Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon
and Steelhead in California
[Federal Register: September 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 170)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52487-52627]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02se05-20]
[[Page 52488]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 041123329-5202-02; I.D. No.110904F]
RIN 0648-AO04
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon
and Steelhead in California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are issuing
a final rule designating critical habitat for two Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
and five ESUs of steelhead (O. mykiss) listed as of the date of this
designation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).
The specific areas designated in the rule text set out below include
approximately 8,935 net mi (14,269 km) of riverine habitat and 470
mi2 (1,212 km2) of estuarine habitat (primarily
in San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bays) in California. Some of the
areas designated are occupied by two or more ESUs. The annual net
economic impacts of changes to Federal activities as a result of the
critical habitat designations (regardless of whether those activities
would also change as a result of the ESA's jeopardy requirement) are
estimated to be approximately $81,647,439. We solicited information and
comments from the public in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and on all aspects of the proposed rule. This rule is being issued to
meet the timeline established in litigation between NMFS and Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA et. al v. NMFS
(Civ.No. 03-1883)). In the proposed rule, we identified a number of
potential exclusions we were considering including exclusions for
federal lands subject to the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and
INFISH. We are continuing to analyze whether exclusion of those federal
lands is appropriate.
DATES: This rule becomes effective January 2, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at
the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, Protected Resources
Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
The final rule, maps, and other materials relating to these
designations can be found on our Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Wingert at the above address, at
562/980-4021, or Marta Nammack at 301/713-1401 ext. 180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of the Final Rule
This Federal Register notice describes the final critical habitat
designations for seven ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead listed
under the ESA. The pages that follow summarize the comments and
information received in response to proposed designations published on
December 10, 2004 (69 FR 71880), describe any changes from the proposed
designations, and detail the final designations for seven ESUs. To
assist the reader, the content of this notice is organized as follows:
I. Background and Previous Federal Action
II. Summary of Comments and Recommendations
Notification and General Comments
Identification of Critical Habitat Areas
Economics Methodology
Weighing the Benefits of Designation vs. Exclusion
Effects of Designating Critical Habitat
ESU-specific Issues
III. Summary of Revisions
IV. Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat
Salmon Life History
Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and
Specific Areas within the Geographical Area
Primary Constituent Elements
Special Management Considerations or Protections
Unoccupied Areas
Lateral Extent of Critical Habitat
Military Lands
Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams
V. Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)
Exclusions Based on ``Other Relevant Impacts''
Impacts to Tribes
Impacts to Landowners with Contractual Commitments to Conservation
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
VI. Critical Habitat Designation
VII. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Activities Affected by Critical Habitat Designation
VIII. Required Determinations
IX. References Cited
I. Background and Previous Federal Action
We are responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or
distinct population segments of Pacific salmon and steelhead
(Oncorhynchus spp.) are threatened or endangered, and for designating
critical habitat for them under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). To
qualify as a distinct population segment, a Pacific salmon or steelhead
population must be substantially reproductively isolated from other
conspecific populations and represent an important component in the
evolutionary legacy of the biological species. According to agency
policy, a population meeting these criteria is considered to be an
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
We are also responsible for designating critical habitat for
species listed under our jurisdiction. 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. Our
regulations direct us to focus on ``primary constituent elements,'' or
PCEs, in identifying these physical or biological features. 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 an endangered or threatened
salmon or steelhead ESU or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. 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.
The timeline for completing the critical habitat designations
described in this Federal Register notice was established pursuant to
litigation between NMFS and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, the Center for
Biological Diversity, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Pacific
Rivers Council, and the Environmental Protection Information Center
(PCFFA, et al.) and is subject to a Consent Decree and Stipulated Order
[[Page 52489]]
of Dismissal (Consent Decree) approved by the D.C. District Court. A
complete summary of previous court action regarding these designations
can be found in the proposed rule (69 FR 71880; December 10, 2004).
In keeping with the Consent Decree, on December 10, 2004 (69 FR
71880), we published proposed critical habitat designations for two
ESUs of Chinook salmon and five ESUs of O. mykiss. (For the latter ESUs
we used the species' scientific name rather than ``steelhead'' because
at the time they were being proposed for revision to include both
anadromous (steelhead) and resident (rainbow/redband) forms of the
species--see 69 FR 33101, June 14, 2004). The seven ESUs addressed in
the proposed rule were: (1) California Coastal Chinook salmon; (2)
Northern California O. mykiss; (3) Central California Coast O. mykiss;
(4) South-Central Coast O. mykiss; (5) Southern California O. mykiss;
(6) Central Valley spring run Chinook salmon; and (7) Central Valley O.
mykiss. The comment period for the proposed critical habitat
designations was originally opened until February 8, 2005. On February
7, 2005 (70 FR 6394), we announced a court-approved Amendment to the
Consent Decree which revised the schedule for completing the
designations and extended the comment period until March 14, 2005, and
the date to submit final rules to the Federal Register as August 15, 2005.
In the critical habitat proposed rule we stated that ``the final
critical habitat designations will be based on the final listing
decisions for these seven ESUs due by June 2005 and thus will reflect
occupancy ``at the time of listing'' as the ESA requires.'' All of
these ESUs had been listed as threatened or endangered between 1997-
2000, but in 2002 we announced that we would reassess the listing
status of these and other ESUs (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). We
recently published final listing decisions for the two Chinook salmon,
but not for the five ESUs of O. mykiss (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005).
Final listing determinations for these five ESUs are expected by
December 2005 (70 FR 37219; June 28, 2005). However, the Consent Decree
governing the schedule for our final critical habitat designations
requires that we complete final designations for those of the seven
ESUs identified above that are listed as of August 15, 2005. Because
anadromous forms (i.e., ``steelhead'') of the five O. mykiss ESUs have
been listed since 1997-2000 (see summary in June 14, 2004 Federal
Register notice, 69 FR 33103), we are now issuing final critical
habitat designations for them in this notice in accordance with the
Consent Decree. We are able to do so because in developing critical
habitat designations for this species we have focused on the co-
occurring range of both the anadromous and resident forms. Therefore,
both the proposed and final designations were restricted to the
species' anadromous range, although we did consider and propose to
designate some areas occupied solely by resident fish in upper Alameda
Creek in the San Francisco Bay area. We focused on the co-occurring
range due to uncertainties about: (1) The distribution of resident fish
outside the range of co-occurrence, (2) the location of natural
barriers impassable to steelhead and upstream of habitat areas proposed
for designation, and (3) the final listing status of the resident form.
Section 4(a)(3)(B) of the ESA provides for the revision of critical
habitat designations as appropriate, and we will do so (if necessary)
after making final listing determinations for these five O. mykiss
ESUs. Moreover, we intend to actively revise critical habitat as needed
for all seven ESUs to keep them as up-to-date as possible.
In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (68 FR 55926;
September 29, 2003), we noted that the ESA and its supporting
regulations require the agency to address a number of issues before
designating critical habitat: ``What areas were occupied by the species
at the time of listing? What physical and biological features are
essential to the species' conservation? Are those essential features
ones that may require special management considerations or protection?
Are areas outside those currently occupied `essential for
conservation'? What are the benefits to the species of critical habitat
designation? What economic and other relevant impacts would result from
a critical habitat designation, even if coextensive with other causes
such as listing? What is the appropriate geographic scale for weighing
the benefits of exclusion and benefits of designation? What is the best
way to determine if the failure to designate an area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned?'' We
recognized that ``[a]nswering these questions involves a variety of
biological and economic considerations'' and therefore were seeking
public input before issuing a proposed rule. As we stated in the
proposed rule that followed: ``We received numerous comments in
response to the ANPR and considered them during development of this
proposed rulemaking. Where applicable, we have referenced these
comments in this Federal Register notice as well as in other documents
supporting this proposed rule.'' In the proposed rule, we described the
methods and criteria we applied to address these questions, relying
upon the unique life history traits and habitat requirements of salmon
and steelhead.
In issuing the final rule, we considered the comments we received
to determine whether a change in our proposed approach to designating
critical habitat for salmon and steelhead was warranted. In some
instances, we concluded based on comments received that a change was
warranted. For example, in this final rule we have revised our approach
to allow us to consider excluding areas covered by habitat conservation
plans in those cases where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation.
In other instances, we believe the approach taken is supported by
the best available scientific information, and that given the time and
additional analyses required, changes to the methods and criteria we
applied in the proposed rule were not feasible. We recognize there are
other equally valid approaches to designating critical habitat and for
answering the myriad questions described above. Nevertheless, issuance
of the final rule for designating critical habitat for these ESUs is
subject to a Court Order that requires us to submit the final
regulation to the Federal Register no later than August 15, 2005, less
than 5 months after the close of the public comment period. Taking
alternative approaches to designating critical habitat would have
required a retooling of multiple interrelated analyses and undertaking
additional new analyses in support of the final rule, and was not
possible given the time available to us. We will continue to study
alternative methods and criteria and may apply them in future
rulemakings designating critical habitat for these or other species.
II. Summary of Comments and Recommendations
As described in agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(1), in the
critical habitat proposed rule we requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the proposals. 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
(approximately 2 weeks prior to actual publication) and accepted
comments by standard mail
[[Page 52490]]
and fax as well as via e-mail and the internet (e.g.,
http://www.regulations.gov). In addition, we held four public hearings
between January 13, 2005, and February 1, 2005, in the following locations:
Arcata, Rohnert Park, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara, CA. We received
3,762 written comments (3,627 of which were form letters or in the form
of e-mails with nearly identical verbiage) during the comment period on
the proposed rule.
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure, and opportunities for public input (70 FR 2664; January 14,
2005). The OMB Peer Review Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to provide public oversight
on the quality of agency information, analyses, and regulatory
activities, and applies to information disseminated on or after June
16, 2005. Prior to publishing the proposed rule we submitted the
initial biological assessments of our Critical Habitat Analytical
Review Teams (hereafter referred to as CHART) to state co-managers and
asked them to review those findings. These co-manager reviews resulted
in some changes to the CHARTs' preliminary assessments (e.g., revised
fish distribution as well as conservation value ratings) and helped to
ensure that the CHARTs' revised findings (NMFS, 2004b) incorporated the
best available scientific data. We later solicited technical review of
the entire critical habitat proposal (biological, economic, and policy
bases) from several 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 one 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, 2005b).
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for the various ESUs, and we address them in the following
summary. Peer reviewer comments were sufficiently similar to public
comments that we have responded to them through our general responses
below. For readers'convenience we have assigned comments to major issue
categories and where possible have combined similar comments into
single comments and responses.
Notification and General Comments
Comment 1: Some commenters raised concerns or complained about the
adequacy of public notification and time to comment.
Response: We made all reasonable attempts to communicate our
rulemaking process and the critical habitat proposal to the affected
public. Prior to the proposed rule we published an ANPR in which we
identified issues for consideration and evaluation, and solicited
comments regarding these issues and information regarding the areas and
species under consideration (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003). We
considered comments on the ANPR during our development of the proposed
rule. As soon as the proposed rule was signed on November 29, 2004 (2
weeks before actual publication in the Federal Register), we posted it
and supporting information on the agency's internet site to facilitate
public review, and we have provided periodic updates to that site (see
ADDRESSES). In response to numerous requests--in particular from
plaintiffs as well as private citizens, counties, farm bureaus, and
state legislators in Washington--the original 60-day public comment
period was extended by 30 days (70 FR 6394; February 7, 2005) to allow
additional time for the public to submit comments on the critical
habitat proposals.
Additionally, we realize that the statute provides a short time
frame for designating critical habitat. Congress amended the ESA in
1982 to establish the current time frame for designation. In doing so,
Congress struck a balance between the recognition that critical habitat
designations are based upon information that may not be determinable at
the time of listing and the desire to ensure that designations occur in
a timely fashion. Additionally, the ESA and supporting regulations
provide that designations may be revised as new data become available
to the Secretary. We recognize that where the designation covers a
large geographic area, as is the case here, the short statutory time
frame requires a short period for the public to consider a great deal
of factual information. We also recognize that this designation takes a
new approach by considering relative conservation value of different
areas and applying a cost-effectiveness framework. In this notice we
are announcing our intention to consider revising the designations as
new habitat conservation plans and other management plans are
developed, and as other new information becomes available. Through that
process we anticipate continuing to engage the interested public and
affected landowners in an ongoing dialogue regarding critical habitat
designations.
Comment 2: Some commenters disagreed with our decision to vacate
the February 2000 critical habitat designations for these ESUs.
Response: We believe that the issues identified in a legal
challenge to our February 2000 designations warranted withdrawing that
rule. Developing a cost-effectiveness approach, designed to achieve the
greatest conservation at the least cost, is in keeping with long-
standing Executive direction on rulemaking and is a responsible and
conservation-oriented approach to implementing section 4(b)(2) of the
ESA. In addition, we had new and better information in 2004 than we had
in 2000, such as the information of fish distribution and habitat use
that was generated by agency fishery biologists. The ESA requires that
we use the best available information, and the distribution data is the
best information currently available. Finally, the litigation
challenging our 2000 designation also challenged the lack of
specificity in our designation of the riparian area, leading us to
consider whether there was a better approach that was more consistent
with our regulations and with the best available information.
Comment 3: Some commenters stated that we should wait to publish
final critical habitat designations until after final listing
determinations have been made and the final hatchery listing policy is
published.
Response: The ESA states that the Secretary shall designate
critical habitat, defined as areas within or outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing and using the best
available information (emphasis added). These designations follow that
statutory mandate and have been completed on a schedule established
under a Consent Decree. Also, the final hatchery listing policy and
final listing determinations for several salmon ESUs were published on
June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160 and 37204) in advance of the completion of
this final critical habitat designation. For reasons described above in
the ``Background and Previous Federal Action'' section, we are now making
final designations for those listed salmon and steelhead ESUs in the
[[Page 52491]]
Southwest Region that are subject to the Consent Decree and listed as
of the date of this designation.
Identification of Critical Habitat Areas
Comment 4: Several commenters contended that we can only designate
areas that are essential for species conservation.
Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA has a two-pronged definition
of critical habitat: ``(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' (emphasis added). As
described in this rule and documented in the reports supporting it, we
have strictly applied this definition and made the requisite findings.
We requested and received comments on various aspects of our
identification of areas meeting this definition and address those here.
Only those areas meeting the definition were considered in the
designation process. Comments regarding the section 4(b)(2) process, in
which we considered the impacts of designation and whether areas should
be excluded, are addressed in a subsequent section.
Comment 5: In the proposed rule we considered occupied streams
within a CALWATER Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) as the ``specific area'' in
which the physical or biological features essential to conservation of
the ESUs were found. We also used these watershed delineations as the
``particular areas''--the analytical unit--for purposes of the section
4(b)(2) analysis. In the proposed rule we requested public comment on
whether considering exclusions on a stream-by-stream approach would be
more appropriate. Some commenters believed that the watershed scale was
too broad for making critical habitat designations and suggested that a
smaller watershed or a stream-by-stream approach was more appropriate.
Some commenters believed that we should conduct a reach-by-reach
assessment in their watersheds.
Response: Our ESA section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005c) acknowledges
that the delineation of both specific areas and particular areas should
be as small as practicable, to ensure our designations are not
unnecessarily broad and to carry out congressional intent that we fully
consider the impacts of designation. For reasons described in the
section below on ``Methods and Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat,'' we continue to believe that the specific facts of salmon
biology and life history make CALWATER HSA watersheds in California an
appropriate scale to use in delineating the ``specific'' areas in which
physical or biological features are found. We also believe
consideration of the impacts of designation on an HSA watershed scale
results in a meaningful section 4(b)(2) balancing process. Moreover,
congressional direction requires that designations be completed in a
very short time frame by a specified deadline, ``based on such data as
may be available at that time.'' Given that short time frame and the
geographic extent of salmon critical habitat, the HSA watershed was the
smallest practicable area we were able to analyze.
Comment 6: Some commenters believed we applied the definition of
``specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it is listed'' too narrowly. In their views, this led to
two errors--failure to designate all ``accessible'' stream reaches and
failure to designate riparian and upstream areas. Commenters felt that
the ``best scientific data available'' support a conclusion that salmon
and steelhead will occupy all accessible streams in a watershed during
a period of time that can be reasonably construed as ``at the time it
is listed.'' One commenter stated that ``[w]hether a particular stream
reach is occupied cannot be determined with certainty based on
``occupation'' data alone, especially for fragmented, declining, or
depressed populations of fish.'' The commenter pointed to the rationale
provided in our 2000 rule for identifying occupied areas as all areas
accessible within a subbasin (a 4th field watershed, using U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) terminology): ``NMFS believes that adopting a
more inclusive, watershed based description of critical habitat is
appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' use of diverse
habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the habitat
types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life stages,
from small headwater streams to migration corridors and estuarine
rearing areas; (2) takes into account the natural variability in
habitat use that makes precise mapping problematic (e.g., some streams
may have fish present only in years with abundant rainfall) (65 FR
7764; February 16, 2000).''
Some commenters believe that in delineating ``specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the species,'' we need not confine
ourselves to areas that are literally ``occupiable'' by the species in
that we should designate riparian and upstream areas. If there are
physical or biological features essential to conservation to be found
within a broadly defined ``geographical area occupied by the species,''
we have the duty to delineate specific areas in a way that encompasses
them. Some argued that limiting the designation to the stream channel
fails to recognize the biological and hydrological connections between
streams and riparian areas and would lead to further degradation of the
latter. Some commenters suggested that we use a fixed distance (e.g.,
300 feet (91.4 m) if a functional description is not used. Some
requested that we adopt the ``functional zone'' description for lateral
extent used in the 2000 designations (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000),
while other commenters felt that our reference to habitat linkages with
upslope and upstream areas was vague and wondered whether we were
actually using the old approach anyway. Other commenters believed that
using the line of ordinary high water or bankfull width was appropriate
and noted that this would remove prior ambiguities about which areas
were designated. Other commenters supported the approach taken in this
designation, to identify specific areas occupied by the species and not
broadly designate ``all areas accessible,'' some commenting that this
was a more rigorous assessment and more in keeping with the ESA.
Response: The approach we took in the proposed designation is
different from the approach we took in the vacated 2000 designation for
a variety of reasons. The ESA directs that we will use the best
scientific data available in designating critical habitat. Our
regulations also provide direction: ``[e]ach critical habitat will be
defined by specific limits using reference points and lines as found on
standard topographic maps of the area * * * Ephemeral reference points
(e.g., trees, sand bars) shall not be used in defining critical
habitat.'' (50 CFR 424.12(c)). With respect to our approach for
identifying ``the geographical area occupied by the species,'' we
recognize that the available fish and habitat use distribution data are
limited to areas that have been surveyed or where professional judgment
has been applied to infer distribution, and that large areas of
watersheds containing fish may not have been observed or considered. We
also recognize there have been many instances in which previously
unobserved areas are found to be
[[Page 52492]]
occupied once they are surveyed. Nevertheless, we believe the extensive
data compiled by agency biologists, which was not available when we
completed the 2000 designations, represents the best scientific
information currently available regarding the geographical area
occupied by the species. Moreover, the CHARTs had an opportunity to
interact with the state fish biologists with the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) to confirm the accuracy of the data. We also
believe the approach we have taken in this designation better conforms
to the regulatory direction to use ``specific limits'' for the
designation. The approach we used in 2000 used subbasin boundaries to
delineate ``specific areas,'' which arguably met the requirement to use
``specific limits,'' but we believe using latitude-longitude endpoints
in stream reaches, as we have done here, better adheres to the letter
and spirit of our regulations.
With respect to our approach of limiting the designation to the
occupied stream itself, not extending the designation into the riparian
zone or upstream areas, we acknowledge that our regulations contemplate
situations in which areas that are not literally occupiable may
nevertheless be designated. Paragraph (d) of 50 CFR 424.12 gives as an
example a situation in which areas upland of a pond or lake may be
designated if it is determined that ``the upland areas were essential
to the conservation of an aquatic species located in the ponds and
lakes.'' For this designation, however, given the vast amount of
habitat under consideration and the short statutory time frames in
which to complete the designation, we could not determine ``specific
limits'' that would allow us to map with accuracy what part of the
riparian zone or upstream area could be considered to contain PCEs. As
an alternative, we considered the approach we used in 2000, which was
to designate riparian areas that provide function, but concluded that
approach may not have been entirely consistent with the regulatory
requirement to use ``specific limits.'' We believe limiting the
designation to streams will not compromise the ability of an ESA
section 7 consultation to provide for conservation of the species.
Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Actions
occurring in the riparian zone, upstream areas, or upland areas all
have the potential to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat
in the stream. Although these areas are not themselves designated,
Federal agencies must nevertheless meet their section 7 obligations if
they are taking actions in these areas that ``may affect'' the
designated critical habitat in the stream. Even though these
designations are restricted to the stream itself, we will continue to
be concerned about the same activities we have addressed in past
consultations.
Comment 7: Several commenters believed we incorrectly applied the
definition of ``specific areas outside the geographical area occupied
by the species.'' In the view of some, we failed our duty under the ESA
by not making a determination that we had identified as critical
habitat enough areas (occupied and unoccupied) to support conservation.
In the view of others, it was this failure that led to one of the
errors described in the previous comment--the failure to designate all
``accessible stream reaches.'' Many commenters expressed concern about
statements made in the press that the change from ``all areas
accessible'' to areas documented as occupied led to a 90-percent
reduction in critical habitat. Other commenters supported the approach
taken in this designation, to identify specific areas occupied by the
species and not broadly designate ``all areas accessible,'' some
commenting that this was a more rigorous assessment and more in keeping
with the ESA.
Response: Section 3(5)(A)(I) of the ESA requires us to identify
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
that contain physical or biological features that may require special
management considerations or protection. Section 3(5)(A)(ii) requires
that specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species only fall within the definition of critical habitat if the
Secretary determines that the area is essential for conservation. Our
regulations further provide that we will designate unoccupied areas
``only when a designation limited to [the species']
present range would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species (50 CFR
424.12(e)).'' The ESA requires the Secretary to designate critical
habitat at the time of listing. If critical habitat is not then
determinable, the Secretary may extend the period by 1 year, ``but not
later than the close of such additional year the Secretary must publish
a final regulation, based on such data as may be available at that
time, designating, to the maximum extent prudent, such habitat.''
At the present time, we do not have information allowing us to
determine that the specific areas within the geographical area occupied
by the species are inadequate for conservation, such that unoccupied
areas are essential for conservation. We anticipate revising our
critical habitat designations in the future as additional information
becomes available through recovery planning processes.
Comment 8: Some commenters questioned the adequacy of our
identification of PCEs, in particular the lack of specificity.
Response: To determine the physical or biological features
essential to conservation of these ESUs, we first considered their
complex life cycle. As described in the ANPR and proposed rule,
``[t]his complex life cycle gives rise to complex habitat needs,
particularly during the freshwater phase (see review by Spence et al.,
1996).'' We considered these habitat needs in light of our regulations
regarding criteria for designating critical habitat. Those criteria
state that the requirements essential to species' conservation include
such things as ``space * * * [f]ood, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements * * * cover or
shelter.'' They further state that we are to focus on the ``primary
constituent elements'' such as ``spawning sites, feeding sites, * * *
water quality or quantity,'' etc. In the ANPR and proposed rule we
identified the features of the habitat that are essential for the
species to complete each life stage and are therefore essential to its
conservation. We described the features in terms of sites (spawning,
rearing, migration) that contain certain elements.
Comment 9: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the extent
to which specific areas may require special management considerations
or protection in light of existing management plans. Several commenters
stated that lands covered by habitat conservation plans or other
management or regulatory schemes do not require special management
considerations or protection. Others commented that even where
management plans are present, there still may be ``methods or
procedures useful'' for protecting the habitat features.
Response: The statutory definition and our regulations (50 CFR
424.02 and 424.12) require that specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species must contain ``physical or biological
features'' that are ``essential to the conservation of the species,''
and that ``may require special management considerations or
protection.'' As described in the proposed rule, and documented in the
reports supporting it, we first identified the physical or biological
features essential to
[[Page 52493]]
conservation (described in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(5) as
``primary constituent elements'' or PCEs). We next determined the
``specific areas'' in which those PCEs are found based on the occupied
stream reaches within a CALWATER HSA watershed. We used this watershed-
scale approach to delineating specific areas because it is relevant to
the spatial distribution of salmon and steelhead, whose innate homing
behavior brings them back to spawn in the watersheds where they were
born (Washington Department of Fisheries et al., 1992; Kostow, 1995;
McElhany et al., 2000). We then considered whether the PCEs in each
specific area (watershed) ``may require special management
considerations or protection.''
We recognize there are many ways in which ``specific areas'' may be
delineated, depending upon the biology of the species, the features of
its habitat and other considerations. In addressing these comments, we
considered whether to change the approach described in our proposed
rule and instead delineate specific areas based on ownership. The
myriad ownerships and state and local regulatory regimes present in any
watershed, as well as the timing issues discussed previously, made such
an approach impractical for this rulemaking, as noted in section I,
``Background and Previous Federal Action,'' above. While there are
other equally valid methods for identifying areas as critical habitat,
we believe that the watershed scale is an appropriate scale for
identifying specific areas for salmon and steelhead, and for then
determining whether the PCEs in these areas may require special
management considerations or protections. We will continue to study
this issue and alternative approaches in future rulemakings designating
critical habitat.
Comment 10: One commenter stated that we could not designate any
unoccupied areas if we had excluded any occupied areas, relying on the
regulatory provision cited in a previous comment and response.
Response: The comment assumes that all habitat areas are equivalent
and exchangeable, which they are not. An area may be essential for
conservation because it was historically the most productive spawning
area for an ESU and unless access to it is restored, the ESU will not
fully recover to the point that the protections of the ESA are no
longer necessary. This area will be essential regardless of whether
some other specific area has been excluded.
Comment 11: Several commenters supported the designation of
unoccupied areas above dams and some believed that by not designating
these areas we will make it more difficult to achieve fish passage in
the future. They further noted that excluding these presently blocked
areas now may promote habitat degradation that will hinder conservation
efforts should passage be provided in the future. Several commenters
identified areas above specified dams as being essential for conservation.
Response: At the present time, we do not have information allowing
us to determine that the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species are inadequate for conservation nor that
currently unoccupied areas above dams are essential for conservation.
The Southwest Region is actively involved in a multi-year, large-scale
recovery planning effort in California that involves scientific teams
(called technical recovery teams or TRTs) which are in the process of
identifying ESU population structure, population viability criteria,
and ESU level biological viability or recovery goals. These recovery
planning efforts are developing information which will inform our
decisions about whether unoccupied habitat will be needed to facilitate
conservation beyond what is currently occupied by the ESUs addressed in
this rulemaking. Until these efforts are more fully developed, we
cannot make the specific determinations required under the ESA to
designate critical habitat in ``unoccupied'' areas. We use our
authorities under the ESA and other statutes to advocate for salmon
passage above impassible dams where there is evidence such passage
would promote conservation. This is not the same, however, as making
the determinations required by the statute and our regulations to
support designation.
Comment 12: In the proposed rule we requested comments regarding
the use of professional judgment as a basis for identifying areas
occupied by the species. Some commenters indicated that it was
appropriate to accept the professional judgment of fish biologists who
are most familiar with fish habitat within a watershed. Others believed
that limiting the definition of occupied stream reaches to only those
where fish presence has been observed and documented is overly narrow
and fails to consider a number of conditions that affect species
distribution, including natural population fluctuations and habitat
alterations that affect accessibility or condition (e.g., de-watering
stream reaches). These commenters also argued that defining occupied
reaches should be based on a broad time scale that takes into account
metapopulation processes such as local extinction and recolonization,
adding along with other commenters that many streams have not been
adequately surveyed and species may frequent stream reaches but not
actually be observed by a biologist at the time that critical habitat
is being assessed.
Response: We relied on distribution and habitat use information
developed by our agency fishery biologists from a wide range of
sources, including the CDFG, to determine which specific stream reaches
were occupied by each ESU. The data sets we developed defined occupancy
based on field observations from stream surveys, and, in some cases,
professional judgment based on the expert opinion of area biologists.
In all cases the exercise of professional judgment included the
consideration of habitat suitability for the particular species. We
received several comments on our proposed rule regarding the accuracy
of the distribution data in specific locations, and, where we could
confirm that the information provided by the commenter was accurate, we
accepted it as the best available information and adjusted our
designation. We view designation of critical habitat as an ongoing
process and expect to adjust the designations as necessary as new
information or improved methods become available.
Comment 13: Some commenters addressed the CHART process although
few recommended changes to the CHARTs' ratings of watershed
conservation values. Some supported the process used, in particular the
recognition that not all habitats have the same conservation value for
an ESU and that this in turn allows for a more meaningful exclusion
assessment under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. One commenter contended
that the CHART assessments were compromised by restricting them to
consider only the stream channel rather than upslope areas as well.
Response: The CHART process was an important part of our analytical
framework in that it allowed us to improve our analysis of the best
available scientific data and to provide watershed-specific
conservation ratings useful for the Secretary's exercise of discretion
in balancing whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. We do not believe that
designating only the stream channel compromised the CHARTs' ability to
assess watershed conservation values. As noted in the CHART report, the
CHARTs employed a scoring system to assess (among other area
characteristics) the quality, quantity, and distribution of
[[Page 52494]]
PCEs within a watershed. The PCEs we have defined for these ESUs are
found within occupied stream channels, and therefore, it is appropriate
to focus our assessment on those areas. The CHART scoring did include a
factor related to the potential improvement of existing PCEs and
thereby allowed the CHARTs to consider the ability of a watershed to
contribute PCEs via natural processes such as recruitment of large wood
and substrate, flow regulation, floodplain connectivity, etc. We
recognize that salmon habitat is dynamic and that our present
understanding of areas important for conservation will likely change as
recovery planning sheds light on areas that can and should be protected
and restored. We intend to actively update these designations as needed
so that they reflect the best available scientific data and understanding.
Comment 14: Some commenters questioned whether the CHARTs
considered the work of the various Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs) and
suggested that the CHART assessments should be reviewed by the TRTs.
Response: Where information had been developed by the TRTs, the
CHARTs did consider that information in their assessments. The CHARTs
also solicited input and comments from the TRTs on their distribution
and habitat use information as well as their watershed conservation
assessments. We believe, therefore, that we have been able to integrate
much of the TRT findings to date into our final critical habitat
designations. Given their priorities (i.e., providing crucial recovery
planning criteria and guidance) and the time constraints under which we
needed to complete the critical habitat assessments, TRT members could
not participate on the CHARTs directly. We recognize that recovery
planning is an ongoing process and that new information from the TRTs
and recovery planning stakeholders may result in changes to our
critical habitat assessments in the future.
Economics Methodology
Comment 15: Several commenters stated that the economic analysis
overestimated the actual costs of critical habitat designation by
including costs that should be attributed to the baseline. For example,
commenters asserted that costs associated with listing and application
of the jeopardy requirement should not be included in the analysis.
Commenters also asserted that costs that would have occurred under
Pacific Fisheries (PACFISH) or the Northwest Forest Plan should be
excluded from the analysis. One commenter also stated that costs
associated with existing critical habitat designations for salmon or
other endangered species should be considered baseline impacts.
Response: Regarding costs associated with listing and application
of ESA section 7's jeopardy requirement, the economic analysis follows
the direction of the New Mexico Cattlegrowers decision, in which the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit called for ``a full analysis of
all of the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation,
regardless of whether those impacts are attributable coextensively to
other causes (New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277, 10th Cir. 2001). Consistent with this
decision, the economic analysis includes incremental impacts, those
that are solely attributable to critical habitat designation and would
not occur without the designation, as well as coextensive impacts, or
those that are associated with habitat-modifying actions covered by
both the jeopardy and adverse modification standards under section 7 of
the ESA. We do not think this overestimate of costs creates a bias in
our 4(b)(2) balancing, however, for two reasons. On the ``benefit of
designation'' side of the balance, we consider the benefit of
designation to be the entire benefit that results from application of
section 7's requirements regarding adverse modification of critical
habitat, regardless of whether application of the jeopardy requirement
would result in the same impact. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness
approach we have adopted allows us to consider relative benefits of
designation or exclusion and prioritize for exclusion areas with a
relatively low conservation value and a relatively high economic cost.
With such an approach it is most important that we are confident our
analysis has accurately captured the relative economic impacts, and we
believe it has.
In many cases, the protections afforded by PACFISH, the Northwest
Forest Plan and other regulations are intertwined with those of ESA
section 7. In cases where the specific regulation or initiative driving
the salmon and steelhead conservation efforts is uncertain, we
considered it as an ESA section 7 impact and examined the record of
consultations with the affected agencies and based our analysis on the
habitat protection measures routinely incorporated into the
consultations. The economic analysis therefore assumes that the impacts
of these types of habitat protection measures are attributable to the
implementation of section 7. In these instances, to the extent that
conservation burdens on economic activity are not, in fact, resulting
from section 7 consultation, the economic analysis may overstate costs
of the designation. We took this possibility into account in conducting
the 4(b)(2) balancing of benefits. Conservation efforts clearly
engendered by other regulations are included in the regulatory
baseline. For example, Federal lands management activities in the
Northwest Forest Plan planning area are affected by PACFISH. As a
result, some projects that would have affected salmon habitat will not
be proposed, and therefore will not be subject to section 7
consultation. These changes in projects are considered baseline and are
not included as a cost of section 7 in the economic analysis.
Commenters correctly note that there are designations currently in
place protecting critical habitat for salmon (e.g., Sacramento River
winter run chinook salmon, Central California Coastal coho salmon). We
acknowledged this in our proposed rule, but also noted that the
presence of those existing designations weighs equally on both sides of
the 4(b)(2) balance--that is, the existing designations also could be
considered as part of the baseline for determining the benefit of
designation for the ESUs addressed in the present rule. This concern is
also addressed by the cost-effectiveness approach we have adopted since
it relies on relative benefits of designation and exclusion rather than
absolute benefits.
Comment 16: One commenter and one peer reviewer noted that the
economic analysis assigns costs to all activities within the geographic
boundary of the HSA watersheds, though not all activities in this area
will lead to an ESA section 7 consultation or are equally likely to
have economic impacts. By doing this, the agency assumed that if the
stream reaches currently occupied by salmon were designated as critical
habitat, then activities throughout the watershed would be affected,
whether or not they are adjacent to critical habitat stream reaches.
Response: It is possible for activities not directly adjacent to
the proposed stream reaches to affect salmon and steelhead or their
habitat (for example, by increasing risk of erosion or decreased water
quality), and, therefore, such activities may be subject to
consultation and modification. Thus, we believe the HSA watersheds
represent a reasonable proxy for the potential boundary of consultation
activities. In some cases the revised economic analysis applies costs
less broadly by refining the geographic scale for certain
[[Page 52495]]
activities. For example, the analysis of pesticide impacts has been
refined and are now calculated based on occupied stream mile estimates
within a watershed.
Comment 17: One commenter asserted that the draft report inflates
its cost estimates by repeatedly choosing the high-end of a range of
costs, while a peer reviewer suggested using the mid-range as a
representative cost estimate was problematic.
Response: In determining likely costs associated with modifications
to activities that would benefit salmon and steelhead, the economic
analysis identifies a range of costs using available data from, for
example, agency budgets, documented conversations with stakeholders,
and published literature. The full range of costs of these activities
is presented in the economic analysis, and individual watersheds are
generally ranked in terms of cost impact by the midpoint of the cost
range, as opposed to the high end. While we recognize that a formal
sample of projects costs based on the consultation record or other
sources is a better approach in theory, available data did not allow
such an approach. In gathering the cost information that was available,
we avoided using outliers and sought to construct a typical range of costs.
Comment 18: Some commenters asserted that the economic analysis
fails to account for regional economic interactions between watersheds.
One commenter stated that this would result in an overstatement of the
costs, while other commenters state that this would underestimate the
costs. One peer reviewer suggested using regional economic models to
address these interactions.
Response: We acknowledge that modifications to economic activities
within one watershed may affect economic activities in other
watersheds. The economic analysis discusses the potential for regional
economic impacts associated with each of the potentially affected
activities. Impacts are assigned to particular areas (watersheds) based
on where they are generated as opposed to felt. That is, if the
designation of a watershed causes impacts in multiple nearby
watersheds, and exclusion of the impact-causing watershed would remove
those economic impacts from the region, the economic analysis
appropriately assigns the total cost impact to the impact-causing
watershed. This method of assigning impacts is most useful to us in
deciding the relative cost-effectiveness of excluding particular areas
from critical habitat designation. As we acknowledge in NMFS (NMFS
2005b), the economic analysis does not explicitly analyze the potential
for these regional interactions to introduce cumulative economic
impacts. Data are not available to support such an effort, nor would
the results necessarily be applicable at the level of a particular
watershed. If these impacts in fact exist, our results are likely to be
biased downward, in that we have likely underestimated the costs of
critical habitat designation at the level of the ESU. At the level of a
watershed, however, the potential error is smaller. For this reason, we
do not believe the lack of a regional modeling framework introduces a
significant bias into the results for particular watersheds.
Comment 19: Several commenters stated that the economic analysis
underestimates the actual costs of the rule by excluding several
categories of costs from the estimates. One commenter stated that the
New Mexico Cattlegrowers decision specifically requires a full analysis
of all impacts, including those resulting from the species' listing.
One comment argued that assessment of impacts stemming from activities
occurring outside the designated area should be included, including
indirect and regional impacts. Another commenter stated that the
analysis should consider direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts
including: changes in property values, property takings, water rights
impacts, business activity and potential economic growth, commercial
values, county and state tax base, public works project impacts,
disproportionate economic burdens on society sections, impacts to
custom and culture, impacts to other endangered species, environmental
impacts to other types of wildlife, and any other relevant impact.
Response: As noted in a previous response, the Court in the New
Mexico Cattlegrowers decision called for ``a full analysis of all of
the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation, regardless of
whether those impacts are attributable coextensively to other causes.''
(emphasis added) The economic analysis conducted for this rule
evaluated direct costs associated with the designation of critical
habitat and includes: (1) Direct coextensive impacts, or those that are
associated with habitat-modifying actions covered by both the jeopardy
(listing) and adverse modification (critical habitat) standards; and
(2) direct incremental impacts, or those that are solely attributable
to critical habitat designation.
We acknowledge that designation of critical habitat may also
trigger economic impacts outside of the direct effects of ESA section 7
or outside of the watersheds subject to the economic analysis. For
example, state or local environmental laws may contain provisions that
are triggered if a state- or locally regulated activity occurs in
Federally-designated critical habitat. Another possibility is that
critical habitat designation could have ``stigma'' effects, or impacts
on the economic value of private land not attributable to any direct
restrictions on the use of the land. Our economic analysis did not
reveal significant economic impacts from stigma effects for the
designation of salmon and steelhead. Further, significant impacts of
critical habitat on an industry may lead to broader regional economic
impacts. All of these types of impacts are considered in the analysis,
although it was not possible to estimate quantitative impacts in every
case. We took these considerations into account in balancing benefits
under section 4(b)(2).
We acknowledge that designation of critical habitat may also
trigger impacts on customs, culture, or other wildlife species. We
concluded that data were not presently available that would allow us to
quantify these impacts, at the scale of this designation, for the
economic analysis. Our analysis was further circumscribed by the short
time frames available, and our primary focus on conservation benefits
to the listed species that are the subject of this designation. We took
this limitation into account in the balancing of benefits under section
4(b)(2).
Comment 20: Several commenters indicated that the economic analysis
should include a discussion of the impact of changes in flow regimes on
water users, specifically in the timing of water flow through dams and
water withdrawal or diversion constraints. Among potentially affected
water users are crop irrigators and other agricultural water users,
regulators and consumers of public water supply in the region, and in
particular, water users of the Central Valley Project and State Water
Project, among others. Similarly, several commenters stated that the
analysis should include an analysis of impacts of changes to operations
that result in increased spill at hydropower dams on the cost of power
in the region. These commenters are concerned that excluding these
costs underestimates total economic impact. One commenter pointed out
that low flow years and drought years are not considered in the
economic impacts, and consideration of varying water year types is
especially relevant to estimating impacts of instream flow
augmentation. Another
[[Page 52496]]
commenter pointed out that existing, economically feasible alternate
sources of water may not be available to water users, and thus economic
costs could be large. One commenter estimated the potential loss of
agricultural income that would result from a reduction in water
availability to a specific region. One commenter stated that if
requisite minimum instream flows are developed that correspond to the
proposed critical habitat designation, they could be analyzed using the
CALVIN model developed by the University of California.
Response: While economic impacts would clearly result from future
changes to water supply availability, the amount of water within
particular areas that may be diverted from activities such as
irrigation, flood control, municipal water supply, and hydropower, for
the purposes of Pacific salmon and steelhead conservation, and thus the
requisite timing and volume of minimum instream flows, has not been
determined for most facilities. Many biological and hydrologic factors
are considered in determining flow requirements through dams for
Pacific salmon and steelhead, and the impacts of altering flow regimes
to meet these requirements are highly site-specific. For example, the
impact of increasing spill at a hydropower project depends on the level
and timing of the spill, and on the method by which any lost power
generation is replaced. Similarly, at a water supply facility, the
impact of increasing spill depends on the size and timing of the spill,
but also depends on the specific water rights held at the facility and
by downstream users, including the priority, volume, timing, and
particular use of those water rights.
The extent to which any future changes in flow may be attributable
to the designation of critical habitat, as opposed to the listing or
other wildlife-related regulations, is also unclear. The interrelated
nature of dam and diversion projects with hydrology across river
systems makes it very difficult to attribute flow-related impacts for
salmon and steelhead conservation to specific watersheds. As a result,
a comprehensive prospective analysis of the economic impacts of
potential restrictions on water use by these activities would be highly
speculative. We acknowledge this limitation of the economic analysis.
However, the revised economic analysis does include an expanded
discussion of what is known about the potential impacts of changes in
flow regimes on hydropower production and prices and water diversions
on irrigation based on historical examples.
Comment 21: Some commenters expressed concern that the economic
analysis does not address cumulative costs of multiple layers of
regulation on economic activities.
Response: Our economic analysis estimates costs associated with
conducting ESA section 7 consultation to ensure Federal agency actions
are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. We did
not have information available at the scale of this designation to
determine the marginal cost or benefit of such a consultation, in
addition to any state or local review that may occur, nor did the
commenters provide data that would allow us to make such a determination.
Comment 22: One commenter stated that the economic analysis fails
to factor in subsidies given to industries such as livestock grazing,
hydropower operations, and irrigation activities, which minimizes true
costs to the public. Another commenter further stated that the analysis
does not distinguish between several countervailing cost elements,
including ``socialized costs'' (costs Congress has decided that the
public should bear, such as costs to Federal activities), actual costs
to private entities, incentive costs, subsidies, and offsetting costs.
As a result, for Federal programs, the analysis miscategorizes
activities that benefit a small but favored sector of society, but that
cause costs to the larger society. The analysis assumes that costs to
these activities are costs to society in general.
Response: The analysis attempts to measure true social costs
associated with implementing the final critical habitat rule. To
accomplish this, the analysis uses the measurement of the direct costs
associated with meeting the regulatory burden imposed by the rule as
the best available proxy for the measurement of true social costs. We
agree that it is relevant to consider appropriate countervailing or net
cost impacts, where possible, in determining the benefit of exclusion.
Where data are available, our analysis attempts to capture the net
economic impact (i.e., the increased regulatory burden less any
discernable offsetting market gains), of ESA section 7 efforts imposed
on regulated entities and the regional economy. For example, in the
economic analysis, the revised impact estimates for pesticide use
restrictions explicitly net out agriculture subsidy payments in the
estimation of lost agricultural profits.
Comment 23: Several commenters indicated that the designation of
critical habitat will impose an administrative burden on affected
parties, including private, Federal, state and local entities. One
commenter stated that the increase in paperwork as a result of re-
initiating consultation on potential impacts to critical habitat for
projects that have already been through ESA section 7 consultation is a
major concern.
Response: We do consider that all activities may be subject to
future consultation, regardless of whether past consultation occurred
on these activities. Designation of critical habitat may result in
reinitiating consultation on activities that were subject to previous
consultation to ensure that the adverse modification requirement is
addressed in addition to the jeopardy requirement. The economic
analysis estimates the level of administrative effort associated with
ESA section 7 consultations, whether those consultations concern a new
activity or readdress the impacts of a previously reviewed activity.
The revised economic analysis includes a refined estimate of
administrative costs associated with consultations on West Coast salmon
and steelhead.
Comment 24: Some commenters stated that the economic analysis
estimates impacts using a constant per-capita income basis and that
doing so is likely to underestimate the impacts on rural communities.
Response: Per-capita income is not explicitly factored into the
watershed specific quantitative impact estimates in the economic
analysis. The commenter is highlighting that equal costs in any given
watersheds will not likely result in the same relative economic burden
to residents of those watersheds. This is because the ratio of costs of
the designation to income may vary across watersheds. In lower income
areas, the cost of implementing modifications to projects for the
benefit of salmon and steelhead may be more burdensome relative to
higher income areas. We did consider the extent to which costs of
designation within a watershed are likely to be borne locally. In
addition, information on distribution of wealth across the designation
is provided contextually in the economic analysis and this information
is weighed in considering the benefits of exclusion of particular areas.
Comment 25: One commenter stated that the analysis does not attempt
to explain or quantify with any level of precision what additional
costs are required by ESA section 7 consultation for design and/or
operational modifications or mitigation measures.
Response: The economic analysis focused on the impacts of section 7
consultation on economic activities by first identifying the types of
activities
[[Page 52497]]
occurring that may be subject to section 7 consultation. The analysis
then estimated the regulatory burden placed upon these activities as a
result of section 7 consultation. The burden estimate is based upon a
review of past modifications to those activities undertaken for the
benefit of salmon and steelhead, interviews with NMFS' consulting
biologists, affected parties, and available documents and literature.
