federal register

23003

Monday

April 28, 1997

Part III

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 131

Water Quality Standards for Idaho;

Proposed Rule
23004 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL–5817–8]

Water Quality Standards for Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing water

quality standards that would be

applicable to the waters of the United

States in the State of Idaho. If

promulgated as final standards, they

will supersede those aspects of Idaho’s

water quality standards that EPA

disapproved in 1993 and 1996. EPA is

taking this action because it believes

those State water quality standards are

inconsistent with the Clean Water Act

and EPA’s implementing regulations.

The timing of this rulemaking is

designed to comply with a court order

directing EPA to propose standards by

April 21, 1997 and to promulgate final

standards 90 days thereafter. EPA is

proposing new use designations on

currently unclassified waters in the

State, and new use designations on 53

specified water body segments whose

use designations do not meet the goals

of the Clean Water Act and which have

not been justified by the State. EPA is

also proposing new temperature criteria

necessary to protect certain threatened

and endangered species and species

being considered for listing as

threatened and endangered. Finally,

EPA’s proposal addresses the State’s

mixing zone and anti-degradation

policies as well as its excluded waters

provision.

DATES: EPA will accept public

comments on this rulemaking until May

28, 1997. Comments postmarked after

this date may not be considered. EPA is

sponsoring two public hearings on

today’s proposed water quality

standards for Idaho on May 12, 1997.

The first is scheduled for 2–5:00 pm

(MDT), and the second for 6:30–9:30 pm

(MDT).

ADDRESSES: An original plus 2 copies,

and if possible an electronic version of

comments either in WordPerfect or

ASCII format, should be addressed to

Lisa Macchio, U.S. EPA Region 10,

Office of Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington, 98101.

The public hearings will be held in

Rooms A and B of the Department of

Environmental Quality Earl Chandler

Building, 1410 North Hilton, Boise,

Idaho.

The administrative record for today’s

proposed rule is available for public

inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of

Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington, 98101, between 8:00 a.m.

to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Macchio at U.S.EPA Region 10, Office of

Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington, 98101 (telephone: 206–

553–1834), or William Morrow in

U.S.EPA Headquarters at 202–260–3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

A. Potentially Affected Entities

B. Background

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

2. Factual Background

C. Unclassified Waters

1. Background

2. Idaho’s Unclassified Waters Provision

3. Federal Use Designation for Unclassified

Waters in Idaho

D. Stream Segments With Specific Beneficial

Use Designations

1. Background

2. EPA Review of Idaho’s Use Designations

3. Recent Idaho Actions

4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations for

Specific Water Body Segments

i. Primary Contact Recreation

ii. Cold Water Biota

iii. Salmonid Spawning

5. Request for Comment and Data

E. Temperature Criteria for Threatened and

Endangered Species

1. Background

2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon

i. EPA’s Review

ii. Idaho’s Temperature Criteria

iii. EPA’s Proposed Temperature Criteria

3. Freshwater Aquatic Snails

i. EPA’s Review

ii. Idaho’s Temperature Criteria

iii. EPA’s Proposed Temperature Criterion

4. Bull Trout

i. EPA’s Review

ii. Idaho’s Temperature Criteria

iii. EPA’s Proposed Temperature Criteria

and Bull Trout Distribution

F. Antidegradation Policy

G. Mixing Zone Policy

1. Idaho’s Existing Policy

2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho

H. Excluded Waters Provision

I. Federal Variances

J. Regulatory Impact Analysis

1. Use Attainability

2. Costs

i. Overview of Methodology to Estimate

Potential Costs Related to New Use

Designations

ii. Results for Stream Segments with

Specific Use Designations and

Unclassified Waters

iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate

Potential Costs Related to New

Temperature Criteria

K. Executive Order 12866

L. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

O. Executive Order 12875

A. Potentially Affected Entities

Citizens concerned with water quality

in Idaho may be interested in this

rulemaking. Entities discharging

pollutants to waters of the United States

in Idaho could be indirectly affected by

this rulemaking since water quality

standards are used in determining

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

limits. Categories and entities which

may ultimately be affected include:

Category Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry ............................................................... Industries discharging pollutants to surface waters in Idaho.

