[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