This research on the potential costs of these modifications then
determined a typical range of costs for potential project modifications
that may be associated with section 7 consultation in the future.
Comment 26: One commenter stated that the economic analysis relied
extensively on the agency's consultation history for economic impact
estimates. Similarly, another commenter asserted that past costs are
not good indicators of future costs due to streamlining of the
consultation process (for example, for fire management) on Federal
lands. One commenter stated that the economic analysis assumes that the
population growth and economy of the impact areas are stagnant. The
analysis should evaluate population and economic growth on a regional,
State, and county basis, and evaluate the degree to which the listing
of salmon and steelhead may have contributed to any population and
economic decline.
Response: The economic analysis does not solely rely on the
consultation history to estimate economic impacts. The analysis
includes estimated costs associated with compliance with salmon
conservation activities produced by regulated entities, including
private, state, and Federal agencies, as well as published literature,
where information was available. The economic analysis does not
uniformly assume that all activities and associated consultations will
occur at the same rate in future years as in past years. Instead, the
economic analysis projects the most likely level of future activity
using a broad spectrum of planning documents, geographical data, and
interviews with planners and other stakeholders. Further, the economic
analysis does not quantify retrospective impacts of salmon and
steelhead conservation because the focus of the analysis is on future
impacts associated with the critical habitat areas identified in this
rulemaking. It should also be noted that consultations conducted by
NMFS do not include cost estimates of implementing recommended actions.
The analysis also presents detailed information on the current
estimated population and population density within each of the
particular areas in the proposed critical habitat designation.
Comment 27: One comment letter questioned whether there exists an
acceptable or unacceptable level of negative economic impact to
communities, landowners, or local governments and whether the
government must consider the impacts that their decisions will have on
local economies.
Response: The economic analysis provides information regarding the
impact to potentially affected economic activities of the proposed
critical habitat designation. This information was used to identify the
particular areas according to their relative cost burden. We then
weighed this information against the relative conservation value of the
particular areas considering the economic and any other relevant impact
of designating critical habitat. Further, concurrent with the economic
analysis, we prepared an analysis of potential impacts to small
entities, including small businesses and government. This analysis
identified the number of small businesses and governments likely
impacted by the proposed critical habitat using county-specific data on
the ratio of small businesses to total businesses in each potentially
affected economic sector.
Comment 28: Some commenters stated that the economic analysis used
data that are overly broad or made assumptions across geographic areas
that are too far reaching. For example, one commenter stated that the
economic analysis assumes that the necessity and scope of modifications
will be constant across ESUs for most activities, when in reality,
these are likely to vary substantially.
Response: For each activity, the economic analysis examines the
probability of consultation and the likelihood of modification. A
variety of activity-specific information sources were used to forecast
the frequency and geographic distribution of potentially affected
activities. That is, frequency of consultation was not always assumed
to be uniform across ESUs. The economic analysis does not, however,
assume that costs increase in areas of overlapping ESUs. In other
words, the presence of critical habitat for multiple ESUs is not
expected to generate a greater impact than if the particular area is
critical habitat for only a single ESU. Examination of the consultation
history did not reveal differences in requests for modification to
projects (reasonable and prudent alternatives) among the ESUs. We
recognize, however, that the broad scope and scale of the analysis
required us to make simplifying assumptions in order to complete the
designations in a timely fashion.
Comment 29: Several commenters 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 habitat areas. Similarly, commenters
expressed concerns that the economic impact of not designating
particular areas to fishers and investors in recovery efforts should be
considered in the economic analysis. Commenters specifically cited the
lack of consideration in the economic analysis of the potential
benefits of critical habitat designation on: (1) Decreased risk of
extinction; (2) benefits to other aquatic and riparian species; (3)
water quality; (4) flood control values; (5) recreation; (6) commercial
fishing; (7) fish harvest for tribal uses; and (8) increased public
education.
Response: As described in the economic analysis and ESA section
4(b)(2) report, 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 determine 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). 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
4(b)(2) balance. Our primary focus was to determine, consider, and
balance the benefits of designating these areas to conservation of the
listed species. Given the uncertainties involved in quantifying or even
ranking these ancillary types of benefits, we were concerned that their
consideration would interject an element of uncertainty into our
primary task.
Comment 30: One commenter asserted that the economic analysis did
[[Page 52498]]
not consider the importance of agriculture in California and how many
communities rely upon the agriculture industry to survive. A number of
commenters further stated that the analysis should address impacts on
agriculture of a judicially imposed moratorium on pesticide use near
salmon-bearing streams. The inability to use pesticides on farmland
could result directly in decreases in crop yields. More specifically,
the commenters believed that the economic analysis underestimates the
impacts of the Washington Toxics litigation (Washington Toxics
Coalition, et al. v. EPA, No. 04-35138) limiting pesticide use around
salmon-supporting waters and suggests that the economic analysis should
analyze the impact of this injunction.
Response: Regarding impacts to agricultural communities, we
considered impacts to small businesses in our Regulatory Flexibility
Act analysis. We did not otherwise separately consider economic impacts
to various economically or culturally defined communities in the
economic analysis or in the ESA section 4(b)(2) balancing process. For
example, we also did not separately consider impacts of designation or
exclusion on coastal fishing communities. As with the consideration of
ancillary unquantifiable benefits of designation described above, we
were concerned that including a consideration of these ancillary
benefits of exclusion would inject an unacceptable level of uncertainty
into our analysis.
We agree that the draft economic analysis did not adequately
consider the impact of pesticide restrictions on the agricultural
industry. The revised economic analysis therefore includes refined
estimates of potential lost profits associated with reduced crop yields
as a result of implementing pesticide restrictions across the critical
habitat designation. The analysis assumes that the agricultural net
revenue generated by land within certain distances of salmon-supporting
waters would be completely lost. That is, the analysis assumes that no
changes in behavior are undertaken to mitigate the impact of pesticide
restrictions. This assumption may lead to overestimated impacts of
restricting pesticide use. On the other hand, the analysis may
underestimate the impact of pesticide restrictions by assuming that
farmers outside the designated areas (e.g., upstream) will not be
restricted in their activities.
Comment 31: Several commenters stated that impacts associated with
changes in the operations of the hydropower projects should be
included, including impacts from projects such as Englebright Dam,
Oroville Dam, and Santa Felicia Dam.
Response: The historical record shows evidence that modifications
to hydropower projects in consideration of listed salmon and steelhead
can affect the level of hydropower generation and generating capacity,
thus affecting power prices. Flow regimes for purposes of salmon and
steelhead conservation have been implemented at various projects
associated with a number of regulations, including the listing of
salmon and steelhead. As mentioned previously, however, the level of
increased flow or spill over the dams within particular areas that may
be requested associated with critical habitat for all hydropower
projects is uncertain at this time, and a prospective analysis of the
impacts of such efforts would be highly speculative. Many biological
and hydrologic factors are considered in determining flow requirements
through dams for salmon and steelhead, and the impacts of altering flow
regimes to meet these requirements are highly site-specific. For
example, the impact of increasing spill at a hydropower project depends
on the level and timing of the spill, and on the method by which any
lost power generation is replaced.
The extent to which any future changes in flow may be attributable
to the designation of critical habitat, as opposed to the listing or
other wildlife-related regulations, is also unclear. The interrelated
nature of dam and diversion projects with hydrology across river
systems makes it very difficult to attribute flow-related impacts from
salmon and steelhead conservation to specific watersheds. We
acknowledge this limitation of the economic analysis. The revised
economic analysis includes an expanded discussion of the potential
impacts of changes in flow regimes on hydropower operations.
Comment 32: One commenter stated that the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis needs more citations regarding the applied sources
of information.
Response: We have provided appropriate citations in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Comment 33: One commenter stated that the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) analysis assumes that most compliance
costs would be borne by third parties when, in fact, a significant
portion of all ESA section 7 related costs are not borne by those
entities, but rather are borne by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
Response: In many cases it is uncertain who will bear the costs of
modification. The potentially burdened parties associated with
modifications to activities are identified in the economic analysis.
The BOR may, in fact, bear the cost of modifications to BOR dams,
Federal land management activities, and so forth. Where information is
not available on a per-project basis regarding the potentially affected
party, the analysis takes a conservative approach, assuming that
impacts may be borne by private entities, a portion of which may be
small entities.
Weighing the Benefits of Designation Versus Exclusion
Comment 34: Several commenters supported the use of a cost-
effectiveness framework, one commenter explicitly objected to it, and
some commenters had concerns with the way we applied it. One commenter
asserted that the economic analysis ``would have been very different''
if we had evaluated the absolute conservation value of an area ``with
or without [section]
7 requirements,'' rather than relative
conservation values. One commenter asserted that ``[w]ithout any target
level of conservation for designation, the framework does not guarantee
that areas necessary for conservation will be designated.'' Another
commenter asserted that weighing quantitative economic costs against
qualitative habitat ratings prejudiced the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis
in favor of excluding areas lacking a high conservation value. Several
commenters suggested that the 4(b)(2) process could benefit from more
explanation regarding how the process was applied.
Response: We believe the comparison of benefits provides the
Secretary useful information as to the benefits of any particular
inclusion or exclusion. The Secretary has discretion in balancing the
statutory factors, including what weight to give those factors. The ESA
provides the Secretary with the discretion to exclude areas based on
the economic impact, or any other relevant impact, so long as a
determination is made that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, and so long as the exclusion will not result
in extinction of the species concerned.
Subsequent to publication of this rule, we will undertake a review
of the methods and criteria applied in this rule. If the Secretary
determines the critical habitat designations should be modified as a
result of that review, we will propose a revised designation with
appropriate opportunity for notice and comment.
Comment 35: In the proposed rule we identified a number of
potential exclusions that we were considering but
[[Page 52499]]
were not at that time proposing, including Federal lands subject to the
Northwest Forest Plan and PACFISH. Many commenters opposed these
potential exclusions. Some disagreed that designation of critical
habitat is unnecessary or of diminished importance in light of existing
management constraints, contending that such a position is contrary to
the ESA's conservation purpose and our implementing regulations and
citing recent court decisions bearing on this issue. Several commenters
indicated that because these ESUs are still listed, existing regulatory
and voluntary mechanisms are inadequate and also noted that we
concluded as such in our 2000 designations. Some commenters believed
that the assumptions underlying such exclusions were unjustifiable and
potentially disastrous for salmon recovery. Some commenters noted that
the lack of specificity regarding which areas might be excluded as well
as the lack of clear exclusion standards seriously hindered the
public's ability to comment on the proposed exclusions. In contrast,
several commenters supported the potential exclusions mentioned in the
proposed rule. Some commenters contended that designating critical
habitat on these Federal lands was duplicative with existing ESA
section 7 consultation processes, inefficient (e.g., citing costs of
re-initiating consultation), and offers no additional conservation
benefit to the listed ESUs. One commenter believed that excluding
Federal lands would be consistent with our exclusion of lands subject
to Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) since existing
land management plans provide similar protections. This commenter also
cited the USFWS'' exclusion of Federal lands for bull trout (69 FR
59996; October 6, 2004) and provided information supporting the belief
that we should make the same determination for salmon and steelhead ESUs.
Response: 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, 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: ``On October 6, 2004, the FWS issued a final rule
designating critical habitat for the bull trout * * *. The Secretary of
the Interior found that a number of conservation measures designed to
protect salmon and steelhead on Federal, state, tribal and private
lands would also have significant beneficial impacts to bull trout.
Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior determined that the benefits
of excluding those areas exceeded the benefits of including those areas
as critical habitat. The Secretary of Commerce has reviewed the bull
trout rule and has recognized the merits of the approach taken by the
Secretary of the Interior to these emerging issues.'' We acknowledged,
in the proposed rule, however, that we lacked the analysis to propose
these potential exclusions for West Coast salmon and steelhead: At this
time, the Secretary of Commerce still ``has not had an opportunity to
fully evaluate all of the potential exclusions, the geographical extent
of such exclusions, or compare the benefits of these exclusions to the
benefits of inclusion.'' Our regulations require that our proposed and
final rules provide the data upon which the rule is based (50 CFR
424.16; 50 CFR 424.18).
Recently, in response to the Department of Interior's request, a
District Court has remanded the bull trout rule to the Department of
Interior for further rulemaking. Alliance for the Wild Rockies and
Friends of the Wild Swan v. David Allen and United States Fish and
Wildlife (CV 04-1812). In seeking the remand the Department of Interior
noted that it intends to reconsider the 4(b)(2) exclusions in the
proposed rule and that it recently issued a Federal Register notice
seeking comment on those exclusions (70 FR 29998; May 25, 2005). In
response, we received extensive comment from those supporting and
opposing these potential exclusions. Based on our review of the
information received and the short time between the close of the
comment period and the court-ordered deadline for completing this
rulemaking, we are unable to conclude at this time that the benefits of
excluding these areas outweigh the benefits of designation, with the
exception of areas covered by two habitat conservation plans, discussed
below.
Nevertheless, 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.
Comment 36: In the proposed rule we requested comments on the
potential exclusion of lands subject to conservation commitments by
state and private landowners reflected in habitat conservation plans
(HCPs) approved by NMFS. Some commenters (none however with NMFS-
approved HCPs) concurred with the potential exclusion of lands covered
by an HCP, believing that we would not likely secure additional
conservation benefits by designating these areas as critical habitat.
Some commenters acknowledged the potential educational benefits of
designation but asserted that designating HCP lands could have an
[[Page 52500]]
unintended consequence of damaging existing and future cooperative
relationships. These commenters additionally noted that HCPs have
already undergone extensive environmental review and ESA section 7
consultation and been found to not likely jeopardize the species.
Several commenters disagreed with the potential exclusion of lands
covered by HCPs, believing it would be contrary to the ESA, and some
cited recent litigation bearing on this issue (e.g., Center for
Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003);
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. FWS, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004). One
commenter did not support such exclusions because of the belief that
there are no guarantees the plans will remain in place when, for
example, ownership changes or landowners change their minds. Some
commenters believed that we failed to adequately describe the benefits
of designation as they pertain to these potential exclusions.
Response: The analysis required for these types of exclusions, as
with all others, first requires careful consideration of the benefits
of designation versus the benefits of exclusion to determine whether
benefits of exclusion outweigh benefits of designation. The benefit of
designating critical habitat on non-Federal areas covered by an
approved HCP or another type of conservation agreement depends upon the
type and extent of Federal activities expected to occur in that area in
the future. Activities may be initiated by the landowner, such as when
the landowner seeks a permit for bank stabilization, water withdrawal,
or dredging. Where the area is covered by an HCP, the activity for
which a permit is sought may or may not be covered by the HCP. For
example, an HCP covering forestry activities may include provisions
governing construction of roads, but may not include provisions
governing bank stabilization or pesticide application. The activity may
be initiated by the Federal agency without any landowner involvement,
such as when a Federal agency is involved in building a road or bridge,
dredging a navigation channel, or applying a pesticide on Federal land
upstream of the HCP-covered area. In analyzing the benefits of
designation for these HCP-covered areas, we must consider which Federal
activities are covered by the HCP and which are not. Where activities
are covered by the HCP, we must consider whether an ESA section 7
consultation on that particular activity would result in beneficial
changes to the proposed action over and above what is achieved under
the HCP. Designation may also benefit the species by notifying the
landowner and the public of the importance of an area to species'
conservation.
On the other side of the balance are the benefits of exclusion. We
believe the primary benefits of exclusion are related to the
conservation benefits to the species that come from conservation
agreements on non-Federal land. If a landowner considers exclusion from
critical habitat as a benefit, exclusion may enhance the partnership
between NMFS and the landowner and thus enhance the implementation of
the HCP or other agreement. If other landowners also consider exclusion
from critical habitat as a benefit, our willingness to exclude such
areas may provide an incentive for them to seek conservation agreements
with us. Improved implementation of existing partnerships, and the
creation of new conservation partnerships, would ultimately benefit
conservation of the species.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners enhance species
conservation by extending species' protections beyond those available
through other ESA provisions. ESA section 7 applies only to Federal
agency actions. Section 7 consultation requirements protect listed
salmon and steelhead on Federal lands and whenever a Federal permit or
funding is involved in non-Federal actions, but its reach is limited.
The vast majority of activities occurring in riparian and upland areas
on non-Federal lands do not require a Federal permit or funding and are
not addressed by section 7. In contrast, instream activities generally
do require a Federal permit, and therefore, are subject to the
requirements of section 7. The ability of the ESA to induce landowners
to adopt conservation measures lies instead in the take prohibitions of
sections 9(a) and 4(d). Many landowners have chosen to put conservation
plans in place to avoid any uncertainty regarding whether their actions
constitute `take'.
Beginning in 1994, when we released our draft HCP Handbook for
public review and comment, we have pursued policies that provide
incentives for non-Federal landowners to enter into cooperative
partnerships, based on a view that we can achieve greater species'
conservation on non-Federal land through HCPs than we can through
coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996). Before we approve an
HCP and grant an incidental take permit, we must conduct a rigorous
analysis under ESA section 10. The HCP must specify the impact likely
to result from take, what steps the applicant will take to minimize and
mitigate such impacts, and the funding available to implement such
steps. The applicant must have considered alternative actions and
explained why other alternatives are not being pursued, and we may
require additional actions necessary or appropriate for the purposes of
the plan. Before an HCP can be finalized, we must conclude that any
take associated with implementing the plan will be incidental, that the
impact of such take will be minimized and mitigated, that the plan is
adequately funded, and that the take will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The
HCP undergoes environmental analysis under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and we conduct a section 7 consultation with
ourselves to ensure granting the permit is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat.
Based on comments received, we could not conclude that all
landowners view designation of critical habitat as imposing a burden on
the land, and exclusion from designation as removing that burden and
thereby strengthening the ongoing relationship. Where an HCP partner
affirmatively requests designation, exclusion is likely to harm rather
than benefit the relationship. We anticipate further rulemaking in the
near future to refine these designations, for example, in response to
developments in recovery planning. In order to aide in future
revisions, we will affirmatively request information from those with
approved HCPs regarding the effect of designation on our ongoing
partnership. We did not consider pending HCPs for exclusion, both
because we do not want to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing HCP
process, and because we expect to have future opportunities to refine
the designation and consider whether exclusion will outweigh the
benefit of designation in a particular case.
Comment 37: We received a request from the Sonoma County Grape
Growers Association and the United Winegrowers for Sonoma County to
consider a determination to exclude all occupied areas in Sonoma County
from critical habitat for California coastal chinook and central
California coast O. mykiss based on the conservation value of a suite
of cooperative and voluntary conservation efforts being implemented and
developed by local government and the private sector, primarily the
viticultural industry, in Sonoma County.
[[Page 52501]]
Response: These efforts may currently provide a significant
conservation benefit to the listed species, and offer the promise of
even greater benefits in the future. The measures include the Vineyard
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance adopted by the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors; the Fish Friendly Farming Program; the
North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project; the planned Russian
River Property Owners Association Fisheries Management Plan; the
Integrated Pest Management/Organic Grape Production initiatives; and
the Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Practices. The submission can be
found electronically at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
The request suggests the benefits of excluding the area covered by
these measures from critical habitat may outweigh the benefits of
including it as critical habitat because it provides conservation
measures on private land in an area dominated by private ownership,
which is generally beyond the reach of ESA section 7, and may therefore
provide a greater benefit for the species than a critical habitat
designation. Private landowners would be encouraged to participate in
these voluntary programs if their lands were excluded from critical
habitat.
We received this request on July 21, 2005, so we did not have time
to evaluate this request as part of this rulemaking process, and could
not defer the rule to accommodate a review because we are under court
order to submit this final rule to the Federal Register by August 15,
2005. However, we are committed to working with local governments and
private landowners in cooperative conservation efforts under Executive
Order (E.O.) 13352 (August 26, 2004). As stated above, we anticipate
further rulemaking in the near future to refine these designations.
Accordingly, we expect to complete an evaluation of the conservation
benefits of the measures described by the Sonoma County Grape Growers
Association and the United Wine growers for Sonoma County by the end of
2005. If we find that in light of the conservation value of these
measures, the benefit of excluding these private lands outweighs the
benefits of including them as critical habitat, we will act promptly to
propose a revision to this designation.
Comment 38: Some commenters addressed the exclusion of Indian
Lands. All of the commenting Tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) reiterated their support for the exclusions.
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 39: A few commenters addressed our assessment of INRMPs and
the exclusion of Department of Defense (DOD) areas due to impacts on
national security. DOD agencies supported the exclusion of military
lands based on both the development of INRMPs as well as national
security impacts, while other commenters did not support such
exclusions. One commenter argued that we should not use the general
``national security'' language in ESA section 4(b)(2) to remove our
obligation to comply with the demand for adequate INRMPs.
Response: Pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)), we contacted the DOD, and, after evaluating the
relevant INRMPs, we concluded that, as implemented, they provide
conservation benefits greater than or equal to what would be expected
to result from an ESA section 7 consultation. We also determined that
two of these INRMP sites (Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base)
should be excluded from designation due to potential impacts on
national security. See the ``Military Lands'' and the ``Exclusions
Based on National Security Impacts'' sections below.
Effects of Designating Critical Habitat
Comment 40: Some commenters noted that the success of watershed
management and restoration efforts is dependent on critical habitat
protections, noting that designations assist local recovery planning
efforts and provide leverage in obtaining funding and cooperation.
Several commenters expressed concern that excluding areas from
designation, particularly areas identified in existing recovery efforts
as important for salmon, would undermine ongoing regional and local
recovery planning efforts by signaling that these areas are not
important for recovery.
Response: We acknowledge that critical habitat designations can
serve an important educational role and that they can assist local
recovery planning and implementation efforts. The ESA requires that we
use the best available scientific data to evaluate which areas warrant
designation and that we balance the benefits of designation against the
benefits of excluding particular areas. In so doing, it is possible
that some areas subject to ongoing restoration activities may have been
excluded from designation. However, such exclusions do not indicate
that the areas are unimportant to salmon or steelhead, but instead
reflects the practical result of following the ESA's balancing of
benefits as required under section 4(b)(2). We are hopeful that the
information gathered and the analyses conducted to support these final
designations (such as species distribution, watershed conservation
value, and economic impacts from section 7 consultations) will be
viewed as valuable resources for local recovery planners. As recovery
planning proceeds and we determine that additional or different areas
warrant designation or exclusion, we can and will make needed revisions
using the same rulemaking process.
Comment 41: Several commenters asked for clarification regarding
how we will make adverse modification determinations in ESA
consultations. One commenter also suggested that a finding of adverse
modification would need to be contingent on the habitat conditions
existing at the time of designation. They noted that, where such
conditions are the result of past and present management actions, and
where those existing conditions would not be altered through proposed
future actions, it is their belief that consultation on such future
actions would result in a ``no adverse modification'' determination.
Response: In Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the USFWS' regulatory definition
of ``destruction or adverse modification'' of critical habitat, which
is also NMFS' regulatory definition (50 CFR 402.02), is contrary to
law. Pending issuance of a new regulatory definition, we are relying on
the statutory standard, which relates critical habitat to conservation
of the species. The related point raised by one commenter regarding the
relevance of habitat conditions at the time of listing when making an
adverse modification determination cannot be answered in a generic way
and would depend on the facts associated with a specific consultation.
Comment 42: Some commenters objected to the potential land use
regulations that critical habitat designation would prompt, citing
specific cases where local agencies have imposed buffers and/or other
restrictions to protect ESA-listed fish.
Response: The ESA requires that we designate critical habitat and
these designations follow that statutory mandate and have been
completed on a schedule established under a Consent Decree. Whether and
if local jurisdictions will implement their
[[Page 52502]]
authorities to issue land use regulations is a separate matter and is
not under our control.
Comment 43: Several commenters believed that we fail to (or
inadequately) address required determinations related to a number of
laws, regulations, and executive orders, including the NEPA, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and Data Quality Act.
Response: Our response to each of these issues are described below,
and we also direct the reader to the ``Required Determinations''
section to review our response to each of the determinations relevant
to this rulemaking.
(a) NEPA--We believe that in Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996) the court
correctly interpreted the relationship between NEPA and critical
habitat designation under the ESA. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected the suggestion that irreconcilable statutory conflict
or duplicative statutory procedures are the only exceptions to
application of NEPA to Federal actions. The court held that the
legislative history of the ESA demonstrated that Congress intended to
displace NEPA procedures with carefully crafted procedures specific to
critical habitat designation. Further, the Douglas County Court held
that the critical habitat mandate of the ESA conflicts with NEPA in
that, although the Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat
designation if such exclusion would be more beneficial than harmful,
the Secretary has no discretion to exclude areas from designation if
such exclusion would result in extinction. The court noted that the ESA
also conflicts with NEPA's demand for impact analysis, in that the ESA
dictates that the Secretary ``shall'' designate critical habitat for
listed species based upon an evaluation of economic and other
``relevant'' impacts, which the court interpreted as narrower than
NEPA's directive. Finally, the court, based upon a review of precedent
from several circuits including the Fifth Circuit, held that an
environmental impact statement is not required for actions that do not
change the physical environment.
(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act--We have prepared a final regulatory
flexibility analysis that estimates the number of regulated small
entities potentially affected by this rulemaking and the estimated
coextensive costs of section 7 consultation incurred by small entities.
As described in the analysis, we considered various alternatives for
designating critical habitat for these seven ESUs. After considering
these alternatives in the context of the ESA section 4(b)(2) process of
weighing the benefits of exclusion against the benefits of designation,
we determined that our current approach to designation 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 ESUs. Our final regulatory flexibility analysis
estimates how much small entities will save in compliance costs due to
the exclusions made in these final designations.
(c) Data Quality Act--One commenter asked if we had complied with
the Data Quality Act. We have reviewed this rule for compliance with
that Act and found that it complies with NOAA and OMB guidance.
(d) Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.)--One commenter
asserted that we should have engaged in negotiated rulemaking to issue
this final critical habitat designation. This is an interesting idea
and could be pursued in future critical habitat rulemaking. However,
because a court approved consent decree governs the time frame for
completion of this final rule, we do not feel that there was ample time
to comply with the numerous processes defined in the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act for this rulemaking. For example, the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act provides that if the agency decides to use this tool it
must follow Federal Advisory Committee Act procedures for selection of
a committee, conduct of committee activities, as well as specific
documentation processes (See Negotiated Rulemaking Source Book, 1990).
(e) Intergovernmental Cooperation Act--One commenter asserted that
we did not properly and fully coordinate with local governments and did
not comply with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. First, the
commenter did not provide a statutory citation for the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. Although we are reluctant to
speculate on that Act, we believe the comment is in reference to the
Intergovernmental Cooperative Act, Public Law 90-577, 82 Stat. 1098
(1968) as amended by Public Law 97-258 (1982) (codified at 31 U.S.C.
6501-08 and 40 U.S.C. 531-35 (1988)). This Act addresses Federal grants
and development assistance. Accordingly, we do not find it relevant to
the mandatory designation of critical habitat under the ESA. To the
extent that the commenter's concern is assuring that state, local and
regional viewpoints be solicited during the designation process, the
ESA and our implementing regulations provides for public outreach (16
U.S.C. 1533 (b)(3)(A); 50 CFR 424.16). As noted in response to Comment
1, we actively sought input from all sectors beginning with an ANPR (68
FR 55926; September 29, 2003) and culminating in four public hearings
to facilitate comment from the interested public in response to the
proposed rule. In addition we met with several local governments and
made ourselves available to meet with others.
(f) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)--One commenter
asserted that we failed to comply with the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6).
The NHPA does not apply to this designation. The NHPA applies to
``undertakings.'' ``Undertakings'' are defined under the implementing
regulations as ``a project, activity or program funded in whole or in
part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency,
including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those
carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a
Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or
local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a
Federal agency.'' (emphasis added) (36 CFR 800.16). The mandatory
designation of specific areas pursuant to the criteria defined in the
ESA does not constitute an ``undertaking'' under the NHPA.
(g) Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)--One commenter asserted
that we failed to comply with FPPA (7 U.S.C. 4201). The FFPA does not
apply to this designation. The FPPA applies to Federal programs.
Federal programs under the Act are defined as ``those activities or
responsibilities of a department, agency, independent commission, or
other unit of the Federal Government that involve: (A) Undertaking,
financing, or assisting construction or improvement projects; or (B)
acquiring, managing or disposing of Federal lands and facilities. The
designation of critical habitat does not constitute a ``Federal
program'' under the FFPA.
(h) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--One commenter asserted that we
failed to properly conduct and provide an unfunded mandates analysis
because, the commenter contended, we based our decision solely on
public awareness of the salmon listings. This is not the case. In the
proposed rule, we found that the designation of critical habitat is not
subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and
explained in detail why this is the case.
(i) Federalism--One commenter asserted that we failed to properly
comply with E.O. 13132. In the proposed rule, we found that the
designation of critical habitat does not
[[Page 52503]]
have significant Federalism effects as defined under that order, and,
therefore, a Federalism assessment is not required. We find nothing in
the commenter's assertions to warrant changing our original determination.
(j) Takings--One commenter disputed our conclusion in the proposed
rule that the designations would not result in a taking. The commenter
offered no information or analysis that would provide a basis for a
different conclusion.
(k) 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 12 salmon and steelhead ESUs.
ESU-Specific Issues
ESU Specific Comments--California Coastal Chinook Salmon
Comment 44: One private timberland owner commented that the
freshwater distribution of Chinook salmon that we developed and used
for their land ownership had errors in occupancy and/or upstream
distribution limits. The landowner provided us with distribution
information they had developed for their ownership so that the
distribution information and resulting final critical habitat
designation for this ESU would be more accurate.
Response: Following a review of this new information by the CHART,
we incorporated it into our database and made changes in the mapped
distribution of this ESU for the commenter's land ownership. The new
information changed the distribution of Chinook in the following
streams and Calwater HSAs: Maple Creek (110810), Little River (110820),
and the Mad River (110920 and 110930). Overall, these changes in
distribution were minor and increased the total occupied stream miles
for this ESU by only 0.6 mi (1.0 km). Based on a reassessment by the
CHART, these changes in distribution did not change the occupancy
status (i.e. occupied to unoccupied or vice versa) or conservation
value of any of the affected HSAs, and therefore, the economic analysis
did not require revision.
Comment 45: A few commenters questioned why there was no proposed
critical habitat connecting those portions of the mainstem Eel River in
HSA 111142 with the high value habitat areas in the upper tributaries
of the middle Fork Eel River in HSA 111172.
Response: In the proposed rule, HSA watershed 111171 was proposed
for exclusion based on high economic cost (high benefit of exclusion)
and relatively low benefit of designation. However, because the upper
tributaries of the middle Fork Eel in HSA 111172 were rated as having
high conservation value, the mainstem middle Fork Eel in HSA 111171
should have been designated as a migratory corridor to provide
connectivity between critical habitat farther downstream in the
mainstem Eel River and the high value tributaries that were proposed
for designation. This was an error that has been corrected in the final
rule. The final designation excludes HSA 111171 as was the case in the
proposed rule, but designates the mainstem of the middle Fork Eel
River, which serves as a migratory corridor for the high value upstream
tributaries, as critical habitat.
Comment 46: A commenter questioned the conservation ratings and
proposed designations for five of the seven occupied HSAs comprising
the Mendocino Coast Subbasin (HU 1113). The commenter specifically
questioned the historic and current presence of Chinook in these
watersheds and thought any Chinook that did occur in these watersheds
were likely strays from other watersheds.
Response: The CHART considered these comments and reviewed its
original assessments. It concluded that its original conservation value
ratings were appropriate based on the ranking criteria that were used
and the information that was available, and that these areas met the
definition of critical habitat under the ESA. Accordingly, the
conservation value ratings for these HSA watersheds were not changed.
Based on the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for the final rule,
however, HSA watershed 111350 (Navarro River) in this Subbasin was
excluded from the final designation for this ESU.
Comment 47: One commenter questioned the proposed designation of
critical habitat for this ESU in the Austin Creek HSA (111412) and Mark
West HSA (111423), based on the view that neither watershed supported a
historically self sustaining run and that Chinook in both streams were
most likely strays from other watersheds.
Response: The CHART considered this comment and reviewed its
original assessments. It concluded that its original conservation value
ratings were appropriate based on the ranking criteria that were used
and the information that was available, and that these areas met the
definition of critical habitat under the ESA. Accordingly, the
conservation value ratings for these HSA watersheds were not changed.
Based on the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for the final rule,
however, HSA 111423 (Mark West Creek) in this Subbasin was excluded
from the final designation for this ESU.
Comment 48: A property owners' association on the Russian River
that controls land adjacent to portions of the Russian River in HSAs
111425 and 111424 requested that its lands be excluded from the final
designations for California Coastal Chinook (and Central California
Coast steelhead) because it has developed a Watershed Management Plan
to manage its lands and because the benefits of excluding its lands
outweigh the benefits of including them in the designation.
Response: We are very supportive of the development and
implementation of this plan and have in fact participated in its
development. However, we do not think this plan qualifies as the basis
for excluding these lands from the final designation for either ESU at
present, since it is not completed. Once the plan is completed, we will
evaluate it to determine whether the benefits of excluding the habitat
areas in question will outweigh the benefits of designation. In making
this assessment we will evaluate the plan in the same manner as we
would evaluate an approved habitat conservation plan (see Impacts to
Landowners with Contractual Commitments to Conservation section). If we
determine that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation, then we will initiate the appropriate rulemaking to refine
the critical habitat designations.
ESU Specific Comments--Northern California Steelhead
Comment 49: Two private timberland owners commented that the
freshwater distribution of steelhead that we developed and used for
their land ownership had errors in occupancy and/or upstream
distribution limits. Both landowners provided us with distribution
information they had developed for their ownership so that the fish
distribution information we used for the final critical habitat
designation for this ESU would be more accurate.
[[Page 52504]]
Response: Following a review of this new information by the CHART,
we incorporated it into our database and made changes in the mapped
distribution of this ESU for the commenters' land ownership. The new
information from one of the landowners changed the distribution of
steelhead in the following streams and Calwater HSAs: Maple Creek
(110810), Redwood Creek (110720), Little River (110820), Mad River
(110920 and 110930), and several small streams including Rocky Gulch,
Washington Gulch, Jacoby Creek, Freshwater Creek, and Salmon Creek
(111000). Overall, these changes in distribution were minor and
increased the total occupied stream miles for this ESU by only 1.1 mi
(1.8 km). The changes in distribution did not affect the occupancy or
conservation value rating for any of these HSAs. The new information
from the other landowner changed the distribution of steelhead in the
following streams and HSAs: SF Eel (111132, 111133), Usal Creek
(111311), Wages Creek (111312), Ten Mile River (111313), Mill Creek,
Pudding Creek and the Noyo River (111320), Big River (111330) and
Salmon Creek (111340). Overall, this new information decreased the
occupied stream miles for the ESU by approximately 17 miles and
affected 8 HSAs. Based on a re-assessment by the CHART, these changes
in distribution did not change the occupancy status (i.e. occupied to
unoccupied or vice versa) or conservation value of any of the affected
HSAs, and therefore, the economic analysis did not require revision.
ESU Specific Comments--Central California Coast Steelhead
Comment 50: One commenter requested that San Francisquito Creek and
Los Trancos Creek in HSA 220550 be excluded from the critical habitat
designation for this ESU because of the economic impact of designation
and because neither creek requires special management considerations. A
second commenter requested that San Francisquito Creek not be
designated because of the regulatory burden and because the economic
impacts on water supply were not included in the economic analysis. The
second commenter also identified a labeling error concerning West Union
Creek.
Response: We disagree with the first commenter and believe that
these streams do require special management considerations. Both
streams have extensive zones of healthy riparian vegetation and habitat
and support significant steelhead populations in the San Francisco Bay
area. These relatively healthy habitats and populations are unique to
the San Francisco Bay area, and therefore, the CHART believes they
require special management considerations. The commenter has many
programs in place that benefit both creeks, but there are also many
unresolved habitat issues that remain to be addressed. For example, on
Los Trancos Creek a poorly designed fish ladder needs to be replaced,
and several other fish passage issues remain. In addition, NMFS and
CDFG have discussed the inadequate bypass flows on Los Trancos Creek
below the commenter's water diversion for the past several years, but
have yet to resolve the issue. Special management considerations are
also necessary to address ongoing and expanding impacts of urbanization
on the San Francisco Peninsula. We considered the impacts of
designating the HSA watershed containing these creeks in the proposed
rule and again using a revised procedure for the final rule. Based on
the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis used for the final rule, we concluded
that the benefits of including this HSA watershed in the designation
(medium conservation value to the ESU) outweighed the benefits of
excluding it from the designation. On the basis of this analysis,
therefore, we do not think there will be an unwarranted regulatory
burden placed on these commenters or any other entities that may need
to obtain Federal permits and consult with NMFS in this HSA watershed.
We acknowledge the comment that water supply impacts were not
considered in the proposed rule or in the revised 4(b)(2) process for
the final rule, but we have addressed water supply impacts as a general
issue in greater detail in the final economic analysis for this rule.
Comment 51: One commenter argued that Suisun and Wooden Valley
Creeks in HSA 220722 do not provide suitable habitat for steelhead and
that designation is not justified because surrounding HSAs were not
proposed for designation.
Response: We disagree with the commenter and believe that Suisun
and Wooden Valley Creeks currently support a population of steelhead
and do provide suitable habitat for rearing, spawning and migration
(and thus, the PCEs that support these habitat uses). The reports cited
by the commenter include a discussion of limiting factors in Suisun
Creek, but also include several favorable findings regarding steelhead
habitat conditions in the watershed. These findings suggest that there
is suitable habitat for steelhead in the watershed and that steelhead
spawned in Suisun Creek in 2000-2001. Based on the information
available, therefore, we believe that the medium conservation rating
originally made by the CHART for this HSA watershed is appropriate. The
revised ESA section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis conducted for the final
rule, however, considered section 7 opportunities within HSA watersheds
and adjusted the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat accordingly.
In the case of this HSA, this re-consideration resulted in a reduced
assessment of the benefits of designating this watershed. Based on this
revised benefit of designation in the final 4(b)(2) analysis, we have
concluded that the benefits of excluding this HSA from the designation
outweigh the benefits of designating it. Accordingly, this HSA
watershed and the streams in question have been excluded from the final
critical habitat designation.
Comment 52: Several commenters raised issues concerning our
proposal to include the upper Alameda Creek watershed (which supports
resident O. mykiss considered to be part of this ESU; see 69 FR 33101;
June 14, 2004) in the critical habitat designation for this ESU.
Comments ranged from support for designation of this watershed to
requests that it not be designated. Issues were raised about the
adequacy of the economic analysis supporting the ESA section 4(b)(2)
analysis, the mapped distribution of proposed critical habitat in the
watershed, the suitability of the habitat in upper Alameda Creek for
steelhead, and the lack of access for steelhead.
Response: We recognize that the upper Alameda Creek watershed (HSA
220430) is not accessible to anadromous steelhead; however, the CHART
treated this watershed as occupied in the analysis supporting the
proposed rule because there are resident O. mykiss populations in the
upper watershed that we had previously proposed for inclusion in this
ESU (69 FR 33101). In its original analysis, the CHART concluded that
this watershed had high conservation value to the ESU, contained the
requisite PCEs to support the ESU, and that special management
considerations were required to protect these PCEs. Based on this
assessment and the original 4(b)(2) analysis which considered the
benefits of including this watershed against the benefits of excluding
it, we proposed to include it in the designation, as well as a
migratory corridor to San Francisco Bay through a portion of the
adjacent watershed (HSA 220420) that was proposed for exclusion. We
recently invoked a statutory 6-month extension on our final listing
determination for this ESU (70 FR 37219) based on concerns raised by
the USFWS, and,
[[Page 52505]]
therefore, at the time of publication of this final critical habitat
rule, these resident populations of O. mykiss will not be included in
this ESU and listed. Because our original proposal was premised on the
upper Alameda Creek watershed being occupied by resident fish that were
part of this ESU and a final listing determination concerning these
populations will not be made before December 2005, we have not included
this watershed in the final critical habitat designation for this ESU.
A decision about whether to designate this watershed as critical
habitat for this ESU will be made concurrently with the final listing
determination for this ESU in December 2005.
Comment 53: One commenter opposed inclusion of the Guadelupe River/
Los Gatos Creek watershed in the proposed critical habitat designation
for this ESU.
Response: The watershed (HSA 220540) containing the upper portion
of Guadelupe River and Los Gatos Creek was not included in the proposed
designation. Occupied habitat in this watershed was excluded from the
proposed rule based on the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis which concluded
that the economic benefits of exclusion outweighed the biological
benefits of inclusion. The watershed unit (HSA 220550) which contains
the lower portion of the Guadelupe River, however, was included in the
proposed designation. It is also included in the final critical habitat
designation for this ESU because the biological benefits of including
the occupied stream habitat in this watershed outweigh the economic
benefits of its exclusion.
Comment 54: One commenter argued that Arroyo Corte Madera del
Presidio Stream in HSA watershed 220320 should be designated as
critical habitat for this ESU because it is occupied by this ESU. The
same commenter also questioned the exclusion of HSA 220330 from the
proposed designation.
Response: Exclusion of this stream from proposed critical habitat
in HSA 220320 was the result of a technical mapping error in the
proposed rule. The CHART evaluated this stream for the proposed rule
and concluded it was occupied and met the definition of critical
habitat. Accordingly, it has been included in the final designation for
this ESU. Occupied habitat in HSA 220330 was excluded from the proposed
rule and in this final rule based on the results of the 4(b)(2)
analysis, which indicated the economic benefits of exclusion outweighed
the biological benefits of including these stream reaches in the
designation for this ESU.
Comment 55: One commenter argued that occupied habitat in HSA
220330 in the east Bay of San Francisco should be designated as
critical habitat for this ESU.
Response: Occupied habitat (Codornices Creek) in this HSA was
excluded from the proposed designation because the conservation value
of this habitat was judged by the CHART to be low (low habitat quantity
and quality, low restoration potential, no unique attributes, and small
population size), and the economic benefits of excluding this habitat
outweighed the biological benefits of designation. The CHART did not
receive any new information to change its previous determination, and,
therefore, reaffirmed that it has low conservation value and that its
exclusion would not impede the conservation of this ESU.
Comment 56: One commenter recommended that several additional, but
small, stream reaches in the San Francisquito watershed, as well as an
unoccupied habitat above an impassable dam (Searsville Dam), be
designated as critical habitat for this ESU.
Response: Based on a review of the information provided by the
commenter, the CHART concluded that some additional stream reaches in
this watershed should be considered occupied, meet the definition of
critical habitat, and should be designated as critical habitat. Because
this watershed was not excluded from the designation as a result of the
final ESA 4(b)(2) analysis, additional stream reaches qualifying as
critical habitat have been added to the final designation. These
include: a short reach of Corte Madera Creek to the base of Searsville
Dam, approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) of West Union Creek above the
confluence with Bear Creek, a short reach of Bear Gulch Creek up to the
California Water Service Upper Diversion Dam, a small portion of
Squealer Gulch above the confluence with West Union Creek, and a small
portion of McGarvey Gulch above the confluence with West Union Creek.
Comment 57: One commenter requested the exclusion of several
streams in Hydrologic Unit 3304 from the critical habitat designation,
including Laguna Creek, Liddell Creek, Majors Creek, Arana Gulch, San
Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, Newell Creek, and Zayante Creek
because the commenter believes the benefits of excluding these areas
outweigh the benefits of designating them. The rationale is that: (1)
The commenter is developing an HCP that will address these streams and
a designation could hinder its completion; and (2) a designation would
increase the regulatory costs and burdens on the city beyond those
already in place. The commenter also raised concerns about the
regulatory uncertainty associated with critical habitat because of the
2004 Gifford Pinchot case.
Response: We disagree with the commenter and continue to believe
that the benefits of including these streams in the critical habitat
designation outweigh the benefits of excluding them. For the proposed
critical habitat designation, the CHART evaluated the HSA watersheds
containing the streams identified by the commenter (HSAs 330411 and
330412) and concluded that the occupied streams in both HSAs had high
conservation value for this ESU and that there was a need for special
management consideration or protections. Based on this assessment and
the results of the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for the
proposed designation, including the consideration of potential economic
impacts, we concluded that the benefits of designating the occupied
streams in both watersheds were higher than the benefits of excluding
them. The commenter did not provide any new scientific information to
change our assessment of the benefits of designating these streams, and
thus we continue to believe they have a high biological value to the
ESU. As part of the 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for the final rule,
however, we did reduce our assessment of the benefit of designating
occupied habitat in these two HSA watersheds because they both met a
``low section 7 leverage'' profile, which we believed reduced the
benefits of section 7 consultation (see discussion in Critical Habitat
Analytical Review Teams section).
We continue to be supportive of the commenter's efforts to develop
an HCP and believe completion of an HCP that meets the requirements of
section 10 of the ESA will provide substantial benefits to steelhead
and its habitat in these streams. However, negotiations are still
ongoing, and an HCP has not been completed. Until an HCP is completed
and an incidental take permit is issued, the potential conservation
benefits to steelhead and its habitat are uncertain. For this reason,
we believe it is premature to consider the potential benefits of such a
conservation plan in the 4(b)(2) analysis for this final designation.
Whether or not the commenter would experience an increased regulatory
burden or higher costs with a critical habitat designation in place is
uncertain. Even without critical habitat in place, the commenter is
likely to incur costs associated with ESA section 7 consultations,
[[Page 52506]]
development of an HCP, and/or efforts to avoid take. We did consider
the economic impacts of critical habitat designation in both the
proposed and final rules and in doing so analyzed the full costs of
section 7 implementation, not just the costs associated with critical
habitat implementation. In approaching the economic analysis this way,
we believe that we have likely overstated the economic impacts of
critical habitat designation. The final 4(b)(2) analysis for this
designation considered both the reduced benefit of including HSA
watersheds 330411 and 330412 and the final economic impacts for these
watersheds. Based on our consideration of this information, we
concluded that the benefits of designating the occupied stream reaches
in HSAs 330411 and 330412, including the streams of concern to the
commenter, outweighed the benefits of excluding them from the final
designation.
