,¥123.6022); Bear Creek 

(45.3345,¥123.7898); Beulah Creek 

(45.2074,¥123.6747); Bible Creek 

(45.2331,¥123.5868); Boulder Creek 

(45.2530,¥123.7525); Buck Creek 

(45.1455,¥123.7734); Cedar Creek 

(45.3288,¥123.4531); Clarence Creek 

(45.2649,¥123.6395); Clear Creek 

(45.1725,¥123.8660); Crazy Creek 

(45.1636,¥123.7595); Dahl Fork 

(45.2306,¥123.7076); East Beaver Creek 

(45.3579,¥123.6877); East Creek 

(45.3134,¥123.6348); Elk Creek 

(45.3134,¥123.5645); Elk Creek, Trib A 

(45.2926,¥123.5381); Elk Creek, Trib B 

(45.2981,¥123.5471); Fan Creek 

(45.2975,¥123.4994); Farmer Creek 

(45.2593,¥123.9074); Foland Creek 

(45.2508,¥123.7890); Foland Creek, 

West Fork (45.2519,¥123.8025); George 

Creek (45.2329,¥123.8291); Ginger 

Creek (45.3283,¥123.4680); Hartney 

Creek (45.2192,¥123.8632); Horn Creek 

(45.2556,¥123.9212); Lawrence Creek 

(45.1861,¥123.7852); Limestone Creek 

(45.2472,¥123.7169); Mina Creek 

(45.2444,¥123.6197); Moon Creek 

(45.3293,¥123.6762); North Beaver 

Creek (45.3497,¥123.8961); Nestucca 

River (45.3093,¥123.4077); Niagara 

Creek (45.1898,¥123.6637); Pheasant 

Creek (45.2121,¥123.6366); Pollard 

Creek (45.1951,¥123.7958); Powder 

Creek (45.2305,¥123.6974); Saling 

Creek (45.2691,¥123.8474); Sanders 

Creek (45.2254,¥123.8959); Slick Rock 

Creek (45.2683,¥123.6106); Swab Creek 

(45.2889,¥123.7656); Testament Creek 

(45.2513,¥123.5488); Three Rivers 

(45.1785,¥123.7557); Tiger Creek 

(45.3405,¥123.8029); Tiger Creek, Trib 

A (45.3346,¥123.8547); Tony Creek 

(45.2575,¥123.7735); Turpy Creek 

(45.2537,¥123.7620); Unnamed 

(45.1924,¥123.8202); Unnamed 

(45.2290,¥123.9398); Unnamed 

(45.3018,¥123.4636); Unnamed 

(45.3102,¥123.6628); Unnamed 

(45.3148,¥123.6616); Unnamed 

(45.3158,¥123.8679); Unnamed 

(45.3292,¥123.8872); Walker Creek 

(45.2914,¥123.4207); West Beaver 

Creek (45.3109,¥123.8840); West Creek 

(45.2899,¥123.8514); Wildcat Creek 

(45.3164,¥123.8187); Wolfe Creek 

(45.3113,¥123.7658); Woods Creek 

(45.1691,¥123.8070). 

(iii) Tillamook River Watershed 

1710020303. Outlet(s) = Tillamook 

River (Lat 45.4682, Long ¥123.8802) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(45.4213,¥123.8885); Beaver Creek 

(45.4032,¥123.8861); Bewley Creek 

(45.3637,¥123.8965); Esther Creek 

(45.4464,¥123.9017); Fawcett Creek 

(45.3824,¥123.7210); Joe Creek 

(45.3754,¥123.8257); Killam Creek 

(45.4087,¥123.7276); Mills Creek 

(45.3461,¥123.7915); Munson Creek 

(45.3626,¥123.7681); Simmons Creek 

(45.3605,¥123.7364); Sutton Creek 

(45.4049,¥123.8568); Tillamook River 

(45.3595,¥123.9115); Tomlinson Creek 

(45.4587,¥123.8868); Unnamed 

(45.3660,¥123.8313); Unnamed 

(45.3602,¥123.8466); Unnamed 

(45.3654,¥123.9050); Unnamed 

(45.3987,¥123.7105); Unnamed 

(45.4083,¥123.8160); Unnamed 

(45.4478,¥123.8670); Unnamed 

(45.3950,¥123.7348). 

(iv) Trask River Watershed 

1710020304. Outlet(s) = Trask River (Lat 

45.4682, Long ¥123.8802) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Bales Creek 

(45.3712,¥123.5786); Bark Shanty 

Creek (45.4232,¥123.5550); Bear Creek 

(45.4192,¥123.7408); Bill Creek 

(45.3713,¥123.6386); Blue Bus Creek 

(45.4148,¥123.5949); Boundry Creek 

(45.3493,¥123.5470); Clear Creek #1 

(45.4638,¥123.5571); Clear Creek #2 

(45.5025,¥123.4683); Cruiser Creek 

(45.4201,¥123.4753); Dougherty Slough 

(45.4684,¥123.7888); East Fork of 

South Fork Trask River 

(45.3563,¥123.4752); Edwards Creek 

(45.3832,¥123.6676); Elkhorn Creek, 

Trib C (45.4080,¥123.4440); Elkhorn 

Creek (45.3928,¥123.4709); Gold Creek 

(45.4326,¥123.7218); Green Creek 

(45.4510,¥123.7361); Hatchery Creek 

(45.4485,¥123.6623); Headquarters 

Camp Creek (45.3317,¥123.5072); 

Hoquarten Slough (45.4597,¥123.8480); 

Joyce Creek (45.3881,¥123.6386); 

Michael Creek (45.4799,¥123.5119); 

Mill Creek (45.4100,¥123.7450); Miller 

Creek (45.3582,¥123.5666); Pigeon 

Creek (45.3910,¥123.5656); Rawe Creek 

(45.4395,¥123.6351); Rock Creek 

(45.3515,¥123.5074); Samson Creek 

(45.4662,¥123.6439); Scotch Creek 

(45.4015,¥123.5873); Steampot Creek 

(45.3875,¥123.5425); Stretch Creek 

(45.3483,¥123.5382); Summit Creek 

(45.3481,¥123.6054); Summit Creek, 

South Fork (45.3473,¥123.6145); Trask 

River, North Fork, Middle Fork 

(45.4472,¥123.3945); Trask River, 

North Fork, North Fork 

(45.5275,¥123.4177); Trask River, 

South Fork (45.3538,¥123.6445); Trib A 

(45.3766,¥123.5191); Trib B 

(45.3776,¥123.4988); Unnamed 

(45.3639,¥123.6054); Unnamed 

(45.4105,¥123.7741); Unnamed 

(45.4201,¥123.6320); Unnamed 

(45.4220,¥123.7654). 

(v) Wilson River Watershed 

1710020305. Outlet(s) = Wilson River 

(Lat 45.4816, Long ¥123.8708) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver 

Creek (45.4894,¥123.7933); Ben Smith 

Creek (45.5772,¥123.5072); Cedar 

Creek (45.5869,¥123.6228); Cedar 

Creek, North Fork (45.6066,¥123.6151); 

Deo Creek (45.6000,¥123.3716); Drift 

Creek (45.6466,¥123.3944); Elk Creek 

(45.6550,¥123.4620); Elk Creek, West 

Fork (45.6208,¥123.4717); Elliott Creek 

(45.5997,¥123.3925); Fall Creek 

(45.4936,¥123.5616); Fox Creek 

(45.5102,¥123.5869); Hatchery Creek 

(45.4835,¥123.7074); Hughey Creek 

(45.4540,¥123.7526); Idiot Creek 

(45.6252,¥123.4296); Jones Creek 

(45.6028,¥123.5702); Jordan Creek 

(45.5610,¥123.4557); Jordan Creek, 

South Fork (45.5099,¥123.5279); 

Kansas Creek (45.4861,¥123.6434); 

Morris Creek (45.6457,¥123.5409); 

Tuffy Creek (45.5787,¥123.4702); 

Unnamed (45.4809,¥123.8362); 

Unnamed (45.5758,¥123.5226); 

Unnamed (45.5942,¥123.4259); 

Unnamed (45.6002,¥123.5939); 

Unnamed (45.6151,¥123.4385); White 

Creek (45.5181,¥123.7223); Wilson 

River, Devil’s Lake Fork 

(45.6008,¥123.3301); Wilson River, 

North Fork (45.6679,¥123.5138); 

Wilson River, North Fork, Little 

(45.5283,¥123.6771); Wilson River, 

North Fork, West Fork 

(45.6330,¥123.5879); Wilson River, 

North Fork, West Fork, North Fork 

(45.6495,¥123.5779); Wilson River, 

South Fork (45.5567,¥123.3965); Wolf 

Creek (45.5683,¥123.6129). 

(vi) Kilchis River Watershed 

1710020306. Outlet(s) = Kilchis River 

(Lat 45.4927, Long ¥123.8615) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clear Creek 

(45.5000,¥123.7647); Coal Creek 

(45.5004,¥123.8085); Company Creek 

(45.5892,¥123.7370); French Creek 

(45.6318,¥123.6926); Kilchis River, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7847 

Little South Fork (45.5668,¥123.7178); 

Kilchis River, North Fork 

(45.6044,¥123.6504); Kilchis River, 

South Fork (45.5875,¥123.6944); Mapes 

Creek (45.5229,¥123.8382); Murphy 

Creek (45.5320,¥123.8341); Myrtle 

Creek (45.5296,¥123.8156); Sam Downs 

Creek (45.5533,¥123.7144); Schroeder 

Creek (45.6469,¥123.7064); Unnamed 

(45.5625,¥123.7593). 

(vii) Miami River Watershed 

1710020307. Outlet(s) = Miami River 

(Lat 45.5597, Long ¥123.8904) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Diamond 

Creek (45.6158,¥123.8184); Hobson 

Creek (45.5738,¥123.8970); 

Illingsworth Creek 

(45.5547,¥123.8693); Miami River 

(45.6362,¥123.7533); Miami River, Trib 

S (45.6182,¥123.8004); Miami River, 

Trib T (45.6546,¥123.7463); Minich 

Creek (45.5869,¥123.8936); Moss Creek 

(45.5628,¥123.8319); Peterson Creek 

(45.6123,¥123.8996); Prouty Creek 

(45.6304,¥123.8435); Stuart Creek 

(45.6042,¥123.8442); Unnamed 

(45.6317,¥123.7906); Unnamed 

(45.6341,¥123.7900); Waldron Creek 

(45.5856,¥123.8483). 

(viii) Tillamook Bay Watershed 

1710020308. Outlet(s) = Tillamook Bay 

(Lat 45.5600, Long ¥123.9366) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Douthy 

Creek (45.5277,¥123.8570); Electric 

Creek (45.5579,¥123.8925); Hall Slough 

(45.4736,¥123.8637); Jacoby Creek 

(45.5297,¥123.8665); Kilchis River 

(45.4927,¥123.8615); Larson Creek 

(45.5366,¥123.8849); Miami River 

(45.5597,¥123.8904); Patterson Creek 

(45.5359,¥123.8732); Tillamook Bay 

(45.4682,¥123.8802); Vaughn Creek 

(45.5170,¥123.8516); Wilson River 

(45.4816,¥123.8708). 

(ix) Spring Creek/Sand Lake/ 

Neskowin Creek Frontal Watershed 

1710020309. Outlet(s) = Crescent Lake 

(45.6360,¥123.9405); Neskowin Creek 

(45.1001,¥123.9859); Netarts Bay 

(45.4339,¥123.9512); Rover Creek 

(45.3290,¥123.9670); Sand Creek 

(45.2748,¥123.9589); Watesco Creek 

(45.5892,¥123.9477) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Andy Creek 

(45.2905,¥123.8744); Butte Creek 

(45.1159,¥123.9360); Crescent Lake 

(45.6320,¥123.9376); Davis Creek 

(45.3220,¥123.9254); Fall Creek 

(45.0669,¥123.9679); Hawk Creek 

(45.1104,¥123.9436); Jackson Creek 

(45.3568,¥123.9611); Jewel Creek 

(45.2865,¥123.8905); Jim Creek 

(45.0896,¥123.9224); Lewis Creek 

(45.0835,¥123.8979); Meadow Creek 

(45.0823,¥123.9824); Neskowin Creek 

(45.0574,¥123.8812); Prospect Creek 

(45.0858,¥123.9321); Reneke Creek 

(45.2594,¥123.9434); Rover Creek 

(45.3284,¥123.9438); Sand Creek 

(45.3448,¥123.9156); Sloan Creek 

(45.0718,¥123.8998); Watesco Creek 

(45.5909,¥123.9353); Whiskey Creek 

(45.3839,¥123.9193). 

(4) Siletz/Yaquina Subbasin 

17100204–(i) Upper Yaquina River 

Watershed 1710020401. Outlet(s) = 

Yaquina River (Lat 44.6219, Long 

¥123.8741) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Bales Creek (44.6893,¥123.7503); Bales 

Creek, East Fork (44.6927,¥123.7363); 

Bales Creek, East Fork, Trib A 

(44.6827,¥123.7257); Bales Creek 

(44.6610,¥123.8749); Bones Creek 

(44.6647,¥123.6762); Bryant Creek 

(44.6746,¥123.7139); Buckhorn Creek 

(44.6676,¥123.6677); Buttermilk Creek 

(44.6338,¥123.6827); Buttermilk Creek, 

Trib A (44.6518,¥123.7173); Carlisle 

Creek (44.6451,¥123.8847); Cline Creek 

(44.6084,¥123.6844); Cook Creek 

(44.6909,¥123.8583); Crystal Creek 

(44.6500,¥123.8132); Davis Creek 

(44.6500,¥123.6587); Eddy Creek 

(44.6388,¥123.7951); Felton Creek 

(44.6626,¥123.6502); Haxel Creek 

(44.6781,¥123.8046); Hayes Creek 

(44.6749,¥123.7749); Humphrey Creek 

(44.6697,¥123.6329); Klamath Creek 

(44.6927,¥123.8431); Little Elk Creek 

(44.6234,¥123.6628); Little Elk 

Creek,Trib A (44.6196,¥123.7583); 

Little Yaquina River 

(44.6822,¥123.6123); Lytle Creek 

(44.6440,¥123.5979); Miller Creek 

(44.6055,¥123.7030); Oglesby Creek 

(44.6421,¥123.7271); Oglesby Creek, 

Trib A (44.6368,¥123.7100); Peterson 

Creek (44.6559,¥123.7868); Randall 

Creek (44.6721,¥123.6570); Salmon 

Creek (44.6087,¥123.7379); Simpson 

Creek (44.6775,¥123.8780); Sloop 

Creek (44.6654,¥123.8595); Spilde 

Creek (44.6636,¥123.5856); Stony 

Creek (44.6753,¥123.7020); Thornton 

Creek (44.6923,¥123.8208); Trapp 

Creek (44.6455,¥123.8307); 

Twentythree Creek 

(44.6887,¥123.8751); Unnamed 

(44.6074,¥123.6738); Unnamed 

(44.6076,¥123.7067); Unnamed 

(44.6077,¥123.6633); Unnamed 

(44.6123,¥123.6646); Unnamed 

(44.6188,¥123.7237); Unnamed 

(44.6202,¥123.7201); Unnamed 

(44.6367,¥123.7444); Unnamed 

(44.6415,¥123.6237); Unnamed 

(44.6472,¥123.7793); Unnamed 

(44.6493,¥123.6789); Unnamed 

(44.6707,¥123.7908); Unnamed 

(44.6715,¥123.6907); Unnamed 

(44.6881,¥123.6089); Unnamed 

(44.6908,¥123.7298); Wakefield Creek 

(44.6336,¥123.6963); Yaquina River 

(44.6894,¥123.5907); Young Creek 

(44.6372,¥123.6027). 

