[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62741-62751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30865]
[[Page 62741]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 971029257-7257-01; I.D. No. 101097A]
RIN 0648-AG56
Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast and
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments and notice of public
hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NMFS proposes to designate critical habitat for two
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Critical
habitat for the Central California Coast ESU encompasses accessible
reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries)
between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in
California. Also included are two rivers entering San Francisco Bay:
Mill Valley Creek and Corte Madera Creek. Critical habitat for the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU encompasses accessible
reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries)
between the Mattole River in California and the Elk River in Oregon,
inclusive.
The areas described in this proposed rule represent the current
freshwater and estuarine range of the listed species. For both ESUs,
critical habitat includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent
riparian zones below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
NMFS has identified twelve dams in the range of these ESUs that
currently block access to habitats historically occupied by coho
salmon. However, NMFS has not designated these inaccessible areas as
critical habitat because areas downstream are believed to be sufficient
for the conservation of the ESUs. The economic and other impacts
resulting from this critical habitat designation are expected to be
minimal.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 1998. Public
hearings on this proposed action are scheduled for the month of
December 1997. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and times of
public hearings.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Protected
Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-
2737; or Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Species
Management Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802-4213. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for locations of public
hearings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005, Craig
Wingert at (562) 980-4021, or Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 31, 1996, NMFS published its determination to list
Central California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as
threatened under the ESA (61 FR 56138). In a technical correction to
the final listing determination (62 FR 1296, January 9, 1997), NMFS
defined the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU to include all
coho salmon naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda in
Humboldt County, California, and the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz
County, California. Subsequently, on May 6, 1997, NMFS published its
determination to list the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
coho salmon ESU as threatened under the ESA (62 FR 24588) and defined
the ESU to include all coho salmon naturally reproduced in streams
between Cape Blanco in Curry County, Oregon, and Punta Gorda in
Humboldt County, California.
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. On
July 25, 1995, NMFS published a Federal Register notice (60 FR 38011)
soliciting information and data regarding the biological status of West
Coast coho salmon, available salmon conservation measures, and
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat. At the time
of final listing for each of these two ESUs, critical habitat was not
determinable, since information necessary to perform the required
analyses was lacking. NMFS has determined that sufficient information
now exists to designate critical habitat for the two listed coho salmon
ESUs. NMFS has considered all available information and data in making
this proposal.
Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this Notice refers to
critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused with
the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et sec.
Definition of Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon
a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' (see 16
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section
3(3) of the ESA, means ``* * * to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this Act are no longer necessary.'' (see U.S.C. 1532(3)).
In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following
requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals,
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring;
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of this species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to
these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological
features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that
are essential to the conservation of the species and may require
special management considerations or protection. These essential
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (see 50
CFR 424.12(b))).
Consideration of Economic and Other Factors
The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation
have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS
identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify
the area(s) being considered or be affected by a
[[Page 62742]]
designation. An area may be excluded from a critical habitat
designation if NMFS determines that the overall benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result
in the extinction of the species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental
impacts specifically resulting from a critical habitat designation,
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the
species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species
under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in
many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself,
are minimal (see Significance of Designating Critical Habitat section
of this notice). In general, the designation of critical habitat
highlights geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive
protection resulting from the listing itself.
Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated
regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA, means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm
can occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or
not designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential
behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing, or migration.
Significance of Designating Critical Habitat
The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself,
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to
the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7.
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g.,
authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not
affect exclusively state or private activities.
Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless
of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as
those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival
and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Using these
definitions, activities that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy
provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a
species in cases where areas outside the species' current range have
been designated. When actions may affect these areas, Federal agencies
are required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (see 50 CFR
402.14(a)), a requirement which may not have been recognized but for
the critical habitat designation.
A designation of critical habitat provides a clear indication to
Federal agencies as to when section 7 consultation is required,
particularly in cases where the action would not result in immediate
mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an
action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is
not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the
essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which
activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section
7, i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the
designated area.
A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in
planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance,
those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7
consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential
conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or threatened species
can be identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning
process.
Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that
it helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation
regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the
time of those proposed regulations and, therefore, are not considered
in the critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and
local management programs, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian
lands protection, may also provide special protection for critical
habitat areas.
