[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7816-7873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-552]
[[Page 7815]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Threatened Listing
Determination, Final Protective Regulations, and Final Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit
of Coho Salmon; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7816]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
[Docket No. 071227892-7894-01]
RIN 0648-AW39
Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Threatened Listing
Determination, Final Protective Regulations, and Final Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit
of Coho Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are issuing a final determination to list the Oregon Coast
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) evolutionarily significant unit
(ESU) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We are also issuing final protective regulations and a final critical
habitat designation for the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
DATES: The listing determination, protective regulations, and
designated critical habitat are effective on May 12, 2008. With respect
to the protective regulations, the take prohibitions for the Oregon
Coast coho ESU do not apply to research and enhancement activities
specified in an application for a permit or approval under the
protective regulations, provided that the application has been received
by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, no later than
June 10, 2008. This ``grace period'' for pending research and
enhancement applications will remain in effect until the issuance or
denial of authorization, or March 31, 2009, whichever occurs earliest.
ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Region,
Protected Resources Division, at (503) 872-2791, or Marta Nammack,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, at (301) 713-1401. Reference
materials regarding this determination are available upon request or on
the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Oregon Coast Coho
In 1995, we completed a comprehensive status review of West Coast
coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1995) that resulted in proposed listing
determinations for three coho ESUs, including a proposal to list the
Oregon Coast coho ESU as a threatened species (60 FR 38011; July 25,
1995). On October 31, 1996, we announced a 6-month extension of the
final listing determination for the ESU, pursuant to section
4(b)(6)(B)(I) of the ESA, noting substantial disagreement regarding the
sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant to the
assessment of extinction risk and the evaluation of protective efforts
(61 FR 56211). On May 6, 1997, we withdrew the proposal to list the
Oregon Coast coho ESU as threatened, based in part on conservation
measures contained in the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative
(later renamed the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; hereafter
referred to as the Oregon Plan) and an April 23, 1997, Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and the State of Oregon which further
defined Oregon's commitment to salmon conservation (62 FR 24588). We
concluded that implementation of harvest and hatchery reforms, and
habitat protection and restoration efforts under the Oregon Plan and
the MOA substantially reduced the risk of extinction faced by the
Oregon Coast coho ESU. On June 1, 1998, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon issued an opinion finding that our May 6, 1997,
determination to not list Oregon Coast coho was arbitrary and
capricious (Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d
1139 (D. Or. 1998)). The Court vacated our determination to withdraw
the proposed rule to list the Oregon Coast coho ESU and remanded the
determination to NMFS for further consideration. On August 10, 1998, we
issued a final rule listing the Oregon Coast coho ESU as threatened (63
FR 42587), basing the determination solely on the information and data
contained in the 1995 status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and the
1997 proposed rule.
In 2001 the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, set aside the
1998 threatened listing of the Oregon Coast coho ESU (Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, (D. Or. 2001)) (Alsea). In
response to the Alsea ruling and several listing and delisting
petitions, we announced that we would conduct an updated status review
of 27 West Coast salmonid ESUs, including the Oregon Coast coho ESU (67
FR 6215, February 11, 2002; 67 FR 48601, July 25, 2002).
In 2003 we convened the Pacific Salmonid Biological Review Team
(BRT) (an expert panel of scientists from several Federal agencies
including NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS)) to review the extinction risks of naturally
spawning populations in the 27 ESUs under review, including the Oregon
Coast coho ESU (Good et al., 2005; NMFS, 2003a). In making its
recommendation, the BRT used a process where each member of the BRT was
given 10 votes to divide among three conclusions. Members were allowed
to assign votes to more than one conclusion, allowing them to express
their relative degree of confidence in particular conclusions. The
three options were ``In Danger of Extinction,'' ``Likely to Become
Endangered,'' and ``Not Warranted.'' Fifty-six percent of the votes
supported the conclusion that naturally spawning Oregon coast coho were
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and 44 percent
supported the conclusion that naturally spawning Oregon coast coho was
``Not Warranted'' (that is, not likely to become in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future). The BRT noted considerable
uncertainty regarding the future viability of the ESU given the
uncertainty in predicting future ocean conditions for coho survival, as
well as uncertainty in whether current freshwater habitats are of
sufficient quality and quantity to support the recent high abundance
levels and sustain populations during future downturns in ocean
conditions. Although the BRT couched its conclusion in terms of the
statutory definition of a threatened species (that is, not in danger of
extinction, but likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future),
the BRT's conclusion did not constitute a recommendation to list the
species. Our listing determination also considered the risks and
benefits from artificial propagation programs included in the ESU,
efforts being made to protect the species, and the five factors listed
under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
On June 14, 2004, based primarily on the BRT voting results, we
proposed to list the Oregon Coast coho ESU as a threatened species (69
FR 33102). However, the proposed listing recognized that further
information would likely become available and that this information
could affect the outcome of the final determination. In the proposed
rule, we noted that Oregon was initiating a comprehensive assessment of
the viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU and of the adequacy of
actions under the Oregon Plan for conserving Oregon Coast coho. As part
of that proposed rule we proposed amendments to existing protective
regulations issued under ESA section
[[Page 7817]]
4(d) (``4(d) regulations'') for all threatened West Coast salmon and
steelhead (50 CFR 223.203). These amendments were needed to: (1)
Provide flexibility in fisheries and hatchery management; and (2)
simplify and clarify the existing regulations so that they may be more
efficiently and effectively accessed and interpreted by all affected
parties.
On December 14, 2004, we proposed designations of critical habitat
for 13 ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest,
including the Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR 74572). We proposed critical
habitat in 72 of 80 occupied watersheds, contained in 13 subbasins,
totaling approximately 6,665 stream miles along the Oregon Coast, south
of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco (Oregon). The estimated
economic impact of the areas proposed for critical habitat was
approximately $15.7 million. Eight occupied watersheds were proposed
for exclusion because the high benefits of exclusion (due to economic
impacts) outweighed the low benefits of inclusion (due to the low
inherent conservation value for the listed species). These excluded
watersheds included approximately 134 stream miles and represented a 15
percent reduction (approximately $2.75 million) in the economic impact
of the proposed designation. To assess economic impacts we measured the
co-extensive impacts because, based on the existing record, we could
not distinguish between the costs associated with the species' listing
from the costs of separately designating critical habitat.
In January 2005 the State of Oregon released a draft Oregon Coastal
Coho Assessment (Oregon's Draft Viability Assessment), which (1)
evaluated the current viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU, and (2)
evaluated the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of the
Oregon Plan measures in addressing the factors for decline of the
Oregon Coast coho ESU. The latter evaluation was intended to satisfy
the joint NMFS--FWS Policy on Evaluating Conservation Efforts
(``PECE''; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). Oregon's Draft Viability
Assessment concluded that the Oregon Coast coho ESU is currently viable
and that measures under the Oregon Plan have stopped, if not reversed,
the deterioration of Oregon Coast coho habitats. The Draft Viability
Assessment also concluded that it is highly likely that existing
monitoring efforts would detect any significant future deterioration in
the ESU's viability, or degradation of environmental condition,
allowing a timely and appropriate response to conserve the ESU. On
February 9, 2005, we published a notice of availability of Oregon's
Draft Viability Assessment for public review and comment in the Federal
Register (70 FR 6840) and noted that information presented in the draft
and final assessments would be considered in making the final listing
determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
We forwarded the public comments we received on Oregon's Draft
Viability Assessment, as well as our technical reviews, for Oregon's
consideration in developing its final assessment. The public comments
and our review highlighted areas of uncertainty or disagreement
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of Oregon's Draft Viability
Assessment, including: the assumption that Oregon Coast coho
populations are inherently resilient at low abundance, and that this
compensatory response will prevent extinction during periods of low
marine survival; the apparent de-emphasis of abundance as a useful
indicator of extinction risk; assumptions regarding the duration and
severity of future periods of unfavorable marine and freshwater
conditions; the ability of monitoring and adaptive management efforts
to detect population declines or habitat degradation, and to identify
and implement necessary protective measures; and the ability of Oregon
Plan measures to halt or reverse habitat degradation once detected.
On May 13, 2005, Oregon issued its final Oregon Coastal Coho
Assessment (Oregon's Final Viability Assessment). Oregon's Final
Viability Assessment included several changes intended to address
concerns raised regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the draft
assessment. Oregon's Final Viability Assessment concluded that: (1) The
Oregon Coast coho ESU is viable under current conditions, and should be
sustainable through a future period of adverse environmental conditions
(including a prolonged period of poor ocean productivity); (2) given
the assessed viability of the ESU, the quality and quantity of habitat
is necessarily sufficient to support a viable ESU; and (3) the
integration of laws, adaptive management programs, and monitoring
efforts under the Oregon Plan will maintain and improve environmental
conditions and the viability of the ESU into the foreseeable future.
On June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37217), we announced a 6-month extension of
the final listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, finding
that ``there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or
accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination * * * for
the purposes of soliciting additional data'' (section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of
the ESA). We announced a 30-day public comment period to solicit
information regarding the validity of Oregon's Final Viability
Assessment, particularly in light of the concerns raised with respect
to Oregon's Draft Viability Assessment. In September 2005 we issued
final critical habitat designations for 12 Pacific Northwest ESUs (70
FR 52685; September 2, 2005), but we did not issue a final critical
habitat designation for Oregon Coast coho because it was only proposed
for listing at that time.
On January 19, 2006, we issued a final determination that listing
the Oregon Coast coho ESU under the ESA was not warranted (71 FR 3033).
As part of this determination, we withdrew the proposed ESA section
4(d) regulations and critical habitat designation for the ESU. In
reaching our determination not to list Oregon Coast coho, we found that
the BRT's slight majority opinion that the ESU is ``likely to become
endangered'' and the conclusion of the Oregon Final Viability
Assessment that the ESU is viable represented competing reasonable
inferences from the available scientific information and considerable
associated uncertainty. The difference of opinion centered on whether
the ESU was at risk because of the ``threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.'' We conducted an
analysis of current habitat status and likely future habitat trends
(NMFS, 2005a) and found that: (1) The sufficiency of current habitat
conditions was unknown; and (2) likely future habitat trends were mixed
(i.e., some habitat elements were likely to improve, some were likely
to decline, others were likely to remain in their current condition).
We concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the
conclusion that the ESU was more likely than not to become an
endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Our decision not to list the Oregon Coast coho ESU was challenged
in Trout Unlimited. On October 9, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon invalidated our January 2006 decision not to list
Oregon Coast coho (Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, Civ. No. 06-01493 ST (D.
Oreg., October 9, 2007). The Court found that Oregon's Viability
Assessment does not represent the best available science, and that we
improperly considered it in reaching our final listing decision. The
Court ordered us to issue a new final listing rule consistent with the
ESA. This listing decision has been made in compliance with the Court's
order.
[[Page 7818]]
ESA Statutory Provisions
Listing Determinations
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future (sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). The statute
requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or
threatened because of any of five factors: the present or threatened
destruction of its habitat, overexploitation, disease or predation, the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or any other natural or
manmade factors (section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). We are to make this
determination based solely on the best available scientific information
after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into
account any efforts being made by states or foreign governments to
protect the species. The focus of our evaluation of these five factors
is to evaluate whether and to what extent a given factor represents a
threat to the future survival of the species. The focus of our
consideration of protective efforts is to evaluate whether these
efforts substantially have and will continue to address the identified
threats and so ameliorate a species' risk of extinction. In making our
listing determination, we must consider all factors that may affect the
future viability of the species, including whether regulatory and
conservation programs are inadequate and allow threats to the species
to persist or worsen, or whether these programs are likely to mitigate
threats to the species and reduce its extinction risk. The steps we
follow in implementing this statutory scheme are to: review the status
of the species, analyze the factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA to identify threats facing the species, assess whether certain
protective efforts mitigate these threats, and make our best prediction
about the species' future persistence.
As indicated above, the PECE provides direction for considering
protective efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation
plans, management plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal
agencies, state and local governments, tribal governments, businesses,
organizations, and individuals) that have not yet been implemented, or
have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The
policy articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of
implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in
determining whether a species warrants listing under the ESA.
Evaluation of the certainty that an effort will be implemented includes
whether: the necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing) are
available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that the
necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there is a
schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives; and
(for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to ensure
adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an effort's
effectiveness is made on the basis of whether the effort or plan:
Establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the necessary
steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes quantifiable
performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; and
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing
determination.
PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration,
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change the risk
assessment. The policy stresses that, just as listing determinations
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of
the listing determination. The PECE does not provide explicit guidance
on how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range
may affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the
species' overall viability.
Protective Regulations
ESA section 9(a) take and other prohibitions (16 U.S.C.
1538(a)(1)(B)) apply to all species listed as endangered. Hatchery
stocks determined to be part of endangered ESUs are afforded all of the
full section 9 protections. In the case of threatened species, ESA
section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary of Commerce's (Secretary)
discretion to determine whether and to what extent regulatory
requirements may be appropriate, by directing the Secretary to issue
regulations determined to be necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species. We have flexibility under section 4(d) to
tailor protective regulations based on the contributions of available
conservation measures. The 4(d) regulations may prohibit, with respect
to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of
the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as (1) specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, on which are found those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the listed species and that may
require special management considerations or protection, and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of a listed
species. In designating critical habitat our regulations direct us to
focus on ``primary constituent elements,'' or PCEs, in identifying
these physical or biological features. Section 4 of the ESA requires us
to consider the economic impacts, impacts on national security, and
other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. We may exclude any area from critical habitat if we determine
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless the failure to
designate such an area will result in the extinction of the species.
At the time of a proposed listing determination, ESA section
4(a)(3) and our regulations require us to specify critical habitat to
the maximum extent ``prudent and determinable.'' Critical habitat
designation is not prudent if: (1) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and the identification of critical habitat can
be expected to increase such threat(s); or (2) critical habitat
designation would not be beneficial to the species. Critical habitat is
not determinable if: (1) Sufficient information is lacking to perform
the required analyses of the impact of the designation; or (2) the
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
identify an area as critical habitat. In our proposed rule to designate
specific areas as critical habitat (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2004), we
determined that designating critical habitat for this species is
prudent and determinable. The record continues to support this
determination.
The ESA requires that a final regulation designating critical
habitat be published concurrently with the final determination listing
a species as threatened or endangered, unless: (1) It is essential to
the conservation of such species that the species be listed promptly
(e.g., in instances when a species is listed by emergency rule); or (2)
critical habitat of such species is not
[[Page 7819]]
then determinable. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each
Federal agency shall, in consultation with, and with the assistance of,
NMFS, ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
its designated critical habitat.
Summary of Public and Independent Review
Our regulations require that we allow a period of at least 60 days
for the public to review and comment on a proposed rule to list,
delist, or reclassify a species, or to designate or revise critical
habitat. We may extend or reopen the comment period upon finding that
there is good cause to do so by publishing notice in the Federal
Register. We are required to hold at least one public hearing if any
person so requests within 45 days of the publication of a proposed
rule. Notice of the location and time of any hearings is published in
the Federal Register.
A 1994 joint NMFS-FWS policy (Independent Review Policy) requires
us to solicit independent expert review from at least three qualified
specialists, concurrent with the public comment period following a
proposed rule (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). In December 2004 the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (Peer Review Bulletin), establishing minimum
peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure, and
opportunities for public input. The OMB Peer Review Bulletin,
implemented under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is
intended to ensure the quality of agency information, analyses, and
regulatory activities and provide for a more transparent review
process.
Listing Determination and Protective Regulations
We solicited public comment on the proposed listing determination
and ESA section 4(d) regulations for the Oregon Coast coho ESU for a
total of 208 days (69 FR 33102, June 14, 2004; 69 FR 53031, August 31,
2004; 69 FR 61348, October 18, 2004; 70 FR 6840, February 9, 2005; 70
FR 37217, June 28, 2005). In addition, we held eight public hearings in
the Pacific Northwest concerning the June 2004 West Coast salmon and
steelhead proposed 4(d) regulations and proposed listing
determinations, including the proposed determination for the Oregon
Coast coho ESU (69 FR 53031, August 31, 2004; 69 FR 61348, October 18,
2004). In compliance with the 1994 Independent Review Policy we
solicited technical review of the June 2004 proposed 4(d) regulations
and listing determinations, including the proposed determination for
the Oregon Coast coho ESU, from over 50 independent experts selected
from the academic and scientific community, Native American tribal
groups, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector. The
individuals from whom we solicited review of the proposals and the
underlying science were selected because of their demonstrated
expertise in a variety of disciplines including: Artificial
propagation; salmonid biology, taxonomy, and ecology; genetic and
molecular techniques and analyses; population demography; quantitative
methods of assessing extinction risk; fisheries management; local and
regional habitat conditions and processes; and conducting scientific
analyses in support of ESA listing determinations. The individuals
solicited represent a broad spectrum of perspectives and expertise. The
individuals solicited include those who have been critical of past
agency actions in implementing the ESA for West Coast salmon and
steelhead, as well as those who have been supportive of these actions.
These individuals were not involved in producing the scientific
information for our determinations and were not employed by the agency.
We received comments from four of these experts. In addition to these
solicited reviews, several independent scientific panels and academic
societies provided technical review of the proposals and the supporting
documentation. With respect to the Peer Review Bulletin's requirements
for ``adequate [prior] peer review,'' we believe the independent expert
review under the 1994 Independent Review Policy, and the comments
received from several academic societies and expert advisory panels,
collectively satisfy the Peer Review Bulletin's requirements (NMFS,
2005b).
In response to our requests for information and comments on the
June 2004 proposed listing determinations, we received over 28,250
comments by fax, standard mail, and e-mail. The majority of the
comments received were from interested individuals who submitted form
letters or form e-mails that addressed general issues not specific to
the Oregon Coast coho ESU. Comments were also submitted by state and
tribal natural resource agencies, fishing groups, environmental
organizations, home builder associations, academic and professional
societies, expert advisory panels, farming groups, irrigation groups,
and individuals with expertise in Pacific salmonids. The majority of
commenters focused on the consideration of hatchery-origin fish in ESA
listing determinations, with only a few comments specifically
addressing the Oregon Coast coho ESU. We also received comments from 4
of the 50 independent experts from whom we had requested technical
review of the scientific information underlying the June 2004 proposed
listing determinations. Their comments did not specifically address the
proposed determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. The reader is
referred to the final hatchery listing policy (70 FR 37204; June 28,
2005) and the final listing determinations and ESA section 4(d)
regulations for 16 salmon ESUs (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005) for a
summary and discussion of issues raised by the comments that were not
specific to the Oregon Coast coho ESU. The comments addressing the
proposed listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU are
summarized below. We did not receive any comments that addressed the
proposed 4(d) regulations in the specific context of the Oregon Coast
coho ESU.
Critical Habitat
We solicited public comment on the proposed critical habitat
designation for Oregon Coast coho for a total of 105 days (69 FR 74578,
December 14, 2004; 70 FR 6394; February 7, 2005). We also contacted the
appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposed rule. To facilitate public participation, we made the
proposed rule available via the Internet as soon as it was signed by
the AA of NMFS (approximately 2 weeks prior to actual publication). In
addition, we held four public hearings in the Pacific Northwest between
January 11, 2005, and January 25, 2005. We received 5,230 written
comments (5,111 of these were ``form e-mails'' with nearly identical
verbiage) during the comment period on the proposed rule. Eight
comments addressed specifically, or in part, the proposed critical
habitat designation for the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
In compliance with the Peer Review Bulletin, prior to publishing
the proposed rule we submitted the initial biological assessments of
our Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams (CHARTs) to state and
tribal comanagers and asked them to review those findings. These
comanager reviews resulted in several changes to the CHARTs'
preliminary assessments (for
[[Page 7820]]
example, revised fish distribution as well as conservation value
ratings) and helped ensure that the CHARTs' revised findings
incorporated the best available scientific data. Consistent with the
1994 Independent Review Policy, we later solicited technical review of
the entire critical habitat proposal (including the underlying
biological and economic reports) from 45 independent experts selected
from the academic and scientific community, Native American tribal
groups, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector. We also
solicited opinions from three individuals with economics expertise to
review the draft economics analysis supporting the proposed rule. All
three of the economics reviewers and three of the biological reviewers
submitted written opinions on our proposal. We have determined that the
independent expert review and comments received regarding the science
involved in this rulemaking constitute adequate prior review under
section II.2 of the OMB Peer Review Bulletin (NMFS, 2005c) and satisfy
the 1994 Independent Review Policy.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for all 13 ESUs addressed in the proposed rule. The reader is
referred to the final critical habitat designations for 12 Pacific
Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52685; September 2, 2005) for a summary and
discussion of general issues, or issues specific to other ESUs. The
comments addressing the proposed critical habitat designation for the
Oregon Coast coho ESU are summarized below.
Comments Specific to Oregon Coast Coho
Below we address the comments received that directly pertain to:
(1) The listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, and (2)
the designation of critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
(Copies of the full text of comments received are available upon
request, see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.)
Comments Regarding the Listing Determination
Comment 1: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
expressed concern regarding the proposed inclusion of the North Fork
Nehalem River coho hatchery program in the Oregon Coast coho ESU. ODFW
explained that the hatchery program propagates two different stocks:
The North Fork Nehalem River hatchery coho stock (ODFW stock
32) and the Fishhawk Lake hatchery coho stock (ODFW stock
99). ODFW noted that both stocks, although founded using local
natural-origin fish, are presently managed as isolated broodstocks.
Although the level of divergence between these hatchery stocks and the
local wild populations is not known, ODFW noted that our hatchery
reviews (NMFS, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b) acknowledged that the level of
divergence may be substantial. ODFW recommended that both the North
Fork Nehalem River and Fishhawk Lake hatchery stocks be excluded from
the ESU.
ODFW also noted that the recently founded Calapooya Creek (Umpqua
River basin, Oregon) hatchery coho stock was not included in our
hatchery reviews. The Calapooya Creek program was a small, short-term
(in operation from 2001-2003), research hatchery program conducted to
evaluate the use of hatchery-reared fish in the supplementation of a
wild coho population. The program is no longer releasing fish, and had
adults returning through 2006. ODFW suggested that, had we included
this stock in our initial evaluations, the progeny expected to return
through 2006 would have been considered as part of the Oregon Coast
coho ESU.
Response: We agree with ODFW's comments that the North Fork Nehalem
River and Fishhawk Lake stocks propagated by the Nehalem hatchery coho
program are substantially reproductively isolated from the local
natural populations, and diverged substantially from the evolutionary
legacy of the ESU. Moreover, since our 2006 final determination these
two programs have been discontinued, with the last adults returning in
2007 (NMFS, 2007a). We conclude that the North Fork Nehalem River and
Fishhawk Lake hatchery coho stocks are not part of the Oregon Coast
coho ESU.
We did not include the Calapooya Creek coho hatchery stock in our
hatchery reviews as the program is no longer collecting fish for
broodstock or releasing smolts. We agree with ODFW that returns from
Calapooya Creek hatchery stock, having been derived from local natural-
origin fish, likely were no more than moderately diverged from the
local natural populations. However, given that the program has been
terminated, and 2006 was the last year of returns, the Calapooya Creek
hatchery stock will not be considered part of the Oregon Coast coho
ESU.
At the time of the 2004 proposed rule and our January 2006 final
determination not to list the ESU, Cow Creek (ODFW stock 37),
the North Umpqua River (ODFW stock 18), the Coos Basin (ODFW
stock 37), and the Coquille River (ODFW stock 44)
hatchery coho programs were considered part of the Oregon Coast coho
ESU. The latter three of these programs have been discontinued since
our 2006 final determination (NMFS, 2007a). The last year of returns
for these programs is 2007. Given that the North Umpqua River, Coos
Basin, and Coquille River hatchery programs have been terminated, and
this winter (2007) is the last year of returns, these stocks will not
be considered part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
Comment 2: A comment submitted by the Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)
included a July 2003 report investigating the potential benefits of a
modeled conservation hatchery program in supplementing Oregon Coast
coho (Oosterhout and Huntington, 2003). PRC asserted that the report
supports their position that hatchery fish should be considered as only
a threat to wild salmonid populations, and that any potential short-
term benefits of artificial propagation are outweighed by the long-term
damaging genetic and ecological effects on wild populations. The
Oosterhout and Huntington (2003) report modeled an ``idealized
conservation hatchery'' program and evaluated the success of
supplementation efforts under different scenarios of habitat quality
and marine survival. The authors conclude from their modeling study
that supplementation, even under optimized model assumptions, poses
long-term ecological and genetic risks, and any short-term gains in
salmon abundance are temporary.
Response: The use of artificial propagation represents a broad
spectrum of hatchery practices and facilities, as well as a variety of
ecological settings into which hatchery-origin fish are released. For
this reason it is essential to assess hatchery programs on a case-by-
case basis. Our assessment of the benefits, risks, and uncertainties of
artificial propagation concluded that the specific hatchery programs
considered to be part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU collectively do not
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS,
2004b). We noted that these hatchery programs likely contribute to an
increased abundance of total natural spawners in the short term,
although their contribution to the productivity of the supplemented
populations is unknown. Our assessment is consistent with the findings
of Oosterhout and Huntington (2003). The findings of scientific
studies, such as the subject study on simulated conservation hatchery
[[Page 7821]]
programs and their impacts on natural coho populations, inform our
consideration of the benefits and risks to be expected from artificial
propagation. However, it would be inappropriate to rely on theoretical
conclusions about the effectiveness of hatchery programs while ignoring
program-specific information regarding broodstock origin, hatchery
practices, and performance of hatchery- and natural-origin fish.
Comment 3: Douglas County Board of Commissioners (Oregon) submitted
a report (Cramer et al., 2004) that concludes that NMFS' earlier
viability analyses overstate the risks to Oregon Coast coho
populations, and that the 2003 BRT's findings warrant reconsideration.
The Cramer et al. (2004) report asserts that previous viability
assessments failed to adequately consider connectivity among spawner
aggregations, underestimated juvenile over-winter survival in smaller
stream reaches, and underestimated coho population stability. The
report asserts that sharp reductions in ocean harvest rates since 1994,
declining influence of hatchery-origin fish, and improved monitoring
and evaluation under the Oregon Plan confer a very low risk of
extinction even if future marine survival rates are low and remain low.
Response: The Cramer et al. (2004) report does not present any
substantial new information, other than including an additional year of
abundance data that was not available to the BRT. The report emphasizes
selective aspects of the available data including: reduction of threats
by changes in fishery and harvest management; and improved biological
status evidenced by increasing spawning escapements and successful
juvenile rearing throughout the ESU. These observations and analyses
were fully considered in the BRT's review (Good et al., 2005; NMFS,
2003a). The Cramer et al. (2004) report does not, by itself, add to our
consideration of the BRT's findings.
Comment 4: Several commenters felt that effective regulatory
controls and monitoring programs are in place to ensure that harvest
and hatchery practices no longer threaten the ESU.
Response: Many noteworthy and important regulatory changes have
been made that adequately address historically harmful practices.
Changes in ocean and freshwater fisheries management have resulted in
sharp reductions in fishing mortality in Oregon Coast coho populations,
and likely have contributed to recent population increases. It is
unlikely that those harvest controls will weaken in the future, in
light of Federal management of ocean fisheries. Reforms in hatchery
management practices have limited the potential for adverse ecological
interactions between hatchery-origin and natural fish, and have
markedly reduced risks to the genetic diversity and reproductive
fitness for the majority of naturally spawned populations in the ESU.
It is also unlikely those reforms will be weakened in the future.
Comment 5: One commenter was critical of the Oregon Forest
Practices Act, and argued that it is inadequate to prevent the future
degradation of riparian habitats, particularly on private non-
industrial forestlands. The commenter noted that the Forest Practices
Act applies only to the commercial harvest of trees, and that non-
commercial land owners may cut riparian trees without restriction if
they do not sell the wood. The commenter noted that this unregulated
practice is particularly evident in areas with increased rural
residential development along streambanks.
Other commenters doubted whether regulations, restoration programs,
and other protective efforts would improve habitat conditions in the
foreseeable future. One commenter noted that there is an insufficient
data record to evaluate the success of protective efforts aimed at
restoring riparian habitats, particularly in increasing the recruitment
of large woody debris. Several other commenters doubted whether forest
management under the Oregon Plan has resulted, or will result, in an
increased amount of large-diameter trees (important for the recruitment
of large woody debris in coho rearing areas). The commenters argued
that the shorter rotations being implemented on private industrial
forest lands reduce the size of trees delivered to streams in
landslides, and thus may result in diminished stream complexity in
important coho rearing habitats.
Response: Our review suggests that there are likely to be
improvements in some aspects of habitat condition, declines in others,
and a continuation of current conditions in still others (NMFS, 2005a).
For example, the Northwest Forest Plan instituted riparian habitat
buffers and other measures on Federal lands that improved many of the
historical forestry practices that led to the loss and degradation of
riparian habitats. Development and implementation of Total Maximum
Daily Loads under the Federal Clean Water Act are likely to result in
improved water quality. Restoration efforts have treated approximately
seven percent of the stream miles within the range of the ESU over the
last 7 years with the intent of restoring stream complexity and
riparian habitats and improving water quality, though it is unclear how
much restoration is likely to occur in the future, given funding
uncertainties.
Forest practices on state and private land include some
improvements over historically harmful practices, such as the
establishment of riparian management areas under revisions to Oregon
forest practice rules in the 1990s. However, there are also offsetting
practices that are expected to degrade habitat conditions and
complexity, such as shorter harvest rotations, road construction, and
logging on unstable slopes and along debris flow paths (NMFS, 2005a).
For agricultural lands, riparian management is governed by
agricultural water quality management plans under Oregon Senate Bill
1010, as well as by subsequently developed riparian rules which
synthesize elements of individual Senate Bill 1010 plans for a given
basin. These agricultural plans and rules do not specify the vegetation
composition or size of the riparian areas to be established. The lack
of specificity of these agricultural plans makes the enforcement and
effectiveness of these plans uncertain (NMFS, 2005a). Any modest
improvements in riparian vegetation on agricultural lands under current
rules that might be expected may be offset by habitat declines
resulting from urban and rural development (NMFS, 2005a). On balance,
habitat conditions on agricultural lands are not likely to show
significant improvement or decline.
Future urbanization and development within the range of the ESU is
projected at approximately 20 percent population growth, representing
slightly more than 30,000 people over the next 40 years (NMFS, 2005a).
Most of this development is expected to be concentrated in lowland
areas with high intrinsic potential for rearing coho. Current urban or
rural growth boundaries encompass approximately nine percent of high
intrinsic potential riparian habitat areas, so future urbanization and
development activities could have significant implications for some
coho populations. The degree of potential impacts on coho habitat (both
positive and negative) is highly uncertain and depends largely on the
spatial distribution of future urbanization and development activities,
their proximity to riparian areas, and the kinds of development
activities undertaken and the land management practices used.
Comment 6: Several commenters expressed concern that inadequate
funding has limited the ability of many
[[Page 7822]]
Oregon agencies to monitor non-permitted habitat-affecting activities,
effectively enforce regulations, and ensure proper reporting of
permitted activities. The commenters felt that these inadequacies
should be considered evidence of uncertainty that some as yet, unproven
elements under the Oregon Plan will be implemented.
Response: The commenters are correct that the availability of
necessary funding and staffing resources is an important consideration
in evaluating how likely it is that a given protective effort will be
implemented. Our review has noted that funding declines have led to the
loss of staff at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Department of Forestry, and ODFW (NMFS, 2005a). The reduced funding has
slowed the completion of Total Maximum Daily Load water quality
standards, and reduced the ability to monitor water quality, habitat
structure and complexity, and fish populations.
Comments Regarding the Designation of Critical Habitat
Comment 7: One Federal commenter provided information recommending
changes to designated stream reaches in several watersheds due to
errors in interpreting existing salmon distribution maps, recent field
surveys, and the location of impassible barriers. This commenter also
questioned the inclusion of Jackson and Josephine counties as within
the range of areas designated as critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho
salmon.
Response: In light of the specific comments received, we have
reviewed all the data regarding habitat areas occupied by coho salmon
and the location of impassible barriers. This review included
discussions with local ODFW biologists familiar with the areas in
question. The majority of suggested revisions were found to be
warranted, and, as a result, we have updated the endpoints delineating
areas occupied by coho salmon, including those designated as critical
habitat, in ten watersheds (see ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed
Critical Habitat Designation''). We have also removed Josephine and
Jackson counties from the relevant critical habitat table in our
regulations. These counties overlap slightly with upland areas in
watersheds occupied by Oregon Coast coho salmon, but they do not
contain stream reaches designated as critical habitat for this ESU.
Comment 8: Two commenters questioned the ``medium'' conservation-
value rating assigned by the CHART to the habitat area for Devils Lake
coho. These areas are within a larger Devils Lake/Moolack Frontal
watershed. The commenters cited recent genetic data establishing that
coho from Rock Creek/Devils Lake are genetically distinct from other
populations in the ESU. The commenters believed that the coho in Devils
Lake possess a unique and distinct genetic heritage warranting a
``high'' conservation value rating.
Response: The CHART considered these comments along with recent
population identification work (Lawson et al., 2007) and genetic
analyses by Johnson and Banks (2007). The team maintained that the
Devils Lake/Moolack Frontal watershed (which contains Devils Lake) was
still of medium conservation value, noting that Devil's Lake coho are
one of ten small and dependent populations in this watershed and appear
to be most closely related to coho in the nearby Siletz River. The team
acknowledged that Devils Lake was the most productive of these ten
populations but that the overall watershed did not warrant a high
conservation value relative to other adjacent watersheds with more
extensive habitat areas and functionally independent populations (e.g.,
the Siletz River and Yaquina River watersheds). Regardless, Devils Lake
and all other habitat areas in the Devils Lake/Moolack Frontal
watershed are designated as critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho
salmon.
Comment 9: One tribal government expressed support of the proposed
exclusion of Indian lands from the area eligible for critical habitat
designation. The tribe agreed with our proposal that designating Indian
lands as critical habitat would adversely impact tribal partnerships
with us and limit the benefits that result from collaboration.
Additionally, the tribe felt that the proposal to not designate Indian
lands as critical habitat appropriately acknowledges tribal sovereignty
and authority in managing natural resources on their lands.