Municipalities ...................................................... Publicly-owned treatment works discharging pollutants to surface waters in Idaho.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding NPDES regulated

entities likely to be affected by this

action. This table lists the types of

entities that EPA is now aware could

potentially be affected by this action.

B. Background

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Under section 303 (33 U.S.C. 1313) of

the Clean Water Act (CWA), States are

required to develop water quality

standards for waters of the United States

within the State. Section 303(c)

provides that water quality standards

shall include the designated use or uses

to be made of the water and criteria

necessary to protect the uses. States are

required to review their water quality

standards at least once every three years

and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new

standards. The results of this triennial

review must be submitted to EPA, and

EPA must approve or disapprove any

new or revised standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23005

EPA regulations implementing section

303(c) are published at 40 CFR Part 131.

Under these rules, the minimum

elements that must be included in a

State’s water quality standards include:

use designations for all water bodies in

the State, water quality criteria

sufficient to protect those use

designations, and an anti-degradation

policy consistent with EPA’s water

quality standards. 40 CFR 131.6. States

may also include in their standards

policies generally affecting the

standards’ application and

implementation. See 40 CFR 131.13.

These policies are subject to EPA review

and approval.

The authority to review and to

approve or disapprove new or revised

water quality standards for EPA Region

X has been delegated from the

Administrator to the Regional

Administrator, and redelegated to the

Regional Director of Water. See EPA’s

Delegation Manual, § 2–10, dated

January 28, 1976, and EPA Region X’s

redelegation manual, §R10 1250.42,

September 12, 1995. The authority to

determine that new or revised standards

are needed, notwithstanding a prior

approval, has not been delegated, and so

remains with the Administrator.

Section 303(c) of the CWA authorizes

EPA to promulgate water quality

standards to supersede State standards

that have been disapproved, or in any

case where the Administrator

determines that a new or revised

standard is needed to meet the CWA’s

requirements. EPA is acting today to

promulgate standards superseding State

standards that have been deemed

disapproved by the U.S. District Court

for the Western District of Washington’s

in Idaho Conservation League v.

Browner (No. C96–807WD, February 20,

1997, herein ‘‘ICL v. Browner’’). Today’s

proposal represents a preliminary

determination by the Administrator that

each of the elements in today’s

rulemaking is necessary and

appropriate.

EPA’s usual practice when

promulgating a water quality standard is

to provide 45 days advance notice of a

hearing, and a public comment period

that extends at least until the date of the

hearing. 40 CFR § 25.5(a). However, the

regulations also allow for the

modification of specific deadlines

where necessary to accommodate the

specific provisions of court orders. Here,

EPA is under a court order to propose

standards in 60 days and to promulgate

90 days after proposal. A comment

period of 45 days would not allow EPA

sufficient time to analyze and consider

a substantial set of comments.

Accordingly, EPA is providing a

comment period of 30 days as well as

holding two public hearings on May 12,

1997. The demanding schedule for

promulgation of standards in this case

has also led EPA to propose a special

procedure by which the Regional

Administrator for Region 10 may grant

variances from EPA-designated uses

where, following promulgation of these

standards, information becomes

available showing that an EPAdesignated use is unattainable. See

section I. below for a detailed

discussion.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act requires federal agencies, in

consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) and National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to

insure that their actions are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

any listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

habitat of such species which have been

designated as ‘‘critical.’’ Consultation is

designed to assist federal agencies in

complying with the requirements of

section 7 by supplying a process within

which FWS and NMFS provide such

agencies with advice and guidance on

whether an action complies with the

substantive requirements of ESA.