Process for Designating Critical Habitat
Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are
evaluated and habitat areas and features that are essential to the
conservation of the species are identified. If alternative areas exist
that would provide for the conservation of the species, such
alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for special
management considerations or protection of the area(s) or features is
evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other impacts of
designating these essential areas as ``critical habitat'' are
evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the need
for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the
proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for
comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments
on the proposal and impacts assessment, is typically published within
one year of the proposed rule. Final critical habitat designations may
be revised, using the same process, as new information becomes
available.
A description of the critical habitat, need for special management,
impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed action are
described in the following sections.
Critical Habitat of California and Southern Oregon Coho Salmon
Biological information for listed coho salmon can be found in NMFS
species' status reviews (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995; NMFS,
1997), species life history summaries (Shapavalov and Taft, 1954;
Laufle et al., 1986; Hassler, 1987; Anderson, 1995; Sandercock, 1991),
and in Federal Register notices of proposed and final listing
determinations (59 FR 21744, April 26, 1994; 60 FR 38011, July 25,
1995; 61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997).
The current geographic range of coho salmon from the Oregon and
California coasts includes vast areas of the North Pacific ocean,
nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine
[[Page 62743]]
areas. The marine distribution south of Punta Gorda, California,
appears to encompass a relatively narrow, nearshore strip approximately
100 km wide (Taft, 1937; Shapovalov and Taft, 1954; Laufle et al.,
1986; NOAA, 1990; Weitkamp et al., 1995). North of Punta Gorda, the
distribution widens to encompass nearly all marine areas north of 41
deg. N latititude (Wright, 1968; Godfrey et al., 1975; NOAA, 1990).
Major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support coho salmon within
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU include the Rogue
River, Smith River, Klamath River, Mad River, Humboldt Bay, Eel River,
and Mattole River. Within the range of the Central California Coast
ESU, major rivers, estuaries, and bays include the Ten Mile, Noyo, Big,
Navarro, Garcia, Gualala, and Russian Rivers, and Tomales and San
Francisco Bays [Emmett et al., 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992; Brown and
Moyle, 1991; Bryant, 1994; California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995]. Many smaller coastal rivers and
streams in each ESU also provide essential estuarine habitat for coho
salmon, but access is often constrained by seasonal fluctuations in
hydrologic conditions.
Any attempt to describe the current distribution of coho salmon
must take into account the fact that extant populations and densities
are a small fraction of historical levels. All coho salmon stocks in
the Central California Coast ESU are extremely depressed relative to
past abundance and there are limited data to assess population numbers
or trends. The main coho salmon stocks in this region are from the Ten
Mile River, Big River, Noyo River, Navarro River, Garcia River, Gualala
River, Russian River, Lagunitas Creek, Waddell Creek, and Scott Creek.
Several of these stocks are heavily influenced by hatcheries and
apparently have little natural production in mainstem reaches.
Historically, coho salmon abundance within this region was estimated
from 50,000 to 125,000 native coho salmon. Presently, coho salmon
abundance within this region is estimated to be less than 5,000
naturally reproducing fish, and a vast majority of these are considered
to be non-native fish (Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bryant, 1994; CDFG,
1994).
All coho salmon stocks between Punta Gorda and Cape Blanco in the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU are also depressed
relative to past abundance, and there are limited data to assess
population numbers or trends currently. The main coho salmon stocks in
this region are from the Rogue, Klamath, and Trinity Rivers, and the
latter two are heavily influenced by hatcheries and apparently have
little natural production in mainstem reaches. Other important stocks
within this ESU include the Winchuck, Chetco, Smith, Mad, Elk, Eel, and
the Mattole Rivers. Historically, coho salmon abundance within this
region was estimated from 150,000 to 400,000 native fish. Presently,
abundance is estimated to be less than 30,000 naturally reproducing
coho salmon, and a vast majority of these (roughly 20,000) are
considered to be non-native fish (Brown and Moyle, 1991, Bryant, 1994;
CDFG, 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995). Within the range of both ESUs, the
species' life cycle can be separated into five essential habitat types:
(1) Juvenile summer and winter rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration
corridors; (3) areas for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult
migration corridors; and (5) spawning areas. Areas 1 and 5 are often
located in small headwater streams, while areas 2 and 4 include these
tributaries as well as mainstem reaches and estuarine zones. Growth and
development to adulthood (area 3) occurs primarily in near- and off-
shore marine waters, although final maturation takes place in
freshwater tributaries when the adults return to spawn. Within these
areas, essential features of coho salmon critical habitat include
adequate; (1) substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4)
water temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8)
riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. Given
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these coho salmon ESUs
and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is
not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of
these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by
CDFG, 1965; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout
(CACSST), 1988; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991; Nehlsen
et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; California State Lands Commission
(CSLC), 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996; and Spence et al., 1996.