(ii) Big Elk Creek Watershed 

1710020402. Outlet(s) = Elk Creek (Lat 

44.6219, Long ¥123.8741) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Adams Creek 

(44.5206,¥123.6349); Baker Creek 

(44.5230,¥123.6346); Bear Creek 

(44.5966,¥123.8299); Beaver Creek 

(44.6040,¥123.7999); Beaverdam Creek 

(44.5083,¥123.6337); Bevens Creek 

(44.5635,¥123.7371); Bull Creek 

(44.5408,¥123.8162); Bull Creek 

(44.5431,¥123.8142); Bull Creek, Trib A 

(44.5359,¥123.8276); Cougar Creek 

(44.5070,¥123.6482); Cougar Creek 

(44.5861,¥123.7563); Deer Creek 

(44.6020,¥123.7667); Devils Well Creek 

(44.6324,¥123.8438); Dixon Creek 

(44.6041,¥123.8659); Elk Creek 

(44.5075,¥123.6022); Feagles Creek 

(44.4880,¥123.7180); Feagles Creek, 

Trib B (44.5079,¥123.6909); Feagles 

Creek, West Fork (44.5083,¥123.7117); 

Grant Creek (44.5010,¥123.7363); 

Harve Creek (44.5725,¥123.8025); 

Jackass Creek (44.5443,¥123.7790); 

Johnson Creek (44.5466,¥123.6336); 

Lake Creek (44.5587,¥123.6826); 

Leverage Creek (44.5536,¥123.6343); 

Little Creek (44.5548,¥123.6980); Little 

Wolf Creek (44.5590,¥123.7165); 

Peterson Creek (44.5576,¥123.6450); 

Rail Creek (44.5135,¥123.6639); Spout 

Creek (44.5824,¥123.6561); Sugarbowl 

Creek (44.5301,¥123.5995); Unnamed 

(44.5048,¥123.7566); Unnamed 

(44.5085,¥123.6309); Unnamed 

(44.5108,¥123.6249); Unnamed 

(44.5144,¥123.6554); Unnamed 

(44.5204,¥123.6148); Unnamed 

(44.5231,¥123.6714); Unnamed 

(44.5256,¥123.6804); Unnamed 

(44.5325,¥123.7244); Unnamed 

(44.5332,¥123.7211); Unnamed 

(44.5361,¥123.7139); Unnamed 

(44.5370,¥123.7643); Unnamed 

(44.5376,¥123.6176); Unnamed 

(44.5410,¥123.8213); Unnamed 

(44.5504,¥123.8290); Unnamed 

(44.5530,¥123.8282); Unnamed 

(44.5618,¥123.8431); Unnamed 

(44.5687,¥123.8563); Unnamed 

(44.5718,¥123.7256); Unnamed 

(44.5734,¥123.6696); Unnamed 

(44.5737,¥123.6566); Unnamed 

(44.5771,¥123.7027); Unnamed 

(44.5821,¥123.8123); Unnamed 

(44.5840,¥123.6678); Unnamed 

(44.5906,¥123.7871); Unnamed 

(44.5990,¥123.7808); Unnamed 

(44.5865,¥123.8521); Wolf Creek 

(44.5873,¥123.6939); Wolf Creek, Trib 

A (44.5862,¥123.7188); Wolf Creek, 

Trib B (44.5847,¥123.7062). 

(iii) Lower Yaquina River Watershed 

1710020403. Outlet(s) = Yaquina River 

(Lat 44.6098, Long ¥124.0818) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Abbey Creek 

(44.6330,¥123.8881); Babcock Creek 

(44.5873,¥123.9221); Beaver Creek 

(44.6717,¥123.9799); Blue Creek 

(44.6141,¥123.9936); Boone Slough, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7848 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Trib A (44.6134,¥123.9769); Depot 

Creek, Little (44.6935,¥123.9482); 

Depot Creek, Trib A 

(44.6837,¥123.9420); Drake Creek 

(44.6974,¥123.9690); East Fork Mill 

Creek (44.5691,¥123.8834); Flesher 

Slough (44.5668,¥123.9803); King 

Slough (44.5944,¥124.0323); Little 

Beaver Creek (44.6531,¥123.9728); 

McCaffery Slough (44.5659,¥124.0180); 

Mill Creek (44.5550,¥123.9064); Mill 

Creek, Trib A (44.5828,¥123.8750); 

Montgomery Creek 

(44.5796,¥123.9286); Nute Slough 

(44.6075,¥123.9660); Olalla Creek 

(44.6810,¥123.8972); Olalla Creek, Trib 

A (44.6511,¥123.9034); Parker Slough 

(44.5889,¥124.0119); Unnamed 

(44.5471,¥123.9557); Unnamed 

(44.5485,¥123.9308); Unnamed 

(44.5520,¥123.9433); Unnamed 

(44.5528,¥123.9695); Unnamed 

(44.5552,¥123.9294); Unnamed 

(44.5619,¥123.9348); Unnamed 

(44.5662,¥123.8905); Unnamed 

(44.5827,¥123.9456); Unnamed 

(44.5877,¥123.8850); Unnamed 

(44.6444,¥123.9059); Unnamed 

(44.6457,¥123.9996); Unnamed 

(44.6530,¥123.9914); Unnamed 

(44.6581,¥123.8947); Unnamed 

(44.6727¥123.8942); Unnamed 

(44.6831,¥123.9940); West Olalla Creek 

(44.6812,¥123.9299); West Olalla 

Creek, Trib A (44.6649,¥123.9204); 

Wessel Creek (44.6988,¥123.9863); 

Wright Creek (44.5506,¥123.9250); 

Wright Creek, Trib A 

(44.5658,¥123.9422); Yaquina River 

(44.6219,¥123.8741). 

(iv) Middle Siletz River Watershed 

1710020405. Outlet(s) = Siletz River (Lat 

44.7375, Long ¥123.7917) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Buck Creek, East Fork 

(44.8410,¥123.7970); Buck Creek, 

South Fork (44.8233,¥123.8095); Buck 

Creek, West Fork (44.8352,¥123.8084); 

Cerine Creek (44.7478,¥123.7198); Deer 

Creek (44.8245,¥123.7268); Deer Creek, 

Trib A (44.8178,¥123.7397); Elk Creek 

(44.8704,¥123.7668); Fourth of July 

Creek (44.8203,¥123.6810); Gunn Creek 

(44.7816,¥123.7679); Holman River 

(44.8412,¥123.7707); Mill Creek, North 

Fork (44.7769,¥123.7361); Mill Creek, 

South Fork (44.7554,¥123.7276); 

Palmer Creek (44.7936,¥123.8344); 

Siletz River (44.8629,¥123.7323); 

Sunshine Creek (44.7977,¥123.6963); 

Unnamed (44.7691,¥123.7851); 

Unnamed (44.7747,¥123.7740); 

Unnamed (44.7749,¥123.7662); 

Unnamed (44.8118,¥123.6926); 

Unnamed (44.8188,¥123.6995); 

Unnamed (44.8312,¥123.6983); 

Unnamed (44.8583,¥123.7573); 

Whiskey Creek (44.8123,¥123.6937). 

(v) Rock Creek/Siletz River Watershed 

1710020406. Outlet(s) = Rock Creek (Lat 

44.7375, Long ¥123.7917) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek 

(44.7288,¥123.6773); Big Rock Creek 

(44.7636,¥123.6969); Brush Creek 

(44.6829,¥123.6582); Cedar Creek 

(44.7366,¥123.6586); Fisher Creek 

(44.7149,¥123.6359); Little Rock Creek 

(44.7164,¥123.6155); Little Steere 

Creek (44.7219,¥123.6368); Rock Creek, 

Trib A (44.7414,¥123.7508); Steere 

Creek (44.7336,¥123.6313); Unnamed 

(44.7175,¥123.6496); William Creek 

(44.7391,¥123.7277). 

(vi) Lower Siletz River Watershed 

1710020407. Outlet(s) = Siletz Bay (Lat 

44.9269, Long ¥124.0218) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Anderson Creek 

(44.9311,¥123.9508); Bear Creek 

(44.8682,¥123.8891); Bentilla Creek 

(44.7745,¥123.8555); Butterfield Creek 

(44.8587,¥123.9993); Cedar Creek 

(44.8653,¥123.8488); Cedar Creek, Trib 

D (44.8606,¥123.8696); Coon Creek 

(44.7959,¥123.8468); Dewey Creek 

(44.7255,¥123.9724); Drift Creek 

(44.9385,¥123.8211); Erickson Creek 

(44.9629,¥123.9490); Euchre Creek 

(44.8023,¥123.8687); Fowler Creek 

(44.9271,¥123.8440); Gordey Creek 

(44.9114,¥123.9724); Hough Creek 

(44.8052,¥123.8991); Jaybird Creek 

(44.7640,¥123.9733); Long Prairie 

Creek (44.6970,¥123.7499); Long Tom 

Creek (44.7037,¥123.8533); Mann 

Creek (44.6987,¥123.8025); Mill Creek 

(44.6949,¥123.8967); Miller Creek 

(44.7487,¥123.9733); North Creek 

(44.9279,¥123.8908); North Roy Creek 

(44.7916,¥123.9897); Ojalla Creek 

(44.7489,¥123.9427); Quarry Creek 

(44.8989,¥123.9360); Reed Creek 

(44.8020,¥123.8835); Reed Creek 

(44.8475,¥123.9267); Roots Creek 

(44.8300,¥123.9351); South Roy Creek 

(44.7773,¥123.9847); Sam Creek 

(44.7086,¥123.7312); Sampson Creek 

(44.9089,¥123.8173); Savage Creek 

(44.8021,¥123.8608); Scare Creek 

(44.8246,¥123.9954); Schooner Creek, 

North Fork (44.9661,¥123.8793); 

Schooner Creek, South Fork 

(44.9401,¥123.8689); Scott Creek 

(44.7414,¥123.8268); Sijota Creek 

(44.8883,¥124.0257); Siletz River 

(44.7375,¥123.7917); Skunk Creek 

(44.8780,¥123.9073); Smith Creek 

(44.9294,¥123.8056); Stemple Creek 

(44.8405,¥123.9492); Tangerman Creek 

(44.7278,¥123.8944); Thayer Creek 

(44.7023,¥123.8256); Thompson Creek 

(44.7520,¥123.8893); Unnamed 

(44.7003,¥123.7669); Unnamed 

(44.8904,¥123.8034); Unnamed 

(44.8927,¥123.8400); Unnamed 

(44.7034,¥123.7754); Unnamed 

(44.7145,¥123.8423); Unnamed 

(44.7410,¥123.8800); Unnamed 

(44.7925,¥123.9212); Unnamed 

(44.8396,¥123.8896); Unnamed 

(44.9035,¥123.8635); Unnamed 

(44.9240,¥123.7913); West Fork Mill 

Creek (44.7119,¥123.9703); Wildcat 

Creek (44.8915,¥123.8842). 

(vii) Salmon River/Siletz/Yaquina Bay 

Watershed 1710020408. Outlet(s) = 

Salmon River (Lat 45.0474, Long 

¥124.0031) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Alder Brook (45.0318,¥123.8428); Bear 

Creek (44.9785,¥123.8580); Boulder 

Creek (45.0428,¥123.7817); Calkins 

Creek (45.0508,¥123.9615); Crowley 

Creek (45.0540,¥123.9819); Curl Creek 

(45.0150,¥123.9198); Deer Creek 

(45.0196,¥123.8091); Frazer Creek 

(45.0096,¥123.9576); Gardner Creek 

(45.0352,¥123.9024); Indian Creek 

(45.0495,¥123.8010); Little Salmon 

River (45.0546,¥123.7473); McMullen 

Creek (44.9829,¥123.8682); Panther 

Creek (45.0208,¥123.8878); Panther 

Creek, North Fork (45.0305,¥123.8910); 

Prairie Creek (45.0535,¥123.8129); 

Rowdy Creek (45.0182,¥123.9751); 

Salmon River (45.0269,¥123.7224); 

Slick Rock Creek (44.9903,¥123.8158); 

Sulphur Creek (45.0403,¥123.8216); 

Telephone Creek (45.0467,¥123.9348); 

Toketa Creek (45.0482,¥123.9088); 

Trout Creek (44.9693,¥123.8337); 

Unnamed (44.9912,¥123.8789); 

Unnamed (45.0370,¥123.7333); 

Unnamed (45.0433,¥123.7650); Widow 

Creek (45.0373,¥123.8530); Widow 

Creek, West Fork (45.0320,¥123.8643); 

Willis Creek (45.0059,¥123.9391). 

(viii) Devils Lake/Moolack Frontal 

Watershed 1710020409. Outlet(s) = Big 

Creek (Lat 44.6590, Long ¥124.0571); 

Coal Creek (44.7074,¥124.0615); D 

River (44.9684,¥124.0172); Fogarty 

Creek (44.8395,¥124.0520); Moolack 

Creek (44.7033,¥124.0622); North 

Depoe Bay Creek (44.8098,¥124.0617); 

Schoolhouse Creek 

(44.8734,¥124.0401); Spencer Creek 

(44.7292,¥124.0582); Wade Creek 

(44.7159,¥124.0600) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Big Creek 

(44.6558,¥124.0427); Coal Creek 

(44.7047,¥124.0099); Devils Lake 

(44.9997,¥123.9773); Fogarty Creek 

(44.8563,¥124.0153); Jeffries Creek 

(44.6425,¥124.0315); Moolack Creek 

(44.6931,¥124.0150); North Depoe Bay 

Creek (44.8157,¥124.0510); Rock Creek 

(44.9869,¥123.9317); South Depoe Bay 

Creek (44.7939,¥124.0126); Salmon 

Creek (44.8460,¥124.0164); 

Schoolhouse Creek 

(44.8634,¥124.0151); South Fork 

Spencer Creek (44.7323,¥123.9974); 

Spencer Creek, North Fork 

(44.7453,¥124.0276); Unnamed 

(44.8290,¥124.0318); Unnamed 

(44.9544,¥123.9867); Unnamed 

(44.9666,¥123.9731); Unnamed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7849 

(44.9774,¥123.9706); Wade Creek 

(44.7166,¥124.0057). 

(5) Alsea Subbasin 17100205—(i) 

Upper Alsea River Watershed 

1710020501. Outlet(s) = Alsea River, 

South Fork (Lat 44.3767, Long 

¥123.6024) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Alder Creek (44.4573,¥123.5188); Alsea 

River, South Fork (44.3261,¥123.4891); 

Baker Creek (44.4329,¥123.5522); 

Banton Creek (44.3317,¥123.6020); 

Brown Creek (44.3151,¥123.6250); 

Bummer Creek (44.3020,¥123.5765); 

Cabin Creek (44.4431,¥123.5328); 

Crooked Creek (44.4579,¥123.5099); 

Dubuque Creek (44.3436,¥123.5527); 

Ernest Creek (44.4234,¥123.5275); 

Hayden Creek (44.4062,¥123.5815); 

Honey Grove Creek 

(44.3874,¥123.5078); North Fork Alsea 

River (44.4527,¥123.6102); Parker 

Creek (44.4702,¥123.5978); Peak Creek 

(44.3358,¥123.4933); Record Creek 

(44.3254,¥123.6331); Seeley Creek 

(44.4051,¥123.5177); Swamp Creek 

(44.3007,¥123.6108); Tobe Creek 

(44.3273,¥123.5719); Trout Creek 

(44.3684,¥123.5163); Unnamed 

(44.3108,¥123.6225); Unnamed 

(44.3698,¥123.5670); Unnamed 

(44.4574,¥123.5001); Unnamed 

(44.3708,¥123.5740); Unnamed 

(44.3713,¥123.5656); Unnamed 

(44.3788,¥123.5528); Unnamed 

(44.4270,¥123.5492); Unnamed 

(44.4518,¥123.6236); Yew Creek 

(44.4581,¥123.5373); Zahn Creek 

(44.4381,¥123.5425). 

(ii) Five Rivers/Lobster Creek 

Watershed 1710020502. Outlet(s) = Five 

Rivers (Lat 44.3584, Long ¥123.8279) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(44.2947,¥123.8105); Bear Creek 

(44.2824,¥123.9123); Bear Creek 

(44.3588,¥123.7930); Bear Creek 

(44.2589,¥123.6647); Briar Creek 

(44.3184,¥123.6602); Buck Creek 

(44.2428,¥123.8989); Camp Creek 

(44.2685,¥123.7552); Cascade Creek 

(44.3193,¥123.9073); Cascade Creek, 

North Fork (44.3299,¥123.8932); Cedar 

Creek (44.2732,¥123.7753); Cherry 

Creek (44.3061,¥123.8140); Coal Creek 

(44.2881,¥123.6484); Cook Creek 

(44.2777,¥123.6445); Cougar Creek 

(44.2723,¥123.8678); Crab Creek 

(44.2458,¥123.8750); Crazy Creek 

(44.2955,¥123.7927); Crooked Creek 

(44.3154,¥123.7986); Elk Creek 

(44.3432,¥123.7969); Fendall Creek 

(44.2764,¥123.7890); Five Rivers 

(44.2080,¥123.8025); Green River 

(44.2286,¥123.8751); Green River, East 

Fork (44.2255,¥123.8143); Jasper Creek 

(44.2777,¥123.7326); Little Lobster 

Creek (44.2961,¥123.6266); Lobster 

Creek, East Fork (44.2552,¥123.5897); 

Lobster Creek, South Fork 

(44.2326,¥123.6060); Lobster Creek 

(44.2237,¥123.6195); Lord Creek 

(44.2411,¥123.7631); Martha Creek 

(44.2822,¥123.6781); Meadow Creek 

(44.2925,¥123.6591); Phillips Creek 

(44.3398,¥123.7613); Preacher Creek 

(44.2482,¥123.7440); Prindel Creek 

(44.2346,¥123.7849); Ryan Creek 

(44.2576,¥123.7971); Summers Creek 

(44.2589,¥123.7627); Swamp Creek 

(44.3274,¥123.8407); Unnamed 

(44.2845,¥123.7007); Unnamed 

(44.2129,¥123.7919); Unnamed 

(44.2262,¥123.7982); Unnamed 

(44.2290,¥123.8559); Unnamed 

(44.2327,¥123.8344); Unnamed 

(44.2356,¥123.8178); Unnamed 

(44.2447,¥123.6460); Unnamed 

(44.2500,¥123.8074); Unnamed 

(44.2511,¥123.9011); Unnamed 

(44.2551,¥123.8733); Unnamed 

(44.2614,¥123.8652); Unnamed 

(44.2625,¥123.8635); Unnamed 

(44.2694,¥123.8180); Unnamed 

(44.2695,¥123.7429); Unnamed 

(44.2696,¥123.8497); Unnamed 

(44.2752,¥123.7616); Unnamed 

(44.2760,¥123.7121); Unnamed 

(44.2775,¥123.8895); Unnamed 

(44.2802,¥123.7097); Unnamed 

(44.2802,¥123.8608); Unnamed 

(44.2823,¥123.7900); Unnamed 

(44.2853,¥123.7537); Unnamed 

(44.2895,¥123.9083); Unnamed 

(44.2940,¥123.7358); Unnamed 

(44.2954,¥123.7602); Unnamed 

(44.2995,¥123.7760); Unnamed 

(44.3024,¥123.9064); Unnamed 

(44.3066,¥123.8838); Unnamed 

(44.3070,¥123.8280); Unnamed 

(44.3129,¥123.7763); Unnamed 

(44.3214,¥123.8161); Unnamed 

(44.3237,¥123.9020); Unnamed 

(44.3252,¥123.7382); Unnamed 

(44.3289,¥123.8354); Unnamed 

(44.3336,¥123.7431); Unnamed 

(44.3346,¥123.7721); Wilkinson Creek 

(44.3296,¥123.7249); Wilson Creek 

(44.3085,¥123.8990). 