Response: This final rule maintains the exclusion of Indian lands
for the reasons described in the Exclusions Based on Impacts to Tribes
section below.
Comment 10: Several commenters argued that the conservation
benefits provided by certain conservation measures on non-Federal lands
provide sufficient protections so that there would be minimal benefit
of designating the affected areas as critical habitat. One commenter
felt that existing forest protections under the Oregon Forest
Protection Act and associated best management practices adequately
protect the PCEs found on private and state forest lands in the State
of Oregon. Another commenter felt that protections under the Oregon
Plan have demonstrated conservation benefits that warrant the exclusion
of affected areas from designation as critical habitat. Another
commenter felt that existing regulatory and other mechanisms under
these conservation measures are inadequate to protect the ESU and its
habitats. The commenter argued that it is essential to designate
critical habitat in these areas where existing regulatory mechanisms do
not prevent or alter certain activities that would adversely modify
habitat.
Response: The comments imply that if an area is covered by a
management plan, it either does not meet the ESA section 3(5)(a)
definition of critical habitat or it must be excluded from critical
habitat under ESA section 4(b)(2). Neither assertion is correct.
Section 3(5)(a) of the ESA defines critical habitat as occupied
areas containing physical or biological features that are (1) essential
to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protections. Consistent with the statute,
in identifying areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for
this ESU, we identified the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the ESU, identified the occupied areas where
these features are present, and then determined whether these features
in each area may require special management considerations and
protections. The bases for these conclusions are described further
below and in a separate report (NMFS, 2007b).
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA gives the Secretary discretion to
exclude areas from critical habitat if he determines that benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Exercising the
discretion to exclude an area from critical habitat requires evidence
of a benefit of exclusion. Section 4(b)(2) and the supporting
legislative history make clear that the consideration and weight given
to impacts are within the Secretary's (H.R. 95-1625) discretion and
that exclusion is not required even when the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation. In other critical habitat
designations for Pacific salmon and steelhead, the Secretary excluded
areas from critical habitat on private lands covered by habitat
conservation plans because there was evidence in the record that
exclusion would enhance the relationship between the landowner and the
agency. That improved relationship was expected to result in improved
implementation of the plan and incentives for the development of other
[[Page 7823]]
plans, increasing conservation benefits for fish (70 FR 52630;
September 2, 2005). Regarding private and state lands subject to
Oregon's forest practice laws, there is no conservation agreement in
place between landowners and NMFS, nor any evidence in the record
supporting a conclusion that conservation actions of landowners subject
to these laws would improve as a result of exclusion. The same is true
for lands generally covered by the Oregon Plan. Based on our review of
available information, we found there were insufficient data and
analysis to conclude that there is a benefit of exclusion. Absent
evidence of a benefit of exclusion, we could not conclude that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
Comment 11: Two Federal commenters felt that all Federal lands
merited exclusion from designation as critical habitat. They contended
that conservation benefits under PACFISH, the Northwest Forest Plan,
and National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) provide
necessary protection and special management that eliminates the need to
designate habitats on Federal lands as critical. These commenters
contended that designating critical habitat on these Federal lands was
unnecessarily duplicative of existing ESA section 7 consultation
processes, inefficient (e.g., citing costs of re-initiating
consultation), while offering no additional conservation benefit to the
listed species. They believed that excluding Federal lands would be
consistent with our exclusion of military lands that are subject to
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, which they felt contain
similar provisions for the protection and restoration of listed
species.
Response: ESA section 4(b)(2) provides the Secretary with
discretion to exclude areas from the designation of critical habitat if
the Secretary determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, and the Secretary finds that exclusion of the
area will not result in extinction of the species. In the proposed
rule, and the reports supporting it, we explained the policies that
guided us and provided supporting analysis for a number of proposed
exclusions. We also noted a number of additional potential exclusions,
including those associated with the Oregon Coast coho salmon due to
conservation measures within the Northwest Forest Plan on Federal
lands, explaining that we were considering them because the Secretary
of the Interior had recently made similar exclusions in designating
critical habitat for the bull trout. In the final rule designating
critical habitat for 12 Pacific Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52630; September
2, 2005), we considered extensive comments supporting and opposing the
exclusion of Federal lands, as well as comments concerning alternative
approaches for assessing the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of
lands as critical habitat. That final rule also stated the following
with regard to the potential exclusion of Federal lands and alternative
approaches to designation:
We will continue to study this issue and alternative approaches
in future rulemakings designating critical habitat. In particular,
we intend to analyze the planning and management framework for each
of the ownership categories proposed for consideration for
exclusion. In each case, we envision that the planning and
management framework would be evaluated against a set of criteria,
which could include at least some or all of the following:
1. Whether the land manager has specific written policies that
create a commitment to protection or appropriate management of the
physical or biological features essential to long-term conservation
of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
2. Whether the land manager has geographically specific goals
for protection or appropriate management of the physical or
biological features essential to long-term conservation of ESA-
listed salmon and steelhead.
3. Whether the land manager has guidance for land management
activities designed to achieve goals for protection or appropriate
management of the physical or biological features essential to long-
term conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
4. Whether the land manager has an effective monitoring system
to evaluate progress toward goals for protection or appropriate
management of the physical or biological features essential to long-
term conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
5. Whether the land manager has a management framework that will
adjust ongoing management to respond to monitoring results and/or
external review and validation of progress toward goals for
protection or appropriate management of the physical or biological
features essential to long-term conservation of ESA-listed salmon
and steelhead.
6. Whether the land manager has effective arrangements in place
for periodic and timely communications with NOAA on the
effectiveness of the planning and management framework in reaching
mutually agreed goals for protection or appropriate management of
the physical or biological features essential to long-term
conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
NMFS has continued dialogue with the Federal land management agencies
since that time. Although we have not yet developed the type of
information that would allow us to exclude Federal lands at this time,
we will work with the land management agencies to develop the
information and consider exclusion of Federal lands, as well as
alternative approaches to designation, where the analysis provides
appropriate support. We anticipate that further analyses using
principles such as those above can result in additional data to inform
the ESA Section 4(b)(2) analysis regarding possible exclusion of
Federal lands from critical habitat designations.
Comment 12: One commenter and a peer reviewer expressed concern
that the economic analysis failed to consider the full range of
economic benefits of salmon habitat conservation and, therefore,
provided a distorted picture of the economic consequences of
designating versus excluding eligible habitat areas. The commenter
expressed concern that the economic impact of not designating
particular areas would impede recovery efforts, and this cost should be
considered in the economic analysis. The commenter cited the lack of
consideration in the economic analysis of the potential benefits of
critical habitat designation to: (1) Other aquatic and riparian
species; (2) water quality; (3) recreation; and (4) increased
recreational, commercial, and tribal harvest opportunities that would
be available with recovery.
Response: As described in the economic analysis (NMFS, 2007c) and
ESA section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2007d), we did not have information
available at the scale of this designation that would allow us to
quantify the benefits of designation in terms of increased fisheries.
Such an estimate would have required us to estimate the additional
number of fish likely to be produced as a result of the designation,
and would have required us to determine how to allocate the economic
benefit from those additional fish to a particular watershed. Instead,
we considered the ``benefits of designation'' in terms of conservation
value ratings for each particular area (see ``Methods and Criteria Used
to Designate Critical Habitat'' section below). We also lacked
information to quantify and include in the economic analysis the
economic benefit that might result from such things as improved water
quality or flood control, or improved condition of other species.
Moreover, we did not have information at the scale of this
designation that would allow us to consider the relative ranking of
these types of benefits on the ``benefits of designation'' side of the
ESA section 4(b)(2) balancing process. Our primary focus was to
determine, consider, and balance the benefits of designating these
[[Page 7824]]
areas to the conservation of the listed species. Given the
uncertainties involved in quantifying or even ranking these ancillary
types of benefits, we did not include them in our analysis.
Final Species Determination
The Oregon Coast coho ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams south of the
Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August 10, 1998).
One hatchery stock is considered part of the ESU: The Cow Creek (ODFW
stock 37) hatchery coho stock.
On June 14, 2004, we proposed that five artificial propagation
programs should be considered part of the ESU (69 FR 33102), including
the North Fork Nehalem River (ODFW stock 32), the North
Umpqua River (ODFW stock 18), Coos Basin (ODFW stock
37), and the Coquille River (ODFW stock 44) coho
hatchery programs. Informed by our analysis of the comments received
from ODFW, and other recently available information (see Comment 1 and
response, above), we conclude that these four hatchery programs are not
part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
Assessment of the Species' Status
The steps we follow in making a listing determination are to:
Review the status of the species, analyze the factors listed in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA to identify threats facing the species, assess
whether certain protective efforts mitigate these threats, and predict
the species' future persistence. Below we summarize the information we
evaluated in reviewing the status of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. We
considered the information included in the record for our January 2006
determination in a manner consistent with the Court's ruling in Trout
Unlimited. We also considered additional status information that was
readily available since our January 2006 decision, to determine if this
new information is consistent with our conclusion based on the January
2006 (as the Court has ordered us to consider it).
We begin a typical listing determination for a salmon ESU by
gathering the most recent available and relevant biological information
and appointing a panel of Federal scientists (the BRT) familiar with
the biology and population dynamics of salmon. This panel reviews the
status information, considers and discusses various possible
interpretations of the information, and prepares a written report
containing its recommendations as well as the basis for them. In
addition, the documents underlying the BRT's conclusions are made
available to the decision maker for consideration. Typically, the BRT's
review takes about 3-6 months to complete.
At the same time, regulatory staff gather updated information about
the status and trends for other related factors, including the
potential contributions (both positive and negative) from hatchery
programs, the condition of the habitat, and the expected implementation
and effectiveness of conservation efforts. This information is
considered together with the BRT's recommendations in forming a final
determination and preparing a written explanation of that
determination.
While the above steps were conducted for Oregon Coast coho prior to
the issuance of the 2004 proposed rule, the court order in Trout
Unlimited requiring a final determination and the time allowed for
making that final determination do not permit us to follow our typical
practice anew for Oregon Coast coho. The available record contains a
BRT recommendation and report made in 2003, based on status information
through 2002. The information in the record about the condition of the
habitat and the effectiveness of conservation efforts is also mostly
data collected prior to 2003. We have also considered draft reports of
the Technical Recovery Team for the Oregon Coast. These draft reports
are directed primarily at the population structure of and recovery
criteria for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, rather than the determination
required for a listing decision.
Quantitative information available to us for this determination
also includes numerical information on the abundance of Oregon Coast
coho through 2006, preliminary spawner survey information for 2007, and
estimates of the ocean survival for coho through 2006. Comparison of
the abundance of the naturally-produced coho with the marine survival
index suggests the possibility that much of the variability in coho
numbers over the last decade or so may be due to fluctuations in the
availability of food in the near-shore ocean (NMFS, 2007k). In
addition, there is some indication that juvenile survival is limited by
the supply of nutrients from the carcasses of spawning adult coho
(Bilby et al., 2001). It is possible that existing freshwater habitat
is adequate to support a viable ESU, and that the fluctuations observed
in Oregon Coast coho populations are partially driven by the supply of
carcasses. The 2003 BRT did not explicitly consider the relationship
between coho abundance and marine food availability, or the
relationship between juvenile survival and the supply of carcasses. Our
current record lacks the information and analyses necessary to assess
the present status of freshwater habitat conditions and functional
processes in the ESU. Oregon has aggressively implemented habitat
conservation efforts, yet we lack the data necessary to resolve the
benefits realized from these efforts by coho populations given the
considerable variability in other environmental processes. In short,
the recently available abundance information is not necessarily
indicative of degraded freshwater habitat conditions, nor is it
convincingly suggestive of a declining long-term trend for the ESU.
Given the opportunity for further scientific review, it is possible
that an improved understanding of the roles marine conditions and
stream-nutrient supply play in determining coho population dynamics,
might require revision of this determination. In summary, if we had
been permitted to consider all the scientific information in the
record, and if we had been allowed more time to do a complete
scientific review of new information in a manner consistent with our
typically thorough and comprehensive analytical processes, there is a
reasonable possibility that we would have reached a different final
listing determination.
Consideration of Information in the January 2006 Record
Biological Review Team Findings--The 2003 BRT considered data
available through 2002. The abundance and productivity of Oregon Coast
coho since the previous status review (NMFS, 1997a) represented some of
the best and worst years on record. Yearly adult returns for the Oregon
Coast coho ESU were in excess of 160,000 natural spawners in 2001 and
2002, far exceeding the abundance observed for the past several
decades. These encouraging increases in spawner abundance in 2000-2002
were preceded, however, by three consecutive brood years (the 1994-1996
brood years returning in 1997-1999, respectively) exhibiting
recruitment failure (recruitment failure is when a given year class of
natural spawners fails to replace itself when its offspring return to
the spawning grounds 3 years later). These 3 years of recruitment
failure were the only such instances observed thus far in the entire
55-year abundance time series for Oregon Coast coho salmon (although
comprehensive population-level survey data have only been available
since 1980). The encouraging 2000-2002 increases in
[[Page 7825]]
natural spawner abundance occurred in many populations in the northern
portion of the ESU, populations that were the most depressed at the
time of the last review (NMFS, 1997a). Although encouraged by the
increase in spawner abundance in 2000-2002, the BRT noted that the
long-term trends in ESU productivity were still negative due to the low
abundances observed during the 1990s.
The majority of the BRT felt that the recent increases in coho
returns were most likely attributable to favorable ocean conditions and
reduced harvest rates. The BRT was uncertain as to whether such
favorable marine conditions would continue into the future. Despite the
likely benefits to spawner abundance levels gained by the dramatic
reduction of harvest rates on Oregon Coast coho populations (PFMC,
1998), harvest cannot be significantly further reduced in the future to
compensate for declining productivity due to other factors. The BRT was
concerned that if the long-term decline in productivity reflected
deteriorating conditions in freshwater habitat, this ESU could face
very serious risks of local extirpations if ocean conditions reverted
back to poor productivity conditions. Approximately 30 percent of the
ESU has suffered habitat fragmentation by culverts and thermal
barriers, generating concerns about ESU spatial structure.
Additionally, the lack of response to favorable ocean conditions for
some populations in smaller streams and the different patterns between
north and south coast populations may indicate compromised connectivity
among populations. The degradation of many lake habitats and the
resultant impacts on several lake populations in the Oregon Coast coho
ESU also pose risks to ESU diversity. The BRT noted that hatchery
closures, reductions in the number of hatchery smolt releases, and
improved marking rates of hatchery fish have significantly reduced
risks to diversity associated with artificial propagation.
The BRT found high risk to the ESU's productivity, and
comparatively lower risk to the ESU's abundance, spatial structure, and
diversity. Informed by this risk assessment, a slight majority of the
BRT concluded that the Oregon Coast coho ESU was ``likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' However, a substantial
minority of the BRT concluded that the ESU was ``not in danger of
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future.'' The minority believed that the large number of spawners in
2001-2002 and a high projected abundance for 2003 suggested that this
ESU was not ``in danger of extinction'' or ``likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Furthermore, the minority
believed that recent strong returns following 3 years of recruitment
failure demonstrated that populations in this ESU are resilient.
Consideration of Artificial Propagation--Our review of the five
hatchery programs that were proposed to be listed as part of the ESU
concluded that they collectively do not substantially reduce the
extinction risk of the ESU (NMFS, 2003a, 2004a, 2004b; see proposed
rule for a more detailed explanation of this assessment, 69 FR 33102;
June 14, 2004). Our final determination that the North Umpqua River,
Coos Basin, Coquille River, North Fork Nehalem River, and Fishhawk Lake
coho hatchery programs are not part of the ESU does not alter our
previous conclusion that artificial propagation does not contribute
appreciably to the viability of the ESU.
In Trout Unlimited v. Lohn (Civ. No. 06-0483-JCC (W. D. Wash., June
13, 2006), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington set aside our 2005 Hatchery Listing Policy, finding that the
Policy's consideration of both natural and hatchery fish in ESA listing
determinations departs from the ESA's central purpose to promote and
conserve naturally self-sustaining populations. Although the extinction
risk assessment in the 2006 record evaluated the status of the ESU in-
total (including both within-ESU natural and hatchery fish), we found
that consideration of artificial propagation does not reduce the risk
of extinction of the ESU. Therefore, the above described assessment of
extinction risk does not require revision in light of the ruling in the
above case.
Preliminary Results of Oregon Coast Coho Recovery Planning--NMFS'
Technical Recovery Team (TRT) for the Oregon and Northern California
Coast is charged with describing the historical population structure,
developing biological recovery criteria with which to evaluate the
status of an ESU relative to recovery, and identifying those factors
limiting or impeding recovery. Prior to our 2006 determination not to
list the Oregon Coast coho ESU, the TRT provided a preliminary report
on its progress in developing these products for the Oregon Coast coho
ESU (NMFS, 2005d). The TRT's preliminary report underscored the
uncertainty associated with assessing the future status of the ESU. The
TRT stated that ``at this time our evaluation indicates, with a
moderate degree of uncertainty, that the ESU is persistent'' (the TRT
defines a ``persistent'' ESU as one that is able to persist (i.e., not
go extinct) over a 100-year period without artificial support, relating
the term to ``the simple risk of extinction, which is the primary
determination of endangered status under the ESA''). The TRT further
stated that ``our evaluation of biological viability based on current
and recent past conditions shows a high degree of uncertainty with
respect to the statement that the ESU is sustainable'' (the TRT defines
a ``sustainable'' ESU as ``one that, in addition to being persistent,
is able to maintain its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential
for the foreseeable future * * * so that risk of extinction will not
increase in the future,'' relating the term to ``threatened status
under the ESA'').
Biological Implications of Ocean-Climate Conditions--In an August
12, 2005, memorandum, NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC)
summarized the most recent information available on West Coast ocean
conditions, described observations of impacts on marine communities,
and offered predictions of the implications of recent ocean conditions
on West Coast salmon stocks, including the Oregon Coast coho ESU (NMFS,
2005e). The memorandum described recent observations of anomalous ocean
conditions that may portend lower returns of coho salmon for the fall
of 2005 and the next several years. The memorandum noted that indices
of ocean-climate variation are suggestive of a regime shift in ocean-
climate conditions that in the past have been associated with warmer
water temperature, poor primary productivity, and generally less
favorable conditions for coho marine survival. The recent in-situ
observations confirm delayed coastal upwelling, anomalously warm sea
surface temperatures, altered zooplankton community structure, and low
survey abundances of juvenile salmon, possibly indicating low marine
survival. Strong upwelling occurred in mid-July 2005 resulting in
cooler sea surface temperatures, increased primary productivity, and
generally more favorable conditions for salmon survival. It was unclear
whether this delayed onset of coastal upwelling would compensate for
earlier unfavorable conditions which occurred during critical life-
history stages for coho salmon. The memorandum noted that model
projections indicate that fish populations that prey on juvenile coho
salmon may be reduced, possibly compensating somewhat for unfavorable
marine survival conditions for coho returns in 2006. The memorandum
[[Page 7826]]
concluded that the NWFSC was relatively confident that the negative
biological implications of recent ocean conditions for the Oregon Coast
coho ESU would be dramatic over the next few years.
Conclusions Regarding the Status of the Oregon Coast Coho ESU
We conclude, after considering the above information contained in
the record of our January 2006 determination (in a manner consistent
with the Court's order), that the Oregon Coast coho ESU is likely to
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. This finding is based, in part,
on the BRT's slight majority conclusion that the ESU is ``likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future.'' The TRT's subsequent
preliminary assessment of ESU viability (NMFS, 2005d) was consistent
with the BRT's assessment, finding a high degree of uncertainty whether
the ESU is sustainable for the foreseeable future. Although returns in
2001 and 2002 were extremely encouraging, there remained concern
whether future ocean conditions would favor such high levels of
recruitment. The NWFSC's August 2005 memorandum describing the
implications of recent ocean-climate conditions (NMFS, 2005e) did not
assuage this concern, concluding that recent ocean conditions portended
unfavorable marine survival conditions for Oregon Coast coho in the
near term.
Consideration of New Information Since the January 2006 Determination
The ESA requires that listing determinations be made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. To that
end, we also considered new status and trend information made available
since the 2003 BRT report, and since our January 2006 ``not warranted''
determination to ensure that our present listing determination for the
Oregon Coast coho ESU has considered the best information available. We
evaluated these new data to determine whether they supported our risk
assessment based on the information contained in the January 2006
record alone.
Since the BRT convened in January 2003, the total abundance of
natural spawners in the Oregon Coast coho ESU has declined each year
(i.e., 2003-2006). The abundance of total natural spawners in 2006
(111,025 spawners) was approximately 43 percent of the recent peak
abundance in 2002 (255,372 spawners). In 2003, ESU-level productivity
(evaluated in terms of the number of spawning recruits resulting from
spawners 3 years earlier) was above replacement (approximately 3.2
recruits per spawner). ESU-level productivity was essentially at
replacement in 2004 (approximately 0.99 recruits per spawner), but
below replacement in 2005 and 2006. The productivity observed in 2006
(approximately 0.49 recruits per spawner) is the lowest observed since
1991. From 2003-2006 harvest rates remained low, averaging
approximately 12 percent of the total run. Marine survival from 2003-
2006 (estimated in terms of the number of returning hatchery adults
resulting from the number of hatchery smolts released 2 years earlier)
was generally at or above the average during 1990-2006. The decline in
ESU productivity from 2003-2006, while marine survival conditions were
generally favorable, suggests that factors other than ocean conditions
are responsible for the decline.
In August 2007, the Oregon and Northern California Coast TRT
released a draft report entitled ``Biological Recovery Criteria for the
Oregon Coast coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit'' (Wainwright
et al., 2007). This draft report presents biological criteria for
assessing the ESU's progress toward recovery, and also applies these
criteria in assessing the current biological status of the ESU. The TRT
considered the population data available through 2004. This draft
report thus represents a more recent assessment of the ESU's status
relative to the 2003 BRT's review. The results of the recent draft
report are consistent with the TRT's preliminary progress report
described above (NMFS, 2005d), finding that there is low to moderate
certainty that the ESU is sustainable for the foreseeable future. The
recent draft report considered the population data available through
2004, and thus does not reflect the declining abundance and
productivity observed in 2005 and 2006.
Preliminary spawner survey data for 2007 (the average peak number
of spawners per mile observed during random coho spawning surveys in 41
streams) suggest that the 2007-2008 return of Oregon Coast coho is
either (1) much reduced from abundance levels in 2006, or (2)
exhibiting delayed run timing from previous years. As of December 13,
2007, the average peak number of spawners per mile was below 2006
levels in 38 of 41 surveyed streams (ODFW, 2007). It is possible that
the timing of peak spawner abundance is delayed relative to previous
years, and that increased spawner abundance in late December 2007 and
January 2008 will compensate for the low levels observed thus far in
the 2007-2008 spawning season.
Our review of the above new abundance and productivity information
and the TRT's 2007 draft report does not indicate that the status of
the Oregon Coast coho ESU has improved since the 2003 BRT report. The
recent 5-year geometric mean abundance (2002-2006) of approximately
152,960 total natural spawners remains well above that of a decade ago
(approximately 52,845 from 1992-1996). However, the decline in
productivity from 2003 to 2006, despite generally favorable marine
survival conditions and low harvest rates, is of concern.
After reviewing the scientific and commercial information available
in the record concerning the status of the Oregon Coast Coho (in a
manner consistent with the Court's order) and adding to the record the
Draft 2007 TRT report, 2003-2006 abundance and marine survival
information, and preliminary spawner survey information for 2007, we
conclude that this information requires a conclusion that the ESU is
likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The recent
declines in the ESU's abundance and productivity are not necessarily
indicative of a substantial degradation of the ESU's status. Similar
interannual variability in abundance and productivity has been observed
previously for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, and similar variability is
expected to occur in the future. The principal inquiry in determining
if the ESU warrants listing is whether present habitat conditions are
sufficient to support a viable ESU, and whether future freshwater
habitat conditions are expected to degrade. The present and future
status of freshwater habitat for the Oregon Coast coho ESU remains
uncertain. As noted above, we believe that if we had been permitted to
consider all the scientific information in the record, and if we had
been allowed more time for a complete scientific review of new
information in a manner consistent with our typically thorough and
comprehensive analytical processes, there is a reasonable possibility
that we would have reached a different final listing determination.
Final Listing Determination
Consideration of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) requires us to add a species to the
[[Page 7827]]
List of Endangered and Threatened Species if it is endangered or
threatened because of any one or a combination of the following
factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued
existence. We have previously detailed the impacts of various factors
contributing to the decline of Pacific salmonids as part of our prior
listing determinations for 27 ESUs, as well as in supporting technical
reports (e.g., NMFS, 1997b, ``Coastal coho habitat factors for decline
and protective efforts in Oregon;'' NMFS, 1997c, ``Factors Contributing
to the Decline of Chinook Salmon--An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast
Steelhead Factors for Decline Report;'' NMFS, 1996a, ``Factors for
Decline--A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast
Steelhead Under the Endangered Species Act''). Our prior listing
determinations and technical reports concluded that all of the factors
identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in the
decline of West Coast salmon and steelhead. In our 1998 threatened
listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (63 FR 42588;
August 10, 1998), we concluded that the decline of Oregon Coast coho
populations is the result of several longstanding, human-induced
factors (e.g., habitat degradation, water diversions, harvest, and
artificial propagation) that exacerbate the adverse effects of natural
environmental variability (e.g., floods, drought, and poor ocean
conditions). The following discussion briefly summarizes our findings
regarding the threats currently facing the Oregon Coast coho ESU. While
these threats are treated in general terms, it is important to
underscore that impacts from certain threats are more acute for some
populations in the ESU.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
In many Oregon coastal streams, past human activities (e.g.,
logging, agriculture, gravel mining, urbanization) have resulted in
impediments to fish passage, degradation of stream complexity,
increased sedimentation, reduced water quality and quantity, loss and
degradation of riparian habitats, and loss and degradation of lowland,
estuarine, and wetland coho rearing habitats. The relevant issues are
whether current habitat conditions are adequate to support the ESU's
persistence (that is, whether the species is endangered or threatened
because of present destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range) and whether habitat conditions are likely to worsen
in the future (that is, whether the species is endangered or threatened
because of threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range). Regarding the first issue, the 2003 BRT noted
uncertainty about the adequacy of current habitat conditions, and this
uncertainty contributed to the slight majority finding that the ESU was
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Regarding the second issue, the threat of future habitat declines,
the 2003 BRT noted that ``if the long-term decline in productivity [of
the Oregon Coast coho ESU] reflects deteriorating conditions in
freshwater habitat, this ESU could face very serious risks of local
extinction during the next cycle of poor ocean conditions.'' The BRT
thus identified potential future habitat declines as a potential
concern. As part of our January 2006 determination we evaluated the
likely future trend of various habitat elements and the likely impact
of future population growth (NMFS, 2005a). With respect to population
growth and urbanization, we found that approximately 3.4 percent of
``high intrinsic potential'' habitat areas for coho (e.g., lowland
stream reaches particularly important to juvenile coho rearing and
overwintering survival) are within currently designated urban growth
areas, suggesting that future human population growth may not represent
a significant threat to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). With respect to lowland
and upland habitat areas under various types of land use and ownership,
we found that some areas are likely to improve, some are likely to
decline, and others are likely to remain in their current condition.
Overall, there is a high level of uncertainty associated with
projections of future habitat conditions due to underlying economic and
sociopolitical factors influencing forest harvest and restoration
rates, urban conversion of agricultural and forest lands, and the
enforcement and implementation of land-use plans and regulations. Based
on our analysis, we found that there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that the Oregon Coast coho ESU was more likely than not to
become an endangered species because of the ``threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.'' It remains
uncertain whether future freshwater habitat conditions will be adequate
to support a viable coho ESU, particularly during periods of
unfavorable ocean conditions and poor marine survival.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
Harvest rates on Oregon Coast coho populations ranged between 60
and 90 percent between the 1960s and 1980s (Good et al., 2005). Modest
harvest restrictions were imposed in the late 1980s, but harvest rates
remained high until most directed coho salmon harvest was prohibited in
1994. These restrictive harvest regulations, developed concurrently
with the Oregon Plan and subsequently revised, have imposed
conservative restrictions on directed and incidental fishery mortality,
and appropriately consider marine survival conditions and the
biological status of naturally produced coho populations. Under these
revised regulations, harvest rates are stipulated to be between 0 and 8
percent during critically low spawner abundance, and may increase to a
maximum exploitation rate of 45 percent under high survival and
abundance conditions (Oregon, 2005). Empirical data over the last 10
years show that harvest mortality for Oregon Coast coho has been
maintained below 15 percent since the adoption of the revised
regulations (Oregon, 2005). We agree with the 2003 BRT's finding that
overutilization has been effectively addressed for Oregon Coast coho
populations.
C. Disease or Predation
Past species introductions and habitat modifications have resulted
in increased non-native predator populations, notably in coastal lake
habitats. Predation by increased populations of marine mammals
(principally sea lions) may influence salmon abundance in some local
populations when other prey species are absent and where physical
conditions lead to the concentration of adults and juveniles (e.g.,
Cooper and Johnson, 1992). However, the extent to which marine mammal
predation threatens the persistence of Oregon coast coho populations is
unknown.
Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult
and juvenile salmon survival. Salmonids are exposed to numerous
bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in spawning and
rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the marine
environment. Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease,
ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic
[[Page 7828]]
necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot disease, erythrocytic inclusion
body syndrome, and whirling disease, among others, are present and
known to affect West Coast salmonids (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979;
Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). In
general, very little current or historical information exists to
quantify trends over time in infection levels and disease mortality
rates. However, studies have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to
be less susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et
al., 1983; Sanders et al., 1992). Native salmon populations have co-
evolved with specific communities of these organisms, but the
widespread use of artificial propagation has introduced exotic
organisms not historically present in a particular watershed. Habitat
conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures can exacerbate
susceptibility to infectious diseases.
Aggressive hatchery reform efforts implemented by the State of
Oregon have reduced the magnitude and distribution of hatchery fish
releases in the ESU, and, consequently, the interactions between
hatchery- and natural-origin fish and the potential transmission of
infectious diseases. Additionally, regulations controlling hatchery
effluent discharges into streams have reduced the potential of
pathogens being released into coho habitats.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulations governing coho harvest have dramatically
improved the ESU's likelihood of persistence. These regulations are
unlikely to be weakened in the future. Of the wide range of land uses
and other activities affecting salmon habitat, however, some are more
amenable to regulation than others. In the range of Oregon Coast coho,
the regulation of some activities and land uses will alter past harmful
practices, resulting in habitat improvements; the regulation of other
activities is inadequate to alter past harmful practices, resulting in
habitat conditions continuing in their present state; and the
regulation of still other activities and land uses will lead to further
degradation (NMFS, 2005a).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Natural variability in ocean and freshwater conditions has at
different times exacerbated or mitigated the effects on Oregon Coast
coho populations of habitat limiting factors. There is considerable
uncertainty in predicting ocean-climate conditions into the foreseeable
future and their biological impacts on the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
Variability in ocean-climate conditions is expected, and coho
productivity and abundance are similarly expected to fluctuate in
response to this natural environmental variability. It is unknown
whether unfavorable ocean conditions will predominate in the
foreseeable future.
Prior to the 1990s, coho hatchery programs along the Oregon coast
posed substantial risks to the survival, reproductive fitness, and
diversity of natural populations. High numbers of hatchery coho were
released in most of the basins in the ESU, most programs propagated
non-native broodstocks, and naturally spawning hatchery-origin strays
were common in most natural production areas. Oregon's aggressive
hatchery reform efforts have resulted in substantial reductions of this
threat. Hatchery coho are released in less than half of the populations
in the ESU, and the magnitude of releases has declined from a peak of
35 million smolts in 1981, to approximately 800,000 in 2005. Hatchery
programs are currently constrained to releasing no more than 200,000
smolts in any basin. The reduction in the number of hatchery fish
released has reduced the potential for competition with, and predation
on, natural coho. The proportion of hatchery-origin fish in natural
spawning areas has been reduced to below 10 percent in all but two
populations in the ESU. All hatchery coho releases in the ESU are now
marked, affording improved monitoring and assessment of the co-existing
naturally produced coho populations. Broodstock management practices
have been modified to minimize the potential for hatchery-origin fish
to pose risks to the genetic diversity of local natural populations. We
conclude the ESU is not in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future because of hatchery practices.
Efforts Being Made To Protect the Species
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after taking into account efforts being made
to protect a species. In making listing determinations we first assess
the species' level of extinction risk, identify factors that threaten
its continued existence, and assess existing efforts being made to
protect the species to determine if those measures ameliorate the risks
it faces. The reader is referred to the June 14, 2004, proposed rule
for a summary of efforts, including those under the Oregon Plan, being
made to protect Oregon Coast coho populations (69 FR 33102, at 33142).
Harvest reductions and improvements in hatchery management are
noteworthy in that they have been fully implemented and their
effectiveness is manifested in the improved status of Oregon Coast coho
populations. The benefits of these accomplishments in hatchery and
harvest management under the Oregon Plan, however, were fully
considered in the 2003 BRT's assessment of ESU extinction risk. In our
June, 14, 2004, proposed listing for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR
33102), we evaluated all other relevant protective efforts and
determined that they did not substantially alter our finding that the
ESU is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Since our January 2006 determination, the State of Oregon released
a draft Coho Conservation Plan for Oregon Coast coho. The draft
Conservation Plan culminated a 2-year development process including
significant input and involvement from local stakeholders. The draft
conservation plan establishes ambitious conservation goals and is an
important step in describing limiting factors and threats, identifying
specific conservation actions to address these factors and threats, and
designing a robust research and monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness of conservation actions that contribute to rebuilding the
Oregon Coast coho ESU. As reflected in the comments that we provided on
the draft Conservation Plan (NMFS, 2007e), the plan lacks the necessary
detail, specificity, and commitment of resources to provide sufficient
certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter our assessment
that the ESU is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Final Listing Determination
The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the
listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of
the species and taking into
[[Page 7829]]
account those efforts, if any, being made to protect such species.