Approval of State water quality

standards and federal promulgation of

water quality standards are considered

federal actions, and hence EPA is

required to comply with the

requirements of section 7 of ESA prior

to final promulgation.

As a result of EPA’s responsibilities

and duties under Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, EPA has

initiated informal consultation with

FWS and NMFS on this rulemaking. As

part of this process EPA is preparing a

biological assessment document which

will be submitted to FWS and NMFS

prior to the final rulemaking. EPA

expects to conclude consultation with

the Services prior to the final

rulemaking.

EPA developed today’s proposed

standards by application of existing

State requirements for development of

water quality standards set out in 40

CFR Part 131, EPA’s implementing

policies and procedures, and existing

methodologies for criteria development.

The basis for the proposed rule is

described more fully below in sections

C–I.

2. Factual Background

On July 11, 1994, Idaho submitted a

complete set of water quality standards

to EPA for review and approval.

Pursuant to section 303(c)(3) of the

CWA, EPA reviewed this complete set

of standards. Under the mistaken

assumption that all the standards

submitted in 1994 were new or revised,

EPA reviewed and approved or

disapproved all of the State’s standards

in a June 25, 1996 letter from Chuck

Clarke, Region X Regional

Administrator, to Wallace Cory,

Director, Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality. Specifically, the

letter disapproved the State’s default

use designation for unclassified waters,

the use designations for 53 waters with

designated uses, temperature criteria,

portions of the mixing zone and

antidegradation policies, the KinrossDelamar variance, and the excluded

waters provision. The letter stated that

EPA was approving the remainder of

Idaho’s water quality standards, subject

to completing the consultation required

under section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act.

Subsequent to the June 25, 1996

action, EPA Region X discovered

records that clarified that the standards

it had acted on included not only new

and revised standards, but also

standards which had been previously

approved in the same or substantially

the same form. This discovery was

significant because Region X had been

delegated authority to approve or

disapprove only new or revised State

standards; the Administrator has

reserved the authority to determine that

new or revised federal standards are

needed where State standards have

previously been approved. EPA

promptly notified the parties and the

court of this discovery.

To ensure that all the deficiencies in

Idaho’s standards were addressed in

these circumstances, by a November 22,

1996 memorandum from Chuck Clarke

to the Administrator, Region X

acknowledged its error and

recommended that the EPA

Administrator act pursuant to her

discretionary authority to fill those gaps

where Region X had acted beyond its

authority. On February 20, 1997, the

District Court in ICL v. Browner held

that EPA was obligated to promulgate

standards to supersede all of those

disapproved in the June 25, 1996 letter,

regardless of whether the standards

were new or revised.

C. Unclassified Waters

1. Background

Water quality standards consist of

designated beneficial uses, criteria

necessary to protect those uses, and an

antidegradation policy. Water quality

standards establish the ‘‘goals’’ for a

water body. Designated beneficial uses

determine what criteria apply to the

water body. In general, States have not
23006 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

had the resources to designate beneficial

uses on a segment-by-segment basis for

all of the State’s surface waters. States

usually initially designate beneficial

uses site-specifically for a subset of

water segments that are potentially

threatened by degradation, and then as

resources and information become

available gradually begin to classify the

remainder. This allows States to focus

limited resources on collecting

information to protect the water

segments at most risk. This approach

combined with a default use designation

for unclassified waters ensures all State

surface waters have designated

beneficial uses and are protected for

purposes of the Clean Water Act.

Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water

Act States the national goal of achieving

by July 1, 1983, ‘‘water quality which

provides for the protection and

propagation of fish, shellfish, and

wildlife and * * * recreation in and on

the water,’’ wherever attainable. These

national goals are commonly referred to

as the ‘‘fishable/swimmable’’ goals of

the Clean Water Act. Section

303(c)(2)(A) requires water quality

standards to ‘‘protect the public health

and welfare, enhance the quality of

water, and serve the purposes of this

Act.’’ EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR Part

131 interpret and implement these

provisions through a requirement that

water quality standards provide for

fishable/swimmable uses unless those

uses have been shown to be

unattainable, effectively creating a

rebuttable presumption of attainability.