NMFS believes that the current freshwater and estuarine range of
the species encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate
to ensure the species' conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat
areas outside the species' current range is not necessary. It is
important to note that habitat quality in this current range is
intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and of
inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which provide key
habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality)
crucial for coho in downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine
habitats are important for rearing and migrating coho salmon and has
included them in this designation. Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or
nearshore areas seaward of the mouth of coastal rivers) are also vital
to the species, and ocean conditions are believed to have a major
influence on coho salmon survival (see review in Pearcy, 1992).
However, no need appears to be necessary for special management
consideration or protection of this habitat. Therefore, NMFS is not
proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this time.
If additional information becomes available that supports the inclusion
of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
Defining specific river reaches that are critical for coho salmon
is difficult because of the current low abundance of the species and of
our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater distribution,
both current and historical. The latter is due, in large part, to the
lack of comprehensive sampling effort dedicated to monitoring the
species. For example, in contrast to coho salmon spawner surveys in
index and randomly selected stream reaches north of Cape Blanco,
Oregon, information on adult coho salmon distribution in California and
southwest Oregon streams has been typically gathered secondarily to
chinook salmon surveys. Some surveys concerning juveniles have been
conducted. However, they are rarely conducted in a consistent,
systematic and comprehensive manner and typically do not give an
accurate estimate of future adult escapement.
In California and Oregon, several recent efforts have been made to
characterize the species' distribution [Brown and Moyle, 1991; Hassler
et al., 1991; The Wilderness Society (TWS), 1993; Bryant, 1994; CDFG,
1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995; Adams et al., 1996; Oregon Coastal Salmon
Restoration Initiative (OCSRI), 1997] or to identify watersheds
important to at-risk populations of salmonids and resident fishes
[Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993]. In
southwest Oregon, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has
developed a draft series of maps depicting ``core areas'' for coho
salmon and other species. These core areas are defined as ``reaches or
[[Page 62744]]
watersheds within individual coastal basins that are judged to be of
critical importance to the sustenance of salmon populations that
inhabit those basins'' (OCSRI, 1997) and are derived from 1:100,000
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit maps. The areas depicted
are primarily river reaches where best available data or professional
judgement indicate high concentrations of spawning or rearing coho
salmon. Within the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU, 17 areas have been identified as core areas, and
the vast majority of these (14 of 17) are located in the mid-to-upper
portions of the Rogue River basin. Notably missing are core areas for
this species in the Chetco, Pistol, and Winchuck River basins. The ODFW
recognizes that coho salmon do inhabit these other southwest Oregon
basins, but considers the species ``rare'' in coastal streams draining
the Siskiyou Mountains (ODFW, 1995). While NMFS believes that this
mapping effort holds great promise to focus habitat protection and
restoration efforts, the core areas are only a subset of the areas that
NMFS believes are critical habitat for coho salmon.
In California, the NMFS and U.S. Forest Service (Bryant and Olsen,
in prep.) have developed a series of Geographic Information System maps
depicting coho salmon historic and current distribution by using data
and information NMFS had compiled for the west coast coho salmon status
review and information previously developed on fish distributions by
ODFW, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These coho salmon distribution maps,
depicted on USGS hydrologic units at a scale of 1:100,000, are the
first attempt to develop a comprehensive distribution profile of coho
salmon throughout California's watersheds and are an important step in
the development of conservation and recovery efforts.