The information included in the record of our January 2006
determination (as the Court has ordered us to consider it) indicates
that the Oregon Coast coho ESU is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. New abundance and productivity data do not
suggest that the ESU's biological status has improved since our January
2006 determination. Efforts being made to protect the species, at
present, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation or
effectiveness to mitigate the assessed level of extinction risk.
Therefore, we conclude that the Oregon Coast coho ESU warrants listing
under the ESA as a threatened species.
Prohibitions and Protective Regulations
On June 28, 2005, as part of the final listing determinations for
16 ESUs of West Coast salmon, we amended and streamlined the previously
promulgated ESA section 4(d) regulations for threatened salmon and
steelhead (70 FR 37160). We finalized an amendment to provide the
necessary flexibility to ensure that fisheries and artificial
propagation programs are managed consistently with the conservation
needs of threatened salmon and steelhead. Under this change the section
4(d) protections apply to natural and hatchery fish with an intact
adipose fin, but not to listed hatchery fish that have had their
adipose fin removed prior to release into the wild. Additionally, we
made several simplifying and clarifying changes to the 4(d)
regulations, including updating an expired limit (section
223.203(b)(2)), providing a temporary exemption for ongoing research
and enhancement activities, and applying the same set of 14 limits to
all threatened salmon and steelhead.
Description of Protective Regulations Being Afforded Oregon Coast Coho
Consistent with the June 2005 amended ESA section 4(d) regulations,
this final rule applies the ESA section 9(a)(1) take and other
prohibitions (subject to the ``limits'' discussed below) to unmarked
members of the Oregon Coast coho ESU with an intact adipose fin. (The
clipping of adipose fins in juvenile hatchery fish just prior to
release into the natural environment is a commonly employed method for
the marking of hatchery production). We believe this approach provides
needed flexibility to appropriately manage the artificial propagation
and directed take of threatened salmon and steelhead for the
conservation and recovery of the listed species.
The June 2005 amended ESA section 4(d) regulations simplified the
previously promulgated 4(d) rules by applying the same set of 14
``limits'' to all threatened salmon and steelhead. These limits allow
us to exempt certain activities from the take prohibitions, provided
that the applicable programs and regulations meet specific conditions
to adequately protect the listed species. In this final rule we are
applying this same set of 14 limits to the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
Comprehensive descriptions of each 4(d) limit are contained in ``A
Citizen's Guide to the 4(d) Rule'' (available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov), and in previously published Federal Register
notices (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; 69 FR
33102; June 14, 2004; 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005). These ``limits''
include: activities conducted in accordance with ESA section 10
incidental take authorization (50 CFR 223.203(b)(1)); scientific or
artificial propagation activities with pending permit applications at
the time of rulemaking (Sec. 223.203(b)(2)); emergency actions related
to injured, stranded, or dead salmonids (Sec. 223.203(b)(3)); fishery
management activities (Sec. 223.203(b)(4)); hatchery and genetic
management programs (Sec. 223.203(b)(5)); activities in compliance
with joint tribal/state plans developed within United States (U.S.) v.
Washington or U.S. v. Oregon (Sec. 223.203(b)(6)); scientific research
activities permitted or conducted by the states (Sec. 223.203(b)(7));
state, local, and private habitat restoration activities (Sec.
223.203(b)(8)); properly screened water diversion devices (Sec.
223.203(b)(9)); routine road maintenance activities (Sec.
223.203(b)(10)); certain park pest management activities (Sec.
223.203(b)(11)); certain municipal, residential, commercial, and
industrial development and redevelopment activities (Sec.
223.203(b)(12)); management activities on state and private lands
within the State of Washington (Sec. 223.203(b)(13)); and activities
undertaken consistent with an approved tribal resource management plan
(Sec. 223.204).
Limit Sec. 223.203(b)(2) exempts scientific or artificial
propagation activities with pending applications for ESA section 4(d)
approval. The limit was amended as part of the June 28, 2005, final
rule to temporarily exempt such activities from the take prohibitions
during a ``grace period,'' provided that a complete application for
4(d) approval was received within a specified period from the notice's
publication (70 FR 37160). The limit was again modified in February
2006 when the 4(d) regulations were extended to the Upper Columbia
River steelhead DPS (71 FR 5178; February 1, 2006). The deadlines
associated with this exemption have expired. Consistent with the 2004
proposed rule to list Oregon Coast coho and extend 4(d) regulations to
the ESU (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004), we believe it is necessary and
advisable for the conservation and recovery of Oregon Coast coho to
allow research and enhancement activities to continue uninterrupted
while we process the necessary permits and approvals. Provided we
receive a complete application by June 10, 2008, the take prohibitions
will not apply to research and enhancement activities which affect
Oregon Coast coho until the application is rejected as insufficient, a
permit or 4(d) approval is issued, or until March 31, 2009, whichever
occurs earliest. The length of this ``grace period'' is necessary
because we process applications for 4(d) approval annually.
Other Protective ESA Provisions
Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a proposed Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS or the FWS, as
appropriate. Examples of Federal actions likely to affect salmon
include authorized land management activities of the USFS and the BLM,
as well as operation of hydroelectric and storage projects of the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Such activities include timber sales and harvest, permitting
livestock grazing, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control.
Federal actions, including the USACE section 404 permitting activities
under the Clean Water Act, USACE permitting activities under the River
and Harbors Act, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses
for non-Federal development and operation of hydropower, and Federal
[[Page 7830]]
salmon hatcheries, may also require consultation.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``take'' prohibitions.
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that
involves a directed take of listed species. A directed take refers to
the intentional take of listed species. We have issued section
10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for currently listed ESUs for
a number of activities, including trapping and tagging, electroshocking
to determine population presence and abundance, removal of fish from
irrigation ditches, and collection of adult fish for artificial
propagation programs. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may
be issued to non-Federal entities performing activities which may
incidentally take listed species. The types of activities potentially
requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the
operation and release of artificially propagated fish by state or
privately operated and funded hatcheries, state or academic research
that may incidentally take listed species, the implementation of state
fishing regulations, logging, road building, grazing, and diverting
water into private lands.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species'
range. At the time of the final rule, we must identify to the extent
known specific activities that will not be considered likely to result
in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will be
considered likely to result in violation. We believe that, based on the
best available information, the following actions will not result in a
violation of section 9:
1. Possession of fish from the Oregon Coast coho ESU that are
acquired lawfully by permit issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of
the ESA, or by the terms of an incidental take statement issued
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; or
2. Federally funded or approved projects that involve activities
such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam
construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream
channelization or diversion for which section 7 consultation has been
completed, and when activities are conducted in accordance with any
terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement
accompanying a biological opinion.
There are many activities that we believe could potentially take
salmon by harming them. ``Harm'' is defined by our regulations as ``an
act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may
include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually
kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating,
feeding or sheltering'' (50 CFR 222.102 (harm)). Activities that may
harm the Oregon Coast coho ESU resulting in a violation of the section
9 take and other prohibitions, include, but are not limited to:
1. Land-use activities that degrade habitats for the Oregon Coast
coho ESU (e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban development, road
construction in riparian areas and areas susceptible to mass wasting
and surface erosion);
2. Destruction/alteration of the habitats for the Oregon Coast coho
ESU, such as removal of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or
riparian shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material, draining,
ditching, diverting, blocking, gravel mining, or altering stream
channels or surface or ground water flow;
3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting
the Oregon Coast coho ESU;
4. Violation of discharge permits;
5. Application of pesticides affecting water quality or riparian
areas for the Oregon Coast coho ESU;
6. Interstate and foreign commerce of fish from the Oregon Coast
coho ESU and import/export of fish from the Oregon Coast coho ESU
without a threatened or endangered species permit;
7. Collecting or handling of fish from the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes of
scientific research or to enhance the conservation or survival of the
species; and
8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on fish from
the Oregon Coast coho ESU or displace them from their habitat.
These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of fish in the Oregon Coast
coho ESU under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether
specific activities would constitute a violation of the section 9 take
and other prohibitions, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions
and permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Designating Critical Habitat
Methods and Criteria Used to Designate Critical Habitat
The following paragraphs and sections describe the relevant
definitions and guidance found in the ESA and our implementing
regulations, and the key methods and criteria we used to designate
critical habitat after incorporating, as appropriate, comments and
information received on the proposed rule.
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2) and our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a) require that we designate critical habitat, and make
revisions thereto, ``on the basis of the best scientific data
available.'' Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) defines critical
habitat as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed * * * on which are
found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.'' Section 3 of the ESA
(16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the terms ``conserve,''
``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to mean ``to use, and the use of,
all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.''
Pursuant to our regulations, when identifying physical or
biological features essential to conservation, we consider the
following requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing
of offspring;
[[Page 7831]]
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographical and ecological
distributions of the species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to
these factors, we also focus on the more specific primary constituent
elements (PCEs) within the occupied areas that are essential to the
conservation of the species. The regulations identify PCEs as
including, but not limited to: ``roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning
sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or
quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological formation,
vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.'' For an area
containing PCEs to meet the definition of critical habitat, we must
conclude that the PCEs in that area ``may require special management
considerations or protection.'' Our regulations define special
management considerations or protection as ``any methods or procedures
useful in protecting physical and biological features of the
environment for the conservation of listed species.'' Both the ESA and
our regulations, in recognition of the divergent biological needs of
species, establish criteria that are species specific rather than a
``one size fits all'' approach.
Our regulations state that, ``[t]he Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species' (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not
demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we
will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic
area occupied by the species.
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)) requires that, before
designating critical habitat, we consider the economic impacts, impacts
on national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat, and the Secretary may exclude any
area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, unless excluding an area from critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species. This exercise of
discretion must be based upon the best scientific and commercial data.
Once critical habitat for a salmon or steelhead ESU is designated,
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each Federal agency, in
consultation with and with the assistance of NMFS, ensure that any
action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific
Areas Within the Geographical Area
In past critical habitat designations, we had concluded that the
limited availability of species distribution data prevented mapping
salmonid critical habitat at a scale finer than occupied river basins
(65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000). Therefore, the 2000 designations
defined the ``geographical area occupied by the species, at the time of
listing'' as all accessible river reaches within the current range of
the listed species.
In the 2004 proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 13 ESUs
of Pacific salmon and steelhead (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2004) we
described in greater detail that, since the previous designations in
2000, we can now be more precise about the ``geographical area occupied
by the species'' because Federal, state, and tribal fishery biologists
have made progress documenting and mapping actual species distribution
at the level of stream reaches. Moreover, much of the available data
can now be accessed and analyzed using Geographic Information System
(GIS) software to produce consistent and fine-scale maps (NMFS, 2007b;
StreamNet, 2005). The current maps document fish presence by
identifying occupied stream reaches where the species has been
observed. It also identifies stream reaches where the species is
presumed to occur based on the professional judgment of biologists
familiar with the watershed (although in some cases there are streams
classified as occupied based on professional judgment when in fact the
species has been observed but the GIS data have not been updated). We
made use of these finer-scale data for the final critical habitat
designations for 12 Pacific Northwest ESUs (70 FR 52630; September 2,
2005), as well as for the current critical habitat designation. We
believe that this approach enables a more accurate delineation of the
``geographical area occupied by the species'' referred to in the ESA
definition of critical habitat. We received some comments on this
approach, some in support and some against it (see comments in final
critical habitat designations for 12 Pacific Northwest ESUs, 70 FR
52630, September 2, 2005). However, none of the latter comments
described a specific methodology that would yield a better approach
than what we used.
We are now also able to identify ``specific areas'' (ESA section
3(5)(a)) and ``particular areas'' (ESA section 4(b)(2)) at a finer
scale than in 2000. Since 2000, various Federal agencies have mapped
fifth field hydrologic units (referred to as ``HUC5s'' or
``watersheds'') throughout the Pacific Northwest using USGS mapping
conventions (Seaber et al., 1986). This information is now generally
available via the internet (NMFS, 2007b), and we have expanded our GIS
resources to use these data. As in the 2000 designations (in which we
used larger fourth field hydrologic units), we used the HUC5s to
organize critical habitat information systematically and at a scale
that is applicable to the spatial distribution of salmon. Organizing
information at this scale is especially relevant to salmonids, since
their innate homing ability allows them to return to the watersheds
where they were born. Such site fidelity results in spatial
aggregations of salmonid populations that generally correspond to the
area encompassed by subbasins or HUC5 watersheds (Washington Department
of Fisheries et al., 1992; Kostow, 1995; McElhany et al., 2000). As
noted above regarding our use of finer scale data, none of the comments
received provided us with a specific alternative methodology that would
yield a better approach than the watershed-scale approach we adopted.
The USGS maps watershed units as polygons, bounding a drainage area
from ridge-top to ridge-top, encompassing streams, riparian areas and
uplands. Within the boundaries of any watershed, there are stream
reaches not occupied by the species. Land areas within the HUC5
boundaries are also generally not ``occupied'' by the species (though
certain areas such as flood plains or side channels may be occupied at
some times of some years). We used the watershed boundaries as a basis
for aggregating occupied stream reaches, for purposes of delineating
``specific'' areas at a scale that often corresponds well to salmonid
population structure and ecological processes. Although we are
designating only the streams and not the entire watershed, our
documents frequently refer to the ``specific areas'' as ``watersheds''
because that is the term often used as a convenient shorthand. We also
refer to the stream reaches as ``habitat areas.'' Each watershed was
reviewed by the CHART to verify occupation, PCEs, and special
management considerations (see ``Critical Habitat Analytical Review
Team'' section below).
The watershed-scale aggregation of stream reaches also allowed us
to analyze the impacts of designating a ``particular area,'' as
required by ESA section 4(b)(2). As a result of watershed
[[Page 7832]]
processes, many activities occurring in riparian or upland areas and in
non-fish-bearing streams may affect the physical or biological features
essential to conservation in the occupied stream reaches. The watershed
boundary thus describes an area in which Federal activities have the
potential to affect critical habitat (Spence et al., 1996). Using
watershed boundaries for the economic analysis ensured that all
potential economic impacts were considered. Section 3(5) defines
critical habitat in terms of ``specific areas,'' and section 4(b)(2)
requires the agency to consider certain factors before designating
``particular areas.'' In the case of West Coast salmon and steelhead,
the biology of the species, the characteristics of their habitat, the
nature of the impacts, and the limited information currently available
at finer geographic scales made it appropriate to consider ``specific
areas'' and ``particular areas'' as the same unit for purposes of
economic exclusions.
Occupied estuarine and marine areas were also considered in the
context of defining ``specific areas.'' In our proposed rule (69 FR
74572; December 14, 2004) we noted that estuarine areas are crucial for
juvenile salmonids, given their multiple functions as areas for
rearing/feeding, freshwater-saltwater acclimation, and migration
(Simenstad et al., 1982; Marriott et al., 2002). Within the geographic
range of the Oregon Coast coho ESU all estuaries fall within the
boundaries of a HUC5 and so were assessed along with upstream
freshwater habitats within the watershed. In all occupied estuarine
areas we were able to identify physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require
special management considerations or protection. For those estuarine
areas designated as critical habitat we are again delineating them in
similar terms to our past designations, as being defined by a line
connecting the furthest land points at the estuary mouth.
In previous designations of salmonid critical habitat we did not
designate offshore marine areas (with the exception of deep waters in
Puget Sound (65 FR 7764, February 16, 2000; 70 FR 52630, September 2,
2005). In the Pacific Ocean, we concluded that there may be essential
habitat features, but we could not identify any special management
considerations or protection associated with them as required under
section 3(5)(A)(I) of the ESA (65 FR 7776; February 16, 2000). Since
that time we have carefully considered the best available scientific
information, and related agency actions, such as the designation of
Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. We believe that forage species are a feature in the
Pacific Ocean that are essential for salmon conservation and that may
require special management considerations or protection, at least for
those forage species that are a target of human harvest. However,
because salmonids are opportunistic feeders we could not identify
``specific areas'' beyond the nearshore marine zone where these or
other essential features are found within this vast geographic area
occupied by salmon and steelhead. In contrast to estuarine and
nearshore areas, we conclude that it is not possible to identify
``specific areas'' in the Pacific Ocean that contain essential features
for salmonids, and, therefore, we are not designating critical habitat
in offshore marine areas. We requested comment on this issue in our
proposed rule but did not receive comments or information that would
change our conclusion (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005).
Primary Constituent Elements
In determining what areas are critical habitat, agency regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require that we ``consider those physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given
species * * *, including space for individual and population growth and
for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical
geographical and ecological distribution of a species.'' The
regulations further direct us to ``focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements * * * that are essential to the
conservation of the species,'' and specify that the ``known primary
constituent elements shall be listed with the critical habitat
description.'' The regulations identify PCEs as including, but not
limited to: ``roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding
sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host
species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type,
tide, and specific soil types.''
NMFS biologists developed a list of PCEs that are essential to the
species' conservation and based on the unique life history of salmon
and steelhead and their biological needs (Hart, 1973; Beauchamp et al.,
1983; Laufle et al., 1986; Pauley et al., 1986, 1988, and 1989; Groot
and Margolis, 1991; Spence et al., 1996). Guiding the identification of
PCEs was a decision matrix we developed for use in ESA section 7
consultations (NMFS, 1996b) which describes general parameters and
characteristics of most of the essential features under consideration
in this critical habitat designation. We identified these PCEs and
requested comment on them in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR)(68 FR 55931; September 29, 2003) and proposed rule (69 FR 74636;
December 14, 2005) but did not receive information to support changing
them. These PCEs include sites essential to support one or more life
stages of the ESU (sites for spawning, rearing, migration and
foraging). These sites in turn contain physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the ESU (for example, spawning
gravels, water quality and quantity, side channels, forage species).
The specific PCEs include:
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality
conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval
development. These features are essential to conservation because
without them the species cannot successfully spawn and produce
offspring.
2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain
connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and
support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage
supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade,
submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut
banks. These features are essential to conservation because without
them juveniles cannot access and use the areas needed to forage, grow,
and develop behaviors (e.g., predator avoidance, competition) that help
ensure their survival.
3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water
quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,
side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult
mobility and survival. These features are essential to conservation
because without them juveniles cannot use the variety of habitats that
allow them to avoid high flows, avoid predators, successfully compete,
begin the behavioral and physiological changes needed for life in the
ocean, and reach the ocean in a timely manner. Similarly, these
features are essential for adults because they allow fish in a non-
feeding condition to successfully swim
[[Page 7833]]
upstream, avoid predators, and reach spawning areas on limited energy
stores.
4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water
quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult
physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large
rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and
maturation. These features are essential to conservation because
without them juveniles cannot reach the ocean in a timely manner and
use the variety of habitats that allow them to avoid predators, compete
successfully, and complete the behavioral and physiological changes
needed for life in the ocean. Similarly, these features are essential
to the conservation of adults because they provide a final source of
abundant forage that will provide the energy stores needed to make the
physiological transition to fresh water, migrate upstream, avoid
predators, and develop to maturity upon reaching spawning areas.
5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality
and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and
fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks
and boulders, and side channels. As in the case with freshwater
migration corridors and estuarine areas, nearshore marine features are
essential to conservation because without them juveniles cannot
successfully transition from natal streams to offshore marine areas. We
have focused our designation on nearshore areas in Puget Sound because
of its unique and relatively sheltered fjord-like setting (as opposed
to the more open coastlines of Washington and Oregon).
6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and
maturation. These features are essential for conservation because
without them juveniles cannot forage and grow to adulthood. However,
for the reasons stated previously in this document, it is difficult to
identify specific areas containing this PCE as well as human activities
that may affect the PCE condition in those areas. Therefore, we have
not designated any specific areas based on this PCE but instead have
identified it because it is essential to the species' conservation, and
specific offshore areas may be identified in the future (in which case
any revision to this designation would be subject to separate
rulemaking).
The occupied habitat areas designated in this final rule contain
PCEs required to support the biological processes for Oregon Coast coho
using the habitat. The CHART verified this for each watershed/nearshore
zone by relying on the best available scientific data (including
species distribution maps, watershed analyses, and habitat surveys)
during its review of occupied areas and resultant assessment of area
conservation values (NMFS, 2007b). The contribution of the PCEs varies
by site and biological function such that the quality of the elements
may vary within a range of acceptable conditions. The CHART took this
variation into account when it assessed the conservation value of an
area.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
An occupied area meets the definition of critical habitat only if
it contains physical and biological features that ``may require special
management considerations or protection.'' Agency regulations at 50 CFR
424.02(j) define ``special management considerations or protection'' to
mean ``any methods or procedures useful in protecting physical and
biological features of the environment for the conservation of listed
species.''
As part of the biological assessment described below under
``Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team,'' a team of biologists
examined each habitat area to determine whether the physical or
biological features may require special management consideration. These
determinations are identified for each area in the final CHART report
for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (NMFS, 2007b). Consistent with the final
critical habitat designations for 12 Pacific Northwest ESUs (70 FR
52630; September 2, 2005), the CHART identified a variety of activities
that threaten the physical and biological features essential to listed
salmon and steelhead (see review by Spence et al., 1996), including:
(1) Forestry; (2) grazing; (3) agriculture; (4) road building/
maintenance; (5) channel modifications/diking; (6) urbanization; (7)
sand and gravel mining; (8) mineral mining; (9) dams; (10) irrigation
impoundments and withdrawals; (11) river, estuary, and ocean traffic;
(12) wetland loss/removal; (13) beaver removal; and (14) exotic/
invasive species introductions. In addition to these, the harvest of
salmonid prey species (e.g., forage fishes such as herring, anchovy,
and sardines) may present another potential habitat-related management
activity (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1999).
Unoccupied Areas
ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to include
``specific areas outside the geographical area occupied'' if the areas
are determined by the Secretary to be ``essential for the conservation
of the species.'' NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) emphasize that
we ``shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical
area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to
its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.'' For the Oregon Coast coho ESU we are not designating
unoccupied areas at this time. The CHART did not identify any
unoccupied areas that may be essential for the conservation of the
Oregon Coast coho ESU. Thus, we are not designating any unoccupied
areas at this time. Any future designation of unoccupied areas would be
based on the required determination that such area is essential for the
conservation of the ESU and would be subject to separate rulemaking
with the opportunity for notice and comment.
Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat
In past designations we have described the lateral extent of
critical habitat in various ways, ranging from fixed distances to
``functional'' zones defined by important riparian functions (65 FR
7764; February 16, 2000). Both approaches presented difficulties, and
this was highlighted in several comments (most of which requested that
we focus on aquatic areas only) received in response to the ANPR (68 FR
55926; September 29, 2003). Designating a set riparian zone width will
(in some places) accurately reflect the distance from the stream on
which PCEs might be found, but in other cases may over- or understate
the distance. Designating a functional buffer avoids that problem, but
makes it difficult for Federal agencies to know in advance what areas
are critical habitat. To address these issues we have defined the
lateral extent of designated critical habitat as the width of the
stream channel defined by the ordinary high-water line as defined by
the USACE in 33 CFR 329.11. This approach is consistent with the
specific mapping requirements described in agency regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(c)). In areas for which ordinary high-water has not been defined
pursuant to 33 CFR 329.11, the width of the stream channel shall be
defined by its bankfull elevation. Bankfull elevation is the level at
which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain
[[Page 7834]]
(Rosgen, 1996) and is reached at a discharge which generally has a
recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series (Leopold
et al., 1992). Such an interval is commensurate with the juvenile
freshwater life phases of coho salmon. Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that for an occupied stream reach this lateral extent is
regularly ``occupied.'' Moreover, the bankfull elevation can be readily
discerned for a variety of stream reaches and stream types using
recognizable water lines (e.g., marks on rocks) or vegetation
boundaries (Rosgen, 1996).
As underscored in previous critical habitat designations, the
quality of aquatic habitat within stream channels is intrinsically
related to the adjacent riparian zones and floodplain, to surrounding
wetlands and uplands, and to non-fish-bearing streams above occupied
stream reaches. Human activities that occur outside the stream can
modify or destroy physical and biological features of the stream. In
addition, human activities that occur within and adjacent to reaches
upstream (e.g., road failures) or downstream (e.g., culverts and dams)
of designated stream reaches can also have demonstrable effects on
physical and biological features of designated reaches.
In the relatively few cases where we are designating lake habitats
(e.g., Devils, Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, Sand, and Tenmile lakes), we
believe that the lateral extent may best be defined as the perimeter of
the water body as displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps
or the elevation of ordinary high water, whichever is greater. In
estuarine areas we believe that extreme high water is the best
descriptor of lateral extent. As noted above for stream habitat areas,
human activities that occur outside the area inundated by extreme or
ordinary high water can modify or destroy physical and biological
features of the estuarine habitat areas, and Federal agencies must be
aware of these important habitat linkages as well.
Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team
To assist in the designation of critical habitat, we convened a
CHART for the Oregon Coast domain. The CHART consisted of eight Federal
biologists and habitat specialists from NMFS, USFS, and BLM, with
demonstrated expertise regarding salmonid habitat and related
protective efforts within the domain. The CHART was tasked with
assessing biological information pertaining to areas under
consideration for designation as critical habitat. The CHART also
reconvened to review the public comments and any new information
regarding the ESU and its habitat. Its work and determinations are
documented in a final CHART report (NMFS, 2007b).
The CHART examined each habitat area within a watershed to
determine whether the stream reaches or lakes occupied by the Oregon
Coast coho contain the physical or biological features essential to
conservation. As noted previously, the CHART also relied on its
experience conducting ESA section 7 consultations and existing
management plans and protective measures to determine whether these
features may require special management considerations or protection.
In addition to occupied areas, the definition of critical habitat also
includes unoccupied areas if we determine the area is essential for
conservation. Accordingly, the CHART was next asked whether there were
any unoccupied areas within the historical range of the ESU that may be
essential for conservation. The CHART did not identify any such
unoccupied areas.
The CHART was next asked to determine the relative conservation
value of each area for each ESU. The CHART scored each habitat area
based on several factors related to the quantity and quality of the
physical and biological features. It next considered each area in
relation to other areas and with respect to the population occupying
that area. Based on a consideration of the raw scores for each area,
and a consideration of that area's contribution in relation to other
areas and in relation to the overall population structure of the ESU,
the CHART rated each habitat area as having a ``high,'' ``medium,'' or
``low'' conservation value. The preliminary CHART ratings were reviewed
by several state and tribal comanagers in advance of the proposed rule,
and the CHART made needed changes prior to that rule. State and tribal
comanagers also evaluated our proposed rule (69 FR 74572; December 14,
2004) and provided comments and new information which were also
reviewed and incorporated as needed by the CHART in the preparation of
this final designation.
The rating of habitat areas as having a high, medium, or low
conservation value provided information useful to inform the
Secretary's exercise of discretion in determining whether the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation (i.e., ESA section
4(b)(2)). The higher the conservation value for an area, the greater
the likely benefit of the ESA section 7 protections. We recognized that
the ``benefit of designation'' would also depend on the likelihood of a
consultation occurring and the improvements in species' conservation
that may result from changes to proposed Federal actions. To address
this concern, we asked the CHART to develop a profile for a ``low
leverage'' watershed--that is, a watershed where it was unlikely there
would be a section 7 consultation, or where a section 7 consultation,
if it did occur, would yield few conservation benefits. For watersheds
not meeting the ``low leverage'' profile, we considered their
conservation rating to be a fair assessment of the benefit of
designation. For watersheds meeting the ``low leverage'' profile, we
considered the benefit of designation to be an increment lower than the
conservation rating. For example, a watershed with a ``high''
conservation value but ``low leverage'' was considered to have a
``medium'' benefit of designation, and so forth (NMFS, 2007b).
As discussed earlier, the scale chosen for the ``specific area''
referred to in section 3(5)(a) was a watershed, as delineated by USGS
methodology. There were some complications with this delineation that
required us to adapt the CHARTs' approach for some areas. In
particular, a large stream or river might serve as a rearing and
migration corridor to and from many watersheds, yet be embedded itself
in a watershed. In any given watershed through which it passes, the
stream may have a few or several tributaries. For rearing/migration
corridors embedded in a watershed, the CHART was asked to rate the
conservation value of the watershed based on the tributary habitat. We
assigned the rearing/migration corridor the rating of the highest-rated
watershed for which it served as a rearing/migration corridor. The
reason for this treatment of migration corridors is the role they play
in the salmon's life cycle. Salmon are anadromous--born in fresh water,
migrating to salt water to feed and grow, and returning to fresh water
to spawn. Without a rearing/migration corridor to and from the sea,
salmon cannot complete their life cycle. It would be illogical to
consider a spawning and rearing area as having a particular
conservation value and not consider the associated rearing/migration
corridor as having a similar conservation value.
Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2))
The foregoing discussion describes those areas that are eligible
for designation as critical habitat--the specific areas that fall
within the ESA section 3(5)(A) definition of critical habitat. However,
specific areas eligible
[[Page 7835]]
for designation are not automatically designated as critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to first consider the
economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant
impact of designation. The Secretary has the discretion to exclude an
area from designation if he determines the benefits of exclusion (that
is, avoiding the impact that would result from designation) outweigh
the benefits of designation based upon best scientific and commercial
data. The Secretary may not exclude an area from designation if
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. Because the
authority to exclude is discretionary, exclusion is not required for
any areas. In this rulemaking, the Secretary has applied his statutory
discretion to exclude areas from critical habitat for several different
reasons (NMFS, 2007d).
In this exercise of discretion, the first issue we must address is
the scope of impacts relevant to the ESA section 4(b)(2) evaluation. We
proposed new critical habitat designations for 13 Pacific Northwest
ESUs, including the Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR 74572; December 14,
2004), because the previous designations were vacated following a Court
ruling that we had inadequately considered the economic impacts of
designating critical habitat. (National Association of Homebuilders v.
Evans, 2002 WL 1205743 No. 00-CV-2799 (D.D.C.) (NAHB)). The NAHB court
had agreed with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). In that decision, the
Tenth Circuit stated ``[t]he statutory language is plain in requiring
some kind of consideration of economic impact in the critical habitat
designation phase.'' The court concluded that, given the FWS' failure
to distinguish between ``adverse modification'' and ``jeopardy'' in its
4(b)(2) analysis, the FWS must analyze the full impacts of critical
habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are
coextensive with other impacts (such as the impact of the jeopardy
requirement).
In redesignating critical habitat for the 13 Pacific Northwest
ESUs, we followed the Tenth Circuit Court's directive regarding the
statutory requirement to consider the economic impact of designation.
Areas designated as critical habitat are subject to ESA section 7
requirements, which provide that Federal agencies ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
To evaluate the economic impact of critical habitat we first examined
our voluminous section 7 consultation record for Oregon Coast coho as
well as other ESUs of salmon and steelhead. (For thoroughness, we
examined the consultation record for other ESUs to see if it provided
information relevant to Oregon Coast coho.) That record includes
consultations on habitat-modifying Federal actions both where critical
habitat has been designated and where it has not. We could not discern
a distinction between the impacts of applying the jeopardy provision
versus the adverse modification provision in occupied critical habitat.
Given our inability to detect a measurable difference between the
impacts of applying these two provisions, the only reasonable
alternative seemed to be to follow the recommendation of the Tenth
Circuit, approved by the NAHB court--to measure the coextensive
impacts; that is, measure the entire impact of applying the adverse
modification provision of section 7, regardless of whether the jeopardy
provision alone would result in the identical impact.
The Tenth Circuit's opinion only addressed ESA section 4(b)(2)'s
requirement that economic impacts be considered. The court did not
address how ``other relevant impacts'' were to be considered, nor did
it address the benefits of designation. Because section 4(b)(2)
requires a consideration of other relevant impacts of designation, and
the benefits of designation, and because our record did not support a
distinction between impacts resulting from application of the adverse
modification provision versus the jeopardy provision, we are uniformly
considering coextensive impacts and coextensive benefits, without
attempting to distinguish the benefit of a critical habitat
consultation from the benefit that would otherwise result from a
jeopardy consultation that would occur even if critical habitat were
not designated. To do otherwise would distort the balancing test
contemplated by section 4(b)(2).
The principal benefit of designating critical habitat is that
Federal activities that may affect such habitat are subject to
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Such consultation
requires every Federal agency to ensure that any action it authorizes,
funds or carries out is not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. This complements the section
7 provision that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.
Another benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can serve
to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an
area and thereby focus and contribute to conservation efforts by
clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain
species. It is unknown to what extent this process actually occurs for
Oregon Coast coho, and what the actual benefit is to Oregon Coast coho,
as there are also concerns, noted above, that a critical habitat
designation may discourage such conservation efforts.
The balancing test in ESA section 4(b)(2) contemplates weighing
benefits that are not directly comparable--the benefit associated with
species conservation balanced against the economic benefit, benefit to
national security, or other relevant benefit that results if an area is
excluded from designation. Section 4(b)(2) does not specify a method
for the weighing process. Agencies are frequently required to balance
benefits of regulations against impacts; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
established this requirement for Federal agency regulations. Ideally
such a balancing would involve first translating the benefits and
impacts into a common metric. Executive branch guidance from the OMB
suggests that benefits should first be monetized (i.e., converted into
dollars). Benefits that cannot be monetized should be quantified (for
example, numbers of fish saved). Where benefits can neither be
monetized nor quantified, agencies are to describe the expected
benefits (OMB, 2003).
It may be possible to monetize benefits of critical habitat
designation for a threatened or endangered species in terms of
willingness-to-pay (OMB, 2003). However, we are not aware of any
available data that would support such an analysis for salmon. In
addition, ESA section 4(b)(2) requires analysis of impacts other than
economic impacts that are equally difficult to monetize, such as
benefits to national security of excluding areas from critical habitat.
In the case of salmon designations, impacts to Northwest tribes are an
``other relevant impact'' that also may be difficult to monetize.
An alternative approach, approved by OMB (OMB, 2003), is to conduct
a cost-effectiveness analysis. A cost-effectiveness analysis ideally
first involves quantifying benefits, for example, percent reduction in
extinction risk, percent increase in productivity, or increase in
numbers of fish. Given the state of the science, it would be difficult
to quantify reliably the benefits of including particular areas in the
critical habitat designation. Although it is difficult to monetize or
quantify benefits of critical habitat
[[Page 7836]]
designation, it is possible to differentiate among habitat areas based
on their relative contribution to conservation. For example, habitat
areas can be rated as having a high, medium, or low conservation value.
