[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52487-52627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16389]



[[Page 52487]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 226



Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 
Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead 
in California; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[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., 
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.

0
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]

0
1. The authority citation of part 226 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

0
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.

[[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


[[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