[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