(iii) Drift Creek Watershed 

1710020503. Outlet(s) = Drift Creek (Lat 

44.4157, Long ¥124.0043) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Boulder Creek 

(44.4434,¥123.8705); Bush Creek 

(44.5315,¥123.8631); Cape Horn Creek 

(44.5153,¥123.7844); Cedar Creek 

(44.4742,¥123.9699); Cougar Creek 

(44.4405,¥123.9144); Deer Creek 

(44.5514,¥123.8778); Drift Creek 

(44.4688,¥123.7859); Ellen Creek 

(44.4415,¥123.9413); Flynn Creek 

(44.5498,¥123.8520); Gold Creek 

(44.4778,¥123.8802); Gopher Creek 

(44.5217,¥123.7787); Horse Creek 

(44.5347,¥123.9072); Lyndon Creek 

(44.4395,¥123.9801); Needle Branch 

(44.5154,¥123.8537); Nettle Creek 

(44.4940,¥123.7845); Slickrock Creek 

(44.4757,¥123.9007); Trout Creek 

(44.4965,¥123.9113); Trout Creek, East 

Fork (44.4705,¥123.9290); Unnamed 

(44.4995,¥123.8488); Unnamed 

(44.4386,¥123.9200); Unnamed 

(44.4409,¥123.8738); Unnamed 

(44.4832,¥123.9570); Unnamed 

(44.4868,¥123.9340); Unnamed 

(44.4872,¥123.9518); Unnamed 

(44.4875,¥123.9460); Unnamed 

(44.4911,¥123.9227); Unnamed 

(44.5187,¥123.7996); Unnamed 

(44.5260,¥123.7848); Unnamed 

(44.5263,¥123.8868); Unnamed 

(44.5326,¥123.8453); Unnamed 

(44.5387,¥123.8440); Unnamed 

(44.5488,¥123.8694); Unnamed 

(44.4624,¥123.8216). 

(iv) Lower Alsea River Watershed 

1710020504. Outlet(s) = Alsea River (Lat 

44.4165, Long ¥124.0829) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Alsea River 

(44.3767,¥123.6024); Arnold Creek 

(44.3922,¥123.9503); Barclay Creek 

(44.4055,¥123.8659); Bear Creek 

(44.3729,¥123.9623); Bear Creek 

(44.3843,¥123.7704); Beaty Creek 

(44.4044,¥123.6043); Benner Creek 

(44.3543,¥123.7447); Brush Creek 

(44.3826,¥123.8537); Bull Run Creek 

(44.4745,¥123.7439); Canal Creek 

(44.3322,¥123.9460); Canal Creek, East 

Fork (44.3454,¥123.9161); Carns 

Canyon (44.4027,¥123.7550); Cedar 

Creek (44.3875,¥123.7946); Cove Creek 

(44.4403,¥123.7107); Cow Creek 

(44.3620,¥123.7510); Darkey Creek 

(44.3910,¥123.9927; Digger Creek 

(44.3906,¥123.6890); Fall Creek 

(44.4527,¥123.6864); Fall Creek 

(44.4661,¥123.6933); George Creek 

(44.3556,¥123.8603); Grass Creek 

(44.3577,¥123.8798); Hatchery Creek 

(44.3952,¥123.7269); Hatchery Creek 

(44.4121,¥123.8734); Hoover Creek 

(44.3618,¥123.8583); Lake Creek 

(44.3345,¥123.8725); Lint Creek 

(44.3850,¥124.0490); Maltby Creek 

(44.3833,¥123.6770); Meadow Fork 

(44.3764,¥123.8879); Mill Creek 

(44.4046,¥123.6436); Minotti Creek 

(44.3750,¥123.7718); Nye Creek 

(44.4326,¥123.7648); Oxstable Creek 

(44.3912,¥123.9603); Phillips Creek 

(44.3803,¥123.7780); Red Creek 

(44.3722,¥123.9162); Risley Creek 

(44.4097,¥123.9380); Schoolhouse 

Creek (44.3897,¥123.6545); Scott Creek, 

East Fork (44.4252,¥123.7897); Scott 

Creek, West Fork (44.4212,¥123.8225); 

Skinner Creek (44.3585,¥123.9374); 

Skunk Creek (44.3998,¥123.6912); 

Slide Creek (44.3986,¥123.8419); Starr 

Creek (44.4477,¥124.0130); Sudan 

Creek (44.3817,¥123.9717); Sulmon 

Creek (44.3285,¥123.7008); Sulmon 

Creek, North Fork (44.3421,¥123.6374); 

Sulmon Creek, South Fork 

(44.3339,¥123.6709); Swede Fork 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7850 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(44.3852,¥124.0295); Unnamed 

(44.3319,¥123.9318); Unnamed 

(44.3356,¥123.9464); Unnamed 

(44.3393,¥123.9360); Unnamed 

(44.3413,¥123.9294); Unnamed 

(44.3490,¥123.9058); Unnamed 

(44.3548,¥123.6574); Unnamed 

(44.3592,¥123.6363); Unnamed 

(44.3597,¥123.9042); Unnamed 

(44.3598,¥123.6563); Unnamed 

(44.3598,¥123.6562); Unnamed 

(44.3600,¥123.6514); Unnamed 

(44.3656,¥123.9085); Unnamed 

(44.3680,¥123.9629); Unnamed 

(44.3794,¥123.8268); Unnamed 

(44.3800,¥123.9134); Unnamed 

(44.3814,¥123.7650); Unnamed 

(44.3822,¥124.0555); Unnamed 

(44.3823,¥124.0451); Unnamed 

(44.3989,¥123.6050); Unnamed 

(44.4051,¥124.0527); Unnamed 

(44.4166,¥123.8149); Unnamed 

(44.4537,¥123.7247); Walker Creek 

(44.4583,¥124.0271); Weist Creek 

(44.3967,¥124.0256); West Creek 

(44.3588,¥123.9493). 

(v) Beaver Creek/Waldport Bay 

Watershed 1710020505. Outlet(s) = 

Beaver Creek (Lat 44.5233, Long 

¥124.0734); Deer Creek 

(44.5076,¥124.0807); Thiel Creek 

(44.5646,¥124.0709) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek, North 

Fork, Trib G (44.5369,¥123.9195); 

Beaver Creek, South Fork 

(44.4816,¥123.9853); Beaver Creek, 

South Fork, Trib A 

(44.4644,¥124.0332); Bowers Creek 

(44.5312,¥124.0117); Bunnel Creek 

(44.5178,¥124.0265); Deer Creek 

(44.5057,¥124.0721); Elkhorn Creek 

(44.5013,¥123.9572); Elkhorn Creek 

(44.4976,¥123.9685); Lewis Creek 

(44.5326,¥123.9532); North Fork 

Beaver Creek (44.5149,¥123.8988); 

Oliver Creek (44.4660,¥124.0471); 

Peterson Creek (44.5419,¥123.9738); 

Pumphouse Creek (44.5278,¥124.0569); 

Simpson Creek (44.5255,¥124.0390); 

Thiel Creek (44.5408,¥124.0254); Tracy 

Creek (44.5411,¥124.0500); Unnamed 

(44.4956,¥123.9751); Unnamed 

(44.5189,¥124.0638); Unnamed 

(44.5225,¥123.9313); Unnamed 

(44.5256,¥123.9399); Unnamed 

(44.5435,¥124.0221); Unnamed 

(44.5461,¥124.0311); Unnamed 

(44.5472,¥124.0591); Unnamed 

(44.5482,¥124.0249); Unnamed 

(44.5519,¥124.0279); Unnamed 

(44.5592,¥124.0531); Worth Creek 

(44.5013,¥124.0207). 

(vi) Yachats River Watershed 

1710020506. Outlet(s) = Yachats River 

(Lat 44.3081, Long ¥124.1070) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Axtell Creek 

(44.3084,¥123.9915); Beamer Creek 

(44.3142,¥124.0124); Bend Creek 

(44.2826,¥124.0077); Carson Creek 

(44.3160,¥124.0030); Dawson Creek 

(44.2892,¥124.0133); Depew Creek 

(44.3395,¥123.9631); Earley Creek 

(44.3510,¥123.9885); Fish Creek 

(44.3259,¥123.9592); Glines Creek 

(44.3436,¥123.9756); Grass Creek 

(44.2673,¥123.9109); Helms Creek 

(44.2777,¥123.9954); Keller Creek 

(44.2601,¥123.9485); Little Beamer 

Creek (44.2993,¥124.0213); Reedy 

Creek (44.3083,¥124.0460); South 

Beamer Creek (44.2852,¥124.0325); 

Stump Creek (44.2566,¥123.9624); 

Unnamed (44.2596,¥123.9279); 

Unnamed (44.2657,¥123.9585); 

Unnamed (44.2660,¥123.9183); 

Unnamed (44.2684,¥123.9711); 

Unnamed (44.2837,¥123.9268); 

Unnamed (44.2956,¥123.9316); 

Unnamed (44.3005,¥123.9324); 

Unnamed (44.3163,¥123.9428); 

Unnamed (44.3186,¥123.9568); 

Unnamed (44.3259,¥123.9578); 

Unnamed (44.3431,¥123.9711); West 

Fork Williamson Creek 

(44.3230,¥124.0008); Williamson Creek 

(44.3300,¥124.0026); Yachats River 

(44.2468,¥123.9329); Yachats River, 

North Fork (44.3467,¥123.9972); 

Yachats River, School Fork 

(44.3145,¥123.9341). 

(vii) Cummins Creek/Tenmile Creek/ 

Mercer Lake Frontal Watershed 

1710020507. Outlet(s) = Berry Creek 

(Lat 44.0949, Long ¥124.1221); Big 

Creek (44.1767,¥124.1148); Bob Creek 

(44.2448,¥124.1118); Cape Creek 

(44.1336,¥124.1211); Cummins Creek 

(44.2660,¥124.1075); Rock Creek 

(44.1833,¥124.1149); Sutton Creek 

(44.0605,¥124.1269); Tenmile Creek 

(44.2245,¥124.1083) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Bailey Creek 

(44.1037,¥124.0530); Berry Creek 

(44.0998,¥124.0885); Big Creek 

(44.1866,¥123.9781); Big Creek, South 

Fork (44.1692,¥123.9688); Big Creek, 

Trib A (44.1601,¥124.0231); Bob Creek 

(44.2346,¥124.0235); Cape Creek 

(44.1351,¥124.0174); Cape Creek, North 

Fork (44.1458,¥124.0489); Cummins 

Creek (44.2557,¥124.0104); Fryingpan 

Creek (44.1723,¥124.0401); Levage 

Creek (44.0745,¥124.0588); Little 

Cummins Creek (44.2614,¥124.0851); 

McKinney Creek (44.2187,¥123.9985); 

Mercer Creek (44.0712,¥124.0796); Mill 

Creek (44.2106,¥124.0747); Quarry 

Creek (44.0881,¥124.1124); Rath Creek 

(44.0747,¥124.0901); Rock Creek 

(44.1882,¥124.0310); Tenmile Creek 

(44.2143,¥123.9351); Tenmile Creek, 

South Fork (44.2095,¥123.9607); 

Unnamed (44.1771,¥124.0908); 

Unnamed (44.0606,¥124.0805); 

Unnamed (44.0624,¥124.0552); 

Unnamed (44.0658,¥124.0802); 

Unnamed (44.0690,¥124.0490); 

Unnamed (44.0748,¥124.0478); 

Unnamed (44.0814,¥124.0464); 

Unnamed (44.0958,¥124.0559); 

Unnamed (44.1283,¥124.0242); 

Unnamed (44.1352,¥124.0941); 

Unnamed (44.1712,¥124.0558); 

Unnamed (44.1715,¥124.0636); 

Unnamed (44.2011,¥123.9634); 

Unnamed (44.2048,¥123.9971); 

Unnamed (44.2146,¥124.0358); 

Unnamed (44.2185,¥124.0270); 

Unnamed (44.2209,¥123.9368); Wapiti 

Creek (44.1216,¥124.0448); Wildcat 

Creek (44.2339,¥123.9632). 

(viii) Big Creek/Vingie Creek 

Watershed 1710020508. Outlet(s) = Big 

Creek (Lat 44.3742, Long ¥124.0896) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big Creek 

(44.3564,¥124.0613); Dicks Fork Big 

Creek (44.3627,¥124.0389); Reynolds 

Creek (44.3768,¥124.0740); South Fork 

Big Creek (44.3388,¥124.0597); 

Unnamed (44.3643,¥124.0355); 

Unnamed (44.3662,¥124.0573); 

Unnamed (44.3686,¥124.0683). 

(6) Siuslaw Subbasin 17100206—(i) 

Upper Siuslaw River Watershed 

1710020601. Outlet(s) = Siuslaw River 

(Lat 44.0033, Long ¥123.6545) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(43.8482,¥123.5172); Bear Creek, Trib 

A (43.8496,¥123.5059); Bierce Creek 

(43.8750,¥123.5559); Big Canyon Creek 

(43.9474,¥123.6582); Bottle Creek 

(43.8791,¥123.3871); Bounds Creek 

(43.9733,¥123.7108); Buck Creek, Trib 

B (43.8198,¥123.3913); Buck Creek, 

Trib E (43.8152,¥123.4248); Burntwood 

Creek (43.9230,¥123.5342); Cabin 

Creek (43.8970,¥123.6754); Camp 

Creek (43.9154,¥123.4904); Canyon 

Creek (43.9780,¥123.6096); Clay Creek 

(43.8766,¥123.5721); Collins Creek 

(43.8913,¥123.6047); Conger Creek 

(43.8968,¥123.4524); Doe Creek 

(43.8957,¥123.3558); Doe Hollow Creek 

(43.8487,¥123.4603); Dogwood Creek 

(43.8958,¥123.3811); Douglas Creek 

(43.8705,¥123.2836); Edris Creek 

(43.9224,¥123.5531); Esmond Creek 

(43.8618,¥123.5772); Esmond Creek, 

Trib 1 (43.9303,¥123.6518); Esmond 

Creek, Trib A (43.8815,¥123.6646); 

Farman Creek (43.8761,¥123.2562); 

Fawn Creek (43.8743,¥123.2992); Fawn 

Creek (43.9436,¥123.6088); Fryingpan 

Creek (43.8329,¥123.4241); Fryingpan 

Creek (43.8422,¥123.4318); Gardner 

Creek (43.8024,¥123.2582); Haight 

Creek (43.8406,¥123.4862); Haskins 

Creek (43.8785,¥123.5851); Hawley 

Creek (43.8599,¥123.1558); Hawley 

Creek, North Fork (43.8717,¥123.1751); 

Holland Creek (43.8775,¥123.4156); 

Jeans Creek (43.8616,¥123.4714); 

Johnson Creek (43.8822,¥123.5332); 

Kelly Creek (43.8338,¥123.1739); Kline 

Creek (43.9034,¥123.6635); Leopold 

Creek (43.9199,¥123.6890); Leopold 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7851 

Creek, Trib A (43.9283,¥123.6630); Letz 

Creek, Trib B (43.7900,¥123.3248); Lick 

Creek (43.8366,¥123.2695); Little 

Siuslaw Creek (43.8048,¥123.3412); 

Lucas Creek (43.8202,¥123.2233); 

Luyne Creek (43.9155,¥123.5068); 

Luyne Creek, Trib A 

(43.9179,¥123.5208); Michaels Creek 

(43.8624,¥123.5417); Mill Creek 

(43.9028,¥123.6228); Norris Creek 

(43.8434,¥123.2006); North Creek 

(43.9223,¥123.5752); North Fork 

Siuslaw River (43.8513,¥123.2302); 

Oxbow Creek (43.8384,¥123.5433); 

Oxbow Creek, Trib C 

(43.8492,¥123.5465); Pheasant Creek 

(43.9120,¥123.4247); Pheasant Creek, 

Trib 2 (43.9115,¥123.4411); Pugh Creek 

(43.9480,¥123.5940); Russell Creek 

(43.8813,¥123.3425); Russell Creek, 

Trib A (43.8619,¥123.3498); Sandy 

Creek (43.7684,¥123.2441); Sandy 

Creek, Trib B (43.7826,¥123.2538); 

Shaw Creek (43.8817,¥123.3289); 

Siuslaw River, East Trib 

(43.8723,¥123.5378); Siuslaw River, 

North Fork, Upper Trib 

(43.8483,¥123.2275); Smith Creek 

(43.8045,¥123.3665); South Fork 

Siuslaw River (43.7831,¥123.1569); 

Trail Creek (43.9142,¥123.6241); 

Tucker Creek (43.8159,¥123.1604); 

Unnamed (43.7796,¥123.2019); 

Unnamed (43.7810,¥123.2818); 

Unnamed (43.8278,¥123.2610); 

Unnamed (43.8519,¥123.2773); 

Unnamed (43.8559,¥123.5520); 

Unnamed (43.8670,¥123.6022); 

Unnamed (43.8876,¥123.5194); 

Unnamed (43.8902,¥123.5609); 

Unnamed (43.8963,¥123.4171); 

Unnamed (43.8968,¥123.4731); 

Unnamed (43.8992,¥123.4033); 

Unnamed (43.9006,¥123.4637); 

Unnamed (43.9030,¥123.6434); 

Unnamed (43.9492,¥123.6924); 

Unnamed (43.9519,¥123.6886); 

Unnamed (43.9784,¥123.6815); 

Unnamed (43.9656,¥123.7145); 

Whittaker Creek (43.9490,¥123.7004); 

Whittaker Creek, Trib B 

(43.9545,¥123.7121). 