The qualitative ordinal evaluations can then be combined with estimates
of the economic costs of critical habitat designation in a framework
that arguably moves the designation to a more efficient outcome.
Individual habitat areas are assessed using both their biological
evaluation and economic cost, so that areas with high conservation
value and lower economic cost might be considered to have a higher
priority for designation, while areas with a low conservation value and
higher economic cost might have a higher priority for exclusion. While
this approach can provide useful information to the decision-maker,
there is no rigid formula through which this information translates
into exclusion decisions. Every geographical area containing habitat
eligible for designation is different, with a unique set of ``relevant
impacts'' that may be considered in the exclusion process. Regardless
of the analytical approach, ESA section 4(b)(2) makes clear that what
weight the agency gives various impacts and benefits, and whether the
agency excludes areas from the designation, is discretionary.
Exclusions Based on Impacts to Tribes
A broad array of activities on Indian lands may trigger section 7
consultation under the ESA. For this analysis, we considered what those
activities may be and what the likely effect would be on conservation
of the Oregon Coast coho ESU if the activities were not subject to
section 7 consultation. (We realize that the activities in question
would still be subject to section 7 consultation and to the requirement
that Federal agencies not jeopardize species' continued existence.
However, as described above, because we cannot discern a difference in
the application of the jeopardy and adverse modification requirements
in our consultations for Oregon coast coho, we are considering
coextensive impacts and coextensive benefits.) To determine the benefit
of designation, we considered the number of stream miles within Indian
lands, whether those stream miles were located in high, medium, or low
conservation value areas, and the number of expected section 7
consultations in those areas (NMFS, 2007f).
There are several benefits to excluding Indian lands. The
longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal and
tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders,
judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal
governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by,
the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise to a special
Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and
obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and the
application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian
lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
Pursuant to these authorities, Indian lands are recognized as unique
and have been retained by Indian Tribes or have been set aside for
tribal use. These lands are managed by Indian Tribes in accordance with
tribal goals and objectives within the framework of applicable treaties
and laws.
In addition to the distinctive trust relationship, for salmon and
steelhead in the Northwest, there is a unique partnership between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes regarding salmon management. Two
of the four tribes with land in Oregon coast coho critical habitat are
active participants in local watershed restoration and management aimed
at coho conservation (NMFS, 2007f).
The benefits of excluding Indian lands from designation include:
(1) The furtherance of established national policies, our Federal trust
obligations, and our deference to the tribes in management of natural
resources on their lands; (2) the maintenance of effective long-term
working relationships to promote the conservation of Oregon coast coho;
and (3) continued respect for tribal sovereignty over management of
natural resources on Indian lands through established tribal natural
resource programs. Regarding benefits of designation, many actions on
Indian lands involve the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), triggering a
section 7 consultation. This means the benefit of designating Indian
land is potentially high. However, coho habitat on Indian lands
represents a tiny proportion of overall habitat--2.7 stream miles (4.35
km) out of a total of 6,652. Accordingly, we find the benefits of
promoting tribal sovereignty and the trust responsibility outweigh the
benefits of applying ESA section 7 to Federal activities on these 2.7
miles (4.35 km) of coho habitat (NMFS, 2007f).
The Indian lands specifically excluded from critical habitat are
those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: (1) Lands held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2)
land held in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe or
individual subject to restrictions by the United States against
alienation; (3) fee lands, either within or outside the reservation
boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and (4) fee lands within
the reservation boundaries owned by individual Indians. We have
determined that these exclusions, together with the other exclusions
described in this rule, will not result in extinction of the species
(NMFS, 2007d).
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Our assessment of economic impact generated considerable interest
from commenters on the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003) and the
proposed rule (69 FR 74572; December 14, 2004). Based on new
information and comments received on the proposed rule we have updated
our estimates of economic impacts of designating each of the particular
areas found to meet the definition of critical habitat (NMFS, 2007d).
This report is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The first step in the overall economic analysis was to identify
existing legal and regulatory constraints on economic activity that are
independent of critical habitat designation, such as Clean Water Act
(CWA) requirements. Coextensive impacts of the ESA section 7
requirement to avoid jeopardy were not considered part of the baseline.
Next, from the consultation record, we identified Federal
activities that might affect habitat and that might result in an ESA
section 7 consultation. (We did not consider Federal actions, such as
the approval of a fishery, that might affect the species directly but
not affect its habitat.) We identified ten types of activities
including: Hydropower dams; non-hydropower dams and other water supply
structures; Federal lands management, including grazing (considered
separately); transportation projects; utility line projects; instream
activities, including dredging (considered separately); activities
permitted under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System; sand and gravel mining;
residential and commercial development; and agricultural pesticide
applications. Based on our consultation record and other available
information, we determined the modifications each type of activity was
likely to undergo as a result of section 7 consultation (regardless of
whether the modification might be required by the jeopardy or the
adverse modification provision). We developed an expected direct cost
for each type of action and projected the
[[Page 7837]]
likely occurrence of each type of project in each watershed, using
existing spatial databases (e.g., the USACE 404(d) permit database).
Finally, we aggregated the costs from the various types of actions and
estimated an annual impact, taking into account the probability of
consultation occurring and the likely rate of occurrence of that
project type.
This analysis allowed us to estimate the coextensive economic
impact of designating each ``particular area'' (that is, each habitat
area, or aggregated occupied stream reaches in a watershed). Expected
annual economic impacts in the Oregon Coast coho ESU ranged from zero
to $869,861 per habitat area, with a median of $222,419. Where a
watershed included both tributaries and a migration corridor that
served other watersheds, we estimated the separate impacts of
designating the tributaries and the migration corridor. We did this by
identifying those categories of activities most likely to affect
tributaries and those most likely to affect larger migration corridors.
Because of the methods we selected and the data limitations,
portions of our analysis both under- and over-estimate the coextensive
economic impact of ESA section 7 requirements. For example, we lacked
complete data on the likely impact on flows at non-Federal hydropower
projects, which would increase economic impacts. Also, we did not have
information about potential changes in irrigation flows associated with
section 7 consultation. These impacts would increase the estimate of
coextensive costs. On the other hand, we estimated an impact on all
activities occurring within the geographic boundaries of a watershed,
even though in some cases activities would be far removed from occupied
stream reaches and so might not require modification (or even
consultation). In addition, we were unable to document significant
costs of critical habitat designation that occur outside the section 7
consultation process, including costs resulting from state or local
regulatory burdens imposed on developers and landowners as a result of
a Federal critical habitat designation.
In determining whether the economic benefit of excluding a habitat
area might outweigh the benefit of designation to the species, we took
into account many data limitations, including those described above.
The ESA requires that we make critical habitat designations within a
short time frame ``with such data as may be available'' at the time.
Moreover, the approach we adopted accommodated many of these data
limitations by considering the relative benefits of designation and
exclusion, giving priority to excluding habitat areas with a relatively
lower benefit of designation and a relatively higher economic impact
(NMFS, 2007d).
The circumstances of the Oregon Coast coho ESU are well suited to
this approach. Coho salmon is a wide-ranging species that occupies
numerous habitat areas with thousands of stream miles. Not all occupied
areas, however, are of equal importance to conserving the ESU. Within
the currently occupied range there are areas that support highly
productive populations, areas that support less productive populations,
and areas that support production in only some years. Some populations
within the ESU may be more important to long-term conservation of the
ESU than other populations. Therefore, in many cases it may be possible
to construct different scenarios for achieving conservation. Different
scenarios might have more or less certainty of achieving conservation,
and more or less economic impact.
Our first step in constructing an exclusion scenario was to
identify all areas we would consider for an economic exclusion, based
on dollar thresholds. The next step was to examine whether any of the
areas eligible for exclusion make an important contribution to
conservation, in the context of the areas that remained (that is, those
areas not identified as eligible for exclusion). We did not consider
habitat areas for exclusion if they had a high conservation value
rating. Based on the rating process used by the CHART we judged that
all of the high value areas make an important contribution to
conservation.
In developing criteria for the first step, we chose dollar
thresholds that we anticipated would lead most directly to a more cost-
effective scenario. We considered for exclusion low value habitat areas
with an economic impact greater than $91,556 and medium value habitat
areas with an economic impact greater than $323,138. These criteria we
selected for identifying habitat areas as eligible for exclusion do not
represent an objective determination that, for example, a given low
value area is worth a certain dollar amount and no more. The statute
directs us to balance dissimilar values under a statutorily-limited
time frame. The statute emphasizes the discretionary nature of the
section 4(b)(2) balancing task. Moreover, while our approach follows
the Tenth Circuit's direction to consider coextensive economic impacts,
we nevertheless must acknowledge that not all of the costs will be
avoided by exclusion from designation. Finally, the cost estimates
developed by our economic analysis do not have obvious break points
that would lead to a logical division between ``high,'' ``medium,'' and
``low'' costs. Given these factors, a judgment that any particular
dollar threshold is objectively ``right,'' would be neither necessary
nor possible. Rather, what economic impact is ``high,'' and therefore
might outweigh the benefit of designating a medium or low conservation
value habitat area, is a matter of agency discretion and policy.
In the second step of the process, we asked the CHART whether any
of the habitat areas eligible for exclusion make an important
contribution to conservation. The CHART considered this question in the
context of all of the areas eligible for exclusion as well as the
information they had developed in providing the initial conservation
ratings. The following section describes the results of applying the
two-step process to the Oregon Coast coho ESU. The results are
discussed in greater detail in a separate report that is available for
public review and comment (NMFS, 2007d). We have determined that the
exclusions, together with the other exclusions described in this rule
(i.e., Indian lands), will not result in extinction of the species
(NMFS, 2007d).
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We evaluated the comments and new information received on the
proposed rule to ensure that they represented the best scientific data
available and made a number of general types of changes to the critical
habitat designations, including:
(1) We revised habitat maps and related biological assessments
based on a final CHART assessment (NMFS, 2007b) of information provided
by commenters, peer reviewers, and agency biologists (including CHART
members). We also evaluated watersheds to determine how well the
conservation value rating corresponded to the benefit of designation,
in particular the likelihood of an ESA section 7 consultation occurring
in that area and whether the consultation would yield conservation
benefits if it was likely to occur.
(2) We revised our economic analysis based on information provided
by commenters and peer reviewers as well as our own efforts as
referenced in the proposed rule and described in the final economic
analysis (NMFS, 2007c). Major changes included assessing new impacts
associated with pesticide consultations, revising Federal land
management costs to take into account wilderness areas, and modifying
the
[[Page 7838]]
analysis of Federal grazing land impacts to more accurately reflect the
likely geographic extent of ESA section 7 implementation. We also
documented the economic costs of changes in flow regimes for some
hydropower projects. To account for inflationary changes in the
economic impacts, we adjusted the cost estimates based on changes in a
producer price index over the period 2005 to 2007 (NMFS 2007c).
(3) We conducted a new ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis based on
economic impacts to take into account the above revisions. This
resulted in the final exclusion of many of the same watersheds proposed
for exclusion. It also resulted in some areas originally proposed for
exclusion not being excluded. The analysis is described further in the
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2007d).
(4) In the regulations, we've removed reference to ``units'' to
avoid possible confusion with the concept of ``recovery units'' as
described in our section 7 handbook.
The following section summarizes the changes to the proposed
critical habitat rule. These changes are also reflected in final agency
reports pertaining to the biological, economic, and policy assessments
supporting these designations (NMFS, 2007b; NMFS, 2007c; and NMFS,
2007d). We conclude that these changes are warranted based on new
information and analyses that constitute the best scientific data
available.
Description of Specific Changes
The CHART elevated the conservation value rating for five
watersheds within the Umpqua River basin. The changes were made as a
result of recent population identification work (Lawson et al., 2007)
that further subdivides this basin into four (versus two) independent
populations. We made several changes to the delineation of occupied
habitat areas based on comments and field surveys indicating that our
original coho distribution maps/data were in error. As a result of
revised economic data for this ESU and our final 4(b)(2) assessment, we
are no longer excluding habitat areas in three watersheds that were
previously proposed for designation. We have also removed Josephine and
Jackson counties from the relevant critical habitat table in our
regulations. These counties overlap slightly with upland areas in
watersheds occupied by Oregon Coast coho salmon, but they do not
contain stream reaches designated as critical habitat for this ESU.
Table 1 summarizes the changes made for specific watersheds in the
range of this ESU.
Table 1.--Changes to Critical Habitat Designation for Oregon Coast Coho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed
Subbasin code Watershed name Changes from proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEHALEM................................ 1710020206 Lower Nehalem River/Cook Added 1.3 miles (2.1 km) of
Creek. occupied habitat areas.
WILSON/TRASK/NESTUCCA.................. 1710020302 Nestucca River........... Added 4.2 miles (6.8 km) of
occupied habitat areas and
removed 3 miles (4.8 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
NORTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030106 Boulder Creek............ No longer excluded from
designation.
NORTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030110 Rock Creek/North Umpqua Added 1.8 miles (2.9 km) of
River. occupied habitat areas.
SOUTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030202 Jackson Creek............ Elevated HUC5 conservation
value from Low to Medium. No
longer excluded from
designation.
SOUTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030204 Elk Creek/South Umpqua... Elevated HUC5 conservation
value from Low to Medium. No
longer excluded from
designation.
SOUTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030205 South Umpqua River....... Removed 2 miles (3.2 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
SOUTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030207 Middle Cow Creek......... Elevated HUC5 conservation
value from Medium to High.
SOUTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030209 Lower Cow Creek.......... Removed 3 miles (4.8 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
SOUTH UMPQUA........................... 1710030211 Myrtle Creek............. Elevated HUC5 conservation
value from Medium to High.
UMPQUA................................. 1710030301 Upper Umpqua River....... Removed 2 miles (3.2 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
UMPQUA................................. 1710030303 Elk Creek................ Removed 1 mile (1.6 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches and
elevated HUC5 conservation
value from Medium to High.
UMPQUA................................. 1710030304 Middle Umpqua River...... Removed 1.5 mile (2.4 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
UMPQUA................................. 1710030305 Lake Creek............... Removed 5.3 mile (8.5 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
COQUILLE............................... 1710030504 East Fork Coquille....... Removed 1.5 mile (2.4 km) of
unoccupied stream reaches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 6,568 stream miles (10,570 km) and
15 square miles (38.8 sq km) of lake habitat within the geographical
area presently occupied by the Oregon Coast coho ESU (see Table 2). The
Oregon Coast coho ESU is the only listed species in this domain, so the
areas designated as critical habitat do not overlap with critical
habitat areas designated for other listed ESUs.
Table 2.--Approximate Quantity of Habitat and Ownership Within Watersheds Containing Habitat Areas Designated as
Critical Habitat for the Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership type (percent)
Streams mi (km) Lakes sq mi (sq Nearshore ---------------------------------------------------------------
km) marine mi (km) Federal Tribal State Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6,568 (10,570) 15 (38.8) n/a 32.9 <0.1 9.1 58.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7839]]
The areas designated, summarized below, are all occupied and
contain physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management considerations
or protection. No unoccupied areas were identified that are considered
essential for the conservation of the species. There are 80 watersheds
within the range of this ESU. Eight watersheds received a low
conservation value rating, 27 received a medium rating, and 45 received
a high rating to the ESU (NMFS, 2007b). As a result of the balancing
process for economic impacts described above, the Secretary is
excluding from the designation the five watersheds listed in Table 3.
Of the habitat areas eligible for designation, approximately 84 stream
miles (135 km) or 1.3 percent are being excluded because the economic
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Total
potential estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $22.2
million. The exclusions identified in Table 3 would reduce the total
estimated economic impact to $20.1 million (NMFS, 2007d).
Table 3.--Habitat Areas Within the Geographical Range of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Oregon Coast
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Excluded From Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed
Subbasin code Watershed name Area proposed for exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Fork Umpqua River subbasin..... 1710030108 Steamboat Creek......... Entire watershed.
North Fork Umpqua River subbasin..... 1710030109 Canton Creek............ Entire watershed.
South Fork Umpqua River subbasin..... 1710030201 Upper South Umpqua River Entire watershed.
Umpqua River subbasin................ 1710030305 Lake Creek.............. Entire watershed.
Coquille River subbasin.............. 1710030501 Coquille South Fork, Entire watershed.
Lower.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
ESA Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including NMFS,
to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed
or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing
this provision of the ESA are codified at 50 CFR 402.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, ESA
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we
would review actions to determine if they would destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we will also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that we believe would avoid destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect these ESUs or their
critical habitat will require ESA section 7 consultation. Activities on
private or state lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such
as a permit from the USACE under section 404 of the CWA, a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit from NMFS, or some other Federal action, including
funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration (FHA) or Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding), will also be subject to
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal and
private lands that are not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted
do not require section 7 consultation.
Activities Affected by Critical Habitat Designation
Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that we evaluate briefly and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. A wide
variety of activities may affect critical habitat and, when carried
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, require that an ESA
section 7 consultation be conducted. Generally these include water and
land management actions of Federal agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM, USACE,
BOR, the FHA, the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
National Park Service (NPS), BIA, and FERC) and related or similar
actions of other Federally regulated projects and lands, including
livestock grazing allotments by the USFS and BLM; hydropower sites
licensed by the FERC; dams built or operated by the USACE or BOR;
timber sales and other vegetation management activities conducted by
the USFS, BLM, and BIA; irrigation diversions authorized by the USFS
and BLM; road building and maintenance activities authorized by the
FHA, USFS, BLM, NPS, and BIA; and mining and road building/maintenance
activities authorized by the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, diking, and
bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the USACE,
habitat modifications authorized by the FEMA, and approval of water
quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions
administered by the EPA.
[[Page 7840]]
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, USACE, FHA,
NRCS, NPS, BIA, FEMA, EPA, and the FERC. This designation will provide
these agencies, private entities, and the public with clear
notification of critical habitat designated for listed salmonids and
the boundaries of the habitat. This designation will also assist these
agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of their
activities on listed salmon and their critical habitat and in
determining if ESA section 7 consultation with NMFS is needed.
As noted above, numerous private entities also may be affected by
this critical habitat designation because of the direct and indirect
linkages to an array of Federal actions, including Federal projects,
permits, and funding. For example, private entities may harvest timber
or graze livestock on Federal land or have special use permits to
convey water or build access roads across Federal land; they may
require Federal permits to armor stream banks, construct irrigation
withdrawal facilities, or build or repair docks; they may obtain water
from Federally funded and operated irrigation projects; or they may
apply pesticides that are only available with Federal agency approval.
These activities will need to be analyzed with respect to their
potential to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In some
cases, proposed activities may require modifications that may result in
decreases in activities such as timber harvest and livestock and crop
production. The transportation and utilities sectors may need to modify
the placement of culverts, bridges, and utility conveyances (e.g.,
water, sewer and power lines) to avoid barriers to fish migration.
Developments occurring in or near salmon streams (e.g., marinas,
residential, or industrial facilities) that require Federal
authorization or funding may need to be altered or built in a manner
that ensures that critical habitat is not destroyed or adversely
modified as a result of the construction, or subsequent operation, of
the facility. These are just a few examples of potential impacts, but
it is clear that the effects will encompass numerous sectors of private
and public activities. If you have questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, contact NMFS (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Classification
Administrative Procedure Act
The proposed listing determination, proposed protective
regulations, and proposed critical habitat designation addressing 27
ESUs generated substantial public interest. In addition to comments
received during 12 public hearings, we received 33,480 written
comments. Many of the comments addressing the critical habitat
designation expressed concerns about how the rule would be implemented.
Our experience in implementing previous listing determinations,
protective regulations, and critical habitat designations suggests that
neither the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and ESA implementing
regulations' minimum of a 30-day delay in effective date, nor the 60-
day delay in effective date required by the Congressional Review Act
for a ``major rule,'' are sufficient for this final rule. In order to
provide for efficient administration of the rule once effective, we are
providing a 90-day delay in effective date. As a result this rule will
be effective on May 12, 2008. This will allow us the necessary time to
provide for outreach to and interaction with the public, to minimize
confusion and educate the public about activities that may be affected
by the rule, and to work with Federal agencies and applicants to
provide for an orderly implementation of the rule.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
ESA listing decisions are exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the
NEPA. See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.03(e)(1) and Pacific Legal
Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981). Thus, we have
determined that the final listing determination for Oregon Coast coho
described in this notice is exempt from the requirements of the NEPA.
Similarly, we have determined that we need not prepare environmental
analyses for critical habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA.
See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 1042 (1996).
We conducted Environmental Assessments (EAs) under the NEPA
analyzing the ESA section 4(d) regulations promulgated in 2000 for
Pacific salmonids (65 FR at 42422 and 42481; July 10, 2000) and the
amendments to the 4(d) regulations promulgated in 2005 (70 FR 37160;
June 28, 2005). Both EAs analyzed the protective regulations for the
Oregon Coast coho ESU which are being finalized in this notice. We
solicited comment on the EAs as part of the proposed rules, as well as
during a subsequent comment period following formal notice in the
Federal Register of the availability of the draft EAs for review. We
have reviewed new information available since the 2000 and 2005
analyses and determined that none of the new information would change
the earlier analyses, nor would it change our conclusion that adoption
of the 4(d) rule will have no significant impacts on the human
environment (NMFS, 2007g).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
For the proposed designation of critical habitat for 13 ESUs, including
Oregon coast coho, we published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis for public comment. We received comments specific to some of
the ESUs, but not to Oregon Coast coho. We received one general
comment, stating that our analysis should include more references. We
have prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for the
designation of critical habitat, which is available upon request (see
ADDRESSES) and which includes additional references. This analysis
estimates that the number of regulated small entities potentially
affected by the final critical habitat designation for the Oregon Coast
coho salmon ESU is 920, and the estimated coextensive costs of section
7 consultation incurred by small entities is $5,072,840. As described
in the analysis, we considered various alternatives for designating
critical habitat for this ESU. We considered and rejected the
alternative of not designating critical habitat for the ESU because
such an approach did not meet the legal requirements of the ESA. We
also examined and rejected an alternative in which all the eligible
habitat areas in the ESU are designated (i.e., no areas are excluded)
because many of the areas considered to have a low conservation value
also had relatively high economic impacts that might be mitigated by
excluding those
[[Page 7841]]
areas from designation. A third alternative we examined and rejected
would exclude all habitat areas with a low or medium conservation
value. While this alternative furthers the goal of reducing economic
impacts, we could not make a determination that the benefits of
excluding all habitat areas with low and medium conservation value
outweighed the benefits of designation. Moreover, for some habitat
areas the incremental economic benefit from excluding that area is
relatively small. Therefore, after considering these alternatives in
the context of the section 4(b)(2) process of weighing benefits of
exclusion against benefits of designation, we determined that the
current approach to designation (i.e., designating some but not all
areas with low or medium conservation value) provides an appropriate
balance of conservation and economic mitigation and that excluding the
areas identified in this rulemaking would not result in extinction of
the ESU. It is estimated that small entities will save $281,687 in
compliance costs due to the exclusions made in the final designation.
ESA section 4(d) regulations for Oregon Coast coho were originally
proposed on December 30, 1999 (64 FR 73479). The rule adopted here is
substantially the same as that proposed in 1999. At that time we
published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, which
considered four alternative approaches to protective regulations. We
concluded that there were no legally viable alternative to the one we
proposed in 1999 that would have less impact on small entities and
still fulfill agency obligations to protect listed salmonids. We
received five public comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis and the economic impacts of the proposed 4(d) rule. When the
rule was adopted in 2000, we completed a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Act analysis, which responded to public comments, and reached the same
conclusion as the initial analysis. The 2000 4(d) regulations for
Oregon Coast coho were invalidated when the underlying listing was
vacated in 2001. In 2004 when we proposed to again list Oregon Coast
coho, we also proposed to reinstate the 4(d) regulations. We did not
conduct a new Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis at that time because
there were no new issues to consider.
In preparing the final ESA section 4(d) regulations adopted here,
we determined it was advisable to update our Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis, to ensure that we were considering current information. Our
updated analysis led us to again conclude that among the available
alternative approaches, the one adopted here minimizes economic costs,
disruptions, and burdens, for the reasons expressed in the 2000
analysis (attached to NMFS, 2007i) and summarized at 65 FR 42422, 42473
(July 10, 2000). The economic assessment and analysis (NMFS, 2007i) are
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for purposes of the PRA.
Regulatory Planning and Review--E.O. 12866
We prepared a Regulatory Impact Review in 2000 when the ESA section
4(d) regulations were initially adopted and concluded that among the
alternative regulatory approaches, the proposed 4(d) rule would
maximize net benefits and minimize costs, within the constraints of the
ESA. We have reviewed that analysis and new information available since
the analysis was initially prepared, including OMB Circular A-4 (2003).
We have determined that none of the new information would change the
earlier analysis or conclusion (NMFS, 2007i).
The critical habitat component of this notice is a significant rule
and has been reviewed by the OMB. As noted above, we have prepared
several reports to support the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2)
of the ESA. The economic costs of the critical habitat designations are
described in our economic report (NMFS, 2007c). The benefits of the
designations are described in the CHART report (NMFS, 2007b) and the
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2007d). The CHART report uses a biologically-
based ranking system for gauging the benefits of applying section 7 of
the ESA to particular watersheds. Because data are not available to
monetize these benefits, we have adopted a framework that implicitly
evaluates the benefits and costs based on a biological metric as
outlined in the section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2007b). This approach is
consistent with the spirit of OMB's Circular A-4 in that it attempts to
assess the benefits and costs even when limitations in data may not
allow quantification or monetization. By taking this approach, we seek
to designate sufficient critical habitat to meet the biological goal of
the ESA while imposing the least burden on society, as called for by
E.O. 12866.
The annual total coextensive economic impact of the critical
habitat designations is approximately $15.7 million (in contrast to a
$18.4 million annual economic impact from designating all eligible
areas considered in the 4(b)(2) process for this ESU). This amount
includes impacts that are coextensive with the implementation of the
jeopardy requirement of section 7 (NMFS, 2007c).
We did not estimate the economic impacts associated solely with the
listing of Oregon Coast coho ESU under the ESA.
E.O. 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
E.O. 13084 requires that, if we issue a regulation that
significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal
governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those
communities, we must consult with those governments or the Federal
Government must provide the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. The final listing
determination and protective regulations included in this rule do not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on the communities of Indian
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
E.O. 13084 do not apply to the listing and protective regulations
components of this final rule. Nonetheless, we intend to inform
potentially affected tribal governments and to solicit their input and
coordinate on future management actions.
The Departments of Commerce and Interior Secretarial Order
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997) provides that the
Services * * * ``shall consult with the affected Indian tribe(s) when
considering the designation of critical habitat in an area that may
impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or the
exercise of tribal rights. Critical habitat shall not be designated in
such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve a listed
species.'' Pursuant to the Secretarial Order and in response to written
and oral comments provided by various tribes in Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho, we met and corresponded with many of the affected tribes
concerning the inclusion of Indian lands in final critical habitat
designations. These
[[Page 7842]]
discussions resulted in significant clarifications regarding the
tribes' general position to exclude their lands, as well as specific
issues regarding our interpretation of Indian lands under the
Secretarial Order.
As described above (see Exclusions Based on Impacts to Tribes) and
in our assessment of Indian lands associated with this final rulemaking
(NMFS, 2007f), we have determined that Indian lands should be excluded
from the final critical habitat designations for the Oregon Coast coho
ESU. The Indian lands specifically excluded from critical habitat are
those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: (1) Lands held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2)
land held in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe or
individual subject to restrictions by the United States against
alienation; (3) fee lands, either within or outside the reservation
boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and (4) fee lands within
the reservation boundaries owned by individual Indians. We have
determined that these exclusions, together with the other exclusions
described in this final rule, will not result in extinction of the
species (NMFS, 2007d).
E.O. 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule may be a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. We have determined,
however, that the energy effects of the regulatory action are unlikely
to exceed the energy impact thresholds identified in E.O. 13211.
The available data do not allow us to separate precisely these
incremental impacts from the impacts of all conservation measures on
energy production and costs. There is historical evidence, however,
that the ESA section 7 jeopardy standard alone is capable of imposing
all of these costs (NMFS, 2007j). While this evidence is indirect, it
is sufficient to draw the conclusion that the designation of critical
habitat for this one ESU does not significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or use.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the
following findings:
(a) This final rule listing Oregon Coast coho and designating
critical habitat will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon state, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the state, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement). ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
ESA listing and the designation of critical habitat do not impose a
legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private
parties. Under the ESA, the only regulatory effect is that Federal
agencies must ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the listing or designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid jeopardy and the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly
impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a
voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply; nor would the listing or critical habitat shift the costs of
the large entitlement programs listed above to state governments.
(b) The ESA section 4(d) regulations prohibit any person from
taking a listed member of the Oregon Coast coho ESU, except under
certain circumstances. This prohibition applies to state and local
government actions as well as private individuals. The 4(d) regulations
prohibit certain activities, but do not impose an ``enforceable duty''
with associated costs to implement. As such, the 4(d) regulations are
not considered an unfunded mandate for the purposes of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Takings
The final threatened listing determination is a non-discretionary
action and therefore is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12630.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have
significant takings implications. Under E.O. 12630, ``Actions
undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion
or occupancy of private property, and regulations imposed on private
property that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a
taking of property'' [emphasis added]. Neither the critical habitat
designation nor 4(d) regulations can be expected to substantially
affect the value or use of property. A takings implication assessment
is not required.
The designation of critical habitat confers the ESA section 7
protection against ``the destruction or adverse modification of
[critical] habitat.'' The designation of critical habitat in this rule
affects only Federal agency actions, and will not increase or decrease
the current restrictions on private property concerning take of salmon.
While it is possible that real estate market values may temporarily
decline following designation, due to the perception that critical
habitat designation may impose additional regulatory burdens on land
use, our experience is that such impacts do not occur or are short
lived (NMFS, 2007d). Owners of areas that are included in the
designated critical habitat will continue to have the opportunity to
use their property in ways consistent with the survival of listed
salmon. Therefore, the designation of critical habitat does not
substantially affect the value or use of private property, and does not
constitute a taking.
[[Page 7843]]
The adoption of ESA section 4(d) regulations includes a prohibition
against ``take'' of a listed species (the definition of ``take'' is to
``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.''). The take
prohibition applies to any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, and may be perceived as affecting the value or use of
property. However, the 4(d) regulations do not substantially affect the
value or use of property for the following reasons. First, private
property is already subject to state and local land-use regulations.
Second, any action on private property authorized, funded, or carried
out by a Federal agency that may take listed species is already subject
to the section 7 ``no jeopardy'' protection by virtue of the listing
determination. Third, our experience with Pacific salmonid 4(d)
regulation since 1997 is that any declines in property value are either
in perception only or short lived. Land owners quickly realize that the
4(d) regulations do not impose restrictions in addition to pre-existing
land-use laws and the listing itself, or they conduct actions on their
property in ways consistent with the survival of listed salmon by
availing themselves to the exceptions provided under the 4(d) limits.
E.O. 13132--Federalism
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any Federalism
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific
consultation directives for situations where a regulation will preempt
state law, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and
local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of those
circumstances is applicable to this final rule. In fact, the adopted
ESA section 4(d) regulations provide mechanisms by which NMFS, in the
form of limits to take prohibitions, may defer to state and local
governments where they provide adequate protections for threatened
salmonids.
With respect to the designation of critical habitat, this final
rule does not have significant federalism effects. In keeping with
Department of Commerce policies, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with
appropriate state resource agencies in the State of Oregon. The
designation may have some benefit to the State and local resource
agencies in that the areas essential to the conservation of the species
are more clearly defined, and the PCEs of the habitat essential to the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. While making
these clarifications does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist local governments in long-range
planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultations
to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
One commenter asserted that we failed to properly conduct and
provide a Civil Justice Reform analysis pursuant to E.O. 12988. The
Department of Commerce has determined that this final rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the ESA. This final rule
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
References
A list of the referenced materials is available on the Internet at
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 1, 2008.
Samuel Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 226 are
amended as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543.
0
2. In Sec. 223.102, the table heading is revised and paragraph (c)(24)
of the table is added to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\ Citation(s) for Citation(s) for
-------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing critical habitat
Common name Scientific name determination(s) designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(c) * * *
(24) Oregon Coast Coho........ Oncorhynchus U.S.A., OR, all 73 FR [Insert FR 73 FR [Insert FR
kisutch. naturally spawned page number where page number
populations of coho the document where the
salmon in Oregon begins]; 2/11/08. document
coastal streams south begins]; 2/11/
of the Columbia River 08.
and north of Cape
Blanco, including the
Cow Creek (ODFW stock
37) coho
hatchery program.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 223.203, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 223.203 Anadromous fish.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to
Oregon Coast coho salmon, listed in Sec. 223.102(a)(24), do not apply
to activities specified in an application for a permit for scientific
purposes or to enhance the conservation or survival of the species,
provided that the application has been received by the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), no later than June 10, 2008.
The prohibitions of this section apply to these activities upon the
Assistant Administrator's rejection of the application as insufficient,
upon
[[Page 7844]]
issuance or denial of a permit, or March 31, 2009, whichever occurs
earliest.
* * * * *
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
0
4. The authority citation of part 226 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
0
5. In Sec. 226.212, the section's heading and introductory text are
revised and paragraphs (a)(13) and (u) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 226.212 Critical habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units
(ESUs) of salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Washington,
Oregon and Idaho.