The limited data across the range of both ESUs, as well as
dissimilarities in data types within the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU, make it difficult to define this species
distribution at a fine scale. However, through consultations with other
Federal and State biologists, NMFS has been able to construct a clearer
picture of coho salmon distribution at the scale of fifth, sixth, and
seventh field watersheds (Bryant and Olsen, in prep.). These watersheds
and drainages provide a finer scale of geographic resolution than the
larger USGS hydrologic units they are nested within. NMFS explored
using these data to more accurately characterize the coho salmon's
distribution in these listed ESUs. Except in a very few cases, the
assessment revealed that coho salmon, though considerably reduced in
population size, are still distributed or have the potential for
distribution throughout nearly all watersheds within the geographic
range of both ESUs. Notable exceptions are areas above several
impassable dams (see Barriers Within the Species' Range section of this
notice) and some streams that have had only sporadic presence/absence
sampling.
Based on consideration of the best available information regarding
the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred
approach to identifying critical habitat is to designate all areas (and
their adjacent riparian zones) accessible to the species within the
range of each ESU. The NMFS has taken this approach in previous
critical habitat designations for other species (e.g., Snake River
salmon and proposed for Umpqua River cutthroat trout) which inhabit a
wide range of freshwater habitats, in particular small tributary
streams (58 FR 68543, December 28, 1993; 62 FR 40786, July 30, 1997).
NMFS believes that adopting a more inclusive, watershed-based
description of critical habitat is appropriate because it (1)
recognizes the species' use of diverse habitats and underscores the
need to account for all of the habitat types supporting the species'
freshwater and estuarine life stages, from small headwater streams to
migration corridors and estuarine rearing areas; (2) takes into account
the natural variability in habitat use (e.g., some streams may have
fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall) that makes precise
mapping difficult; and (3) reinforces the important linkage between
aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.
An array of management issues encompass these habitats, and special
management considerations will be necessary, especially on lands and
streams under Federal ownership (see Activities that May Affect
Critical Habitat and Need for Special Management Considerations or
Protection sections of this notice). While marine areas are also a
critical link in this cycle, NMFS does not believe that special
management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features
in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas are
being proposed for critical habitat at this time.
Barriers Within the Species' Range
Within the range of both ESUs, coho salmon face a multitude of
barriers that limit the access of juvenile and adult fish to essential
freshwater habitats. While some of these are natural barriers (e.g.,
waterfalls or high-gradient velocity barriers) that have been in
existence for hundreds or thousands of years, more significant are the
manmade barriers that have been created in the past several decades
(CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; National Research
Council, 1996). The extent of such barriers as culverts and road
crossing structures that impede or block fish passage appears to be
substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence surveys conducted in
Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey season, nearly 15 percent
of the confirmed end of fish use were due to human barriers,
principally road culverts (OCSRI, 1997). Pushup dams/diversions and
irrigation withdrawals also present significant barriers or lethal
conditions (e.g., high water temperatures) to coho salmon in southern
Oregon and California. However, because these manmade barriers can,
under certain flow conditions, be surmounted by fish or present only a
temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS does not consider them to delineate
the upstream extent of critical habitat.
Numerous hydropower and water storage projects have been built
which either block access to areas used historically by coho salmon or
alter the hydrograph of downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified a
total of 12 dams within the range of both ESUs which currently have no
fish passage facilities to allow coho access to former spawning and
rearing habitats. Blocked habitat constitutes approximately 9 to 11
percent of the historic range of each ESU. While these blocked areas
are proportionally significant in certain basins, NMFS believes this
blocked habitat is not currently essential for the recovery of either
ESU. NMFS will re-evaluate this conclusion during the recovery planning
process and in section 7 consultation.
Because these projects are widely distributed throughout the range
of each ESU, they can have a major downstream influence on coho salmon.
Such impacts can include the following: Depletion and storage of
natural flows which can drastically alter natural hydrological cycles;
increase juvenile and adult mortality due to migration delays resulting
from insufficient flows or habitat blockages; loss of sufficient
habitat due to deterring and blockage; stranding of fish resulting from
rapid flow fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened
or unscreened diversions; and increased
[[Page 62745]]
mortality resulting from increased water temperatures (CACSST, 1988;
Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 1991; Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman
et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996). In addition to these
factors, reduced flows negatively affect fish habitats due to increased
deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased recruitment
of large woody debris and spawning gravels, and encroachment of
riparian and non-endemic vegetation into spawning and rearing areas
resulting in reduced available habitat (CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993;
Botkin et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996). These dam-related factors will be
effectively addressed through section 7 consultations. Following are
brief summaries of the 12 dams (by ESU, ordered from south to north)
identified within the range of both ESUs and the habitats these dams
effectively remove from coho salmon production.