ESU Specific Comments--South-Central Coast Steelhead
Comment 58: One commenter questioned the conservation value of the
San Benito watershed (HSA 330550) and also argued that unoccupied
habitat areas above Uvas Creek Dam were not essential for the
conservation of this ESU.
Response: The San Benito watershed unit (HSA 330550) was rated as
having medium conservation value to this ESU by the CHART based on
factors used to conduct the conservation value rating and ranking
effort. For the proposed critical habitat ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis,
therefore, we attributed a medium benefit of designation to this
watershed unit. For the final designation, we conducted a revised 4(b)2
analysis that modified the biologically based conservation value scores
if they met a ``low section 7 leverage'' profile which we believe
reduce the benefits of section 7 consultation (see discussion in
Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams section). In the case of HSA
330550, we determined that there was relatively low section 7 leverage
which reduced the benefits of section 7 consultation, and therefore,
reduced the benefit of inclusion from medium to low. Based on this low
benefit level and comparatively high economic costs associated with
section 7 consultations in this watershed unit, this watershed was
considered for possible exclusion. However, the CHART reviewed the
available biological and other information for this watershed unit and
concluded that its exclusion would impede the conservation of this ESU.
This determination was based on the size of the San Benito River and
its contribution of habitat to the Pajaro River Basin, the level of
section 7 activity occurring in the watershed, and the San Benito
River's potential contribution to the recovery of this ESU.
Accordingly, we have included the San Benito watershed unit HSA 330550
in the final critical habitat designation.
In the proposed critical habitat designation, the CHART did
conclude that the unoccupied habitat above the Uvas Creek Dam ``may''
be essential for conservation of this ESU. We recognize, however, that
there are several issues related to providing fish passage over this
dam and also believe it is premature to include this unoccupied habitat
area in the critical habitat designation until ongoing recovery
planning efforts have progressed to the point where they support a
determination that these areas are essential to the conservation of
this ESU.
Comment 59: One commenter questioned whether the apparent exclusion
of a portion of the drainage into Morro Bay was based on a
consideration of land ownership.
Response: The identification and conservation rating of occupied
habitat that was eligible for designation used only biological and
ecological criteria, including information regarding presence of
steelhead and habitat condition. Land ownership was not a consideration
in the conservation rating process nor in the section 4(b)(2) analysis
that identified areas for exclusion based on a balancing of the
benefits of designation against the economic costs of designation. In
reviewing the proposed critical habitat designation maps in response to
this comment, however, we discovered a technical mapping error in Los
Osos Creek. An upstream portion of Los Osos Creek was proposed for
designation in HSA 331023, but the lower portion of the creek which
enters into Morro Bay was inadvertently excluded from the designation.
We have corrected this error in the final designation.
Comment 60: One commenter recommended exclusion of San Luis Obispo
Creek from the designation for this ESU based on the management plans
and existing agreements already in place which provide protection for
the creek and steelhead. The commenter also raised questions about the
validity of the economic impact analysis used for the proposed critical
habitat designation process in light of costs incurred as a result of
ESA section 7 consultation on a water reuse project.
Response: The commenter and other local agencies have undertaken
numerous efforts to conserve and improve existing habitats within the
San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, though some efforts were a result of
regulatory requirements to compensate for the adverse effects of
proposed actions. However, these conservation efforts have been
confined to localized areas and provide no reliable ability to
effectively protect existing suitable habitat for steelhead and improve
currently degraded habitats. We have not conducted a review to
determine whether the existing local conservation and management
efforts (e.g., conservation easements, creek set-back ordinance, sewer
ordinance) contain measures that would be expected to protect existing
suitable habitat for steelhead, and, therefore, the possible benefits
that existing management plans may have for the conservation of
steelhead and their habitat is unknown. We have, however, reviewed the
draft Creeks and Waterway Management Plan (i.e., the Environmental
Impact Statement), which describes management and protection of streams
within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, and concluded that many of
the ``management'' activities (e.g., use of rock riprap, removal of
woody debris, creation or modification of channels, and in-channel
detention enhancements) in the plan would create conditions unfavorable
for long-term survival and reproduction of steelhead within the San
Luis Obispo Creek watershed and, in turn, the entire ESU. Based on
these considerations and other information regarding activities
potentially affecting steelhead habitat in the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed, we disagree with the commenter and continue to believe there
is a need for special management considerations or protections of
occupied stream habitat in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.
Accordingly, the final designation for this ESU includes all occupied
stream reaches in HSA 331024, including San Luis Obispo Creek.
We acknowledge that the economic analysis used in the ESA section
4(b)(2) analysis for the proposed designation did not address water
supply and flow modification related projects adequately. The final
economic analysis prepared for this designation addresses these issues
more completely, though it does not specifically address the water
reuse project. Rather than understate the costs of critical habitat
designation, we believe that the economic analyses prepared for the
proposed and final designations actually overestimate the incremental
economic costs associated with critical habitat designation. In our
economic analyses, we estimated the
[[Page 52507]]
total cost of ESA section 7 consultation for specific project types
anticipated to occur in the foreseeable future based on information
from Federal agencies and other sources. We believe that much of the
estimated costs can be attributable to the presence of listed fish and
the jeopardy analysis in section 7 consultation. Indeed, the costs
cited by the commenter for its water reuse project were associated with
a section 7 consultation that addressed the presence of listed
steelhead in the watershed, not critical habitat. Although
consideration of critical habitat adverse modification in the
consultation on the water reuse project may have resulted in additional
project changes, we do not think they are likely to be significant.
Comment 61: Several commenters were confused about whether West
Corral de Piedra Creek, an upstream tributary to Pismo Creek (HSA
331026), was included in the proposed designation, and whether areas
above a local dam (the Righetti Dam) on this creek were included in the
designation. Some commenters also argued that habitat above the
Righetti Dam was of high quality for steelhead and should be included
in the critical habitat designation. One commenter also requested that
an unnamed tributary of West Corral de Piedra Creek be designated,
while a second commenter requested that it not be designated.
Response: West Corral de Piedra Creek was included in the proposed
designation and has also been included in the final designation for
this ESU. The maps used to depict occupied stream habitat and the
proposed critical habitat, however, did not properly label West Corral
de Piedra Creek, hence the confusion of the commenters. We have
corrected this problem in the maps depicting the final designation. The
designated critical habitat in West Corral de Piedra Creek, however,
does not include habitat above the Righetti Dam. Although the habitat
appears to be of high quality and would likely support steelhead
spawning, we are uncertain whether adult fish can pass over the dam.
Accordingly, we treated the area above the Rhighetti Dam as unoccupied
habitat and, since a determination that it is essential to the
conservation of the ESU had not been made, we have not included it in
the final designation for this ESU. In evaluating the areas of
occupancy, habitat conditions, and conservation value of this HSA
watershed, the CHART reviewed the available information about the
unnamed tributary to West Corral de Piedra Creek. The CHART concluded
it was unoccupied and had poor habitat conditions, and, since, a
determination that it is essential to the conservation of the ESU has
not been made, it has likewise not been included in the final designation.
Comment 62: Another commenter argued that West Corral de Piedra
Creek is likely unoccupied by steelhead because of an impassable
barrier on Pismo Creek downstream of West Corral de Piedra Creek (and
the Righetti Dam), and, therefore, should not be designated as critical
habitat. The commenter also criticized the economic analysis for not
addressing impacts on irrigation and instream flow resulting from
critical habitat designation. Lastly, the commenter argued that habitat
area above the Righetti Dam should not be designated.
Response: The potential barrier in question is an existing fish
ladder on Pismo Creek downstream of West Corral de Piedra Creek. The
extent to which the ladder precludes adult steelhead is unclear, but we
do not think it is a complete barrier. There is existing information
indicating the presence of juvenile steelhead in West Corral de Piedra
Creek downstream of Righetti Dam and above the Pismo Creek ladder which
suggests steelhead can pass the existing fish ladder. In addition,
direct observations of the fish ladder suggest it is capable of passing
adult steelhead even though the design is not ideal and ladder
operation may become impaired by inorganic and organic debris. Based on
the available information, therefore, the CHART considered West Corral
de Piedra to be occupied habitat for steelhead up to, but not above,
the Rhigetti Dam. Accordingly, this reach of West Corral de Piedra is
included in the final critical habitat designation for this ESU. We
acknowledge that the economic analysis prepared for the proposed
critical habitat designation did not adequately address economic
impacts related to changes in instream flow or agricultural flows. The
final economic analysis made additional efforts to address this issue,
though potential flow changes at the Righetti Dam was not a part of
that analysis. As noted in the previous response, the habitat area
above the Righetti Dam is not considered occupied by steelhead though
habitat conditions are considered favorable for steelhead spawning. For
this reason, the habitat area above Righetti Dam is not included in the
final designation of this ESU.
Comment 63: One commenter argued that Arroyo Grande Creek should
not be included in the designation because it is not essential for
conservation, numerous dams on the creek have altered habitat
conditions for steelhead, existing protections are in place and thus
there is no need for special management considerations, and previous
determinations by Federal and State agencies have concluded that
activities at Oceano SVRA do not adversely impact steelhead or their
habitat. The commenter cited the final draft HCP for Arroyo Grande
Creek as an existing mechanism for managing the creek, and suggested
designation of critical habitat was unnecessary because it would cause
confusion among stakeholders and agencies regarding the management of
the area for steelhead. Another commenter argued that designation of
the mouth of Arroyo Grande Creek may impact recreational uses in that
area, and thereby result in significant economic impacts to local
governments and businesses.
Response: The CHART determined that Arroyo Grande Creek met the
definition of critical habitat, and was therefore eligible for
designation, based on an extensive review of information, including
observations and information obtained from site visits and field
studies. This information allowed the CHART to identify the geographic
areas occupied by steelhead and confirm that the creek contains
physical and biological features essential to conservation. A draft HCP
prepared by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 3 (District) provides information regarding
the quality and quantity of habitats in Arroyo Grande Creek for
steelhead and discusses the abundance of steelhead. Although this ESU
has a broad geographic distribution, there are relatively few
representative streams in the southern portion of the ESU where
steelhead actively spawn and rear. Arroyo Grande Creek is one of the
few streams at the southern portion of the subject ESU where age-0 and
older juvenile steelhead occur during summer and fall, and sexually
ripe adults occur in winter and early spring. There are numerous
streams in San Luis Obispo County, but a disproportionate number in the
southern portion of the subject ESU currently do not appear suitable
for steelhead owing in part to improper land-use activities. Arroyo
Grande Creek is one of the notable exceptions. On the basis of this
information, the CHART determined that the HSA watershed containing
Arroyo Grande Creek had medium conservation value and that it was
essential for the conservation of the ESU.
Based on information available to us, the only dam which is a full
barrier to steelhead in Arroyo Grande Creek is Lopez Dam. Its presence
and operation have certainly contributed to declines in the quality and
quantity of habitat for
[[Page 52508]]
steelhead, but evidence indicates that steelhead still use Arroyo
Grande Creek for spawning and rearing. More importantly, the effects of
Lopez Dam on steelhead and its habitat in Arroyo Grande Creek
underscore the need for special management considerations or
protections in this watershed.
The purpose of the HCP in question is essentially to address the
``take'' of steelhead and other federally listed species associated
with operation of Lopez Dam, not to manage the Arroyo Grande Creek as a
whole. More importantly, the current draft HCP does not ensure that
essential habitat functions necessary for long-term species survival
would be attained through the proposed conservation program. For
instance, the flow regime proposed in the draft HCP is conditioned upon
reservoir-operation constraints, and, therefore, is not ecologically
meaningful. The HCP requires considerable revision before being
suitable for adoption in the application phase, and years may pass
before it is ultimately approved and an incidental take permit issued.
The commenter is correct that we have determined through informal
ESA section 7 consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
that off-road vehicle crossings of the creek at the mouth (a sandy
tidally influenced area) are not likely to adversely affect steelhead.
However, the decision to include Arroyo Grande Creek in the designation
was not predicated on whether previous activities, such as off-road
vehicle use, did or did not adversely affect the species. Rather, NMFS
performed an extensive review and analysis to identify those habitats
that are essential for conservation of the species and determined that
Arroyo Grande Creek (including the creek mouth) is one such habitat
area for this ESU. Inclusion of the creek mouth in the critical habitat
designation is necessary because the mouth is an essential migratory
habitat linking upstream spawning and rearing areas with the ocean.
Based on our past consultation experience in this area, we do not
think that designation of the Arroyo Grande Creek, including the creek
mouth, is likely to result in restricted recreational crossings of the
creek mouth or cause significant economic impacts to local governments
and businesses. Although not definitive on the outcome of future
consultations, previous consultations involving such crossings have
determined that steelhead were not likely to be adversely affected and
that the value of the creek mouth as a migration corridor for steelhead
was not likely to be diminished.
Comment 64: One commenter (CDFG) recommended that the conservation
value of the HSA watersheds containing Arroyo de la Cruz (HSA 331012)
and San Carpoforo (HSA 331011) creeks should be high because of the
quality and quantity of steelhead habitat and the potential risks to
these resources in the future.
Response: We agree with CDFG that the quality of steelhead habitat
is high for both of these streams. However, the CHART considered a
range of factors in assessing the conservation value of the HSA
watersheds containing these streams, and on the basis of that analysis,
concluded that a medium conservation value was appropriate for both
watersheds. Based on the available information, we continue to believe
that these two HSA watersheds have a medium conservation value to this
ESU relative to other HSA occupied watersheds in the range of the ESU.
Both HSA watersheds had a relatively low economic benefit of exclusion,
and therefore, all occupied habitat in both watersheds, including the
two streams in question, are included in the final critical habitat
designation for this ESU.
ESU Specific Comments--Southern California Steelhead
Comment 65: Several commenters raised questions about whether or
not the Sisquoc River and some of its tributaries are occupied by
steelhead, and whether there are PCEs to support steelhead in this
watershed. At least one commenter argued that any O. mykiss in this
watershed were hatchery plants. One commenter criticized the economic
analysis for the HSA containing the Sisquoc River watershed, and
another was concerned that recreational fishing in one tributary would
be adversely affected by a critical habitat designation.
Response: The CHART reconsidered whether the Sisquoc River and its
tributaries should be considered occupied based on the issues raised by
these commenters. Based on a reassessment of the available information
(primarily the Stoecker and Stoecker 2003 barrier assessment for the
Sisquoc River), the CHART concluded that the Sisquoc River and its
tributaries (HSA 331220) should be considered occupied, and that this
watershed contains PCEs supporting migration, spawning and rearing
habitat. We recognize that flows in the Santa Maria River watershed are
constrained by the operation of Twitchell Dam and that migration
opportunities into the Sisquoc River are limited. For this reason,
steelhead access to this watershed is not available in all years, and
occupancy of the watershed will be on a more infrequent, rather than
annual, basis. Nevertheless, migration opportunities do occur in wet
years when high flows breach the sand bar at the mouth of the Santa
Maria River, and steelhead can and do migrate into the middle and upper
reaches of the Sisquoc River watershed where over-summering/rearing
habitat and spawning habitat occurs. Although rainbow trout may well
have been planted in some areas historically, we are not aware of any
current planting of fish except in Manzana Creek. Accordingly, we do
not believe the vast majority of steelhead in the watershed are of
hatchery origin. A revised economic impact analysis was prepared for
the final critical habitat designation. Although it may not address all
site specific potential economic impacts within each HSA watershed, we
believe this analysis does consider the vast majority of projected
activities which are subject to ESA section 7 consultation in each
watershed and that it provides a reasonable basis for conducting an ESA
section 4(b)(2) analysis. More detailed responses to comments on the
economic analysis were presented earlier in this final rule. Lastly,
the designation of critical habitat for this ESU is not expected to
affect recreational fishing activities in this watershed because such
activities are not subject to section 7 of the ESA and are unlikely to
affect critical habitat. Nevertheless, such activities do need to
ensure that they do not result in the ``take'' of listed steelhead.
Comment 66: One commenter questioned whether specific streams
(Santa Agueda and Alamo Pintado, both tributaries to the lower Santa
Ynez River in HSA 331440, and Santa Monica Creek in HSA 331534) should
be designated as critical habitat.
Response: We have re-examined the available information supporting
the inclusion of these tributaries in the proposed designation and
concluded that although these streams may occasionally support
steelhead, there is not sufficient information to consider them
occupied for the purposes of this designation process. Accordingly,
these tributaries were not considered occupied in the final critical
habitat designation and a determination that they were essential to the
conservation of the ESU was not made, so they have been removed from
the final critical habitat designation and associated maps.
Comment 67: Many commenters responded to our request for comments
regarding the designation of unoccupied
[[Page 52509]]
habitat above Bradbury, Matilija, Casitas, Santa Felicia and Rindge
Dams. Several commenters recommended that these areas be designated
because they are essential for the conservation of this ESU, while
several other commenters were opposed to designating these unoccupied
habitats. Some commenters were confused or misunderstood that we were
only requesting information and thought we had proposed to designate
these areas as critical habitat.
Response: As part of the proposed rule development process, the
CHART was asked to identify unoccupied areas above dams within the
range of this ESU that ``may'' be essential for its conservation. Based
on its assessment, the CHART identified the unoccupied habitat found
above the five dams listed above. The proposed rule did not include
these unoccupied areas in the proposed designation for this ESU, but
rather solicited public comment on our determination that these
unoccupied areas ``may'' be essential for conservation of this ESU. As
stated elsewhere in this rule, we believe that it is premature to
designate such areas at this time, and that any designation of
unoccupied areas above dams or in other areas must await the completion
of technical recovery planning efforts that are currently underway. Our
expectation is that the technical recovery planning process will
provide the scientific foundation to support the inclusion of
unoccupied habitat areas in any critical habitat designation. Once the
technical recovery planning is completed, we intend to revisit the
designation of unoccupied habitat and will use information provided by
commenters to inform any subsequent proposal.
Comment 68: A large number of commenters were opposed to the
inclusion of any portion of Rincon Creek in the critical habitat
designation. They argued that steelhead did not occupy the stream, the
habitat was unsuitable, and the economic impacts of designation would
be significant. Some commenters were confused and thought that Rincon
Creek upstream from the Highway 101 culvert had been proposed.
Response: The proposed designation of Rincon Creek only included
that portion of the creek that is seaward of the Highway 101 culvert.
The culvert is considered a complete barrier to steelhead migration,
and therefore, areas upstream of the culvert are considered unoccupied.
We continue to believe that the lagoon and that portion of Rincon Creek
seaward of the culvert is periodically occupied and meets the
definition of critical habitat. Accordingly, this habitat reach was
considered in the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis and has been
retained in the final critical habitat designation for this ESU.
Efforts are underway to improve fish passage at this culvert, and the
designation of critical habitat downstream may support those efforts.
If fish passage is successfully implemented at this location and
steelhead reoccupy Rincon Creek upstream from the Highway 101 culvert,
we will reconsider the possibility of designating critical habitat in
the newly occupied habitat area.
Comment 69: Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base and Vandenberg Air
Force Base both provided supplementary comments and information to
support the exclusion of their facilities from the final critical
habitat designation for this ESU, based on the conservation benefits
provided by their respective INRMPs. Both DOD facilities also provided
information supporting the national security related impacts of a
critical habitat designation on their activities and operations.
Response: As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, we have
concluded that the INRMPs for both of these facilities provide
conservation benefits to this steelhead ESU, and, therefore, the areas
subject to these INRMPs are not eligible for designation pusuant to
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. Information provided by both DOD
facilities concerning the impacts of critical habitat designation on
their activities and operations support the view that designation of
habitat will likely reduce the readiness capability of both the Marine
Corps and Air Force, both of which are actively engaged in training,
maintaining, and deploying forces in the current war on terrorism. On
this basis, we also concluded that the benefits of excluding these
facilities from the critical habitat designation for this ESU
outweighed the benefits of designation.
Comment 70: Several commenters raised questions about steelhead
access to, and occupancy in, upper San Antonio Creek (a tributary to
the Ventura River) and its tributaries (e.g., Reeves, Thatcher,
Gridley, Ladera, and Senior Canyon Creeks). These commenters argued
that a migration impediment at the Soule Park golf course blocks
steelhead access upstream and that the only occupied habitat in the San
Antonio Creek watershed is downstream from that location.
Response: We agree with the commenters that steelhead access to
some portions of upper San Antonio Creek watershed are in fact blocked
and should not be considered occupied habitat for the purposes of this
critical habitat designation. For example, most of Thatcher Creek and
Reeves Creek are presently inaccessible because of a passage impediment
at Boardman Road on Thatcher Creek, and, therefore, these habitat
reaches are clearly unoccupied by steelhead at present. Similarly,
steelhead access into Gridley Canyon Creek, Senior Canyon Creek, and
the lower portion of Thatcher Creek was blocked until this past winter
when storms washed out a passage impediment at the Soule Park golf
course. Although the passage impediment at the Soule Park golf course
is no longer present, we have no information at present indicating that
steelhead occur in the habitat reaches upstream of the former
impediment to migration. Based on this information, we concluded it is
appropriate to consider all stream reaches in the upper San Antonio
Creek watershed above the Soule Park golf course to be unoccupied for
the purposes of this critical habitat designation. We have revised our
fish distribution maps accordingly and also removed these areas from
the final critical habitat designation. It should be noted, however,
that steelhead may now begin to occupy areas above the Soule Park golf
course, and that efforts are underway to provide fish passage for
steelhead at the Boardman Road location. If steelhead do access these
currently unoccupied habitat areas, we will reconsider the exclusion of
these areas from critical habitat for this ESU.
Comment 71: Some commenters questioned the distribution of occupied
habitat and the proposed designation of occupied habitat in Hydrologic
Unit 4901, particularly with regard to the upstream endpoints in San
Juan Creek, Trabuco Creek (a tributary of San Juan Creek), and Devil's
Canyon (a tributary of San Mateo Creek). Other commenters supported the
proposed designation of habitat in the San Juan Creek and Trabuco Creek
watersheds.
Response: We have reviewed the information provided by the
commenters, re-evaluated the information used in developing the
proposed designation, and also consulted with CDFG regarding the
upstream limit of the distribution of steelhead in San Juan Creek and
Trabuco Creek. After considering this information, we have
substantially modified the upstream distribution limits of steelhead
occupancy in Trabuco and San Juan Creeks. According to CDFG, the
Trabuco Creek crossing under I-5 in San Juan Capistrano is a complete
barrier to steelhead. Therefore, the occupied habitat reach in Trabuco
Creek is now considered to end at the I-5 crossing
[[Page 52510]]
which is in HSA 490127. As a result of this distributional change,
three HSA watershed units in upper Trabuco Creek that were previously
considered occupied and proposed for designation (HSAs 490121, 490123,
and 490122) are no longer considered occupied. Because these watersheds
are not occupied and a determination that they are essential to the
conservation of the species had not been made, they are not included in
the final critical habitat designation. The I-5 does not serve as a
barrier to steelhead migration in San Juan Creek. However, the upstream
distributional limit of steelhead according to CDFG is basically at the
I-5 bridge based on the available anecdotal information. As a result of
this distributional change, three HSA watersheds upstream from this
location that were previously considered occupied and proposed for
designation (HSAs 491028, 490126, and 490125) are no longer considered
occupied; and, because a determination that they are essential to the
conservation of the ESU has not been made, they are not included in the
final designation for this ESU. Those portions of Trabuco and San Juan
Creeks that are occupied and occur in HSA 490127 as described above
were considered eligible for designation and were considered in the
final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis. Based on this analysis, we
concluded that the benefits of including the occupied habitat reaches
in HSA 490127 outweighed the benefits of their exclusion, and,
therefore, we have included these habitat areas in the final designation.
Comment 72: One commenter questioned why Pole Creek, a tributary to
the Santa Clara River, was included in the proposed critical habitat
designation when the habitat conditions were poor and there was little
information indicating it was occupied.
Response: Based on information from the commenter and observations
by agency biologists, we have reassessed the appropriateness of
including Pole Creek in the final designation. We recognize that
habitat conditions in Pole Creek are poor and upstream passage through
the existing concrete channel in the lower portion of the creek is
highly unlikely. Accordingly, we have concluded that Pole Creek should
be considered unoccupied. Because it is considered unoccupied and we
have not made a determination that it is essential for conservation, it
is not included in the final critical habitat designation.
Comment 73: One commenter questioned why critical habitat was not
proposed in the Santa Clara River upstream from its confluence with
Piru Creek.
Response: The CHART did not consider that portion of the Santa
Clara to be occupied, and we did not make a determination that it was
essential for the conservation of the ESU; thus it was not considered
further in the critical habitat analysis.
ESU Specific Comments--Central Valley Spring Run Chinook
Comment 74: Two commenters provided information regarding the
distribution of occupied spring run Chinook habitat and habitat use,
and recommended that additional critical habitat be designated in the
upper Sacramento River Basin for this ESU. One commenter indicated that
we should designate several west-side tributaries to the upper
Sacramento River in the vicinity of Redding (HSA 550810) as critical
habitat because these streams provide significant non-natal rearing and
refugia habitat, especially since Shasta and Keswick Dams block access
to hundreds of miles of historic rearing and refugia habitat. Another
commenter recommended that small intermittent tributaries used for
natal rearing in the Sacramento River, as well as lower Butte Creek,
should be designated as critical habitat.
Response: The CHART reviewed the information provided by these
commenters for the upper Sacramento River tributaries and concluded
that it did not change the previously determined distribution of
occupied habitat for this ESU. The CHART reassessed the conservation
value of occupied habitat in HSA 550810 based on the new information
and concluded that the conservation value of some reach specific
tributaries was less than previously thought to be the case, but that
the overall conservation value for the HSA remained high. All occupied
spring run Chinook habitat in HSA 550810 was proposed for designation,
and, as a result of the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, this
habitat has been included in the final designation for this ESU. The
CHART agreed with the commenter that intermittent tributaries to the
Sacramento River are used for non-natal rearing and that lower Butte
Creek is important for the conservation of this ESU. In fact, the CHART
previously analyzed these occupied habitat areas and rated them as
having high conservation value. These areas were proposed for
designation and are also included in the final designation for this ESU.
Comment 75: One commenter recommended that the lower American River
from the outfall of the Natomas Main Drainage Canal downstream to the
confluence with the Sacramento River be designated because it is used
for non-natal rearing (HSA 551921). The argument was that this habitat
provides spawning, rearing and migration values for spring run Chinook
that may require special management considerations.
Response: The HSA watershed (551921) containing the lower American
River was originally rated by the CHART as having medium conservation
value and was excluded from the proposed designation because of
relatively high economic costs. In response to these comments, the
CHART reassessed the conservation value of this HSA and determined that
it should be rated as having a high conservation value to the ESU.
Information provided by the commenter demonstrated the importance of
the lower American River for non-natal rearing and the high improvement
potential of the habitat conditions from ongoing restoration projects.
In addition, the lower American River may be used during high winter
flows for rearing and refugia by multiple populations of spring Chinook
in the central valley (e.g., Feather and Yuba Rivers). Additionally,
the commenter suggested that special management considerations may be
required to maintain and improve habitat conditions and the
conservation value of this HSA for spring run Chinook. In particular,
special management considerations may be necessary to address flood
control, residential and commercial development, agricultural
management, and habitat restoration. Based on the change in
conservation value and the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, we
concluded that all occupied habitat in HSA 551921, including the lower
American River, should be designated as critical habitat for this ESU.
Comment 76: A commenter also recommended that the lower Bear River
(HSA 551510) from the mouth of Dry Creek downstream to its confluence
with the Feather River be designated as critical habitat because it is
used for non-natal rearing and will require special management to
maintain habitat value for this ESU.
Response: The HSA watershed (551510) containing the lower Bear
River was originally considered unoccupied by the CHART, and its
conservation value was not rated. Based on the information provided by
the commenter, the CHART has reclassified the lower Bear River as
occupied habitat for spring run Chinook. Information provided by the
commenter indicates that the lower Bear River is used for non-natal
rearing and that habitat values are likely to increase in the near future
[[Page 52511]]
as a result of planned restoration projects that will improve the
condition of several PCEs. The CHART applied the PCE factor ranking
criteria and rated the lower Bear River as having high conservation
value to this ESU, primarily because: (1) the habitat area is likely to
be used by at least two populations (i.e., Feather and Yuba River); (2)
non-natal rearing represents a unique life-history strategy that is
essential for the conservation of the species (contributing to improved
growth conditions); (3) the habitat serves as a refugia from high water
conditions and catastrophic events; and (4) there is high improvement
potential for this habitat from ongoing restoration efforts. Based on
information from the commenter, the lower Bear River will require
special management efforts to protect and maintain habitat values for
this ESU. Special management considerations are likely to include flood
control, residential and commercial development, agricultural
management, and habitat restoration. Because this HSA is now considered
occupied, contains the necessary PCEs, and has a need for special
management considerations, it was considered eligible for designation
in the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for this
designation. Based on the results of the final 4(b)(2) analysis, we
concluded that the benefits of including this area in the designation
outweighed the benefits of its exclusion. Accordingly, occupied habitat
in HSA 551510 is now included in the final critical habitat designation
for this ESU.
Comment 77: Several commenters recommended that portions of the San
Joaquin River and its major tributaries below impassable mainstem dams
be designated as critical habitat for this ESU either because of future
efforts to restore habitat or because of unpublished information from
CDFG indicating specific habitat areas were occasionally occupied by
spring run Chinook. These areas include the San Joaquin River from its
confluence with the Merced River upstream to Friant Dam, the Tuolumne
River downstream of La Grange Dam, the Merced River downstream of
Crocker Huffman Dam, and the Stanislaus River downstream of Goodwin Dam.
Response: The recommendation to designate the San Joaquin River
above the confluence with the Merced River confluence was primarily
based on the historical occupancy of this habitat reach by spring
Chinook and the expectation that future efforts will be undertaken to
restore habitat in this reach. We recognize that this habitat in the
San Joaquin River was historically used by spring Chinook; however, it
has been unoccupied for more than half a century. Moreover, plans to
restore flows and habitat conditions downstream of Friant Dam are
uncertain, and significant passage impediments and flow alterations in
the San Joaquin above the Merced River confluence present potentially
significant obstacles to future restoration success. Because this
habitat is currently unoccupied and no determination has been made that
it is essential for the conservation of this ESU, we have not included
it in the final critical habitat designation.
The CHART reviewed information provided by the commenters regarding
occupancy of the Tuolumne, Merced, and Stanislaus Rivers by spring
Chinook and concluded there was insufficient data to consider them
occupied. Although the CHART did evaluate these as unoccupied areas for
the proposed critical habitat designation and concluded that they
``may'' be essential for the conservation of spring run Chinook ESU, we
believe it is premature to include these unoccupied areas in the
critical habitat designation for this ESU until ongoing recovery
planning efforts provide information sufficient to make a determination
that these areas are essential to the conservation of this ESU. Because
these tributary rivers to the San Joaquin River are currently
unoccupied and recovery planning efforts do not yet support a
determination that these areas are essential for the conservation of
this ESU, we have not included them in the final critical habitat
designation.
Comment 78: One commenter argued that the lower Feather River below
Oroville Dam should not be designated because of the introgression of
fall run Chinook and spring run Chinook by the Feather River hatchery.
Response: We disagree with the commenter and believe that the lower
Feather River below Oroville Dam should be designated as critical
habitat. The extant Feather River population of spring-run Chinook
salmon represents a legacy population of the fish that historically
used the upper Feather River prior to construction of Oroville Dam, and
it is an important population to conserve and protect because of its
potential contribution to ESU recovery. This habitat area was proposed
for critical habitat because the CHART considered it occupied by spring
run Chinook, it contains PCEs, and it requires special management
considerations for activities such as flood control, flow and
temperature management, residential and commercial development,
agricultural management, and habitat restoration. HSA 551540, which
contains much of the lower Feather River below Oroville Dam, was rated
as having high conservation value by the CHART for the proposed
designation, and that determination was not changed as a result of
these comments. Based on the results the final ESA section 4(b)(2)
analysis, occupied habitat in HSA 551540, including the lower Feather
River below Oroville Dam, is included in the final critical habitat
designation for this ESU.
Comment 79: Some commenters contended that NMFS should not
designate any critical habitat for spring run Chinook in the Sacramento
River, its major tributaries (i.e. Feather River), the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, or the Suisun-San Francisco Bay complex because existing
protective efforts and mechanisms are sufficient to protect the ESU.
Response: We disagree with these commenters. These habitat areas
comprise the entire freshwater and estuarine range of this ESU, contain
one or more PCEs that are essential to the conservation of the ESU,
including migration, holding, spawning, rearing, and refugia habitat,
and require special management considerations or protections beyond
those protective efforts that are already in place or available. For
these reasons, they were considered for designation through this
rulemaking process. In the course of the analysis supporting this
rulemaking, we evaluated the quantity, quality and diversity of PCEs
within the occupied portions of these waterbodies by watershed unit,
assessed the benefits of designating these watershed units, and finally
weighed the benefits of designation against the benefits of exclusion
by watershed unit. The resultant critical habitat designation in this
final rule, therefore, meets the definition of critical habitat and
also represents that habitat which contains PCEs that we believe are
essential for the conservation of this ESU.
Comment 80: One commenter recommended that several areas proposed
for designation in the Sacramento River basin below impassable barriers
not be designated in the final rule. These areas include: (1) the South
Fork Cow Creek watershed because it is not occupied; (2) specific
streams in the Tehama Hydrologic Unit (5504) including HSAs 550410 and
550420 because they do not support populations of spring run Chinook
and also lack cool, deep pools for summer holding habitat; (3) specific
streams in the Whitmore Hydrologic Unit (5507) including HSAs 550711
and 550722
[[Page 52512]]
because they do not support populations of spring run Chinook and also
lack cool, deep pools for summer holding habitat; and (4) specific
streams in the Redding Hydrologic Unit (5508) and HSA 550810 because
they do not support a population of spring run Chinook and lack cool,
deep pools for summer holding habitat.
Response: The CHART re-evaluated the South Fork Cow Creek based on
these comments and agreed that it is unoccupied and therefore
reclassified its occupancy status accordingly. Because the HSA
containing South Fork Cow Creek (HSA 550731) is now considered
unoccupied and we have not made a determination that it is essential to
the conservation of the ESU, it was excluded from further consideration
in the analysis and has not been included as critical habitat in the
final designation for this ESU.
The CHART, however, disagreed with the commenter's recommendation
to exclude the identified streams and HSAs in the Tehama (5504),
Whitmore (5507), and Redding (5008) Hydrologic Units. The
recommendation was based on the lack of cool, deep pools for summer
holding habitat that is essential for adult holding, spawning, and
summer rearing. The CHART's previous assessment of the conservation
value of these streams and watershed units, however, was based on their
use during winter and early-spring months for non-natal rearing by
juvenile spring-run Chinook. Though current use is likely low, it is
expected to increase in the near future as a result of habitat
restoration and range expansion in Battle and Clear Creeks. The CHART
concluded these streams provide several PCEs that are important for
juvenile non-natal rearing, which represents a unique life-history
strategy that is essential for the conservation of this ESU because of
its contribution to improved growth conditions and refugia from high
water and catastrophic events. In addition, the CHART concluded that
these streams will require special management efforts for flood
control, residential and commercial development, agricultural
management, and habitat restoration to protect and maintain the
conservation value of these habitats for spring-run Chinook. Based on
these factors, the CHART rated most of the occupied HSAs in these three
Hydrologic Units as having high conservation value to the ESU. After
consideration of these comments, the CHART concluded there was no
reason to change its previous assessment of spring Chinook
distribution, habitat use, or conservation value for these streams and
Hydrologic Units. Accordingly, the occupied streams in these Hydrologic
Units and associated HSAs were considered in the final 4(b)(2) analysis
for this final designation.
Comment 81: Two commenters questioned the historical and current
habitat use and occupancy of Putah, Alamo, and Ulatis Creeks by spring
run Chinook and thus whether they should be designated as critical habitat.
Response: The proposed critical habitat designation for spring run
Chinook did not include any of these three creeks, because the CHART
considered all of them to be unoccupied in its original assessment and
we had not made a determination that they were essential to the
conservation of the ESU. The commenters likely were confused because
these creeks all occur in the Valley Putah-Cache Hydrologic Unit (HSAs
551100 and 551120), and some portions of this Hydrologic unit were
included in the proposed designation because they are occupied, have
the requisite PCEs, may need special management considerations, and
were not excluded as a result of the original ESA section 4(b)(2)
exclusion process that led to the proposed rule. The CHART did not
receive any new information indicating these creeks are occupied, so
they were not reconsidered and are not included in the final critical
habitat designation for this ESU.
Comment 82: Several commenters indicated that habitat above major
impassable rim dams on tributaries to the San Joaquin River
(Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers) do not contain habitat that
would support spring run Chinook and/or that the feasibility of
providing fish passage for spring run Chinook has not been adequately
evaluated.
Response: Although the CHART did evaluate these as unoccupied areas
for the proposed critical habitat designation and concluded that some
of the reaches above the rim dams ``may'' be essential for the
conservation of spring run Chinook, we believe it is premature to
include these unoccupied areas in the critical habitat designation for
this ESU until ongoing recovery planning efforts provide technical
information supporting a determination that one or more of these areas
are essential to its conservation and recovery. Because these tributary
rivers to the San Joaquin River are currently unoccupied and recovery
planning efforts do not yet support a determination that these areas
are essential for the conservation of this ESU, we have not included
them in the final critical habitat designation.
ESU-Specific Comments--Central Valley Steelhead
Comment 83: One commenter recommended that we designate several
west-side tributaries to the Sacramento River in the vicinity of
Redding (HSA 550810) as critical habitat for this ESU because they are
used as spawning and/or rearing habitat.
Response: The CHART reviewed the new information provided by the
commenter and concluded that several of these streams are seasonally
occupied and most likely used by steelhead as non-natal rearing habitat
with occasional use as spawning habitat, and that they contain PCEs
supporting non-natal habitat use. The CHART considered these additional
occupied habitat areas important for steelhead because they are likely
to be used by several populations (e.g., upper Sacramento River, Clear
Creek, and Cow Creek), and because non-natal rearing represents a
unique life-history strategy that is essential for the conservation
since it contributes to improved growth conditions and serves as a
refugia from high water and catastrophic events. The CHART concluded
that these streams may require special management considerations to
address activities such as flood control, residential and commercial
development, agricultural management, and habitat restoration, and,
therefore, evaluated the conservation value of these occupied habitat
stream reaches and the overall HSA. This reassessment concluded that
the conservation value of the additional occupied stream reaches ranged
from low to high, but that the overall conservation value of HSA
watershed 550810 remained high to the ESU. Based on the results of the
final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, all occupied habitat in HSA 550810,
including several stream reaches recommended by the commenter, is
designated as critical habitat in the final rule.
Comment 84: One commenter recommended that we should designate
upper little Dry Creek, a tributary to Butte Creek, as critical habitat
for this ESU.
Response: The CHART originally evaluated the conservation value of
upper Dry Creek (HSA 552110) as being low, and it was proposed for
exclusion in the proposed rule based on the results of the ESA section
4(b)(2) analysis. In response to these comments, the CHART re-assessed
the conservation value of this HSA and concluded it should be changed
from low to medium. The original low rating was strongly influenced by
the low number of stream miles in the HSA. The remainder of
[[Page 52513]]
little Dry Creek is located downstream in HSA 552040, which was rated
as having a high conservation value by the CHART because of the number
of occupied stream miles, its high restoration potential, and its use
by multiple populations of steelhead. In its reassessment of the
conservation value of HSA 552110, the CHART placed more emphasis on the
restoration potential of this reach of upper little Dry Creek and the
potential for the stream reach to support life history stages of high
importance (i.e., spawning adults and over summering juveniles) for
this ESU. Based on the increased conservation value of this HSA 552110
(increased from low to medium) and the results of the final ESA section
4(b)(2) analysis, the upper little Dry Creek has been included in the
final critical habitat designation for this ESU.
Comment 85: One commenter recommended that we designate the lower
Bear River as critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead from its
confluence with Dry Creek downstream to its confluence with the Feather
River because it is used for non-natal rearing and will require special
management considerations to maintain habitat value for the ESU.
Response: The CHART originally evaluated the conservation value of
HSA 551510, which contains the lower Bear River, as being low, and it
was proposed for exclusion in the proposed critical habitat rule based
on the results of the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for that
rulemaking. In response to the information provided by the commenter,
the CHART re-assessed the conservation value and concluded that the
overall conservation value for this HSA is medium rather than low. As a
result of the revised 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for the final rule,
however, this HSA watershed was considered to have a medium benefit of
designation and a relatively high benefit of exclusion (ie., high cost
relative to benefit), making it potentially subject to exclusion from
the final designation. However, the CHART felt the lower portion of the
Bear River within this HSA was important because the habitat is likely
to be used for non-natal rearing by several populations (i.e., Feather
and Yuba River populations) and because non-natal rearing represents a
unique life-history strategy that is essential for conservation since
it contributes to improved growth conditions and serves as a refugia
from high water and catastrophic events. Therefore the CHART concluded
the benefit of including this area out weighed the benefit of excluding
this area and we have included HSA 551510, which includes the lower
Bear River, in the final critical habitat designation for this ESU.
Comment 86: One commenter recommended that the Cosumnes River
should be designated as critical habitat for this ESU based on
unpublished documentation of steelhead presence.
Response: The original analysis conducted by the CHART for the
proposed rule considered the Cosumnes River to be occupied, but its
assessment concluded that the HSA watersheds (553111, 553221, 553223
and 553224) containing this river system were of low conservation
value. Based on this assessment and the results of the ESA section
4(b)(2) analysis conducted for the proposed rule, the Cosumnes River
and all other occupied habitat in these four watersheds were excluded
from the proposed designation. The commenter did not provide any new
information warranting a change in our proposed rule, and, therefore,
the Cosumnes River and these four watersheds have been excluded from
the final designation for this ESU.
Comment 87: Several commenters recommended that we designate the
San Joaquin River from its confluence with the Merced River to Friant
Dam as critical habitat for this ESU.
Response: The recommendations to designate the San Joaquin River
above the confluence with the Merced River were primarily based on the
historical occupancy of this habitat reach by steelhead and the
expectation that future efforts will be undertaken to restore habitat
in this reach. We recognize that this habitat in the San Joaquin River
was historically used by steelhead, but we consider it presently
unoccupied. Moreover, plans to restore flows and habitat conditions
downstream of Friant Dam are uncertain, and significant passage
impediments and flow alterations in the San Joaquin River above the
Merced confluence present significant obstacles to future restoration
success. Because this habitat is currently unoccupied, and ongoing
recovery planning efforts have not identified areas in this reach of
the San Joaquin River as being essential for the conservation of this
ESU, we have not included it in the final critical habitat designation.
Comment 88: Two commenters recommended that we designate Dry Creek,
a tributary to the Yuba River, as critical habitat for Central Valley
steelhead.
Response: The commenters incorrectly interpreted the proposed
designation. Dry Creek, a tributary to the Yuba River, occurs in two
HSA watersheds (551712 and 551713). However, the vast majority of this
creek occurs within HSA 551712. The CHART originally concluded that
watershed 551712 had a high conservation value and that watershed
551713 had a low conservation value. Based on this assessment and the
original ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, the proposed designation for
this ESU included all occupied habitat in HSA 55172, including Dry
Creek, but did exclude a small portion of Dry Creek occurring in HSA
551713 because of high economic costs. We did not receive any new
information warranting a change in the proposed critical habitat with
respect to Dry Creek, and, therefore, the final critical habitat
designation for this ESU only includes that portion of Dry Creek
contained in HSA 551712.
Comment 89: Some commenters contended that we should not designate
any critical habitat for steelhead in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin
River or its major tributaries, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, or
the Suisun-San Francisco Bay complex because existing protective
efforts and mechanisms are sufficient to protect the ESU.
Response: We disagree with these commenters. These waterbodies
comprise the entire freshwater and estuarine range of this ESU, contain
one or more PCEs that are essential to the conservation of the ESU,
including migration, holding, spawning, rearing, and refugia habitat,
and may require special management beyond those protective efforts that
are already in place or available. For these reasons, they were
considered for designation through this rulemaking process. In the
course of this rulemaking, we evaluated the quantity, quality, and
diversity of PCEs within the occupied portions of these waterbodies by
watershed unit, assessed the benefits of designating these watershed
units, and finally weighed the benefits of designation against the
benefits of exclusion by watershed unit. The resultant critical habitat
designation in this final rule, therefore, meets the definition of
critical habitat and also contains PCEs that we believe are essential
for the conservation of this ESU.
Comment 90: One commenter recommended that we should not designate
several streams in the upper Sacramento River (Red Bluff [550420 and
Spring Creek [550440]
HSAs) as critical habitat for Central Valley
steelhead because they are low elevation streams without sufficient
flow duration or suitable habitat to support the species.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's recommendation to
exclude specific streams in these two
[[Page 52514]]
HSAs. The CHART has evaluated these streams and recognizes that they
have limited flow duration. However, the team also concluded the
streams in question support important winter and early spring non-natal
rearing habitat for steelhead and thus contain PCEs that are important
for juvenile rearing. The CHART previously rated both HSAs as having an
overall high conservation value for this ESU and does not believe the
comments warrant a revision in any of its previous conclusions
regarding these two HSAs. Based on the CHART's previous conclusions and
the results of the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for
this rule, all occupied habitat in these two HSAs is included in the
final designation for this ESU.
Comment 91: Some commenters argued that there was no basis for
proposing to designate critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead in
the Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, or Merced Rivers.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. The CHART concluded that
the HSA watersheds containing these rivers were occupied by steelhead,
contained PCEs supporting the species for spawning, rearing and/or
migration, and that there may be a need for special management
considerations. On this basis, these rivers met the definition of
occupied critical habitat, and, therefore, were eligible for
designation. We weighed the benefits of including these areas in the
designation against the benefits of their exclusion in the original ESA
section 4(b)(2) analysis for the proposed rule, and again in a revised
analysis for the final rule. In both instances, the benefits of
designating the HSA watersheds containing these rivers outweighed the
benefits of their exclusion. Accordingly, the HSA watershed containing
these rivers were included in the proposed critical habitat designation
and are also included in the final designation for this ESU.