Critical habitat is designated in the following states and counties
for the following ESUs as described in paragraph (a) of this section,
and as further described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
The textual descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU are included
in paragraphs (i) through (u) of this section, and these descriptions
are the definitive source for determining the critical habitat
boundaries. General location maps are provided at the end of each ESU
description (paragraphs (i) through (u) of this section) and are
provided for general guidance purposes only, and not as a definitive
source for determining critical habitat boundaries.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU State--Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(13) Oregon Coast coho salmon.......... OR--Benton, Clatsop, Columbia,
Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane,
Oregon Lincoln, Polk,
Tillamook, Washington, and
Yamhill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(u) Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following
subbasins:
(1) Necanicum Subbasin 17100201--Necanicum River Watershed
1710020101. Outlet(s) = Arch Cape Creek (Lat 45.8035, Long-123.9656);
Asbury Creek (45.815,-123.9624); Ecola Creek (45.8959,-123.9649);
Necanicum River (46.0113,-123.9264); Short Sand Creek (45.7595,-
123.9641) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arch Cape Creek (45.8044,-
123.9404); Asbury Creek (45.8150,-123.9584); Beerman Creek (45.9557,-
123.8749); Bergsvik Creek (45.8704,-123.7650); Brandis Creek (45.8894,-
123.8529); Charlie Creek (45.9164,-123.7606); Circle Creek (45.9248,-
123.9436); Circle Creek Trib A (45.9335,-123.9457); North Fork Ecola
Creek (45.8705,-123.9070); West Fork Ecola Creek (45.8565,-123.9424);
Grindy Creek (45.9179,-123.7390); Hawley Creek (45.9259,-123.8864); Joe
Creek (45.8747,-123.7503); Johnson Creek (45.8885,-123.8816); Klootchie
Creek (45.9450,-123.8413); Klootchie Creek Trib A (45.9250,-123.8447);
Lindsley Creek (45.9198,-123.8339); Little Humbug Creek (45.9235,-
123.7653); Little Joe Creek (45.8781,-123.7852); Little Muddy Creek
(45.9551,-123.9559); Mail Creek (45.8887,-123.8655); Meyer Creek
(45.9279,-123.9135); Mill Creek (46.0245,-123.8905); Mill Creek Trib 1
(46.0142,-123.8967); Neacoxie Creek (46.0245,-123.9157); Neawanna Creek
(45.9810,-123.8809); Necanicum River (45.9197,-123.7106); North Fork
Necanicum River (45.9308,-123.7986); North Fork Necanicum River Trib A
(45.9398,-123.8109); South Fork Necanicum River (45.8760,-123.8122);
Shangrila Creek (45.9706,-123.8778); Short Sand Creek (45.7763,-
123.9406); Thompson Creek (46.0108,-123.8951); Tolovana Creek
(45.8581,-123.9370); Unnamed (45.8648,-123.9371); Unnamed (45.8821,-
123.9318); Unnamed (45.8881,-123.7436); Unnamed (45.8883,-123.9366);
Unnamed (45.8906,-123.7460); Unnamed (45.8912,-123.9433); Unnamed
(45.8950,-123.8715); Unnamed (45.9026,-123.9540); Unnamed (45.9046,-
123.9578); Unnamed (45.9050,-123.9585); Unnamed (45.9143,-123.8656);
Unnamed (45.9161,-123.9000); Unnamed (45.9210,-123.8668); Unnamed
(45.9273,-123.8499); Unnamed (45.9292,-123.8900); Unnamed (45.9443,-
123.9038); Unnamed (45.9850,-123.8999); Unnamed (46.0018,-123.8998);
Volmer Creek (45.9049,-123.9139); Warner Creek (45.8887,-123.7801);
Williamson Creek (45.9522,-123.9060).
(2) Nehalem Subbasin 17100202--(i) Upper Nehalem River Watershed
1710020201. Outlet(s) = Nehalem River (Lat 45.9019, Long -123.1442)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek (45.7781,-123.4252); Bear Creek
(45.8556,-123.2205); Beaver Creek (45.7624,-123.2073); Beaver Creek
Trib A (45.8071,-123.2143); Beaver Creek Trib B (45.7711,-123.2318);
Carlson Creek (45.7173,-123.3425); Castor Creek (45.7103,-123.2698);
Cedar Creek (45.8528,-123.2928); Clear Creek, Lower North Fork
(45.8229,-123.3111); Clear Creek (45.8239,-123.3531); Coal Creek Trib B
(45.8149,-123.1174); Coal Creek (45.7978,-123.1293); Coon Creek
(45.8211,-123.1446); Dell Creek (45.7919,-123.1559); Derby Creek
(45.7225,-123.3857); Dog Creek (45.8957,-123.0741); Elk Creek
(45.8256,-123.1290); Fall Creek (45.8626,-123.3247); Ginger Creek
(45.8520,-123.3511); Ivy Creek (45.8938,-123.3160); Jim George Creek
(45.8009,-123.1041); Kenusky Creek (45.8859,-123.0422); Kist Creek
(45.7826,-123.2507); Lousignont Creek (45.7424,-123.3722); Lousignont
Creek, North Fork (45.7463,-123.3576); Martin Creek (45.8474,-
123.4025); Maynard Creek (45.8556,-123.3038); Military Creek (45.8233,-
123.4812); Nehalem River (45.7269,-123.4159); Nehalem River, East Fork
(45.8324,-123.0502); Olson Creek (45.8129,-123.3853); Pebble Creek
(45.7661,-123.1357); Pebble Creek, West Fork (45.7664,-123.1899);
Robinson Creek (45.7363,-123.2512); Rock Creek (45.8135,-123.5201);
Rock Creek, North Fork (45.8616,-123.4560); Rock Creek, South Fork
(45.7598,-123.4249); Rock Creek Trib C (45.7957,-123.4882); South Fork
Rock Creek Trib A (45.7753,-123.4586); South Fork Nehalem River
(45.7073,-123.4017); Selder Creek (45.8975,-123.3806); South Fork Clear
Creek (45.8141,-123.3484); South Prong Clear Creek (45.7832,-123.2975);
Step Creek (45.6824,-123.3348); Swamp Creek (45.8217,-123.2004);
Unnamed (45.7270,-123.3419); Unnamed (45.8095,-123.0908); Unnamed
(45.7558,-123.2630); Unnamed (45.7938,-123.3847); Unnamed (45.7943,-
123.4059); Unnamed (45.8197,-123.0679); Unnamed (45.8477,-123.0734);
Unnamed (45.8817,-123.1266); Unnamed (45.8890,-123.3817); Unnamed
(45.9019,-123.1346); Weed Creek (45.8707,-123.4049); Wolf Creek,
[[Page 7845]]
South Fork (45.7989,-123.4028); Wolf Creek (45.7768,-123.3556).
(ii) Middle Nehalem River Watershed 1710020202. Outlet(s) = Nehalem
River (Lat 45.9838, Long -123.4214) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Adams
Creek (46.0263,-123.2869); Archibald Creek (45.9218,-123.0829); Beaver
Creek (46.0554,-123.2985); Boxler Creek (46.0486,-123.3521); Calvin
Creek (45.9514,-123.2976); Cedar Creek (45.9752,-123.1143); Cook Creek
(45.9212,-123.1087); Cow Creek (46.0500,-123.4326); Crooked Creek
(45.9043,-123.2689); Deep Creek (45.9461,-123.3719); Deep Creek Trib A
(45.9127,-123.3794); Deep Creek Trib B (45.9314,-123.3809); Deer Creek
(45.9033,-123.3142); Eastman Creek (46.0100,-123.2262); Fall Creek
(45.9438,-123.2012); Fishhawk Creek (46.0596,-123.3857); Fishhawk
Creek, North Fork (46.0907,-123.3675); Fishhawk Creek, Trib C
(46.0808,-123.3692); Ford Creek (46.0570,-123.2872); Gus Creek
(45.9828,-123.1453); Johnson Creek (46.0021,-123.2133); Lane Creek
(45.9448,-123.3253); Little Deer Creek (45.9378,-123.2780); Lousignont
Creek (46.0342,-123.4186); Lundgren Creek (46.0240,-123.2092); McCoon
Creek (46.0665,-123.3043); Messing Creek (46.0339,-123.2260); Nehalem
River (45.9019,-123.1442); Northrup Creek (46.0672,-123.4377); Oak
Ranch Creek (45.9085,-123.0834); Sager Creek (45.9388,-123.4020);
Unnamed (45.9039,-123.2044); Unnamed (45.9067,-123.0595); Unnamed
(45.9488,-123.2220); Unnamed (45.9629,-123.3845); Unnamed (45.9999,-
123.1732); Unnamed (46.0088,-123.4508); Unnamed (46.0208,-123.4588);
Unnamed (46.0236,-123.2381); Unnamed (46.0308,-123.3135); Unnamed
(46.0325,-123.4650); Unnamed (46.0390,-123.3648); Unnamed (46.0776,-
123.3274); Unnamed (46.0792,-123.3409); Unnamed (46.0345,-123.2956);
Warner Creek (46.0312,-123.3817); Wrong Way Creek (46.0789,-123.3142).
(iii) Lower Nehalem River Watershed 1710020203. Outlet(s) = Nehalem
River (Lat 45.7507, Long -123.6530) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder
Creek (45.9069,-123.5907); Beaver Creek (45.8949,-123.6764); Big Creek
(45.8655,-123.6476); Bull Heifer Creek (45.9908,-123.5322); Buster
Creek (45.9306,-123.4165); Cedar Creek (45.8931,-123.6029); Cow Creek
(45.8587,-123.5206); Crawford Creek (45.9699,-123.4725); Cronin Creek,
Middle Fork (45.7719,-123.5747); Cronin Creek, North Fork (45.7795,-
123.6064); Cronin Creek, South Fork (45.7456,-123.5596); Destruction
Creek (45.8750,-123.6571); East Humbug Creek (45.9454,-123.6358);
Fishhawk Creek (45.9666,-123.5895); Fishhawk Creek (46.0224,-123.5374);
George Creek (45.8461,-123.6226); George Creek (45.9118,-123.5766);
Gilmore Creek (45.9609,-123.5372); Hamilton Creek (46.0034,-123.5881);
Klines Creek (45.8703,-123.4908); Larsen Creek (45.8757,-123.5847);
Little Fishhawk Creek (45.9256,-123.5501); Little Rock Creek (45.8886,-
123.4558); McClure Creek (45.8560,-123.6227); Moores Creek (45.8801,-
123.5178); Nehalem River (45.9838,-123.4214); Quartz Creek (45.8414,-
123.5184); Spruce Run Creek (45.8103,-123.6028); Squaw Creek (45.9814,-
123.4529); Stanley Creek (45.8861,-123.4352); Strum Creek (45.9321,-
123.4275); Trailover Creek (46.0129,-123.4976); Unnamed (45.8083,-
123.6280); Unnamed (45.8682,-123.6168); Unnamed (45.9078,-123.6630);
Unnamed (45.9207,-123.4534); Unnamed (45.9405,-123.6338); Unnamed
(45.9725,-123.5544); West Humbug Creek (45.9402,-123.6726); Walker
Creek (45.9266,-123.4423); Walker Creek (46.0391,-123.5142); West Brook
(45.9757,-123.4638).
(iv) Salmonberry River Watershed 1710020204. Outlet(s) =
Salmonberry River (Lat 45.7507, Long -123.6530) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Pennoyer Creek (45.7190,-123.4366); Salmonberry River (45.7248,-
123.4436); Salmonberry River, North Fork (45.7181,-123.5204); Wolf
Creek (45.6956,-123.4485).
(v) North Fork of Nehalem River Watershed 1710020205. Outlet(s) =
Nehalem River, North Fork (Lat 45.7317, Long -123.8765) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Acey Creek (45.7823,-123.8292); Anderson Creek
(45.7643,-123.9073); Big Rackheap Creek (45.7546,-123.8145); Boykin
Creek (45.8030,-123.8595); Buchanan Creek (45.8270,-123.7901); Coal
Creek (45.7897,-123.8676); Coal Creek, West Fork (45.7753,-123.8871);
Cougar Creek (45.8064,-123.8090); Fall Creek (45.7842,-123.8547); Fall
Creek (45.8226,-123.7054); Gods Valley Creek (45.7689,-123.7793);
Grassy Lake Creek (45.7988,-123.8193); Gravel Creek (45.7361,-
123.8126); Henderson Creek (45.7932,-123.8548); Jack Horner Creek
(45.8531,-123.7837); Lost Creek (45.7909,-123.7195); Nehalem River,
Little North Fork (45.9101,-123.6972); Nehalem River, North Fork
(45.8623,-123.7463); Nehalem River, North Fork, Trib R (45.8287,-
123.6625); Nehalem River, North Fork, Trib T (45.8492,-123.6796);
Rackheap Creek (45.7677,-123.8008); Sally Creek (45.8294,-123.7468);
Soapstone Creek (45.8498,-123.7469); Soapstone Creek, Trib A (45.8591,-
123.7616); Sweethome Creek (45.7699,-123.6616); Unnamed (45.7457,-
123.8490); Unnamed (45.7716,-123.7691); Unnamed (45.7730,-123.7789);
Unnamed (45.7736,-123.7607); Unnamed (45.7738,-123.7534); Unnamed
(45.7780,-123.7434); Unnamed (45.7784,-123.7742); Unnamed (45.7794,-
123.7315); Unnamed (45.7824,-123.7396); Unnamed (45.7833,-123.7680);
Unnamed (45.7841,-123.7299); Unnamed (45.7858,-123.7660); Unnamed
(45.7898,-123.7424); Unnamed (45.7946,-123.7365); Unnamed (45.7966,-
123.7953); Unnamed (45.8008,-123.7349); Unnamed (45.8193,-123.7436);
Unnamed (45.8322,-123.7789); Unnamed (45.8359,-123.7766); Unnamed
(45.8569,-123.7235); Unnamed (45.8629,-123.7347); Unnamed (45.8662,-
123.7444); Unnamed (45.8962,-123.7189).
(vi) Lower Nehalem River/Cook Creek Watershed 1710020206. Outlet(s)
= Nehalem River (Lat 45.6577, Long -123.9355) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Alder Creek (45.7286,-123.9091); Anderson Creek (45.6711,-
123.7470); Bastard Creek (45.7667,-123.6943); Bob's Creek (45.7444,-
123.9038); Cook Creek (45.6939,-123.6146); Cook Creek, East Fork
(45.6705,-123.6440); Daniels Creek (45.6716,-123.8606); Dry Creek
(45.6449,-123.8507); Dry Creek (45.6985,-123.7422); East Foley Creek
(45.6621,-123.8068); Fall Creek (45.7489,-123.7778); Foley Creek
(45.6436,-123.8933); Gallagher Slough (45.7140,-123.8657); Hanson Creek
(45.6611,-123.7179); Harliss Creek (45.6851,-123.7249); Helloff Creek
(45.7545,-123.7603); Hoevett Creek (45.6894,-123.6276); Jetty Creek
(45.6615,-123.9103); Lost Creek (45.7216,-123.7164); Neahkahnie Creek
(45.7197,-123.9247); Nehalem River (45.7507,-123.6530); Peterson Creek
(45.6975,-123.8098); Piatt Canyon (45.6844,-123.6983); Roy Creek
(45.7174,-123.8038); Snark Creek (45.7559,-123.6713); Unnamed
(45.6336,-123.8549); Unnamed (45.6454,-123.8663); Unnamed (45.6483,-
123.8605); Unnamed (45.6814,-123.8786); Unnamed (45.7231,-123.9016).
(3) Wilson/Trask/Nestucca Subbasin 17100203--(i) Little Nestucca
River Watershed 1710020301. Outlet(s) = Little Nestucca River (Lat
45.1827, Long -123.9543) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Austin Creek
(45.1080,-123.8748);
[[Page 7846]]
Austin Creek, West Fork (45.1074,-123.8894); Baxter Creek (45.1149,-
123.7705); Bear Creek (45.1310,-123.8500); Bowers Creek (45.1393,-
123.9198); Cedar Creek (45.0971,-123.8094); Fall Creek (45.1474,-
123.8767); Hiack Creek (45.0759,-123.8042); Kautz Creek (45.0776,-
123.8317); Kellow Creek (45.1271,-123.9072); Little Nestucca River
(45.0730,-123.7825); Little Nestucca River, South Fork (45.0754,-
123.8393); Louie Creek (45.1277,-123.7869); McKnight Creek (45.1124,-
123.8363); Small Creek (45.1151,-123.8227); Sourgrass Creek (45.0917,-
123.7623); Sourgrass Creek, Trib A (45.1109,-123.7664); Squaw Creek
(45.1169,-123.8938); Stillwell Creek (45.0919,-123.8141); Unnamed
(45.1169,-123.7974).
(ii) Nestucca River Watershed 1710020302. Outlet(s) = Nestucca Bay
(Lat 45.1607, Long -123.9678) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek
(45.1436,-123.7998); Alder Creek (45.2436,-123.7364); Bays Creek
(45.3197,-123.7240); Bear Creek (45.3188,-123.6022); Bear Creek
(45.3345,-123.7898); Beulah Creek (45.2074,-123.6747); Bible Creek
(45.2331,-123.5868); Boulder Creek (45.2530,-123.7525); Buck Creek
(45.1455,-123.7734); Cedar Creek (45.3288,-123.4531); Clarence Creek
(45.2649,-123.6395); Clear Creek (45.1725,-123.8660); Crazy Creek
(45.1636,-123.7595); Dahl Fork (45.2306,-123.7076); East Beaver Creek
(45.3579,-123.6877); East Creek (45.3134,-123.6348); Elk Creek
(45.3134,-123.5645); Elk Creek, Trib A (45.2926,-123.5381); Elk Creek,
Trib B (45.2981,-123.5471); Fan Creek (45.2975,-123.4994); Farmer Creek
(45.2593,-123.9074); Foland Creek (45.2508,-123.7890); Foland Creek,
West Fork (45.2519,-123.8025); George Creek (45.2329,-123.8291); Ginger
Creek (45.3283,-123.4680); Hartney Creek (45.2192,-123.8632); Horn
Creek (45.2556,-123.9212); Lawrence Creek (45.1861,-123.7852);
Limestone Creek (45.2472,-123.7169); Mina Creek (45.2444,-123.6197);
Moon Creek (45.3293,-123.6762); North Beaver Creek (45.3497,-123.8961);
Nestucca River (45.3093,-123.4077); Niagara Creek (45.1898,-123.6637);
Pheasant Creek (45.2121,-123.6366); Pollard Creek (45.1951,-123.7958);
Powder Creek (45.2305,-123.6974); Saling Creek (45.2691,-123.8474);
Sanders Creek (45.2254,-123.8959); Slick Rock Creek (45.2683,-
123.6106); Swab Creek (45.2889,-123.7656); Testament Creek (45.2513,-
123.5488); Three Rivers (45.1785,-123.7557); Tiger Creek (45.3405,-
123.8029); Tiger Creek, Trib A (45.3346,-123.8547); Tony Creek
(45.2575,-123.7735); Turpy Creek (45.2537,-123.7620); Unnamed
(45.1924,-123.8202); Unnamed (45.2290,-123.9398); Unnamed (45.3018,-
123.4636); Unnamed (45.3102,-123.6628); Unnamed (45.3148,-123.6616);
Unnamed (45.3158,-123.8679); Unnamed (45.3292,-123.8872); Walker Creek
(45.2914,-123.4207); West Beaver Creek (45.3109,-123.8840); West Creek
(45.2899,-123.8514); Wildcat Creek (45.3164,-123.8187); Wolfe Creek
(45.3113,-123.7658); Woods Creek (45.1691,-123.8070).
(iii) Tillamook River Watershed 1710020303. Outlet(s) = Tillamook
River (Lat 45.4682, Long -123.8802) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear
Creek (45.4213,-123.8885); Beaver Creek (45.4032,-123.8861); Bewley
Creek (45.3637,-123.8965); Esther Creek (45.4464,-123.9017); Fawcett
Creek (45.3824,-123.7210); Joe Creek (45.3754,-123.8257); Killam Creek
(45.4087,-123.7276); Mills Creek (45.3461,-123.7915); Munson Creek
(45.3626,-123.7681); Simmons Creek (45.3605,-123.7364); Sutton Creek
(45.4049,-123.8568); Tillamook River (45.3595,-123.9115); Tomlinson
Creek (45.4587,-123.8868); Unnamed (45.3660,-123.8313); Unnamed
(45.3602,-123.8466); Unnamed (45.3654,-123.9050); Unnamed (45.3987,-
123.7105); Unnamed (45.4083,-123.8160); Unnamed (45.4478,-123.8670);
Unnamed (45.3950,-123.7348).
(iv) Trask River Watershed 1710020304. Outlet(s) = Trask River (Lat
45.4682, Long -123.8802) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bales Creek
(45.3712,-123.5786); Bark Shanty Creek (45.4232,-123.5550); Bear Creek
(45.4192,-123.7408); Bill Creek (45.3713,-123.6386); Blue Bus Creek
(45.4148,-123.5949); Boundry Creek (45.3493,-123.5470); Clear Creek
1 (45.4638,-123.5571); Clear Creek 2 (45.5025,-
123.4683); Cruiser Creek (45.4201,-123.4753); Dougherty Slough
(45.4684,-123.7888); East Fork of South Fork Trask River (45.3563,-
123.4752); Edwards Creek (45.3832,-123.6676); Elkhorn Creek, Trib C
(45.4080,-123.4440); Elkhorn Creek (45.3928,-123.4709); Gold Creek
(45.4326,-123.7218); Green Creek (45.4510,-123.7361); Hatchery Creek
(45.4485,-123.6623); Headquarters Camp Creek (45.3317,-123.5072);
Hoquarten Slough (45.4597,-123.8480); Joyce Creek (45.3881,-123.6386);
Michael Creek (45.4799,-123.5119); Mill Creek (45.4100,-123.7450);
Miller Creek (45.3582,-123.5666); Pigeon Creek (45.3910,-123.5656);
Rawe Creek (45.4395,-123.6351); Rock Creek (45.3515,-123.5074); Samson
Creek (45.4662,-123.6439); Scotch Creek (45.4015,-123.5873); Steampot
Creek (45.3875,-123.5425); Stretch Creek (45.3483,-123.5382); Summit
Creek (45.3481,-123.6054); Summit Creek, South Fork (45.3473,-
123.6145); Trask River, North Fork, Middle Fork (45.4472,-123.3945);
Trask River, North Fork, North Fork (45.5275,-123.4177); Trask River,
South Fork (45.3538,-123.6445); Trib A (45.3766,-123.5191); Trib B
(45.3776,-123.4988); Unnamed (45.3639,-123.6054); Unnamed (45.4105,-
123.7741); Unnamed (45.4201,-123.6320); Unnamed (45.4220,-123.7654).
(v) Wilson River Watershed 1710020305. Outlet(s) = Wilson River
(Lat 45.4816, Long -123.8708) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek
(45.4894,-123.7933); Ben Smith Creek (45.5772,-123.5072); Cedar Creek
(45.5869,-123.6228); Cedar Creek, North Fork (45.6066,-123.6151); Deo
Creek (45.6000,-123.3716); Drift Creek (45.6466,-123.3944); Elk Creek
(45.6550,-123.4620); Elk Creek, West Fork (45.6208,-123.4717); Elliott
Creek (45.5997,-123.3925); Fall Creek (45.4936,-123.5616); Fox Creek
(45.5102,-123.5869); Hatchery Creek (45.4835,-123.7074); Hughey Creek
(45.4540,-123.7526); Idiot Creek (45.6252,-123.4296); Jones Creek
(45.6028,-123.5702); Jordan Creek (45.5610,-123.4557); Jordan Creek,
South Fork (45.5099,-123.5279); Kansas Creek (45.4861,-123.6434);
Morris Creek (45.6457,-123.5409); Tuffy Creek (45.5787,-123.4702);
Unnamed (45.4809,-123.8362); Unnamed (45.5758,-123.5226); Unnamed
(45.5942,-123.4259); Unnamed (45.6002,-123.5939); Unnamed (45.6151,-
123.4385); White Creek (45.5181,-123.7223); Wilson River, Devil's Lake
Fork (45.6008,-123.3301); Wilson River, North Fork (45.6679,-123.5138);
Wilson River, North Fork, Little (45.5283,-123.6771); Wilson River,
North Fork, West Fork (45.6330,-123.5879); Wilson River, North Fork,
West Fork, North Fork (45.6495,-123.5779); Wilson River, South Fork
(45.5567,-123.3965); Wolf Creek (45.5683,-123.6129).
(vi) Kilchis River Watershed 1710020306. Outlet(s) = Kilchis River
(Lat 45.4927, Long -123.8615) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clear Creek
(45.5000,-123.7647); Coal Creek (45.5004,-123.8085); Company Creek
(45.5892,-123.7370); French Creek (45.6318,-123.6926); Kilchis River,
[[Page 7847]]
Little South Fork (45.5668,-123.7178); Kilchis River, North Fork
(45.6044,-123.6504); Kilchis River, South Fork (45.5875,-123.6944);
Mapes Creek (45.5229,-123.8382); Murphy Creek (45.5320,-123.8341);
Myrtle Creek (45.5296,-123.8156); Sam Downs Creek (45.5533,-123.7144);
Schroeder Creek (45.6469,-123.7064); Unnamed (45.5625,-123.7593).
(vii) Miami River Watershed 1710020307. Outlet(s) = Miami River
(Lat 45.5597, Long -123.8904) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Diamond Creek
(45.6158,-123.8184); Hobson Creek (45.5738,-123.8970); Illingsworth
Creek (45.5547,-123.8693); Miami River (45.6362,-123.7533); Miami
River, Trib S (45.6182,-123.8004); Miami River, Trib T (45.6546,-
123.7463); Minich Creek (45.5869,-123.8936); Moss Creek (45.5628,-
123.8319); Peterson Creek (45.6123,-123.8996); Prouty Creek (45.6304,-
123.8435); Stuart Creek (45.6042,-123.8442); Unnamed (45.6317,-
123.7906); Unnamed (45.6341,-123.7900); Waldron Creek (45.5856,-
123.8483).
(viii) Tillamook Bay Watershed 1710020308. Outlet(s) = Tillamook
Bay (Lat 45.5600, Long -123.9366) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Douthy
Creek (45.5277,-123.8570); Electric Creek (45.5579,-123.8925); Hall
Slough (45.4736,-123.8637); Jacoby Creek (45.5297,-123.8665); Kilchis
River (45.4927,-123.8615); Larson Creek (45.5366,-123.8849); Miami
River (45.5597,-123.8904); Patterson Creek (45.5359,-123.8732);
Tillamook Bay (45.4682,-123.8802); Vaughn Creek (45.5170,-123.8516);
Wilson River (45.4816,-123.8708).
(ix) Spring Creek/Sand Lake/Neskowin Creek Frontal Watershed
1710020309. Outlet(s) = Crescent Lake (45.6360,-123.9405); Neskowin
Creek (45.1001,-123.9859); Netarts Bay (45.4339,-123.9512); Rover Creek
(45.3290,-123.9670); Sand Creek (45.2748,-123.9589); Watesco Creek
(45.5892,-123.9477) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Andy Creek (45.2905,-
123.8744); Butte Creek (45.1159,-123.9360); Crescent Lake (45.6320,-
123.9376); Davis Creek (45.3220,-123.9254); Fall Creek (45.0669,-
123.9679); Hawk Creek (45.1104,-123.9436); Jackson Creek (45.3568,-
123.9611); Jewel Creek (45.2865,-123.8905); Jim Creek (45.0896,-
123.9224); Lewis Creek (45.0835,-123.8979); Meadow Creek (45.0823,-
123.9824); Neskowin Creek (45.0574,-123.8812); Prospect Creek
(45.0858,-123.9321); Reneke Creek (45.2594,-123.9434); Rover Creek
(45.3284,-123.9438); Sand Creek (45.3448,-123.9156); Sloan Creek
(45.0718,-123.8998); Watesco Creek (45.5909,-123.9353); Whiskey Creek
(45.3839,-123.9193).
(4) Siletz/Yaquina Subbasin 17100204-(i) Upper Yaquina River
Watershed 1710020401. Outlet(s) = Yaquina River (Lat 44.6219, Long -
123.8741) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bales Creek (44.6893,-123.7503);
Bales Creek, East Fork (44.6927,-123.7363); Bales Creek, East Fork,
Trib A (44.6827,-123.7257); Bales Creek (44.6610,-123.8749); Bones
Creek (44.6647,-123.6762); Bryant Creek (44.6746,-123.7139); Buckhorn
Creek (44.6676,-123.6677); Buttermilk Creek (44.6338,-123.6827);
Buttermilk Creek, Trib A (44.6518,-123.7173); Carlisle Creek (44.6451,-
123.8847); Cline Creek (44.6084,-123.6844); Cook Creek (44.6909,-
123.8583); Crystal Creek (44.6500,-123.8132); Davis Creek (44.6500,-
123.6587); Eddy Creek (44.6388,-123.7951); Felton Creek (44.6626,-
123.6502); Haxel Creek (44.6781,-123.8046); Hayes Creek (44.6749,-
123.7749); Humphrey Creek (44.6697,-123.6329); Klamath Creek (44.6927,-
123.8431); Little Elk Creek (44.6234,-123.6628); Little Elk Creek,Trib
A (44.6196,-123.7583); Little Yaquina River (44.6822,-123.6123); Lytle
Creek (44.6440,-123.5979); Miller Creek (44.6055,-123.7030); Oglesby
Creek (44.6421,-123.7271); Oglesby Creek, Trib A (44.6368,-123.7100);
Peterson Creek (44.6559,-123.7868); Randall Creek (44.6721,-123.6570);
Salmon Creek (44.6087,-123.7379); Simpson Creek (44.6775,-123.8780);
Sloop Creek (44.6654,-123.8595); Spilde Creek (44.6636,-123.5856);
Stony Creek (44.6753,-123.7020); Thornton Creek (44.6923,-123.8208);
Trapp Creek (44.6455,-123.8307); Twentythree Creek (44.6887,-123.8751);
Unnamed (44.6074,-123.6738); Unnamed (44.6076,-123.7067); Unnamed
(44.6077,-123.6633); Unnamed (44.6123,-123.6646); Unnamed (44.6188,-
123.7237); Unnamed (44.6202,-123.7201); Unnamed (44.6367,-123.7444);
Unnamed (44.6415,-123.6237); Unnamed (44.6472,-123.7793); Unnamed
(44.6493,-123.6789); Unnamed (44.6707,-123.7908); Unnamed (44.6715,-
123.6907); Unnamed (44.6881,-123.6089); Unnamed (44.6908,-123.7298);
Wakefield Creek (44.6336,-123.6963); Yaquina River (44.6894,-123.5907);
Young Creek (44.6372,-123.6027).
(ii) Big Elk Creek Watershed 1710020402. Outlet(s) = Elk Creek (Lat
44.6219, Long -123.8741) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Adams Creek
(44.5206,-123.6349); Baker Creek (44.5230,-123.6346); Bear Creek
(44.5966,-123.8299); Beaver Creek (44.6040,-123.7999); Beaverdam Creek
(44.5083,-123.6337); Bevens Creek (44.5635,-123.7371); Bull Creek
(44.5408,-123.8162); Bull Creek (44.5431,-123.8142); Bull Creek, Trib A
(44.5359,-123.8276); Cougar Creek (44.5070,-123.6482); Cougar Creek
(44.5861,-123.7563); Deer Creek (44.6020,-123.7667); Devils Well Creek
(44.6324,-123.8438); Dixon Creek (44.6041,-123.8659); Elk Creek
(44.5075,-123.6022); Feagles Creek (44.4880,-123.7180); Feagles Creek,
Trib B (44.5079,-123.6909); Feagles Creek, West Fork (44.5083,-
123.7117); Grant Creek (44.5010,-123.7363); Harve Creek (44.5725,-
123.8025); Jackass Creek (44.5443,-123.7790); Johnson Creek (44.5466,-
123.6336); Lake Creek (44.5587,-123.6826); Leverage Creek (44.5536,-
123.6343); Little Creek (44.5548,-123.6980); Little Wolf Creek
(44.5590,-123.7165); Peterson Creek (44.5576,-123.6450); Rail Creek
(44.5135,-123.6639); Spout Creek (44.5824,-123.6561); Sugarbowl Creek
(44.5301,-123.5995); Unnamed (44.5048,-123.7566); Unnamed (44.5085,-
123.6309); Unnamed (44.5108,-123.6249); Unnamed (44.5144,-123.6554);
Unnamed (44.5204,-123.6148); Unnamed (44.5231,-123.6714); Unnamed
(44.5256,-123.6804); Unnamed (44.5325,-123.7244); Unnamed (44.5332,-
123.7211); Unnamed (44.5361,-123.7139); Unnamed (44.5370,-123.7643);
Unnamed (44.5376,-123.6176); Unnamed (44.5410,-123.8213); Unnamed
(44.5504,-123.8290); Unnamed (44.5530,-123.8282); Unnamed (44.5618,-
123.8431); Unnamed (44.5687,-123.8563); Unnamed (44.5718,-123.7256);
Unnamed (44.5734,-123.6696); Unnamed (44.5737,-123.6566); Unnamed
(44.5771,-123.7027); Unnamed (44.5821,-123.8123); Unnamed (44.5840,-
123.6678); Unnamed (44.5906,-123.7871); Unnamed (44.5990,-123.7808);
Unnamed (44.5865,-123.8521); Wolf Creek (44.5873,-123.6939); Wolf
Creek, Trib A (44.5862,-123.7188); Wolf Creek, Trib B (44.5847,-
123.7062).
(iii) Lower Yaquina River Watershed 1710020403. Outlet(s) = Yaquina
River (Lat 44.6098, Long -124.0818) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Abbey
Creek (44.6330,-123.8881); Babcock Creek (44.5873,-123.9221); Beaver
Creek (44.6717,-123.9799); Blue Creek (44.6141,-123.9936); Boone
Slough,
[[Page 7848]]
Trib A (44.6134,-123.9769); Depot Creek, Little (44.6935,-123.9482);
Depot Creek, Trib A (44.6837,-123.9420); Drake Creek (44.6974,-
123.9690); East Fork Mill Creek (44.5691,-123.8834); Flesher Slough
(44.5668,-123.9803); King Slough (44.5944,-124.0323); Little Beaver
Creek (44.6531,-123.9728); McCaffery Slough (44.5659,-124.0180); Mill
Creek (44.5550,-123.9064); Mill Creek, Trib A (44.5828,-123.8750);
Montgomery Creek (44.5796,-123.9286); Nute Slough (44.6075,-123.9660);
Olalla Creek (44.6810,-123.8972); Olalla Creek, Trib A (44.6511,-
123.9034); Parker Slough (44.5889,-124.0119); Unnamed (44.5471,-
123.9557); Unnamed (44.5485,-123.9308); Unnamed (44.5520,-123.9433);
Unnamed (44.5528,-123.9695); Unnamed (44.5552,-123.9294); Unnamed
(44.5619,-123.9348); Unnamed (44.5662,-123.8905); Unnamed (44.5827,-
123.9456); Unnamed (44.5877,-123.8850); Unnamed (44.6444,-123.9059);
Unnamed (44.6457,-123.9996); Unnamed (44.6530,-123.9914); Unnamed
(44.6581,-123.8947); Unnamed (44.6727-123.8942); Unnamed (44.6831,-
123.9940); West Olalla Creek (44.6812,-123.9299); West Olalla Creek,
Trib A (44.6649,-123.9204); Wessel Creek (44.6988,-123.9863); Wright
Creek (44.5506,-123.9250); Wright Creek, Trib A (44.5658,-123.9422);
Yaquina River (44.6219,-123.8741).