Dams in the Range of the Central California Coast ESU
There are five dams within the range of this ESU that currently
block access to historical spawning and rearing areas of coho salmon.
Combined, these blocked areas amount to approximately 9 percent of the
freshwater and estuarine range of the ESU.
1. Newell Dam is located on Newell Creek (tributary to the San
Lorenzo River), approximately 18 miles (29 km) upstream from the
Pacific Ocean, and forms Loch Lomond reservoir in Santa Cruz County,
California. The dam does not have a fish passage facility, and upon its
completion in 1960, blocked access to approximately 5 miles (8 km) of
mainstem upstream habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately
26 percent of the entire San Lorenzo River basin.
2. Peters Dam is located on Lagunitas Creek, approximately 14 miles
(23 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and forms Kent Lake in Marin
County, California. The dam does not have a fish passage facility, and
upon its completion in 1940, blocked access to approximately 8 miles
(13 km) of mainstem upstream habitat. These blocked areas constitute
approximately 6 percent of the entire Lagunitas Creek basin.
3. Nicasio Dam is located on Nicasio Creek (tributary to Lagunitas
Creek), approximately 8 miles (13 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean,
and forms Nicasio Reservoir in Marin County, California. The dam does
not have a fish passage facility, and upon its completion in 1961,
blocked access to approximately 5 miles (8 km) of mainstem upstream
habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately 10 percent of the
entire Lagunitas Creek basin.
4. Warm Springs Dam is located on Dry Creek (tributary to the
Russian River), approximately 45 miles (72 km) upstream from the
Pacific Ocean, and forms Sonoma Lake in Sonoma County, California. The
dam does not have a fish passage facility, and upon its completion in
1982, blocked access to approximately 50 miles (80 km) of upstream
habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately 9 percent of the
entire Russian River basin.
5. Coyote Dam is located on the mainstem Russian River,
approximately 95 miles (153 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and
forms Lake Mendocino in Mendocino County, California. The dam does not
have a fish passage facility, and upon its completion in 1959, blocked
access to approximately 36 miles (58 km) of mainstem upstream habitat.
These blocked areas constitute approximately 7 percent of the entire
Russian River basin.
Dams in the Range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU
There are seven dams within the range of this ESU that currently
block access to historical spawning and rearing areas of coho salmon.
Combined, these blocked areas amount to approximately 11 percent of the
freshwater and estuarine range of the ESU.
1. Scott Dam is located on the mainstem Eel River, approximately
169 miles (272 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and forms Lake
Pillsbury in Lake County, California. The dam does not have a fish
passage facility, and upon its completion in 1922, blocked access to
approximately 36 miles (58 km) of upstream habitat. These blocked areas
constitute approximately 8 percent of the entire Eel River basin.
2. Matthews Dam is located on the mainstem Mad River, approximately
79 miles (127 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and forms Ruth Lake
in Trinity County, California. The dam does not have a fish passage
facility, and upon its completion in 1961, blocked access to
approximately 2 miles (3 km) of mainstem upstream habitat. These
blocked areas constitute approximately 13 percent of the entire Mad
River basin.
3. Lewiston Dam is located on the Trinity River (tributary to the
lower Klamath River), approximately 110 miles (177 km) upstream from
the Pacific Ocean, and forms Lewiston Reservoir in Trinity County,
California. The dam does not have a fish passage facility, and upon its
completion in 1963, blocked access to approximately 109 miles (175 km)
of upstream habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately 24
percent of the Trinity River subbasin and 9 percent of the entire
Klamath River basin.
4. Dwinnell Dam is located on the Shasta River (tributary to the
upper Klamath River), approximately 214 miles (345 km) upstream from
the Pacific Ocean, and forms Dwinnell Reservoir in Siskiyou County,
California. The dam does not have a fish passage facility, and upon its
completion in 1928, blocked access to approximately 17 miles (27 km) of
upstream habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately 17
percent of the Shasta River subbasin and 2 percent of the entire
Klamath River basin.
5. Iron Gate Dam is located on the mainstem Klamath River,
approximately 190 miles (306 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and
forms Iron Gate Reservoir in Siskiyou County, California. The dam does
not have a fish passage facility, and upon its completion in 1961,
blocked access to approximately 30 miles (48 km) of mainstem upstream
habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately 8 percent of the
entire Klamath River basin.