(ii) Wolf Creek Watershed 

1710020602. Outlet(s) = Wolf Creek (Lat 

43.9548, Long ¥123.6205) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Bill Lewis Creek 

(43.9357,¥123.5708); Cabin Creek 

(43.9226,¥123.4081); Eames Creek 

(43.9790,¥123.4352); Eames Creek, Trib 

C (43.9506,¥123.4371); Elkhorn Creek 

(43.9513,¥123.3934); Fish Creek 

(43.9238,¥123.3872); Gall Creek 

(43.9865,¥123.5187); Gall Creek, Trib 1 

(43.9850,¥123.5285); Grenshaw Creek 

(43.9676,¥123.4645); Lick Creek 

(43.9407,¥123.5796); Oat Creek, Trib A 

(43.9566,¥123.5052); Oat Creek, Trib C 

(43.9618,¥123.4902); Oat Creek 

(43.9780,¥123.4761); Panther Creek 

(43.9529,¥123.3744); Pittenger Creek 

(43.9713,¥123.5434); Saleratus Creek 

(43.9796,¥123.5675); Saleratus Creek, 

Trib A (43.9776,¥123.5797); Swamp 

Creek (43.9777,¥123.4197); Swing Log 

Creek (43.9351,¥123.3339); Unnamed 

(43.9035,¥123.3358); Unnamed 

(43.9343,¥123.3648); Unnamed 

(43.9617,¥123.4507); Unnamed 

(43.9668,¥123.6041); Unnamed 

(43.9693,¥123.4846); Van Curen Creek 

(43.9364,¥123.5520); Wolf Creek 

(43.9101,¥123.3234). 

(iii) Wildcat Creek Watershed 

1710020603. Outlet(s) = Wildcat Creek 

(Lat 44.0033, Long ¥123.6545) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bulmer 

Creek (44.0099,¥123.5206); Cattle 

Creek (44.0099,¥123.5475); Fish Creek 

(44.0470,¥123.5383); Fowler Creek 

(43.9877,¥123.5918); Haynes Creek 

(44.1000,¥123.5578); Kirk Creek 

(44.0282,¥123.6270); Knapp Creek 

(44.1006,¥123.5801); Miller Creek 

(44.0767,¥123.6034); Pataha Creek 

(43.9914,¥123.5361); Potato Patch 

Creek (43.9936,¥123.5812); Salt Creek 

(44.0386,¥123.5021); Shady Creek 

(44.0647,¥123.5838); Shultz Creek 

(44.0220,¥123.6320); Unnamed 

(43.9890,¥123.5468); Unnamed 

(44.0210,¥123.4805); Unnamed 

(44.0233,¥123.4996); Unnamed 

(44.0242,¥123.4796); Unnamed 

(44.0253,¥123.4963); Unnamed 

(44.0283,¥123.5311); Unnamed 

(44.0305,¥123.5275); Unnamed 

(44.0479,¥123.6199); Unnamed 

(44.0604,¥123.5624); Unnamed 

(44.0674,¥123.6075); Unnamed 

(44.0720,¥123.5590); Unnamed 

(44.0839,¥123.5777); Unnamed 

(44.0858,¥123.5787); Unnamed 

(44.0860,¥123.5741); Unnamed 

(44.0865,¥123.5935); Unnamed 

(44.0945,¥123.5838); Unnamed 

(44.0959,¥123.5902); Walker Creek 

(44.0469,¥123.6312); Walker Creek, 

Trib C (44.0418,¥123.6048); Wildcat 

Creek (43.9892,¥123.4308); Wildcat 

Creek, Trib ZH (43.9924,¥123.4975); 

Wildcat Creek, Trib ZI 

(44.0055,¥123.4681). 

(iv) Lake Creek Watershed 

1710020604. Outlet(s) = Lake Creek (Lat 

44.0556, Long ¥123.7968) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Chappell Creek 

(44.1158,¥123.6921); Conrad Creek 

(44.1883,¥123.4918); Druggs Creek 

(44.1996,¥123.5926); Fish Creek 

(44.1679,¥123.5149); Green Creek 

(44.1389,¥123.7930); Greenleaf Creek 

(44.1766,¥123.6391); Hula Creek 

(44.1202,¥123.7087); Johnson Creek 

(44.1037,¥123.7327); Lake Creek 

(44.2618,¥123.5148); Lamb Creek 

(44.1401,¥123.5991); Leaver Creek 

(44.0754,¥123.6285); Leibo Canyon 

(44.2439,¥123.4648); Little Lake Creek 

(44.1655,¥123.6004); McVey Creek 

(44.0889,¥123.6875); Nelson Creek 

(44.1229,¥123.5558); North Fork Fish 

Creek (44.1535,¥123.5437); Pontius 

Creek (44.1911,¥123.5909); Pope Creek 

(44.2118,¥123.5319); Post Creek 

(44.1828,¥123.5259); Stakely Canyon 

(44.2153,¥123.4690); Steinhauer Creek 

(44.1276,¥123.6594); Swamp Creek 

(44.2150,¥123.5687); Swartz Creek 

(44.2304,¥123.4461); Target Canyon 

(44.2318,¥123.4557); Unnamed 

(44.1048,¥123.6540); Unnamed 

(44.1176,¥123.5846); Unnamed 

(44.1355,¥123.5473); Unnamed 

(44.1355,¥123.6125); Unnamed 

(44.1382,¥123.5539); Unnamed 

(44.1464,¥123.5843); Unnamed 

(44.1659,¥123.5658); Unnamed 

(44.1725,¥123.5981); Unnamed 

(44.1750,¥123.5914); Unnamed 

(44.1770,¥123.5697); Unnamed 

(44.1782,¥123.5419); Unnamed 

(44.1798,¥123.5834); Unnamed 

(44.1847,¥123.5862); Unnamed 

(44.2042,¥123.5700); Unnamed 

(44.2143,¥123.5873); Unnamed 

(44.2258,¥123.4493); Unnamed 

(44.2269,¥123.5478); Unnamed 

(44.2328,¥123.5285); Unnamed 

(44.2403,¥123.5358); Unnamed 

(44.2431,¥123.5105); Unnamed 

(44.2437,¥123.5739); Unnamed 

(44.2461,¥123.5180); Unnamed 

(44.2484,¥123.5501); Unnamed 

(44.2500,¥123.5691); Unnamed 

(44.2573,¥123.4736); Unnamed 

(44.2670,¥123.4840); Wheeler Creek 

(44.1232,¥123.6778). 

(v) Deadwood Creek Watershed 

1710020605. Outlet(s) = Deadwood 

Creek (Lat 44.0949, Long ¥123.7594) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alpha Creek 

(44.1679,¥123.6951); Bear Creek 

(44.1685,¥123.6627); Bear Creek, South 

Fork (44.1467,¥123.6743); Buck Creek 

(44.2003,¥123.6683); Deadwood Creek 

(44.2580,¥123.6885); Deadwood Creek, 

West Fork (44.1946,¥123.8023); Deer 

Creek (44.1655,¥123.7229); Failor 

Creek (44.1597,¥123.8003); Fawn Creek 

(44.2356,¥123.7244); Karlstrom Creek 

(44.1776,¥123.7133); Misery Creek 

(44.1758,¥123.7950); North Fork 

Panther Creek (44.2346,¥123.7362); 

Panther Creek (44.2273,¥123.7558); 

Raleigh Creek (44.1354,¥123.6926); 

Rock Creek (44.1812,¥123.6683); 

Schwartz Creek (44.1306,¥123.7258); 

Unnamed (44.2011,¥123.7273); 

Unnamed (44.1806,¥123.7693); 

Unnamed (44.1845,¥123.6824); 

Unnamed (44.1918,¥123.7521); 

Unnamed (44.1968,¥123.7664); 

Unnamed (44.2094,¥123.6674); 

Unnamed (44.2149,¥123.7639); 

Unnamed (44.2451,¥123.6705); 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7852 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Unnamed (44.2487,¥123.7137); 

Unnamed (44.2500,¥123.6933). 

(vi) Indian Creek/Lake Creek 

Watershed 1710020606. Outlet(s) = 

Indian Creek (Lat 44.0808, Long 

¥123.7891) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Cremo Creek (44.1424,¥123.8144); Elk 

Creek (44.1253,¥123.8821); Gibson 

Creek (44.1548,¥123.8132); Herman 

Creek (44.2089,¥123.8220); Indian 

Creek (44.2086,¥123.9171); Indian 

Creek, North Fork (44.2204,¥123.9016); 

Indian Creek, West Fork 

(44.2014,¥123.9075); Long Creek 

(44.1395,¥123.8800); Maria Creek 

(44.1954,¥123.9219); Pyle Creek 

(44.1792,¥123.8623); Rogers Creek 

(44.1851,¥123.9397); Smoot Creek 

(44.1562,¥123.8449); Taylor Creek 

(44.1864,¥123.8115); Unnamed 

(44.1643,¥123.8993); Unnamed 

(44.1727,¥123.8154); Unnamed 

(44.1795,¥123.9180); Unnamed 

(44.1868,¥123.9002); Unnamed 

(44.1905,¥123.8633); Unnamed 

(44.1967,¥123.8872); Unnamed 

(44.2088,¥123.8381); Unnamed 

(44.2146,¥123.8528); Unnamed 

(44.2176,¥123.8462); Unnamed 

(44.2267,¥123.8912); Velvet Creek 

(44.1295,¥123.8087). 

(vii) North Fork Siuslaw River 

Watershed 1710020607. Outlet(s) = 

North Fork Siuslaw River (Lat 43.9719, 

Long ¥124.0783) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Billie Creek 

(44.0971,¥124.0362); Cataract Creek 

(44.0854,¥123.9497); Cedar Creek 

(44.1534,¥123.9045); Condon Creek 

(44.1138,¥123.9984); Coon Creek 

(44.0864,¥124.0318); Deer Creek 

(44.1297,¥123.9475); Drew Creek 

(44.1239,¥123.9801); Drew Creek 

(44.1113,¥123.9854); Elma Creek 

(44.1803,¥123.9434); Hanson Creek 

(44.0776,¥123.9328); Haring Creek 

(44.0307,¥124.0462); Lawrence Creek 

(44.1710,¥123.9504); Lindsley Creek 

(44.0389,¥124.0591); McLeod Creek 

(44.1050,¥123.8805); Morris Creek 

(44.0711,¥124.0308); Porter Creek 

(44.1490,¥123.9641); Russell Creek 

(44.0680,¥123.9848); Sam Creek 

(44.1751,¥123.9527); Slover Creek 

(44.0213,¥124.0531); South Russell 

Creek (44.0515,¥123.9840); Taylor 

Creek (44.1279,¥123.9052); Uncle 

Creek (44.1080,¥124.0174); Unnamed 

(43.9900,¥124.0784); Unnamed 

(43.9907,¥124.0759); Unnamed 

(43.9953,¥124.0514); Unnamed 

(43.9958,¥124.0623); Unnamed 

(43.9999,¥124.0694); Unnamed 

(44.0018,¥124.0596); Unnamed 

(44.0050,¥124.0556); Unnamed 

(44.0106,¥124.0650); Unnamed 

(44.0135,¥124.0609); Unnamed 

(44.0166,¥124.0371); Unnamed 

(44.0194,¥124.0631); Unnamed 

(44.0211,¥124.0663); Unnamed 

(44.0258,¥124.0594); Unnamed 

(44.0304,¥124.0129); Unnamed 

(44.0327,¥124.0670); Unnamed 

(44.0337,¥124.0070); Unnamed 

(44.0342,¥124.0056); Unnamed 

(44.0370,¥124.0391); Unnamed 

(44.0419,¥124.0013); Unnamed 

(44.0441,¥124.0321); Unnamed 

(44.0579,¥124.0077); Unnamed 

(44.0886,¥124.0192); Unnamed 

(44.0892,¥123.9925); Unnamed 

(44.0941,¥123.9131); Unnamed 

(44.0976,¥124.0033); Unnamed 

(44.1046,¥123.9032); Unnamed 

(44.1476,¥123.8959); Unnamed 

(44.1586,¥123.9150); West Branch 

North Fork Siuslaw River 

(44.1616,¥123.9616); Wilhelm Creek 

(44.1408,¥123.9774). 

(viii) Lower Siuslaw River Watershed 

1710020608. Outlet(s) = Siuslaw River 

(Lat 44.0160, Long ¥124.1327) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Barber Creek 

(44.0294,¥123.7598); Beech Creek 

(44.0588,¥123.6980); Berkshire Creek 

(44.0508,¥123.8890); Bernhardt Creek 

(43.9655,¥123.9532); Brush Creek 

(44.0432,¥123.7798); Brush Creek, East 

Fork (44.0414,¥123.7782); Cedar Creek 

(43.9696,¥123.9304); Cleveland Creek 

(44.0773,¥123.8343); Demming Creek 

(43.9643,¥124.0313); Dinner Creek 

(44.0108,¥123.8069); Divide Creek 

(44.0516,¥123.9421); Duncan Inlet 

(44.0081,¥123.9921); Hadsall Creek 

(43.9846,¥123.8221); Hadsall Creek, 

Trib D (43.9868,¥123.8500); Hadsall 

Creek, Trib E (43.9812,¥123.8359); 

Hanson Creek (44.0364,¥123.9628); 

Hoffman Creek (43.9808,¥123.9412); 

Hollenbeck Creek (44.0321,¥123.8672); 

Hood Creek (43.9996,¥123.7995); 

Karnowsky Creek (43.9847,¥123.9658); 

Knowles Creek (43.9492,¥123.7315); 

Knowles Creek, Trib L 

(43.9717,¥123.7830); Lawson Creek, 

Trib B (43.9612,¥123.9659); Meadow 

Creek (44.0311,¥123.6490); Munsel 

Creek (44.0277,¥124.0788); Old Man 

Creek (44.0543,¥123.8022); Pat Creek 

(44.0659,¥123.7245); Patterson Creek 

(43.9984,¥124.0234); Rice Creek 

(44.0075,¥123.8519); Rock Creek 

(44.0169,¥123.6512); South Fork Waite 

Creek (43.9929,¥123.7105); San Antone 

Creek (44.0564,¥123.6515); Shoemaker 

Creek (44.0669,¥123.8977); Shutte 

Creek (43.9939,¥124.0339); Siuslaw 

River (44.0033,¥123.6545); Skunk 

Hollow (43.9830,¥124.0626); Smith 

Creek (44.0393,¥123.6674); Spencer 

Creek (44.0676,¥123.8809); Sulphur 

Creek (43.9822,¥123.8015); Sweet 

Creek (43.9463,¥123.9016); Sweet 

Creek, Trib A (44.0047,¥123.8907); 

Sweet Creek, Trib D 

(43.9860,¥123.8811); Thompson Creek 

(44.0974,¥123.8615); Turner Creek 

(44.0096,¥123.7607); Unnamed 

(43.9301,¥124.0434); Unnamed 

(43.9596,¥124.0337); Unnamed 

(43.9303,¥124.0487); Unnamed 

(43.9340,¥124.0529); Unnamed 

(43.9367,¥124.0632); Unnamed 

(43.9374,¥124.0442); Unnamed 

(43.9481,¥124.0530); Unnamed 

(43.9501,¥124.0622); Unnamed 

(43.9507,¥124.0533); Unnamed 

(43.9571,¥124.0658); Unnamed 

(43.9576,¥124.0491); Unnamed 

(43.9587,¥124.0988); Unnamed 

(43.9601,¥124.0927); Unnamed 

(43.9615,¥124.0527); Unnamed 

(43.9618,¥124.0875); Unnamed 

(43.9624,¥123.7499); Unnamed 

(43.9662,¥123.7639); Unnamed 

(43.9664,¥123.9252); Unnamed 

(43.9718,¥124.0389; Unnamed 

(43.9720,¥124.0075); Unnamed 

(43.9751,¥124.0090); Unnamed 

(43.9784,¥124.0191); Unnamed 

(43.9796,¥123.9150); Unnamed 

(43.9852,¥123.9802); Unnamed 

(43.9878,¥123.9845); Unnamed 

(43.9915,¥123.9732); Unnamed 

(43.9938,¥123.9930); Unnamed 

(43.9942,¥123.8547); Unnamed 

(43.9943,¥123.9891); Unnamed 

(43.9954,¥124.1185); Unnamed 

(43.9956,¥123.7074); Unnamed 

(43.9995,¥123.9825); Unnamed 

(44.0023,¥123.7317); Unnamed 

(44.0210,¥123.7874); Unnamed 

(44.0240,¥123.8989); Unnamed 

(44.0366,¥123.7363); Unnamed 

(44.0506,¥123.9068); Waite Creek 

(43.9886,¥123.7220); Walker Creek 

(44.0566,¥123.9129); Wilson Creek 

(44.0716,¥123.8792). 