(iv) Middle Siletz River Watershed 1710020405. Outlet(s) = Siletz
River (Lat 44.7375, Long -123.7917) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Buck
Creek, East Fork (44.8410,-123.7970); Buck Creek, South Fork (44.8233,-
123.8095); Buck Creek, West Fork (44.8352,-123.8084); Cerine Creek
(44.7478,-123.7198); Deer Creek (44.8245,-123.7268); Deer Creek, Trib A
(44.8178,-123.7397); Elk Creek (44.8704,-123.7668); Fourth of July
Creek (44.8203,-123.6810); Gunn Creek (44.7816,-123.7679); Holman River
(44.8412,-123.7707); Mill Creek, North Fork (44.7769,-123.7361); Mill
Creek, South Fork (44.7554,-123.7276); Palmer Creek (44.7936,-
123.8344); Siletz River (44.8629,-123.7323); Sunshine Creek (44.7977,-
123.6963); Unnamed (44.7691,-123.7851); Unnamed (44.7747,-123.7740);
Unnamed (44.7749,-123.7662); Unnamed (44.8118,-123.6926); Unnamed
(44.8188,-123.6995); Unnamed (44.8312,-123.6983); Unnamed (44.8583,-
123.7573); Whiskey Creek (44.8123,-123.6937).
(v) Rock Creek/Siletz River Watershed 1710020406. Outlet(s) = Rock
Creek (Lat 44.7375, Long -123.7917) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver
Creek (44.7288,-123.6773); Big Rock Creek (44.7636,-123.6969); Brush
Creek (44.6829,-123.6582); Cedar Creek (44.7366,-123.6586); Fisher
Creek (44.7149,-123.6359); Little Rock Creek (44.7164,-123.6155);
Little Steere Creek (44.7219,-123.6368); Rock Creek, Trib A (44.7414,-
123.7508); Steere Creek (44.7336,-123.6313); Unnamed (44.7175,-
123.6496); William Creek (44.7391,-123.7277).
(vi) Lower Siletz River Watershed 1710020407. Outlet(s) = Siletz
Bay (Lat 44.9269, Long -124.0218) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Anderson
Creek (44.9311,-123.9508); Bear Creek (44.8682,-123.8891); Bentilla
Creek (44.7745,-123.8555); Butterfield Creek (44.8587,-123.9993); Cedar
Creek (44.8653,-123.8488); Cedar Creek, Trib D (44.8606,-123.8696);
Coon Creek (44.7959,-123.8468); Dewey Creek (44.7255,-123.9724); Drift
Creek (44.9385,-123.8211); Erickson Creek (44.9629,-123.9490); Euchre
Creek (44.8023,-123.8687); Fowler Creek (44.9271,-123.8440); Gordey
Creek (44.9114,-123.9724); Hough Creek (44.8052,-123.8991); Jaybird
Creek (44.7640,-123.9733); Long Prairie Creek (44.6970,-123.7499); Long
Tom Creek (44.7037,-123.8533); Mann Creek (44.6987,-123.8025); Mill
Creek (44.6949,-123.8967); Miller Creek (44.7487,-123.9733); North
Creek (44.9279,-123.8908); North Roy Creek (44.7916,-123.9897); Ojalla
Creek (44.7489,-123.9427); Quarry Creek (44.8989,-123.9360); Reed Creek
(44.8020,-123.8835); Reed Creek (44.8475,-123.9267); Roots Creek
(44.8300,-123.9351); South Roy Creek (44.7773,-123.9847); Sam Creek
(44.7086,-123.7312); Sampson Creek (44.9089,-123.8173); Savage Creek
(44.8021,-123.8608); Scare Creek (44.8246,-123.9954); Schooner Creek,
North Fork (44.9661,-123.8793); Schooner Creek, South Fork (44.9401,-
123.8689); Scott Creek (44.7414,-123.8268); Sijota Creek (44.8883,-
124.0257); Siletz River (44.7375,-123.7917); Skunk Creek (44.8780,-
123.9073); Smith Creek (44.9294,-123.8056); Stemple Creek (44.8405,-
123.9492); Tangerman Creek (44.7278,-123.8944); Thayer Creek (44.7023,-
123.8256); Thompson Creek (44.7520,-123.8893); Unnamed (44.7003,-
123.7669); Unnamed (44.8904,-123.8034); Unnamed (44.8927,-123.8400);
Unnamed (44.7034,-123.7754); Unnamed (44.7145,-123.8423); Unnamed
(44.7410,-123.8800); Unnamed (44.7925,-123.9212); Unnamed (44.8396,-
123.8896); Unnamed (44.9035,-123.8635); Unnamed (44.9240,-123.7913);
West Fork Mill Creek (44.7119,-123.9703); Wildcat Creek (44.8915,-
123.8842).
(vii) Salmon River/Siletz/Yaquina Bay Watershed 1710020408.
Outlet(s) = Salmon River (Lat 45.0474, Long -124.0031) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Alder Brook (45.0318,-123.8428); Bear Creek (44.9785,-
123.8580); Boulder Creek (45.0428,-123.7817); Calkins Creek (45.0508,-
123.9615); Crowley Creek (45.0540,-123.9819); Curl Creek (45.0150,-
123.9198); Deer Creek (45.0196,-123.8091); Frazer Creek (45.0096,-
123.9576); Gardner Creek (45.0352,-123.9024); Indian Creek (45.0495,-
123.8010); Little Salmon River (45.0546,-123.7473); McMullen Creek
(44.9829,-123.8682); Panther Creek (45.0208,-123.8878); Panther Creek,
North Fork (45.0305,-123.8910); Prairie Creek (45.0535,-123.8129);
Rowdy Creek (45.0182,-123.9751); Salmon River (45.0269,-123.7224);
Slick Rock Creek (44.9903,-123.8158); Sulphur Creek (45.0403,-
123.8216); Telephone Creek (45.0467,-123.9348); Toketa Creek (45.0482,-
123.9088); Trout Creek (44.9693,-123.8337); Unnamed (44.9912,-
123.8789); Unnamed (45.0370,-123.7333); Unnamed (45.0433,-123.7650);
Widow Creek (45.0373,-123.8530); Widow Creek, West Fork (45.0320,-
123.8643); Willis Creek (45.0059,-123.9391).
(viii) Devils Lake/Moolack Frontal Watershed 1710020409. Outlet(s)
= Big Creek (Lat 44.6590, Long -124.0571); Coal Creek (44.7074,-
124.0615); D River (44.9684,-124.0172); Fogarty Creek (44.8395,-
124.0520); Moolack Creek (44.7033,-124.0622); North Depoe Bay Creek
(44.8098,-124.0617); Schoolhouse Creek (44.8734,-124.0401); Spencer
Creek (44.7292,-124.0582); Wade Creek (44.7159,-124.0600) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Big Creek (44.6558,-124.0427); Coal Creek (44.7047,-
124.0099); Devils Lake (44.9997,-123.9773); Fogarty Creek (44.8563,-
124.0153); Jeffries Creek (44.6425,-124.0315); Moolack Creek (44.6931,-
124.0150); North Depoe Bay Creek (44.8157,-124.0510); Rock Creek
(44.9869,-123.9317); South Depoe Bay Creek (44.7939,-124.0126); Salmon
Creek (44.8460,-124.0164); Schoolhouse Creek (44.8634,-124.0151); South
Fork Spencer Creek (44.7323,-123.9974); Spencer Creek, North Fork
(44.7453,-124.0276); Unnamed (44.8290,-124.0318); Unnamed (44.9544,-
123.9867); Unnamed (44.9666,-123.9731); Unnamed
[[Page 7849]]
(44.9774,-123.9706); Wade Creek (44.7166,-124.0057).
(5) Alsea Subbasin 17100205--(i) Upper Alsea River Watershed
1710020501. Outlet(s) = Alsea River, South Fork (Lat 44.3767, Long -
123.6024) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (44.4573,-123.5188);
Alsea River, South Fork (44.3261,-123.4891); Baker Creek (44.4329,-
123.5522); Banton Creek (44.3317,-123.6020); Brown Creek (44.3151,-
123.6250); Bummer Creek (44.3020,-123.5765); Cabin Creek (44.4431,-
123.5328); Crooked Creek (44.4579,-123.5099); Dubuque Creek (44.3436,-
123.5527); Ernest Creek (44.4234,-123.5275); Hayden Creek (44.4062,-
123.5815); Honey Grove Creek (44.3874,-123.5078); North Fork Alsea
River (44.4527,-123.6102); Parker Creek (44.4702,-123.5978); Peak Creek
(44.3358,-123.4933); Record Creek (44.3254,-123.6331); Seeley Creek
(44.4051,-123.5177); Swamp Creek (44.3007,-123.6108); Tobe Creek
(44.3273,-123.5719); Trout Creek (44.3684,-123.5163); Unnamed
(44.3108,-123.6225); Unnamed (44.3698,-123.5670); Unnamed (44.4574,-
123.5001); Unnamed (44.3708,-123.5740); Unnamed (44.3713,-123.5656);
Unnamed (44.3788,-123.5528); Unnamed (44.4270,-123.5492); Unnamed
(44.4518,-123.6236); Yew Creek (44.4581,-123.5373); Zahn Creek
(44.4381,-123.5425).
(ii) Five Rivers/Lobster Creek Watershed 1710020502. Outlet(s) =
Five Rivers (Lat 44.3584, Long -123.8279) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Alder Creek (44.2947,-123.8105); Bear Creek (44.2824,-123.9123); Bear
Creek (44.3588,-123.7930); Bear Creek (44.2589,-123.6647); Briar Creek
(44.3184,-123.6602); Buck Creek (44.2428,-123.8989); Camp Creek
(44.2685,-123.7552); Cascade Creek (44.3193,-123.9073); Cascade Creek,
North Fork (44.3299,-123.8932); Cedar Creek (44.2732,-123.7753); Cherry
Creek (44.3061,-123.8140); Coal Creek (44.2881,-123.6484); Cook Creek
(44.2777,-123.6445); Cougar Creek (44.2723,-123.8678); Crab Creek
(44.2458,-123.8750); Crazy Creek (44.2955,-123.7927); Crooked Creek
(44.3154,-123.7986); Elk Creek (44.3432,-123.7969); Fendall Creek
(44.2764,-123.7890); Five Rivers (44.2080,-123.8025); Green River
(44.2286,-123.8751); Green River, East Fork (44.2255,-123.8143); Jasper
Creek (44.2777,-123.7326); Little Lobster Creek (44.2961,-123.6266);
Lobster Creek, East Fork (44.2552,-123.5897); Lobster Creek, South Fork
(44.2326,-123.6060); Lobster Creek (44.2237,-123.6195); Lord Creek
(44.2411,-123.7631); Martha Creek (44.2822,-123.6781); Meadow Creek
(44.2925,-123.6591); Phillips Creek (44.3398,-123.7613); Preacher Creek
(44.2482,-123.7440); Prindel Creek (44.2346,-123.7849); Ryan Creek
(44.2576,-123.7971); Summers Creek (44.2589,-123.7627); Swamp Creek
(44.3274,-123.8407); Unnamed (44.2845,-123.7007); Unnamed (44.2129,-
123.7919); Unnamed (44.2262,-123.7982); Unnamed (44.2290,-123.8559);
Unnamed (44.2327,-123.8344); Unnamed (44.2356,-123.8178); Unnamed
(44.2447,-123.6460); Unnamed (44.2500,-123.8074); Unnamed (44.2511,-
123.9011); Unnamed (44.2551,-123.8733); Unnamed (44.2614,-123.8652);
Unnamed (44.2625,-123.8635); Unnamed (44.2694,-123.8180); Unnamed
(44.2695,-123.7429); Unnamed (44.2696,-123.8497); Unnamed (44.2752,-
123.7616); Unnamed (44.2760,-123.7121); Unnamed (44.2775,-123.8895);
Unnamed (44.2802,-123.7097); Unnamed (44.2802,-123.8608); Unnamed
(44.2823,-123.7900); Unnamed (44.2853,-123.7537); Unnamed (44.2895,-
123.9083); Unnamed (44.2940,-123.7358); Unnamed (44.2954,-123.7602);
Unnamed (44.2995,-123.7760); Unnamed (44.3024,-123.9064); Unnamed
(44.3066,-123.8838); Unnamed (44.3070,-123.8280); Unnamed (44.3129,-
123.7763); Unnamed (44.3214,-123.8161); Unnamed (44.3237,-123.9020);
Unnamed (44.3252,-123.7382); Unnamed (44.3289,-123.8354); Unnamed
(44.3336,-123.7431); Unnamed (44.3346,-123.7721); Wilkinson Creek
(44.3296,-123.7249); Wilson Creek (44.3085,-123.8990).
(iii) Drift Creek Watershed 1710020503. Outlet(s) = Drift Creek
(Lat 44.4157, Long -124.0043) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boulder Creek
(44.4434,-123.8705); Bush Creek (44.5315,-123.8631); Cape Horn Creek
(44.5153,-123.7844); Cedar Creek (44.4742,-123.9699); Cougar Creek
(44.4405,-123.9144); Deer Creek (44.5514,-123.8778); Drift Creek
(44.4688,-123.7859); Ellen Creek (44.4415,-123.9413); Flynn Creek
(44.5498,-123.8520); Gold Creek (44.4778,-123.8802); Gopher Creek
(44.5217,-123.7787); Horse Creek (44.5347,-123.9072); Lyndon Creek
(44.4395,-123.9801); Needle Branch (44.5154,-123.8537); Nettle Creek
(44.4940,-123.7845); Slickrock Creek (44.4757,-123.9007); Trout Creek
(44.4965,-123.9113); Trout Creek, East Fork (44.4705,-123.9290);
Unnamed (44.4995,-123.8488); Unnamed (44.4386,-123.9200); Unnamed
(44.4409,-123.8738); Unnamed (44.4832,-123.9570); Unnamed (44.4868,-
123.9340); Unnamed (44.4872,-123.9518); Unnamed (44.4875,-123.9460);
Unnamed (44.4911,-123.9227); Unnamed (44.5187,-123.7996); Unnamed
(44.5260,-123.7848); Unnamed (44.5263,-123.8868); Unnamed (44.5326,-
123.8453); Unnamed (44.5387,-123.8440); Unnamed (44.5488,-123.8694);
Unnamed (44.4624,-123.8216).
(iv) Lower Alsea River Watershed 1710020504. Outlet(s) = Alsea
River (Lat 44.4165, Long -124.0829) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alsea
River (44.3767,-123.6024); Arnold Creek (44.3922,-123.9503); Barclay
Creek (44.4055,-123.8659); Bear Creek (44.3729,-123.9623); Bear Creek
(44.3843,-123.7704); Beaty Creek (44.4044,-123.6043); Benner Creek
(44.3543,-123.7447); Brush Creek (44.3826,-123.8537); Bull Run Creek
(44.4745,-123.7439); Canal Creek (44.3322,-123.9460); Canal Creek, East
Fork (44.3454,-123.9161); Carns Canyon (44.4027,-123.7550); Cedar Creek
(44.3875,-123.7946); Cove Creek (44.4403,-123.7107); Cow Creek
(44.3620,-123.7510); Darkey Creek (44.3910,-123.9927; Digger Creek
(44.3906,-123.6890); Fall Creek (44.4527,-123.6864); Fall Creek
(44.4661,-123.6933); George Creek (44.3556,-123.8603); Grass Creek
(44.3577,-123.8798); Hatchery Creek (44.3952,-123.7269); Hatchery Creek
(44.4121,-123.8734); Hoover Creek (44.3618,-123.8583); Lake Creek
(44.3345,-123.8725); Lint Creek (44.3850,-124.0490); Maltby Creek
(44.3833,-123.6770); Meadow Fork (44.3764,-123.8879); Mill Creek
(44.4046,-123.6436); Minotti Creek (44.3750,-123.7718); Nye Creek
(44.4326,-123.7648); Oxstable Creek (44.3912,-123.9603); Phillips Creek
(44.3803,-123.7780); Red Creek (44.3722,-123.9162); Risley Creek
(44.4097,-123.9380); Schoolhouse Creek (44.3897,-123.6545); Scott
Creek, East Fork (44.4252,-123.7897); Scott Creek, West Fork (44.4212,-
123.8225); Skinner Creek (44.3585,-123.9374); Skunk Creek (44.3998,-
123.6912); Slide Creek (44.3986,-123.8419); Starr Creek (44.4477,-
124.0130); Sudan Creek (44.3817,-123.9717); Sulmon Creek (44.3285,-
123.7008); Sulmon Creek, North Fork (44.3421,-123.6374); Sulmon Creek,
South Fork (44.3339,-123.6709); Swede Fork
[[Page 7850]]
(44.3852,-124.0295); Unnamed (44.3319,-123.9318); Unnamed (44.3356,-
123.9464); Unnamed (44.3393,-123.9360); Unnamed (44.3413,-123.9294);
Unnamed (44.3490,-123.9058); Unnamed (44.3548,-123.6574); Unnamed
(44.3592,-123.6363); Unnamed (44.3597,-123.9042); Unnamed (44.3598,-
123.6563); Unnamed (44.3598,-123.6562); Unnamed (44.3600,-123.6514);
Unnamed (44.3656,-123.9085); Unnamed (44.3680,-123.9629); Unnamed
(44.3794,-123.8268); Unnamed (44.3800,-123.9134); Unnamed (44.3814,-
123.7650); Unnamed (44.3822,-124.0555); Unnamed (44.3823,-124.0451);
Unnamed (44.3989,-123.6050); Unnamed (44.4051,-124.0527); Unnamed
(44.4166,-123.8149); Unnamed (44.4537,-123.7247); Walker Creek
(44.4583,-124.0271); Weist Creek (44.3967,-124.0256); West Creek
(44.3588,-123.9493).
(v) Beaver Creek/Waldport Bay Watershed 1710020505. Outlet(s) =
Beaver Creek (Lat 44.5233, Long -124.0734); Deer Creek (44.5076,-
124.0807); Thiel Creek (44.5646,-124.0709) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Beaver Creek, North Fork, Trib G (44.5369,-123.9195); Beaver Creek,
South Fork (44.4816,-123.9853); Beaver Creek, South Fork, Trib A
(44.4644,-124.0332); Bowers Creek (44.5312,-124.0117); Bunnel Creek
(44.5178,-124.0265); Deer Creek (44.5057,-124.0721); Elkhorn Creek
(44.5013,-123.9572); Elkhorn Creek (44.4976,-123.9685); Lewis Creek
(44.5326,-123.9532); North Fork Beaver Creek (44.5149,-123.8988);
Oliver Creek (44.4660,-124.0471); Peterson Creek (44.5419,-123.9738);
Pumphouse Creek (44.5278,-124.0569); Simpson Creek (44.5255,-124.0390);
Thiel Creek (44.5408,-124.0254); Tracy Creek (44.5411,-124.0500);
Unnamed (44.4956,-123.9751); Unnamed (44.5189,-124.0638); Unnamed
(44.5225,-123.9313); Unnamed (44.5256,-123.9399); Unnamed (44.5435,-
124.0221); Unnamed (44.5461,-124.0311); Unnamed (44.5472,-124.0591);
Unnamed (44.5482,-124.0249); Unnamed (44.5519,-124.0279); Unnamed
(44.5592,-124.0531); Worth Creek (44.5013,-124.0207).
(vi) Yachats River Watershed 1710020506. Outlet(s) = Yachats River
(Lat 44.3081, Long -124.1070) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Axtell Creek
(44.3084,-123.9915); Beamer Creek (44.3142,-124.0124); Bend Creek
(44.2826,-124.0077); Carson Creek (44.3160,-124.0030); Dawson Creek
(44.2892,-124.0133); Depew Creek (44.3395,-123.9631); Earley Creek
(44.3510,-123.9885); Fish Creek (44.3259,-123.9592); Glines Creek
(44.3436,-123.9756); Grass Creek (44.2673,-123.9109); Helms Creek
(44.2777,-123.9954); Keller Creek (44.2601,-123.9485); Little Beamer
Creek (44.2993,-124.0213); Reedy Creek (44.3083,-124.0460); South
Beamer Creek (44.2852,-124.0325); Stump Creek (44.2566,-123.9624);
Unnamed (44.2596,-123.9279); Unnamed (44.2657,-123.9585); Unnamed
(44.2660,-123.9183); Unnamed (44.2684,-123.9711); Unnamed (44.2837,-
123.9268); Unnamed (44.2956,-123.9316); Unnamed (44.3005,-123.9324);
Unnamed (44.3163,-123.9428); Unnamed (44.3186,-123.9568); Unnamed
(44.3259,-123.9578); Unnamed (44.3431,-123.9711); West Fork Williamson
Creek (44.3230,-124.0008); Williamson Creek (44.3300,-124.0026);
Yachats River (44.2468,-123.9329); Yachats River, North Fork (44.3467,-
123.9972); Yachats River, School Fork (44.3145,-123.9341).
(vii) Cummins Creek/Tenmile Creek/Mercer Lake Frontal Watershed
1710020507. Outlet(s) = Berry Creek (Lat 44.0949, Long -124.1221); Big
Creek (44.1767,-124.1148); Bob Creek (44.2448,-124.1118); Cape Creek
(44.1336,-124.1211); Cummins Creek (44.2660,-124.1075); Rock Creek
(44.1833,-124.1149); Sutton Creek (44.0605,-124.1269); Tenmile Creek
(44.2245,-124.1083) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bailey Creek (44.1037,-
124.0530); Berry Creek (44.0998,-124.0885); Big Creek (44.1866,-
123.9781); Big Creek, South Fork (44.1692,-123.9688); Big Creek, Trib A
(44.1601,-124.0231); Bob Creek (44.2346,-124.0235); Cape Creek
(44.1351,-124.0174); Cape Creek, North Fork (44.1458,-124.0489);
Cummins Creek (44.2557,-124.0104); Fryingpan Creek (44.1723,-124.0401);
Levage Creek (44.0745,-124.0588); Little Cummins Creek (44.2614,-
124.0851); McKinney Creek (44.2187,-123.9985); Mercer Creek (44.0712,-
124.0796); Mill Creek (44.2106,-124.0747); Quarry Creek (44.0881,-
124.1124); Rath Creek (44.0747,-124.0901); Rock Creek (44.1882,-
124.0310); Tenmile Creek (44.2143,-123.9351); Tenmile Creek, South Fork
(44.2095,-123.9607); Unnamed (44.1771,-124.0908); Unnamed (44.0606,-
124.0805); Unnamed (44.0624,-124.0552); Unnamed (44.0658,-124.0802);
Unnamed (44.0690,-124.0490); Unnamed (44.0748,-124.0478); Unnamed
(44.0814,-124.0464); Unnamed (44.0958,-124.0559); Unnamed (44.1283,-
124.0242); Unnamed (44.1352,-124.0941); Unnamed (44.1712,-124.0558);
Unnamed (44.1715,-124.0636); Unnamed (44.2011,-123.9634); Unnamed
(44.2048,-123.9971); Unnamed (44.2146,-124.0358); Unnamed (44.2185,-
124.0270); Unnamed (44.2209,-123.9368); Wapiti Creek (44.1216,-
124.0448); Wildcat Creek (44.2339,-123.9632).
(viii) Big Creek/Vingie Creek Watershed 1710020508. Outlet(s) = Big
Creek (Lat 44.3742, Long -124.0896) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big
Creek (44.3564,-124.0613); Dicks Fork Big Creek (44.3627,-124.0389);
Reynolds Creek (44.3768,-124.0740); South Fork Big Creek (44.3388,-
124.0597); Unnamed (44.3643,-124.0355); Unnamed (44.3662,-124.0573);
Unnamed (44.3686,-124.0683).
(6) Siuslaw Subbasin 17100206--(i) Upper Siuslaw River Watershed
1710020601. Outlet(s) = Siuslaw River (Lat 44.0033, Long -123.6545)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek (43.8482,-123.5172); Bear Creek,
Trib A (43.8496,-123.5059); Bierce Creek (43.8750,-123.5559); Big
Canyon Creek (43.9474,-123.6582); Bottle Creek (43.8791,-123.3871);
Bounds Creek (43.9733,-123.7108); Buck Creek, Trib B (43.8198,-
123.3913); Buck Creek, Trib E (43.8152,-123.4248); Burntwood Creek
(43.9230,-123.5342); Cabin Creek (43.8970,-123.6754); Camp Creek
(43.9154,-123.4904); Canyon Creek (43.9780,-123.6096); Clay Creek
(43.8766,-123.5721); Collins Creek (43.8913,-123.6047); Conger Creek
(43.8968,-123.4524); Doe Creek (43.8957,-123.3558); Doe Hollow Creek
(43.8487,-123.4603); Dogwood Creek (43.8958,-123.3811); Douglas Creek
(43.8705,-123.2836); Edris Creek (43.9224,-123.5531); Esmond Creek
(43.8618,-123.5772); Esmond Creek, Trib 1 (43.9303,-123.6518); Esmond
Creek, Trib A (43.8815,-123.6646); Farman Creek (43.8761,-123.2562);
Fawn Creek (43.8743,-123.2992); Fawn Creek (43.9436,-123.6088);
Fryingpan Creek (43.8329,-123.4241); Fryingpan Creek (43.8422,-
123.4318); Gardner Creek (43.8024,-123.2582); Haight Creek (43.8406,-
123.4862); Haskins Creek (43.8785,-123.5851); Hawley Creek (43.8599,-
123.1558); Hawley Creek, North Fork (43.8717,-123.1751); Holland Creek
(43.8775,-123.4156); Jeans Creek (43.8616,-123.4714); Johnson Creek
(43.8822,-123.5332); Kelly Creek (43.8338,-123.1739); Kline Creek
(43.9034,-123.6635); Leopold Creek (43.9199,-123.6890); Leopold
[[Page 7851]]
Creek, Trib A (43.9283,-123.6630); Letz Creek, Trib B (43.7900,-
123.3248); Lick Creek (43.8366,-123.2695); Little Siuslaw Creek
(43.8048,-123.3412); Lucas Creek (43.8202,-123.2233); Luyne Creek
(43.9155,-123.5068); Luyne Creek, Trib A (43.9179,-123.5208); Michaels
Creek (43.8624,-123.5417); Mill Creek (43.9028,-123.6228); Norris Creek
(43.8434,-123.2006); North Creek (43.9223,-123.5752); North Fork
Siuslaw River (43.8513,-123.2302); Oxbow Creek (43.8384,-123.5433);
Oxbow Creek, Trib C (43.8492,-123.5465); Pheasant Creek (43.9120,-
123.4247); Pheasant Creek, Trib 2 (43.9115,-123.4411); Pugh Creek
(43.9480,-123.5940); Russell Creek (43.8813,-123.3425); Russell Creek,
Trib A (43.8619,-123.3498); Sandy Creek (43.7684,-123.2441); Sandy
Creek, Trib B (43.7826,-123.2538); Shaw Creek (43.8817,-123.3289);
Siuslaw River, East Trib (43.8723,-123.5378); Siuslaw River, North
Fork, Upper Trib (43.8483,-123.2275); Smith Creek (43.8045,-123.3665);
South Fork Siuslaw River (43.7831,-123.1569); Trail Creek (43.9142,-
123.6241); Tucker Creek (43.8159,-123.1604); Unnamed (43.7796,-
123.2019); Unnamed (43.7810,-123.2818); Unnamed (43.8278,-123.2610);
Unnamed (43.8519,-123.2773); Unnamed (43.8559,-123.5520); Unnamed
(43.8670,-123.6022); Unnamed (43.8876,-123.5194); Unnamed (43.8902,-
123.5609); Unnamed (43.8963,-123.4171); Unnamed (43.8968,-123.4731);
Unnamed (43.8992,-123.4033); Unnamed (43.9006,-123.4637); Unnamed
(43.9030,-123.6434); Unnamed (43.9492,-123.6924); Unnamed (43.9519,-
123.6886); Unnamed (43.9784,-123.6815); Unnamed (43.9656,-123.7145);
Whittaker Creek (43.9490,-123.7004); Whittaker Creek, Trib B (43.9545,-
123.7121).
(ii) Wolf Creek Watershed 1710020602. Outlet(s) = Wolf Creek (Lat
43.9548, Long -123.6205) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bill Lewis Creek
(43.9357,-123.5708); Cabin Creek (43.9226,-123.4081); Eames Creek
(43.9790,-123.4352); Eames Creek, Trib C (43.9506,-123.4371); Elkhorn
Creek (43.9513,-123.3934); Fish Creek (43.9238,-123.3872); Gall Creek
(43.9865,-123.5187); Gall Creek, Trib 1 (43.9850,-123.5285); Grenshaw
Creek (43.9676,-123.4645); Lick Creek (43.9407,-123.5796); Oat Creek,
Trib A (43.9566,-123.5052); Oat Creek, Trib C (43.9618,-123.4902); Oat
Creek (43.9780,-123.4761); Panther Creek (43.9529,-123.3744); Pittenger
Creek (43.9713,-123.5434); Saleratus Creek (43.9796,-123.5675);
Saleratus Creek, Trib A (43.9776,-123.5797); Swamp Creek (43.9777,-
123.4197); Swing Log Creek (43.9351,-123.3339); Unnamed (43.9035,-
123.3358); Unnamed (43.9343,-123.3648); Unnamed (43.9617,-123.4507);
Unnamed (43.9668,-123.6041); Unnamed (43.9693,-123.4846); Van Curen
Creek (43.9364,-123.5520); Wolf Creek (43.9101,-123.3234).
(iii) Wildcat Creek Watershed 1710020603. Outlet(s) = Wildcat Creek
(Lat 44.0033, Long -123.6545) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bulmer Creek
(44.0099,-123.5206); Cattle Creek (44.0099,-123.5475); Fish Creek
(44.0470,-123.5383); Fowler Creek (43.9877,-123.5918); Haynes Creek
(44.1000,-123.5578); Kirk Creek (44.0282,-123.6270); Knapp Creek
(44.1006,-123.5801); Miller Creek (44.0767,-123.6034); Pataha Creek
(43.9914,-123.5361); Potato Patch Creek (43.9936,-123.5812); Salt Creek
(44.0386,-123.5021); Shady Creek (44.0647,-123.5838); Shultz Creek
(44.0220,-123.6320); Unnamed (43.9890,-123.5468); Unnamed (44.0210,-
123.4805); Unnamed (44.0233,-123.4996); Unnamed (44.0242,-123.4796);
Unnamed (44.0253,-123.4963); Unnamed (44.0283,-123.5311); Unnamed
(44.0305,-123.5275); Unnamed (44.0479,-123.6199); Unnamed (44.0604,-
123.5624); Unnamed (44.0674,-123.6075); Unnamed (44.0720,-123.5590);
Unnamed (44.0839,-123.5777); Unnamed (44.0858,-123.5787); Unnamed
(44.0860,-123.5741); Unnamed (44.0865,-123.5935); Unnamed (44.0945,-
123.5838); Unnamed (44.0959,-123.5902); Walker Creek (44.0469,-
123.6312); Walker Creek, Trib C (44.0418,-123.6048); Wildcat Creek
(43.9892,-123.4308); Wildcat Creek, Trib ZH (43.9924,-123.4975);
Wildcat Creek, Trib ZI (44.0055,-123.4681).
(iv) Lake Creek Watershed 1710020604. Outlet(s) = Lake Creek (Lat
44.0556, Long -123.7968) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Chappell Creek
(44.1158,-123.6921); Conrad Creek (44.1883,-123.4918); Druggs Creek
(44.1996,-123.5926); Fish Creek (44.1679,-123.5149); Green Creek
(44.1389,-123.7930); Greenleaf Creek (44.1766,-123.6391); Hula Creek
(44.1202,-123.7087); Johnson Creek (44.1037,-123.7327); Lake Creek
(44.2618,-123.5148); Lamb Creek (44.1401,-123.5991); Leaver Creek
(44.0754,-123.6285); Leibo Canyon (44.2439,-123.4648); Little Lake
Creek (44.1655,-123.6004); McVey Creek (44.0889,-123.6875); Nelson
Creek (44.1229,-123.5558); North Fork Fish Creek (44.1535,-123.5437);
Pontius Creek (44.1911,-123.5909); Pope Creek (44.2118,-123.5319); Post
Creek (44.1828,-123.5259); Stakely Canyon (44.2153,-123.4690);
Steinhauer Creek (44.1276,-123.6594); Swamp Creek (44.2150,-123.5687);
Swartz Creek (44.2304,-123.4461); Target Canyon (44.2318,-123.4557);
Unnamed (44.1048,-123.6540); Unnamed (44.1176,-123.5846); Unnamed
(44.1355,-123.5473); Unnamed (44.1355,-123.6125); Unnamed (44.1382,-
123.5539); Unnamed (44.1464,-123.5843); Unnamed (44.1659,-123.5658);
Unnamed (44.1725,-123.5981); Unnamed (44.1750,-123.5914); Unnamed
(44.1770,-123.5697); Unnamed (44.1782,-123.5419); Unnamed (44.1798,-
123.5834); Unnamed (44.1847,-123.5862); Unnamed (44.2042,-123.5700);
Unnamed (44.2143,-123.5873); Unnamed (44.2258,-123.4493); Unnamed
(44.2269,-123.5478); Unnamed (44.2328,-123.5285); Unnamed (44.2403,-
123.5358); Unnamed (44.2431,-123.5105); Unnamed (44.2437,-123.5739);
Unnamed (44.2461,-123.5180); Unnamed (44.2484,-123.5501); Unnamed
(44.2500,-123.5691); Unnamed (44.2573,-123.4736); Unnamed (44.2670,-
123.4840); Wheeler Creek (44.1232,-123.6778).