Unless that presumption has been

rebutted, a default designation of

fishable/swimmable beneficial uses

apply.

Under 40 CFR § 131.10(j), States and

Tribes are required to conduct a use

attainability analysis (UAA) whenever

the State or Tribe designates or has

designated uses that do not include the

uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the

CWA, or when the State or Tribe wishes

to remove a designated use that is

specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act,

or adopt subcategories of uses that

require less stringent criteria. Section

131.10 lists grounds upon which a

finding of un-attainability may be based.

At a minimum, uses are considered by

EPA to be attainable if the uses can be

achieved when (1) effluent limitations

under Section 301(b)(1) (A) and (B) and

Section 306 are established for point

source dischargers, and (2) cost effective

and reasonable best management

practices are established for nonpoint

source dischargers.

A UAA is defined in 40 CFR

§ 131.3(g) as a ‘‘structured scientific

assessment of the factors affecting the

attainment of a use which may include

physical, chemical, biological, and

economic factors as described in

§ 131.10(g).’’ In a UAA, the physical,

chemical and biological factors affecting

the attainment of a use are evaluated

through a water body survey and

assessment. In addition, where the

economic impact of attaining a use is an

issue, those impacts may be

documented in the UAA.

2. Idaho’s Unclassified Waters Provision

Idaho’s regulations at 16.01.02.101.01.

adopted August 24, 1994, protected

unclassified surface waters for primary

contact recreation, unless the physical

characteristics of a water body

prevented primary contact recreation. In

those cases, the water body was

protected for secondary contact

recreation. While providing for

swimmable waters unless and until

such use is shown to be unattainable,

this provision did not provide any

protection for aquatic life, that is, the

‘‘fishable’’ component of fishable/

swimmable uses. In its June 1996 letter,

EPA disapproved this provision because

it did not protect unclassified waters for

‘‘protection and propagation of fish,

shellfish and wildlife’’ and because the

State had not demonstrated that such

uses were unattainable in unclassified

waters, as required by sections 101(a)

and 303(c) of the CWA and by EPA’s

regulations.

On December 1, 1996, Idaho adopted

a modified unclassified waters

provision which protects unclassified

waters for all recreational use in and on

the water and the protection and

propagation of fish, shellfish and

wildlife, ‘‘wherever attainable.’’ By

letter dated September 23, 1996, Idaho

explained that this language was not

intended to establish a default

designation for aquatic life, but rather

that the State contemplated that when

regulatory decisions such as NPDES

permit decisions arose, data would be

reviewed to determine the appropriate

beneficial use. Based on this letter and

conversations with Idaho’s Division of

Environmental Quality, it is EPA’s

understanding that under Idaho’s

intended interpretation, this provision

does not presume that unclassified

waters will be protected for fishable/

swimmable uses and does not require

that such uses be demonstrated to be

unattainable before a lesser use is

employed in regulatory decisions.

Idaho’s approach appears to shift the

burden so as to require a demonstration

that fishable/swimmable uses are

attainable before they will be protected.

This is inconsistent with the goals of

CWA § 101(a)(2) and the requirements

of CWA § 303(b)(2) and 40 CFR 131.10.

3. Federal Use Designation for

Unclassified Waters in Idaho

EPA is proposing to promulgate a

default use designation for unclassified

waters which provides for the

protection and propagation of fish,

shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in

and on the water, unless it is

demonstrated to EPA for a particular

water body that such use(s) are

unattainable. Demonstrations that a

fishable/swimmable use is unattainable

for a particular unclassified water body

can be made by applying for a variance

to the federal standard. The federal

variance procedure is discussed in

section I. The CWA specifies that States

are to establish water quality standards

which includes designating beneficial

uses. It is only when a State adopts

standards inconsistent with the CWA,

that EPA must promulgate replacement

standards. If Idaho formally designates a

beneficial use for a specific unclassified

water body, that water body would no

longer be subject to the proposed

unclassified waters provision. Such

designations are subject to EPA review

and approval under CWA § 303(c)(2). In

addition, if Idaho corrects the deficiency

in their current designated use for

unclassified waters, and EPA approves,

EPA will remove today’s federal

designated use for unclassified waters.