6. Applegate Dam is located on the Applegate River (tributary to
the Rogue River), approximately 140 miles (225 km) upstream from the
Pacific Ocean, and forms Applegate Reservoir in Jackson County, Oregon.
The dam does not have a fish passage facility, and upon its completion
in 1980, blocked access to approximately 30 miles (48 km) of upstream
habitat. These blocked areas constitute approximately 29 percent of the
Applegate River subbasin and approximately 5 percent of the entire
Rogue River basin that was historically accessible to coho salmon.
7. Lost Creek Dam is located on the Rogue River, approximately 156
miles (252 km) upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and forms Lost Creek
Reservoir in Jackson County, Oregon. The dam does not have a fish
passage facility, and upon its completion in 1977, blocked access to
approximately 6 miles (10 km) of mainstem upstream habitat. These
blocked areas constitute approximately 1 percent of the entire Rogue
River basin that was historically accessible to coho salmon.
Land Ownership Within the Species' Range
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the major river basins inhabited by each
coho salmon ESU as well as counties containing basins designated as
critical
[[Page 62746]]
habitat. NMFS has also derived estimates of land ownership by Federal,
State, and Private/Other (primarily private and tribal) landholders for
each of the major river basins. Due to data limitations which prevent
mapping the precise river reaches inhabited by coho salmon, the
ownership estimates were based on land area within entire river basins.
Aggregating all basins in the Central California Coast ESU yields
ownership estimates of approximately 5 percent Federal; 6 percent
State, and 89 percent Private/Other lands. In contrast, ownership for
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU is approximately 53
percent Federal, 1 percent State, and 46 percent Private/Other lands.
These data clearly indicate that the role of Federal land/water
management agencies will be greater in the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU while private landholders will play a major role
in protecting and restoring coho salmon habitat in the Central
California Coast ESU.
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
In order to assure that the essential areas and features are
maintained or restored, special management may be needed. Activities
that may require special management considerations for freshwater and
estuarine life stages of listed coho salmon include, but are not
limited to (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3) point and non-
point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat restoration;
(6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining; (8) road
construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10) dredge and
fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily of current
concern within every watershed; however, they indicate the potential
types of activities that will require consultation in the future. No
special management considerations have been identified for listed coho
salmon while they are residing in the ocean environment.
Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat
A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat
requirements of listed coho salmon. More in-depth discussions are
contained in the Federal Register notices announcing the listing
determinations for each ESU (61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 62 FR
24588, May 6, 1997). These activities include water and land management
actions of Federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) and related or similar actions of other
federally regulated projects and lands, including livestock grazing
allocations by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land
Management; hydropower sites licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; dams built or operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; timber sales conducted by the U.S.
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management; road building
activities authorized by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management; and mining and road
building activities authorized by the states of California and Oregon.
Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, and bank
stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. This designation will provide these
agencies, private entities, and the public with clear notification of
critical habitat designated for listed coho salmon and the boundaries
of the habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section
7 consultation process. This designation will also assist these
agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of their
activities on listed coho salmon and their critical habitat and in
determining when consultation with NMFS is appropriate.
Expected Economic Impacts
The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation
above the economic impacts attributable to either listing or to
authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other
Factors section of this notice). Incremental impacts result from
special management activities in areas outside the present distribution
of the listed species that have been determined to be essential to the
conservation of the species. However, NMFS has determined that the
species' present freshwater and estuarine range contains sufficient
habitat for conservation of the species. Therefore, the economic
impacts associated with this critical habitat designation are expected
to be minimal.
The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Army Corps of Engineers manage areas of proposed
critical habitat for the listed coho salmon ESUs. The Corps of
Engineers and other Federal agencies that may be involved with funding
or permits for projects in critical habitat areas may also be affected
by this designation. Because NMFS believes that virtually all ``adverse
modification'' determinations pertaining to critical habitat would also
result in ``jeopardy'' conclusions, designation of critical habitat is
not expected to result in significant incremental restrictions on
Federal agency activities. Critical habitat designation will,
therefore, result in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond
those that may have been caused by listing and by other statutes.
Additionally, previously completed biological opinions would not
require re-initiation to reconsider any critical habitat designated in
this rulemaking.