Comment 92: One commenter argued that the Old River and Paradise
Cut channels in the San Joaquin Delta Subbasin or Hydrologic Unit
(5544) do not meet the definition of critical habitat for Central
Valley steelhead.
Response: We disagree with the commenter. The CHART concluded that
all of the estuarine habitat in this Hydrologic Unit, including the Old
River and Paradise Cut channels, is used by steelhead smolts for
rearing and migration from upstream freshwater rivers. On this basis
the CHART considered the entire Hydrologic Unit to be occupied and to
contain PCEs for rearing and migration that are essential to the
conservation of this ESU. The CHART also concluded that agricultural
water and municipal water withdrawals, entrainment associated with
water diversions, invasive/non-invasive species management, and point
and non-point source water pollution could affect these PCEs and that
there was a need for special management considerations. Based on all of
the available information, the CHART rated this Hydrologic Unit as
having high conservation value for the ESU. Based on the CHART's
assessment and the original ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis conducted for
the proposed rule, this Hydrologic Unit was proposed for designation.
We have received no new information warranting a change in this
proposal, and, therefore, all occupied habitat in this Hydrologic Unit
including the Old River and Paradise Cut channels are included in the
final critical habitat designation for this ESU.
Comment 93: One commenter recommended designating critical habitat
above major dams in the central valley to ensure these habitats were
protected and to encourage implementation of fish passage above these dams.
Response: As part of the proposed critical habitat designation
process, the CHART did evaluate many unoccupied areas above dams in the
central valley as potential critical habitat, and concluded that some
of the reaches above the rim dams ``may'' be essential for the
conservation of steelhead. Although the CHART believes these areas may
be essential for conservation, and we recognize the historical
importance of many of these areas to steelhead, we believe it is
premature to include these unoccupied areas in the final designation
for this ESU until ongoing recovery planning efforts provide technical
information to support a determination that any such areas are
essential to its conservation and recovery. Because these above-dam
habitat areas are currently unoccupied and recovery planning efforts do
not yet support a determination that any specific areas are essential
for the conservation of this ESU, we have not included them in the
final critical habitat designation. As recovery planning efforts mature
and sufficient information is available to make a determination about
whether any of these areas are essential for conservation of this ESU,
we will conduct additional rulemaking as appropriate.
Comment 94: Two commenters addressed the issue of designating
critical habitat above the Solano Irrigation District Dam on Putah
Creek. One commenter argued that habitat between the Solano Irrigation
Dam and Monticello Dam on Putah Creek should be designated as critical
habitat for steelhead even though it is unoccupied because: Suitable
spawning and rearing habitat exists for steelhead above the dam;
providing fish passage is likely to be economically and logistically
feasible; and Central Valley steelhead populations are constrained by
the lack of accessible habitat. The other commenter argued that this
habitat should not be designated because of problems associated with
providing passage.
Response: The CHART considered the information provided by these
commenters and concluded that the unoccupied area above Solano
Irrigation Dam may contain PCEs that would support steelhead and that
providing passage would likely be feasible. However, the CHART did not
make a determination about whether this above dam area may be essential
for the conservation of this ESU. As noted previously, we believe it is
premature to include any unoccupied areas above dams in the final
critical habitat designation for this ESU until ongoing recovery
planning efforts identify those specific unoccupied areas that are
essential to its conservation and recovery. Because the habitat above
the Solano Irrigation Dam is currently unoccupied and recovery planning
efforts do not yet support a determination that this area is essential
for the conservation of this ESU, we have not included this area in the
final critical habitat designation.
ESU-Specific Comments--Central Valley Spring Run Chinook and Central
Valley Steelhead
Comment 95: One commenter argued that west-side tributaries in
Glenn County, and in particular Stony Creek, should not be designated
as critical habitat for either spring-run Chinook salmon or steelhead
because these habitats are unoccupied and water temperatures are too
warm to support salmonids.
Response: We disagree with the commenter. The CHART has evaluated
the available information, particularly with regard to Stony Creek (HSA
550410), and concluded that this stream is occupied by both spring run
Chinook and steelhead. Juvenile spring run Chinook have been
consistently documented using Stony Creek as rearing habitat since 2001
(Corwin and Grant, 2004), as well as in previous years (Maslin and
McKinney, 1994). Similarly, juvenile steelhead have been periodically
documented rearing in Stony Creek (Corwin and Grant, 2004; Maslin and
McKinney, 1994). The
[[Page 52515]]
CHART also concluded that Stony Creek has PCEs that support both
species. Water temperature monitoring from 2001 through 2004 has shown
that temperatures in Stony Creek under current operations are generally
suitable for adult and juvenile salmonids (below 65 [deg]F) from mid-
October through late May. Water temperatures have been found to be
suitable for salmonid spawning and incubation (below 56 [deg]F) from
mid-November through early May (Corwin and Grant, 2004). Though
successful steelhead spawning has not been documented recently in Stony
Creek, habitat conditions under current operations are considered
marginally suitable to support steelhead reproduction. Because of
ongoing restoration actions and ESA section 7 consultations, progress
is being made toward improving these habitat conditions, and we expect
conditions to continue to improve into the future.
Comment 96: Numerous commenters raised issues concerning the
designation of unoccupied and inaccessible habitat in the Yuba River.
Several commenters recommended we designate unoccupied stream reaches
above major impassable barriers in the Middle, North, and South Fork
Yuba Rivers as critical habitat for both ESUs. In contrast, several
other commenters recommended we delay any decision to designate
unoccupied and inaccessible habitat for both ESUs in the Yuba River
above Englebright Dam until the Upper Yuba River Studies Program is
completed.
Response: The CHART reviewed information regarding unoccupied
habitat above Englebright Dam for the proposed rule and concluded that
unoccupied and inaccessible areas above the dam ``may'' be essential
for the conservation of these ESUs. However, we have not made a final
determination that these areas are essential to conservation. As noted
previously for other unoccupied and inaccessible areas, we believe that
it is premature to designate unoccupied areas in the Yuba River above
Englebright Dam as critical habitat until ongoing recovery planning
efforts identify those specific unoccupied habitat areas in the central
valley that are essential to the conservation and recovery of these
ESUs. The Upper Yuba River Studies Program is expected to provide
relevant information for the recovery planning process of both ESUs,
and we intend to await the findings of this program as well as recovery
planning efforts before making a determination about whether or not the
unoccupied habitat areas in question are essential to the conservation
of either ESU. If such a determination is made, we will undertake the
appropriate rulemaking to propose the designation of these areas as
critical habitat.
Comment 97: One commenter recommended designating the entire Butte
Creek watershed, upstream from the Centerville Diversion Dam, as
critical habitat for both the spring run Chinook and steelhead ESUs.
Conversely, another commenter argued that we should not designate this
unoccuped habitat in Butte Creek because there is no historical
information that suggests this habitat was historically occupied by
anadromous salmonids, and recent CDFG barrier assessments have
concluded that barrier modifications are not desirable because of the
high stream gradient and the presence of multiple natural barriers
immediately above the Dam.
Response: The CHART reviewed information regarding unoccupied
habitat above the Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte Creek for the
proposed rule and concluded that this unoccupied and inaccessible
habitat ``may'' be essential for the conservation of both the spring
run Chinook and steelhead ESUs. As noted previously for other
unoccupied and inaccessible areas above dams, however, we believe that
it is premature to designate unoccupied areas in Butte Creek above the
Centerville Diversion Dam as critical habitat until ongoing recovery
planning efforts identify those specific unoccupied habitat areas in
the central valley that are essential to the conservation and recovery
of these ESUs. Because the habitat areas above the Centerville
Diversion Dam are unoccupied and no final determination has been made
that they are essential for conservation of the ESU, they are not
included in the final critical habitat designation for these ESUs. If
the agency makes such a determination in the future, we will undertake
the appropriate rulemaking to designate these areas as critical habitat.
Comment 98: One commenter (CDFG) argued that it is premature to
designate unoccupied habitat above Oroville Dam in the upper Feather
River as critical habitat for either spring run Chinook or steelhead.
Response: As discussed in other responses, we agree with CDFG.
Although the CHART concluded as part of the proposed critical habitat
rule that specific unoccupied areas above Oroville Dam ``may'' be
essential for the conservation of spring run Chinook and steelhead, we
believe it is premature to make such a determination until ongoing
recovery planning efforts in the central valley identify above-dam
unoccupied areas that are essential for conservation of these ESUs. For
this reason, unoccupied areas above Oroville Dam are not included in
the final designation.
Comment 99: Some commenters indicated that habitat above rim dams
on tributaries (Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced) to the San Joaquin
River did not contain suitable habitat for either ESU and that the
feasibility of passage had not been adequately studied.
Response: The CHART evaluated specific unoccupied and inaccessible
stream reaches above rim dams on these San Joaquin River tributaries
and concluded that they ``may'' be essential for the conservation of
spring run Chinook and steelhead. However, as discussed previously, we
believe it is premature to make such a determination until ongoing
recovery planning efforts in the central valley identify above-dam
unoccupied areas that are essential for conservation of these ESUs. For
this reason, unoccupied areas above these rim dams on the San Joaquin
River tributaries are not included in the final designation.
III. Summary of Revisions
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 distribution maps and related biological assessments
based on a final CHART assessment (NMFS, 2005a) of information provided
by commenters, peer reviewers, and agency biologists. We also evaluated
watersheds that may be low leverage (i.e., unlikely to have an ESA
section 7 consultation or where a section 7 consultation, if it did
occur, would yield few conservation benefits) and identified several
for possible exclusion in the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis.
(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. Major changes included assessing new
impacts associated with pesticide consultations, revising Federal land
consultation costs to take into account wilderness areas, and modifying
grazing impacts to more accurately reflect likely project modifications.
(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
[[Page 52516]]
watersheds proposed for exclusion. It also resulted in some areas
originally proposed for exclusion not being excluded and some areas
proposed for designation now being excluded. The analysis is described
further in the 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005c).
(4) We did not conduct an ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis of lands
covered by approved HCPs because existing HCP holders did not request
exclusion from the critical habitat designation. We did not have
sufficient information to conduct this analysis for the vast areas
covered by Federal land management plans, but may do so in the future.
The following sections summarize the ESU-specific 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, 2005a; NMFS, 2005b;
NMFS, 2005c). We conclude that these changes are warranted based on new
information and analyses that constitute the best scientific data
available.
ESU Specific Changes--California Coastal Chinook Salmon
The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. However,
based on public comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we
have identified minor changes to the extent of occupied habitat areas
in some watersheds. Also, based on public comments we have added a
migratory corridor in one watershed (HSA 111171) that was proposed to
be fully excluded in order to provide connectivity between the ocean
and an upstream watershed of high conservation value. Additionally, as
a result of revised economic data for this ESU and our final ESA
section 4(b)(2) analysis, we are excluding all occupied habitat in two
watersheds that were previously proposed for designation (HSAs 111350
and 111423). Table 1 summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.
Table 1.--ESU Specific Changes--California Coastal Chinook Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSA
Hydrologic unit watershed HSA watershed name Changes from
code proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad...................... 110810 Big Lagoon...................................... Removed 0.7 mi (1.1
km) of occupied
habitat area.
Trinidad...................... 110820 Little River--Albion--Big Salmon................ Added 1.2 miles
(1.9 km) of
occupied habitat
area.
Mad River..................... 110920 NF Mad River.................................... Removed 0.8 miles
(1.3 km) of
occupied habitat
area.
Mad River..................... 110930 Butler Valley................................... Added 1.0 mile (1.6
km) of occupied
habitat area.
Eel River..................... 111171 Eden Valley..................................... Excluded
tributaries from
final designation
and retained
migratory
corridor.
Mendocino Coast............... 111350 Navarro River................................... Excluded all
occupied habitat
from final
designation
Russian River................. 111423 Mark West....................................... Excluded all
occupied habitat
from final
designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU Specific Changes--Northern California Steelhead
The CHART did not change conservation value ratings for any
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. However,
based on public comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we
have identified changes to the extent of occupied habitat areas in 13
watersheds. As a result of revised economic data for this ESU and our
final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, we did not make any changes to the
areas that were previously proposed for designation or identify any new
areas for exclusion in the final designation. Table 2 summarizes the
specific changes made for this ESU.
Table 2.--ESU Specific Changes--Northern California Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSA
Hydrologic unit watershed HSA watershed name Changes from proposed rule
code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redwood Creek............................ 110720 Beaver...................... Removed 0.7 mi (1.1 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Trinidad................................. 110810 Big Lagoon.................. Added 0.3 mi (0.5 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Trinidad................................. 110820 Little River................ Added 2.9 mi (4.7 km) of
occupied habitat areas.
Mad River................................ 110930 Butler Valley............... Removed 0.4 mi (0.6 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Eureka Plain............................. 111000 Eureka Plain................ Removed 0.8 mi (1.3 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Eel River................................ 111132 Benbow...................... Removed 0.7 mi (1.1 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Eel River................................ 111133 Laytonville................. Removed 0.8 mi (1.3 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Mendocino Coast.......................... 111311 Usal Creek.................. Removed 5.6 mi (9.0 km) of
Coast occupied habitat
areas.
Mendocino Coast.......................... 111312 Wages Creek................. Removed 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Mendocino Coast.......................... 111313 Ten Mile Creek.............. Removed 7.6 mi (12.2 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Mendocino Coast.......................... 111320 Noyo River.................. Removed 0.9 mi (1.4 km) of
occupied habitat area
Mendocino Coast.......................... 111330 Big River................... Removed 0.3 mi (0.5 km) of
occupied habitat area.
Mendocino Coast.......................... 111340 Albion River................ Removed 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of
occupied habitat area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU Specific Changes--Central California Coast Steelhead
The CHART did not change the conservation value of any occupied
watersheds within the geographical area occupied by this ESU. Occupied
habitat was added to one watershed (220320) because of a mapping error
in the proposed rule and to another watershed (220550) based on public
comments and new information received by the CHART. The Upper Alameda
Creek watershed (220430) was removed from the final designation because
it is occupied only by resident O. mykiss, and a final listing
determination for this life form will not be made until December 2005
(70 FR 37219; June 28,
[[Page 52517]]
2005). As a result of this change, portions of the migratory corridor
to upper Alameda Creek were also removed from two watersheds (220420
and 220520) in the final designation. As a result of revised economic
data for this ESU and our final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis, we are
excluding all occupied habitat areas in two watersheds that were not
previously proposed for designation (111421 and 220722). Table 3
summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.
Table 3.--ESU Specific Changes--Central California Coast Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSA
Hydrologic unit watershed HSA watershed name Changes from
code proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian River................. 111421 Laguna De Santa Rosa............................ Excluded all
occupied habitat
from final
designation.
Bay Bridges................... 220320 San Rafael...................................... Added 6.4 mi (10.3
km) of occupied
habitat area
(Arroyo Core
Madera del
Presidio).
South Bay..................... 220420 Eastbay Cities.................................. Removed 8.6 mi
(13.8 km)
migratory corridor
to Upper Alameda
Creek watershed
(220430).
South Bay..................... 220430 Upper Alameda Creek............................. Removed all
occupied habitat
(99.0 mi, or 159
km) from final
designation.
Santa Clara................... 220520 Fremont Bayside................................. Removed portion of
migratory corridor
(1.0 mi, or 1.6
km) to Upper
Alameda Creek
watershed
(220430).
Santa Clara................... 220550 Palo Alto....................................... Added 1.9 mi (3.0
km) of occupied
habitat area (San
Francisquito Creek
tributaries).
Suisun........................ 220722 Suisun Creek.................................... Excluded all
occupied habitat
area from final
designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU Specific Changes--South-Central California Steelhead
The CHART did not change the conservation value rating for any
watershed within the geographical area occupied by this ESU, nor were
there any changes to the extent of occupied habitat areas. As a result
of revised economic data for this ESU and our final ESA section 4(b)(2)
analysis, we did not make any changes to the areas that were previously
proposed for designation or identify any new areas for exclusion.
ESU Specific Changes--Southern California Steelhead
The CHART did not change the conservation value ratings for any of
the occupied watersheds within the geographical area occupied by this
ESU. However, based on information from the public comments and agency
biologists and reviewed by the CHART, several watershed units (490121,
490122, 490125, 490126, and 490128) were determined to be unoccupied
and, because we had not made a determination that they were essential
to the conservation of the ESU, were not considered eligible for
designation or considered in the final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis for
this final designation. These watershed units were located in the San
Juan Creek/Trabuco Creek watershed in the southern portion of the range
of the ESU. Also, based on public comments and other information
reviewed by the CHART, we have identified several changes to the extent
of occupied habitat in a number of watersheds. Based on the revised
economic data for this ESU and our final ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis,
we did not make any changes to the watershed areas that were previously
proposed for designation. Table 4 summarizes the specific changes made
for this ESU.
Table 4.--ESU Specific Changes--Southern California Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSA
Hydrologic unit watershed HSA watershed/area name Changes from proposed rule
code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Ynez............................... 331440 Santa Ynez to Bradbury...... Removed 24.0 mi (38.6 km) of
occupied tributary habitat
area to the Santa Ynez
River (Alamo Pintado and
Santa Aguedo Creeks).
South Coast.............................. 331534 Carpenteria................. Removed 0.8 mi (1.3 km) of
occupied habitat (Santa
Monica estuary).
Ventura River............................ 440232 Thatcher.................... Removed 20.9 mi (33.6 km) of
occupied tributary habitat
area (San Antonio Creek and
tributaries).
Santa Clara--Calleguas................... 440331 Sespe--Santa Clara.......... Removed 5.4 mi (8.7 km) of
occupied habitat area (Pole
Creek).
San Juan................................. 490121 Trabuco..................... Changed to unoccupied.
Removed small amount of
occupied habitat area
(Trabuco Creek).
San Juan................................. 490122 Upper Trabuco............... Changed to unoccupied.
Removed 7.7 mi (12.4 km) of
occupied habitat area
(Trabuco Creek).
San Juan................................. 490123 Middle Trabuco.............. Removed 12.4 mi (20.0 km) of
occupied habitat area
(Trabuco Creek).
San Juan................................. 490125 Upper San Juan.............. Changed to unoccupied.
Removed 12.5 mi (20.1 km)
of occupied habitat area
(San Juan Creek).
San Juan................................. 490126 Mid upper San Juan.......... Changed to unoccupied.
Removed 3.8 mi (6.1 km) of
occupied habitat area (San
Juan Creek).
San Juan................................. 490128 Middle San Juan............. Changed to unoccupied.
Removed 3.4 mi (5.5 km) of
occupied habitat area (San
Juan Creek).
[[Page 52518]]
San Juan................................. 490140 San Mateo................... Removed 4.9 mi (7.9 km) of
occupied habitat (Devil
Creek).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU Specific Changes--Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon
Based on information provided in the public comments and new
information reviewed by the CHART, one watershed was changed from
occupied to unoccupied (550731), one was changed from unoccupied to
occupied and rated as having a high conservation value to the ESU
(551510), and one watershed was changed from a medium to a high
conservation value (551921). Also, based on public comments and new
information reviewed by the CHART, we have identified relatively minor
changes to the extent of occupied habitat in some watersheds. Based on
the results of the revised economic data for this ESU and our final ESA
section 4(b)(2) analysis, we are excluding all occupied habitat areas
in one watershed (551720) that were previously proposed for
designation, and designating all occupied habitat areas in a second
watershed (551921) that were previously proposed for exclusion. Table 5
summarizes the specific changes made for this ESU.
Table 5.--ESU Specific Changes--Central Valley Spring Run Chinook
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSA
Hydrologic unit watershed HSA Watershed name Changes from proposed rule
code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitmore................................. 550731 South Cow Creek............. Changed from occupied to
unoccupied. Removed 10.3 mi
(16.6 km) of occupied
habitat area.
Redding.................................. 550810 Enterprise Flat............. Minor changes in
distribution. No net change
in occupied mi of habitat
area.
Marysville............................... 551510 Lower Bear River............ Changed from unoccupied to
occupied. Added 5.1 mi (8.2
km) of occupied habitat
area. Rated as high in
conservation value and
included all occupied
habitat in the final
designation.
Yuba River............................... 551720 Nevada City................. Excluded all occupied
habitat from final
designation.
Valley-American.......................... 551921 Lower American.............. Changed conservation value
from medium to high and
included all occupied
habitat in the final
designation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU Specific Changes--Central Valley Steelhead
Based on information provided in the public comments and new
information reviewed by the CHART, the conservation value of two
watersheds (551510 and 552110) within the geographical range of this
ESU was changed from low to medium. Additionally, based on public
comments and new information reviewed by the CHART, we have identified
changes to the extent of occupied habitat areas in two watersheds. As a
result of the revised economic data for this ESU and our final ESA
section 4(b)(2) analysis, we are excluding all occupied habitat areas
in two watersheds (550964 and 552435) proposed for designation and
designating all occupied areas in two other watersheds (551510 and
552110) that were previously proposed for exclusion. Table 6 summarizes
the specific changes made for this ESU.
Table 6.--ESU Specific Changes--Central Valley Steelhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSA
Hydrologic unit watershed HSA Watershed name Changes from proposed rule
code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redding.................................. 550810 Enterprise Flat............. Added 5.7 mi (9.2 km) of
occupied habitat area
(several tributaries).
Eastern Tehama........................... 550964 Paynes Creek................ Excluded all occupied
habitat Tehama from the
final designation.
Marysville............................... 551510 Lower Bear River............ Changed conservation value
from low to medium.
Included all occupied
habitat in the final
designation.
Butte Creek.............................. 552110 Upper Dry Creek............. Changed conservation value
from low to medium.
Included all occupied
habitat in the final
designation.
Shasta Bally............................. 552435 Ono......................... Excluded all occupied
habitat from the final
designation.
Shasta Bally............................. 552440 Spring Creek................ Removed 3.1 mi (5.0 km) of
occupied habitat area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52519]]
IV. Methods and Criteria Used To Designate Critical Habitat
The following sections describe the relevant definitions and
guidance found in the ESA and our implementing regulations, and the key
methods and criteria we used to make these final critical habitat
designations 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 designating critical habitat 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; 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 known physical and biological features (primary constituent
elements or PCEs) within the occupied areas that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection. Both the ESA and our regulations, in
recognition of the divergent biological needs of species, establish
criteria that are fact specific rather than ``one size fits all.''
Our regulations state that, ``The 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 and
commercial 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 requires that before designating critical
habitat we must 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
inclusion, unless excluding an area from critical habitat will result
in the extinction of the species concerned. Once critical habitat for a
salmon or steelhead ESU is designated, 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 result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Salmon Life History
Pacific salmon are anadromous fish, meaning adults migrate from the
ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where their offspring
hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the ocean to forage until
maturity. The migration and spawning times vary considerably across and
within species and populations (Groot and Margolis, 1991). At spawning,
adults pair to lay and fertilize thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel
nests or ``redds'' excavated by females. Depending on lake/stream
temperatures, eggs incubate for several weeks to months before hatching
as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk
sac). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as
young juveniles called ``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Depending on
the species and location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to
several years in freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The
physiological and behavioral changes required for the transition to
salt water result in a distinct ``smolt'' stage in most species. On
their journey juveniles must migrate downstream through every riverine
and estuarine corridor between their natal lake or stream and the
ocean. For example, smolts from Idaho will travel as far as 900 miles
(1,448 km) from the inland spawning grounds. En route to the ocean the
juveniles may spend from a few days to several weeks in the estuary,
depending on the species. The highly productive estuarine environment
is an important feeding and acclimation area for juveniles preparing to
enter marine waters.
Juveniles and subadults typically spend from 1 to 5 years foraging
over thousands of miles in the North Pacific Ocean before returning to
spawn. Some species, such as coho and Chinook salmon, have precocious
life history types (primarily male fish known as ``jacks'') that mature
and spawn after only several months in the ocean. Spawning migrations
known as ``runs'' occur throughout the year, varying by species and
location. Most adult fish return or ``home'' with great fidelity to
spawn in their natal stream, although some do stray to non-natal
streams. Salmon species die after spawning, except anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead), which may return to the ocean and make one or more repeat
spawning migrations. This complex life cycle gives rise to complex
habitat needs, particularly during the freshwater phase (see review by
Spence et al., 1996). Spawning gravels must be of a certain size and
free of sediment to allow successful incubation of the eggs. Eggs also
require cool, clean, and well-oxygenated waters for proper development.
Juveniles need abundant food sources, including insects, crustaceans,
and other small fish. They need places to hide from predators (mostly
birds and bigger fish), such as under logs, root wads and boulders in
the stream, and beneath overhanging vegetation. They also need places
to seek refuge from periodic high flows (side channels and off channel
areas) and from warm summer water temperatures (coldwater springs and
deep pools). Returning adults generally do not feed in fresh water but
instead rely on limited energy stores to migrate, mature, and spawn.
Like juveniles, they also require cool water and places to rest and
hide from predators. During all life stages salmon require cool water
that is free of contaminants. They also require rearing and migration
corridors with adequate passage conditions (water quality and quantity
available at specific times) to allow access to the various habitats
required to complete their life cycle.
The homing fidelity of salmon has created a metapopulation
structure with distinct populations distributed among watersheds
(McElhany et al., 2000). Low levels of straying result in regular
genetic exchange among populations,
[[Page 52520]]
creating genetic similarities among populations in adjacent watersheds.
Maintenance of the metapopulation structure requires a distribution of
populations among watersheds where environmental risks (e.g., from
landslides or floods) are likely to vary. It also requires migratory
connections among the watersheds to allow for periodic genetic exchange
and alternate spawning sites in the case that natal streams are
inaccessible due to natural events such as a drought or landslide. More
detailed information describing habitat and life history
characteristics of the ESUs is contained in the proposed rule (69 FR
71880; December 10, 2004), agency status reviews for each ESU,
technical recovery team products, and in a biological report supporting
these designations (NMFS, 2005a).
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 proposed rule we described in greater detail that since the
previous designations in 2000, we can now be somewhat more precise
about the ``geographical area occupied by the species'' because of
efforts by agency biologists, in coordination with Federal and state
co-managers, to compile information and map actual species distribution
at the level of stream reaches. Moreover, much of the available data
can now be accessed and analyzed using geographic information systems
(GIS) to produce consistent and fine-scale maps. The current mapping
effort for these ESUs documents fish presence and identifies 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. We
made use of these finer-scale data for the current critical habitat
designations, and we now believe that they enable a more accurate
delineation of the ``geographical area occupied by the species''
referred to in the ESA definition of critical habitat.
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. As described in the proposed rule, we have used the
State of California's CALWATER watershed classification system, which
is similar to the USGS watershed classification system that was used
for salmonid critical habitat designations in the Northwest. This
information is now generally available via the internet, and we have
expanded our GIS resources to use these data. We used the CALWATER
Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) unit (which is generally similar in size to
USGS HUC5s) to organize critical habitat information systematically and
at a scale that, while somewhat broad geographically, 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 HSA
watersheds or aggregations of these watersheds.
The CALWATER system 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 HSA watershed,
there are stream reaches not occupied by the species. Land areas within
the CALWATER HSA 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. This designation refers to the occupied stream reaches
within the watershed boundary as the ``habitat area'' to distinguish it
from the entire area encompassed by the watershed boundary. Each
habitat area was reviewed by the CHARTs to verify occupation, PCEs, and
special management considerations (see ``Critical Habitat Analytical
Review Teams'' 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 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 Pacific salmonids, the biology of
the species, the characteristics of its 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.
Occupied estuarine areas were also considered in the context of
defining ``specific areas.'' In our proposed rule 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). The San Francisco Bay estuary complex consists of five CALWATER
HSA watershed units that are separate from upstream freshwater habitats
that drain into the estuarine complex, and these units were analyzed
separately. Some other small estuaries did not correspond to HSA
watershed units nor were they part of defined HSA watershed units, and
so we defined specific polygons which were analyzed separately. 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. 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. In contrast to estuarine
areas, we conclude that it is not possible to identify ``specific
areas'' in the Pacific Ocean that contain essential features for
salmonids. Also, links between human
[[Page 52521]]
activity, habitat conditions and impacts to listed salmonids are less
direct in offshore marine areas. Perhaps the closest linkage exists for
salmon prey species that are harvested commercially (e.g., Pacific
herring) and, therefore, may require special management considerations
or protection. However, because salmonids are opportunistic feeders we
could not identify ``specific areas'' where these or other essential
features are found within this vast geographic area occupied by salmon
and steelhead. Moreover, prey species move or drift great distances
throughout the ocean and would be difficult to link to any ``specific''
areas. 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.
Primary Constituent Elements
In determining what areas are critical habitat, agency regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require that we must ``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 primary constituent elements
(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, 1996) 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 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. The ESUs addressed in this final
rule share many of the same rivers and estuaries and have similar life
history characteristics and, therefore, many of the same PCEs. 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 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.
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 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
[[Page 52522]]
which the species use the habitat. The CHARTs 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 their review of occupied areas and resultant
assessment of area conservation values (NMFS, 2005a). 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 CHARTs took this variation into account when they
assessed the conservation value of an area.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
An occupied area cannot be designated as critical habitat unless it
contains physical and biological features that ``may require special
management considerations or protection.'' Agency regulations at
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 Teams,'' teams 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 CHART report (NMFS,
2005a). In the case of salmon and steelhead, the CHARTs 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 and other
associated rangeland activities; (3) agriculture; (4) road building/
maintenance; (5) channel modifications/diking/stream bank
stabilization; (6) urbanization; (7) sand and gravel mining; (8)
mineral mining; (9) dams; (10) irrigation impoundments and withdrawals;
(11) wetland loss/removal; (12) exotic/invasive species introductions;
and (13) impediments to migration. 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.'' The CHARTs did identify several unoccupied areas above dams
that may be essential for the conservation of specific ESUs, primarily
within the historical range of the Central Valley spring run Chinook,
Central Valley steelhead, and Southern California steelhead ESUs (see
proposed rule; 69 FR 71880; December 10, 2004); however, we are not
designating unoccupied areas at this time. Though it is not possible to
conclude at this time that any of these historically occupied areas
warrant designation, we believe it is useful to signal to the public
that these specific areas may be considered for possible designation in
the future. However, any designation of unoccupied areas would be based
on the required determination that such area is essential for the
conservation of an 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 are proposing to
define 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 COE 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 (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 nearly
all of the juvenile freshwater life phases of most salmon and steelhead
ESUs. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert 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., dams) of designated
stream reaches can also have demonstrable effects on physical and
biological features of designated reaches.
In estuarine areas we believe that extreme high water is the best
descriptor of lateral extent. We are designating the area inundated by
extreme high tide because it encompasses habitat areas typically
inundated and regularly occupied during the spring and summer when
juvenile salmon are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying heavily
on forage, cover, and refuge qualities provided by these occupied
habitats. 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 nearshore
habitat areas, and Federal agencies must be aware of these important
habitat linkages as well.
Military Lands
The Sikes Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each
military installation that includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by
November 17, 2001, an INRMP. An INRMP integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural
resources found there. Each INRMP includes: an assessment of the
[[Page 52523]]
ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for
the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and
priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and
adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the
extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification,
wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to
support fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural
resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. No. 108-136) amended the ESA to address designation of military
lands as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall
not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
To address this new provision we contacted the DOD and requested
information on all INRMPs that might benefit Pacific salmon. In
response to the ANPR (68 FR 55926; September 29, 2003) we had already
received a letter from the U.S. Marine Corps regarding this and other
issues associated with a possible critical habitat designation on its
facilities in the range of the Southern California Steelhead ESU. In
response to our request, the military services identified 25
installations in California with INRMPs in place or under development.
Based on information provided by the military, as well as GIS analysis
of fish distributional information compiled by NMFS'' Southwest Region
(NMFS, 2004b; NMFS, 2005a) and land use data, we determined that the
following facilities with INRMPs overlap with habitat areas under
consideration for critical habitat designation in California: (1) Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base; (2) Vandenberg Air Force Base; (3) Camp
San Luis Obispo; (4) Camp Roberts; and (5) Mare Island Army Reserve
Center. Two additional facilities are adjacent to, but do not overlap
with, habitat areas under consideration for critical habitat in
California: (1) Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach/Concord Detachment;
and (2) Point Mugu Naval Air Station. None of the remaining facilities
with INRMPs in place overlapped with or were adjacent to habitat under
consideration for critical habitat based on the information available
to us. All of these INRMPs are final except for the Vandenberg Air
Force Base INRMP, which is expected to be finalized in the near term.
We identified habitat of value to listed salmonids in each INRMP
and reviewed these plans, as well as other information available
regarding the management of these military lands. Our review indicates
that each of these INRMPs addresses habitat for salmonids, and all
contain measures that provide benefits to ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead. Examples of the types of benefits include actions that
control erosion, protect riparian zones, minimize stormwater and
construction impacts, reduce contaminants, and monitor listed species
and their habitats. As a result of our review, we have determined that
the final INRMPs and the draft INRMP for Vandenberg Air Force Base
provide a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed
for designation, and, therefore, we are not designating critical
habitat in those areas. Also, we have received information from the
Vandenberg Air Force Base and Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base
identifying national security impacts to their operations from critical
habitat designation. Our consideration of such impacts is separate from
our assessment of INRMPs, but serves as an independent and sufficient
basis for our determination not to designate those areas as critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams
To assist in the designation of critical habitat, we convened
several CHARTs organized by major geographic domains that roughly
correspond to salmon recovery planning domains in California. The
CHARTs consisted of NMFS fishery biologists from the Southwest Region
with demonstrated expertise regarding salmonid habitat and related
protective efforts within the domain. The CHARTs were tasked with
compiling and assessing biological information pertaining to areas
under consideration for designation as critical habitat. Each CHART
worked closely with GIS specialists to develop maps depicting the
spatial distribution of habitat occupied by each ESU and the use of
occupied habitat on stream hydrography at a scale of 1:100,000. The
CHARTs also reconvened to review the public comments and any new
information regarding the ESUs and habitat in their domain.
The CHARTs examined each habitat area within the watershed to
determine whether the stream reaches or lakes occupied by the species
contain the physical or biological features essential to conservation.
As noted previously, the CHARTs also relied on their 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 that area is essential
for conservation of a species. Accordingly the CHARTs were also asked
whether there were any unoccupied areas within the historical range of
the ESUs that may be essential for conservation. For the seven ESUs
addressed in this rulemaking, the CHARTs did not have sufficient
information that would allow them to conclude that specific unoccupied
areas were essential for conservation; however, in many cases they were
able to identify areas they believed may be determined essential
through future recovery planning efforts. These were described in the
proposed critical habitat designation rule (69 FR 71880).
The CHARTs were next asked to determine the relative conservation
value of each occupied HSA watershed area for each ESU. The CHARTs
scored each habitat area based on several factors related to the
quantity and quality of the physical and biological features. They 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 CHARTs rated each habitat area as having a
``high,'' ``medium,'' or ``low'' conservation value. The preliminary
CHART ratings were reviewed by several state and tribal co-managers in
advance of the proposed rule and the CHARTs made needed changes prior
to that rule. State co-managers also evaluated our proposed rule and
provided comments and new information which were also reviewed and
incorporated as needed by the CHARTs in the preparation of the final
designations.
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 balancing whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the
[[Page 52524]]
benefits of designation in ESA section 4(b)(2). The higher the
conservation value for an area, the greater may be 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
developed 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 purposes of our
cost-effectiveness framework (NMFS 2005c). For watersheds meeting the
``low leverage'' profile, we considered the benefit of designation to
be an increment lower than the conservation rating. For example,
therefore, a watershed with a ``high'' conservation value but ``low
leverage'' was considered to have a ``medium'' benefit of designation,
and so forth. We then applied the dollar thresholds for exclusion
appropriate to the adjusted ``benefit of designation.''
As discussed earlier, the scale chosen for the ``specific area''
referred to in section 3(5)(a) was an HSA watershed as delineated by
the CALWATER watershed classification system. This delineation required
us to adapt the approach for some areas. For example, 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 CHARTs were 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.
V. Application of ESA Section 4(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, minus
those lands owned or controlled by the DOD, or designated for its use,
that are covered by an INRMP that we have determined provides a benefit
to the species.
Specific areas eligible for designation are not automatically
designated as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires
that the Secretary first considers the economic impact, impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact. 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. 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.
In this exercise of discretion, the first issue we must address is
the scope of impacts relevant to the 4(b)(2) evaluation. As discussed
in the Background and Previous Federal Action section, we are re-
designating critical habitat for these seven ESUs because the previous
designations were vacated (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 Tenth Circuit concluded that, given the
USFWS'' failure to distinguish between ``adverse modification'' and
``jeopardy'' in its 4(b)(2) analysis, the USFWS 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 re-designating critical habitat for these salmon ESUs, we have
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 these as well as other
ESUs of salmon. (For thoroughness, we examined the consultation record
for other ESUs to see if it shed light on the issues.) 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
[[Page 52525]]
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, and
what the actual benefit is, 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; E.O. 12866 established this
requirement for Federal agency regulation. 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 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 essentially adopts
that of cost-effectiveness. Individual habitat areas can then be
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, 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
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. We believe there is very
little benefit to designating critical habitat on Indian lands for
these seven ESUs. Although there are potentially a number of activities
on Indian lands that may trigger section 7 consultation, Indian lands
comprise only a very minor portion (substantially less than 1 percent)
of the total habitat under consideration for these seven California
ESUs. Specifically, occupied stream reaches on Indian lands only occur
within the range of the California Coastal Chinook, Northern California
steelhead, and Central California Coast steelhead ESUs, and these areas
represent less than 0.1 percent of the total occupied habitat under
consideration for these three ESUs. Based on our analysis, the
remaining four ESUs did not contain any Indian lands that overlapped
with occupied stream habitat. These percentages are likely overestimates
as they include all habitat area within reservation boundaries.
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 lands 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 Pacific
salmon and steelhead in California and in the Northwest, there is a
unique partnership between the Federal government and Indian tribes
regarding salmon management. Indian tribes in California and the
Northwest are regarded as ``co-managers'' of the salmon resource, along
with Federal and State managers. This co-management relationship
evolved as a result of numerous court decisions clarifying the tribes'
treaty right to take fish in their usual and accustomed places.
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 salmonids on an
ecosystem-wide basis; (3) the allowance for continued meaningful
collaboration and cooperation in scientific work to learn more about
the conservation needs of the species on an ecosystem-wide basis; and
(4) continued respect for tribal sovereignty over management of natural
resources on Indian lands through established tribal natural resource
programs.
We believe that the current co-manager process addressing
activities on an ecosystem-wide basis across the State is currently
beneficial for the conservation of the salmonids. Because
[[Page 52526]]
the co-manager process provides for coordinated ongoing focused action
through a variety of forums, we find the benefits of this process to be
greater than the benefits of applying ESA section 7 to Federal
activities on Indian lands, which comprise much less than one percent
of the total area under consideration for these ESUs. Additionally, we
have determined that the exclusion of tribal lands will not result in
the extinction of the species concerned. We also believe that
maintenance of our current co-manager relationship consistent with
existing policies is an important benefit to continuance of our tribal
trust responsibilities and relationship. Based upon our consultation
with the Round Valley Indian Tribes and the BIA, we believe that
designation of Indian lands as critical habitat would adversely impact
our working relationship and the benefits resulting from this relationship.
Based upon these considerations, we have decided to exercise agency
discretion under ESA section 4(b)(2) and exclude Indian lands from the
critical habitat designation for these ESUs of salmonids. 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. The Indian tribes for which these
exclusions apply in California include: Big Lagoon Reservation, Blue
Lake Rancheria, Round Valley Indian Tribes, Laytonville Rancheria,
Redwood Valley Rancheria, Coyote Valley Reservation, and Manchester-
Point Arena Rancheria. We have determined that these exclusions,
together with the other exclusions described in this rule, will not
result in the extinction of any of the seven ESUs in this designation.
Impacts to Landowners With Contractual Commitments to Conservation
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., HCPs)
enhance species conservation by extending species' protections beyond
those available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade we
have encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation
agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species'
conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can
through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA authorizes us to issue to non-
Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that
results in the incidental taking of a listed species (i.e., take that
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an
otherwise lawful activity). The ESA specifies that an application for
an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a conservation plan,
and specifies the content of such a plan. The purpose of such an HCP is
to describe and ensure that the effects of the permitted action on
covered species are adequately minimized and mitigated, and that the
action does not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the species.
To date we have not excluded critical habitat on lands covered by
an HCP, but we acknowledged in our proposed rule that this was an
emerging issue and that the benefits of such exclusions may outweigh
the benefits of designation (69 FR 74623; December 14, 2004). As
described in greater detail above (see Comment 42) and in our
assessment of HCPs associated with this final rulemaking (NMFS, 2005e),
the analysis required for these types of exclusions requires careful
consideration of the benefits of designation versus the benefits of
exclusion to determine whether benefits of exclusion outweigh benefits
of designation. The benefits of designation typically arise from
additional section 7 protections as well as enhanced public awareness
once specific areas are identified as critical habitat. The benefits of
exclusion generally relate to relieving regulatory burdens on existing
conservation partners, maintaining good working relationships with
them, and encouraging the development of new partnerships.
Based on comments received on our proposed rule, we could not
conclude that all landowners view designation of critical habitat as
imposing a burden, and exclusion from designation as removing that
burden and thereby strengthening the ongoing relationship. Where an HCP
partner affirmatively requests designation, exclusion is likely to harm
rather than benefit the relationship. Where an HCP partner has remained
silent on the benefit of exclusion of its land, we do not believe the
record supports a presumption that exclusion will enhance the
relationship. Similarly, we do not believe it provides an incentive to
other landowners to seek an HCP if our exclusions are not in response
to an expressed landowner preference. We anticipate further rulemaking
in the near future to refine these designations, for example, in
response to developments in recovery planning. As part of future
revisions, we will consider information we receive from those with
approved HCPs regarding the effect of designation on our ongoing
partnership. We did not consider pending HCPs for exclusion, both
because we do not want to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing HCP
process, and because we expect to have future opportunities to refine
the designation and consider whether exclusion will outweigh the
benefit of designation in a particular case.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
As previously noted (see Military Lands section), we evaluated
several DOD sites with draft or final INRMPs and determined that each
INRMP provides a benefit to the listed salmon or steelhead ESUs under
consideration at the site. Therefore, we conclude that those areas
subject to final INRMPs are not eligible for designation pursuant to
section 4(a)(3)(B)(I) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(A)(3)). At the request
of the DOD (and in the case that an INRMP might not provide a benefit
to the species), we also assessed the impacts on national security that
may result from designating these and other DOD sites as critical habitat.
The U.S. Marine Corps provided comments in response to the ANPR (68
FR 55926; September 29, 2003) regarding its INRMP for Camp Pendleton
Marine Corps Base and potential impacts to national security for this
facility, which is within the range of the Southern California O.
mykiss ESU. By letter, NMFS subsequently provided the DOD with
information about the areas we were considering to designate as
critical habitat for the seven ESUs in California (as well as the 13
ESUs in the Pacific Northwest), and, in addition to a request for
information about DOD's INRMPs, requested information about potential
impacts to national security as a result of any critical habitat
designation. In response to that request and also in comments on the
proposed critical habitat designation (69 FR 71880), the Camp Pendleton
Marine Corps Base and Vandenberg Air Force Base provided detailed
information on such impacts to their operations. Both military agencies
concluded that critical habitat designation at either of these sites
[[Page 52527]]
would likely impact national security by diminishing military
readiness, with possible impacts including: (1) The prevention,
restriction, or delay in training or testing exercises or access to
such sites; (2) the restriction or delay in activities associated with
space launches; (3) a delay in response times for troop deployments and
overall operations; and (4) the creation of uncertainties regarding ESA
consultation (e.g., reinitiation requirements) or imposition of
compliance conditions that would divert military resources. Also, both
military agencies cited their ongoing and positive consultation history
with NMFS and underscored cases where they are implementing best
management practices to reduce impacts on listed salmonids. The
occupied fish habitat occurring on Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg AFB
have important conservation value, but they are primarily migratory
corridors and represent only a small percentage of the total occupied
habitat area for the Southern California steelhead ESU. Designating
habitat on these two installations will likely reduce the readiness
capability of the Marine Corps and the Air Force, both of which are
actively engaged in training, maintaining, and deploying forces in the
current war on terrorism. Therefore, we conclude that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, and we are not
proposing to designate these DOD sites as critical habitat.
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 71880; December 10, 2004). Based on new
information and comments received on the proposed rule, we have updated
the economics report wherein we document our conclusions regarding the
economic impacts of designating each of the particular areas found to
meet the definition of critical habitat (NMFS, 2005b). 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.
Also, we have stated our intention to revisit the existing critical
habitat designations for Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon and
two California coastal coho salmon ESUs, if appropriate, following
completion of related rulemaking (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). Given
the uncertainty that these designations will remain in place in their
current configuration, we decided not to consider them as part of the
baseline for the ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis.
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
EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; sand & 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 likely
occurrence of each type of project in each watershed, using existing
spatial databases (e.g., the COE 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 an HSA watershed).
Expected economic impacts ranged from zero to in excess of 1 million
dollars per habitat area. Where a watershed included both tributaries
and a migration corridor that served other watersheds, we attempted to
estimate 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
data on the likely impact on flows at non-Federal hydropower projects,
which would increase economic impacts. In addition, we did not have
information about potential changes in irrigation flows associated with
section 7 consultation which would likely 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. 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 consideration the many data limitations 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
cost-effectiveness 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.