In order to provide for the protection

and propagation of aquatic life in

unclassified waters, it is necessary to

determine the predominant type of

aquatic life in Idaho’s surface waters.

Aquatic life in different ecosystems

have different needs. Salmonid fishes,

especially chinook salmon and bull

trout, are often referred to as cold-water

fish (ODEQ, 1995). Cold-water fish

occur in all of Idaho’s basins, with some

limited exceptions of isolated subbasins in southern Idaho. Table 1 shows

the non-salmonid fish found in Idaho

(Simpson and Wallace, 1982). These

fish are classified as cool/cold-and

warm-water species (ODEQ, 1995;

Simpson and Wallace, 1982; Sigler and

Sigler, 1987). Non-salmonid cool/coldwater fish native to Idaho include

several species of sculpin, dace, chub,

and suckers. The only known warmwater species of fish native to Idaho are

the Utah sucker and the Utah chub.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23007

TABLE 1.—NONSALMONID FISHES OF IDAHO (SIMPSON AND WALLACE, 1982)

Family Common names Introduced or native Warm or

cool/cold

CLUPEIDAE .............. American Shad, Herring .................................................................................... Introduced ................. Warm.

CENTRARCHIDAE .... Bass, Largemouth Bass, Pumpkinseed, White Crappie, Green Sunfish,

Warmouth, Bluegill.

Introduced ................. Warm.

Black Crappie, Smallmouth Bass ..................................................................... Introduced ................. Cool/Cold.

COTTIDAE ................ Bear Lake Sculpin, Mottled Sculpin, Paiute Sculpin, Shorthead Sculpin, Shoshone Sculpin, Slimy Sculpin, Torrent Sculpin, Wood River Sculpin.Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

ICTALURIDAE ........... Black Bullhead, Brown Bullhead, Channel Catfish, Tadpole Madtom, Flathead Catfish.Introduced ................. Warm.

CATOSTOMIDAE ...... Bluehead Sucker, Bridgelip Sucker, Largescale Sucker, Longnose Sucker,

Mountain Sucker.

Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

Utah Sucker ...................................................................................................... Native ........................ Warm.

GADIDAE .................. Burbot ................................................................................................................ Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

CYPRINIDAE ............. Common Carp, Fathead Minnow, Goldfish, Tench, Tui Chub ......................... Introduced ................. Warm.

Chiselmouth, Leatherside Chub, Leopard Dace, Longnose Dace, Northern

Squawfish, Peamouth, Redside Shiner, Speckled Dace, Lake Chub.

Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

Utah Chub ......................................................................................................... Native ........................ Warm.

POECILIIDAE ............ Guppy, Western Mosquitofish ........................................................................... Introduced ................. Warm.

PETROMYZONTIDAE Pacific Lamprey ................................................................................................. Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

ESOCIDAE ................ Northern Pike .................................................................................................... Introduced ................. Cool/Cold.

OSMERUS ................ Rainbow Smelt .................................................................................................. Introduced ................. Cool/Cold.

PERCOPSIDAE ......... Sand Roller ....................................................................................................... Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

ACIPENSERIDAE ..... White Sturgeon ................................................................................................. Native ........................ Cool/Cold.

PERCIDAE ................ Walleye, Yellow Perch ...................................................................................... Introduced ................. Cool/Cold.