(7) Siltcoos Subbasin 17100207—(i) 

Waohink River/Siltcoos River/ 

Tahkenitch Lake Frontal Watershed 

1710020701. Outlet(s) = Siltcoos River 

(Lat 43.8766, Long ¥124.1548); 

Tahkenitch Creek (43.8013,¥124.1689) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(43.8967,¥124.0114); Bear Creek 

(43.9198,¥123.9293); Bear Creek Trib 

(43.9030,¥123.9881); Bear Creek, South 

Fork (43.9017,¥123.9555); Bell Creek 

(43.8541,¥123.9718); Billy Moore Creek 

(43.8876,¥123.9604); Carle Creek 

(43.9015,¥124.0210); Carter Creek 

(43.9457,¥124.0123); Dismal Swamp 

(43.8098,¥124.0871); Elbow Lake Creek 

(43.7886,¥124.1490); Fiddle Creek 

(43.9132,¥123.9164); Fivemile Creek 

(43.8297,¥123.9776); Grant Creek 

(43.9373,¥124.0278); Harry Creek 

(43.8544,¥124.0220); Henderson 

Canyon (43.8648,¥123.9654); 

Henderson Creek (43.9427,¥123.9704); 

John Sims Creek (43.8262,¥124.0792); 

King Creek (43.8804,¥124.0300); Lane 

Creek (43.8437,¥124.0765); Leitel Creek 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7853 

(43.8181,¥124.0200); Mallard Creek 

(43.7775,¥124.0852); Maple Creek 

(43.9314,¥123.9316); Maple Creek, 

North Prong (43.9483,¥123.9510); 

Miles Canyon (43.8643,¥124.0097); 

Miller Creek (43.9265,¥124.0663); Mills 

Creek (43.8966,¥124.0397); Morris 

Creek (43.8625,¥123.9541); Perkins 

Creek (43.8257,¥124.0448); Rider Creek 

(43.9210,¥123.9700); Roache Creek 

(43.9087,¥124.0049); Schrum Creek 

(43.9194,¥124.0492); Schultz Creek 

(43.9245,¥123.9371); Stokes Creek 

(43.9161,¥123.9984); Tenmile Creek 

(43.9419,¥123.9447); Unnamed 

(43.8928,¥124.0461); Unnamed 

(43.7726,¥124.1021); Unnamed 

(43.7741,¥124.1313); Unnamed 

(43.7756,¥124.1363); Unnamed 

(43.7824,¥124.1342); Unnamed 

(43.7829,¥124.0852); Unnamed 

(43.7837,¥124.0812); Unnamed 

(43.7849,¥124.0734); Unnamed 

(43.7862,¥124.0711); Unnamed 

(43.7865,¥124.1107); Unnamed 

(43.7892,¥124.1163); Unnamed 

(43.7897,¥124.0608); Unnamed 

(43.7946,¥124.0477); Unnamed 

(43.7964,¥124.0643); Unnamed 

(43.8015,¥124.0450); Unnamed 

(43.8078,¥124.0340); Unnamed 

(43.8095,¥124.1362); Unnamed 

(43.8112,¥124.0608); Unnamed 

(43.8152,¥124.0981); Unnamed 

(43.8153,¥124.1314); Unnamed 

(43.8172,¥124.0752); Unnamed 

(43.8231,¥124.0853); Unnamed 

(43.8321,¥124.0128); Unnamed 

(43.8322,¥124.0069); Unnamed 

(43.8323,¥124.1016); Unnamed 

(43.8330,¥124.0217); Unnamed 

(43.8361,¥124.1209); Unnamed 

(43.8400,¥123.9802); Unnamed 

(43.8407,¥124.1051); Unnamed 

(43.8489,¥124.0634); Unnamed 

(43.8500,¥123.9852); Unnamed 

(43.8504,¥124.1248); Unnamed 

(43.8504,¥124.0024); Unnamed 

(43.8507,¥124.0511); Unnamed 

(43.8589,¥124.1231); Unnamed 

(43.8596,¥124.0438); Unnamed 

(43.8605,¥124.1211); Unnamed 

(43.8669,¥124.0717); Unnamed 

(43.8670,¥124.0327); Unnamed 

(43.8707,¥124.0689); Unnamed 

(43.8802,¥124.0605); Unnamed 

(43.8862,¥124.0570); Unnamed 

(43.8913,¥123.9380); Unnamed 

(43.8919,¥124.0771); Unnamed 

(43.8976,¥124.0725); Unnamed 

(43.9032,¥124.0651); Unnamed 

(43.9045,¥124.0548); Unnamed 

(43.9057,¥124.0606); Unnamed 

(43.9065,¥124.0656); Unnamed 

(43.9105,¥124.0453); Unnamed 

(43.9106,¥124.0203); Unnamed 

(43.9202,¥124.0786); Unnamed 

(43.9209,¥124.0734); Unnamed 

(43.9237,¥124.0155); Unnamed 

(43.9249,¥124.0074); Unnamed 

(43.9274,¥124.0759); Unnamed 

(43.9275,¥124.0308); Unnamed 

(43.9360,¥124.0892); Unnamed 

(43.9365,¥124.0297); Unnamed 

(43.9424,¥124.0981); Unnamed 

(43.9438,¥124.0929); Unnamed 

(43.9453,¥124.0752); Unnamed 

(43.9518,¥123.9953). 

(8) North Fork Umpqua Subbasin 

17100301—(i) Boulder Creek Watershed 

1710030106. Outlet(s) = Boulder Creek 

(Lat 43.3036, Long ¥122.5272) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boulder 

Creek (Lat 43.3138, Long ¥122.5247) 

(ii) Middle North Umpqua Watershed 

1710030107. Outlet(s) = North Umpqua 

River (Lat 43.3322, Long ¥123.0025) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Calf Creek 

(43.2852,¥122.6229); Copeland Creek 

(43.2853,¥122.5325); Deception Creek 

(43.2766,¥122.5850); Dry Creek 

(43.2967,¥122.6016); Honey Creek 

(43.3181,¥122.9414); Limpy Creek 

(43.3020,¥122.6795); North Umpqua 

River (43.3027,¥122.4938); Panther 

Creek (43.3019,¥122.6801); Steamboat 

Creek (43.3491,¥122.7281); Susan 

Creek (43.3044,¥122.9058); Williams 

Creek (43.3431,¥122.7724). 

(iii) Rock Creek/North Umpqua River 

Watershed 1710030110. Outlet(s) = 

Rock Creek (Lat 43.3322, Long 

¥123.0025) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Conley Creek (43.3594,¥122.9663); 

Harrington Creek (43.4151,¥122.9550); 

Kelly Creek (43.3592,¥122.9912); 

McComas Creek (43.3536,¥122.9923); 

Miller Creek (43.3864,¥122.9371); Rock 

Creek (43.4247,¥122.9055); Rock Creek, 

East Fork (43.3807,¥122.8270); Rock 

Creek, East Fork, North Fork 

(43.4147,¥122.8512); Shoup Creek 

(43.3882,¥122.9674); Unnamed 

(43.3507,¥122.9741); Woodstock Creek 

(43.3905,¥122.9258). 

(iv) Little River Watershed 

1710030111. Outlet(s) = Little River (Lat 

43.2978, Long ¥123.1012) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Buck Peak Creek 

(43.1762,¥123.0479); Buckhorn Creek 

(43.2592,¥123.1072); Cavitt Creek 

(43.1464,¥122.9758); Copperhead 

Creek (43.1626,¥123.0595); Emile 

Creek (43.2544,¥122.8849); Evarts 

Creek (43.2087,¥123.0133); Jim Creek 

(43.2257,¥123.0592); Little River 

(43.2065,¥122.8231); McKay Creek 

(43.2092,¥123.0356); Tuttle Creek 

(43.1440,¥122.9813); White Rock Creek 

(43.1540,¥123.0379); Wolf Creek 

(43.2179,¥122.9461). 

(v) Lower North Umpqua River 

Watershed 1710030112. Outlet(s) = 

North Umpqua River (Lat 43.2682, Long 

¥123.4448) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Bradley Creek (43.3350,¥123.1025); 

Clover Creek (43.2490,¥123.2604); 

Cooper Creek (43.3420,¥123.1650); 

Cooper Creek (43.3797,¥123.2807); 

Dixon Creek (43.2770,¥123.2911); 

French Creek (43.3349,¥123.0801); 

Huntley Creek (43.3363,¥123.1340); 

North Umpqua River 

(43.3322,¥123.0025); Oak Creek 

(43.2839,¥123.2063); Short Creek 

(43.3204,¥123.3315); Sutherlin Creek 

(43.3677,¥123.2114); Unnamed 

(43.3285,¥123.2016). 

(9) South Fork Umpqua Subbasin 

17100302—(i) Jackson Creek Watershed 

1710030202. Outlet(s) = Jackson Creek 

(Lat 42.9695, Long ¥122.8795) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver 

Creek (Lat 42.9084, Long ¥122.7924); 

Jackson Creek (Lat 42.9965, Long 

¥122.6459); Ralph Creek (Lat 42.9744, 

Long ¥122.6976); Squaw Creek (Lat 

42.9684, Long ¥122.6913);Tallow Creek 

(Lat 42.98814, Long ¥122.6965); 

Whiskey Creek (Lat 42.9593, Long 

¥122.7262); Winters Creek (Lat 

42.9380, Long ¥122.8271). 

(ii) Middle South Umpqua River 

Watershed 1710030203. Outlet(s) = 

South Umpqua River (Lat 42.9272, Long 

¥122.9504) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Boulder Creek (43.1056,¥122.7379); 

Budd Creek (43.0506,¥122.8185); 

Deadman Creek (43.0049,¥122.8967); 

Dompier Creek (42.9553,¥122.9166); 

Dumont Creek (43.0719,¥122.8224); 

Francis Creek (43.0202,¥122.8231); 

South Umpqua River 

(43.0481,¥122.6998); Sam Creek 

(43.0037,¥122.8412); Slick Creek 

(43.0986,¥122.7867). 

(iii) Elk Creek/South Umpqua 

Watershed 1710030204. Outlet(s) = Elk 

Creek (Lat 42.9272, Long ¥122.9504) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Brownie 

Creek (Lat 42.8304, Long ¥122.8746); 

Callahan Creek (Lat 42.8778, Long 

¥122.9609); Camp Creek (Lat 42.8667, 

Long ¥122.8958); Dixon Creek (Lat 

42.8931, Long ¥122.9152); Drew Creek 

(Lat 42.8682, Long ¥122.9358); Flat 

Creek (Lat 42.8294, Long ¥122.8250); 

Joe Hall Creek (Lat 42.8756, Long 

¥122.8202); Tom Creek (Lat 42.8389, 

Long ¥122.8959). 

(iv) South Umpqua River Watershed 

1710030205. Outlet(s) = South Umpqua 

River (Lat 42.9476, Long ¥123.3368) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(42.9109,¥123.2991); Canyon Creek 

(42.8798,¥123.2410); Canyon Creek, 

West Fork (42.8757,¥123.2734); 

Canyon Creek, West Fork, Trib A 

(42.8834,¥123.2947); Coffee Creek 

(42.9416,¥122.9993); Comer Brook 

(42.9082,¥123.2908); Days Creek 

(43.0539,¥123.0012); Days Creek, Trib 

1 (43.0351,¥123.0532); Doe Hollow 

(42.9805,¥123.0812); Fate Creek 

(42.9943,¥123.1028); Green Gulch 

(43.0040,¥123.1276); Hatchet Creek 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7854 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(42.9251,¥122.9757); Jordan Creek 

(42.9224,¥123.3086); Lavadoure Creek 

(42.9545,¥123.1049); Lick Creek 

(42.9213,¥123.0261); May Creek 

(43.0153,¥123.0725); Morgan Creek 

(42.9635,¥123.2409); O’Shea Creek 

(42.9256,¥123.2486); Perdue Creek 

(43.0038,¥123.1192); Poole Creek 

(42.9321,¥123.1106); Poole Creek, East 

Fork (42.9147,¥123.0956); South 

Umpqua River (42.9272,¥122.9504); 

Shively Creek (42.8888,¥123.1635); 

Shively Creek, East Fork 

(42.8793,¥123.1194); Small Creek 

(42.9631,¥123.2519); St. John Creek 

(42.9598,¥123.0514); Stinger Gulch 

Creek (42.9950,¥123.1851); Stouts 

Creek, East Fork (42.9090,¥123.0424); 

Stouts Creek, West Fork 

(42.8531,¥123.0167); Sweat Creek 

(42.9293,¥123.1899); Wood Creek 

(43.0048,¥123.1486). 

(v) Middle Cow Creek Watershed 

1710030207. Outlet(s) = Cow Creek (Lat 

42.8114, Long ¥123.5947) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(42.8045,¥123.3635); Booth Gulch 

(42.7804,¥123.2282); Bull Run Creek 

(42.7555,¥123.2366); Clear Creek 

(42.8218,¥123.2610); Cow Creek 

(42.8487,¥123.1780); Dads Creek 

(42.7650,¥123.5401); East Fork 

Whitehorse Creek (42.7925,¥123.1448); 

Fortune Branch (42.8051,¥123.2971); 

Hogum Creek (42.7574,¥123.1853); 

Lawson Creek (42.7896,¥123.3752); 

Little Bull Run Creek 

(42.7532,¥123.2479); McCullough 

Creek (42.7951,¥123.4421); Mynatt 

Creek (42.8034,¥123.2828); Panther 

Creek (42.7409,¥123.4990); Perkins 

Creek (42.7331,¥123.4997); Quines 

Creek (42.7278,¥123.2396); Rattlesnake 

Creek (42.7106,¥123.4774); Riffle Creek 

(42.7575,¥123.6260); Section Creek 

(42.7300,¥123.4373); Skull Creek 

(42.7527,¥123.5779); Starveout Creek 

(42.7541,¥123.1953); Stevens Creek 

(42.7255,¥123.4835); Susan Creek 

(42.8035,¥123.5762); Swamp Creek 

(42.7616,¥123.3518); Tennessee Gulch 

(42.7265,¥123.2591); Totten Creek 

(42.7448,¥123.4610); Unnamed 

(42.7964,¥123.4200); Unnamed 

(42.8101,¥123.3150); Whitehorse Creek 

(42.7772,¥123.1532); Wildcat Creek 

(42.7738,¥123.2378); Windy Creek 

(42.8221,¥123.3296); Wood Creek 

(42.8141,¥123.4111); Woodford Creek 

(42.7458,¥123.3180). 

(vi) West Fork Cow Creek Watershed 

1710030208. Outlet(s) = West Fork Cow 

Creek (Lat 42.8118, Long ¥123.6006) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(42.7662,¥123.6741); Bobby Creek 

(42.8199,¥123.7196); Elk Valley Creek 

(42.8681,¥123.7133); Elk Valley Creek, 

East Fork (42.8698,¥123.6812); Goat 

Trail Creek (42.8002,¥123.6828); Gold 

Mountain Creek (42.8639,¥123.7787); 

No Sweat Creek (42.8024,¥123.7081); 

Panther Creek (42.8596,¥123.7506); 

Slaughter Pen Creek 

(42.8224,¥123.6565); Sweat Creek 

(42.8018,¥123.6995); Walker Creek 

(42.8228,¥123.7614); Wallace Creek 

(42.8311,¥123.7696); West Fork Cow 

Creek (42.8329,¥123.7733). 