The circumstances of most of the listed ESUs can make a cost-
effectiveness approach useful. Pacific salmon are wide-ranging species
and occupy numerous habitat areas with thousands of stream miles. Not
all occupied areas, however, are of equal importance to conserving an
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 an 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. 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 watershed areas we would consider for
[[Page 52528]]
an economic exclusion based on dollar thresholds. The next step was to
examine those areas potentially eligible for exclusion based on dollar
thresholds to determine whether or not any of them would make an
important contribution to conservation for the ESU. Based on the rating
process used by the CHARTs, we judged that all of the high conservation
value habitat areas make an important contribution to conservation, and
therefore, we did not consider them for exclusion.
In developing criteria for the first step, we chose dollar
thresholds that we anticipated would lead most directly to a cost
effective scenario. We considered for exclusion, low value habitat
areas with an economic impact greater than $70,000-85,000, and medium
value areas with an economic impact greater than $300,000.
The criteria we selected for identifying habitat areas eligible for
exclusion do not represent an objective judgment that, for example, a
low value habitat area is worth a certain dollar amount and no more.
The ESA directs us to balance dissimilar values with a limited amount
of time and therefore information. It emphasizes the discretionary
nature of the 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 correct would be neither necessary or
possible. Rather, what economic impact is high, and therefore, might
outweigh the benefit of designating a medium or low value habitat area
is a matter of discretion and depends on the policy context. The policy
context in which we carry out this task led us to select dollar
thresholds that would likely lead to a cost effective designation in a
limited amount of time with a relatively simple process.
In the second step of the process, we asked the CHARTs whether any
of the habitat areas (i.e., watersheds) eligible for exclusion make an
important contribution to conservation of the ESU in question. The
CHARTs 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 each ESU. The
results are discussed in more detail in a separate report that is
available for public review (NMFS, 2005c). We have determined that
these exclusions, together with the other exclusions described in this
rule, will not result in the extinction of any of the seven ESUs.
VI. Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 8,935 net mi (14,296 km) of
riverine habitat and 470 mi\2\ (1,212 km\2\) of estuarine habitat in
California within the geographical areas presently occupied by the
seven ESUs. This designation excludes approximately 771 net mi (1,233
km) of occupied riverine habitat as a result of economic
considerations, 32 mi (51 km) of occupied riverine habitat on Tribal
lands, and 44 mi (70 km) of occupied riverine habitat on DOD lands.
Some of these areas in the final designation overlap substantially for
two ESUs. The net economic impacts (coextensive with ESA section 7)
associated with the areas designated for all ESUs are estimated to be
approximately $81,647,439.
Table 7.--Approximate Quantity of Habitat * and Ownership Within Watersheds Containing Habitat Areas Designated
as Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estuary Ownership (percent)
Streams Habitat -------------------------------------------
ESU (mi) (Sq mi)
(km) (Sq km) Federal Tribal State Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Coastal Chinook Salmon............. 1,475 25 16.4 0.4 3.4 79.8
2,360 65
Northern California Steelhead................. 3,028 25 18.8 0.5 3.7 77.1
4,844 65
Central California Coast Steelhead............ 1,465 386 4.5 0.0 7.2 88.3
2,344 996
South-Central California Coast Steelhead...... 1,249 3 16.3 0.0 2.2 81.6
2,000 8
Southern California Steelhead................. 708 ......... 25.0 1.0 2.4 71.6
1,132 .........
Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon...... 1,158 254 12.1 0.0 3.3 84.5
1,853 655
Central Valley Steelhead...................... 2,308 254 8.6 0.0 3.1 88.3
3,693 655
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These estimates are the total amount for each ESU. They do not account for overlapping areas designated for
multiple ESUs.
These areas designated, summarized below by ESU, are considered
occupied and contain physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection.
California Coastal Chinook Salmon
There are 45 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Eight watersheds received a low rating, 10
received a medium rating, and 27 received a high rating of conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). Two estuarine habitat areas used for
rearing and migration (Humboldt Bay and the Eel River Estuary) also
received a high conservation value rating.
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately
1,634 mi (2,614 km) of stream habitat and approximately 25 mi\2\ (65
km\2\) of estuarine habitat (principally Humboldt Bay). Of these, 10.3
stream miles (16.5 km) are being excluded because they overlap with
Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes).
No lands controlled by the DOD or covered by HCPs are being excluded
from the final designation. As a result of the balancing
[[Page 52529]]
process for economic impacts described above, the Secretary is
excluding from the designation the habitat areas shown in Table 8. Of
the habitat areas eligible for designation, approximately 158 stream
miles (253 km) are being excluded because the economic benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. The total potential
estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $10,993,337.
The exclusions identified in Table 8 would reduce the total estimated
economic impact by 33 percent to $7,333,751.
Table 8.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the California
Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
111122.......................... Bridgeville....... Entire watershed.
111142.......................... Spy Rock.......... Indian lands.
111150.......................... North Fork Eel Indian lands.
River.
111171.......................... Eden Valley....... Tributaries only;
Indian lands.
111172.......................... Round Valley...... Indian lands.
111173.......................... Black Butte River. Entire watershed.
111174.......................... Wilderness........ Entire watershed.
111350.......................... Navarro River..... Entire watershed.
111422.......................... Santa Rosa........ Entire watershed.
111423.......................... Mark West......... Entire watershed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern California Steelhead
There are 50 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Nine watersheds received a low rating, 14
received a medium rating, and 27 received a high rating of conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). Two estuarine habitat areas used for
rearing and migration (Humboldt Bay and the Eel River Estuary) also
received a high conservation value rating.
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately
3,148 mi (5,037 km) of stream habitat and approximately 25 mi\2\ (65
km\2\) of estuarine habitat (principally Humboldt Bay). Of these,
approximately 21 stream miles (33.5 km) are being excluded because they
overlap with Indian lands (see Government-to-Government Relationship
With Tribes). No lands controlled by the DOD or covered by HCPs are
being excluded from the final designation. As a result of the balancing
process for economic impacts described above, the Secretary is
excluding from the designation the habitat areas shown in Table 9. Of
the habitat areas eligible for designation, approximately 120 stream
miles (192 km) are being excluded because the economic benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential
estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $8,773,432. The
exclusions identified in Table 9 would reduce the total estimated
economic impact by 31 percent to $6,063,568.
Table 9.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the Northern
California Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
110940.......................... Ruth.............. Entire watershed.
111142.......................... Spy Rock.......... Tribal land.
111150.......................... North Fork Eel.... Entire watershed;
Indian lands.
111163.......................... Lake Pilsbury..... Entire watershed.
111171.......................... Eden Valley....... Indian lands.
111172.......................... Round Valley...... Indian lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central California Coast Steelhead
There are 46 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Fourteen watersheds received a low rating,
13 received a medium rating, and 19 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). Five of these HSA
watersheds comprise portions of the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay
estuarine complex which provides rearing and migratory habitat for this
ESU.
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately
1,832 mi (2,931 km) of stream habitat and approximately 442 mi\2\
(1,140 km\2\) of estuarine habitat (principally San Francisco Bay-San
Pablo Bay). Of these, approximately 0.6 stream miles (1.0 km) are being
excluded because they overlap with Indian lands (Coyote Valley and
Redwood Valley Rancherias) (see Government-to-Government Relationship
With Tribes). No lands controlled by the DOD are excluded.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat
areas shown in Table 10. Of the habitat areas eligible for designation,
approximately 367 stream miles (587 km) and 56 mi2 of estuarine habitat
are being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of designation. Total potential estimated economic impact,
with no exclusions, would be $18,577,246. The exclusions identified in
Table 10 would reduce the total estimated economic impact by 31 percent
to $12,917,247.
[[Page 52530]]
Table 10.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the Central
California Coastal Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
111421.......................... Laguna de Santa Entire watershed.
Rosa.
111422.......................... Santa Rosa........ Entire watershed.
111431.......................... Ukiah............. Tributaries only.
111433.......................... Forsythe Creek.... Indian lands.
220330.......................... Berkeley.......... Entire watershed.
220440.......................... San Mateo Bayside. Entire watershed.
220420.......................... Eastbay Cities.... Entire watershed.
220540.......................... Guadelupe River... Entire watershed.
220620.......................... Novato............ Entire watershed.
220660.......................... Pinole............ Entire watershed.
220710.......................... Suisun Bay........ Entire unit.
220722.......................... Suisun Creek...... Entire watershed.
220721.......................... Benecia........... Entire watershed.
220731.......................... Pittsburg......... Entire watershed.
220733.......................... Martinez.......... Entire watershed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South-Central California Coast Steelhead
There are 30 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Six watersheds received a low rating, 11
received a medium rating, and 13 received a high rating of conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). One of these occupied watershed units
is Morro Bay, which is used as rearing and migratory habitat for
steelhead populations that spawn and rear in tributaries to the Bay.
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately
1,251 mi (2,000 km) of stream habitat and approximately 3 mi\2\ (8
km\2\) of estuarine habitat (e.g., Morro Bay). Approximately 22 stream
miles (35 km) are not eligible for designation because they are within
lands controlled by the DOD (Camp San Luis Obispo and Camp Roberts)
that have qualifying INRMPs (Table 11). The reduction in economic
impacts resulting from these exclusions could not be estimated.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat
areas shown in Table 11. Of the habitat eligible for designation,
approximately 2 stream miles (3.2 km) are being excluding because the
economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
The total potential estimated economic impact, with no exclusions,
would be $16,857,365. It was not possible to estimate the reduced
economic impacts associated with the habitat exclusions in Table 11,
therefore, the total potential economic impact is the same as if there
were no exclusions.
Table 11.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the South-
Central California Coast Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical
Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
330911.......................... Neponset.......... Tributaries only.
330930.......................... Soledad........... Tributaries only.
330940.......................... Upper Salinas Tributaries only.
Valley.
330981.......................... Paso Robles....... DOD lands.
331022.......................... Chorro............ DOD lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Steelhead ESU
There are 32 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Five watersheds received a low rating, 6
received a medium rating, and 21 received a high rating of conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a).
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately 741
mi (1,186 km) of stream habitat. Of these, approximately 22 mi (35 km)
of occupied stream miles are excluded because they are within lands
controlled by the DOD (Vandenberg AFB and Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base ) that have qualifying INRMPs and for which the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. The reduction in
economic impacts resulting from these exclusions could not be estimated.
As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described
above, the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat
areas shown in Table 12. Of the habitat areas eligible for designation,
approximately 33 stream miles (53 km) are being excluded because the
economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation.
Total potential estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be
$19,443,413. The exclusions identified in Table 12 would reduce the
total estimated economic impact by 40 percent to $11,586,752.
[[Page 52531]]
Table 12.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the Southern
California Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
331210.......................... Guadelupe......... Tributaries only.
331230.......................... Cuyama Valley..... Entire watershed.
331410.......................... Lompoc............ DOD lands.
331430.......................... Buelton........... Tributaries only.
331451.......................... Santa Cruz Creek.. Entire watershed.
440811.......................... East of Oxnard.... Entire watershed.
490140.......................... San Mateo Canyon.. DOD lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon ESU
There are 37 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Seven watersheds received a low rating, 3
received a medium rating, and 27 received a high rating of conservation
value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). Four of these HSA watersheds comprise
portions of the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay estuarine complex
which provides rearing and migratory habitat for this ESU.
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately
1,373 mi (2,197 km) of occupied stream habitat and approximately 427
mi2 (1,102 km2) of estuarine habitat in the San
Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay complex. There are no DOD, tribal or HCP
managed lands excluded from the designation. As a result of the
balancing process for economic impacts described above, the Secretary
is excluding from the designation the habitat areas shown in Table 13.
Of the habitat areas eligible for designation, approximately 215 stream
miles (344 km) and 173 mi2 of estuarine habitat are being
excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. The total potential estimated economic impact,
with no exclusions, would be $29,223,186. The exclusions identified in
Table 13 would reduce the total estimated economic impact by 25 percent
to $22,066,974.
Table 13.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the Central
Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
551000.......................... Sacramento Delta.. Deep Water Ship
Channel.
551713.......................... Mildred Lake...... Entire watershed.
551720.......................... Nevada City....... Entire watershed.
552310.......................... Thomes Creek...... Entire watershed.
552433.......................... South Fork........ Entire watershed.
554300.......................... No. Diablo Range.. Entire watershed.
554400.......................... San Joaquin Delta. Entire watershed.
220410.......................... South SF Bay...... Entire unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Steelhead ESU
There are 67 occupied HSA watersheds within the freshwater and
estuarine range of this ESU. Twelve watersheds received a low rating,
18 received a medium rating, and 37 received a high rating of
conservation value to the ESU (NMFS, 2005a). Four of these HSA
watersheds comprise portions of the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay
estuarine complex which provides rearing and migratory habitat for this
ESU.
HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately
2,604 mi (4,168 km) of stream habitat and approximately 427
mi2 (1,102 km2) of estuarine habitat. There are
no DOD, tribal or HCP managed lands excluded from the designation. As a
result of the balancing process for economic impacts described above,
the Secretary is excluding from the designation the habitat areas shown
in Table 14. Of the habitat areas eligible for designation,
approximately 296 stream miles (473 km) and 173 mi2 of
estuarine habitat are being excluded because the economic benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Total potential
estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, would be $38,235,233.
The exclusions identified in Table 14 would reduce the total estimated
economic impact by 11 percent to $34,389,278.
Table 14.--HSA Watersheds Within the Geographical Range of the Central
Valley Steelhead ESU and Excluded From Critical Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed code Watershed name Area excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
550964.......................... Paynes Creek...... Entire watershed.
551000.......................... Sacramento Delta.. Deep Water Ship
Channel.
551110.......................... Elmira............ Entire watershed.
551713.......................... Mildred Lake...... Entire watershed.
551720.......................... Nevada City....... Entire watershed.
552435.......................... Ono............... Entire watershed.
553111.......................... Herald............ Entire watershed.
553120.......................... Lower Mokelumne... Partial watershed.
553221.......................... Big Canyon Creek.. Entire watershed.
553223.......................... NF Cosumnes....... Entire watershed.
[[Page 52532]]
553224.......................... Omo Ranch......... Entire watershed.
553240.......................... Sutter Creek...... Entire watershed.
554300.......................... No. Diablo Range.. Entire watershed.
220410.......................... So. SF Bay........ Entire unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
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. Section 7(a)(4)
of the ESA requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action
that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a
conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion that is prepared
according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species were listed or critical
habitat designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the
biological opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat
designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
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 COE 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 (whether public or private) 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, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), COE, BOR, the FHA, NRCS,
National Park Service (NPS), BIA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (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 COE or BOR; timber sales and other vegetation
management activities conducted by the USFS, BLM, and BIA; irrigation
diversions authorized by the USFS and BLM; and road building and
maintenance activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, BLM, NPS, and BIA.
Other actions of concern include dredge and fill, mining, diking, and
bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted by the COE,
habitat modifications authorized by the FEMA, and approval of water
quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions
administered by the EPA.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, COE, 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 section 7 consultation with NMFS is needed.
[[Page 52533]]
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).
VIII. Required Determinations
Administrative Procedure Act
This rulemaking covers over 8,900 miles of streams and 470 square
miles of estuarine habitat. Unlike the previous critical habitat
designations it contains over a thousand geographic points identifying
the extent of the designations. The proposed rule generated substantial
public interest. In addition to comments received during four public
hearings we received a total of 3,762 written comments (3,627 of these
in the form of email with nearly identical language). Many commenters
expressed concerns about how the rule would be implemented.
Additionally, our experience in implementing the 2000 critical habitat
designations suggests that the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) and
critical habitat regulations' minimum 30-day delay in effective date
nor the 60-day delay required by the Congressional Review Act for a
``major rule'' such as this are sufficient for this rule. In view of
the geographic scope of this rule, our prior experience with a rule of
this scope, the current level of public interest in this rule, and in
order to provide for efficient administration of the rule once
effective, we are providing a 120-day delay in effective date. As a
result this rule will be effective on January 2, 2006. 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 transition in
implementing the rule.
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule
and has been reviewed by 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, 2005b). The benefits of the
designations are described in the CHART report (NMFS, 2005a) and the
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005c). 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
express these benefits in monetary terms, we have adopted a cost-
effectiveness framework, as outlined in a 4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2005c).
This approach is in accord with OMB's guidance on regulatory analysis
(U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4, Regulatory
Analysis, September 17, 2003). 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.
In assessing the overall cost of critical habitat designation for
the 7 Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs addressed in this final rule,
the annual total impact figures given in the draft economic analysis
(NMFS, 2005b) cannot be added together to obtain an aggregate annual
impact. Because some watersheds are included in more than one ESU, a
simple summation would entail duplication, resulting in an
overestimate. Accounting for this duplication, the aggregate annual
economic impact of the 7 critical habitat designations is $81,647,439.
These amounts include impacts that are coextensive with the
implementation of the jeopardy standard of section 7 (NMFS, 2005b).
Within the State of California, hydropower projects currently
provide approximately 15 percent of the total electricity produced.
This is small compared to the Pacific Northwest where hydropower
generates up to 70 percent of the total electricity produced, with
approximately 60 percent of this hydroelectric power generated through
the Federal Columbia River Power System. Because hydropower is a more
pervasive power source in the Pacific Northwest than in California, the
impacts to the energy industry in California from environmental
mitigation associated with protecting listed salmon and steelhead and
their critical habitat are likely to be much less than in the
Northwest. There are approximately 90 hydropower projects within the
area covered by the potential critical habitat for the 7 ESUs in
California. Based on the economic analysis conducted for this
rulemaking (NMFS 2005b), the estimated annualized capital and
programmatic costs of section 7 for hydropower projects ranges from
$11,000 to $9.8 million per ESU, with the estimated annualized cost for
all ESUs totaling $18.8 million. The aggregate economic costs of
capital modifications within the range of these 7 ESUs is approximately
10 percent of the total aggregate costs for all categories of
activities evaluated in the economic analysis. This cost estimate,
however, does not include costs associated with operational
modifications of hydropower projects such as changes to the flow regime
(level or timing) which can result in foregone power generation,
require supplementary power purchases, or have other economic effects.
The necessary data to estimate operational modification costs in
California are not available, but they are expected to be highly
variable and project-specific. The estimated impacts of operational
changes at hydropower projects in the Pacific Northwest (unknown for
several projects to $31 million in forgone power revenues for Baker
River Dam), however, demonstrate the potential magnitude and
variability of impacts on a per project basis in California. For these
projects in the Northwest, the proportion of costs attributable to
section 7 implementation is unknown, but the share of incremental costs
associated with critical habitat
[[Page 52534]]
designation alone is unlikely to be significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
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).
We have prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis and this
document is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). This analysis
estimates that the number of regulated small entities potentially
affected by this rulemaking ranges from 444 to 4,893 depending on the
ESU. The estimated coextensive costs of section 7 consultation incurred
by small entities is estimated to range from $1.6 million to $26.5
million depending on the ESU. As described in the analysis, we
considered various alternatives for designating critical habitat for
these seven ESUs. We rejected the alternative of not designating
critical habitat for any of the ESUs because such an approach did not
meet the legal requirements of the ESA. We also examined and rejected
an alternative in which all the potential critical habitat of the seven
Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs is 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 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 ESUs. It is estimated that small entities will save
from $39.9 thousand to $5.5 million in compliance costs, depending on
the ESU, due to the exclusions made in these final designations.
As noted above, we will continue to study alternative approaches in
future rulemakings designating critical habitat. As part of that
assessment, we will examine alternative methods for analyzing the
economic impacts of designation on small business entities, which will
inform our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as well as our analysis
under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA.
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.
As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, there are approximately
90 hydropower projects within the range of the potential critical
habitat for these 7 ESUs. The annualized capital and programmatic costs
of section 7 for these projects ranges from $11,000 to $9.8 million per
ESU, with the estimated annualized cost for all ESUs totaling $18.8
million. Despite these costs and operational costs which we do not have
the data available to estimate, we believe the proper focus under E.O.
13211 is on the incremental impacts of critical habitat designation.
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 evidence from the California
Energy Commission (California Energy Commission 2003), however, that
the implementation of environmental mitigation measures associated with
relicensing and selective decommissioning of hydropower projects in
California has not impacted the ability of the State's electricity
system to meet demand. This conclusion was based on a consideration of
implementing all mitigation measures, not just those for salmon and
steelhead, thus it is likely that the impact of implementing
mitigations associated with salmon and steelhead protection directly or
even more specifically salmon and steelhead critical habitat protection
would be a subset of the impacts determined by the Commission. In
addition, there is historical evidence from the Pacific Northwest, that
the ESA jeopardy standard alone is capable of imposing all of the costs
affecting hydropower projects and energy supply. While this information
is indirect, it is sufficient to draw the conclusion that the
designation of critical habitat for the 7 salmon and steelhead ESUs in
California 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 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; AFDC 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.'' The
designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal
[[Page 52535]]
government entities or private parties. Under the ESA, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions do not 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
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
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 critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
to State governments.
(b) Due to current public knowledge of salmon protection and the
prohibition against take of these species both within and outside of
the designated areas, we do not anticipate that this final rule will
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required. The designation of critical habitat affects only Federal
agency actions. This final rule will not increase or decrease the
current restrictions on private property concerning take of salmon. As
noted above, due to widespread public knowledge of salmon protection
and the prohibition against take of the species both within and outside
of the designated areas, we do not anticipate that property values will
be affected by these critical habitat designations. While 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, we expect any such impacts to be short
term (NMFS, 2005b). Additionally, critical habitat designation does not
preclude development of HCPs and issuance of incidental take permits.
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.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. 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 California.
Theses designations may have some benefit to the states and local
resource agencies in that the areas essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent
elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are
specifically identified. While making this definition and
identification 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
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the 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 primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the seven salmon and steelhead ESUs.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This final rule does not contain new or revised information
collection for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This final rule will not impose record keeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we need not prepare environmental analyses
as provided for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for
critical habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116
S.Ct. 698 (1996).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
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 lands 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.
Administration policy contained in the Secretarial Order:
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997) (``Secretarial
Order''); the President's Memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-
to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (50
FR 2291); E.O. 13175; and Department of Commerce-American Indian and
Alaska Native Policy (March 30, 1995) reflects and defines this unique
relationship.
These policies also recognize the unique status of Indian lands.
The Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, provides that, to the
maximum extent possible, tribes should be the governmental entities to
manage their lands and tribal trust resources. The Secretarial Order
provides that, ``Indian lands are not Federal public lands or part of
the public domain, and are not subject to Federal public lands laws.''
In implementing these policies the Secretarial Order specifically
seeks to harmonize this unique working relationship with the Federal
Government's duties pursuant to the ESA. The order clarifies our
responsibilities when carrying out authorities under the ESA and
requires that we consult with and seek participation of, the affected
Indian Tribes to the maximum extent practicable in the designation of
critical habitat. Accordingly, we recognize that we must carry out our
responsibilities under the ESA in a manner that harmonizes these duties
with the Federal trust responsibility to the tribes and tribal
sovereignty while striving to ensure that Indian Tribes do not bear a
[[Page 52536]]
disproportionate burden for the conservation of species. Any decision
to designate Indian land as critical habitat must be informed by the
Federal laws and policies establishing our responsibility concerning
Indian lands, treaties and trust resources, and by Department of
Commerce policy establishing our responsibility for dealing with tribes
when we implement the ESA.
For West Coast salmon in California, our approach is also guided by
the unique partnership between the Federal Government and Indian tribes
regarding salmon management. In California, Indian tribes are regarded
as ``co-managers'' of the salmon resource, along with Federal and state
managers. This co-management relationship evolved as a result of
numerous court decisions establishing the tribes' treaty right to take
fish in their usual and accustomed places.
Pursuant to the Secretarial Order we consulted with the affected
Indian Tribes 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. Additionally some tribes and
the BIA provided written comments that are a part of the administrative
record for this rulemaking.
We understand from the tribes that there is general agreement that
Indian lands should not be designated critical habitat. The Secretarial
Order defines Indian lands as ``any lands title to which is either: (1)
Held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe
or (2) held by an Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by
the United States against alienation.'' In clarifying this definition
with the tribes, we agree that (1) fee lands within the reservation
boundaries and owned by the Tribe or individual Indian, and (2) fee
lands outside the reservation boundaries and owned by the Tribe would
be considered Indian lands for the purposes of this rule. (Fee lands
outside the reservation owned by individual Indians are not included
within the definition of Indian lands for the purposes of this rule.)
In evaluating Indian lands for designation as critical habitat we
look to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. Section 4(b)(2) requires us to base
critical habitat designations on the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
the impact on national security and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude areas from a critical habitat designation when the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion
will not result in the extinction of the species. We find that a
relevant impact for consideration is the degree to which the Federal
designation of Indian lands would impact the longstanding unique
relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government and the
corresponding effect on West Coast salmon protection and management.
This is consistent with recent case law addressing the designation of
critical habitat on tribal lands. ``It is certainly reasonable to
consider a positive working relationship relevant, particularly when
the relationship results in the implementation of beneficial natural
resource programs, including species preservation.'' Center for
Biological Diversity et al. v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1105);
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495, 1507 (1995) (defining
``relevant'' as impacts consistent with the purposes of the ESA).
As noted above, NMFS and the tribal governments in California
currently have cooperative working relationships that have enabled us
to implement natural resource programs of mutual interest for the
benefit of threatened and endangered salmonids. The tribes have
existing natural resource programs that assist us on a regular basis in
providing information relevant to salmonid protection. The tribes
indicate that they view the designation of Indian lands as an unwanted
intrusion into tribal self-governance, compromising the government-to-
government relationship that is essential to achieving our mutual goal
of conserving threatened and endangered salmonids. At this time, for
the general reasons described above, we conclude that the ESA 4(b)(2)
analysis leads us to exclude all Indian lands containing occupied
habitat otherwise eligible for designation in our final designation for
these 7 ESUs of salmon and steelhead.
IX. References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be
found on our Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov and is available
upon request from the NMFS office in Long Beach, CA (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species.
Dated: August 12, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
? For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend part 226, title 50 of
the Code of Regulations as set forth below:
PART 226--[AMENDED]
? 1. The authority citation of part 226 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
? 2. Add Sec. 226.211 to read as follows:
Sec. 226.211 Critical habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant
Units (ESUs) of Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in California.
Critical habitat is designated in the following California counties
for the following ESUs as described in paragraph (a) of this section,
and as further described in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
The textual descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU are included
in paragraphs (f) through (l) 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 (f) through (l) of this section) and are
provided for general guidance purposes only, and not as a definitive
source for determining critical habitat boundaries.
(a) Critical habitat is designated for the following ESUs in the
following California counties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESU State--counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) California Coastal Chinook......... CA--Humboldt, Trinity,
Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa,
Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama.
(2) Northern California Steelhead...... CA--Humboldt, Trinity,
Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake,
Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama.
(3) Central California Coast Steelhead. CA--Lake, Mendocino, Sonoma,
Napa, Marin, San Francisco,
San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa,
and San Joaquin.
(4) South-Central Coast Steelhead...... CA--Monterey, San Benito, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis
Obispo.
[[Continued on page 52537]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]]
[[pp. 52537-52586]]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon
and Steelhead in California
[[Continued from page 52536]]
[[Page 52537]]
(5) Southern California Steelhead...... CA--San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles,
Orange and San Diego.
(6) Central Valley spring-run Chinook.. CA--Tehama, Butte, Glenn,
Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento,
Solano, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter,
Trinity, Alameda, San Joaquin,
and Contra Costa.
(7) Central Valley Steelhead........... CA--Tehama, Butte, Glenn,
Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento,
Solona, Yuba, Sutter, Placer,
Calaveras, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced,
Alameda, Contra Costa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. Critical habitat includes the
stream channels within the designated stream reaches, and includes a
lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high-water line (33 CFR
329.11). In areas where the ordinary high-water line has not been
defined, the lateral extent will be defined by the bankfull elevation.
Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the
channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge
which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual
flood series. Critical habitat in estuaries (e.g. San Francisco-San
Pablo-Suisun Bay, Humboldt Bay, and Morro Bay) is defined by the
perimeter of the water body as displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale
topographic maps or the elevation of extreme high water, whichever is
greater.
(c) Primary constituent elements. Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements essential for the conservation of these ESUs are
those sites and habitat components that support one or more life
stages, including:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality
conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval
development;
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with:
(i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain
physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;
(ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and
(iii) 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.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and
excessive predation 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.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with:
(i) Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-
and saltwater;
(ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,
aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and
(iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates
and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
(d) Exclusion of Indian lands. Critical habitat does not include
occupied habitat areas on Indian lands. 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.
(e) Land owned or controlled by the Department of Defense.
Additionally, critical habitat does not include the following areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a):
(1) Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base;
(2) Vandenberg Air Force Base;
(3) Camp San Luis Obispo;
(4) Camp Roberts; and
(5) Mare Island Army Reserve Center.
(f) California Coastal Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Critical habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the
following CALWATER Hydrologic units:
(1) Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107--(i) Orick Hydrologic Sub-
area 110710. Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat -41.2923, Long -124.0917)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boyes Creek (41.3639, -123.9845); Bridge
Creek (41.137, -124.0012); Brown Creek (41.3986, -124.0012); Emerald
(Harry Weir) (41.2142, -123.9812); Godwood Creek (41.3889, -124.0312);
Larry Dam Creek (41.3359, -124.003); Little Lost Man Creek (41.2944, -
124.0014); Lost Man Creek (41.3133, -123.9854); May Creek (41.3547, -
123.999); McArthur Creek (41.2705, -124.041); North Fork Lost Man Creek
(41.3374, -123.9935); Prairie Creek (41.4239, -124.0367); Tom McDonald
(41.1628, -124.0419).
(ii) Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 110720. Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek
(Lat 41.1367, Long -123.9309) upstream to endpoint(s): Lacks Creek
(41.0334, -123.8124); Minor Creek (40.9706, -123.7899).
(iii) Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 110730. Outlet(s) = Redwood
Creek (Lat 40.9070, Long -123.8170) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Redwood
Creek (40.7432, -123.7206).
(2) Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108--(i) Big Lagoon Hydrologic Sub-
area 110810. Outlet(s) = Maple Creek (Lat 41.1555, Long -124.1380)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: North Fork Maple Creek (41.1317, -
124.0824); Maple Creek (41.1239, -124.1041).
(ii) Little River Hydrologic Sub-area 110820. Outlet(s) = Little
River (41.0277, -124.1112) upstream to endpoint(s) in: South Fork
Little River (40.9908, -124.0412); Little River (41.0529, -123.9727);
Railroad Creek (41.0464, -124.0475); Lower South Fork Little River
(41.0077, -124.0078); Upper South Fork Little River (41.0131, -123.9853).
(3) Mad River Hydrologic Unit 1109--(i) Blue Lake Hydrologic Sub-
area 110910. Outlet(s) = Mad River (Lat 40.9139, Long -124.0642)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Lindsay Creek (40.983, -124.0326); Mill
Creek (40.9008, -124.0086); North Fork Mad River (40.8687, -123.9649);
Squaw Creek (40.9426, -124.0202); Warren Creek (40.8901, -124.0402).
(ii) North Fork Mad River 110920. Outlet(s) = North Fork Mad River
(Lat 40.8687, Long -123.9649) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Sullivan
Gulch (40.8646, -123.9553); North Fork Mad River (40.8837, -123.9436).
[[Page 52538]]
(iii) Butler Valley 110930. Outlet(s) = Mad River (Lat 40.8449,
Long -123.9807) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Black Creek (40.7547, -
123.9016); Black Dog Creek (40.8334, -123.9805); Canon Creek (40.8362,
-123.9028); Dry Creek (40.8218, -123.9751); Mad River (40.7007, -
123.8642); Maple Creek (40.7928, -123.8742); Unnamed (40.8186, -123.9769).
(4) Eureka Plain Hydrologic Unit 1110--(i) Eureka Plain Hydrologic
Sub-area 111000. Outlet(s) = Mad River (Lat 40.9560, Long -124.1278);
Jacoby Creek (40.8436, -124.0834); Freshwater Creek (40.8088, -
124.1442); Elk River (40.7568, -124.1948); Salmon Creek (40.6868, -
124.2194) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bridge Creek (40.6958, -
124.0795); Dunlap Gulch (40.7101, -124.1155); Freshwater Creek
(40.7389, -123.9944); Gannon Slough (40.8628, -124.0818); Jacoby Creek
(40.7944, -124.0093); Little Freshwater Creek (40.7485, -124.0652);
North Branch of the North Fork Elk River (40.6878, -124.0131); North
Fork Elk River (40.6756, -124.0153); Ryan Creek (40.7835, -124.1198);
Salmon Creek (40.6438, -124.1319); South Branch of the North Fork Elk
River (40.6691, -124.0244); South Fork Elk River (40.6626, -124.061);
South Fork Freshwater Creek (40.7097, -124.0277).
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Eel River Hydrologic Unit 1111--(i) Ferndale Hydrologic Sub-
area 111111. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat 40.6282, Long -124.2838)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Atwell Creek (40.472, -124.1449); Howe
Creek (40.4748, -124.1827); Price Creek (40.5028, -124.2035); Strongs
Creek (40.5986, -124.1222); Van Duzen River (40.5337, -124.1262).
(ii) Scotia Hydrologic Sub-area 111112. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat
40.4918, Long -124.0998) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek
(40.391, -124.0156); Chadd Creek (40.3921, -123.9542); Jordan Creek
(40.4324, -124.0428); Monument Creek (40.4676, -124.1133).
(iii) Larabee Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111113. Outlet(s) = Larabee
Creek (40.4090, Long -123.9334) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Carson
Creek (40.4189, -123.8881); Larabee Creek (40.3950, -123.8138).
(iv) Hydesville Hydrologic Sub-area 111121. Outlet(s) = Van Duzen
River (Lat 40.5337, Long -124.1262) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Cummings Creek (40.5258, -123.9896); Fielder Creek (40.5289, -
124.0201); Hely Creek (40.5042, -123.9703); Yager Creek (40.5583, -124.0577).
(v) Yager Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111123. Outlet(s) = Yager Creek
(Lat 40.5583, Long -124.0577) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Corner Creek
(40.6189, -123.9994); Fish Creek (40.6392, -124.0032); Lawrence Creek
(40.6394, -123.9935); Middle Fork Yager Creek (40.5799, -123.9015);
North Fork Yager Creek (40.6044, -123.9084); Owl Creek (40.5557, -
123.9362); Shaw Creek (40.6245, -123.9518); Yager Creek (40.5673, -123.9403).
(vi) Weott Hydrologic Sub-area 111131. Outlet(s) = South Fork Eel
River (Lat 40.3500, Long -213.9305) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bridge
Creek (40.2929, -123.8569); Bull Creek (40.3148, -124.0343); Canoe
Creek (40.2909, -123.922); Cow Creek (40.3583, -123.9626); Cuneo Creek
(40.3377, -124.0385); Elk Creek (40.2837, -123.8365); Fish Creek
(40.2316, -123.7915); Harper Creek (40.354, -123.9895); Mill Creek
(40.3509, -124.0236); Salmon Creek (40.2214, -123.9059); South Fork
Salmon River (40.1769, -123.8929); Squaw Creek (40.3401, -123.9997);
Tostin Creek (40.1722, -123.8796).
(vii) Benbow Hydrologic Sub-area 111132. Outlet(s) = South Fork Eel
River (Lat 40.1932, Long -123.7692) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Anderson Creek (39.9337, -123.8933); Bear Pen Creek (39.9125, -
123.8108); Bear Wallow Creek (39.7296, -123.7172); Bond Creek (39.7856,
-123.6937); Butler Creek (39.7439, -123.692); China Creek (40.1035, -
123.9493); Connick Creek (40.0911, -123.8187); Cox Creek (40.0288, -
123.8542); Cummings Creek (39.8431, -123.5752); Dean Creek (40.1383, -
123.7625); Dinner Creek (40.0915, -123.937); East Branch South Fork Eel
River (39.9433, -123.6278); Elk Creek (39.7986, -123.5981); Fish Creek
(40.0565, -123.7768); Foster Creek (39.8455, -123.6185); Grapewine
Creek (39.7991, -123.5186); Hartsook Creek (40.012, -123.7888); Hollow
Tree Creek (39.7316, -123.6918); Huckleberry Creek (39.7315, -
123.7253); Indian Creek (39.9464, -123.8993); Jones Creek (39.9977, -
123.8378); Leggett Creek (40.1374, -123.8312); Little Sproul Creel
(40.0897, -123.8585); Low Gap Creek (39.993, -123.767); McCoy Creek
(39.9598, -123.7542); Michael's Creek (39.7642, -123.7175); Miller
Creek (40.1215, -123.916); Moody Creek (39.9531, -123.8819); Mud Creek
(39.8232, -123.6107); Piercy Creek (39.9706, -123.8189); Pollock Creek
(40.0822, -123.9184); Rattlesnake Creek (39.7974, -123.5426); Redwood
Creek (39.7721, -123.7651); Redwood Creek (40.0974, -123.9104); Seely
Creek (40.1494, -123.8825); Somerville Creek (40.0896, -123.8913);
South Fork Redwood Creek (39.7663, -123.7579); Spoul Creek (40.0125, -
123.8585); Standley Creek (39.9479, -123.8083); Tom Long Creek
(40.0315, -123.6891); Twin Rocks Creek (39.8269, -123.5543); Warden
Creek (40.0625, -123.8546); West Fork Sproul Creek (40.0386, -
123.9015); Wildcat Creek (39.9049, -123.7739); Wilson Creek (39.841, -
123.6452); Unnamed Tributary (40.1136, -123.9359).
(viii) Laytonville Hydrologic Sub-area 111133. Outlet(s) = South
Fork Eel River (Lat 39.7665, Long -123.6484) ) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Bear Creek (39.6413, -123.5797); Cahto Creek (39.6624, -123.5453);
Dutch Charlie Creek (39.6892, -123.6818); Grub Creek (39.7777, -
123.5809); Jack of Hearts Creek (39.7244, -123.6802); Kenny Creek
(39.6733, -123.6082); Mud Creek (39.6561, -123.592); Redwood Creek
(39.6738, -123.6631); Rock Creek (39.6931, -123.6204); South Fork Eel
River (39.6271, -123.5389); Streeter Creek (39.7328, -123.5542); Ten
Mile Creek (39.6651, -123.451).
(ix) Sequoia Hydrologic Sub-area 111141. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat
40.3557, Long -123.9191); South Fork Eel River (40.3558, -123.9194)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Brock Creek (40.2411, -123.7248); Dobbyn
Creek (40.2216, -123.6029); Hoover Creek (40.2312, -123.5792); Line
Gulch (40.1655, -123.4831); North Fork Dobbyn Creek (40.2669, -
123.5467); South Fork Dobbyn Creek (40.1723, -123.5112); South Fork Eel
River (40.35, -123.9305); Unnamed Tributary (40.3137, -123.8333);
Unnamed Tributary (40.2715, -123.549).
(x) Spy Rock Hydrologic Sub-area 111142. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat
40.1736, Long -123.6043) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bell Springs Creek
(39.9399, -123.5144); Burger Creek (39.6943, -123.413); Chamise Creek
(40.0563, -123.5479); Jewett Creek (40.1195, -123.6027); Kekawaka Creek
(40.0686, -123.4087); Woodman Creek (39.7639, -123.4338).
(xi) North Fork Eel River Hydrologic Sub-area 111150. Outlet(s) =
North Fork Eel River (Lat 39.9567, Long -123.4375) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: North Fork Eel River (39.9370, -123.3758).
(xii) Outlet Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111161. Outlet(s) = Outlet
Creek (Lat 39.6263, Long -123.3453) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Baechtel Creek (39.3688, -123.4028); Berry Creek (39.4272, -123.2951);
Bloody Run (39.5864, -123.3545); Broaddus Creek (39.3907, -123.4163);
Davis Creek (39.3701, -123.3007); Dutch Henry Creek (39.5788, -
123.4543); Haehl Creek (39.3795, -123.3393); Long Valley Creek
(39.6091, -123.4577); Ryan Creek (39.4803, -123.3642); Upp Creek
(39.4276, -123.3578); Upp Creek
[[Page 52539]]
(39.4276, -123.3578); Willits Creek (39.4315, -123.3794).
(xiii) Tomki Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111162. Outlet(s) = Eel
River (Lat 39.7138, Long -123.3531) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cave
Creek (39.3925, -123.2318); Long Branch Creek (39.4074, -123.1897);
Rocktree Creek (39.4533, -123.3079); Salmon Creek (39.4461, -123.2104);
Scott Creek (39.456, -123.2297); String Creek (39.4855, -123.2891);
Tomki Creek (39.549, -123.3613); Wheelbarrow Creek (39.5029, -123.3287).
(xiv) Lake Pillsbury Hydrologic Sub-area 111163. Outlet(s) = Eel
River (Lat 39.3860, Long -123.1163) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Eel
River (39.4078, -122.958).
(xv) Eden Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 111171. Outlet(s) = Middle
Fork Eel River (Lat 39.8146, Long -123.1332) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Middle Fork Eel River (39.8145, -123.1333).
(xvi) Round Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 111172. Outlet(s) = Mill
Creek (Lat 39.7396, Long -123.1420); Williams Creek (39.8145, -
123.1333) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mill Creek (39.8456, -123.2822);
Murphy Creek (39.8804, -123.1636); Poor Mans Creek (39.8179, -
123.1833); Short Creek (39.8645, -123.2242); Turner Creek (39.7238, -
123.2191); Williams Creek (39.8596, -123.1341).
(6) Cape Mendocino Hydrologic Unit 1112--(i) Capetown Hydrologic
Sub-area 111220. Outlet(s) = Bear River (Lat 40.4744, Long -124.3881)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear River (40.3591, -124.0536); South Fork
Bear River (40.4271, -124.2873).
(ii) Mattole River Hydrologic Sub-area 111230. Outlet(s) = Mattole
River (Lat 40.2942, Long -124.3536) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear
Creek (40.1262, -124.0631); Blue Slide Creek (40.1286, -123.9579);
Bridge Creek (40.0503, -123.9885); Conklin Creek (40.3169, -124.229);
Dry Creek (40.2389, -124.0621); East Fork Honeydew Creek (40.1633, -
124.0916); East Fork of the North Fork Mattole River (40.3489, -
124.2244); Eubanks Creek (40.0893, -123.9743); Gilham Creek (40.2162, -
124.0309); Grindstone Creek (40.1875, -124.0041); Honeydew Creek
(40.1942, -124.1363); Mattole Canyon (40.1833, -123.9666); Mattole
River (39.9735, -123.9548); McGinnis Creek (40.3013, -124.2146); McKee
Creek (40.0674, -123.9608); Mill Creek (40.0169, -123.9656); North Fork
Mattole River (40.3729, -124.2461); North Fork Bear Creek (40.1422, -
124.0945); Oil Creek (40.3008, -124.1253); Rattlesnake Creek (40.2919,
-124.1051); South Fork Bear Creek (40.0334, -124.0232); Squaw Creek
(40.219, -124.1921); Thompson Creek (39.9969, -123.9638); Unnamed
(40.1522, -124.0989); Upper North Fork Mattole River (40.2907, -
124.1115); Westlund Creek (40.2333, -124.0336); Woods creek (40.2235, -
124.1574); Yew Creek (40.0019, -123.9743).
(7) Mendocino Coast Hydrologic Unit 1113--(i) Wages Creek
Hydrologic Sub-area 111312. Outlet(s) = Wages Creek (Lat 39.6513, Long
-123.7851) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Wages Creek (39.6393, -123.7146).
(ii) Ten Mile River Hydrologic Sub-area 111313. Outlet(s) = Ten
Mile River (Lat 39.5529, Long -123.7658) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Middle Fork Ten Mile River (39.5397, -123.5523); Little North Fork Ten
Mile River (39.6188, -123.7258); Ten Mile River (39.5721, -123.7098);
South Fork Ten Mile River (39.4927, -123.6067); North Fork Ten Mile
River (39.5804, -123.5735).
(iii) Noyo River Hydrologic Sub-area 111320. Outlet(s) = Noyo River
(Lat 39.4274, Long -123.8096) upstream to endpoint(s) in: North Fork
Noyo River (39.4541, -123.5331); Noyo River (39.431, 123.494); South
Fork Noyo River (39.3549, -123.6136).
(iv) Big River Hydrologic Sub-area 111330. Outlet(s) = Big River
(Lat 39.3030, Long -123.7957) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big River
(39.3095, -123.4454).
(v) Albion River Hydrologic Sub-area 111340. Outlet(s) = Albion
River (Lat 39.2253, Long -123.7679) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Albion
River (39.2644, -123.6072).
(vi) Garcia River Hydrologic Sub-area 111370. Outlet(s) = Garcia
River (Lat 38.9455, Long -123.7257) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Garcia
River (38.9160, -123.4900).
(8) Russian River Hydrologic Unit 1114--(i) Guerneville Hydrologic
Sub-area 111411. Outlet(s) = Russian River (Lat 38.4507, Long -
123.1289) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Austin Creek (38.5099, -
123.0681); Mark West Creek (38.4961, -122.8489).
(ii) Austin Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111412. Outlet(s) = Austin
Creek (Lat 38.5099, Long -123.0681) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Austin
Creek (38.5326, -123.0844).
(iii) Warm Springs Hydrologic Sub-area 111424. Outlet(s) = Dry
Creek (Lat 38.5861, Long -122.8573) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dry
Creek (38.7179, -123.0075).
(iv) Geyserville Hydrologic Sub-area 111425. Outlet(s) = Russian
River (Lat 38.6132, Long -122.8321) upstream.
(v) Ukiah Hydrologic Sub-area 111431. Outlet(s) = Russian River
(Lat 38.8828, Long -123.0557) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Feliz Creek
(38.9941, -123.1779).
(vi) Forsythe Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111433. Outlet(s) = Russian
River (Lat 39.2257, Long -123.2012) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Forsythe Creek (39.2780, -123.2608); Russian River (39.3599, -123.2326).