The Utah Chub is native to the Bear

River basin and the Snake River basin

above Shoshone falls. It is also found in

the Wood River system and in Henry’s

Fork of the Snake River with its range

restricted to the area below Mesa Falls

(Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah

Chub prefers lake, pond and reservoir

environments and is tolerant of warmer

water temperatures (Simpson and

Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub is

considered a ‘‘nuisance’’ in trout waters,

and the Idaho Department of Fish and

Game has attempted, unsuccessfully to

eradicate Utah Chub from important

trout waters (Simpson and Wallace,

1982). Although no life cycle studies

have been conducted in Idaho, the

successful colonization of the Utah

Chub in trout waters would seem to

indicate that the Utah Chub can

reproduce and survive in cold water.

The Utah Sucker is also found in the

Bear River basin and the Snake River

basin above Shoshone Falls. Although

the temperature requirements for

different stages of its life cycle are

unknown, its geographic distribution

covers a wide range of warm to very

cold waters which suggest it is an

adaptable species (Simpson and

Wallace, 1982).

The majority of native Idaho fish are

classified as cold water species and the

presence of these species occurs

throughout the entire State. The only

two warm water native fish species are

of limited geographic range and also

occur where cold water native fish

species exist. In addition, of the 240

water segments that Idaho has

specifically designated beneficial uses

for in their water quality standards (see

IDAPA 16.01.02.100.–161.), only 3 have

been designated as warm water biota. Of

those three, EPA is proposing to

promulgate cold water protection for

one of those streams based on the

presence of cold water species (see

section D.4.ii.). EPA believes having a

default assumption protective of cold

water species applicable in the State of

Idaho is reasonable based upon the

State’s beneficial use designations to

date and the scientific information

presented above.

Idaho has set out in its water quality

standards at 16.01.02.250.02.c. criteria

necessary to support cold water aquatic

life. Because the predominant

ecosystem in Idaho is comprised of cold

water aquatic life, EPA is proposing to

rely on Idaho’s existing criteria for cold

water biota for the protection of

unclassified waters, except where lower

temperatures are required to protect

threatened and endangered species (see

section E below). Idaho’s existing

criteria for cold water biota include

criteria for dissolved oxygen (D.O.),

temperature, ammonia, and turbidity.

EPA solicits comment on the selection

of cold water biota as a default

beneficial use for unclassified waters. In

particular, EPA seeks information about

the present distribution of various

salmonid and non-salmonid cold water

species in Idaho. EPA also solicits

comment on the distribution of warm

water species in Idaho. EPA seeks data

on the temperature requirements of

sensitive life cycle stages for the Idaho

Chub and the Idaho Sucker. EPA also

seeks comment on the historical

distribution of both native cold water

and native warm water species in Idaho.

The second component of ‘‘fishable/

swimmable’’ is proposed to be

addressed through the primary contact

recreation use and associated criteria.

However, as discussed below in section

D.4.i., Idaho’s criteria for secondary

contact recreation are adequate to

protect swimming. EPA seeks comment

on the option of relying on secondary

contact recreation for protection of

recreation in unclassified waters.

Specifically, EPA is seeking comment

on whether a primary contact recreation

use designation is necessary when the

criteria associated with secondary

contact recreation are protective of

swimming.

When Idaho designates a beneficial

use for a specific water body that is

currently unclassified, that water body

will no longer be within the scope of

EPA’s unclassified waters beneficial

designated use. EPA will review the

State’s beneficial use designation for

specific water bodies and approve or

disapprove as part of EPA’s review

process under section 303(c) of the

CWA.

D. Stream Segments With Specific

Beneficial Use Designations

1. Background

As discussed in Section ‘‘C.

Unclassified Waters’’ above, the federal

water quality standards regulations

require that water quality standards
23008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

provide for fishable/swimmable uses

unless it has been demonstrated that

attaining the designated beneficial uses

is not feasible for any of the reasons

described in 40 CFR 131.10(g).

Whenever the State designates or has

designated uses that do not include

these fishable/swimmable uses or when

the State wishes to remove a designated

use, a use attainability analysis (UAA)

must be completed and submitted to

EPA for review.