(v) Deadwood Creek Watershed 1710020605. Outlet(s) = Deadwood Creek
(Lat 44.0949, Long -123.7594) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alpha Creek
(44.1679,-123.6951); Bear Creek (44.1685,-123.6627); Bear Creek, South
Fork (44.1467,-123.6743); Buck Creek (44.2003,-123.6683); Deadwood
Creek (44.2580,-123.6885); Deadwood Creek, West Fork (44.1946,-
123.8023); Deer Creek (44.1655,-123.7229); Failor Creek (44.1597,-
123.8003); Fawn Creek (44.2356,-123.7244); Karlstrom Creek (44.1776,-
123.7133); Misery Creek (44.1758,-123.7950); North Fork Panther Creek
(44.2346,-123.7362); Panther Creek (44.2273,-123.7558); Raleigh Creek
(44.1354,-123.6926); Rock Creek (44.1812,-123.6683); Schwartz Creek
(44.1306,-123.7258); Unnamed (44.2011,-123.7273); Unnamed (44.1806,-
123.7693); Unnamed (44.1845,-123.6824); Unnamed (44.1918,-123.7521);
Unnamed (44.1968,-123.7664); Unnamed (44.2094,-123.6674); Unnamed
(44.2149,-123.7639); Unnamed (44.2451,-123.6705);
[[Page 7852]]
Unnamed (44.2487,-123.7137); Unnamed (44.2500,-123.6933).
(vi) Indian Creek/Lake Creek Watershed 1710020606. Outlet(s) =
Indian Creek (Lat 44.0808, Long -123.7891) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Cremo Creek (44.1424,-123.8144); Elk Creek (44.1253,-123.8821); Gibson
Creek (44.1548,-123.8132); Herman Creek (44.2089,-123.8220); Indian
Creek (44.2086,-123.9171); Indian Creek, North Fork (44.2204,-
123.9016); Indian Creek, West Fork (44.2014,-123.9075); Long Creek
(44.1395,-123.8800); Maria Creek (44.1954,-123.9219); Pyle Creek
(44.1792,-123.8623); Rogers Creek (44.1851,-123.9397); Smoot Creek
(44.1562,-123.8449); Taylor Creek (44.1864,-123.8115); Unnamed
(44.1643,-123.8993); Unnamed (44.1727,-123.8154); Unnamed (44.1795,-
123.9180); Unnamed (44.1868,-123.9002); Unnamed (44.1905,-123.8633);
Unnamed (44.1967,-123.8872); Unnamed (44.2088,-123.8381); Unnamed
(44.2146,-123.8528); Unnamed (44.2176,-123.8462); Unnamed (44.2267,-
123.8912); Velvet Creek (44.1295,-123.8087).
(vii) North Fork Siuslaw River Watershed 1710020607. Outlet(s) =
North Fork Siuslaw River (Lat 43.9719, Long -124.0783) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Billie Creek (44.0971,-124.0362); Cataract Creek
(44.0854,-123.9497); Cedar Creek (44.1534,-123.9045); Condon Creek
(44.1138,-123.9984); Coon Creek (44.0864,-124.0318); Deer Creek
(44.1297,-123.9475); Drew Creek (44.1239,-123.9801); Drew Creek
(44.1113,-123.9854); Elma Creek (44.1803,-123.9434); Hanson Creek
(44.0776,-123.9328); Haring Creek (44.0307,-124.0462); Lawrence Creek
(44.1710,-123.9504); Lindsley Creek (44.0389,-124.0591); McLeod Creek
(44.1050,-123.8805); Morris Creek (44.0711,-124.0308); Porter Creek
(44.1490,-123.9641); Russell Creek (44.0680,-123.9848); Sam Creek
(44.1751,-123.9527); Slover Creek (44.0213,-124.0531); South Russell
Creek (44.0515,-123.9840); Taylor Creek (44.1279,-123.9052); Uncle
Creek (44.1080,-124.0174); Unnamed (43.9900,-124.0784); Unnamed
(43.9907,-124.0759); Unnamed (43.9953,-124.0514); Unnamed (43.9958,-
124.0623); Unnamed (43.9999,-124.0694); Unnamed (44.0018,-124.0596);
Unnamed (44.0050,-124.0556); Unnamed (44.0106,-124.0650); Unnamed
(44.0135,-124.0609); Unnamed (44.0166,-124.0371); Unnamed (44.0194,-
124.0631); Unnamed (44.0211,-124.0663); Unnamed (44.0258,-124.0594);
Unnamed (44.0304,-124.0129); Unnamed (44.0327,-124.0670); Unnamed
(44.0337,-124.0070); Unnamed (44.0342,-124.0056); Unnamed (44.0370,-
124.0391); Unnamed (44.0419,-124.0013); Unnamed (44.0441,-124.0321);
Unnamed (44.0579,-124.0077); Unnamed (44.0886,-124.0192); Unnamed
(44.0892,-123.9925); Unnamed (44.0941,-123.9131); Unnamed (44.0976,-
124.0033); Unnamed (44.1046,-123.9032); Unnamed (44.1476,-123.8959);
Unnamed (44.1586,-123.9150); West Branch North Fork Siuslaw River
(44.1616,-123.9616); Wilhelm Creek (44.1408,-123.9774).
(viii) Lower Siuslaw River Watershed 1710020608. Outlet(s) =
Siuslaw River (Lat 44.0160, Long -124.1327) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Barber Creek (44.0294,-123.7598); Beech Creek (44.0588,-123.6980);
Berkshire Creek (44.0508,-123.8890); Bernhardt Creek (43.9655,-
123.9532); Brush Creek (44.0432,-123.7798); Brush Creek, East Fork
(44.0414,-123.7782); Cedar Creek (43.9696,-123.9304); Cleveland Creek
(44.0773,-123.8343); Demming Creek (43.9643,-124.0313); Dinner Creek
(44.0108,-123.8069); Divide Creek (44.0516,-123.9421); Duncan Inlet
(44.0081,-123.9921); Hadsall Creek (43.9846,-123.8221); Hadsall Creek,
Trib D (43.9868,-123.8500); Hadsall Creek, Trib E (43.9812,-123.8359);
Hanson Creek (44.0364,-123.9628); Hoffman Creek (43.9808,-123.9412);
Hollenbeck Creek (44.0321,-123.8672); Hood Creek (43.9996,-123.7995);
Karnowsky Creek (43.9847,-123.9658); Knowles Creek (43.9492,-123.7315);
Knowles Creek, Trib L (43.9717,-123.7830); Lawson Creek, Trib B
(43.9612,-123.9659); Meadow Creek (44.0311,-123.6490); Munsel Creek
(44.0277,-124.0788); Old Man Creek (44.0543,-123.8022); Pat Creek
(44.0659,-123.7245); Patterson Creek (43.9984,-124.0234); Rice Creek
(44.0075,-123.8519); Rock Creek (44.0169,-123.6512); South Fork Waite
Creek (43.9929,-123.7105); San Antone Creek (44.0564,-123.6515);
Shoemaker Creek (44.0669,-123.8977); Shutte Creek (43.9939,-124.0339);
Siuslaw River (44.0033,-123.6545); Skunk Hollow (43.9830,-124.0626);
Smith Creek (44.0393,-123.6674); Spencer Creek (44.0676,-123.8809);
Sulphur Creek (43.9822,-123.8015); Sweet Creek (43.9463,-123.9016);
Sweet Creek, Trib A (44.0047,-123.8907); Sweet Creek, Trib D (43.9860,-
123.8811); Thompson Creek (44.0974,-123.8615); Turner Creek (44.0096,-
123.7607); Unnamed (43.9301,-124.0434); Unnamed (43.9596,-124.0337);
Unnamed (43.9303,-124.0487); Unnamed (43.9340,-124.0529); Unnamed
(43.9367,-124.0632); Unnamed (43.9374,-124.0442); Unnamed (43.9481,-
124.0530); Unnamed (43.9501,-124.0622); Unnamed (43.9507,-124.0533);
Unnamed (43.9571,-124.0658); Unnamed (43.9576,-124.0491); Unnamed
(43.9587,-124.0988); Unnamed (43.9601,-124.0927); Unnamed (43.9615,-
124.0527); Unnamed (43.9618,-124.0875); Unnamed (43.9624,-123.7499);
Unnamed (43.9662,-123.7639); Unnamed (43.9664,-123.9252); Unnamed
(43.9718,-124.0389; Unnamed (43.9720,-124.0075); Unnamed (43.9751,-
124.0090); Unnamed (43.9784,-124.0191); Unnamed (43.9796,-123.9150);
Unnamed (43.9852,-123.9802); Unnamed (43.9878,-123.9845); Unnamed
(43.9915,-123.9732); Unnamed (43.9938,-123.9930); Unnamed (43.9942,-
123.8547); Unnamed (43.9943,-123.9891); Unnamed (43.9954,-124.1185);
Unnamed (43.9956,-123.7074); Unnamed (43.9995,-123.9825); Unnamed
(44.0023,-123.7317); Unnamed (44.0210,-123.7874); Unnamed (44.0240,-
123.8989); Unnamed (44.0366,-123.7363); Unnamed (44.0506,-123.9068);
Waite Creek (43.9886,-123.7220); Walker Creek (44.0566,-123.9129);
Wilson Creek (44.0716,-123.8792).
(7) Siltcoos Subbasin 17100207--(i) Waohink River/Siltcoos River/
Tahkenitch Lake Frontal Watershed 1710020701. Outlet(s) = Siltcoos
River (Lat 43.8766, Long -124.1548); Tahkenitch Creek (43.8013,-
124.1689) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (43.8967,-124.0114);
Bear Creek (43.9198,-123.9293); Bear Creek Trib (43.9030,-123.9881);
Bear Creek, South Fork (43.9017,-123.9555); Bell Creek (43.8541,-
123.9718); Billy Moore Creek (43.8876,-123.9604); Carle Creek
(43.9015,-124.0210); Carter Creek (43.9457,-124.0123); Dismal Swamp
(43.8098,-124.0871); Elbow Lake Creek (43.7886,-124.1490); Fiddle Creek
(43.9132,-123.9164); Fivemile Creek (43.8297,-123.9776); Grant Creek
(43.9373,-124.0278); Harry Creek (43.8544,-124.0220); Henderson Canyon
(43.8648,-123.9654); Henderson Creek (43.9427,-123.9704); John Sims
Creek (43.8262,-124.0792); King Creek (43.8804,-124.0300); Lane Creek
(43.8437,-124.0765); Leitel Creek
[[Page 7853]]
(43.8181,-124.0200); Mallard Creek (43.7775,-124.0852); Maple Creek
(43.9314,-123.9316); Maple Creek, North Prong (43.9483,-123.9510);
Miles Canyon (43.8643,-124.0097); Miller Creek (43.9265,-124.0663);
Mills Creek (43.8966,-124.0397); Morris Creek (43.8625,-123.9541);
Perkins Creek (43.8257,-124.0448); Rider Creek (43.9210,-123.9700);
Roache Creek (43.9087,-124.0049); Schrum Creek (43.9194,-124.0492);
Schultz Creek (43.9245,-123.9371); Stokes Creek (43.9161,-123.9984);
Tenmile Creek (43.9419,-123.9447); Unnamed (43.8928,-124.0461); Unnamed
(43.7726,-124.1021); Unnamed (43.7741,-124.1313); Unnamed (43.7756,-
124.1363); Unnamed (43.7824,-124.1342); Unnamed (43.7829,-124.0852);
Unnamed (43.7837,-124.0812); Unnamed (43.7849,-124.0734); Unnamed
(43.7862,-124.0711); Unnamed (43.7865,-124.1107); Unnamed (43.7892,-
124.1163); Unnamed (43.7897,-124.0608); Unnamed (43.7946,-124.0477);
Unnamed (43.7964,-124.0643); Unnamed (43.8015,-124.0450); Unnamed
(43.8078,-124.0340); Unnamed (43.8095,-124.1362); Unnamed (43.8112,-
124.0608); Unnamed (43.8152,-124.0981); Unnamed (43.8153,-124.1314);
Unnamed (43.8172,-124.0752); Unnamed (43.8231,-124.0853); Unnamed
(43.8321,-124.0128); Unnamed (43.8322,-124.0069); Unnamed (43.8323,-
124.1016); Unnamed (43.8330,-124.0217); Unnamed (43.8361,-124.1209);
Unnamed (43.8400,-123.9802); Unnamed (43.8407,-124.1051); Unnamed
(43.8489,-124.0634); Unnamed (43.8500,-123.9852); Unnamed (43.8504,-
124.1248); Unnamed (43.8504,-124.0024); Unnamed (43.8507,-124.0511);
Unnamed (43.8589,-124.1231); Unnamed (43.8596,-124.0438); Unnamed
(43.8605,-124.1211); Unnamed (43.8669,-124.0717); Unnamed (43.8670,-
124.0327); Unnamed (43.8707,-124.0689); Unnamed (43.8802,-124.0605);
Unnamed (43.8862,-124.0570); Unnamed (43.8913,-123.9380); Unnamed
(43.8919,-124.0771); Unnamed (43.8976,-124.0725); Unnamed (43.9032,-
124.0651); Unnamed (43.9045,-124.0548); Unnamed (43.9057,-124.0606);
Unnamed (43.9065,-124.0656); Unnamed (43.9105,-124.0453); Unnamed
(43.9106,-124.0203); Unnamed (43.9202,-124.0786); Unnamed (43.9209,-
124.0734); Unnamed (43.9237,-124.0155); Unnamed (43.9249,-124.0074);
Unnamed (43.9274,-124.0759); Unnamed (43.9275,-124.0308); Unnamed
(43.9360,-124.0892); Unnamed (43.9365,-124.0297); Unnamed (43.9424,-
124.0981); Unnamed (43.9438,-124.0929); Unnamed (43.9453,-124.0752);
Unnamed (43.9518,-123.9953).
(8) North Fork Umpqua Subbasin 17100301--(i) Boulder Creek
Watershed 1710030106. Outlet(s) = Boulder Creek (Lat 43.3036, Long -
122.5272) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boulder Creek (Lat 43.3138, Long
-122.5247)
(ii) Middle North Umpqua Watershed 1710030107. Outlet(s) = North
Umpqua River (Lat 43.3322, Long -123.0025) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Calf Creek (43.2852,-122.6229); Copeland Creek (43.2853,-122.5325);
Deception Creek (43.2766,-122.5850); Dry Creek (43.2967,-122.6016);
Honey Creek (43.3181,-122.9414); Limpy Creek (43.3020,-122.6795); North
Umpqua River (43.3027,-122.4938); Panther Creek (43.3019,-122.6801);
Steamboat Creek (43.3491,-122.7281); Susan Creek (43.3044,-122.9058);
Williams Creek (43.3431,-122.7724).
(iii) Rock Creek/North Umpqua River Watershed 1710030110. Outlet(s)
= Rock Creek (Lat 43.3322, Long -123.0025) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Conley Creek (43.3594,-122.9663); Harrington Creek (43.4151,-122.9550);
Kelly Creek (43.3592,-122.9912); McComas Creek (43.3536,-122.9923);
Miller Creek (43.3864,-122.9371); Rock Creek (43.4247,-122.9055); Rock
Creek, East Fork (43.3807,-122.8270); Rock Creek, East Fork, North Fork
(43.4147,-122.8512); Shoup Creek (43.3882,-122.9674); Unnamed
(43.3507,-122.9741); Woodstock Creek (43.3905,-122.9258).
(iv) Little River Watershed 1710030111. Outlet(s) = Little River
(Lat 43.2978, Long -123.1012) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Buck Peak
Creek (43.1762,-123.0479); Buckhorn Creek (43.2592,-123.1072); Cavitt
Creek (43.1464,-122.9758); Copperhead Creek (43.1626,-123.0595); Emile
Creek (43.2544,-122.8849); Evarts Creek (43.2087,-123.0133); Jim Creek
(43.2257,-123.0592); Little River (43.2065,-122.8231); McKay Creek
(43.2092,-123.0356); Tuttle Creek (43.1440,-122.9813); White Rock Creek
(43.1540,-123.0379); Wolf Creek (43.2179,-122.9461).
(v) Lower North Umpqua River Watershed 1710030112. Outlet(s) =
North Umpqua River (Lat 43.2682, Long -123.4448) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Bradley Creek (43.3350,-123.1025); Clover Creek
(43.2490,-123.2604); Cooper Creek (43.3420,-123.1650); Cooper Creek
(43.3797,-123.2807); Dixon Creek (43.2770,-123.2911); French Creek
(43.3349,-123.0801); Huntley Creek (43.3363,-123.1340); North Umpqua
River (43.3322,-123.0025); Oak Creek (43.2839,-123.2063); Short Creek
(43.3204,-123.3315); Sutherlin Creek (43.3677,-123.2114); Unnamed
(43.3285,-123.2016).
(9) South Fork Umpqua Subbasin 17100302--(i) Jackson Creek
Watershed 1710030202. Outlet(s) = Jackson Creek (Lat 42.9695, Long -
122.8795) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek (Lat 42.9084, Long -
122.7924); Jackson Creek (Lat 42.9965, Long -122.6459); Ralph Creek
(Lat 42.9744, Long -122.6976); Squaw Creek (Lat 42.9684, Long -
122.6913);Tallow Creek (Lat 42.98814, Long -122.6965); Whiskey Creek
(Lat 42.9593, Long -122.7262); Winters Creek (Lat 42.9380, Long -
122.8271).
(ii) Middle South Umpqua River Watershed 1710030203. Outlet(s) =
South Umpqua River (Lat 42.9272, Long -122.9504) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Boulder Creek (43.1056,-122.7379); Budd Creek
(43.0506,-122.8185); Deadman Creek (43.0049,-122.8967); Dompier Creek
(42.9553,-122.9166); Dumont Creek (43.0719,-122.8224); Francis Creek
(43.0202,-122.8231); South Umpqua River (43.0481,-122.6998); Sam Creek
(43.0037,-122.8412); Slick Creek (43.0986,-122.7867).
(iii) Elk Creek/South Umpqua Watershed 1710030204. Outlet(s) = Elk
Creek (Lat 42.9272, Long -122.9504) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Brownie
Creek (Lat 42.8304, Long -122.8746); Callahan Creek (Lat 42.8778, Long
-122.9609); Camp Creek (Lat 42.8667, Long -122.8958); Dixon Creek (Lat
42.8931, Long -122.9152); Drew Creek (Lat 42.8682, Long -122.9358);
Flat Creek (Lat 42.8294, Long -122.8250); Joe Hall Creek (Lat 42.8756,
Long -122.8202); Tom Creek (Lat 42.8389, Long -122.8959).
(iv) South Umpqua River Watershed 1710030205. Outlet(s) = South
Umpqua River (Lat 42.9476, Long -123.3368) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Alder Creek (42.9109,-123.2991); Canyon Creek (42.8798,-123.2410);
Canyon Creek, West Fork (42.8757,-123.2734); Canyon Creek, West Fork,
Trib A (42.8834,-123.2947); Coffee Creek (42.9416,-122.9993); Comer
Brook (42.9082,-123.2908); Days Creek (43.0539,-123.0012); Days Creek,
Trib 1 (43.0351,-123.0532); Doe Hollow (42.9805,-123.0812); Fate Creek
(42.9943,-123.1028); Green Gulch (43.0040,-123.1276); Hatchet Creek
[[Page 7854]]
(42.9251,-122.9757); Jordan Creek (42.9224,-123.3086); Lavadoure Creek
(42.9545,-123.1049); Lick Creek (42.9213,-123.0261); May Creek
(43.0153,-123.0725); Morgan Creek (42.9635,-123.2409); O'Shea Creek
(42.9256,-123.2486); Perdue Creek (43.0038,-123.1192); Poole Creek
(42.9321,-123.1106); Poole Creek, East Fork (42.9147,-123.0956); South
Umpqua River (42.9272,-122.9504); Shively Creek (42.8888,-123.1635);
Shively Creek, East Fork (42.8793,-123.1194); Small Creek (42.9631,-
123.2519); St. John Creek (42.9598,-123.0514); Stinger Gulch Creek
(42.9950,-123.1851); Stouts Creek, East Fork (42.9090,-123.0424);
Stouts Creek, West Fork (42.8531,-123.0167); Sweat Creek (42.9293,-
123.1899); Wood Creek (43.0048,-123.1486).
(v) Middle Cow Creek Watershed 1710030207. Outlet(s) = Cow Creek
(Lat 42.8114, Long -123.5947) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek
(42.8045,-123.3635); Booth Gulch (42.7804,-123.2282); Bull Run Creek
(42.7555,-123.2366); Clear Creek (42.8218,-123.2610); Cow Creek
(42.8487,-123.1780); Dads Creek (42.7650,-123.5401); East Fork
Whitehorse Creek (42.7925,-123.1448); Fortune Branch (42.8051,-
123.2971); Hogum Creek (42.7574,-123.1853); Lawson Creek (42.7896,-
123.3752); Little Bull Run Creek (42.7532,-123.2479); McCullough Creek
(42.7951,-123.4421); Mynatt Creek (42.8034,-123.2828); Panther Creek
(42.7409,-123.4990); Perkins Creek (42.7331,-123.4997); Quines Creek
(42.7278,-123.2396); Rattlesnake Creek (42.7106,-123.4774); Riffle
Creek (42.7575,-123.6260); Section Creek (42.7300,-123.4373); Skull
Creek (42.7527,-123.5779); Starveout Creek (42.7541,-123.1953); Stevens
Creek (42.7255,-123.4835); Susan Creek (42.8035,-123.5762); Swamp Creek
(42.7616,-123.3518); Tennessee Gulch (42.7265,-123.2591); Totten Creek
(42.7448,-123.4610); Unnamed (42.7964,-123.4200); Unnamed (42.8101,-
123.3150); Whitehorse Creek (42.7772,-123.1532); Wildcat Creek
(42.7738,-123.2378); Windy Creek (42.8221,-123.3296); Wood Creek
(42.8141,-123.4111); Woodford Creek (42.7458,-123.3180).
(vi) West Fork Cow Creek Watershed 1710030208. Outlet(s) = West
Fork Cow Creek (Lat 42.8118, Long -123.6006) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Bear Creek (42.7662,-123.6741); Bobby Creek (42.8199,-123.7196);
Elk Valley Creek (42.8681,-123.7133); Elk Valley Creek, East Fork
(42.8698,-123.6812); Goat Trail Creek (42.8002,-123.6828); Gold
Mountain Creek (42.8639,-123.7787); No Sweat Creek (42.8024,-123.7081);
Panther Creek (42.8596,-123.7506); Slaughter Pen Creek (42.8224,-
123.6565); Sweat Creek (42.8018,-123.6995); Walker Creek (42.8228,-
123.7614); Wallace Creek (42.8311,-123.7696); West Fork Cow Creek
(42.8329,-123.7733).
(vii) Lower Cow Creek Watershed 1710030209. Outlet(s) = Cow Creek
(Lat 42.9476, Long -123.3368) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ash Creek
(42.9052,-123.3385); Boulder Creek (42.8607,-123.5494); Brush Creek
(42.8526,-123.4369); Buck Creek (42.8093,-123.4979); Buck Creek
(42.9347,-123.5163); Cattle Creek (42.8751,-123.5374); Cedar Gulch
(42.8457,-123.5038); Council Creek (42.8929,-123.4366); Cow Creek
(42.8114,-123.5947); Darby Creek (42.8553,-123.6123); Doe Creek
(42.9333,-123.5057); Gravel Creek (42.8596,-123.4598); Iron Mountain
Creek (42.9035,-123.5175); Island Creek (42.8957,-123.4749); Jerry
Creek (42.9517,-123.4009); Little Dads Creek (42.8902,-123.5655);
Martin Creek (42.8080,-123.4763); Middle Creek, South Fork (42.8298,-
123.3870); Panther Creek (42.8417,-123.4492); Peavine Creek (42.8275,-
123.4610); Russell Creek (42.9094,-123.3797); Salt Creek (42.9462,-
123.4830); Shoestring Creek (42.9221,-123.3613); Smith Creek (42.8489,-
123.4765); Smith Creek (42.9236,-123.5482); Table Creek (42.9114,-
123.5695); Union Creek (42.8769,-123.5853); Unnamed (42.8891,-
123.4080).
(viii) Middle South Umpqua River Watershed 1710030210. Outlet(s) =
South Umpqua River (Lat 43.1172, Long -123.4273) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Adams Creek (43.0724,-123.4776); Barrett Creek
(43.0145,-123.4451); Clark Brook (43.0980,-123.2897); East Willis Creek
(43.0151,-123.3845); Judd Creek (42.9852,-123.4060); Kent Creek
(43.0490,-123.4792); Lane Creek (42.9704,-123.4001); Porter Creek
(43.0444,-123.4597); Rice Creek (43.0181,-123.4779); Richardson Creek
(43.0766,-123.2881); South Umpqua River (42.9476,-123.3368); Squaw
Creek (43.0815,-123.4688); Van Dine Creek (43.0326,-123.3473); West
Willis Creek (43.0172,-123.4355).
(ix) Myrtle Creek Watershed 1710030211. Outlet(s) = North Myrtle
Creek (Lat 43.0231, Long -123.2951) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ben
Branch Creek (43.0544,-123.1618); Big Lick (43.0778,-123.2175); Bilger
Creek (43.1118,-123.2372); Buck Fork Creek (43.1415,-123.0831); Cedar
Hollow (43.0096,-123.2297); Frozen Creek (43.1089,-123.1929); Frozen
Creek, Left Fork (43.1157,-123.2306); Harrison Young Brook (43.0610,-
123.2850); Lally Creek (43.0890,-123.0597); Lee Creek (43.1333,-
123.1477); Letitia Creek (43.0710,-123.0907); Little Lick (43.0492,-
123.2234); Long Wiley Creek (43.0584,-123.1067); Louis Creek (43.1165,-
123.0783); North Myrtle Creek (43.1486,-123.1219); Riser Creek
(43.1276,-123.0703); Rock Creek (43.0729,-123.2620); South Myrtle Creek
(43.0850,-123.0103); School Hollow (43.0563,-123.1753); Short Wiley
Creek (43.0589,-123.1158); Slide Creek (43.1110,-123.1078); Unnamed
(43.1138,-123.1721); Weaver Creek (43.1102,-123.0576).
(x) Ollala Creek/Lookingglass Watershed 1710030212. Outlet(s) =
Lookingglass Creek (Lat 43.1172, Long -123.4273) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Archambeau Creek (43.2070,-123.5329); Bear Creek
(43.1233,-123.6382); Berry Creek (43.0404,-123.5543); Bushnell Creek
(43.0183,-123.5289); Byron Creek, East Fork (43.0192,-123.4939); Byron
Creek, North Fork (43.0326,-123.4792); Coarse Gold Creek (43.0291,-
123.5742); Flournoy Creek (43.2227,-123.5560); Little Muley Creek
(43.0950,-123.6247); Lookingglass Creek (43.1597,-123.6015); McNabb
Creek (43.0545,-123.4984); Muns Creek (43.0880,-123.6333); Olalla Creek
(42.9695,-123.5914); Perron Creek (43.0960,-123.4904); Porter Creek
(43.1381,-123.5569); Sheilds Creek (43.0640,-123.6189); Tenmile Creek
(43.1482,-123.6537); Tenmile Creek, North Fork (43.1260,-123.6069);
Thompson Creek (42.9860,-123.5140); Willingham Creek (42.9600,-
123.5814).
(xi) Lower South Umpqua River Watershed 1710030213. Outlet(s) =
South Umpqua River (Lat 43.2682, Long -123.4448) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Callahan Creek (43.2291,-123.5355); Damotta Brook
(43.2030,-123.2987); Deer Creek, North Fork (43.2166,-123.1437); Deer
Creek, South Fork (43.1875,-123.1722); Deer Creek, South Fork, Trib 1
(43.1576,-123.2393); Deer Creek, South Fork, Middle Fork (43.1625,-
123.1413); Doerner Creek (43.2370,-123.5153); Elgarose Creek (43.2747,-
123.5105); Marsters Creek (43.1584,-123.4489); Melton Creek (43.1294,-
123.2173); Roberts Creek (43.1124,-123.2831); South Umpqua River
(43.1172,-123.4273); Stockel Creek (43.2205,-123.4392); Tucker Creek
(43.1238,-123.2378); Unnamed (43.2184,-123.1709); Willow Creek
(43.2543,-123.5143).
(10) Umpqua Subbasin 17100303(i) Upper Umpqua River Watershed
1710030301. Outlet(s) = Umpqua River
[[Page 7855]]
(Lat 43.6329, Long -123.5662) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek
(43.3202,-123.6118); Bear Creek (43.5436,-123.4481); Bottle Creek
(43.4060,-123.5043); Brads Creek (43.5852,-123.4651); Camp Creek
(43.2969,-123.5361); Case Knife Creek (43.4288,-123.6665); Cedar Creek
(43.5360,-123.5969); Cougar Creek (43.3524,-123.6166); Doe Creek
(43.5311,-123.4259); Fitzpatrick Creek (43.5819,-123.6308); Galagher
Canyon (43.4708,-123.4394); Heddin Creek (43.5909,-123.6466); Hubbard
Creek (43.2526,-123.5544); Leonard Creek (43.4448,-123.5402); Little
Canyon Creek (43.4554,-123.4560); Little Wolf Creek (43.4232,-
123.6633); Little Wolf Creek, Trib D (43.4052,-123.6477); Lost Creek
(43.4355,-123.4902); Martin Creek (43.5539,-123.4633); McGee Creek
(43.5125,-123.5632); Mehl Creek (43.5491,-123.6541); Mill Creek
(43.3178,-123.5095); Miner Creek (43.4518,-123.6764); Panther Canyon
(43.5541,-123.3484); Porter Creek (43.4348,-123.5530); Rader Creek
(43.5203,-123.6517); Rader Creek, Trib A (43.4912,-123.5726); Umpqua
River (43.2682,-123.4448); Unnamed (43.5781,-123.6170); Unnamed
(43.5630,-123.6080); Unnamed (43.4011,-123.6474); Unnamed (43.4119,-
123.6172); Unnamed (43.4212,-123.6398); Unnamed (43.4640,-123.6734);
Unnamed (43.4940,-123.6166); Unnamed (43.5765,-123.4710); Waggoner
Creek (43.5282,-123.6072); Whiskey Camp Creek (43.4587,-123.6755);
Williams Creek (43.5952,-123.5222); Wolf Creek (43.4707,-123.6655).
(ii) Calapooya Creek Watershed 1710030302. Outlet(s) = Calapooya
Creek (Lat 43.3658, Long -123.4674) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Bachelor Creek (43.5480,-123.2062); Banks Creek (43.3631,-123.1755);
Beaty Creek (43.4406,-123.0392); Boyd Creek (43.4957,-123.1573); Brome
Creek (43.4016,-123.0490); Burke Creek (43.3987,-123.4463); Buzzard
Roost Creek (43.4584,-123.0990); Cabin Creek (43.5421,-123.3294);
Calapooya Creek, North Fork (43.4867,-123.0280); Coon Creek (43.4218,-
123.4349); Coon Creek (43.5245,-123.0429); Dodge Canyon Creek
(43.4362,-123.4420); Driver Valley Creek (43.4327,-123.1960); Field
Creek (43.4043,-123.0917); Gassy Creek (43.3862,-123.1133); Gilbreath
Creek (43.4218,-123.0931); Gossett Creek (43.4970,-123.1045); Haney
Creek (43.4763,-123.1086); Hinkle Creek (43.4230,-123.0382); Hog Creek
(43.4767,-123.2516); Jeffers Creek (43.4522,-123.1047); Long Valley
Creek (43.4474,-123.1460); Middle Fork South Fork Calapooya Creek
(43.4772,-122.9952); Markam Creek (43.3751,-123.1479); Marsh Creek
(43.5223,-123.3348); Mill Creek (43.4927,-123.1315); Norton Creek
(43.5046,-123.3736); Pine Tree Creek (43.4179,-123.0688); Pollock Creek
(43.5326,-123.2685); Salt Creek (43.5161,-123.2504); Salt Lick Creek
(43.4510,-123.1168); Slide Creek (43.3926,-123.0919); Timothy Creek
(43.4862,-123.0896); Unnamed (43.4469,-123.4268); Unnamed (43.4481,-
123.4283); Unnamed (43.4483,-123.4134); Unnamed (43.4658,-122.9899);
Unnamed (43.4707,-122.9896); Unnamed (43.4908,-123.0703); Unnamed
(43.5173,-123.0564); Wheeler Canyon (43.4840,-123.3631); White Creek
(43.4637,-123.0451); Williams Creek (43.4703,-123.4096).
(iii) Elk Creek Watershed 1710030303. Outlet(s) = Elk Creek (Lat
43.6329, Long -123.5662) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Adams Creek
(43.5860,-123.2202); Allen Creek (43.6375,-123.3731); Andrews Creek
(43.5837,-123.3920); Asker Creek (43.6290,-123.2668); Bear Creek
(43.6195,-123.3703); Bear Creek (43.7119,-123.1757); Bennet Creek
(43.6158,-123.1558); Big Tom Folley Creek (43.7293,-123.4053); Big Tom
Folley Creek, North Fork (43.7393,-123.4917); Big Tom Folley Creek,
Trib A (43.7231,-123.4465); Billy Creek, East Fork (43.5880,-123.3263);
Billy Creek, South Fork (43.5725,-123.3603); Blue Hole Creek (43.5677,-
123.4405); Brush Creek (43.5662,-123.4140); Buck Creek (43.6981,-
123.1818); Cowan Creek (43.5915,-123.2615); Cox Creek (43.6356,-
123.1794); Curtis Creek (43.6839,-123.1734); Dodge Canyon (43.6225,-
123.2509); Elk Creek (43.5097,-123.1620); Ellenburg Creek (43.7378,-
123.3296); Fitch Creek (43.6986,-123.3152); Five Point Canyon
(43.5707,-123.3526); Flagler Creek (43.5729,-123.3382); Green Creek
(43.6851,-123.4688); Green Ridge Creek (43.5920,-123.3958); Halo Creek
(43.5990,-123.2658); Hancock Creek (43.6314,-123.5188); Hanlon Creek
(43.6190,-123.2785); Hardscrabble Creek (43.7111,-123.3517); Huntington
Creek (43.5882,-123.2808); Jack Creek (43.7071,-123.3819); Johnny Creek
(43.7083,-123.3972); Johnson Creek (43.6830,-123.2715); Lancaster Creek
(43.6442,-123.4361); Lane Creek (43.5483,-123.1221); Lees Creek
(43.6610,-123.1888); Little Sand Creek (43.7655,-123.2778); Little Tom
Folley Creek (43.6959,-123.5393); McClintock Creek (43.6664,-123.2703);
Parker Creek (43.6823,-123.4178); Pass Creek (43.7527,-123.1528);
Pheasant Creek (43.7758,-123.2099); Rock Creek (43.7759,-123.2730);
Saddle Butte Creek (43.7214,-123.5219); Salt Creek (43.6796,-123.2213);
Sand Creek (43.7709,-123.2912); Shingle Mill Creek (43.5314,-123.1308);
Simpson Creek (43.6629,-123.2553); Smith Creek (43.6851,-123.3179);
Squaw Creek (43.6010,-123.4284); Taylor Creek (43.7642,-123.2712);
Thief Creek (43.6527,-123.1459); Thistleburn Creek (43.6313,-123.4332);
Unnamed (43.5851,-123.3101); Walker Creek (43.5922,-123.1707); Ward
Creek (43.7486,-123.2023); Wehmeyer Creek (43.6823,-123.2404); Wilson
Creek (43.5699,-123.2681); Wise Creek (43.6679,-123.2772); Yoncalla
Creek (43.5563,-123.2833).