(9) Maps of critical habitat for the California Coast chinook
salmon ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 52540]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.000
[[Page 52541]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.001
[[Page 52542]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.002
[[Page 52543]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.003
[[Page 52544]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.004
[[Page 52545]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.005
[[Page 52546]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.006
[[Page 52547]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.007
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 52548]]
(g) Northern California Steelhead (O. mykiss). Critical habitat is
designated to include the areas defined in the following CALWATER
Hydrologic units:
(1) Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107--(i) Orick Hydrologic Sub-
area 110710. Outlet(s) = Boat Creek (Lat 41.4059, Long -124.0675); Home
Creek (41.4027, -124.0683); Redwood Creek (41.2923, -124.0917);
Squashan Creek (41.3889, -124.0703) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boat
Creek (41.4110, -124.0583); Bond Creek (41.2326, -124.0262); Boyes
Creek (41.3701, -124.9891); Bridge Creek (41.1694, -123.9964); Brown
Creek (41.3986, -124.0012); Cloquet Creek (41.2466, -123.9884); Cole
Creek (41.2209, -123.9931); Copper Creek (41.1516, -123.9258); Dolason
Creek (41.1969, -123.9667); Elam Creek (41.2613, -124.0321); Emerald
Creek (41.2164, -123.9808); Forty Four Creek (41.2187, -124.0195); Gans
South Creek (41.2678, -124.0071); Godwood Creek (41.3787, -124.0354);
Hayes Creek (41.2890, -124.0164); Home Creek (41.3951, -124.0386);
Larry Dam Creek (41.3441, -123.9966); Little Lost Man Creek (41.3078, -
124.0084); Lost Man Creek (41.3187, -123.9892); May Creek (41.3521, -
124.0164); McArthur Creek (41.2702, -124.0427); Miller Creek (41.2305,
-124.0046); North Fork Lost Man Creek (41.3405, -123.9859); Oscar
Larson Creek (41.2559, -123.9943); Prairie Creek (41.4440, -124.0411);
Skunk Cabbage Creek (41.3211, -124.0802); Slide Creek (41.1736, -
123.9450); Squashan Creek (41.3739, -124.0440); Streelow Creek
(41.3622, -124.0472); Tom McDonald Creek (41.1933, -124.0164); Unnamed
Tributary (41.3619, -123.9967); Unnamed Tributary (41.3424, -124.0572).
(ii) Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 110720. Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek
(Lat 41.1367, Long -123.9309) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beaver Creek
(41.0208, -123.8608); Captain Creek (40.9199, -123.7944); Cashmere
Creek (41.0132, -123.8862); Coyote Creek (41.1251, -123.8926); Devils
Creek (41.1224, -123.9384); Garcia Creek (41.0180, -123.8923); Garrett
Creek (41.0904, -123.8712); Karen Court Creek (41.0368, -123.8953);
Lacks Creek (41.0306, -123.8096); Loin Creek (40.9465, -123.8454);
Lupton Creek (40.9058, -123.8286); Mill Creek (41.0045, -123.8525);
Minor Creek (40.9706, -123.7899); Molasses Creek (40.9986, -123.8490);
Moon Creek (40.9807, -123.8368); Panther Creek (41.0732, -123.9275);
Pilchuck Creek (41.9986, -123.8710); Roaring Gulch (41.0319, -
123.8674); Santa Fe Creek (40.9368, -123.8397); Sweathouse Creek
(40.9332, -123.8131); Toss-Up Creek (40.9845, -123.8656); Unnamed
Tributary (41.1270, -123.8967); Wiregrass Creek (40.9652, -123.8553).
(iii) Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 110730. Outlet(s) = Redwood
Creek (Lat 40.9070, Long -123.8170) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Bradford Creek (40.7812, -123.7215); Cut-Off Meander (40.8507, -
123.7729); Emmy Lou Creek (40.8655, -123.7771); Gunrack Creek (40.8391,
-123.7650); High Prairie Creek (40.8191, -123.7723); Jena Creek
(40.8742, -123.8065); Lake Prairie Creek (40.7984, -123.7558); Lupton
Creek (40.9058, -123.8286); Minon Creek (40.8140, -123.7372); Noisy
Creek (40.8613, -123.8044); Pardee Creek (40.7779, -123.7416); Redwood
Creek (40.7432, -123.7206); Simion Creek (40.8241, -123.7560); Six
Rivers Creek (40.8352, -123.7842); Smokehouse Creek (40.7405, -
123.7278); Snowcamp Creek (40.7415, -123.7296); Squirrel Trail Creek
(40.8692, -123.7844); Twin Lakes Creek (40.7369, -123.7214); Panther
Creek (40.8019, -123.7094); Windy Creek (40.8866, -123.7956).
(2) Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108--(i) Big Lagoon Hydrologic Sub-
area 110810. Outlet(s) = Maple Creek (Lat 41.1555, Long -124.1380);
McDonald Creek (41.2521, -124.0919) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beach
Creek (41.0716, -124.0239); Clear Creek (41.1031, -124.0030); Diamond
Creek (41.1571, -124.0926); Maple Creek (41.0836, -123.9790); McDonald
Creek (41.1850, -124.0773); M-Line Creek (41.0752, -124.0787); North
Fork Maple Creek (41.1254, -124.0539); North Fork McDonald Creek
(41.2107, -124.0664); Pitcher Creek (41.1518, -124.0874); South Fork
Maple Creek (41.1003, -124.1119); Tom Creek (41.1773, -124.0966);
Unnamed Tributary (41.1004, -124.0155); Unnamed Tributary (41.0780, -
124.0676); Unnamed Tributary (41.1168, -124.0886); Unnamed Tributary
(41.0864, -124.0899); Unnamed Tributary (41.1132, -124.0827); Unnamed
Tributary (41.0749, -124.0889); Unnamed Tributary (41.1052, -124.0675);
Unnamed Tributary (41.0714, -124.0611); Unnamed Tributary (41.0948, -
124.0016).
(ii) Little River Hydrologic Sub-area 110820. Outlet(s) = Little
River (Lat 41.0277, Long -124.1112) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Freeman
Creek (41.0242, -124.0582); Little River (40.9999, -123.9232); Lower
South Fork Little River (41.0077, -124.0079); Railroad Creek (41.0468,
-124.0466); South Fork Little River (40.9899, -124.0394); Unnamed
Tributary (41.0356, -123.9958); Unnamed Tributary (41.0407, -124.0598);
Unnamed Tributary (41.0068, -123.9830); Unnamed Tributary (41.0402, -
124.0111); Unnamed Tributary (41.0402, -124.0189); Unnamed Tributary
(41.0303, -124.0366); Unnamed Tributary (41.0575, -123.9710); Unnamed
Tributary (41.0068, -123.9830); Upper South Fork Little River (41.0146,
-123.9826).
(3) Mad River Hydrologic Unit 1109--(i) Blue Lake Hydrologic Sub-
area 110910. Outlet(s) = Mad River (Lat 40.9139, Long -124.0642);
Strawberry Creek (40.9964, -124.1155); Widow White Creek (40.9635, -
124.1253) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Boundary Creek (40.8395, -
123.9920); Grassy Creek (40.9314, -124.0188); Hall Creek (40.9162, -
124.0141); Kelly Creek (40.8656, -124.0260); Leggit Creek (40.8808, -
124.0269); Lindsay Creek (40.9838, -124.0283); Mather Creek (40.9796, -
124.0526); Mill Creek (40.9296, -124.1037); Mill Creek (40.9162, -
124.0141); Mill Creek (40.8521, -123.9617); North Fork Mad River
(40.8687, -123.9649); Norton Creek (40.9572, -124.1003); Palmer Creek
(40.8633, -124.0193); Puter Creek (40.8474, -123.9966); Quarry Creek
(40.8526, -124.0098); Squaw Creek (40.9426, -124.0202); Strawberry
Creek (40.9761, -124.0630); Unnamed Tributary (40.9624, -124.0179);
Unnamed Tributary (40.9549, -124.0554); Unnamed Tributary (40.9672, -
124.0218); Warren Creek (40.8860, -124.0351); Widow White Creek
(40.9522, -124.0784).
(ii) North Fork Mad River Hydrologic Sub-area 110920. Outlet(s) =
North Fork Mad River (Lat 40.8687, Long -123.9649) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Bald Mountain Creek (40.8922, -123.9097); Canyon Creek
(40.9598, -123.9269); Denman Creek (40.9293, -123.9429); East Fork
North Fork (40.9702, -123.9449); Gosinta Creek (40.9169, -123.9420);
Hutchery Creek (40.8730, -123.9503); Jackson Creek (40.9388, -
123.9462); Krueger Creek (40.9487, -123.9571); Long Prairie Creek
(40.9294, -123.8842); Mule Creek (40.9416, -123.9309); North Fork Mad
River (40.9918, -123.9610); Pine Creek (40.9274, -123.9096); Pollock
Creek (40.9081, -123.9071); Sullivan Gulch (40.8646, -123.9553); Tyson
Creek (40.9559, -123.9738); Unnamed Tributary (40.9645, -123.9338);
Unnamed Tributary (40.9879, -123.9511); Unnamed Tributary (40.9906, -
123.9540); Unnamed Tributary (40.9866, -123.9788); Unnamed Tributary
(40.9927, -123.9736).
[[Page 52549]]
(iii) Butler Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 110930. Outlet(s) = Mad
River (Lat 40.8449, Long -123.9807) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear
Creek (40.5468, -123.6728); Black Creek (40.7521, -123.9080); Black Dog
Creek (40.8334, -123.9805); Blue Slide Creek (40.7333, -123.9225);
Boulder Creek (40.7634, -123.8667); Bug Creek (40.6587, -123.7356);
Cannon Creek (40.8535, -123.8850); Coyote Creek (40.6147, -123.6488);
Devil Creek (40.8032, -123.9175); Dry Creek (40.8218, -123.9751); East
Creek (40.5403, -123.5579); Maple Creek (40.7933, -123.8353); Pilot
Creek (40.5950, -123.5888); Simpson Creek (40.8138, -123.9156); Unnamed
Tributary (40.7306, -123.9019); Unnamed Tributary (40.7739, -123.9255);
Unnamed Tributary (40.7744, -123.9137); Unnamed Tributary (40.8029, -
123.8716); Unnamed Tributary (40.8038, -123.8691); Unnamed Tributary
(40.8363, -123.9025).
(4) Eureka Plain Hydrologic Unit 1110--(i) Eureka Plain Hydrologic
Sub-area 111000.
Outlet(s) = Elk River (Lat 40.7568, Long -124.1948); Freshwater
Creek (40.8088, -124.1442); Jacoby Creek (40.8436, -124.0834); Mad
River (40.9560, -124.1278); Rocky Gulch (40.8309, -124.0813); Salmon
Creek (40.6868, -124.2194); Washington Gulch (40.8317, -124.0805)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bridge Creek (40.6958, -124.0805); Browns
Gulch (40.7038, -124.1074); Clapp Gulch (40.6967, -124.1684); Cloney
Gulch (40.7826, -124.0347); Doe Creek (40.6964, -124.0201); Dunlap
Gulch (40.7076, -124.1182); Falls Gulch (40.7655, -124.0261); Fay
Slough (40.8033, -124.0574); Freshwater Creek (40.7385, -124.0035);
Golf Course Creek (40.8406, -124.0402); Graham Gulch (40.7540, -
124.0228); Guptil Gulch (40.7530, -124.1202); Henderson Gulch (40.7357,
-124.1394); Jacoby Creek (40.7949, -124.0096); Lake Creek (40.6848, -
124.0831); Line Creek (40.6578, -124.0460); Little Freshwater Creek
(40.7371, -124.0649); Little North Fork Elk River (40.6972, -124.0100);
Little South Fork Elk River (40.6555, -124.0877); Martin Slough
(40.7679, -124.1578); McCready Gulch (40.7824, -124.0441); McWinney
Creek (40.6968, -124.0616); Morrison Gulch (40.8169, -124.0430); North
Branch of the North Fork Elk River (40.6879, -124.0130); North Fork Elk
River (40.6794-123.9834); Railroad Gulch (40.6955, -124.1545); Rocky
Gulch (40.8170, -124.0613); Ryan Creek (40.7352, -124.0996); Salmon
Creek (40.6399, -124.1128); South Branch of the North Fork Elk River
(40.6700, -124.0251); South Fork Elk River (40.6437, -124.0388); South
Fork Freshwater Creek (40.7110, -124.0367); Swain Slough (40.7524, -
124.1825); Tom Gulch (40.6794, -124.1452); Unnamed Tributary (40.7850,
-124.0561); Unnamed Tributary (40.7496, -124.1651); Unnamed Tributary
(40.7785,--124.1081); Unnamed Tributary (40.7667, -124.1054); Unnamed
Tributary (40.7559, -124.0870); Unnamed Tributary (40.7952, -124.0568);
Unnamed Tributary (40.7408, -124.1118); Unnamed Tributary (40.7186, -
124.1385); Unnamed Tributary (40.7224, -124.1038); Unnamed Tributary
(40.8210, -124.0111); Unnamed Tributary (40.8106, -124.0083); Unnamed
Tributary (40.7554, -124.1379); Unnamed Tributary (40.7457, -124.1138);
Washington Gulch (40.8205, -124.0549).
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Eel River Hydrologic Unit 1111--(i) Ferndale Hydrologic Sub-
area 111111. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat 40.6275, Long -124.2520)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Atwell Creek (40.4824, -124.1498); Dean
Creek (40.4847, -124.1217); Horse Creek (40.5198, -124.1702); Howe
Creek (40.4654, -124.1916); Nanning Creek (40.4914, -124.0652); North
Fork Strongs Creek (40.6077, -124.1047); Price Creek (40.5101, -
124.2731); Rohner Creek (40.6151, -124.1408); Strongs Creek (40.5999, -
124.0985); Sweet Creek (40.4900, -124.2007); Van Duzen River (40.5337,
-124.1262).
(ii) Scotia Hydrologic Sub-area 111112. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat
40.4918, Long -124.0988) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek
(40.3942, -124.0262); Bridge Creek (40.4278, -123.9317); Chadd Creek
(40.3919, -123.9540); Darnell Creek (40.4533, -123.9808); Dinner Creek
(40.4406, -124.0855); Greenlow Creek (40.4315, -124.0231); Jordan Creek
(40.4171, -124.0517); Kiler Creek (40.4465, -124.0952); Monument Creek
(40.4371, -124.1165); Shively Creek (40.4454, -123.9539); South Fork
Bear Creek (40.3856, -124.0182); Stitz Creek (40.4649, -124.0531); Twin
Creek (40.4419, -124.0714); Unnamed Tributary (40.3933, -123.9984);
Weber Creek (40.3767, -123.9094).
(iii) Larabee Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111113. Outlet(s) = Larabee
Creek (Lat 40.4090, Long -123.9334) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arnold
Creek (40.4006, -123.8583); Balcom Creek (40.4030, -123.8986); Bosworth
Creek (40.3584, -123.7089); Boulder Flat Creek (40.3530, -123.6381);
Burr Creek (40.4250, -123.7767); Carson Creek (40.4181, -123.8879);
Chris Creek (40.4146, -123.9235); Cooper Creek (40.3123, -123.6463);
Dauphiny Creek (40.4049, -123.8893); Frost Creek (40.3765, -123.7357);
Hayfield Creek (40.3350, -123.6535); Knack Creek (40.3788, -123.7385);
Larabee Creek (40.2807, -123.6445); Martin Creek (40.3730, -123.7060);
Maxwell Creek (40.3959, -123.8049); McMahon Creek (40.3269, -123.6363);
Mill Creek (40.3849, -123.7440); Mountain Creek (40.2955, -123.6378);
Scott Creek (40.4020, -123.8738); Smith Creek (40.4194, -123.8568);
Thurman Creek (40.3506, -123.6669); Unnamed Tributary (40.3842, -
123.8062); Unnamed Tributary (40.3982, -123.7862); Unnamed Tributary
(40.3806, -123.7564); Unnamed Tributary (40.3661, -123.7398); Unnamed
Tributary (40.3524, -123.7330).
(iv) Hydesville Hydrologic Sub-area 111121. Outlet(s) = Van Duzen
River (Lat 40.5337, Long -124.1262) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Cuddeback Creek (40.5421, -124.0263); Cummings Creek (40.5282, -
123.9770); Fiedler Creek (40.5351, -124.0106); Hely Creek (40.5165, -
123.9531); Yager Creek (40.5583, -124.0577); Unnamed Tributary
(40.5718, -124.0946).
(v) Bridgeville Hydrologic Sub-area 111122. Outlet(s) = Van Duzen
River (Lat 40.4942, Long -123.9720) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear
Creek (40.3455, -123.5763); Blanket Creek (40.3635, -123.5710); Browns
Creek (40.4958, -123.8103); Butte Creek (40.4119, -123.7047); Dairy
Creek (40.4174, -123.5981); Fish Creek (40.4525, -123.8434); Grizzly
Creek (40.5193, -123.8470); Little Larabee Creek (40.4708, -123.7395);
Little Van Duzen River (40.3021, -123.5540); North Fork Van Duzen
(40.4881, -123.6411); Panther Creek (40.3921, -123.5866); Root Creek
(40.4490, -123.9018); Stevens Creek (40.5062, -123.9073); Thompson
Creek (40.4222, -123.6084); Van Duzen River (40.4820, -123.6629);
Unnamed Tributary (40.3074, -123.5834).
(vi) Yager Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111123. Outlet(s) = Yager
Creek (Lat 40.5583, Long -124.0577) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bell
Creek (40.6809, -123.9685); Blanten Creek (40.5839, -124.0165); Booths
Run (40.6584, -123.9428); Corner Creek (40.6179, -124.0010); Fish Creek
(40.6390, -124.0024); Lawrence Creek (40.6986, -123.9314); Middle Fork
Yager Creek (40.5782, -123.9243); North Fork Yager Creek (40.6056, -
123.9080); Shaw Creek (40.6231, -123.9509); South Fork Yager Creek
(40.5451, -123.9409); Unnamed
[[Page 52550]]
Tributary (40.5892, -123.9663); Yager Creek (40.5673, -123.9403).
(vii) Weott Hydrologic Sub-area 111131. Outlet(s) = South Fork Eel
River (Lat 40.3500, Long -123.9305) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Albee
Creek (40.3592, -124.0088); Bull Creek (40.3587, -123.9624); Burns
Creek (40.3194, -124.0420); Butte Creek (40.1982, -123.8387); Canoe
Creek (40.2669, -123.9556); Coon Creek (40.2702, -123.9013); Cow Creek
(40.2664, -123.9838); Cuneo Creek (40.3401, -124.0494); Decker Creek
(40.3312, -123.9501); Elk Creek (40.2609, -123.7957); Fish Creek
(40.2459, -123.7729); Harper Creek (40.3591, -123.9930); Mill Creek
(40.3568, -124.0333); Mowry Creek (40.2937, -123.8895); North Fork
Cuneo Creek (40.3443, -124.0488); Ohman Creek (40.1924, -123.7648);
Panther Creek (40.2775, -124.0289); Preacher Gulch (40.2944, -
124.0047); Salmon Creek (40.2145, -123.8926); Slide Creek (40.3011, -
124.0390); South Fork Salmon Creek (40.1769, -123.8929); Squaw Creek
(40.3167, -123.9988); Unnamed Tributary (40.3065, -124.0074); Unnamed
Tributary (40.2831, -124.0359).
(viii) Benbow Hydrologic Sub-area 111132. Outlet(s) = South Fork
Eel River (Lat 40.1929, Long -123.7692) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Anderson Creek (39.9325, -123.8928); Bear Creek (39.7885, -123.7620);
Bear Pen Creek (39.9201, -123.7986); Bear Wallow Creek (39.7270, -
123.7140); Big Dan Creek (39.8430, -123.6992); Bond Creek (39.7778, -
123.7060); Bridges Creek (39.9087, -123.7142); Buck Mountain Creek
(40.0944, -123.7423); Butler Creek (39.7423, -123.6987); Cedar Creek
(39.8834, -123.6216); China Creek (40.1035, -123.9493); Connick Creek
(40.0912, -123.8154); Cox Creek (40.0310, -123.8398); Cruso Cabin Creek
(39.9281, -123.5842); Durphy Creek (40.0205, -123.8271); East Branch
South Fork Eel River (39.9359, -123.6204); Elkhorn Creek (39.9272, -
123.6279); Fish Creek (40.0390, -123.7630); Hartsook Creek (40.0081, -
123.8113); Hollow Tree Creek (39.7250, -123.6924); Huckleberry Creek
(39.7292, -123.7275); Indian Creek (39.9556, -123.9172); Islam John
Creek (39.8062, -123.7363); Jones Creek (39.9958, -123.8374); Leggett
Creek (40.1470, -123.8375); Little Sproul Creek (40.0890, -123.8577);
Lost Man Creek (39.7983, -123.7287); Low Gap Creek (39.8029, -
123.6803); Low Gap Creek (39.9933, -123.7601); McCoy Creek (39.9572, -
123.7369); Michael's Creek (39.7665, -123.7035); Middle Creek (39.8052,
-123.7691); Milk Ranch Creek (40.0102, -123.7514); Mill Creek (39.8673,
-123.7605); Miller Creek (40.1319, -123.9302); Moody Creek (39.9471, -
123.8827); Mule Creek (39.8169, -123.7745); North Fork Cedar Creek
(39.8864, -123.6363); North Fork McCoy Creek (39.9723, -123.7496);
Piercy Creek (39.9597, -123.8442); Pollock Creek (40.0802, -123.9341);
Red Mountain Creek (39.9363, -123.7203); Redwood Creek (39.7723, -
123.7648); Redwood Creek (40.0974, -123.9104); Rock Creek (39.8962, -
123.7065); Sebbas Creek (39.9934, -123.8903); Somerville Creek
(40.1006, -123.8884); South Fork Mule Creek (39.8174, -123.7788); South
Fork Redwood Creek (39.7662, -123.7579); Sproul Creek (40.0226, -
123.8649); Squaw Creek (40.0760, -123.7257); Standly Creek (39.9327, -
123.8309); Tom Long Creek (40.0175, -123.6551); Waldron Creek (39.7469,
-123.7465); Walter's Creek (39.7921, -123.7250); Warden Creek (40.0629,
-123.8551); West Fork Sproul Creek (40.0587, -123.9170); Wildcat Creek
(39.8956, -123.7820); Unnamed Tributary (39.9927, -123.8807).
(ix) Laytonville Hydrologic Sub-area 111133. Outlet(s) = South Fork
Eel River (Lat 39.7665, Long -123.6484) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Bear Creek (39.6418, -123.5853); Big Rick Creek (39.7117, -123.5512);
Cahto Creek (39.6527, -123.5579); Dark Canyon Creek (39.7333, -
123.6614); Dutch Charlie Creek (39.6843, -123.7023); Elder Creek
(39.7234, -123.6192); Fox Creek (39.7441, -123.6142); Grub Creek
(39.7777, -123.5809); Jack of Hearts Creek (39.7136, -123.6896); Kenny
Creek (39.6838, -123.5929); Little Case Creek (39.6892, -123.5441);
Mill Creek (39.6839, -123.5118); Mud Creek (39.6713, -123.5741); Mud
Springs Creek (39.6929, -123.5629); Redwood Creek (39.6545, -123.6753);
Rock Creek (39.6922, -123.6090); Section Four Creek (39.6137, -
123.5297); South Fork Eel River (39.6242, -123.5468); Streeter Creek
(39.7340, -123.5606); Ten Mile Creek (39.6652, -123.4486); Unnamed
Tributary (39.7004, -123.5678).
(x) Sequoia Hydrologic Sub-area 111141. Outlet(s) = Eel River (Lat
40.3557, Long -123.9191) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Beatty Creek
(40.3198, -123.7500); Brock Creek (40.2410, -123.7246); Cameron Creek
(40.3313, -123.7707); Dobbyn Creek (40.2216, -123.6029); Kapple Creek
(40.3531, -123.8585); Line Gulch Creek (40.1640, -123.4783); Mud Creek
(40.2078, -123.5143); North Fork Dobbyn Creek (40.2669, -123.5467);
Sonoma Creek (40.2974, -123.7953); South Fork Dobbyn Creek (40.1723, -
123.5112); South Fork Eel River (40.3500, -123.9305); South Fork
Thompson Creek (40.3447, -123.8334); Thompson Creek (40.3552, -
123.8417); Unnamed Tributary (40.2745, -123.5487).
(xi) Spy Rock Hydrologic Sub-area 111142. Outlet(s) = Eel River
(Lat 40.1736, Long -123.6043) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Pen
Canyon (39.6943, -123.4359); Bell Springs Creek (39.9457, -123.5313);
Blue Rock Creek (39.8937, -123.5018); Burger Creek (39.6693, -
123.4034); Chamise Creek (40.0035, -123.5945); Gill Creek (39.7879, -
123.3465); Iron Creek (39.7993, -123.4747); Jewett Creek (40.1122, -
123.6171); Kekawaka Creek (40.0686, -123.4087); Rock Creek (39.9347, -
123.5187); Shell Rock Creek (39.8414, -123.4614); Unnamed Tributary
(39.7579, -123.4709); White Rock Creek (39.7646, -123.4684); Woodman
Creek (39.7612, -123.4364).
(xii) Outlet Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111161. Outlet(s) = Outlet
Creek (Lat 39.6265, Long -123.3449) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Baechtel Creek (39.3623, -123.4143); Berry Creek (39.4271, -123.2777);
Bloody Run Creek (39.5864, -123.3545); Broaddus Creek (39.3869, -
123.4282); Cherry Creek (39.6043, -123.4073); Conklin Creek (39.3756, -
123.2570); Davis Creek (39.3354, -123.2945); Haehl Creek (39.3735, -
123.3172); Long Valley Creek (39.6246, -123.4651); Mill Creek (39.4196,
-123.3919); Outlet Creek (39.4526, -123.3338); Ryan Creek (39.4804, -
123.3644); Unnamed Tributary (39.4956, -123.3591); Unnamed Tributary
(39.4322, -123.3848); Unnamed Tributary (39.5793, -123.4546); Unnamed
Tributary (39.3703, -123.3419); Upp Creek (39.4479, -123.3825); Willts
Creek (39.4686, -123.4299).
(xiii) Tomki Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111162. Outlet(s) = Eel
River (Lat 39.7138, Long -123.3532) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cave
Creek (39.3842, -123.2148); Dean Creek (39.6924, -123.3727); Garcia
Creek (39.5153, -123.1512); Little Cave Creek (39.3915, -123.2462);
Little Creek (39.4146, -123.2595); Long Branch Creek (39.4074, -
123.1897); Rocktree Creek (39.4534, -123.3053); Salmon Creek (39.4367,
-123.1939); Scott Creek (39.4492, -123.2286); String Creek (39.4658, -
123.3206); Tarter Creek (39.4715, -123.2976); Thomas Creek (39.4768, -
123.1230); Tomki Creek (39.5483, -123.3687); Whitney Creek (39.4399, -
123.1084); Wheelbarrow Creek (39.5012, -123.3304).
(xiv) Eden Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 111171. Outlet(s) = Middle
Fork Eel River (Lat 39.7138, Long -123.3532) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Crocker Creek (39.5559, -123.0409); Eden Creek (39.5992, -
123.1746); Elk Creek (39.5371, -123.0101); Hayshed Creek
[[Page 52551]]
(39.7082, -123.0967); Salt Creek (39.6765, -123.2740); Sportsmans Creek
(39.5373, -123.0247); Sulper Springs (39.5536, -123.0365); Thatcher
Creek (39.6686, -123.0639).
(xv) Round Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 111172. Outlet(s) = Mill
Creek (Lat 39.7396, Long -123.1420); Williams Creek (39.8145, -
123.1333) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cold Creek (39.8714, -123.2991);
Grist Creek (39.7640, -123.2883); Mill Creek (39.8481, -123.2896);
Murphy Creek (39.8885, -123.1612); Short Creek (39.8703, -123.2352);
Town Creek (39.7991, -123.2889); Turner Creek (39.7218, -123.2175);
Williams Creek (39.8903, -123.1212); Unnamed Tributary (39.7428, -
123.2757); Unnamed Tributary (39.7493, -123.2584).
(xvi) Black Butte River Hydrologic Sub-area 111173. Outlet(s) =
Black Butte River (Lat 39.8239, Long -123.0880) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Black Butte River (39.5946, -122.8579); Buckhorn Creek (39.6563, -
122.9225); Cold Creek (39.6960, -122.9063); Estell Creek (39.5966, -
122.8224); Spanish Creek (39.6287, -122.8331).
(xvii) Wilderness Hydrologic Sub-area 111174. Outlet(s) = Middle
Fork Eel River (Lat 39.8240, Long -123.0877) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Beaver Creek (39.9352, -122.9943); Fossil Creek (39.9447, -
123.0403); Middle Fork Eel River (40.0780, -123.0442); North Fork
Middle Fork Eel River (40.0727, -123.1364); Palm of Gileade Creek
(40.0229, -123.0647); Pothole Creek (39.9347, -123.0440).
(6) Cape Mendocino Hydrologic Unit 1112--(i) Oil Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 111210. Outlet(s) = Guthrie Creek (Lat 40.5407, Long -
124.3626); Oil Creek (40.5195, -124.3767) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Guthrie Creek (40.5320, -124.3128); Oil Creek (40.5061, -124.2875);
Unnamed Tributary (40.4946, -124.3091); Unnamed Tributary (40.4982, -
124.3549); Unnamed Tributary (40.5141, -124.3573); Unnamed Tributary
(40.4992, -124.3070).
(ii) Capetown Hydrologic Sub-area 111220. Outlet(s) = Bear River
(Lat 40.4744, Long -124.3881); Davis Creek (40.3850, -124.3691);
Singley Creek (40.4311, -124.4034) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Antone
Creek (40.4281, -124.2114); Bear River (40.3591, -124.0536); Beer
Bottle Gulch (40.3949, -124.1410); Bonanza Gulch (40.4777, -124.2966);
Brushy Creek (40.4102, -124.1050); Davis Creek (40.3945, -124.2912);
Harmonica Creek (40.3775, -124.0735); Hollister Creek (40.4109, -
124.2891); Nelson Creek (40.3536, -124.1154); Peaked Creek (40.4123, -
124.1897); Pullen Creek (40.4057, -124.0814); Singley Creek (40.4177, -
124.3305); South Fork Bear River (40.4047, -124.2631); Unnamed
Tributary (40.4271, -124.3107); Unnamed Tributary (40.4814, -124.2741);
Unnamed Tributary (40.3633, -124.0651); Unnamed Tributary (40.3785, -
124.0599); Unnamed Tributary (40.4179, -124.2391); Unnamed Tributary
(40.4040, -124.0923); Unnamed Tributary (40.3996, -124.3175); Unnamed
Tributary (40.4045, -124.0745); Unnamed Tributary (40.4668, -124.2364);
Unnamed Tributary (40.4389, -124.2350); Unnamed Tributary (40.4516, -
124.2238); Unnamed Tributary (40.4136, -124.1594); Unnamed Tributary
(40.4350, -124.1504); Unnamed Tributary (40.4394, -124.3745); West Side
Creek (40.4751, -124.2432).
(iii) Mattole River Hydrologic Sub-area 111230. Outlet(s) = Big
Creek (Lat 40.1567, Long -124.2114); Big Flat Creek (40.1275, -
124.1764); Buck Creek (40.1086, -124.1218); Cooskie Creek (40.2192, -
124.3105); Fourmile Creek (40.2561, -124.3578); Gitchell Creek
(40.0938, -124.1023); Horse Mountain Creek (40.0685, -124.0822); Kinsey
Creek (40.1717, -124.2310); Mattole River (40.2942, -124.3536); McNutt
Gulch (40.3541, -124.3619); Oat Creek (40.1785, -124.2445); Randall
Creek (40.2004, -124.2831); Shipman Creek (40.1175, -124.1449); Spanish
Creek (40.1835, -124.2569); Telegraph Creek (40.0473, -124.0798); Whale
Gulch (39.9623, -123.9785) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Anderson Creek
(40.0329, -123.9674); Baker Creek (40.0143, -123.9048); Bear Creek
(40.1262, -124.0631); Bear Creek (40.2819, -124.3336); Bear Trap Creek
(40.2157, -124.1422); Big Creek (40.1742, -124.1924); Big Finley Creek
(40.0910, -124.0179); Big Flat Creek (40.1444, -124.1636); Blue Slide
Creek (40.1562, -123.9283); Box Canyon Creek (40.1078, -123.9854);
Bridge Creek (40.0447, -124.0118); Buck Creek (40.1166, -124.1142);
Conklin Creek (40.3197, -124.2055); Cooskie Creek (40.2286, -124.2986);
Devils Creek (40.3432, -124.1365); Dry Creek (40.2646, -124.0660); East
Branch North Fork Mattole River (40.3333, -124.1490); East Fork
Honeydew Creek (40.1625, -124.0929); Eubank Creek (40.0997, -123.9661);
Fire Creek (40.1533, -123.9509); Fourmile Creek (40.2604, -124.3079);
Fourmile Creek (40.1767, -124.0759); French Creek (40.1384, -124.0072);
Gibson Creek (40.0304, -123.9279); Gilham Creek (40.2078, -124.0085);
Gitchell Creek (40.1086, -124.0947); Green Ridge Creek (40.3254, -
124.1258); Grindstone Creek (40.2019, -123.9890); Harris Creek
(40.0381, -123.9304); Harrow Creek (40.1612, -124.0292); Helen Barnum
Creek (40.0036, -123.9101); Honeydew Creek (40.1747, -124.1410); Horse
Mountain Creek (40.0769, -124.0729); Indian Creek (40.2772, -124.2759);
Jewett Creek (40.1465, -124.0414); Kinsey Creek (40.1765, -124.2220);
Lost Man Creek (39.9754, -123.9179); Mattole Canyon (40.2021, -
123.9570); Mattole River (39.9714, -123.9623); McGinnis Creek (40.3186,
-124.1801); McKee Creek (40.0864, -123.9480); McNutt Gulch (40.3458, -
124.3418); Middle Creek (40.2591, -124.0366); Mill Creek (40.0158, -
123.9693); Mill Creek (40.3305, -124.2598); Mill Creek (40.2839, -
124.2946); Nooning Creek (40.0616, -124.0050); North Fork Mattole River
(40.3866, -124.1867); North Fork Bear Creek (40.1494, -124.1060); North
Fork Fourmile Creek (40.2019, -124.0722); Oat Creek (40.1884, -
124.2296); Oil Creek (40.3214, -124.1601); Painter Creek (40.0844, -
123.9639); Prichett Creek (40.2892, -124.1704); Randall Creek (40.2092,
-124.2668); Rattlesnake Creek (40.3250, -124.0981); Shipman Creek
(40.1250, -124.1384); Sholes Creek (40.1603, -124.0619); South Branch
West Fork Bridge Creek (40.0326, -123.9853); South Fork Bear Creek
(40.0176, -124.0016); Spanish Creek (40.1965, -124.2429); Squaw Creek
(40.1934, -124.2002); Stanley Creek (40.0273, -123.9166); Sulphur Creek
(40.3647, -124.1586); Telegraph Creek (40.0439, -124.0640); Thompson
Creek (39.9913, -123.9707); Unnamed Tributary (40.3475, -124.1606);
Unnamed Tributary (40.3522, -124.1533); Unnamed Tributary (40.0891, -
123.9839); Unnamed Tributary (40.2223, -124.0172); Unnamed Tributary
(40.1733, -123.9515); Unnamed Tributary (40.2899, -124.0955); Unnamed
Tributary (40.2853, -124.3227); Unnamed Tributary (39.9969, -123.9071);
Upper East Fork Honeydew Creek (40.1759, -124.1182); Upper North Fork
Mattole River (40.2907, -124.1115); Vanauken Creek (40.0674, -
123.9422); West Fork Bridge Creek (40.0343, -123.9990); West Fork
Honeydew Creek (40.1870, -124.1614); Westlund Creek (40.2440, -
124.0036); Whale Gulch (39.9747, -123.9812); Woods Creek (40.2119, -
124.1611); Yew Creek (40.0018, -123.9762).
(7) Mendocino Coast Hydrologic Unit 1113--(i) Usal Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 111311. Outlet(s) = Jackass Creek (Lat 39.8806, Long -
123.9155); Usal
[[Page 52552]]
Creek (39.8316, -123.8507) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek
(39.8898, -123.8344); Jackass Creek (39.8901, -123.8928); Julias Creek
(39.8542, -123.7937); Little Bear Creek (39.8629, -123.8400); North
Fork Jackass Creek (39.9095, -123.9101); North Fork Julias Creek
(39.8581, -123.8045); Soldier Creek (39.8679, -123.8162); South Fork
Usal Creek (39.8356, -123.7865); Unnamed Tributary (39.8890, -
123.8480); Usal Creek (39.8957, -123.8797); Waterfall Gulch (39.8787, -
123.8680).
(ii) Wages Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111312. Outlet(s) = Cottaneva
Creek (Lat 39.7360, Long -123.8293); DeHaven Creek (39.6592, -
123.7863); Hardy Creek (39.7107, -123.8082); Howard Creek (39.6778, -
123.7915); Juan Creek (39.7028, -123.8042); Wages Creek (39.6513, -
123.7851) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cottaneva Creek (39.7825, -
123.8210); DeHaven Creek (39.6687, -123.7060); Dunn Creek (39.8103, -
123.8320); Hardy Creek (39.7221, -123.7822); Howard Creek (39.6808, -
123.7463); Juan Creek (39.7107, -123.7472); Kimball Gulch (39.7559, -
123.7828); Little Juan Creek (39.7003, -123.7609); Middle Fork
Cottaneva Creek (39.7738, -123.8058); North Fork Cottaneva Creek
(39.8011, -123.8047); North Fork Dehaven Creek (39.6660, -123.7382);
North Fork Wages Creek (39.6457, -123.7066); Rider Gulch (39.6348, -
123.7621); Rockport Creek (39.7346, -123.8021); Slaughterhouse Gulch
(39.7594, -123.7914); South Fork Cottaneva Creek (39.7447, -123.7773);
South Fork Wages Creek (39.6297, -123.6862); Wages Creek (39.6297, -
123.6862).
(iii) Ten Mile River Hydrologic Sub-area 111313. Outlet(s) =
Abalobadiah Creek (Lat 39.5654, Long -123.7672); Chadbourne Gulch
(39.6133, -123.7822); Ten Mile River (39.5529, -123.7658); Seaside
Creek (39.5592, -123.7655) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Abalobadiah
Creek (39.5878, -123.7503); Bald Hill Creek (39.6278, -123.6461);
Barlow Gulch (39.6046, -123.7384); Bear Pen Creek (39.5824, -123.6402);
Booth Gulch (39.5567, -123.5918); Buckhorn Creek (39.6093, -123.6980);
Campbell Creek (39.5053, -123.6610); Cavanough Gulch (39.6107, -
123.6776); Chadbourne Gulch (39.6190, -123.7682); Clark Fork (39.5280,
-123.5134); Curchman Creek (39.4789, -123.6398); Gulch 11 (39.4687, -
123.5816); Gulch 19 (39.5939, -123.5781); Little Bear Haven Creek
(39.5655, -123.6147); Little North Fork (39.6264, -123.7350); Mill
Creek (39.5392, -123.7068); North Fork Ten Mile River (39.5870, -
123.5480); O'Conner Gulch (39.6042, -123.6632); Patsy Creek (39.5714, -
123.5669); Redwood Creek (39.5142, -123.5620); Seaside Creek (39.5612,
-123.7501); Smith Creek (39.5251, -123.6499); South Fork Bear Haven
Creek (39.5688, -123.6527); South Fork Ten Mile River (39.5083, -
123.5395); Ten Mile River (39.5721, -123.7098); Unnamed Tributary
(39.5180, -123.5948); Unnamed Tributary (39.5146, -123.6183); Unnamed
Tributary (39.5898, -123.7657); Unnamed Tributary (39.5813, -123.7526);
Unnamed Tributary (39.5936, -123.6034).
(iv) Noyo River Hydrologic Sub-area 111320. Outlet(s) = Digger
Creek (Lat 39.4088, Long -123.8164); Hare Creek (39.4171, -123.8128);
Jug Handle Creek (39.3767, -123.8176); Mill Creek (39.4894, -123.7967);
Mitchell Creek (39.3923, -123.8165); Noyo River (39.4274, -123.8096);
Pudding Creek (39.4588, -123.8089); Virgin Creek (39.4714, -123.8045)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Gulch (39.3881, -123.6614); Brandon
Gulch (39.4191, -123.6645); Bunker Gulch (39.3969, -123.7153); Burbeck
Creek (39.4354, -123.4235); Covington Gulch (39.4099, -123.7546);
Dewarren Creek (39.4974, -123.5535); Digger Creek (39.3932, -123.7820);
Duffy Gulch (39.4469, -123.6023); Gulch Creek (39.4441, -123.4684);
Gulch Seven (39.4523, -123.5183); Hare Creek (39.3781, -123.6922);
Hayworth Creek (39.4857, -123.4769); Hayshed Creek (39.4200, -
123.7391); Jug Handle Creek (39.3647, -123.7523); Kass Creek (39.4262,
-123.6807); Little North Fork (39.4532, -123.6636); Little Valley Creek
(39.5026, -123.7277); Marble Gulch (39.4423, -123.5479); McMullen Creek
(39.4383, -123.4488); Middle Fork North Fork (39.4924, -123.5231); Mill
Creek (39.4813, -123.7600); Mitchell Creek (39.3813, -123.7734); North
Fork Hayworth Creek (39.4891, -123.5026); North Fork Noyo River
(39.4765, -123.5535); North Fork Noyo (39.4765, -123.5535); North Fork
South Fork Noyo River (39.3971, -123.6108); Noyo River (39.4242, -
123.4356); Olds Creek (39.3964, -123.4448); Parlin Creek (39.3700, -
123.6111); Pudding Creek (39.4591, -123.6516); Redwood Creek (39.4660,
-123.4571); South Fork Hare Creek (39.3785, -123.7384); South Fork Noyo
River (39.3620, -123.6188); Unnamed Tributary (39.4113, -123.5621);
Unnamed Tributary (39.3918, -123.6425); Unnamed Tributary (39.4168, -
123.4578); Unnamed Tributary (39.4656, -123.7467); Unnamed Tributary
(39.4931, -123.7371); Unnamed Tributary (39.4922, -123.7381); Unnamed
Tributary (39.4939, -123.7184); Unnamed Tributary (39.4158, -123.6428);
Unnamed Tributary (39.4002, -123.7347); Unnamed Tributary (39.3831, -
123.6177); Unnamed Tributary (39.4926, -123.4764); Virgin Creek
(39.4621, -123.7855); Unnamed Tributary (39.4650, -123.7463).
(v) Big River Hydrologic Sub-area 111330. Outlet(s) = Big River
(Lat 39.3030, Long -123.7957); Casper Creek (39.3617, -123.8169); Doyle
Creek (39.3603, -123.8187); Jack Peters Creek (39.3193, -123.8006);
Russian Gulch (39.3288, -123.8050) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Berry
Gulch (39.3585, -123.6930); Big River (39.3166, -123.3733); Casper
Creek (39.3462, -123.7556); Chamberlain Creek (39.4007, -123.5317);
Daugherty Creek (39.1700, -123.3699); Doyle Creek (39.3517, -123.8007);
East Branch Little North Fork Big River (39.3372, -123.6410); East
Branch North Fork Big River (39.3354, -123.4652); Gates Creek (39.2083,
-123.3944); Jack Peters Gulch (39.3225, -123.7850); James Creek
(39.3922, -123.4747); Johnson Creek (39.1963, -123.3927); Johnson Creek
(39.2556, -123.4485); Laguna Creek (39.2910, -123.6334); Little North
Fork Big River (39.3497, -123.6242); Marten Creek (39.3290, -123.4279);
Mettick Creek (39.2591, -123.5193); Middle Fork North Fork Casper Creek
(39.3575, -123.7170); North Fork Big River (39.3762, -123.4591); North
Fork Casper Creek (39.3610, -123.7356); North Fork James Creek
(39.3980, -123.4939); North Fork Ramone Creek (39.2760, -123.4846); Pig
Pen Gulch (39.3226, -123.4609); Pruitt Creek (39.2592, -123.3812);
Ramone Creek (39.2714, -123.4415); Rice Creek (39.2809, -123.3963);
Russell Brook (39.2863, -123.4461); Russian Gulch (39.3237, -123.7650);
Snuffins Creek (39.1836, -123.3854); Soda Creek (39.2230, -123.4239);
South Fork Big River (39.2317, -123.3687); South Fork Casper Creek
(39.3493, -123.7216); Two Log Creek (39.3484, -123.5781); Unnamed
Tributary (39.3897, -123.5556); Unnamed Tributary (39.3637, -123.5464);
Unnamed Tributary (39.3776, -123.5274); Unnamed Tributary (39.4029, -
123.5771); Valentine Creek (39.2694, -123.3957); Water Gulch (39.3607,
-123.5891).
(vi) Albion River Hydrologic Sub-area 111340. Outlet(s) = Albion
River (Lat 39.2253, Long -123.7679); Big Salmon Creek (39.2150, -
123.7660); Buckhorn Creek (39.2593, -123.7839); Dark Gulch (39.2397, -
123.7740); Little Salmon Creek (39.2150, -123.7660); Little River
(39.2734, -123.7914) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Albion River (39.2613,
[[Page 52553]]
-123.5766); Big Salmon Creek (39.2070, -123.6514); Buckhorn Creek
(39.2513, -123.7595); Dark Gulch (39.2379, -123.7592); Duck Pond Gulch
(39.2456, -123.6960); East Railroad Gulch (39.2604, -123.6381); Hazel
Gulch (39.2141, -123.6418); Kaison Gulch (39.2733, -123.6803); Little
North Fork South Fork Albion River (39.2350, -123.6431); Little River
(39.2683, -123.7190); Little Salmon Creek (39.2168, -123.7515); Marsh
Creek (39.2325, -123.5596); Nordon Gulch (39.2489, -123.6503); North
Fork Albion River (39.2854, -123.5752); Pleasant Valley Gulch (39.2379,
-123.6965); Railroad Gulch (39.2182, -123.6932); Soda Springs Creek
(39.2943, -123.5944); South Fork Albion River (39.2474, -123.6107); Tom
Bell Creek (39.2805, -123.6519); Unnamed Tributary (39.2279, -
123.6972); Unnamed Tributary (39.2194, -123.7100); Unnamed Tributary
(39.2744, -123.5889); Unnamed Tributary (39.2254, -123.6733).