2. EPA Review of Idaho’s Use

Designations

Idaho’s 1994 water quality standards

which were submitted to EPA for review

contained 53 water body segments

which had designated beneficial uses

which were less than fishable/

swimmable. More specifically, the

designated beneficial uses for 9

segments were missing cold water biota,

for 18 were missing primary contact

recreation and for 26 were missing both

cold water biota and primary contact

recreation. Idaho had not submitted

UAA’s justifying the lowered uses for

these segments.

In a letter to Idaho from EPA in

October 1995, EPA pointed out this

deficiency. Idaho took no action. On

June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved the

uses for these 53 water body segments

because the State had failed to justify

lower use classifications in accordance

with 40 CFR § 131.10(j). EPA Stated

that, to meet the requirements of the

CWA, Idaho must either submit use

attainability analyses providing the

justification for less than fishable/

swimmable uses for the subject waters

or revise the standards to include

fishable and swimmable uses.

3. Recent Idaho Actions

To date, Idaho has taken action to

revise the designated beneficial uses for

2 of the 53 water body segments. Idaho

adopted a temporary rule on February

11, 1997 for the upgrade of uses for

West Fork Blackbird Creek, SB 4211 in

the Salmon Basin, and Lindsay Creek,

CB 210 in the Clearwater Basin. The

temporary rule designated cold water

biota and salmonid spawning use for

West Fork Blackbird Creek and

secondary contact recreation for Lindsay

Creek and became effective on March 1,

1997. Idaho submitted this temporary

rule to EPA on March 24, 1997.

With these changes, it appears that

the beneficial use designations for these

segments meet the requirements of 40

CFR 131.10. However, the process

followed by Idaho in adopting this

temporary rule has not yet provided an

opportunity for public hearing or

comment on the rule as required by 40

CFR 131.20. Because these segments are

covered by Judge Dwyer’s order, and

because EPA has not completed its

approval/disapproval action on Idaho’s

temporary rules for these segments, they

are included in today’s proposal. If EPA

approves these or other State adopted

standards before promulgating a final

Federal rule, there will be no need to

include them in the final promulgation.

4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations

for Specific Water Body Segments

In its modified order, the District

Court ordered EPA to propose water

quality standards by April 21, 1997 for

the 53 water body segments whose

designations EPA had disapproved in

June 1996. The brevity of this schedule

did not allow EPA time to complete its

review of available data on each of these

segments, nor did it allow EPA time to

solicit data prior to this proposed

rulemaking. Accordingly, in proposing

designated beneficial uses for the water

body segments of concern, EPA is

relying on the rebuttable presumption

implicit in its regulations, that fishable/

swimmable uses are attainable. If further

data indicates that this presumption is

not appropriate for particular water

bodies, EPA’s final rule will be revised

accordingly. In particular, if EPA

determines, based on the record, that

any of Idaho’s designations are justified,

there will not be a need for federally

promulgated use designations for the

water bodies in question. EPA believes

that this approach is reasonable because

it is consistent with the goals in section

101(a)(2) of the CWA and the

implementing requirements in the water

quality standards regulations at 40 CFR

Part 131.

Idaho’s use classification system

includes a number of beneficial uses for

its waters, including ‘‘domestic water

supply’’, ‘‘agricultural water supply’’,

‘‘cold water biota’’, ‘‘warm water biota’’,

‘‘salmonid spawning’’, ‘‘primary contact

recreation’’ and ‘‘secondary contact

recreation’’. EPA’s approach in

proposing beneficial uses for the 53

water body segments is to select uses

from Idaho’s system which correspond

to ‘‘fishable/swimmable’’ uses. This

approach meets the requirements of the

CWA while facilitating ultimate

withdrawal of federal standards.

i. Primary Contact Recreation

Forty-four of the water bodies whose

beneficial use designations were

disapproved by EPA were missing

primary contact recreation. In most

instances, the water bodies were

assigned secondary contact recreation; a

few segments had neither primary or

secondary. In light of recent discussions

with the State, it now appears that the

criteria assigned by Idaho to protect

secondary contact recreation are

consistent with EPA guidance on

bacteriological criteria for primary

contact recreation.