(vii) Lower Cow Creek Watershed 

1710030209. Outlet(s) = Cow Creek (Lat 

42.9476, Long ¥123.3368) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Ash Creek 

(42.9052,¥123.3385); Boulder Creek 

(42.8607,¥123.5494); Brush Creek 

(42.8526,¥123.4369); Buck Creek 

(42.8093,¥123.4979); Buck Creek 

(42.9347,¥123.5163); Cattle Creek 

(42.8751,¥123.5374); Cedar Gulch 

(42.8457,¥123.5038); Council Creek 

(42.8929,¥123.4366); Cow Creek 

(42.8114,¥123.5947); Darby Creek 

(42.8553,¥123.6123); Doe Creek 

(42.9333,¥123.5057); Gravel Creek 

(42.8596,¥123.4598); Iron Mountain 

Creek (42.9035,¥123.5175); Island 

Creek (42.8957,¥123.4749); Jerry Creek 

(42.9517,¥123.4009); Little Dads Creek 

(42.8902,¥123.5655); Martin Creek 

(42.8080,¥123.4763); Middle Creek, 

South Fork (42.8298,¥123.3870); 

Panther Creek (42.8417,¥123.4492); 

Peavine Creek (42.8275,¥123.4610); 

Russell Creek (42.9094,¥123.3797); Salt 

Creek (42.9462,¥123.4830); Shoestring 

Creek (42.9221,¥123.3613); Smith 

Creek (42.8489,¥123.4765); Smith 

Creek (42.9236,¥123.5482); Table Creek 

(42.9114,¥123.5695); Union Creek 

(42.8769,¥123.5853); Unnamed 

(42.8891,¥123.4080). 

(viii) Middle South Umpqua River 

Watershed 1710030210. Outlet(s) = 

South Umpqua River (Lat 43.1172, Long 

¥123.4273) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Adams Creek (43.0724,¥123.4776); 

Barrett Creek (43.0145,¥123.4451); 

Clark Brook (43.0980,¥123.2897); East 

Willis Creek (43.0151,¥123.3845); Judd 

Creek (42.9852,¥123.4060); Kent Creek 

(43.0490,¥123.4792); Lane Creek 

(42.9704,¥123.4001); Porter Creek 

(43.0444,¥123.4597); Rice Creek 

(43.0181,¥123.4779); Richardson Creek 

(43.0766,¥123.2881); South Umpqua 

River (42.9476,¥123.3368); Squaw 

Creek (43.0815,¥123.4688); Van Dine 

Creek (43.0326,¥123.3473); West Willis 

Creek (43.0172,¥123.4355). 

(ix) Myrtle Creek Watershed 

1710030211. Outlet(s) = North Myrtle 

Creek (Lat 43.0231, Long ¥123.2951) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ben Branch 

Creek (43.0544,¥123.1618); Big Lick 

(43.0778,¥123.2175); Bilger Creek 

(43.1118,¥123.2372); Buck Fork Creek 

(43.1415,¥123.0831); Cedar Hollow 

(43.0096,¥123.2297); Frozen Creek 

(43.1089,¥123.1929); Frozen Creek, Left 

Fork (43.1157,¥123.2306); Harrison 

Young Brook (43.0610,¥123.2850); 

Lally Creek (43.0890,¥123.0597); Lee 

Creek (43.1333,¥123.1477); Letitia 

Creek (43.0710,¥123.0907); Little Lick 

(43.0492,¥123.2234); Long Wiley Creek 

(43.0584,¥123.1067); Louis Creek 

(43.1165,¥123.0783); North Myrtle 

Creek (43.1486,¥123.1219); Riser Creek 

(43.1276,¥123.0703); Rock Creek 

(43.0729,¥123.2620); South Myrtle 

Creek (43.0850,¥123.0103); School 

Hollow (43.0563,¥123.1753); Short 

Wiley Creek (43.0589,¥123.1158); Slide 

Creek (43.1110,¥123.1078); Unnamed 

(43.1138,¥123.1721); Weaver Creek 

(43.1102,¥123.0576). 

(x) Ollala Creek/Lookingglass 

Watershed 1710030212. Outlet(s) = 

Lookingglass Creek (Lat 43.1172, Long 

¥123.4273) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Archambeau Creek 

(43.2070,¥123.5329); Bear Creek 

(43.1233,¥123.6382); Berry Creek 

(43.0404,¥123.5543); Bushnell Creek 

(43.0183,¥123.5289); Byron Creek, East 

Fork (43.0192,¥123.4939); Byron Creek, 

North Fork (43.0326,¥123.4792); Coarse 

Gold Creek (43.0291,¥123.5742); 

Flournoy Creek (43.2227,¥123.5560); 

Little Muley Creek 

(43.0950,¥123.6247); Lookingglass 

Creek (43.1597,¥123.6015); McNabb 

Creek (43.0545,¥123.4984); Muns Creek 

(43.0880,¥123.6333); Olalla Creek 

(42.9695,¥123.5914); Perron Creek 

(43.0960,¥123.4904); Porter Creek 

(43.1381,¥123.5569); Sheilds Creek 

(43.0640,¥123.6189); Tenmile Creek 

(43.1482,¥123.6537); Tenmile Creek, 

North Fork (43.1260,¥123.6069); 

Thompson Creek (42.9860,¥123.5140); 

Willingham Creek (42.9600,¥123.5814). 

(xi) Lower South Umpqua River 

Watershed 1710030213. Outlet(s) = 

South Umpqua River (Lat 43.2682, Long 

¥123.4448) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Callahan Creek (43.2291,¥123.5355); 

Damotta Brook (43.2030,¥123.2987); 

Deer Creek, North Fork 

(43.2166,¥123.1437); Deer Creek, South 

Fork (43.1875,¥123.1722); Deer Creek, 

South Fork, Trib 1 

(43.1576,¥123.2393); Deer Creek, South 

Fork, Middle Fork (43.1625,¥123.1413); 

Doerner Creek (43.2370,¥123.5153); 

Elgarose Creek (43.2747,¥123.5105); 

Marsters Creek (43.1584,¥123.4489); 

Melton Creek (43.1294,¥123.2173); 

Roberts Creek (43.1124,¥123.2831); 

South Umpqua River 

(43.1172,¥123.4273); Stockel Creek 

(43.2205,¥123.4392); Tucker Creek 

(43.1238,¥123.2378); Unnamed 

(43.2184,¥123.1709); Willow Creek 

(43.2543,¥123.5143). 

(10) Umpqua Subbasin 17100303(i) 

Upper Umpqua River Watershed 

1710030301. Outlet(s) = Umpqua River 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7855 

(Lat 43.6329, Long ¥123.5662) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(43.3202,¥123.6118); Bear Creek 

(43.5436,¥123.4481); Bottle Creek 

(43.4060,¥123.5043); Brads Creek 

(43.5852,¥123.4651); Camp Creek 

(43.2969,¥123.5361); Case Knife Creek 

(43.4288,¥123.6665); Cedar Creek 

(43.5360,¥123.5969); Cougar Creek 

(43.3524,¥123.6166); Doe Creek 

(43.5311,¥123.4259); Fitzpatrick Creek 

(43.5819,¥123.6308); Galagher Canyon 

(43.4708,¥123.4394); Heddin Creek 

(43.5909,¥123.6466); Hubbard Creek 

(43.2526,¥123.5544); Leonard Creek 

(43.4448,¥123.5402); Little Canyon 

Creek (43.4554,¥123.4560); Little Wolf 

Creek (43.4232,¥123.6633); Little Wolf 

Creek, Trib D (43.4052,¥123.6477); Lost 

Creek (43.4355,¥123.4902); Martin 

Creek (43.5539,¥123.4633); McGee 

Creek (43.5125,¥123.5632); Mehl Creek 

(43.5491,¥123.6541); Mill Creek 

(43.3178,¥123.5095); Miner Creek 

(43.4518,¥123.6764); Panther Canyon 

(43.5541,¥123.3484); Porter Creek 

(43.4348,¥123.5530); Rader Creek 

(43.5203,¥123.6517); Rader Creek, Trib 

A (43.4912,¥123.5726); Umpqua River 

(43.2682,¥123.4448); Unnamed 

(43.5781,¥123.6170); Unnamed 

(43.5630,¥123.6080); Unnamed 

(43.4011,¥123.6474); Unnamed 

(43.4119,¥123.6172); Unnamed 

(43.4212,¥123.6398); Unnamed 

(43.4640,¥123.6734); Unnamed 

(43.4940,¥123.6166); Unnamed 

(43.5765,¥123.4710); Waggoner Creek 

(43.5282,¥123.6072); Whiskey Camp 

Creek (43.4587,¥123.6755); Williams 

Creek (43.5952,¥123.5222); Wolf Creek 

(43.4707,¥123.6655). 

(ii) Calapooya Creek Watershed 

1710030302. Outlet(s) = Calapooya 

Creek (Lat 43.3658, Long ¥123.4674) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bachelor 

Creek (43.5480,¥123.2062); Banks 

Creek (43.3631,¥123.1755); Beaty Creek 

(43.4406,¥123.0392); Boyd Creek 

(43.4957,¥123.1573); Brome Creek 

(43.4016,¥123.0490); Burke Creek 

(43.3987,¥123.4463); Buzzard Roost 

Creek (43.4584,¥123.0990); Cabin 

Creek (43.5421,¥123.3294); Calapooya 

Creek, North Fork (43.4867,¥123.0280); 

Coon Creek (43.4218,¥123.4349); Coon 

Creek (43.5245,¥123.0429); Dodge 

Canyon Creek (43.4362,¥123.4420); 

Driver Valley Creek 

(43.4327,¥123.1960); Field Creek 

(43.4043,¥123.0917); Gassy Creek 

(43.3862,¥123.1133); Gilbreath Creek 

(43.4218,¥123.0931); Gossett Creek 

(43.4970,¥123.1045); Haney Creek 

(43.4763,¥123.1086); Hinkle Creek 

(43.4230,¥123.0382); Hog Creek 

(43.4767,¥123.2516); Jeffers Creek 

(43.4522,¥123.1047); Long Valley Creek 

(43.4474,¥123.1460); Middle Fork 

South Fork Calapooya Creek 

(43.4772,¥122.9952); Markam Creek 

(43.3751,¥123.1479); Marsh Creek 

(43.5223,¥123.3348); Mill Creek 

(43.4927,¥123.1315); Norton Creek 

(43.5046,¥123.3736); Pine Tree Creek 

(43.4179,¥123.0688); Pollock Creek 

(43.5326,¥123.2685); Salt Creek 

(43.5161,¥123.2504); Salt Lick Creek 

(43.4510,¥123.1168); Slide Creek 

(43.3926,¥123.0919); Timothy Creek 

(43.4862,¥123.0896); Unnamed 

(43.4469,¥123.4268); Unnamed 

(43.4481,¥123.4283); Unnamed 

(43.4483,¥123.4134); Unnamed 

(43.4658,¥122.9899); Unnamed 

(43.4707,¥122.9896); Unnamed 

(43.4908,¥123.0703); Unnamed 

(43.5173,¥123.0564); Wheeler Canyon 

(43.4840,¥123.3631); White Creek 

(43.4637,¥123.0451); Williams Creek 

(43.4703,¥123.4096). 

(iii) Elk Creek Watershed 1710030303. 

Outlet(s) = Elk Creek (Lat 43.6329, Long 

¥123.5662) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Adams Creek (43.5860,¥123.2202); 

Allen Creek (43.6375,¥123.3731); 

Andrews Creek (43.5837,¥123.3920); 

Asker Creek (43.6290,¥123.2668); Bear 

Creek (43.6195,¥123.3703); Bear Creek 

(43.7119,¥123.1757); Bennet Creek 

(43.6158,¥123.1558); Big Tom Folley 

Creek (43.7293,¥123.4053); Big Tom 

Folley Creek, North Fork 

(43.7393,¥123.4917); Big Tom Folley 

Creek, Trib A (43.7231,¥123.4465); 

Billy Creek, East Fork 

(43.5880,¥123.3263); Billy Creek, South 

Fork (43.5725,¥123.3603); Blue Hole 

Creek (43.5677,¥123.4405); Brush 

Creek (43.5662,¥123.4140); Buck Creek 

(43.6981,¥123.1818); Cowan Creek 

(43.5915,¥123.2615); Cox Creek 

(43.6356,¥123.1794); Curtis Creek 

(43.6839,¥123.1734); Dodge Canyon 

(43.6225,¥123.2509); Elk Creek 

(43.5097,¥123.1620); Ellenburg Creek 

(43.7378,¥123.3296); Fitch Creek 

(43.6986,¥123.3152); Five Point 

Canyon (43.5707,¥123.3526); Flagler 

Creek (43.5729,¥123.3382); Green 

Creek (43.6851,¥123.4688); Green 

Ridge Creek (43.5920,¥123.3958); Halo 

Creek (43.5990,¥123.2658); Hancock 

Creek (43.6314,¥123.5188); Hanlon 

Creek (43.6190,¥123.2785); 

Hardscrabble Creek 

(43.7111,¥123.3517); Huntington Creek 

(43.5882,¥123.2808); Jack Creek 

(43.7071,¥123.3819); Johnny Creek 

(43.7083,¥123.3972); Johnson Creek 

(43.6830,¥123.2715); Lancaster Creek 

(43.6442,¥123.4361); Lane Creek 

(43.5483,¥123.1221); Lees Creek 

(43.6610,¥123.1888); Little Sand Creek 

(43.7655,¥123.2778); Little Tom Folley 

Creek (43.6959,¥123.5393); McClintock 

Creek (43.6664,¥123.2703); Parker 

Creek (43.6823,¥123.4178); Pass Creek 

(43.7527,¥123.1528); Pheasant Creek 

(43.7758,¥123.2099); Rock Creek 

(43.7759,¥123.2730); Saddle Butte 

Creek (43.7214,¥123.5219); Salt Creek 

(43.6796,¥123.2213); Sand Creek 

(43.7709,¥123.2912); Shingle Mill 

Creek (43.5314,¥123.1308); Simpson 

Creek (43.6629,¥123.2553); Smith 

Creek (43.6851,¥123.3179); Squaw 

Creek (43.6010,¥123.4284); Taylor 

Creek (43.7642,¥123.2712); Thief Creek 

(43.6527,¥123.1459); Thistleburn Creek 

(43.6313,¥123.4332); Unnamed 

(43.5851,¥123.3101); Walker Creek 

(43.5922,¥123.1707); Ward Creek 

(43.7486,¥123.2023); Wehmeyer Creek 

(43.6823,¥123.2404); Wilson Creek 

(43.5699,¥123.2681); Wise Creek 

(43.6679,¥123.2772); Yoncalla Creek 

(43.5563,¥123.2833). 

(iv) Middle Umpqua River Watershed 

1710030304. Outlet(s) = Umpqua River 

(Lat 43.6556, Long ¥123.8752) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Burchard 

Creek (43.6680,¥123.7520); Butler 

Creek (43.6325,¥123.6867); Cedar 

Creek (43.7027,¥123.6451); House 

Creek (43.7107,¥123.6378); Little Mill 

Creek (43.6729,¥123.8252); Little 

Paradise Creek (43.6981,¥123.5630); 

Paradise Creek (43.7301,¥123.5738); 

Patterson Creek (43.7076,¥123.6977); 

Purdy Creek (43.6895,¥123.7712); 

Sawyer Creek (43.6027,¥123.6717); 

Scott Creek (43.6885,¥123.6966); 

Umpqua River (43.6329,¥123.5662); 

Unnamed (43.6011,¥123.7084); 

Unnamed (43.5998,¥123.6803); 

Unnamed (43.6143,¥123.6674); 

Unnamed (43.6453,¥123.7619); 

Unnamed (43.6461,¥123.8064); 

Unnamed (43.6923,¥123.7534); 

Unnamed (43.7068,¥123.6109); 

Unnamed (43.7084,¥123.7156); 

Unnamed (43.7098,¥123.6300); 

Unnamed (43.7274,¥123.6026); 

Weatherly Creek (43.7205,¥123.6680); 

Wells Creek (43.6859,¥123.7946). 