Public Comments Solicited; Public Hearings
NMFS is soliciting information, comments and/or recommendations on
any aspect of this proposal from all concerned parties (see ADDRESSES).
In particular, NMFS is requesting any data, maps, or reports describing
areas that should be excluded from the critical habitat designation due
to either the species' historic absence or the lack of special
management considerations required in a particular area. NMFS will
consider all information, comments, and recommendations received before
reaching a final decision.
Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the
Secretary ``shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any
person so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed
regulation to * * * designate or revise critical habitat.'' (see 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3)). Public hearings on the proposed rule provide the
opportunity for the public to give comments and to permit an exchange
of information and opinion among interested parties. NMFS encourages
the public's involvement in such ESA matters.
The public will have the opportunity to provide oral and written
testimony at the public hearings. Written comments on the proposed rule
may also be submitted to Garth Griffin (see ADDRESSES and DATES). The
hearings are scheduled from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. as follows:
[[Page 62747]]
1. Monday, December 8, 1997--Gold Beach City Hall, City Council
Chambers, 29592 Ellensburg Avenue, Gold Beach, Oregon.
2. Tuesday, December 9, 1997--Eureka Inn, 518 7th Street, Eureka,
California.
3. Thursday, December 11, 1997--Days Inn, 185 Railroad Street,
Santa Rosa, California.
These hearings are physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other aids
should be directed to Garth Griffin or Craig Wingert (see ADDRESSES).
Compliance With Existing Statutes
NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for
critical habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116
S.Ct. 698 (1996).
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined
that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866.
NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of these coho
salmon ESUs as critical habitat. Given the affinity of this species to
spawn in small streams, this current range encompasses a wide range of
habitat, including small tributary reaches, as well as mainstem, off-
channel and estuarine areas. Areas excluded from this proposed
designation include nearshore habitats in the Pacific Ocean,
historically-occupied areas above 12 extant and impassable dams, and
headwater areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing,
natural waterfalls). NMFS has concluded that currently inhabited areas
within the range of each ESU are the minimum habitat necessary to
ensure conservation and recovery of the listed species.
Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional
requirements or economic effects upon small entities, beyond those
which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal
agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements
of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of
species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS
and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, regardless
of whether critical habitat is designated.
In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and
governments.
Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact
of a substantial number of small entities, as described in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The AA has determined that the proposed designation is consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with the approved Coastal Zone
Management Program of the states of Oregon and California. This
determination will be submitted for review by the responsible state
agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting Garth Griffin, NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.
Dated: November 19, 1997.
David L. Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
2. Sections 226.24 and 226.25 are added to subpart C to read as
follows:
Sec. 226.24 Central California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern
California south to the San Lorenzo River in central California,
including Mill Valley and Corte Madera Creeks, tributaries to San
Francisco Bay. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and
adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches in hydrologic
units and counties identified in Table 5 of this part. Accessible
reaches are those within the historical range of the ESU that can still
be occupied by any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are
those above specific dams identified in Table 5 of this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years). Adjacent riparian
zones are defined as those areas within a horizontal distance of 300 ft
(91.4 m) from the normal line of high water of a stream channel or
adjacent off-channel habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m, when both sides of
the channel are included). Figure 10 of this part identifies the
general geographic extent of larger rivers and streams within
hydrologic units designated as critical habitat for Central California
Coast coho salmon. Note that Figure 10 of this part does not constitute
the definition of critical habitat but, instead, is provided as a
general reference to guide Federal agencies and interested parties in
locating the boundaries of critical habitat for listed Central
California Coast coho salmon. Hydrologic units are those defined by the
Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
publication, ``Hydrologic Unit Maps,'' Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986,
and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps:
State of Oregon, 1974 and State of California, 1978 which are
incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the USGS publication and maps may
be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225.
Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE
Oregon Street--Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
[[Page 62748]]
Note: The incorporation by reference and availability of
inspection copies are pending approval by the Office of the Federal
Register.
Sec. 226.25 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch).
Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches
accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta
Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate,
and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches in
hydrologic units and counties identified in Table 6 of this part.
Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of the ESU
that can still be occupied by any life stage of coho salmon.