(iv) Middle Umpqua River Watershed 1710030304. Outlet(s) = Umpqua
River (Lat 43.6556, Long -123.8752) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Burchard Creek (43.6680,-123.7520); Butler Creek (43.6325,-123.6867);
Cedar Creek (43.7027,-123.6451); House Creek (43.7107,-123.6378);
Little Mill Creek (43.6729,-123.8252); Little Paradise Creek (43.6981,-
123.5630); Paradise Creek (43.7301,-123.5738); Patterson Creek
(43.7076,-123.6977); Purdy Creek (43.6895,-123.7712); Sawyer Creek
(43.6027,-123.6717); Scott Creek (43.6885,-123.6966); Umpqua River
(43.6329,-123.5662); Unnamed (43.6011,-123.7084); Unnamed (43.5998,-
123.6803); Unnamed (43.6143,-123.6674); Unnamed (43.6453,-123.7619);
Unnamed (43.6461,-123.8064); Unnamed (43.6923,-123.7534); Unnamed
(43.7068,-123.6109); Unnamed (43.7084,-123.7156); Unnamed (43.7098,-
123.6300); Unnamed (43.7274,-123.6026); Weatherly Creek (43.7205,-
123.6680); Wells Creek (43.6859,-123.7946).
(v) Upper Smith River Watershed 1710030306. Outlet(s) = Smith River
(Lat 43.7968, Long -123.7565) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Amberson
Creek (43.7787,-123.4944); Argue Creek (43.7656,-123.6959); Beaver
Creek (43.7865,-123.6949); Beaver Creek (43.8081,-123.4041); Big Creek
(43.7372,-123.7112); Blackwell Creek (43.8145,-123.7460); Blind Creek
(43.7518,-123.6551); Bum Creek (43.8044,-123.5802); Carpenter Creek
(43.7947,-123.7258); Clabber Creek (43.7919,-123.5878); Clearwater
Creek (43.8138,-123.7375); Cleghorn Creek (43.7508,-123.4997);
Clevenger Creek (43.7826,-123.4087); Coldwater Creek (43.8316,-
123.7232); Deer Creek (43.8109,-123.5362); Devils Club Creek
[[Page 7856]]
(43.7916,-123.6148); Elk Creek (43.8004,-123.4347); Halfway Creek
(43.7412,-123.5112); Hall Creek (43.7732,-123.3836); Haney Creek
(43.8355,-123.5006); Hardenbrook Creek (43.7943,-123.5660); Hefty Creek
(43.7881,-123.3954); Herb Creek (43.8661,-123.6782); Jeff Creek
(43.8079,-123.6033); Marsh Creek (43.7831,-123.6185); Mosetown Creek
(43.7326,-123.6613); Mosetown Creek, East Fork (43.7185,-123.6433);
North Sister Creek (43.8492,-123.5771); Panther Creek (43.8295,-
123.4464); Pearl Creek (43.8263,-123.5350); Peterson Creek (43.7575,-
123.3947); Plank Creek (43.7635,-123.3980); Redford Creek (43.7878,-
123.3520); Rock Creek (43.7733,-123.6222); Russell Creek (43.8538,-
123.6971); South Sister Creek (43.8366,-123.5611); Salmonberry Creek
(43.8085,-123.4482); Scare Creek (43.7631,-123.7260); Sleezer Creek
(43.7535,-123.3711); Slideout Creek (43.7831,-123.5685); Smith River,
Little South Fork (43.7392,-123.4583); Smith River, South Fork
(43.7345,-123.3843); Smith River (43.7529,-123.3310); Spring Creek
(43.7570,-123.3276); Summit Creek (43.7985,-123.3487); Sweden Creek
(43.8618,-123.6468); Tip Davis Creek (43.7739,-123.3301); Twin Sister
Creek (43.8348,-123.7168); Unnamed (43.7234,-123.6308); Unnamed
(43.7397,-123.6984); Unnamed (43.7433,-123.4673); Unnamed (43.7492,-
123.6911); Unnamed (43.7495,-123.5832); Unnamed (43.7527,-123.5210);
Unnamed (43.7533,-123.7046); Unnamed (43.7541,-123.4805); Unnamed
(43.7708,-123.4819); Unnamed (43.7726,-123.5039); Unnamed (43.7748,-
123.6044); Unnamed (43.7775,-123.6927); Unnamed (43.7830,-123.5900);
Unnamed (43.7921,-123.6335); Unnamed (43.7955,-123.7013); Unnamed
(43.7993,-123.6171); Unnamed (43.8020,-123.6739); Unnamed (43.8034,-
123.6959); Unnamed (43.8133,-123.5893); Unnamed (43.8197,-123.4827);
Unnamed (43.8263,-123.5810); Unnamed (43.8360,-123.6951); Unnamed
(43.8519,-123.5910); Unnamed (43.8535,-123.6357); Unnamed (43.8541,-
123.6155); Unnamed (43.8585,-123.6867); Upper Johnson Creek (43.7509,-
123.5426); West Fork Halfway Creek (43.7421,-123.6119); Yellow Creek
(43.8193,-123.5545).
(vi) Lower Smith River Watershed 1710030307. Outlet(s) = Smith
River (Lat 43.7115, Long -124.0807) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear
Creek (43.8087,-123.8202); Beaver Creek (43.8983,-123.7559); Black
Creek (43.7544,-123.9967); Brainard Creek (43.7448,-124.0105); Buck
Creek (43.7719,-123.7823); Cassady Creek (43.7578,-123.9744); Cedar
Creek (43.8541,-123.8562); Chapman Creek (43.8181,-123.9380); Coon
Creek (43.8495,-123.7857); Crane Creek (43.8592,-123.7739); Edmonds
Creek (43.8257,-123.9000); Eslick Creek (43.8153,-123.9894); Eslick
Creek, East Fork (43.8082,-123.9583); Franz Creek (43.7542,-124.1006);
Frarey Creek (43.7683,-124.0615); Georgia Creek (43.8373,-123.8911);
Gold Creek (43.9002,-123.7470); Harlan Creek (43.8635,-123.9319);
Holden Creek (43.7901,-124.0178); Hudson Slough (43.7725,-124.0736);
Johnson Creek (43.8291,-123.9582); Johnson Creek (43.8480,-123.8209);
Joyce Creek (43.7892,-124.0356); Joyce Creek, West Fork (43.7708,-
124.0457); Kentucky Creek (43.9313,-123.8153); Middle Fork of North
Fork Smith River (43.8780,-123.7687); Moore Creek (43.8523,-123.8931);
Moore Creek (43.8661,-123.7558); Murphy Creek (43.7449,-123.9527); Noel
Creek (43.7989,-124.0109); Otter Creek (43.7216,-123.9626); Otter
Creek, North Fork (43.7348,-123.9597); Paxton Creek (43.8847,-
123.9004); Peach Creek (43.8963,-123.8599); Perkins Creek (43.7362,-
123.9151); Railroad Creek (43.8086,-123.8998); Smith River, West Fork
(43.9102,-123.7073); Smith River (43.7968,-123.7565); Spencer Creek
(43.8429,-123.8321); Spencer Creek, West Fork (43.8321,-123.8685);
Sulphur Creek (43.8512,-123.9422); Unnamed (43.7031,-123.7463); Unnamed
(43.7106,-123.7666); Unnamed (43.7203,-123.7601); Unnamed (43.7267,-
123.7396); Unnamed (43.7286,-123.7798); Unnamed (43.7322,-124.0585);
Unnamed (43.7325,-123.7337); Unnamed (43.7470,-123.7416); Unnamed
(43.7470,-123.7711); Unnamed (43.7569,-124.0844); Unnamed (43.7606,-
124.0853); Unnamed (43.7623,-124.0753); Unnamed (43.7669,-124.0766);
Unnamed (43.7734,-124.0674); Unnamed (43.7855,-124.0076); Unnamed
(43.7877,-123.9936); Unnamed (43.8129,-123.9743); Unnamed (43.8212,-
123.8777); Unnamed (43.8258,-123.8192); Unnamed (43.8375,-123.9631);
Unnamed (43.8424,-123.7925); Unnamed (43.8437,-123.7989); Unnamed
(43.8601,-123.7630); Unnamed (43.8603,-123.8155); Unnamed (43.8655,-
123.8489); Unnamed (43.8661,-123.9136); Unnamed (43.8688,-123.7994);
Unnamed (43.8831,-123.8534); Unnamed (43.8883,-123.7157); Unnamed
(43.8906,-123.7759); Unnamed (43.8916,-123.8765); Unnamed (43.8922,-
123.8144); Unnamed (43.8953,-123.8772); Unnamed (43.8980,-123.7865);
Unnamed (43.8997,-123.7993); Unnamed (43.8998,-123.7197); Unnamed
(43.9015,-123.8386); Unnamed (43.9015,-123.8949); Unnamed (43.9023,-
123.8241); Unnamed (43.9048,-123.8316); Unnamed (43.9075,-123.7208);
Unnamed (43.9079,-123.8263); Vincent Creek (43.7035,-123.7882); Wassen
Creek (43.7419,-123.8905); West Branch North Fork Smith River
(43.9113,-123.8958).
(vii) Lower Umpqua River Watershed 1710030308. Outlet(s) = Umpqua
River (Lat 43.6696, Long -124.2025) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder
Creek (43.6310,-124.0483); Bear Creek (43.7053,-123.9529); Butler Creek
(43.7157,-124.0059); Charlotte Creek (43.6320,-123.9307); Dean Creek
(43.6214,-123.9740); Dry Creek (43.6369,-124.0595); Franklin Creek
(43.6850,-123.8659); Hakki Creek (43.6711,-124.0161); Indian Charlie
Creek (43.6611,-123.9404); Johnson Creek (43.6711,-123.9760); Koepke
Slough (43.6909,-124.0294); Little Franklin Creek (43.6853,-123.8863);
Luder Creek (43.6423,-123.9046); Miller Creek (43.6528,-124.0140); Oar
Creek (43.6620,-124.0289); Providence Creek (43.7083,-124.1289);
Scholfield Creek (43.6253,-124.0112); Umpqua River (43.6556,-123.8752);
Unnamed (43.6359,-123.9572); Unnamed (43.6805,-124.1146); Unnamed
(43.6904,-124.0506); Unnamed (43.6940,-124.0340); Unnamed (43.7069,-
123.9824); Unnamed (43.7242,-123.9369); Winchester Creek (43.6657,-
124.1247); Wind Creek, South Fork (43.6346,-124.0897). [FEDREG][VOL]*[/
VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/DATE]*COM003*[RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/
AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/
HED][REGTEXT][P]*[/P]
(11) Coos Subbasin 17100304--(i) South Fork Coos Watershed
1710030401. Outlet(s) = South Fork Coos (Lat 43.3905, Long -123.9634)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Slide Creek (43.2728,-123.8472);
Bottom Creek (43.3751,-123.7065); Bottom Creek, North Fork (43.3896,-
123.7264); Buck Creek (43.2476,-123.8023); Burnt Creek (43.2567,-
123.7834); Cedar Creek (43.3388,-123.6303); Cedar Creek, Trib E
(43.3423,-123.6749); Cedar Creek, Trib F (43.3330,-123.6523); Coal
Creek (43.3426,-123.8685); Eight River Creek (43.2638,-123.8568); Fall
Creek (43.2535,-123.7106); Fall Creek (43.4106,-123.7512); Fivemile
Creek
[[Page 7857]]
(43.2341,-123.6307); Gods Thumb Creek (43.3440,-123.7013); Gooseberry
Creek (43.2452,-123.7081); Hatcher Creek (43.3021,-123.8370); Hog Ranch
Creek (43.2754,-123.8125); Lake Creek (43.2971,-123.6354); Little Cow
Creek (43.1886,-123.6133); Lost Creek (43.2325,-123.5769); Lost Creek,
Trib A (43.2224,-123.5961); Mink Creek (43.3068,-123.8515); Panther
Creek (43.2593,-123.6401); Shotgun Creek (43.2920,-123.7623); Susan
Creek (43.2720,-123.7654); Tioga Creek (43.2110,-123.7786); Unnamed
(43.2209,-123.7789); Unnamed (43.2305,-123.8360); Unnamed (43.2364,-
123.7818); Unnamed (43.2548,-123.8569); Unnamed (43.2713,-123.8320);
Unnamed (43.2902,-123.6662); Unnamed (43.3168,-123.6491); Unnamed
(43.3692,-123.8320); Unnamed (43.3698,-123.8321); Unnamed (43.3806,-
123.8327); Unnamed (43.3846,-123.8058); Unnamed (43.3887,-123.7927);
Unnamed (43.3651,-123.7073); Wilson Creek (43.2083,-123.6691).
(ii) Millicoma River Watershed 1710030402. Outlet(s) = West Fork
Millicoma River (Lat 43.4242, Long -124.0288) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Bealah Creek (43.4271,-123.8445); Buck Creek (43.5659,-123.9765);
Cougar Creek (43.5983,-123.8788); Crane Creek (43.5545,-123.9287);
Dagget Creek (43.4862,-124.0557); Darius Creek (43.4741,-123.9407);
Deer Creek (43.6207,-123.9616); Deer Creek, Trib A (43.6100,-123.9761);
Deer Creek, Trib B (43.6191,-123.9482); Devils Elbow Creek (43.4439,-
124.0608); East Fork Millicoma River (43.4204,-123.8330); Elk Creek
(43.5441,-123.9175); Fish Creek (43.6015,-123.8968); Fox Creek
(43.4189,-123.9459); Glenn Creek (43.4799,-123.9325); Hidden Creek
(43.5646,-123.9235); Hodges Creek (43.4348,-123.9889); Joes Creek
(43.5838,-123.9787); Kelly Creek (43.5948,-123.9036); Knife Creek
(43.6163,-123.9310); Little Matson Creek (43.4375,-123.8890); Marlow
Creek (43.4779,-123.9815); Matson Creek (43.4489,-123.9191); Otter
Creek (43.5935,-123.9729); Panther Creek (43.5619,-123.9038); Rainy
Creek (43.4293,-124.0400); Rodine Creek (43.4434,-123.9789); Schumacher
Creek (43.4842,-124.0380); Totten Creek (43.4869,-124.0457); Trout
Creek (43.5398,-123.9814); Unnamed (43.4686,-124.0143); Unnamed
(43.5156,-123.9366); Unnamed (43.5396,-123.9373); Unnamed (43.5450,-
123.9305); West Fork Millicoma River (43.5617,-123.8788).
(iii) Lakeside Frontal Watershed 1710030403. Outlet(s) = Tenmile
Creek (43.5618,-124.2308) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Adams Creek
(43.5382,-124.1081); Alder Creek (43.6012,-124.0272); Alder Gulch
(43.5892,-124.0665); Benson Creek (43.5813,-124.0086); Big Creek
(43.6085,-124.0128); Blacks Creek (43.6365,-124.1188); Clear Creek
(43.6040,-124.1871); Hatchery Creek (43.5275,-124.0761); Johnson Creek
(43.5410,-124.0018); Murphy Creek (43.6243,-124.0534); Noble Creek
(43.5897,-124.0347); Parker Creek (43.6471,-124.1246); Roberts Creek
(43.5557,-124.0264); Saunders Creek (43.5417,-124.2136); Shutter Creek
(43.5252,-124.1398); Swamp Creek (43.5550,-124.1948); Unnamed
(43.5203,-124.0294); Unnamed (43.6302,-124.1460); Unnamed (43.6353,-
124.1411); Unnamed (43.6369,-124.1515); Unnamed (43.6466,-124.1511);
Unnamed (43.5081,-124.0382); Unnamed (43.6353,-124.16770; Wilkins Creek
(43.6304,-124.0819); Winter Creek (43.6533,-124.1333).
(iv) Coos Bay Watershed 1710030404. Outlet(s) = Big Creek (Lat
43.3326, Long -124.3739); Coos Bay (43.3544,-124.3384) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek (43.5048,-124.1059); Bessey Creek (43.3844,-
124.0253); Big Creek (43.2834,-124.3374), Big Creek (43.3980,-
123.9396); Big Creek, Trib A (43.2999,-124.3711); Big Creek, Trib B
(43.2854,-124.3570); Blossom Gulch (43.3598,-124.2410); Boatman Gulch
(43.3445,-124.2483); Boone Creek (43.2864,-124.1762); Cardwell Creek
(43.2793,-124.1277); Catching Creek (43.2513,-124.1586); Coalbank Creek
(43.3154,-124.2503); Coos Bay (43.3566,-124.1592); Daniels Creek
(43.3038,-124.0725); Davis Creek (43.2610,-124.2633); Day Creek
(43.3129,-124.2888); Deton Creek (43.4249,-124.0771); Echo Creek
(43.3797,-124.1529); Elliot Creek (43.3037,-124.2670); Farley Creek
(43.3146,-124.3415); Ferry Creek (43.2628,-124.1728); Goat Creek
(43.2700,-124.2109); Haywood Creek (43.3067,-124.3419); Hendrickson
Creek (43.3907,-124.0594); Isthmus Slough (43.2622,-124.2049); Joe Ney
Slough (43.3382,-124.2958); John B Creek (43.2607,-124.2814); Johnson
Creek (43.4043,-124.1389); Kentuck Creek (43.4556,-124.0894); Larson
Creek (43.4930,-124.0764); Laxstrom Gulch (43.3372,-124.1350); Lillian
Creek (43.3550,-124.1330); Mart Davis Creek (43.3911,-124.0927); Matson
Creek (43.3011,-124.1161); McKnight Creek (43.3841,-123.9991); Mettman
Creek (43.4574,-124.1293); Millicoma River (43.4242,-124.0288); Monkey
Ranch Gulch (43.3392,-124.1458); Morgan Creek (43.3460,-124.0318);
North Slough (43.5032,-124.1408); Noble Creek (43.2387,-124.1665);
Packard Creek (43.4058,-124.0211); Palouse Creek (43.5123,-124.0667);
Panther Creek (43.2733,-124.1222); Pony Slough (43.4078,-124.2307);
Rogers Creek (43.3831,-124.0370); Ross Slough (43.3027,-124.1781);
Salmon Creek (43.3618,-123.9816); Seaman Creek (43.3634,-124.0111);
Seelander Creek (43.2872,-124.1176); Shinglehouse Slough (43.3154,-
124.2225); Smith Creek (43.3579,-124.1051); Snedden Creek (43.3372,-
124.2177); Southport Slough (43.2981,-124.2194); Stock Slough
(43.3277,-124.1195); Storey Creek (43.3238,-124.2969); Sullivan Creek
(43.4718,-124.0872); Talbott Creek (43.2839,-124.2954); Theodore
Johnson Creek (43.2756,-124.3457); Unnamed (43.5200,-124.1812); Unnamed
(43.2274,-124.3236); Unnamed (43.2607,-124.2984); Unnamed (43.2772,-
124.3246); Unnamed (43.2776,-124.3148); Unnamed (43.2832,-124.1532);
Unnamed (43.2888,-124.1962); Unnamed (43.2893,-124.3406); Unnamed
(43.2894,-124.2034); Unnamed (43.2914,-124.2917); Unnamed (43.2942,-
124.1027); Unnamed (43.2984,-124.2847); Unnamed (43.3001,-124.3022);
Unnamed (43.3034,-124.2001); Unnamed (43.3051,-124.2031); Unnamed
(43.3062,-124.2030); Unnamed (43.3066,-124.3674); Unnamed (43.3094,-
124.1947); Unnamed (43.3129,-124.1208); Unnamed (43.3149,-124.1347);
Unnamed (43.3149,-124.1358); Unnamed (43.3149,-124.1358); Unnamed
(43.3169,-124.0638); Unnamed (43.3224,-124.2390); Unnamed (43.3356,-
124.1542); Unnamed (43.3356,-124.1526); Unnamed (43.3357,-124.1510);
Unnamed (43.3357,-124.1534); Unnamed (43.3368,-124.1509); Unnamed
(43.3430,-124.2352); Unnamed (43.3571,-124.2372); Unnamed (43.3643,-
124.0474); Unnamed (43.3741,-124.0577); Unnamed (43.4126,-124.0599);
Unnamed (43.4203,-123.9824); Unnamed (43.4314,-124.0998); Unnamed
(43.4516,-124.1023); Unnamed (43.4521,-124.1110); Unnamed (43.5345,-
124.1946); Vogel Creek (43.3511,-124.1206); Wasson Creek (43.2688,-
124.3368); Willanch Creek (43.4233,-124.1061); Willanch Creek,
[[Page 7858]]
Trib A (43.4032,-124.1169); Wilson Creek (43.2652,-124.1281);
Winchester Creek (43.2145,-124.3116); Winchester Creek, Trib E
(43.2463,-124.3067); Woodruff Creek (43.4206,-123.9746); Wren Smith
Creek (43.3131,-124.0649).
(12) Coquille Subbasin 17100305--(i) Middle Fork Coquille Watershed
1710030502. Outlet(s) = Middle Fork Coquille River (Lat 43.0340, Long -
124.1161) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Anderson Creek (43.0087,-
123.9445); Axe Creek (43.0516,-123.9468); Bear Creek (43.0657,-
123.9284); Belieu Creek (43.0293,-123.9470); Big Creek (43.0991,-
123.8983); Brownson Creek (43.0879,-123.9583); Endicott Creek
(43.0401,-124.0710); Fall Creek (43.0514,-123.9910); Indian Creek
(43.0203,-124.0842); Little Rock Creek (42.9913,-123.8335); McMullen
Creek (43.0220,-124.0366); Middle Fork Coquille River (42.9701,-
123.7621); Myrtle Creek (42.9642,-124.0170); Rasler Creek (42.9518,-
123.9643); Rock Creek (42.9200,-123.9073); Rock Creek (43.0029,-
123.8440); Salmon Creek (43.0075,-124.0273); Sandy Creek (43.0796,-
123.8517); Sandy Creek, Trib F (43.0526,-123.8736); Sheilds Creek
(42.9184,-123.9219); Slater Creek (42.9358,-123.7958); Slide Creek
(42.9957,-123.9040); Smith Creek (43.0566,-124.0337); Swamp Creek
(43.0934,-123.9000); Unnamed (43.0016,-123.9550); Unnamed (43.0681,-
123.9812); Unnamed (43.0810,-123.9892).
(ii) Middle Main Coquille Watershed 1710030503. Outlet(s) = South
Fork Coquille River (Lat 43.0805, Long -124.1405) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Baker Creek (42.8913,-124.1297); Beaver Creek
(42.9429,-124.0783); Catching Creek, Middle Fork (42.9913,-124.2331);
Catching Creek, South Fork (42.9587,-124.2348); Coquille River, South
Fork (42.8778,-124.0743); Cove Creek (43.0437,-124.2088); Dement Creek
(42.9422,-124.2086); Gettys Creek (43.0028,-124.1988); Grants Creek
(42.9730,-124.1041); Horse Hollow (43.0382,-124.1984); Knight Creek
(43.0022,-124.2663); Koontz Creek (43.0111,-124.2505); Long Tom Creek
(42.9342,-124.0992); Matheny Creek (43.0495,-124.1892); Mill Creek
(42.9777,-124.1663); Rhoda Creek (43.0007,-124.1032); Roberts Creek
(42.9748,-124.2385); Rowland Creek (42.9045,-124.1845); Russell Creek
(42.9495,-124.1611); Unnamed (42.9684,-124.1033); Ward Creek (43.0429,-
); 124.2358); Warner Creek (43.0196,-124.1187); Wildcat Creek
(43.0277,-124.2225); Wolf Creek (43.0136,-124.2318); Woodward Creek
(42.9023,-124.0658).
(iii) East Fork Coquille Watershed 1710030504. Outlet(s) = East
Fork Coquille River (Lat 43.1065, Long -124.0761) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Bills Creek (43.1709,-123.9244); China Creek (43.1736,-
123.9086); East Fork Coquille River (43.1476,-123.8936); Elk Creek
(43.1312,-123.9621); Hantz Creek (43.1832,-123.9713); South Fork Elk
Creek (43.1212,-123.9200); Steel Creek (43.1810,-123.9354); Unnamed
(43.0908,-124.0361); Unnamed (43.0925,-124.0495); Unnamed (43.0976,-
123.9705); Unnamed (43.1006,-124.0052); Unnamed (43.1071,-123.9163);
Unnamed (43.1655,-123.9078); Unnamed (43.1725,-123.9881); Weekly Creek
(43.0944,-124.0271); Yankee Run (43.1517,-124.0483); Yankee Run, Trib C
(43.1626,-124.0162).
(iv) North Fork Coquille Watershed 1710030505. Outlet(s) = North
Fork Coquille River (Lat 43.0805, Long -124.1405) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (43.2771,-123.9207); Blair Creek (43.1944,-
124.1121); Cherry Creek, North Fork (43.2192,-123.9124); Cherry Creek,
South Fork (43.2154,-123.9353); Coak Creek (43.2270,-124.0324);
Coquille River, Little North Fork (43.2988,-123.9410); Coquille River,
North Fork (43.2974,-123.8791); Coquille River, North Fork, Trib E
(43.1881,-124.0764); Coquille River, North Fork, Trib I (43.2932,-
123.8920); Coquille River, North Fork, Trib Y (43.3428,-123.9678);
Evans Creek (43.2868,-124.0561); Fruin Creek (43.3016,-123.9198);
Garage Creek (43.1508,-124.1020); Giles Creek (43.3129,-124.0337);
Honcho Creek (43.2628,-123.8954); Hudson Creek (43.2755,-123.9604);
Jerusalem Creek (43.1844,-124.0539); Johns Creek (43.0760,-124.0498);
Little Cherry Creek (43.2007,-123.9594); Llewellyn Creek
(43.1034,124.1063); Llewellyn Creek, Trib A (43.0969,-124.0995); Lost
Creek (43.1768,-124.1047); Lost Creek (43.2451,-123.9745); Mast Creek
(43.2264,-124.0207); Middle Creek (43.2332,-123.8726); Moon Creek
(43.2902,-123.9493); Moon Creek, Trib A (43.2976,-123.9837); Moon
Creek, Trib A-1 (43.2944,-123.9753); Neely Creek (43.2960,-124.0380);
Park Creek (43.2508,-123.8661); Park Creek, Trib B (43.2702,-123.8782);
Schoolhouse Creek (43.1637,-124.0949); Steele Creek (43.2203,-
124.1018); Steinnon Creek (43.2534,-124.1076); Unnamed (43.1305,-
124.0759); Unnamed (43.2047,-124.0314); Unnamed (43.2127,-124.1101);
Unnamed (43.2165,-123.9144); Unnamed (43.2439,-123.9275); Unnamed
(43.2444,-124.0868); Unnamed (43.2530,-124.0848); Unnamed (43.2582,-
124.0794); Unnamed (43.2584,-123.8846); Unnamed (43.2625,-124.0474);
Unnamed (43.2655,-123.9269); Unnamed (43.2676,-124.0367); Vaughns Creek
(43.2378,-123.9106); Whitley Creek (43.2899,-124.0115); Wimer Creek
(43.1303,-124.0640); Wood Creek (43.1392,-124.1274); Wood Creek, North
Fork (43.1454,-124.1211).
(v) Lower Coquille Watershed 1710030506. Outlet(s) = Coquille River
(Lat 43.1237, Long -124.4261) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek
(43.1385,-124.2697); Bear Creek (43.0411,-124.2893); Beaver Creek
(43.2249,-124.1923); Beaver Creek (43.2525,-124.2456); Beaver Slough,
Trib A (43.2154,-124.2731); Bill Creek (43.0256,-124.3126); Budd Creek
(43.2011,-124.1921); Calloway Creek (43.2060,-124.1684); Cawfield Creek
(43.1839,-124.1372); China Creek (43.2170,-124.2076); Cold Creek
(43.2038,-124.1419); Coquille River (43.0805,-124.1405); Coquille
River, Trib A (43.2032,-124.2930); Cunningham Creek (43.2349,-
124.1378); Dutch John Ravine (43.1744,-124.1781); Dye Creek (43.2274,-
124.1569); Fahys Creek (43.1676,-124.3861); Fat Elk Creek (43.1373,-
124.2560); Ferry Creek (43.1150,-124.3831); Fishtrap Creek (43.0841,-
124.2544); Glen Aiken Creek (43.1482,-124.1497); Grady Creek (43.1032,-
124.1381); Gray Creek (43.1222,-124.1286); Hall Creek (43.0583,-
124.2516); Hall Creek, Trib A (43.0842,-124.1745); Harlin Creek
(43.1326,-124.1633); Hatchet Slough, Trib A (43.1638,-124.3065);
Hatchet Slough (43.1879,-124.3003); Lampa Creek (43.0531,-124.2665);
Little Bear Creek (43.0407,-124.2783); Little Fishtrap Creek (43.1201,-
124.2290); Lowe Creek (43.1401,-124.3232); Mack Creek (43.0604,-
124.3306); Monroe Creek (43.0705,-124.2905); Offield Creek (43.1587,-
124.3273); Pulaski Creek (43.1398,-124.2184); Randleman Creek
(43.0818,-124.3039); Rich Creek (43.0576,-124.2067); Rink Creek
(43.1764,-124.1369); Rock Robinson Creek (43.0860,-124.2306); Rollan
Creek (43.1266,-124.2563); Sevenmile Creek (43.2157,-124.3350);
Sevenmile Creek, Trib A (43.1853,-124.3187); Sevenmile Creek, Trib C
(43.2081,-124.3340); Unnamed (43.1084,-124.2727); Unnamed 43.1731,-
124.1852); Unnamed (43.1924,-124.1378); Unnamed (43.1997,-124.3346);
Unnamed (43.2281,-124.2190); Unnamed
[[Page 7859]]
(43.2424,-124.2737); Waddington Creek (43.1105,-124.2915).
(13) Sixes Subbasin 17100306'(i) Sixes River Watershed 1710030603.
Outlet(s) = Sixes River (Lat 42.8543, Long -124.5427) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek (42.7867,-124.4373); Carlton Creek
(42.8594,-124.2382); Cold Creek (42.7824,-124.2070); Crystal Creek
(42.8404,-124.4501); Dry Creek (42.7673,-124.3726); Edson Creek
(42.8253,-124.3782); Hays Creek (42.8455,-124.1796); Little Dry Creek
(42.8002,-124.3838); Murphy Canyon (42.8516,-124.1541); Sixes River
(42.8232,-124.1704); Sixes River, Middle Fork (42.7651,-124.1782);
Sixes River, North Fork (42.8878,-124.2320); South Fork Sixes River
(42.8028,-124.3022); Sugar Creek (42.8217,-124.2035); Unnamed
(42.8189,-124.3567); Unnamed (42.7952,-124.3918); Unnamed (42.8276,-
124.4629).
(ii) New River Frontal Watershed 1710030604. Outlet(s) = New River
(Lat 43.0007, Long-124.4557); Twomile Creek (43.0440,-124.4415)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bethel Creek (42.9519,-124.3954); Boulder
Creek (42.8574,-124.5050); Butte Creek (42.9458,-124.4096); Conner
Creek (42.9814,-124.4215); Davis Creek (42.9657,-124.3968); Floras
Creek (42.9127,-124.3963); Fourmile Creek (42.9887,-124.3077); Fourmile
Creek, South Fork (42.9642,-124.3734); Langlois Creek (42.9238,-
124.4570); Little Creek (43.0030,-124.3562); Long Creek (42.9828,-
124.3770); Lower Twomile Creek (43.0223,-124.4080); Morton Creek
(42.9437,-124.4234); New River (42.8563,-124.4602); North Fourmile
Creek (42.9900,-124.3176); Redibough Creek (43.0251,-124.3659); South
Twomile Creek (43.0047,-124.3672); Spring Creek (43.0183,-124.4299);
Twomile Creek (43.0100,-124.3291); Unnamed (43.0209,-124.3386); Unnamed
(43.0350,-124.3506); Unnamed (43.0378,-124.3481); Unnamed (43.0409,-
124.3544); Unnamed (42.8714,-124.4586); Unnamed (42.9029,-124.4222);
Unnamed (42.9031,-124.4581); Unnamed (42.9294,-124.4421); Unnamed
(42.9347,-124.4559); Unnamed (42.9737,-124.3363); Unnamed (42.9800,-
124.3432); Unnamed (43.0058,-124.4066); Willow Creek (42.8880,-
124.4505).
(14) Maps of critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU
follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 7860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.000
[[Page 7861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.001
[[Page 7862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.002
[[Page 7863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.003
[[Page 7864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.004
[[Page 7865]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.005
[[Page 7866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.006
[[Page 7867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.007
[[Page 7868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.008
[[Page 7869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.009
[[Page 7870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.010
[[Page 7871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.011
[[Page 7872]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.012
[[Page 7873]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11FE08.013
[FR Doc. 08-552 Filed 2-4-08; 3:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C