(v) Upper Smith River Watershed 

1710030306. Outlet(s) = Smith River 

(Lat 43.7968, Long ¥123.7565) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Amberson 

Creek (43.7787,¥123.4944); Argue 

Creek (43.7656,¥123.6959); Beaver 

Creek (43.7865,¥123.6949); Beaver 

Creek (43.8081,¥123.4041); Big Creek 

(43.7372,¥123.7112); Blackwell Creek 

(43.8145,¥123.7460); Blind Creek 

(43.7518,¥123.6551); Bum Creek 

(43.8044,¥123.5802); Carpenter Creek 

(43.7947,¥123.7258); Clabber Creek 

(43.7919,¥123.5878); Clearwater Creek 

(43.8138,¥123.7375); Cleghorn Creek 

(43.7508,¥123.4997); Clevenger Creek 

(43.7826,¥123.4087); Coldwater Creek 

(43.8316,¥123.7232); Deer Creek 

(43.8109,¥123.5362); Devils Club Creek 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7856 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(43.7916,¥123.6148); Elk Creek 

(43.8004,¥123.4347); Halfway Creek 

(43.7412,¥123.5112); Hall Creek 

(43.7732,¥123.3836); Haney Creek 

(43.8355,¥123.5006); Hardenbrook 

Creek (43.7943,¥123.5660); Hefty Creek 

(43.7881,¥123.3954); Herb Creek 

(43.8661,¥123.6782); Jeff Creek 

(43.8079,¥123.6033); Marsh Creek 

(43.7831,¥123.6185); Mosetown Creek 

(43.7326,¥123.6613); Mosetown Creek, 

East Fork (43.7185,¥123.6433); North 

Sister Creek (43.8492,¥123.5771); 

Panther Creek (43.8295,¥123.4464); 

Pearl Creek (43.8263,¥123.5350); 

Peterson Creek (43.7575,¥123.3947); 

Plank Creek (43.7635,¥123.3980); 

Redford Creek (43.7878,¥123.3520); 

Rock Creek (43.7733,¥123.6222); 

Russell Creek (43.8538,¥123.6971); 

South Sister Creek 

(43.8366,¥123.5611); Salmonberry 

Creek (43.8085,¥123.4482); Scare Creek 

(43.7631,¥123.7260); Sleezer Creek 

(43.7535,¥123.3711); Slideout Creek 

(43.7831,¥123.5685); Smith River, 

Little South Fork (43.7392,¥123.4583); 

Smith River, South Fork 

(43.7345,¥123.3843); Smith River 

(43.7529,¥123.3310); Spring Creek 

(43.7570,¥123.3276); Summit Creek 

(43.7985,¥123.3487); Sweden Creek 

(43.8618,¥123.6468); Tip Davis Creek 

(43.7739,¥123.3301); Twin Sister Creek 

(43.8348,¥123.7168); Unnamed 

(43.7234,¥123.6308); Unnamed 

(43.7397,¥123.6984); Unnamed 

(43.7433,¥123.4673); Unnamed 

(43.7492,¥123.6911); Unnamed 

(43.7495,¥123.5832); Unnamed 

(43.7527,¥123.5210); Unnamed 

(43.7533,¥123.7046); Unnamed 

(43.7541,¥123.4805); Unnamed 

(43.7708,¥123.4819); Unnamed 

(43.7726,¥123.5039); Unnamed 

(43.7748,¥123.6044); Unnamed 

(43.7775,¥123.6927); Unnamed 

(43.7830,¥123.5900); Unnamed 

(43.7921,¥123.6335); Unnamed 

(43.7955,¥123.7013); Unnamed 

(43.7993,¥123.6171); Unnamed 

(43.8020,¥123.6739); Unnamed 

(43.8034,¥123.6959); Unnamed 

(43.8133,¥123.5893); Unnamed 

(43.8197,¥123.4827); Unnamed 

(43.8263,¥123.5810); Unnamed 

(43.8360,¥123.6951); Unnamed 

(43.8519,¥123.5910); Unnamed 

(43.8535,¥123.6357); Unnamed 

(43.8541,¥123.6155); Unnamed 

(43.8585,¥123.6867); Upper Johnson 

Creek (43.7509,¥123.5426); West Fork 

Halfway Creek (43.7421,¥123.6119); 

Yellow Creek (43.8193,¥123.5545). 

(vi) Lower Smith River Watershed 

1710030307. Outlet(s) = Smith River 

(Lat 43.7115, Long ¥124.0807) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(43.8087,¥123.8202); Beaver Creek 

(43.8983,¥123.7559); Black Creek 

(43.7544,¥123.9967); Brainard Creek 

(43.7448,¥124.0105); Buck Creek 

(43.7719,¥123.7823); Cassady Creek 

(43.7578,¥123.9744); Cedar Creek 

(43.8541,¥123.8562); Chapman Creek 

(43.8181,¥123.9380); Coon Creek 

(43.8495,¥123.7857); Crane Creek 

(43.8592,¥123.7739); Edmonds Creek 

(43.8257,¥123.9000); Eslick Creek 

(43.8153,¥123.9894); Eslick Creek, East 

Fork (43.8082,¥123.9583); Franz Creek 

(43.7542,¥124.1006); Frarey Creek 

(43.7683,¥124.0615); Georgia Creek 

(43.8373,¥123.8911); Gold Creek 

(43.9002,¥123.7470); Harlan Creek 

(43.8635,¥123.9319); Holden Creek 

(43.7901,¥124.0178); Hudson Slough 

(43.7725,¥124.0736); Johnson Creek 

(43.8291,¥123.9582); Johnson Creek 

(43.8480,¥123.8209); Joyce Creek 

(43.7892,¥124.0356); Joyce Creek, West 

Fork (43.7708,¥124.0457); Kentucky 

Creek (43.9313,¥123.8153); Middle 

Fork of North Fork Smith River 

(43.8780,¥123.7687); Moore Creek 

(43.8523,¥123.8931); Moore Creek 

(43.8661,¥123.7558); Murphy Creek 

(43.7449,¥123.9527); Noel Creek 

(43.7989,¥124.0109); Otter Creek 

(43.7216,¥123.9626); Otter Creek, 

North Fork (43.7348,¥123.9597); 

Paxton Creek (43.8847,¥123.9004); 

Peach Creek (43.8963,¥123.8599); 

Perkins Creek (43.7362,¥123.9151); 

Railroad Creek (43.8086,¥123.8998); 

Smith River, West Fork 

(43.9102,¥123.7073); Smith River 

(43.7968,¥123.7565); Spencer Creek 

(43.8429,¥123.8321); Spencer Creek, 

West Fork (43.8321,¥123.8685); 

Sulphur Creek (43.8512,¥123.9422); 

Unnamed (43.7031,¥123.7463); 

Unnamed (43.7106,¥123.7666); 

Unnamed (43.7203,¥123.7601); 

Unnamed (43.7267,¥123.7396); 

Unnamed (43.7286,¥123.7798); 

Unnamed (43.7322,¥124.0585); 

Unnamed (43.7325,¥123.7337); 

Unnamed (43.7470,¥123.7416); 

Unnamed (43.7470,¥123.7711); 

Unnamed (43.7569,¥124.0844); 

Unnamed (43.7606,¥124.0853); 

Unnamed (43.7623,¥124.0753); 

Unnamed (43.7669,¥124.0766); 

Unnamed (43.7734,¥124.0674); 

Unnamed (43.7855,¥124.0076); 

Unnamed (43.7877,¥123.9936); 

Unnamed (43.8129,¥123.9743); 

Unnamed (43.8212,¥123.8777); 

Unnamed (43.8258,¥123.8192); 

Unnamed (43.8375,¥123.9631); 

Unnamed (43.8424,¥123.7925); 

Unnamed (43.8437,¥123.7989); 

Unnamed (43.8601,¥123.7630); 

Unnamed (43.8603,¥123.8155); 

Unnamed (43.8655,¥123.8489); 

Unnamed (43.8661,¥123.9136); 

Unnamed (43.8688,¥123.7994); 

Unnamed (43.8831,¥123.8534); 

Unnamed (43.8883,¥123.7157); 

Unnamed (43.8906,¥123.7759); 

Unnamed (43.8916,¥123.8765); 

Unnamed (43.8922,¥123.8144); 

Unnamed (43.8953,¥123.8772); 

Unnamed (43.8980,¥123.7865); 

Unnamed (43.8997,¥123.7993); 

Unnamed (43.8998,¥123.7197); 

Unnamed (43.9015,¥123.8386); 

Unnamed (43.9015,¥123.8949); 

Unnamed (43.9023,¥123.8241); 

Unnamed (43.9048,¥123.8316); 

Unnamed (43.9075,¥123.7208); 

Unnamed (43.9079,¥123.8263); Vincent 

Creek (43.7035,¥123.7882); Wassen 

Creek (43.7419,¥123.8905); West 

Branch North Fork Smith River 

(43.9113,¥123.8958). 

(vii) Lower Umpqua River Watershed 

1710030308. Outlet(s) = Umpqua River 

(Lat 43.6696, Long ¥124.2025) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(43.6310,¥124.0483); Bear Creek 

(43.7053,¥123.9529); Butler Creek 

(43.7157,¥124.0059); Charlotte Creek 

(43.6320,¥123.9307); Dean Creek 

(43.6214,¥123.9740); Dry Creek 

(43.6369,¥124.0595); Franklin Creek 

(43.6850,¥123.8659); Hakki Creek 

(43.6711,¥124.0161); Indian Charlie 

Creek (43.6611,¥123.9404); Johnson 

Creek (43.6711,¥123.9760); Koepke 

Slough (43.6909,¥124.0294); Little 

Franklin Creek (43.6853,¥123.8863); 

Luder Creek (43.6423,¥123.9046); 

Miller Creek (43.6528,¥124.0140); Oar 

Creek (43.6620,¥124.0289); Providence 

Creek (43.7083,¥124.1289); Scholfield 

Creek (43.6253,¥124.0112); Umpqua 

River (43.6556,¥123.8752); Unnamed 

(43.6359,¥123.9572); Unnamed 

(43.6805,¥124.1146); Unnamed 

(43.6904,¥124.0506); Unnamed 

(43.6940,¥124.0340); Unnamed 

(43.7069,¥123.9824); Unnamed 

(43.7242,¥123.9369); Winchester Creek 

(43.6657,¥124.1247); Wind Creek, 

South Fork (43.6346,¥124.0897). 

(11) Coos Subbasin 17100304—(i) 

South Fork Coos Watershed 

1710030401. Outlet(s) = South Fork 

Coos (Lat 43.3905, Long ¥123.9634) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Slide 

Creek (43.2728,¥123.8472); Bottom 

Creek (43.3751,¥123.7065); Bottom 

Creek, North Fork (43.3896,¥123.7264); 

Buck Creek (43.2476,¥123.8023); Burnt 

Creek (43.2567,¥123.7834); Cedar 

Creek (43.3388,¥123.6303); Cedar 

Creek, Trib E (43.3423,¥123.6749); 

Cedar Creek, Trib F 

(43.3330,¥123.6523); Coal Creek 

(43.3426,¥123.8685); Eight River Creek 

(43.2638,¥123.8568); Fall Creek 

(43.2535,¥123.7106); Fall Creek 

(43.4106,¥123.7512); Fivemile Creek 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7857 

(43.2341,¥123.6307); Gods Thumb 

Creek (43.3440,¥123.7013); Gooseberry 

Creek (43.2452,¥123.7081); Hatcher 

Creek (43.3021,¥123.8370); Hog Ranch 

Creek (43.2754,¥123.8125); Lake Creek 

(43.2971,¥123.6354); Little Cow Creek 

(43.1886,¥123.6133); Lost Creek 

(43.2325,¥123.5769); Lost Creek, Trib A 

(43.2224,¥123.5961); Mink Creek 

(43.3068,¥123.8515); Panther Creek 

(43.2593,¥123.6401); Shotgun Creek 

(43.2920,¥123.7623); Susan Creek 

(43.2720,¥123.7654); Tioga Creek 

(43.2110,¥123.7786); Unnamed 

(43.2209,¥123.7789); Unnamed 

(43.2305,¥123.8360); Unnamed 

(43.2364,¥123.7818); Unnamed 

(43.2548,¥123.8569); Unnamed 

(43.2713,¥123.8320); Unnamed 

(43.2902,¥123.6662); Unnamed 

(43.3168,¥123.6491); Unnamed 

(43.3692,¥123.8320); Unnamed 

(43.3698,¥123.8321); Unnamed 

(43.3806,¥123.8327); Unnamed 

(43.3846,¥123.8058); Unnamed 

(43.3887,¥123.7927); Unnamed 

(43.3651,¥123.7073); Wilson Creek 

(43.2083,¥123.6691). 

(ii) Millicoma River Watershed 

1710030402. Outlet(s) = West Fork 

Millicoma River (Lat 43.4242, Long 

¥124.0288) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Bealah Creek (43.4271,¥123.8445); 

Buck Creek (43.5659,¥123.9765); 

Cougar Creek (43.5983,¥123.8788); 

Crane Creek (43.5545,¥123.9287); 

Dagget Creek (43.4862,¥124.0557); 

Darius Creek (43.4741,¥123.9407); Deer 

Creek (43.6207,¥123.9616); Deer Creek, 

Trib A (43.6100,¥123.9761); Deer 

Creek, Trib B (43.6191,¥123.9482); 

Devils Elbow Creek 

(43.4439,¥124.0608); East Fork 

Millicoma River (43.4204,¥123.8330); 

Elk Creek (43.5441,¥123.9175); Fish 

Creek (43.6015,¥123.8968); Fox Creek 

(43.4189,¥123.9459); Glenn Creek 

(43.4799,¥123.9325); Hidden Creek 

(43.5646,¥123.9235); Hodges Creek 

(43.4348,¥123.9889); Joes Creek 

(43.5838,¥123.9787); Kelly Creek 

(43.5948,¥123.9036); Knife Creek 

(43.6163,¥123.9310); Little Matson 

Creek (43.4375,¥123.8890); Marlow 

Creek (43.4779,¥123.9815); Matson 

Creek (43.4489,¥123.9191); Otter Creek 

(43.5935,¥123.9729); Panther Creek 

(43.5619,¥123.9038); Rainy Creek 

(43.4293,¥124.0400); Rodine Creek 

(43.4434,¥123.9789); Schumacher 

Creek (43.4842,¥124.0380); Totten 

Creek (43.4869,¥124.0457); Trout Creek 

(43.5398,¥123.9814); Unnamed 

(43.4686,¥124.0143); Unnamed 

(43.5156,¥123.9366); Unnamed 

(43.5396,¥123.9373); Unnamed 

(43.5450,¥123.9305); West Fork 

Millicoma River (43.5617,¥123.8788). 

(iii) Lakeside Frontal Watershed 

1710030403. Outlet(s) = Tenmile Creek 

(43.5618,¥124.2308) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Adams Creek 

(43.5382,¥124.1081); Alder Creek 

(43.6012,¥124.0272); Alder Gulch 

(43.5892,¥124.0665); Benson Creek 

(43.5813,¥124.0086); Big Creek 

(43.6085,¥124.0128); Blacks Creek 

(43.6365,¥124.1188); Clear Creek 

(43.6040,¥124.1871); Hatchery Creek 

(43.5275,¥124.0761); Johnson Creek 

(43.5410,¥124.0018); Murphy Creek 

(43.6243,¥124.0534); Noble Creek 

(43.5897,¥124.0347); Parker Creek 

(43.6471,¥124.1246); Roberts Creek 

(43.5557,¥124.0264); Saunders Creek 

(43.5417,¥124.2136); Shutter Creek 

(43.5252,¥124.1398); Swamp Creek 

(43.5550,¥124.1948); Unnamed 

(43.5203,¥124.0294); Unnamed 

(43.6302,¥124.1460); Unnamed 

(43.6353,¥124.1411); Unnamed 

(43.6369,¥124.1515); Unnamed 

(43.6466,¥124.1511); Unnamed 

(43.5081,¥124.0382); Unnamed 

(43.6353,¥124.16770; Wilkins Creek 

(43.6304,¥124.0819); Winter Creek 

(43.6533,¥124.1333). 

(iv) Coos Bay Watershed 1710030404. 