(vii) Navarro River Hydrologic Sub-area 111350. Outlet(s) = Navarro
River (Lat 39.1921, Long -123.7611) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder
Creek (38.9830, -123.3946); Anderson Creek (38.9644, -123.2907); Bailey
Creek (39.1733, -123.4804); Barton Gulch (39.1804, -123.6783); Bear
Creek (39.1425, -123.4326); Bear Wallow Creek (39.0053, -123.4075);
Beasley Creek (38.9366, -123.3265); Bottom Creek (39.2117, -123.4607);
Camp 16 Gulch (39.1937, -123.6095); Camp Creek (38.9310, -123.3527);
Cold Spring Creek (39.0376, -123.5027); Con Creek (39.0374, -123.3816);
Cook Creek (39.1879, -123.5109); Cune Creek (39.1622, -123.6014); Dago
Creek (39.0731, -123.5068); Dead Horse Gulch (39.1576, -123.6124);
Dutch Henry Creek (39.2112, -123.5794); Floodgate Creek (39.1291, -
123.5365); Fluem Gulch (39.1615, -123.6695); Flynn Creek (39.2099, -
123.6032); German Creek (38.9452, -123.4269); Gut Creek (39.0803, -
123.3312); Ham Canyon (39.0164, -123.4265); Horse Creek (39.0144, -
123.4960); Hungry Hollow Creek (39.1327, -123.4488); Indian Creek
(39.0708, -123.3301); Jimmy Creek (39.0117, -123.2888); John Smith
Creek (39.2275, -123.5366); Little North Fork Navarro River (39.1941, -
123.4553); Low Gap Creek (39.1590, -123.3783); Navarro River (39.0537,
-123.4409); Marsh Gulch (39.1692, -123.7049); McCarvey Creek (39.1589,
-123.4048); Mill Creek (39.1270, -123.4315); Minnie Creek (38.9751, -
123.4529); Murray Gulch (39.1755, -123.6966); Mustard Gulch (39.1673, -
123.6393); North Branch (39.2069, -123.5361); North Fork Indian Creek
(39.1213, -123.3345); North Fork Navarro River (39.1708, -123.5606);
Parkinson Gulch (39.0768, -123.4070); Perry Gulch (39.1342, -123.5707);
Rancheria Creek (38.8626, -123.2417); Ray Gulch (39.1792, -123.6494);
Robinson Creek (38.9845, -123.3513); Rose Creek (39.1358, -123.3672);
Shingle Mill Creek (39.1671, -123.4223); Soda Creek (39.0238, -
123.3149); Soda Creek (39.1531, -123.3734); South Branch (39.1409, -
123.3196); Spooner Creek (39.2221, -123.4811); Tramway Gulch (39.1481,
-123.5958); Yale Creek (38.8882, -123.2785).
(viii) Greenwood Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111361. Outlet(s) =
Greenwood Creek (Lat 39.1262, Long -123.7181) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Greenwood Creek (39.0894, -123.5924).
(ix) Elk Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111362. Outlet(s) = Elk Creek
(Lat 39.1024, Long -123.7080) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Elk Creek
(39.0657, -123.6245).
(x) Alder Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111363. Outlet(s) = Alder Creek
(Lat 39.0044, Long -123.6969); Mallo Pass Creek (39.0341, -123.6896)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (38.9961, -123.6471); Mallo
Pass Creek (39.0287, -123.6373).
(xi) Brush Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111364. Outlet(s) = Brush
Creek (Lat 38.9760, Long -123.7120) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Brush
Creek (38.9730, -123.5563); Mill Creek (38.9678, -123.6515); Unnamed
Tributary (38.9724, -123.6571).
(xii) Garcia River Hydrologic Sub-area 111370. Outlet(s) = Garcia
River (Lat 38.9550, Long -123.7338); Point Arena Creek (38.9141, -
123.7103); Schooner Gulch (38.8667, -123.6550) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Blue Water Hole Creek (38.9378, -123.5023); Flemming Creek
(38.8384, -123.5361); Garcia River (38.8965, -123.3681); Hathaway Creek
(38.9287, -123.7011); Inman Creek (38.8804, -123.4370); Larmour Creek
(38.9419, -123.4469); Mill Creek (38.9078, -123.3143); North Fork
Garcia River (38.9233, -123.5339); North Fork Schooner Gulch (38.8758,
-123.6281); Pardaloe Creek (38.8895, -123.3423); Point Arena Creek
(38.9069, -123.6838); Redwood Creek (38.9241, -123.3343); Rolling Brook
(38.8965, -123.5716); Schooner Gulch (38.8677, -123.6198); South Fork
Garcia River (38.8450, -123.5420); Stansburry Creek (38.9422, -
123.4720); Signal Creek (38.8639, -123.4414); Unnamed Tributary
(38.8758, -123.5692); Unnamed Tributary (38.8818, -123.5723); Whitlow
Creek (38.9141, -123.4624).
(xiii) North Fork Gualala River Hydrologic Sub-area 111381.
Outlet(s) = North Fork Gualala River (Lat 38.7784, Long -123.4992)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek (38.8347, -123.3842); Billings
Creek (38.8652, -123.3496); Doty Creek (38.8495, -123.5131); Dry Creek
(38.8416, -123.4455); Little North Fork Gualala River (38.8295, -
123.5570); McGann Gulch (38.8026, -123.4458); North Fork Gualala River
(38.8479, -123.4113); Robinson Creek (38.8416, -123.3725); Robinson
Creek (38.8386, -123.4991); Stewart Creek (38.8109, -123.4157); Unnamed
Tributary (38.8487, -123.3820).
(xiv) Rockpile Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111382. Outlet(s) =
Rockpile Creek (Lat 38.7507, Long -123.4706) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Rockpile Creek (38.7966, -123.3872).
(xv) Buckeye Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111383. Outlet(s) = Buckeye
Creek (Lat 38.7403, Long -123.4580) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Buckeye
Creek (38.7400, -123.2697); Flat Ridge Creek (38.7616, -123.2400);
Franchini Creek (38.7500, -123.3708); North Fork Buckeye (38.7991, -
123.3166).
(xvi) Wheatfield Fork Hydrologic Sub-area 111384. Outlet(s) =
Wheatfield Fork Gualala River (Lat 38.7018, Long -123.4168) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Danfield Creek (38.6369, -123.1431); Fuller Creek
(38.7109, -123.3256); Haupt Creek (38.6220, -123.2551); House Creek
(38.6545, -123.1184); North Fork Fuller Creek (38.7252, -123.2968);
Pepperwood Creek (38.6205, -123.1665); South Fork Fuller Creek
(38.6973, -123.2860); Tombs Creek (38.6989, -123.1616); Unnamed
Tributary (38.7175, -123.2744); Wheatfield Fork Gualala River (38.7497,
-123.2215).
(xvii) Gualala Hydrologic Sub-area 111385. Outlet(s) = Fort Ross
Creek (Lat 38.5119, Long -123.2436); Gualala River (38.7687, -
123.5334); Kolmer Gulch (38.5238, -123.2646) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Big Pepperwood Creek (38.7951, -123.4638); Carson Creek (38.5653, -
123.1906); Fort Ross Creek (38.5174, -123.2363); Groshong Gulch
(38.7814, -123.4904); Gualala River (38.7780, -123.4991); Kolmer Gulch
(38.5369, -123.2247); Little Pepperwood (38.7738, -123.4427); Marshall
Creek (38.5647, -123.2058); McKenzie Creek (38.5895, -123.1730); Palmer
Canyon Creek (38.6002, -123.2167); South Fork Gualala River (38.5646, -
123.1689); Sproule Creek (38.6122, -123.2739); Turner Canyon (38.5294,
-123.1672); Unknown Tributary (38.5634, -123.2003).
(xviii) Russian Gulch Hydrologic Sub-area 111390. Outlet(s) =
Russian Gulch
[[Page 52554]]
Creek (Lat 38.4669, Long -123.1569) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Russian
Gulch Creek (38.4956, -123.1535); West Branch Russian Gulch Creek
(38.4968, -123.1631).
(8) Maps of critical habitat for the Northern California Steelhead
ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 52555]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.008
[[Page 52556]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.009
[[Page 52557]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.010
[[Page 52558]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.011
[[Page 52559]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.012
[[Page 52560]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.013
[[Page 52561]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.014
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 52562]]
(h) Central California Coast Steelhead (O. mykiss). Critical
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following
CALWATER Hydrologic Units:
(1) Russian River Hydrologic Unit 1114--(i) Guerneville Hydrologic
Sub-area 111411. Outlet(s) = Russian River (Lat 38.4507, Long -
123.1289) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Atascadero Creek (38.3473, -
122.8626); Austin Creek (38.5098, -123.0680); Baumert Springs (38.4195,
-122.9658); Dutch Bill Creek (38.4132, -122.9508); Duvoul Creek
(38.4527, -122.9525); Fife Creek (38.5584, -122.9922); Freezeout Creek
(38.4405, -123.0360); Green Valley Creek, (38.4445, -122.9185); Grub
Creek (38.4411, -122.9636); Hobson Creek (38.5334, -122.9401); Hulbert
Creek (38.5548, -123.0362); Jenner Gulch (38.4869, -123.0996); Kidd
Creek (38.5029, -123.0935); Lancel Creek (38.4247, -122.9322); Mark
West Creek (38.4961, -122.8489); Mays Canyon (38.4800, -122.9715);
North Fork Lancel Creek (38.4447, -122.9444); Pocket Canyon (38.4650, -
122.9267); Porter Creek (38.5435, -122.9332); Purrington Creek
(38.4083, -122.9307); Sheep House Creek (38.4820, -123.0921); Smith
Creek (38.4622, -122.9585); Unnamed Tributary (38.4560, -123.0246);
Unnamed Tributary (38.3976, -122.8994); Unnamed Tributary (38.3772, -
122.8938); Willow Creek (38.4249, -123.0022).
(ii) Austin Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111412. Outlet(s) = Austin
Creek (Lat 38.5098, Long -123.0680) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Austin
Creek (38.6262, -123.1347); Bear Pen Creek (38.5939, -123.1644); Big
Oat Creek (38.5615, -123.1299); Black Rock Creek (38.5586, -123.0730);
Blue Jay Creek (38.5618, -123.1399); Conshea Creek (38.5830, -
123.0824); Devil Creek (38.6163, -123.0425); East Austin Creek
(38.6349, -123.1238); Gilliam Creek (38.5803, -123.0152); Gray Creek
(38.6132, -123.0107); Thompson Creek (38.5747, -123.0300); Pole
Mountain Creek (38.5122, -123.1168); Red Slide Creek (38.6039, -
123.1141); Saint Elmo Creek (38.5130, -123.1125); Schoolhouse Creek
(38.5595, -123.0175); Spring Creek (38.5041, -123.1364); Sulphur Creek
(38.6187, -123.0553); Ward Creek (38.5720, -123.1547).
(iii) Mark West Hydrologic Sub-area 111423. Outlet(s) = Mark West
Creek (Lat 38.4962, Long -122.8492) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Humbug
Creek (38.5412, -122.6249); Laguna de Santa Rosa (38.4526, -122.8347);
Mark West Creek (38.5187, -122.5995); Pool Creek (38.5486, -122.7641);
Pruit Creek (38.5313, -122.7615); Windsor Creek (38.5484, -122.8101).
(iv) Warm Springs Hydrologic Sub-area 111424. Outlet(s) = Dry Creek
(Lat 38.5862, Long -122.8577) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Angel Creek
(38.6101, -122.9833); Crane Creek (38.6434, -122.9451); Dry Creek
(38.7181, -123.0091); Dutcher Creek (38.7223, -122.9770); Felta Creek
(38.5679, -122.9379); Foss Creek (38.6244, -122.8754); Grape Creek
(38.6593, -122.9707); Mill Creek (38.5976, -122.9914); North Slough
Creek (38.6392, -122.8888); Palmer Creek (38.5770, -122.9904); Pena
Creek (38.6384, -123.0743); Redwood Log Creek (38.6705, -123.0725);
Salt Creek (38.5543, -122.9133); Wallace Creek (38.6260, -122.9651);
Wine Creek (38.6662, -122.9682); Woods Creek (38.6069, -123.0272).
(v) Geyserville Hydrologic Sub-area 111425. Outlet(s) = Russian
River (Lat 38.6132, Long -122.8321) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ash
Creek (38.8556, -123.0082); Bear Creek (38.7253, -122.7038); Bidwell
Creek (38.6229, -122.6320); Big Sulphur Creek (38.8279, -122.9914);
Bluegum Creek (38.6988, -122.7596); Briggs Creek (38.6845, -122.6811);
Coon Creek (38.7105, -122.6957); Crocker Creek (38.7771, -122.9595);
Edwards Creek (38.8592, -123.0758); Foote Creek (38.6433, -122.6797);
Foss Creek (38.6373, -122.8753); Franz Creek (38.5726, -122.6343); Gill
Creek (38.7552, -122.8840); Gird Creek (38.7055, -122.8311); Ingalls
Creek (38.7344, -122.7192); Kellog Creek (38.6753, -122.6422); Little
Briggs Creek (38.7082, -122.7014); Maacama Creek (38.6743, -122.7431);
McDonnell Creek (38.7354, -122.7338); Mill Creek (38.7009, -122.6490);
Miller Creek (38.7211, -122.8608); Oat Valley Creek (38.8461, -
123.0712); Redwood Creek (38.6342, -122.6720); Sausal Creek (38.6924, -
122.7930); South Fork Gill Creek (38.7420, -122.8760); Unnamed
Tributary (38.7329, -122.8601); Yellowjacket Creek (38.6666, -122.6308).
(vi) Sulphur Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111426. Outlet(s) = Big
Sulphur Creek (Lat 38.8279, Long -122.9914) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Alder Creek (38.8503, -122.8953); Anna Belcher Creek (38.7537, -
122.7586); Big Sulphur Creek (38.8243, -122.8774); Frasier Creek
(38.8439, -122.9341); Humming Bird Creek (38.8460, -122.8596); Little
Sulphur Creek (38.7469, -122.7425); Lovers Gulch (38.7396, -122.8275);
North Branch Little Sulphur Creek (38.7783, -122.8119); Squaw Creek
(38.8199, -122.7945).
(vii) Ukiah Hydrologic Sub-area 111431. Outlet(s) = Russian River
(Lat 38.8828, Long -123.0557) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Pieta Creek
(38.8622, -122.9329).
(viii) Forsythe Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 111433. Outlet(s) = West
Branch Russian River (Lat 39.2257, Long -123.2012) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Bakers Creek (39.2859, -123.2432); Eldridge Creek
(39.2250, -123.3309); Forsythe Creek (39.2976, -123.2963); Jack Smith
Creek (39.2754, -123.3421); Mariposa Creek (39.3472, -123.2625); Mill
Creek (39.2969, -123.3360); Salt Hollow Creek (39.2585, -123.1881);
Seward Creek (39.2606, -123.2646); West Branch Russian River (39.3642,
-123.2334).
(2) Bodega Hydrologic Unit 1115--(i) Salmon Creek Hydrologic Sub-
area 111510. Outlet(s) = Salmon Creek (Lat 38.3554, Long -123.0675)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Coleman Valley Creek (38.3956, -123.0097);
Faye Creek (38.3749, -123.0000); Finley Creek (38.3707, -123.0258);
Salmon Creek (38.3877, -122.9318); Tannery Creek (38.3660, -122.9808).
(ii) Estero Americano Hydrologic Sub-area 111530. Outlet(s) =
Estero Americano (Lat 38.2939, Long -123.0011) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Estero Americano (38.3117, -122.9748); Ebabias Creek (38.3345, -
122.9759).
(3) Marin Coastal Hydrologic Unit 2201--(i) Walker Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 220112. Outlet(s) = Walker Creek (Lat 38.2213, Long -
122.9228); Millerton Gulch (38.1055, -122.8416) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Chileno Creek (38.2145, -122.8579); Frink Canyon (38.1761, -
122.8405); Millerton Gulch (38.1376, -122.8052); Verde Canyon (38.1630,
-122.8116); Unnamed Tributary (38.1224, -122.8095); Walker Creek
(38.1617, -122.7815).
(ii) Lagunitas Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 220113. Outlet(s) =
Lagunitas Creek (Lat 38.0827, Long -122.8274) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Cheda Creek (38.0483, -122.7329); Devil's Gulch (38.0393, -
122.7128); Giacomini Creek (38.0075, -122.7386); Horse Camp Gulch
(38.0078, -122.7624); Lagunitas Creek (37.9974, -122.7045); Olema Creek
(37.9719, -122.7125); Quarry Gulch (38.0345, -122.7639); San Geronimo
Creek (38.0131, -122.6499); Unnamed Tributary (37.9893, -122.7328);
Unnamed Tributary (37.9976, -122.7553).
(iii) Point Reyes Hydrologic Sub-area 220120. Outlet(s) = Creamery
Bay Creek (Lat 38.0779, Long -122.9572); East Schooner Creek (38.0913,
-122.9293); Home Ranch (38.0705, -122.9119); Laguna Creek (38.0235, -
122.8732); Muddy Hollow Creek (38.0329, -122.8842) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Creamery Bay Creek (38.0809, -122.9561); East Schooner Creek
[[Page 52563]]
(38.0928, -122.9159); Home Ranch Creek (38.0784, -122.9038); Laguna
Creek (38.0436, -122.8559); Muddy Hollow Creek (38.0549, -122.8666).
(iv) Bolinas Hydrologic Sub-area 220130. Outlet(s) = Easkoot Creek
(Lat 37.9026, Long -122.6474); McKinnon Gulch (37.9126, -122.6639);
Morse Gulch (37.9189, -122.6710); Pine Gulch Creek (37.9218, -
122.6882); Redwood Creek (37.8595, -122.5787); Stinson Gulch (37.9068,
-122.6517); Wilkins Creek (37.9343, -122.6967) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Easkoot Creek (37.8987, -122.6370); Kent Canyon (37.8866, -
122.5800); McKinnon Gulch (37.9197, -122.6564); Morse Gulch (37.9240, -
122.6618); Pine Gulch Creek (37.9557, -122.7197); Redwood Creek
(37.9006, -122.5787); Stinson Gulch (37.9141, -122.6426); Wilkins Creek
(37.9450, -122.6910).
(4) San Mateo Hydrologic Unit 2202--(i) San Mateo Coastal
Hydrologic Sub-area 220221. Outlet(s) = Denniston Creek (37.5033, -
122.4869); Frenchmans Creek (37.4804, -122.4518); San Pedro Creek
(37.5964, -122.5057) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Denniston Creek
(37.5184, -122.4896); Frenchmans Creek (37.5170, -122.4332); Middle
Fork San Pedro Creek (37.5758, -122.4591); North Fork San Pedro Creek
(37.5996, -122.4635).
(ii) Half Moon Bay Hydrologic Sub-area 220222. Outlet(s) =
Pilarcitos Creek (Lat 37.4758, Long -122.4493) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Apanolio Creek (37.5202, -122.4158); Arroyo Leon Creek (37.4560, -
122.3442); Mills Creek (37.4629, -122.3721); Pilarcitos Creek (37.5259,
-122.3980); Unnamed Tributary (37.4705, -122.3616).
(iii) Tunitas Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 220223. Outlet(s) = Lobitos
Creek (Lat 37.3762, Long -122.4093); Tunitas Creek (37.3567, -122.3999)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: East Fork Tunitas Creek (37.3981, -
122.3404); Lobitos Creek (37.4246, -122.3586); Tunitas Creek (37.4086,
-122.3502).
(iv) San Gregorio Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 220230. Outlet(s) = San
Gregorio Creek (Lat 37.3215, Long -122.4030) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Alpine Creek (37.3062, -122.2003); Bogess Creek (37.3740, -
122.3010); El Corte Madera Creek (37.3650, -122.3307); Harrington Creek
(37.3811, -122.2936); La Honda Creek (37.3680, -122.2655); Langley
Creek (37.3302, -122.2420); Mindego Creek (37.3204, -122.2239); San
Gregorio Creek (37.3099, -122.2779); Woodruff Creek (37.3415, -122.2495).
(v) Pescadero Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 220240. Outlet(s) =
Pescadero Creek (Lat 37.2669, Long -122.4122); Pomponio Creek (37.2979,
-122.4061) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bradley Creek (37.2819, -
122.3802); Butano Creek (37.2419, -122.3165); Evans Creek (37.2659, -
122.2163); Honsinger Creek (37.2828, -122.3316); Little Boulder Creek
(37.2145, -122.1964); Little Butano Creek (37.2040, -122.3492); Oil
Creek (37.2572, -122.1325); Pescadero Creek (37.2320, -122.1553);
Lambert Creek (37.3014, -122.1789); Peters Creek (37.2883, -122.1694);
Pomponio Creek (37.3030, -122.3805); Slate Creek (37.2530, -122.1935);
Tarwater Creek (37.2731, -122.2387); Waterman Creek (37.2455, -122.1568).
(5) Bay Bridge Hydrologic UnitT 2203--(i) San Rafael Hydrologic
Sub-area 220320. Outlet(s) = Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio (Lat
37.8917, Long -122.5254); Corte Madera Creek (37.9425, -122.5059)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio (37.9298,
-122.5723); Cascade Creek (37.9867, -122.6287); Cascade Creek (37.9157,
-122.5655); Larkspur Creek (37.9305, -122.5514); Old Mill Creek
(37.9176, -122.5746); Ross Creek (37.9558, -122.5752); San Anselmo
Creek (37.9825, -122.6420); Sleepy Hollow Creek (38.0074, -122.5794);
Tamalpais Creek (37.9481, -122.5674).
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) Santa Clara Hydrologic Unit 2205--(i) Coyote Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 220530. Outlet(s) = Coyote Creek (Lat 37.4629, Long -121.9894;
37.2275, -121.7514) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Aguague
(37.3907, -121.7836); Coyote Creek (37.2778, -121.8033; 37.1677, -
121.6301); Upper Penitencia Creek (37.3969, -121.7577).
(ii) Guadalupe River--San Jose Hydrologic Sub-area 220540.
Outlet(s) = Coyote Creek (Lat 37.2778, Long -121.8033) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Coyote Creek (37.2275, -121.7514).
(iii) Palo Alto Hydrologic Sub-area 220550. Outlet(s) = Guadalupe
River (Lat 37.4614, Long -122.0240); San Francisquito Creek (37.4658, -
122.1152); Stevens Creek (37.4456, -122.0641) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Bear Creek (37.4164, -122.2690); Corte Madera Creek (37.4073, -
122.2378); Guadalupe River (37.3499, -.121.9094); Los Trancos (37.3293,
-122.1786); McGarvey Gulch (37.4416, -122.2955); Squealer Gulch
(37.4335, -122.2880); Stevens Creek (37.2990, -122.0778); West Union
Creek (37.4528, -122.3020).
(7) San Pablo Hydrologic Unit 2206--(i) Petaluma River Hydrologic
Sub-area 220630. Outlet(s) = Petaluma River (Lat 38.1111, Long -
122.4944) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Adobe Creek (38.2940, -122.5834);
Lichau Creek (38.2848, -122.6654); Lynch Creek (38.2748, -122.6194);
Petaluma River (38.3010, -122.7149); Schultz Slough (38.1892, -
122.5953); San Antonio Creek (38.2049, -122.7408); Unnamed Tributary
(38.3105, -122.6146); Willow Brook (38.3165, -122.6113).
(ii) Sonoma Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 220640. Outlet(s) = Sonoma
Creek (Lat 38.1525, Long -122.4050) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Agua
Caliente Creek (38.3368, -122.4518); Asbury Creek (38.3401, -122.5590);
Bear Creek (38.4656, -122.5253); Calabazas Creek (38.4033, -122.4803);
Carriger Creek (38.3031, -122.5336); Graham Creek (38.3474, -122.5607);
Hooker Creek (38.3809, -122.4562); Mill Creek (38.3395, -122.5454);
Nathanson Creek (38.3350, -122.4290); Rodgers Creek (38.2924, -
122.5543); Schell Creek (38.2554, -122.4510); Sonoma Creek (38.4507, -
122.4819); Stuart Creek (38.3936, -122.4708); Yulupa Creek (38.3986, -
122.5934).
(iii) Napa River Hydrologic Sub-area 220650. Outlet(s) = Napa River
(Lat 38.0786, Long -122.2468) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bale Slough
(38.4806, -122.4578); Bear Canyon Creek (38.4512, -122.4415); Bell
Canyon Creek (38.5551, -122.4827); Brown's Valley Creek (38.3251, -
122.3686); Canon Creek (38.5368, -122.4854); Carneros Creek (38.3108, -
122.3914); Conn Creek (38.4843, -122.3824); Cyrus Creek (38.5776, -
122.6032); Diamond Mountain Creek (38.5645, -122.5903); Dry Creek
(38.4334, -122.4791); Dutch Henery Creek (38.6080, -122.5253); Garnett
Creek (38.6236, -122.5860); Huichica Creek (38.2811, -122.3936);
Jericho Canyon Creek (38.6219, -122.5933); Miliken Creek (38.3773, -
122.2280); Mill Creek (38.5299, -122.5513); Murphy Creek (38.3155, -
122.2111); Napa Creek (38.3047, -122.3134); Napa River (38.6638, -
122.6201); Pickle Canyon Creek (38.3672, -122.4071); Rector Creek
(38.4410, -122.3451); Redwood Creek (38.3765, -122.4466); Ritchie Creek
(38.5369, -122.5652); Sarco Creek (38.3567, -122.2071); Soda Creek
(38.4156, -122.2953); Spencer Creek (38.2729, -122.1909); Sulphur Creek
(38.4895, -122.5088); Suscol Creek (38.2522, -122.2157); Tulucay Creek
(38.2929, -122.2389); Unnamed Tributary (38.4248, -122.4935); Unnamed
Tributary (38.4839, -122.5161); York Creek (38.5128, -122.5023).
(8) Big Basin Hydrologic Unit 3304--(i) Davenport Hydrologic Sub-
area 330411. Outlet(s) = Baldwin Creek (Lat 36.9669, -122.1232);
Davenport Landing Creek (37.0231, -122.2153); Laguna Creek (36.9824, -
122.1560); Liddell Creek (37.0001, -122.1816); Majors Creek (36.9762, -
122.1423); Molino Creek (37.0368, -122.2292); San Vicente
[[Page 52564]]
Creek (37.0093, -122.1940); Scott Creek (37.0404, -122.2307); Waddell
Creek (37.0935, -122.2762); Wilder Creek (36.9535, -122.0775) upstream
to endpoint(s) in: Baldwin Creek (37.0126, -122.1006); Bettencourt
Creek (37.1081, -122.2386); Big Creek (37.0832, -122.2175); Davenport
Landing Creek (37.0475, -122.1920); East Branch Waddell Creek (37.1482,
-122.2531); East Fork Liddell Creek (37.0204, -122.1521); Henry Creek
(37.1695, -122.2751); Laguna Creek (37.0185, -122.1287); Little Creek
(37.0688, -122.2097); Majors Creek (36.9815, -122.1374); Middle Fork
East Fork Liddell Creek (37.0194, -122.1608); Mill Creek (37.1034, -
122.2218); Mill Creek (37.0235, -122.2218); Molino Creek (37.0384, -
122.2125); Peasley Gulch (36.9824, -122.0861); Queseria Creek (37.0521,
-122.2042); San Vicente Creek (37.0417, -122.1741); Scott Creek
(37.1338, -122.2306); West Branch Waddell Creek (37.1697, -122.2642);
West Fork Liddell Creek (37.0117, -122.1763); Unnamed Tributary
(37.0103, -122.0701); Wilder Creek (37.0107, -122.0770).
(ii) San Lorenzo Hydrologic Sub-area 330412. Outlet(s) = Arana
Gulch Creek (Lat 36.9676, Long -122.0028); San Lorenzo River (36.9641,
-122.0125) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arana Gulch Creek (37.0270, -
121.9739); Bean Creek (37.0956, -122.0022); Bear Creek (37.1711, -
122.0750); Boulder Creek (37.1952, -122.1892); Bracken Brae Creek
(37.1441, -122.1459); Branciforte Creek (37.0701, -121.9749); Crystal
Creek (37.0333, -121.9825); Carbonera Creek (37.0286, -122.0202);
Central Branch Arana Gulch Creek (37.0170, -121.9874); Deer Creek
(37.2215, -122.0799); Fall Creek (37.0705, -122.1063); Gold Gulch Creek
(37.0427, -122.1018); Granite Creek (37.0490, -121.9979); Hare Creek
(37.1544, -122.1690); Jameson Creek (37.1485, -122.1904); Kings Creek
(37.2262, -122.1059); Lompico Creek (37.1250, -122.0496); Mackenzie
Creek (37.0866, -122.0176); Mountain Charlie Creek (37.1385, -
121.9914); Newell Creek (37.1019, -122.0724); San Lorenzo River
(37.2276, -122.1384); Two Bar Creek (37.1833, -122.0929); Unnamed
Tributary (37.2106, -122.0952); Unnamed Tributary (37.2032, -122.0699);
Zayante Creek (37.1062, -122.0224).
(iii) Aptos-Soquel Hydrologic Sub-area 330413. Outlet(s) = Aptos
Creek (Lat 36.9692, Long -121.9065); Soquel Creek (36.9720, -121.9526)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Amaya Creek (37.0930, -121.9297); Aptos
Creek (37.0545, -121.8568); Bates Creek (37.0099, -121.9353); Bridge
Creek (37.0464, -121.8969); East Branch Soquel Creek (37.0690, -
121.8297); Hester Creek (37.0967, -121.9458); Hinckley Creek (37.0671,
-121.9069); Moores Gulch (37.0573, -121.9579); Valencia Creek (37.0323,
-121.8493); West Branch Soquel Creek (37.1095, -121.9606).
(iv) Ano Nuevo Hydrologic Sub-area 330420. Outlet(s) = Ano Nuevo
Creek (Lat 37.1163, Long -122.3060); Gazos Creek (37.1646, -122.3625);
Whitehouse Creek (37.1457, -122.3469) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ano
Nuevo Creek (37.1269, -122.3039); Bear Gulch (37.1965, -122.2773);
Gazos Creek (37.2088, -122.2868); Old Womans Creek (37.1829, -
122.3033); Whitehouse Creek (37.1775, -122.2900).
(9) Maps of critical habitat for the Central California Coast
Steelhead ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 52565]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.015
[[Page 52566]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.016
[[Page 52567]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.017
[[Page 52568]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.018
[[Page 52569]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.019
[[Page 52570]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.020
[[Page 52571]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.021
[[Page 52572]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.022
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 52573]]
(i) South-Central California Coast Steelhead (O. mykiss). Critical
habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the following
CALWATER Hydrologic Units:
(1) Pajaro River Hydrologic Unit 3305--(i) Watsonville Hydrologic
Sub-area 330510. Outlet(s) = Pajaro River (Lat 36.8506, Long -121.8101)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Banks Canyon Creek (36.9958, -121.7264);
Browns Creek (37.0255, -121.7754); Casserly Creek (36.9902, -121.7359);
Corralitos Creek (37.0666, -121.8359); Gaffey Creek (36.9905, -
121.7132); Gamecock Canyon (37.0362, -121.7587); Green Valley Creek
(37.0073, -121.7256); Ramsey Gulch (37.0447, -121.7755); Redwood Canyon
(37.0342, -121.7975); Salsipuedes Creek (36.9350, -121.7426); Shingle
Mill Gulch (37.0446, -121.7971).
(ii) Santa Cruz Mountains Hydrologic Sub-area 330520. Outlet(s) =
Pajaro River (Lat 36.9010, Long -121.5861); Bodfish Creek (37.0041, -
121.6667); Pescadero Creek (36.9125, -121.5882); Tar Creek (36.9304, -
121.5520); Uvas Creek (37.0146, -121.6314) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Blackhawk Canyon (37.0168, -121.6912); Bodfish Creek (36.9985, -
121.6859); Little Arthur Creek (37.0299, -121.6874); Pescadero Creek
(36.9826, -121.6274); Tar Creek (36.9558, -121.6009); Uvas Creek
(37.0660, -121.6912).
(iii) South Santa Clara Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 330530.
Outlet(s) = San Benito River (Lat 36.8961, Long -121.5625); Pajaro
River (36.9222, -121.5388) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Dos
Picachos (36.8866, -121.3184); Bodfish Creek (37.0080, -121.6652);
Bodfish Creek (37.0041, -121.6667); Carnadero Creek (36.9603, -
121.5328); Llagas Creek (37.1159, -121.6938); Miller Canal (36.9698, -
121.4814); Pacheco Creek (37.0055, -121.3598); San Felipe Lake
(36.9835, -121.4604); Tar Creek (36.9304, -121.5520); Tequisquita
Slough (36.9170, -121.3887); Uvas Creek (37.0146, -121.6314).
(iv) Pacheco-Santa Ana Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 330540. Outlet(s)
= Arroyo Dos Picachos (Lat 36.8866, Long -121.3184); Pacheco Creek
(37.0055, -121.3598) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Dos Picachos
(36.8912, -121.2305); Cedar Creek (37.0922, -121.3641); North Fork
Pacheco Creek (37.0514, -121.2911); Pacheco Creek (37.0445, -121.2662);
South Fork Pacheco Creek (37.0227, -121.2603).
(v) San Benito River Hyddrologic Sub-area 330550. Outlet(s) = San
Benito River (Lat 36.7838, Long -121.3731) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Bird Creek (36.7604, -121.4506); Pescadero Creek (36.7202, -121.4187);
San Benito River (36.3324, -120.6316); Sawmill Creek (36.3593, -120.6284).
(2) Carmel River Hydrologic Unit 3307--(i) Carmel River Hydrologic
Sub-area 330700. Outlet(s) = Carmel River (Lat 36.5362, Long -121.9285)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Aqua Mojo Creek (36.4711, -121.5407); Big
Creek (36.3935, -121.5419); Blue Creek (36.2796, -121.6530); Boronda
Creek (36.3542, -121.6091); Bruce Fork (36.3221, -121.6385); Cachagua
Creek (36.3909 , -121.5950); Carmel River (36.2837, -121.6203); Danish
Creek (36.3730, -121.7590); Hitchcock Canyon Creek (36.4470, -
121.7597); James Creek (36.3235, -121.5804); Las Garzas Creek (36.4607,
-121.7944); Millers Fork (36.2961, -121.5697); Pinch Creek (36.3236, -
121.5574); Pine Creek (36.3827, -121.7727); Potrero Creek (36.4801, -
121.8258); Rana Creek (36.4877, -121.5840); Rattlesnake Creek (36.3442,
-121.7080); Robertson Canyon Creek (36.4776, -121.8048); Robertson
Creek (36.3658, -121.5165); San Clemente Creek (36.4227, -121.8115);
Tularcitos Creek (36.4369, -121.5163); Ventana Mesa Creek (36.2977, -
121.7116).
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Santa Lucia Hydrologic Unit 3308-(i) Santa Lucia Hydrologic
Sub-area 330800. Outlet(s) = Alder Creek (Lat 35.8578, Long -121.4165);
Big Creek (36.0696, -121.6005); Big Sur River (36.2815, -121.8593);
Bixby Creek (36.3713, -121.9029); Garrapata Creek (36.4176, -121.9157);
Limekiln Creek (36.0084, -121.5196); Little Sur River (36.3350, -
121.8934); Malpaso Creek (36.4814, -121.9384); Mill Creek (35.9825, -
121.4917); Partington Creek (36.1753, -121.6973); Plaskett Creek
(35.9195, -121.4717); Prewitt Creek (35.9353, -121.4760); Rocky Creek
(36.3798, -121.9028); Salmon Creek (35.3558, -121.3634); San Jose Creek
(36.5259, -121.9253); Vicente Creek (36.0442, -121.5855); Villa Creek
(35.8495, -121.4087); Willow Creek (35.8935, -121.4619) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Alder Creek (35.8685, -121.3974); Big Creek (36.0830, -
121.5884); Big Sur River (36.2490, -121.7269); Bixby Creek (36.3715, -
121.8440); Devil's Canyon Creek (36.0773, -121.5695); Garrapata Creek
(36.4042, -121.8594); Joshua Creek (36.4182, -121.9000); Limekiln Creek
(36.0154, -121.5146); Little Sur River (36.3312, -121.7557); Malpaso
Creek (36.4681, -121.8800); Mill Creek (35.9907, -121.4632); North Fork
Big Sur River (36.2178, -121.5948); Partington Creek (36.1929, -
121.6825); Plaskett Creek (35.9228, -121.4493); Prewitt Creek (35.9419,
-121.4598); Redwood Creek (36.2825, -121.6745); Rocky Creek (36.3805, -
121.8440); San Jose Creek (36.4662, -121.8118); South Fork Little Sur
River (36.3026, -121.8093); Vicente Creek (36.0463, -121.5780); Villa
Creek (35.8525, -121.3973); Wildcat Canyon Creek (36.4124, -121.8680);
Williams Canyon Creek (36.4466, -121.8526); Willow Creek (35.9050, -
121.3851).
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Salinas River Hydrologic Unit 3309-(i) Neponset Hydrologic Sub-
area 330911. Outlet(s) = Salinas River (Lat 36.7498, Long -121.8055);
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Gabilan Creek (36.6923, -121.6300); Old
Salinas River (36.7728, -121.7884); Tembladero Slough (36.6865, -121.6409).
(ii) Chualar Hydrologic Sub-area 330920. Outlet(s) = Gabilan Creek
(Lat 36.6923, Long -121.6300) upstream.
(iii) Soledad Hydrologic Sub-area 330930. Outlet(s) = Salinas River
(Lat 36.4878, Long -121.4688) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Seco
River (36.2644, -121.3812); Reliz Creek (36.2438, -121.2881).
(iv) Upper Salinas Valley Hydrologic Sub-area 330940. Outlet(s) =
Salinas River (Lat 36.3183, Long -121.1837) upstream.
(v) Arroyo Seco Hydrologic Sub-area 330960. Outlet(s) = Arroyo Seco
River (Lat 36.2644, Long -121.3812); Reliz Creek ( 36.2438, -121.2881);
Vasqueros Creek (36.2648, -121.3368) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo
Seco River (36.2041, -121.5002); Calaboose Creek (36.2942, -121.5082);
Church Creek (36.2762, -121.5877); Horse Creek (36.2046, -121.3931);
Paloma Creek (36.3195, -121.4894); Piney Creek (36.3023, -121.5629);
Reliz Creek (36.1935, -121.2777); Rocky Creek (36.2676, -121.5225);
Santa Lucia Creek (36.1999, -121.4785); Tassajara Creek (36.2679, -
121.6149); Vaqueros Creek (36.2479, -121.3369); Willow Creek (36.2059,
-121.5642).
(vi) Gabilan Range Hydrologic Sub-area 330970. Outlet(s) = Gabilan
Creek (Lat 36.7800, -121.5836) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Gabilan
Creek (36.7335, -121.4939).
(vii) Paso Robles Hydrologic Sub-area 330981. Outlet(s) = Salinas
River (Lat 35.9241, Long -120.8650) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Atascadero Creek (35.4468, -120.7010); Graves Creek (35.4838, -
120.7631); Jack Creek (35.5815, -120.8560); Nacimiento River (35.7610,
-120.8853); Paso Robles Creek (35.5636, -120.8455); Salinas River
(35.3886, -120.5582); San Antonio River (35.7991, -120.8849); San
Marcos Creek (35.6734, -120.8140); Santa Margarita Creek (35.3923, -
120.6619); Santa Rita Creek
[[Page 52574]]
(35.5262, -120.8396); Sheepcamp Creek (35.6145, -120.7795); Summit
Creek (35.6441, -120.8046); Tassajera Creek (35.3895, -120.6926); Trout
Creek (35.3394, -120.5881); Willow Creek (35.6107, -120.7720).
(5) Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit 3310--(i) San Carpoforo Hydrologic
Sub-area 331011. Outlet(s) = San Carpoforo Creek (Lat 35.7646, Long -
121.3247) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dutra Creek (35.8197, -121.3273);
Estrada Creek (35.7710, -121.2661); San Carpoforo Creek (35.8202, -
121.2745); Unnamed Tributary (35.7503, -121.2703); Wagner Creek
(35.8166, -121.2387).
(ii) Arroyo De La Cruz Hydrologic Sub-area 331012. Outlet(s) =
Arroyo De La Cruz (Lat 35.7097, Long -121.3080) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Arroyo De La Cruz (35.6986, -121.1722); Burnett Creek (35.7520, -
121.1920); Green Canyon Creek (35.7375 , -121.2314); Marmolejo Creek
(35.6774, -121.1082); Spanish Cabin Creek (35.7234, -121.1497); Unnamed
Tributary (35.7291, -121.1977); West Fork Burnett Creek (35.7516, -
121.2075).
(iii) San Simeon Hydrologic Sub-area 331013. Outlet(s) = Arroyo del
Corral (Lat 35.6838, Long -121.2875); Arroyo del Puerto (35.6432, -
121.1889); Little Pico Creek (35.6336, -121.1639); Oak Knoll Creek
(35.6512, -121.2197); Pico Creek (35.6155, -121.1495); San Simeon Creek
(35.5950, -121.1272) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Laguna
(35.6895, -121.2337); Arroyo del Corral (35.6885, -121.2537); Arroyo
del Puerto (35.6773, -121.1713); Little Pico Creek (35.6890, -
121.1375); Oak Knoll Creek (35.6718, -121.2010); North Fork Pico Creek
(35.6886, -121.0861); San Simeon Creek (35.6228, -121.0561); South Fork
Pico Creek (35.6640, -121.0685); Steiner Creek (35.6032, -121.0640);
Unnamed Tributary (35.6482, -121.1067); Unnamed Tributary (35.6616, -
121.0639); Unnamed Tributary (35.6741, -121.0981); Unnamed Tributary
(35.6777, -121.1503); Unnamed Tributary (35.6604, -121.1571); Unnamed
Tributary (35.6579, -121.1356); Unnamed Tributary (35.6744, -121.1187);
Unnamed Tributary (35.6460, -121.1373); Unnamed Tributary (35.6839, -
121.0955); Unnamed Tributary (35.6431, -121.0795); Unnamed Tributary
(35.6820, -121.2130); Unnamed Tributary (35.6977, -121.2613); Unnamed
Tributary (35.6702, -121.1884); Unnamed Tributary (35.6817, -121.0885);
Van Gordon Creek (35.6286, -121.0942).
(iv) Santa Rosa Hydrologic Sub-area 331014. Outlet(s) = Santa Rosa
Creek (Lat 35.5685, Long -121.1113) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Green
Valley Creek (35.5511, -120.9471); Perry Creek (35.5323-121.0491);
Santa Rosa Creek (35.5525, -120.9278); Unnamed Tributary (35.5965, -
120.9413); Unnamed Tributary (35.5684, -120.9211); Unnamed Tributary
(35.5746, -120.9746).
(v) Villa Hydrologic Sub-area 331015. Outlet(s) = Villa Creek (Lat
35.4601, Long -120.9704) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Unnamed Tributary
(35.4798, -120.9630); Unnamed Tributary (35.5080, -121.0171); Unnamed
Tributary (35.5348, -120.8878); Unnamed Tributary (35.5510, -120.9406);
Unnamed Tributary (35.5151, -120.9497); Unnamed Tributary (35.4917, -
120.9584); Unnamed Tributary (35.5173, -120.9516); Villa Creek
(35.5352, -120.8942).
(vi) Cayucos Hydrologic Sub-area 331016. Outlet(s) = Cayucos Creek
(Lat 35.4491, Long -120.9079) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cayucos Creek
(35.5257, -120.9271); Unnamed Tributary (35.5157, -120.9005); Unnamed
Tributary (35.4943, -120.9513); Unnamed Tributary (35.4887, -120.8968).
(vii) Old Hydrologic Sub-area 331017. Outlet(s) = Old Creek (Lat
35.4345, Long -120.8868) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Old Creek
(35.4480, -120.8871)
(viii) Toro Hydrologic Sub-area 331018. Outlet(s) = Toro Creek (Lat
35.4126, Long -120.8739) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Toro Creek
(35.4945, -120.7934); Unnamed Tributary (35.4917, -120.7983).
(ix) Morro Hydrologic Sub-area 331021. Outlet(s) = Morro Creek (Lat
35.3762, Long -120.8642) upstream to endpoint(s) in: East Fork Morro
Creek (35.4218, -120.7282); Little Morro Creek (35.4155, -120.7532);
Morro Creek (35.4291, -120.7515); Unnamed Tributary (35.4292, -
120.8122); Unnamed Tributary (35.4458, -120.7906); Unnamed Tributary
(35.4122, -120.8335); Unnamed Tributary (35.4420, -120.7796).
(x) Chorro Hydrologic Sub-area 331022. Outlet(s) = Chorro Creek
(Lat 35.3413, Long -120.8388) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Chorro Creek
(35.3340, -120.6897); Dairy Creek (35.3699, -120.6911); Pennington
Creek (35.3655, -120.7144); San Bernardo Creek (35.3935, -120.7638);
San Luisito (35.3755, -120.7100); Unnamed Tributary (35.3821, -
120.7217); Unnamed Tributary (35.3815, -120.7350).