Inaccessible reaches are those above specific dams identified in Table
6 of this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years). Adjacent riparian zones are defined as those areas within a
horizontal distance of 300 ft (91.4 m) from the normal line of high
water of a stream channel or adjacent off-channel habitats (600 ft or
182.8 m, when both sides of the channel are included). Figure 11 of
this part identifies the general geographic extent of larger rivers and
streams within hydrologic units designated as critical habitat for
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon. Note that Figure
11 of this part does not constitute the definition of critical habitat
but, instead, is provided as a general reference to guide Federal
agencies and interested parties in locating the boundaries of critical
habitat for listed Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho
salmon. Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the
Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic
Unit Maps,'' Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986, and the following DOI,
USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps: State of Oregon (1974) and
State of California (1978) which are incorporated by reference.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from the USGS,
Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at
NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street--Suite 500,
Portland, OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1335
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington,
DC.
Note: The incorporation by reference and availability of
inspection copies are pending approval by the Office of the Federal
Register.
3. Tables 5 and 6 are added in numerical order to part 226 to read
as follows:
Table 5 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Central
California Coast Coho Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and within Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. range of ESU \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Lorenzo-Soquel....................... 18060001 Santa Cruz (CA), San Mateo 1. Newell Dam (Loch
(CA). Lomond).
San Francisco Coastal South.............. 18050006 San Mateo (CA).............
San Pablo Bay............................ 18050002 Marin (CA), Napa (CA)......
Tomales-Drake Bays....................... 18050005 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).... 2. Peters Dam (Kent Lake).
3. Nicasio Dam (Nicasio
Reservoir).
Bodega Bay............................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)....
Russian.................................. 18010110 Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA) 4. Warm Springs Dam (Sonoma
Lake)
5. Coyote Dam (Lake
Mendocino).
Gualala-Salmon........................... 18010109 Sonoma (CA), Mendocino (CA)
Big-Navarro-Garcia....................... 18010108 Mendocino (CA) ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 6 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast Coho Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and within Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. range of ESU \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattole.................................. 18010107 Humboldt (CA), Mendocino
(CA).
South Fork Eel........................... 18010106 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt
(CA).
Lower Eel................................ 18010105 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt
(CA), Trinity (CA).
Middle Fork Eel.......................... 18010104 Mendocino (CA), Trinity
(CA), Glenn (CA), Lake
(CA).
Upper Eel................................ 18010103 Mendocino (CA), Glenn (CA), 1. Scott Dam (Lake
Lake (CA). Pillsbury).
Mad-Redwood.............................. 18010102 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA) 2. Matthews Dam (Ruth
Lake).
Smith.................................... 18010101 Del Norte (CA), Curry (OR).
South Fork Trinity....................... 18010212 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA)
Trinity.................................. 18010211 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA) 3. Lewiston Dam (Lewiston
Resevoir).
Salmon................................... 18010210 Siskiyou (CA)..............
Lower Klamath............................ 18010209 Del Norte (CA), Humboldt
(CA), Siskiyou (CA).
Scott.................................... 18010208 Siskiyou (CA)..............
Shasta................................... 18010207 Siskiyou (CA).............. 4. Dwinnell Dam (Dwinnell
Reservoir).
Upper Klamath............................ 18010206 Siskiyou (CA), Jackson (OR) 5. Irongate Dam (Irongate
Reservoir).
Chetco................................... 17100312 Curry (OR), Del Norte (CA).
[[Page 62749]]
Illinois................................. 17100311 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR),
Del Norte (CA).
Lower Rogue.............................. 17100310 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR),
Jackson (OR).
Applegate................................ 17100309 Josephine (OR), Jackson 6. Applegate Dam (Applegate
(OR), Siskiyou (CA). Reservoir).
Middle Rogue............................. 17100308 Josephine (OR), Jackson
(OR).
Upper Rogue.............................. 17100307 Jackson (OR), Klamath (OR), 7. Lost Creek Dam (Lost
Douglas (OR). Creek Reservoir).
Sixes.................................... 17100306 Curry (OR) ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or riparian habitats identified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
4. Figures 10 and 11 are added in numerical order to part 226 to
read as follows:
Figures to Part 226
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 62750]]
Figure 10 to Part 226.--Critical Habitat for Central California
Coast Coho Salmon
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25NO97.001
[[Page 62751]]
Figure 11 to Part 226.--Critical Habitat for Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast Coho Salmon
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25NO97.000
[FR Doc. 97-30865 Filed 11-20-97; 12:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