Outlet(s) = Big Creek (Lat 43.3326, Long 

¥124.3739); Coos Bay 

(43.3544,¥124.3384) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek 

(43.5048,¥124.1059); Bessey Creek 

(43.3844,¥124.0253); Big Creek 

(43.2834,¥124.3374), Big Creek 

(43.3980,¥123.9396); Big Creek, Trib A 

(43.2999,¥124.3711); Big Creek, Trib B 

(43.2854,¥124.3570); Blossom Gulch 

(43.3598,¥124.2410); Boatman Gulch 

(43.3445,¥124.2483); Boone Creek 

(43.2864,¥124.1762); Cardwell Creek 

(43.2793,¥124.1277); Catching Creek 

(43.2513,¥124.1586); Coalbank Creek 

(43.3154,¥124.2503); Coos Bay 

(43.3566,¥124.1592); Daniels Creek 

(43.3038,¥124.0725); Davis Creek 

(43.2610,¥124.2633); Day Creek 

(43.3129,¥124.2888); Deton Creek 

(43.4249,¥124.0771); Echo Creek 

(43.3797,¥124.1529); Elliot Creek 

(43.3037,¥124.2670); Farley Creek 

(43.3146,¥124.3415); Ferry Creek 

(43.2628,¥124.1728); Goat Creek 

(43.2700,¥124.2109); Haywood Creek 

(43.3067,¥124.3419); Hendrickson 

Creek (43.3907,¥124.0594); Isthmus 

Slough (43.2622,¥124.2049); Joe Ney 

Slough (43.3382,¥124.2958); John B 

Creek (43.2607,¥124.2814); Johnson 

Creek (43.4043,¥124.1389); Kentuck 

Creek (43.4556,¥124.0894); Larson 

Creek (43.4930,¥124.0764); Laxstrom 

Gulch (43.3372,¥124.1350); Lillian 

Creek (43.3550,¥124.1330); Mart Davis 

Creek (43.3911,¥124.0927); Matson 

Creek (43.3011,¥124.1161); McKnight 

Creek (43.3841,¥123.9991); Mettman 

Creek (43.4574,¥124.1293); Millicoma 

River (43.4242,¥124.0288); Monkey 

Ranch Gulch (43.3392,¥124.1458); 

Morgan Creek (43.3460,¥124.0318); 

North Slough (43.5032,¥124.1408); 

Noble Creek (43.2387,¥124.1665); 

Packard Creek (43.4058,¥124.0211); 

Palouse Creek (43.5123,¥124.0667); 

Panther Creek (43.2733,¥124.1222); 

Pony Slough (43.4078,¥124.2307); 

Rogers Creek (43.3831,¥124.0370); Ross 

Slough (43.3027,¥124.1781); Salmon 

Creek (43.3618,¥123.9816); Seaman 

Creek (43.3634,¥124.0111); Seelander 

Creek (43.2872,¥124.1176); 

Shinglehouse Slough 

(43.3154,¥124.2225); Smith Creek 

(43.3579,¥124.1051); Snedden Creek 

(43.3372,¥124.2177); Southport Slough 

(43.2981,¥124.2194); Stock Slough 

(43.3277,¥124.1195); Storey Creek 

(43.3238,¥124.2969); Sullivan Creek 

(43.4718,¥124.0872); Talbott Creek 

(43.2839,¥124.2954); Theodore Johnson 

Creek (43.2756,¥124.3457); Unnamed 

(43.5200,¥124.1812); Unnamed 

(43.2274,¥124.3236); Unnamed 

(43.2607,¥124.2984); Unnamed 

(43.2772,¥124.3246); Unnamed 

(43.2776,¥124.3148); Unnamed 

(43.2832,¥124.1532); Unnamed 

(43.2888,¥124.1962); Unnamed 

(43.2893,¥124.3406); Unnamed 

(43.2894,¥124.2034); Unnamed 

(43.2914,¥124.2917); Unnamed 

(43.2942,¥124.1027); Unnamed 

(43.2984,¥124.2847); Unnamed 

(43.3001,¥124.3022); Unnamed 

(43.3034,¥124.2001); Unnamed 

(43.3051,¥124.2031); Unnamed 

(43.3062,¥124.2030); Unnamed 

(43.3066,¥124.3674); Unnamed 

(43.3094,¥124.1947); Unnamed 

(43.3129,¥124.1208); Unnamed 

(43.3149,¥124.1347); Unnamed 

(43.3149,¥124.1358); Unnamed 

(43.3149,¥124.1358); Unnamed 

(43.3169,¥124.0638); Unnamed 

(43.3224,¥124.2390); Unnamed 

(43.3356,¥124.1542); Unnamed 

(43.3356,¥124.1526); Unnamed 

(43.3357,¥124.1510); Unnamed 

(43.3357,¥124.1534); Unnamed 

(43.3368,¥124.1509); Unnamed 

(43.3430,¥124.2352); Unnamed 

(43.3571,¥124.2372); Unnamed 

(43.3643,¥124.0474); Unnamed 

(43.3741,¥124.0577); Unnamed 

(43.4126,¥124.0599); Unnamed 

(43.4203,¥123.9824); Unnamed 

(43.4314,¥124.0998); Unnamed 

(43.4516,¥124.1023); Unnamed 

(43.4521,¥124.1110); Unnamed 

(43.5345,¥124.1946); Vogel Creek 

(43.3511,¥124.1206); Wasson Creek 

(43.2688,¥124.3368); Willanch Creek 

(43.4233,¥124.1061); Willanch Creek, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7858 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Trib A (43.4032,¥124.1169); Wilson 

Creek (43.2652,¥124.1281); Winchester 

Creek (43.2145,¥124.3116); Winchester 

Creek, Trib E (43.2463,¥124.3067); 

Woodruff Creek (43.4206,¥123.9746); 

Wren Smith Creek 

(43.3131,¥124.0649). 

(12) Coquille Subbasin 17100305—(i) 

Middle Fork Coquille Watershed 

1710030502. Outlet(s) = Middle Fork 

Coquille River (Lat 43.0340, Long 

¥124.1161) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Anderson Creek (43.0087,¥123.9445); 

Axe Creek (43.0516,¥123.9468); Bear 

Creek (43.0657,¥123.9284); Belieu 

Creek (43.0293,¥123.9470); Big Creek 

(43.0991,¥123.8983); Brownson Creek 

(43.0879,¥123.9583); Endicott Creek 

(43.0401,¥124.0710); Fall Creek 

(43.0514,¥123.9910); Indian Creek 

(43.0203,¥124.0842); Little Rock Creek 

(42.9913,¥123.8335); McMullen Creek 

(43.0220,¥124.0366); Middle Fork 

Coquille River (42.9701,¥123.7621); 

Myrtle Creek (42.9642,¥124.0170); 

Rasler Creek (42.9518,¥123.9643); Rock 

Creek (42.9200,¥123.9073); Rock Creek 

(43.0029,¥123.8440); Salmon Creek 

(43.0075,¥124.0273); Sandy Creek 

(43.0796,¥123.8517); Sandy Creek, Trib 

F (43.0526,¥123.8736); Sheilds Creek 

(42.9184,¥123.9219); Slater Creek 

(42.9358,¥123.7958); Slide Creek 

(42.9957,¥123.9040); Smith Creek 

(43.0566,¥124.0337); Swamp Creek 

(43.0934,¥123.9000); Unnamed 

(43.0016,¥123.9550); Unnamed 

(43.0681,¥123.9812); Unnamed 

(43.0810,¥123.9892). 

(ii) Middle Main Coquille Watershed 

1710030503. Outlet(s) = South Fork 

Coquille River (Lat 43.0805, Long 

¥124.1405) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Baker Creek (42.8913,¥124.1297); 

Beaver Creek (42.9429,¥124.0783); 

Catching Creek, Middle Fork 

(42.9913,¥124.2331); Catching Creek, 

South Fork (42.9587,¥124.2348); 

Coquille River, South Fork 

(42.8778,¥124.0743); Cove Creek 

(43.0437,¥124.2088); Dement Creek 

(42.9422,¥124.2086); Gettys Creek 

(43.0028,¥124.1988); Grants Creek 

(42.9730,¥124.1041); Horse Hollow 

(43.0382,¥124.1984); Knight Creek 

(43.0022,¥124.2663); Koontz Creek 

(43.0111,¥124.2505); Long Tom Creek 

(42.9342,¥124.0992); Matheny Creek 

(43.0495,¥124.1892); Mill Creek 

(42.9777,¥124.1663); Rhoda Creek 

(43.0007,¥124.1032); Roberts Creek 

(42.9748,¥124.2385); Rowland Creek 

(42.9045,¥124.1845); Russell Creek 

(42.9495,¥124.1611); Unnamed 

(42.9684,¥124.1033); Ward Creek 

(43.0429,¥); 124.2358); Warner Creek 

(43.0196,¥124.1187); Wildcat Creek 

(43.0277,¥124.2225); Wolf Creek 

(43.0136,¥124.2318); Woodward Creek 

(42.9023,¥124.0658). 

(iii) East Fork Coquille Watershed 

1710030504. Outlet(s) = East Fork 

Coquille River (Lat 43.1065, Long 

¥124.0761) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Bills Creek (43.1709,¥123.9244); China 

Creek (43.1736,¥123.9086); East Fork 

Coquille River (43.1476,¥123.8936); Elk 

Creek (43.1312,¥123.9621); Hantz 

Creek (43.1832,¥123.9713); South Fork 

Elk Creek (43.1212,¥123.9200); Steel 

Creek (43.1810,¥123.9354); Unnamed 

(43.0908,¥124.0361); Unnamed 

(43.0925,¥124.0495); Unnamed 

(43.0976,¥123.9705); Unnamed 

(43.1006,¥124.0052); Unnamed 

(43.1071,¥123.9163); Unnamed 

(43.1655,¥123.9078); Unnamed 

(43.1725,¥123.9881); Weekly Creek 

(43.0944,¥124.0271); Yankee Run 

(43.1517,¥124.0483); Yankee Run, Trib 

C (43.1626,¥124.0162). 

(iv) North Fork Coquille Watershed 

1710030505. Outlet(s) = North Fork 

Coquille River (Lat 43.0805, Long 

¥124.1405) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 

Alder Creek (43.2771,¥123.9207); Blair 

Creek (43.1944,¥124.1121); Cherry 

Creek, North Fork (43.2192,¥123.9124); 

Cherry Creek, South Fork 

(43.2154,¥123.9353); Coak Creek 

(43.2270,¥124.0324); Coquille River, 

Little North Fork (43.2988,¥123.9410); 

Coquille River, North Fork 

(43.2974,¥123.8791); Coquille River, 

North Fork, Trib E 

(43.1881,¥124.0764); Coquille River, 

North Fork, Trib I (43.2932,¥123.8920); 

Coquille River, North Fork, Trib Y 

(43.3428,¥123.9678); Evans Creek 

(43.2868,¥124.0561); Fruin Creek 

(43.3016,¥123.9198); Garage Creek 

(43.1508,¥124.1020); Giles Creek 

(43.3129,¥124.0337); Honcho Creek 

(43.2628,¥123.8954); Hudson Creek 

(43.2755,¥123.9604); Jerusalem Creek 

(43.1844,¥124.0539); Johns Creek 

(43.0760,¥124.0498); Little Cherry 

Creek (43.2007,¥123.9594); Llewellyn 

Creek (43.1034,124.1063); Llewellyn 

Creek, Trib A (43.0969,¥124.0995); Lost 

Creek (43.1768,¥124.1047); Lost Creek 

(43.2451,¥123.9745); Mast Creek 

(43.2264,¥124.0207); Middle Creek 

(43.2332,¥123.8726); Moon Creek 

(43.2902,¥123.9493); Moon Creek, Trib 

A (43.2976,¥123.9837); Moon Creek, 

Trib A–1 (43.2944,¥123.9753); Neely 

Creek (43.2960,¥124.0380); Park Creek 

(43.2508,¥123.8661); Park Creek, Trib B 

(43.2702,¥123.8782); Schoolhouse 

Creek (43.1637,¥124.0949); Steele 

Creek (43.2203,¥124.1018); Steinnon 

Creek (43.2534,¥124.1076); Unnamed 

(43.1305,¥124.0759); Unnamed 

(43.2047,¥124.0314); Unnamed 

(43.2127,¥124.1101); Unnamed 

(43.2165,¥123.9144); Unnamed 

(43.2439,¥123.9275); Unnamed 

(43.2444,¥124.0868); Unnamed 

(43.2530,¥124.0848); Unnamed 

(43.2582,¥124.0794); Unnamed 

(43.2584,¥123.8846); Unnamed 

(43.2625,¥124.0474); Unnamed 

(43.2655,¥123.9269); Unnamed 

(43.2676,¥124.0367); Vaughns Creek 

(43.2378,¥123.9106); Whitley Creek 

(43.2899,¥124.0115); Wimer Creek 

(43.1303,¥124.0640); Wood Creek 

(43.1392,¥124.1274); Wood Creek, 

North Fork (43.1454,¥124.1211). 

(v) Lower Coquille Watershed 

1710030506. Outlet(s) = Coquille River 

(Lat 43.1237, Long ¥124.4261) 

upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek 

(43.1385,¥124.2697); Bear Creek 

(43.0411,¥124.2893); Beaver Creek 

(43.2249,¥124.1923); Beaver Creek 

(43.2525,¥124.2456); Beaver Slough, 

Trib A (43.2154,¥124.2731); Bill Creek 

(43.0256,¥124.3126); Budd Creek 

(43.2011,¥124.1921); Calloway Creek 

(43.2060,¥124.1684); Cawfield Creek 

(43.1839,¥124.1372); China Creek 

(43.2170,¥124.2076); Cold Creek 

(43.2038,¥124.1419); Coquille River 

(43.0805,¥124.1405); Coquille River, 

Trib A (43.2032,¥124.2930); 

Cunningham Creek 

(43.2349,¥124.1378); Dutch John 

Ravine (43.1744,¥124.1781); Dye Creek 

(43.2274,¥124.1569); Fahys Creek 

(43.1676,¥124.3861); Fat Elk Creek 

(43.1373,¥124.2560); Ferry Creek 

(43.1150,¥124.3831); Fishtrap Creek 

(43.0841,¥124.2544); Glen Aiken Creek 

(43.1482,¥124.1497); Grady Creek 

(43.1032,¥124.1381); Gray Creek 

(43.1222,¥124.1286); Hall Creek 

(43.0583,¥124.2516); Hall Creek, Trib A 

(43.0842,¥124.1745); Harlin Creek 

(43.1326,¥124.1633); Hatchet Slough, 

Trib A (43.1638,¥124.3065); Hatchet 

Slough (43.1879,¥124.3003); Lampa 

Creek (43.0531,¥124.2665); Little Bear 

Creek (43.0407,¥124.2783); Little 

Fishtrap Creek (43.1201,¥124.2290); 

Lowe Creek (43.1401,¥124.3232); Mack 

Creek (43.0604,¥124.3306); Monroe 

Creek (43.0705,¥124.2905); Offield 

Creek (43.1587,¥124.3273); Pulaski 

Creek (43.1398,¥124.2184); Randleman 

Creek (43.0818,¥124.3039); Rich Creek 

(43.0576,¥124.2067); Rink Creek 

(43.1764,¥124.1369); Rock Robinson 

Creek (43.0860,¥124.2306); Rollan 

Creek (43.1266,¥124.2563); Sevenmile 

Creek (43.2157,¥124.3350); Sevenmile 

Creek, Trib A (43.1853,¥124.3187); 

Sevenmile Creek, Trib C 

(43.2081,¥124.3340); Unnamed 

(43.1084,¥124.2727); Unnamed 

43.1731,¥124.1852); Unnamed 

(43.1924,¥124.1378); Unnamed 

(43.1997,¥124.3346); Unnamed 

(43.2281,¥124.2190); Unnamed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7859 

(43.2424,¥124.2737); Waddington 

Creek (43.1105,¥124.2915). 

(13) Sixes Subbasin 17100306’(i) 

Sixes River Watershed 1710030603. 

Outlet(s) = Sixes River (Lat 42.8543, 

Long ¥124.5427) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek 

(42.7867,¥124.4373); Carlton Creek 

(42.8594,¥124.2382); Cold Creek 

(42.7824,¥124.2070); Crystal Creek 

(42.8404,¥124.4501); Dry Creek 

(42.7673,¥124.3726); Edson Creek 

(42.8253,¥124.3782); Hays Creek 

(42.8455,¥124.1796); Little Dry Creek 

(42.8002,¥124.3838); Murphy Canyon 

(42.8516,¥124.1541); Sixes River 

(42.8232,¥124.1704); Sixes River, 

Middle Fork (42.7651,¥124.1782); 

Sixes River, North Fork 

(42.8878,¥124.2320); South Fork Sixes 

River (42.8028,¥124.3022); Sugar Creek 

(42.8217,¥124.2035); Unnamed 

(42.8189,¥124.3567); Unnamed 

(42.7952,¥124.3918); Unnamed 

(42.8276,¥124.4629). 

(ii) New River Frontal Watershed 

1710030604. Outlet(s) = New River (Lat 

43.0007, Long¥124.4557); Twomile 

Creek (43.0440,¥124.4415) upstream to 

endpoint(s) in: Bethel Creek 

(42.9519,¥124.3954); Boulder Creek 

(42.8574,¥124.5050); Butte Creek 

(42.9458,¥124.4096); Conner Creek 

(42.9814,¥124.4215); Davis Creek 

(42.9657,¥124.3968); Floras Creek 

(42.9127,¥124.3963); Fourmile Creek 

(42.9887,¥124.3077); Fourmile Creek, 

South Fork (42.9642,¥124.3734); 

Langlois Creek (42.9238,¥124.4570); 

Little Creek (43.0030,¥124.3562); Long 

Creek (42.9828,¥124.3770); Lower 

Twomile Creek (43.0223,¥124.4080); 

Morton Creek (42.9437,¥124.4234); 

New River (42.8563,¥124.4602); North 

Fourmile Creek (42.9900,¥124.3176); 

Redibough Creek (43.0251,¥124.3659); 

South Twomile Creek 

(43.0047,¥124.3672); Spring Creek 

(43.0183,¥124.4299); Twomile Creek 

(43.0100,¥124.3291); Unnamed 

(43.0209,¥124.3386); Unnamed 

(43.0350,¥124.3506); Unnamed 

(43.0378,¥124.3481); Unnamed 

(43.0409,¥124.3544); Unnamed 

(42.8714,¥124.4586); Unnamed 

(42.9029,¥124.4222); Unnamed 

(42.9031,¥124.4581); Unnamed 

(42.9294,¥124.4421); Unnamed 

(42.9347,¥124.4559); Unnamed 

(42.9737,¥124.3363); Unnamed 

(42.9800,¥124.3432); Unnamed 

(43.0058,¥124.4066); Willow Creek 

(42.8880,¥124.4505). 

(14) Maps of critical habitat for the 

Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU follow: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3

7860 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7861 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.001</GPH>
7862 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7863 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.003</GPH>
7864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7865 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.005</GPH>
7866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7867 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.007</GPH>
7868 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7869 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.009</GPH>
7870 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7871 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.011</GPH>
7872 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7873 

[FR Doc. 08–552 Filed 2–4–08; 3:24 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3ER11FE08.013</GPH>