(xi) Los Osos Hydrologic Sub-area 331023. Outlet(s) = Los Osos
Creek (Lat 35.3379, Long -120.8273) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Los
Osos Creek (35.2718, -120.7627).
(xii) San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 331024. Outlet(s) =
San Luis Obispo Creek (Lat 35.1822, Long -120.7303) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Brizziolari Creek (35.3236, -120.6411); Froom Creek
(35.2525, -120.7144); Prefumo Creek (35.2615, -120.7081); San Luis
Obispo Creek (35.3393, -120.6301); See Canyon Creek (35.2306, -
120.7675); Stenner Creek (35.3447, -120.6584); Unnamed Tributary
(35.2443, -120.7655).
(xiii) Point San Luis Hydrologic Sub-area 331025. Outlet(s) = Coon
Creek (Lat 35.2590, Long -120.8951); Islay Creek (35.2753, -120.8884)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Coon Creek (35.2493, -120.7774); Islay
Creek (35.2574, -120.7810); Unnamed Tributary (35.2753, -120.8146);
Unnamed Tributary (35.2809, -120.8147); Unnamed Tributary (35.2648, -
120.7936).
(xiv) Pismo Hydrologic Sub-area 331026. Outlet(s) = Pismo Creek
(Lat 35.1336, Long -120.6408) upstream to endpoint(s) in: East Corral
de Piedra Creek (35.2343, -120.5571); Pismo Creek (35.1969, -120.6107);
Unnamed Tributary (35.2462, -120.5856).
(xv) Oceano Hydrologic Sub-area 331031. Outlet(s) = Arroyo Grande
Creek (Lat 35.1011, Long -120.6308) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo
Grande Creek (35.1868, -120.4881); Los Berros Creek (35.0791, -
120.4423).
(6) Maps of critical habitat for the South-Central Coast Steelhead
ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 52575]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.023
[[Page 52576]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.024
[[Page 52577]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.025
[[Page 52578]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.026
[[Page 52579]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.027
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 52580]]
(j) Southern California Steelhead (O. mykiss). Critical habitat is
designated to include the areas defined in the following CALWATER
Hydrologic Units:
(1) Santa Maria River Hydrologic Unit 3312--(i) Santa Maria
Hydrologic Sub-area 331210. Outlet(s) = Santa Maria River (Lat 34.9710,
Long -120.6504) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cuyama River (34.9058, -
120.3026); Santa Maria River (34.9042, -120.3077); Sisquoc River
(34.8941, -120.3063).
(ii) Sisquoc Hydrologic Sub-area 331220. Outlet(s) = Sisquoc River
(Lat 34.8941, Long -120.3063) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Abel Canyon
(34.8662, -119.8354); Davey Brown Creek (34.7541, -119.9650); Fish
Creek (34.7531, -119.9100); Foresters Leap (34.8112, -119.7545); La
Brea Creek (34.8804, -120.1316); Horse Creek (34.8372, -120.0171);
Judell Creek (34.7613, -119.6496); Manzana Creek (34.7082, -119.8324);
North Fork La Brea Creek (34.9681, -120.0112); Sisquoc River (34.7087,
-119.6409); South Fork La Brea Creek (34.9543, -119.9793); South Fork
Sisquoc River (34.7300, -119.7877); Unnamed Tributary (34.9342, -
120.0589); Unnamed Tributary (34.9510, -120.0140); Unnamed Tributary
(34.9687, -120.1419); Unnamed Tributary (34.9626, -120.1500); Unnamed
Tributary (34.9672, -120.1194); Unnamed Tributary (34.9682, -120.0990);
Unnamed Tributary (34.9973, -120.0662); Unnamed Tributary (34.9922, -
120.0294); Unnamed Tributary (35.0158, -120.0337); Unnamed Tributary
(34.9464, -120.0309); Unnamed Tributary (34.7544, -119.9476); Unnamed
Tributary (34.7466, -119.9047); Unnamed Tributary (34.7646, -119.8673);
Unnamed Tributary (34.8726, -119.9525); Unnamed Tributary (34.8884, -
119.9325); Unnamed Tributary (34.8659, -119.8982); Unnamed Tributary
(34.8677, -119.8513); Unnamed Tributary (34.8608, -119.8541); Unnamed
Tributary (34.8784, -119.8458); Unnamed Tributary (34.8615, -119.8159);
Unnamed Tributary (34.8694, -119.8229); Unnamed Tributary (34.7931, -
119.8485); Unnamed Tributary (34.7846, -119.8337); Unnamed Tributary
(34.7872, -119.7684); Unnamed Tributary (34.7866, -119.7552); Unnamed
Tributary (34.8129, -119.7714); Unnamed Tributary (34.7760, -119.7448);
Unnamed Tributary (34.7579, -119.7999); Unnamed Tributary (34.7510, -
119.7921); Unnamed Tributary (34.7769, -119.7149); Unnamed Tributary
(34.7617, -119.6878); Unnamed Tributary (34.7680, -119.6503); Unnamed
Tributary (34.7738, -119.6493); Unnamed Tributary (34.7332, -119.6286);
Unnamed Tributary (34.7519, -119.6209); Unnamed Tributary (34.7188, -
119.6673); Water Canyon (34.8754, -119.9324).
(2) Santa Ynex Hydrologic Unit 3314--(i) Mouth of Santa Ynez
Hydrologic Sub-area 331410. Outlet(s) = Santa Ynez River (Lat 34.6930,
Long -120.6033) upstream to endpoint(s) in: San Miguelito Creek
(34.6309, -120.4631).
(ii) Santa Ynez, Salsipuedes Hydrologic Sub-area 331420. Outlet(s)
= Santa Ynez River (Lat 34.6335, Long -120.4126) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: El Callejon Creek (34.5475, -120.2701); El Jaro Creek
(34.5327, -120.2861); Llanito Creek (34.5499, -120.2762); Salsipuedes
Creek (34.5711, -120.4076).
(iii) Santa Ynez, Zaca Hydrologic Sub-area 331430. Outlet(s) =
Santa Ynez River (Lat 34.6172, Long -120.2352) upstream.
(iv) Santa Ynez to Bradbury Hydrologic Sub-area 331440. Outlet(s) =
Santa Ynez River (Lat 34.5847, Long -120.1445) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Alisal Creek (34.5465, -120.1358); Hilton Creek (34.5839, -
119.9855); Quiota Creek (34.5370, -120.0321); San Lucas Creek (34.5558,
-120.0119); Santa Ynez River (34.5829, -119.9805); Unnamed Tributary
(34.5646, -120.0043).
(3) South Coast Hydrologic Unit 3315--(i) Arroyo Hondo Hydrologic
Sub-area 331510. Outlet(s) = Alegria Creek (Lat 34.4688, Long -
120.2720); Arroyo Hondo Creek (34.4735, -120.1415); Cojo Creek
(34.4531, -120.4165); Dos Pueblos Creek (34.4407, -119.9646); El
Capitan Creek (34.4577, -120.0225); Gato Creek (34.4497, -119.9885);
Gaviota Creek (34.4706, -120.2267); Jalama Creek (34.5119, -120.5023);
Refugio Creek (34.4627, -120.0696); Sacate Creek (34.4708, -120.2942);
San Augustine Creek (34.4588, -120.3542); San Onofre Creek (34.4699, -
120.1872); Santa Anita Creek (34.4669, -120.3066); Tecolote Creek
(34.4306, -119.9173) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Alegria Creek
(34.4713, -120.2714); Arroyo Hondo Creek (34.5112, -120.1704); Cojo
Creek (34.4840, -120.4106); Dos Pueblos Creek (34.5230, -119.9249); El
Capitan Creek (34.5238, -119.9806); Escondido Creek (34.5663, -
120.4643); Gato Creek (34.5203, -119.9758); Gaviota Creek (34.5176, -
120.2179); Jalama Creek (34.5031, -120.3615); La Olla (34.4836, -
120.4071); Refugio Creek (34.5109, -120.0508); Sacate Creek (34.4984, -
120.2993); San Augustine Creek (34.4598, -120.3561); San Onofre Creek
(34.4853, -120.1890); Santa Anita Creek (34.4742, -120.3085); Tecolote
Creek (34.5133, -119.9058); Unnamed Tributary (34.5527, -120.4548);
Unnamed Tributary (34.4972, -120.3026).
(ii) UCSB Slough Hydrologic Sub-area 331531. Outlet(s) = San Pedro
Creek (Lat 34.4179, Long -119.8295); Tecolito Creek (34.4179, -
119.8295) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Atascadero Creek (34.4345, -
119.7755); Carneros Creek (34.4674, -119.8584); Cieneguitas Creek
(34.4690, -119.7565); Glen Annie Creek (34.4985, -119.8666); Maria
Ygnacio Creek (34.4900, -119.7830); San Antonio Creek (34.4553, -
119.7826); San Pedro Creek (34.4774, -119.8359); San Jose Creek
(34.4919, -119.8032); Tecolito Creek (34.4478, -119.8763); Unnamed
Tributary (34.4774, -119.8846).
(iii) Mission Hydrologic Sub-area 331532. Outlet(s) = Arroyo Burro
Creek (Lat 34.4023, Long -119.7430); Mission Creek (34.4124, -
119.6876); Sycamore Creek (34.4166, -119.6668) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Arroyo Burro Creek (34.4620, -119.7461); Mission Creek (34.4482, -
119.7089); Rattlesnake Creek (34.4633, -119.6902); San Roque Creek
(34.4530, -119.7323); Sycamore Creek (34.4609, -119.6841).
(iv) San Ysidro Hydrologic Sub-area 331533. Outlet(s) = Montecito
Creek (Lat 34.4167, Long -119.6344); Romero Creek (34.4186, -119.6208);
San Ysidro Creek (34.4191, -119.6254); upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cold
Springs Creek (34.4794, -119.6604); Montecito Creek (34.4594, -
119.6542); Romero Creek (34.4452, -119.5924); San Ysidro Creek
(34.4686, -119.6229); Unnamed Tributary (34.4753, -119.6437).
(v) Carpinteria Hydrologic Sub-area 331534. Outlet(s) = Arroyo
Paredon (Lat 34.4146, Long -119.5561); Carpenteria Lagoon (Carpenteria
Creek) (34.3904, -119.5204); Rincon Lagoon (Rincon Creek) (34.3733, -
119.4769) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo Paredon (34.4371, -
119.5481); Carpinteria Creek (34.4429, -119.4964); El Dorado Creek
(34.4682, -119.4809); Gobernador Creek (34.4249, -119.4746); Rincon
Lagoon (Rincon Creek) (34.3757, -119.4777); Steer Creek (34.4687, -
119.4596); Unnamed Tributary (34.4481, -119.5112).
(4) Ventura River Hydrologic Unit 4402--(i) Ventura Hydrologic Sub-
area 440210. Outlet(s) = Ventura Estuary (Ventura River) (Lat 34.2742,
Long -119.3077) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Canada Larga (34.3675, -
119.2377); Hammond Canyon (34.3903,
[[Page 52581]]
-119.2230); Sulphur Canyon (34.3727, -119.2362); Unnamed Tributary
(34.3344, -119.2426); Unnamed Tributary (34.3901, -119.2747).
(ii) Ventura Hydrologic Sub-area 440220. Outlet(s) = Ventura River
(Lat 34.3517, Long -119.3069) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Coyote Creek
(34.3735, -119.3337); Matilija Creek (34.4846, -119.3086); North Fork
Matilija Creek (34.5129, -119.2737); San Antonio Creek (34.4224, -
119.2644); Ventura River (34.4852, -119.3001).
(iii) Lions Hydrologic Sub-area 440231. Outlet(s) = Lion Creek (Lat
34.4222, Long -119.2644) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Lion Creek
(34.4331, -119.2004).
(iv) Thatcher Hydrologic Sub-area 440232. Outlet(s) = San Antonio
Creek (Lat 34.4224, Long -119.2644) upstream to endpoint(s) in: San
Antonio Creek (34.4370, -119.2417).
(5) Santa Clara Calleguas Hydrologic Unit 4403--(i) Mouth of Santa
Clara Hydrologic Sub-area 440310. Outlet(s) = Santa Clara River (Lat
34.2348, Long -119.2568) upstream.
(ii) Santa Clara, Santa Paula Hydrologic Sub-area 440321. Outlet(s)
= Santa Clara River (Lat 34.2731, Long -119.1474) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Santa Paula Creek (34.4500, -119.0563).
(iii) Sisar Hydrologic Sub-area 440322. Outlet(s) = Sisar Creek
(Lat 34.4271, Long -119.0908) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Sisar Creek
(34.4615, -119.1312).
(iv) Sespe, Santa Clara Hydrologic Sub-area 440331. Outlet(s) =
Santa Clara River (Lat 34.3513, Long -119.0397) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Sespe Creek (34.4509, -118.9258).
(v) Sespe Hydrologic Sub-area 440332. Outlet(s) = Sespe Creek (Lat
34.4509, Long -118.9258) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Abadi Creek
(34.6099, -119.4223); Alder Creek (34.5691, -118.9528); Bear Creek
(34.5314, -119.1041); Chorro Grande Creek (34.6285, -119.3245);
Fourfork Creek (34.4735, -118.8893); Howard Creek (34.5459, -119.2154);
Lady Bug Creek (34.5724, -119.3173); Lion Creek (34.5047, -119.1101);
Little Sespe Creek (34.4598, -118.8938); Munson Creek (34.6152, -
119.2963); Park Creek (34.5537, -119.0028); Piedra Blanca Creek
(34.6109, -119.1838); Pine Canyon Creek (34.4488, -118.9661); Portrero
John Creek (34.6010, -119.2695); Red Reef Creek (34.5344, -119.0441);
Rose Valley Creek (34.5195, -119.1756); Sespe Creek (34.6295, -
119.4412); Timber Creek (34.5184, -119.0698); Trout Creek (34.5869, -
119.1360); Tule Creek (34.5614, -119.2986); Unnamed Tributary (34.5125,
-118.9311); Unnamed Tributary (34.5537, -119.0088); Unnamed Tributary
(34.5537, -119.0048); Unnamed Tributary (34.5757, -119.3051); Unnamed
Tributary (34.5988, -119.2736); Unnamed Tributary (34.5691, -119.3428);
West Fork Sespe Creek (34.5106, -119.0502).
(vi) Santa Clara, Hopper Canyon, Piru Hydrologic Sub-area 440341.
Outlet(s) = Santa Clara River (Lat 34.3860, Long -118.8711) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Hopper Creek (34.4263, -118.8309); Piru Creek (34.4613,
-118.7537); Santa Clara River (34.3996, -118.7837).
(6) Santa Monica Bay Hydrologic Unit 4404--(i) Topanga Hydrologic
Sub-area 440411. Outlet(s) = Topanga Creek (Lat 34.0397, Long -
118.5831) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Topanga Creek (34.0838, -118.5980).
(ii) Malibu Hydrologic Sub-area 440421. Outlet(s) = Malibu Creek
(Lat 34.0322, Long -118.6796) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Malibu Creek
(34.0648, -118.6987).
(iii) Arroyo Sequit Hydrologic Sub-area 440444. Outlet(s) = Arroyo
Sequit (Lat 34.0445, Long -118.9338) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Arroyo
Sequit (34.0839, -118.9186); West Fork Arroyo Sequit (34.0909, -118.9235).
(7) Calleguas Hydrologic Unit 4408--(i) Calleguas Estuary
Hydrologic Sub-area 440813. Outlet(s) = Mugu Lagoon (Calleguas Creek)
(Lat 34.1093, Long -119.0917) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mugu Lagoon
(Calleguas Creek) (Lat 34.1125, Long -119.0816).
(ii) [Reserved]
(8) San Juan Hydrologic Unit 4901--(i) Middle Trabuco Hydrologic
Sub-area 490123. Outlet(s) = Trabuco Creek (Lat 33.5165, Long -
117.6727) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Trabuco Creek (33.5264, -117.6700).
(ii) Lower San Juan Hydrologic Sub-area 490127. Outlet(s) = San
Juan Creek (Lat 33.4621, Long -117.6842) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
San Juan Creek (33.4929, -117.6610); Trabuco Creek (33.5165, -117.6727).
(iii) San Mateo Hydrologic Sub-area 490140. Outlet(s) = San Mateo
Creek (Lat 33.3851, Long -117.5933) upstream to endpoint(s) in: San
Mateo Creek (33.4779, -117.4386); San Mateo Canyon (33.4957, -117.4522).
(9) Maps of critical habitat for the Southern California Steelhead
ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22P
[[Page 52582]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.028
[[Page 52583]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.029
[[Page 52584]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.030
[[Page 52585]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.031
[[Page 52586]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.032
[[Continued on page 52587]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]]
[[pp. 52587-52627]]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon
and Steelhead in California
[[Continued from page 52586]]
[[Page 52587]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.033
[[Page 52588]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.034
[[Page 52589]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.035
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 52590]]
(k) Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha).
Critical habitat is designated to include the areas defined in the
following CALWATER Hydrologic Units:
(1) Tehama Hydrologic Unit 5504--(i) Lower Stony Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 550410. Outlet(s) = Glenn-Colusa Canal (Lat 39.6762, Long -
122.0151); Stony Creek (39.7122, -122.0072) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Glenn-Colusa Canal (39.7122, -122.0072); Stony Creek (39.8178, -122.3253).
(ii) Red Bluff Hydrologic Sub-area 550420. Outlet(s) = Sacramento
River (Lat 39.6998, Long -121.9419) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Antelope Creek (40.2023, -122.1275); Big Chico Creek (39.7757, -
121.7525); Blue Tent Creek (40.2284, -122.2551); Burch Creek (39.8526,
-122.1502); Butler Slough (40.1579, -122.1320); Coyote Creek (40.0929,
-122.1621); Craig Creek (40.1617, -122.1350); Deer Creek (40.0144, -
121.9481); Dibble Creek (40.2003, -122.2420); Dye Creek (40.0904, -
122.0767); Elder Creek (40.0526, -122.1717); Jewet Creek (39.8913, -
122.1005); Kusal Slough (39.7577, -121.9699); Lindo Channel (39.7623, -
121.7923); McClure Creek (40.0074, -122.1729); Mill Creek (40.0550, -
122.0317); Mud Creek (39.7931, -121.8865); New Creek (40.1873, -
122.1350); Oat Creek (40.0847, -122.1658); Pine Creek (39.8760, -
121.9777); Red Bank Creek (40.1391, -122.2157); Reeds Creek (40.1687, -
122.2377); Rice Creek (39.8495, -122.1626); Rock Creek (39.8189, -
121.9124); Salt Creek (40.1869, -122.1845); Singer Creek (39.9200, -
121.9612); Thomes Creek (39.8822, -122.5527); Toomes Creek (39.9808, -
122.0642); Unnamed Tributary (39.8532, -122.1627); Unnamed Tributary
(40.1682, -122.1459); Unnamed Tributary (40.1867, -122.1353).
(2) Whitmore Hydrologic Unit 5507--(i) Inks Creek Hydrologic Sub-
area 550711. Outlet(s) = Inks Creek (Lat 40.3305, Long -122.1520)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Inks Creek 40.3418, -122.1332).
(ii) Battle Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550712 Outlet(s) = Battle
Creek (Lat 40.4083, Long -122.1102) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Battle
Creek (40.4228, -121.9975); North Fork Battle Creek (40.4746, -
121.8436); South Fork Battle Creek (40.3549, -121.6861).
(iii) Inwood Hydrologic Sub-area 550722. Outlet(s) = Bear Creek
(Lat 40.4352, Long -122.2039) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear Creek
(40.4859, -122.1529); Dry Creek (40.4574, -122.1993).
(3) Redding Hydrologic Unit 5508--(i) Enterprise Flat Hydrologic
Sub-area 550810. Outlet(s)= Sacramento River (Lat 40.2526, Long -
122.1707) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Anderson Creek (40.3910, -
122.1984); Ash Creek (40.4451, -122.1815); Battle Creek (40.4083, -
122.1102); Churn Creek (40.5431, -122.3395); Clear Creek (40.5158, -
122.5256); Cow Creek (40.5438, -122.1318); Olney Creek (40.5262, -
122.3783); Paynes Creek (40.2810, -122.1587); Stillwater Creek
(40.4789, -122.2597).
(ii) Lower Cottonwood Hydrologic Sub-area 550820. Outlet(s) =
Cottonwood Creek (Lat 40.3777, Long -122.1991) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Cottonwood Creek (40.3943, -122.5254); Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek
(40.3314, -122.6663); South Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.1578, -122.5809).
(4) Eastern Tehama Hydrologic Unit 5509--(i) Big Chico Creek
Hydrologic Sub-area 550914. Outlet(s) = Big Chico Creek (Lat 39.7757,
Long -121.7525) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big Chico Creek (39.8873, -
121.6979).
(ii) Deer Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550920. Outlet(s) = Deer Creek
(Lat 40.0144, Long -121.9481) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Deer Creek
(40.2019, -121.5130).
(iii) Upper Mill Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550942. Outlet(s) = Mill
Creek (Lat 40.0550, Long -122.0317) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mill
Creek (40.3997, -121.5131).
(iv) Antelope Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550963. Outlet(s) =
Antelope Creek (Lat 40.2023, Long -122.1272) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Antelope Creek (40.2416, -121.8630); North Fork Antelope Creek
(40.2691, -121.8226); South Fork Antelope Creek (40.2309, -121.8325).
(5) Sacramento Delta Hydrologic Unit 5510--(i) Sacramento Delta
Hydrologic Sub-area 551000. Outlet(s) = Sacramento River (Lat 38.0612,
Long -121.7948) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cache Slough (38.3086, -
121.7633); Delta Cross Channel (38.2433, -121.4964); Elk Slough
(38.4140, -121.5212); Elkhorn Slough (38.2898, -121.6271); Georgiana
Slough (38.2401, -121.5172); Miners Slough (38.2864, -121.6051);
Prospect Slough (38.1477, -121.6641); Sevenmile Slough (38.1171, -
121.6298); Steamboat Slough (38.3052, -121.5737); Sutter Slough
(38.3321, -121.5838); Threemile Slough (38.1155, -121.6835); Yolo
Bypass (38.5800, -121.5838).
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) Valley-Putah-Cache Hydrologic Unit 5511--(i) Lower Putah Creek
Hydrologic Sub-area 551120. Outlet(s) = Yolo Bypass (Lat 38.5800, Long
-121.5838) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Sacramento Bypass (38.6057, -
121.5563); Yolo Bypass (38.7627, -121.6325).
(ii) [Reserved]
(7) Marysville Hydrologic Unit 5515--(i) Lower Yuba River
Hydrologic Sub-area 551510. Outlet(s) = Bear River (Lat 38.9398, Long -
121.5790) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear River (38.9783, -121.5166).
(ii) Lower Yuba River Hydrologic Sub-area 551530. Outlet(s) = Yuba
River (Lat 39.1270, Long -121.5981) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Yuba
River (39.2203, -121.3314).
(iii) Lower Feather River Hydrologic Sub-area 551540. Outlet(s) =
Feather River (Lat 39.1270, Long -121.5981) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Feather River (39.5203, -121.5475).
(8) Yuba River Hydrologic Unit 5517--(i) Browns Valley Hydrologic
Sub-Area 551712. Outlet(s) = Dry Creek (Lat 39.2207, Long -121.4088);
Yuba River (39.2203, -121.3314) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dry Creek
(39.3201, -121.3117); Yuba River (39.2305, -121.2813).
(ii) Englebright Hydrologic Sub-area 551714. Outlet(s) = Yuba River
(Lat 39.2305, Long -121.2813) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Yuba River
(39.2388, -121.2698).
(9) Valley-American Hydrologic Unit 5519--(i) Lower American
Hydrologic Sub-area 551921. Outlet(s) = American River (Lat 38.5971,
Long -121.5088) upstream to endpoint(s) in: American River (38.5669, -
121.3827).
(ii) Pleasant Grove Hydrologic Sub-area 551922. Outlet(s) =
Sacramento River (Lat 38.5965, Long -121.5086) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Feather River (39.1270, -121.5981).
(10) Colusa Basin Hydrologic Unit 5520--(i) Sycamore-Sutter
Hydrologic Sub-area 552010. Outlet(s) = Sacramento River (Lat 38.7604,
Long -121.6767) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Tisdale Bypass (39.0261, -
121.7456).
(ii) Sutter Bypass Hydrologic Sub-area 552030. Outlet(s) =
Sacramento River (Lat 38.7849, Long -121.6219) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Butte Creek (39.1987, -121.9285); Butte Slough (39.1987, -
121.9285); Nelson Slough (38.8901, -121.6352); Sacramento Slough
(38.7843, -121.6544); Sutter Bypass (39.1417, -121.8196; 39.1484, -
121.8386); Tisdale Bypass (39.0261, -121.7456); Unnamed Tributary
(39.1586, -121.8747).
(iii) Butte Basin Hydrologic Sub-area 552040. Outlet(s) = Butte
Creek (Lat 39.1990, Long -121.9286); Sacramento River (39.4141, -
122.0087) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Butte creek (39.7095, -121.7506);
Colusa Bypass (39.2276,
[[Page 52591]]
-121.9402); Unnamed Tributary (39.6762, -122.0151).
(11) Butte Creek Hydrologic Unit 5521--Upper Little Chico
Hydrologic Sub-area 552130. Outlet(s) = Butte Creek (Lat 39.7096, -
121.7504) upstream to endpoint(s) in Butte Creek (39.8665, -121.6344).
(12) Shasta Bally Hydrologic Unit 5524--(i) Platina Hydrologic Sub-
area 552436. Outlet(s) = Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek (Lat 40.3314, -
122.6663) upstream to endpoint(s) in Beegum Creek (40.3066, -122.9205);
Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.3655, -122.7451).
(ii) Spring Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 552440. Outlet(s) =
Sacramento River (Lat 40.5943, Long -122.4343) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Sacramento River (40.6116, -122.4462)
(iii) Kanaka Peak Hydrologic Sub-area 552462. Outlet(s) = Clear
Creek (Lat 40.5158, Long -122.5256) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clear
Creek (40.5992, -122.5394).
(13) Maps of critical habitat for the Central Valley Spring Run
Chinook ESU follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 52592]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.036
[[Page 52593]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.037
[[Page 52594]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.038
[[Page 52595]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.039
[[Page 52596]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.040
[[Page 52597]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.041
[[Page 52598]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.042
[[Page 52599]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.043
[[Page 52600]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.044
[[Page 52601]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.045
[[Page 52602]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.046
[[Page 52603]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.047
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 52604]]
(l) Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss). Critical habitat is
designated to include the areas defined in the following CALWATER
Hydrologic Units:
(1) Tehama Hydrologic Unit 5504--(i) Lower Stony Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 550410. Outlet(s) = Stony Creek (Lat 39.6760, Long -121.9732)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Stony Creek (39.8199, -122.3391).
(ii) Red Bluff Hydrologic Sub-area 550420. Outlet(s) = Sacramento
River (Lat 39.6998, Long -121.9419) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Antelope Creek (40.2023, -122.1272); Big Chico Creek (39.7757, -
121.7525); Blue Tent Creek (40.2166, -122.2362); Burch Creek (39.8495,
-122.1615); Butler Slough (40.1579, -122.1320); Craig Creek (40.1617, -
122.1350); Deer Creek (40.0144, -121.9481); Dibble Creek (40.2002, -
122.2421); Dye Creek (40.0910, -122.0719); Elder Creek (40.0438, -
122.2133); Lindo Channel (39.7623, -121.7923); McClure Creek (40.0074,
-122.1723); Mill Creek (40.0550, -122.0317); Mud Creek (39.7985, -
121.8803); New Creek (40.1873, -122.1350); Oat Creek (40.0769, -
122.2168); Red Bank Creek (40.1421, -122.2399); Rice Creek (39.8495, -
122.1615); Rock Creek (39.8034, -121.9403); Salt Creek (40.1572, -
122.1646); Thomes Creek (39.8822, -122.5527); Unnamed Tributary
(40.1867, -122.1353); Unnamed Tributary (40.1682, -122.1459); Unnamed
Tributary (40.1143, -122.1259); Unnamed Tributary (40.0151, -122.1148);
Unnamed Tributary (40.0403, -122.1009); Unnamed Tributary (40.0514, -
122.0851); Unnamed Tributary (40.0530, -122.0769).
(2) Whitmore Hydrologic Unit 5507--(i) Inks Creek Hydrologic Sub-
area 550711. Outlet(s) = Inks Creek (Lat 40.3305, Long -122.1520)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Inks Creek (40.3418, -122.1332).
(ii) Battle Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550712. Outlet(s) = Battle
Creek (Lat 40.4083, Long -122.1102) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Baldwin
Creek (40.4369, -121.9885); Battle Creek (40.4228, -121.9975); Brush
Creek (40.4913, -121.8664); Millseat Creek (40.4808, -121.8526); Morgan
Creek (40.3654, -121.9132); North Fork Battle Creek (40.4877, -
121.8185); Panther Creek (40.3897, -121.6106); South Ditch (40.3997, -
121.9223); Ripley Creek (40.4099, -121.8683); Soap Creek (40.3904, -
121.7569); South Fork Battle Creek (40.3531, -121.6682); Unnamed
Tributary (40.3567, -121.8293); Unnamed Tributary (40.4592, -121.8671).
(iii) Ash Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550721. Outlet(s) = Ash Creek
(Lat 40.4401, Long -122.1375) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ash Creek
(40.4628, -122.0066).
(iv) Inwood Hydrologic Sub-area 550722. Outlet(s) = Ash Creek (Lat
40.4628, Long -122.0066); Bear Creek (40.4352, -122.2039) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Ash Creek (40.4859, -121.8993); Bear Creek (40.5368, -
121.9560); North Fork Bear Creek (40.5736, -121.8683).
(v) South Cow Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550731. Outlet(s) = South
Cow Creek (Lat 40.5438, Long -122.1318) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
South Cow Creek (40.6023, -121.8623).
(vi) Old Cow Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550732. Outlet(s) = Clover
Creek (Lat 40.5788, Long -122.1252); Old Cow Creek (40.5442, -122.1317)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clover Creek (40.6305, -122.0304); Old Cow
Creek (40.6295, -122.9619).
(vii) Little Cow Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550733. Outlet(s) =
Little Cow Creek (Lat 40.6148, -122.2271); Oak Run Creek (40.6171, -
122.1225) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Little Cow Creek (40.7114, -
122.0850); Oak Run Creek (40.6379, -122.0856).
(3) Redding Hydrologic Unit 5508--(i) Enterprise Flat Hydrologic
Sub-area 550810. Outlet(s) = Sacramento River (Lat 40.2526, Long -
122.1707) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Ash Creek (40.4401, -122.1375);
Battle Creek (40.4083, -122.1102); Bear Creek (40.4360, -122.2036);
Calaboose Creek (40.5742, -122.4142); Canyon Creek (40.5532, -
122.3814); Churn Creek (40.5986, -122.3418); Clear Creek (40.5158, -
122.5256); Clover Creek (40.5788, -122.1252); Cottonwood Creek
(40.3777, -122.1991); Cow Creek (40.5437, -122.1318); East Fork
Stillwater Creek (40.6495, -122.2934); Inks Creek (40.3305, -122.1520);
Jenny Creek (40.5734, -122.4338); Little Cow Creek (40.6148, -
122.2271); Oak Run (40.6171, -122.1225); Old Cow Creek (40.5442, -
122.1317); Olney Creek (40.5439, -122.4687); Oregon Gulch (40.5463, -
122.3866); Paynes Creek (40.3024, -122.1012); Stillwater Creek
(40.6495, -122.2934); Sulphur Creek (40.6164, -122.4077).
(ii) Lower Cottonwood Hydrologic Sub-area 550820. Outlet(s) =
Cottonwood Creek (Lat 40.3777, Long -122.1991) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Cold Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.2060, -122.6608); Cottonwood Creek
(40.3943, -122.5254); Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.3314, -
122.6663); North Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.4539, -122.5610); South Fork
Cottonwood Creek (40.1578, -122.5809).
(4) Eastern Tehama Hydrologic Unit 5509--(i) Big Chico Creek
Hydrologic Sub-area 550914. Outlet(s) = Big Chico Creek (Lat 39.7757,
Long -121.7525) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big Chico Creek (39.8898, -
121.6952).
(ii) Deer Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550920. Outlet(s) = Deer Creek
(Lat 40.0142, Long -121.9476) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Deer Creek
(40.2025, -121.5130).
(iii) Upper Mill Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550942. Outlet(s) = Mill
Creek (Lat 40.0550, Long -122.0317) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mill
Creek (40.3766, -121.5098); Rocky Gulch Creek (40.2888, -121.5997).
(iv) Dye Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550962. Outlet(s) = Dye Creek
(Lat 40.0910, Long -122.0719) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dye Creek
(40.0996, -121.9612).
(v) Antelope Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 550963. Outlet(s) = Antelope
Creek (Lat 40.2023, Long -122.1272) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Antelope Creek (40.2416, -121.8630); Middle Fork Antelope Creek
(40.2673, -121.7744); North Fork Antelope Creek (40.2807, -121.7645);
South Fork Antelope Creek (40.2521, -121.7575).
(5) Sacramento Delta Hydrologic Unit 5510--Sacramento Delta
Hydrologic Sub-area 551000. Outlet(s) = Sacramento River (Lat 38.0653,
Long -121.8418) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cache Slough (38.2984, -
121.7490); Elk Slough (38.4140, -121.5212); Elkhorn Slough (38.2898, -
121.6271); Georgiana Slough (38.2401, -121.5172); Horseshoe Bend
(38.1078, -121.7117); Lindsey Slough (38.2592, -121.7580); Miners
Slough (38.2864, -121.6051); Prospect Slough (38.2830, -121.6641);
Putah Creek (38.5155, -121.5885); Sevenmile Slough (38.1171, -
121.6298); Streamboat Slough (38.3052, -121.5737); Sutter Slough
(38.3321, -121.5838); Threemile Slough (38.1155, -121.6835); Ulatis
Creek (38.2961, -121.7835); Unnamed Tributary (38.2937, -121.7803);
Unnamed Tributary (38.2937, -121.7804); Yolo Bypass (38.5800, -121.5838).
(6) Valley-Putah-Cache Hydrologic Unit 5511--Lower Putah Creek
Hydrologic Sub-area 551120. Outlet(s) = Sacramento Bypass (Lat 38.6057,
Long -121.5563); Yolo Bypass (38.5800, -121.5838) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Sacramento Bypass (38.5969, -121.5888); Yolo Bypass
(38.7627, -121.6325).
(7) American River Hydrologic Unit 5514--Auburn Hydrologic Sub-area
551422. Outlet(s) = Auburn Ravine (Lat 38.8921, Long -121.2181); Coon
Creek (38.9891, -121.2556); Doty Creek (38.9401, -121.2434) upstream to
[[Page 52605]]
endpoint(s) in: Auburn Ravine (38.8888, -121.1151); Coon Creek
(38.9659, -121.1781); Doty Creek (38.9105, -121.1244).
(8) Marysville Hydrologic Unit 5515--(i) Lower Bear River
Hydrologic Sub-area 551510. Outlet(s) = Bear River (Lat 39.9398, Long -
121.5790) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Bear River (39.0421, -121.3319).
(ii) Lower Yuba River Hydrologic Sub-area 551530. Outlet(s) = Yuba
River (Lat 39.1270, Long -121.5981) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Yuba
River (39.2203, -121.3314).
(iii) Lower Feather River Hydrologic Sub-area 551540. Outlet(s) =
Feather River (Lat 39.1264, Long -121.5984) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Feather River (39.5205, -121.5475).
(9) Yuba River Hydrologic Unit 5517--(i) Browns Valley Hydrologic
Sub-area 551712. Outlet(s) = Dry Creek (Lat 39.2215, Long -1121.4082);
Yuba River (39.2203, -1121.3314) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Dry Creek
(39.3232, Long -1121.3155); Yuba River (39.2305, -1121.2813).
(ii) Englebright Hydrologic Sub-area 551714. Outlet(s) = Yuba River
(Lat 39.2305, Long -1121.2813) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Yuba River
(39.2399, -1121.2689).
(10) Valley American Hydrologic Unit 5519--(i) Lower American
Hydrologic Sub-area 551921. Outlet(s) = American River (Lat 38.5971, -
1121.5088) upstream to endpoint(s) in: American River (38.6373, -
1121.2202); Dry Creek (38.7554, -1121.2676); Miner's Ravine (38.8429, -
1121.1178); Natomas East Main Canal (38.6646, -1121.4770); Secret
Ravine(38.8541, -1121.1223).
(ii) Pleasant Grove Hydrologic Sub-area 551922. Outlet(s) =
Sacramento River (Lat 38.6026, Long -1121.5155) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Auburn Ravine (38.8913, -1121.2424); Coon Creek (38.9883, -
1121.2609); Doty Creek (38.9392, -1121.2475); Feather River (39.1264, -
1121.5984).
(11) Colusa Basin Hydrologic Unit 5520--(i) Sycamore-Sutter
Hydrologic Sub-area 552010. Outlet(s) = Sacramento River (Lat 38.7604,
Long -1121.6767) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Tisdale Bypass (39.0261, -
1121.7456).
(ii) Sutter Bypass Hydrologic Sub-area 552030. Outlet(s) =
Sacramento River (Lat 38.7851, Long -1121.6238) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Butte Creek (39.1990, -1121.9286); Butte Slough (39.1987, -
1121.9285); Nelson Slough (38.8956, -1121.6180); Sacramento Slough
(38.7844, -1121.6544); Sutter Bypass (39.1586, -1121.8747).
(iii) Butte Basin Hydrologic Sub-area 552040. Outlet(s) = Butte
Creek (Lat 39.1990, Long -1121.9286); Sacramento River (39.4141, -
1122.0087) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Butte Creek (39.7096, -
1121.7504); Colusa Bypass (39.2276, -1121.9402); Little Chico Creek
(39.7380, -1121.7490); Little Dry Creek (39.6781, -1121.6580).
(12) Butte Creek Hydrologic Unit 5521--(i) Upper Dry Creek
Hydrologic Sub-area 552110. Outlet(s) = Little Dry Creek (Lat 39.6781,
-1121.6580) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Little Dry Creek (39.7424, -
1121.6213).
(ii) Upper Butte Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 552120. Outlet(s) =
Little Chico Creek (Lat 39.7380, Long -1121.7490) upstream to
endpoint(s) in: Little Chico Creek (39.8680, -1121.6660).
(iii) Upper Little Chico Hydrologic Sub-area 552130. Outlet(s) =
Butte Creek (Lat 39.7096, Long -1121.7504) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Butte Creek (39.8215, -1121.6468); Little Butte Creek (39.8159, -
1121.5819).
(13) Ball Mountain Hydrologic Unit 5523--Thomes Creek Hydrologic
Sub-area 552310. Outlet(s) = Thomes Creek (39.8822, -1122.5527)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Doll Creek (39.8941, -1122.9209); Fish
Creek (40.0176, -1122.8142); Snake Creek (39.9945, -1122.7788); Thomes
Creek (39.9455, -1122.8491); Willow Creek (39.8941, -1122.9209).
(14) Shasta Bally Hydrologic Unit 5524--(i) South Fork Hydrologic
Sub-area 552433. Outlet(s) = Cold Fork Cottonwood Creek (Lat 40.2060,
Long -1122.6608); South Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.1578, -1122.5809)
upstream to endpoint(s) in: Cold Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.1881, -
1122.8690); South Fork Cottonwood Creek (40.1232, -1122.8761).
(ii) Platina Hydrologic Sub-area 552436. Outlet(s) = Middle Fork
Cottonwood Creek (Lat 40.3314, Long -1122.6663) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Beegum Creek (40.3149, -1122.9776): Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek
(40.3512, -1122.9629).
(iii) Spring Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 552440. Outlet(s) =
Sacramento River (Lat 40.5943, Long -1122.4343) upstream to endpoint(s)
in: Middle Creek (40.5904, -1121.4825); Rock Creek (40.6155, -
1122.4702); Sacramento River (40.6116, -1122.4462); Salt Creek
(40.5830, -1122.4586); Unnamed Tributary (40.5734, -1122.4844).
(iv) Kanaka Peak Hydrologic Sub-area 552462. Outlet(s) = Clear
Creek (Lat 40.5158, Long -1122.5256) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Clear
Creek (40.5998, 122.5399).
(15) North Valley Floor Hydrologic Unit 5531--(i) Lower Mokelumne
Hydrologic Sub-area 553120. Outlet(s) = Mokelumne River (Lat 38.2104,
Long -1121.3804) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Mokelumne River (38.2263,
-1121.0241); Murphy Creek (38.2491, -1121.0119).
(ii) Lower Calaveras Hydrologic Sub-area 553130. Outlet(s) =
Calaveras River (Lat 37.9836, Long -1121.3110); Mormon Slough
(37.9456,-121.2907) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Calaveras River
(38.1025, -1120.8503); Mormon Slough (38.0532, -1121.0102); Stockton
Diverting Canal (37.9594, -1121.2024).
(16) Upper Calaveras Hydrologic Unit 5533--New Hogan Reservoir
Hydrologic Sub-area 553310. Outlet(s) = Calaveras River (Lat 38.1025,
Long -1120.8503) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Calaveras River (38.1502,
-1120.8143).
(17) Stanislaus River Hydrologic Unit 5534--Table Mountain
Hydrologic Sub-area 553410. Outlet(s) = Stanislaus River (Lat 37.8355,
Long -1120.6513) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Stanislaus River (37.8631,
-1120.6298).
(18) San Joaquin Valley Floor Hydrologic Unit 5535--(i) Riverbank
Hydrologic Sub-area 553530. Outlet(s) = Stanislaus River (Lat 37.6648,
Long -1121.2414) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Stanislaus River (37.8355,
-1120.6513).
(ii) Turlock Hydrologic Sub-area 553550. Outlet(s) = Tuolumne River
(Lat 37.6059, Long -1121.1739) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Tuolumne
River (37.6401, -1120.6526).
(iii) Montpelier Hydrologic Sub-area 553560. Outlet(s) = Tuolumne
River (Lat 37.6401, Long -1120.6526) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Tuolumne River (37.6721, -1120.4445).
(iv) El Nido-Stevinson Hydrologic Sub-area 553570. Outlet(s) =
Merced River (Lat 37.3505, Long -1120.9619) upstream to endpoint(s) in:
Merced River (37.3620, -1120.8507).
(v) Merced Hydrologic Sub-area 553580. Outlet(s) = Merced River
(Lat 37.3620, Long -1120.8507) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Merced River
(37.4982, -1120.4612).
(vi) Fahr Creek Hydrologic Sub-area 553590. Outlet(s) = Merced
River (Lat 37.4982, Long -1120.4612) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Merced
River (37.5081, -1120.3581).
(19) Delta-Mendota Canal Hydrologic Unit 5541--(i) Patterson
Hydrologic Sub-area 554110. Outlet(s) = San Joaquin River (Lat 37.6763,
Long -1121.2653) upstream to endpoint(s) in: San Joaquin River
(37.3491, -1120.9759).
(ii) Los Banos Hydrologic Sub-area 554120. Outlet(s) = Merced River
(Lat 37.3490, Long -1120.9756) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Merced River
(37.3505, -1120.9619).
[[Page 52606]]
(20) North Diablo Range Hydrologic Unit 5543--North Diablo Range
Hydrologic Sub-area 554300. Outlet(s) = San Joaquin River (Lat 38.0247,
Long -1121.8218) upstream to endpoint(s) in: San Joaquin River
(38.0246, -1121.7471).
(21) San Joaquin Delta Hydrologic Unit 5544--San Joaquin Delta
Hydrologic Sub-area 554400. Outlet(s) = San Joaquin River (Lat 38.0246,
Long -1121.7471) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Big Break (38.0160, -
1121.6849); Bishop Cut (38.0870, -1121.4158); Calaveras River (37.9836,
-1121.3110); Cosumnes River (38.2538, -1121.4074); Disappointment
Slough (38.0439, -1121.4201); Dutch Slough (38.0088, -1121.6281);
Empire Cut (37.9714, -1121.4762); False River (38.0479, -1121.6232);
Frank's Tract (38.0220, -1121.5997); Frank's Tract (38.0300, -
1121.5830); Holland Cut (37.9939, -1121.5757); Honker Cut (38.0680, -
1121.4589); Kellog Creek (37.9158, -1121.6051); Latham Slough (37.9716,
-1121.5122); Middle River (37.8216, -1121.3747); Mokelumne River
(38.2104, -1121.3804); Mormon Slough (37.9456,-121.2907); Mosher Creek
(38.0327, -1121.3650); North Mokelumne River (38.2274, -1121.4918); Old
River (37.8086, -1121.3274); Orwood Slough (37.9409, -1121.5332);
Paradise Cut (37.7605, -1121.3085); Pixley Slough (38.0443, -
1121.3868); Potato Slough (38.0440, -1121.4997); Rock Slough (37.9754,
-1121.5795); Sand Mound Slough (38.0220, -1121.5997); Stockton Deep
Water Channel (37.9957, -1121.4201); Turner Cut (37.9972, -1121.4434);
Unnamed Tributary (38.1165, -1121.4976); Victoria Canal (37.8891, -
1121.4895); White Slough (38.0818, -1121.4156); Woodward Canal
(37.9037, -1121.4973).
(22) Maps of critical habitat for the Central Valley Steelhead ESU
follow:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 52607]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.048
[[Page 52608]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.049
[[Page 52609]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.050
[[Page 52610]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.051
[[Page 52611]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.052
[[Page 52612]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.053
[[Page 52613]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.054
[[Page 52614]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.055
[[Page 52615]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.056
[[Page 52616]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.057
[[Page 52617]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.058
[[Page 52618]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.059
[[Page 52619]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.060
[[Page 52620]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.061
[[Page 52621]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.062
[[Page 52622]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.063
[[Page 52623]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.064
[[Page 52624]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.065
[[Page 52625]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.066
[[Page 52626]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.067
[[Page 52627]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02SE05.068
[FR Doc. 05-16389 Filed 9-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C