In the current Idaho water quality

standards, except for fecal coliform

bacteria, all of the criteria applicable to

primary contact recreation are also

applicable to secondary contact

recreation (i.e., all toxic substance

criteria for the protection of human

health apply to both primary and

secondary contact recreation, see IDAPA

16.01.02.250.01.c.). It is only the

bacteriological criteria which differ

between primary and secondary contact

recreation.

Idaho’s current bacteriological criteria

for the protection of secondary contact

recreation are concentrations of fecal

coliform bacteria not to exceed a

geometric mean of 200/100 milliliters

(ml) based on a minimum of five

samples taken over a thirty day period,

800/100 ml at any time; and 400/100 ml

in more than ten percent of the total

samples taken over a thirty day period.

(See IDAPA 16.01.02.250.01.b.)

Idaho’s current bacteriological criteria

applicable for the protection of primary

contact recreation apply between May 1

and September 30 of each calendar year

and are concentrations of fecal coliform

bacteria not to exceed a geometric mean

of 50/100 ml based on a minimum of

five samples taken over a thirty day

period, 500/100 ml at any time; and

200/100 ml in more than ten percent of

the total samples taken over a thirty day

period. (See IDAPA 16.01.02.250.01.a.).

EPA’s section 304(a)(1) bacteriological

criteria document published in 1976

recommended a log mean fecal coliform

limits of 200 FC/100 ml.

EPA believes it is required by the

terms of the District Court’s order to

propose primary contact recreation as a

designated beneficial use for those water

bodies which already have secondary

contact as a designated beneficial use.

However, EPA is soliciting comment on

whether Idaho’s secondary contact

recreation, with its associated criteria, is

sufficient. Specifically, EPA seeks

comment on (1) whether Idaho’s criteria

for secondary contact recreation are in

fact sufficient to protect primary contact

recreation; and (2) if that is so, whether

there is any reason to promulgate

federal primary contact recreation use

designations for the streams already

subject to the secondary contact

recreation criteria.

ii. Cold Water Biota

Thirty five of the 53 segments

addressed in EPA’s June 1996 letter
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23009

were disapproved because they were

missing a cold water biota beneficial use

designation. As discussed above, under

section C (Unclassified Waters), cold

water biota is the appropriate default

aquatic life classification for Idaho. To

the extent possible prior to proposal,

EPA also examined data for these 35

segments relevant to the existence of, or

potential to support, cold water biota.

EPA solicited and collected water

chemistry data for the South Fork Coeur

d’Alene River Basin from Idaho Fish

and Game, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and

from within EPA’s Superfund Program.

In addition, biological monitoring data

on marcroinvertebrates and fish

population data was collected from the

Idaho Department of Fish and Game and

the Coeur d’Alene Tribe for this basin.

EPA also reviewed physical, chemical

and biological data on West Fork

Blackbird Creek which Idaho DEQ

submitted to EPA. Additionally Idaho

DEQ submitted to EPA preliminary

results of assessment data which either

they had collected or had been collected

from other sources, such as Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, on the 35

water body segments which were

lacking a cold water biota beneficial use

designation.

Based on the above data, as well as

EPA’s approach discussed in Section C

above, EPA determined that it is

appropriate to propose a cold water

biota designated beneficial use for the

35 water body segments.

iii. Salmonid Spawning

As a result of EPA’s responsibilities

and duties under Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, EPA initiated

informal consultation with FWS and

NMFS on our proposed action. In

conferring with NMFS on designating

beneficial uses for these 53 segments,

EPA obtained data from Idaho

Department of Fish and Game which

indicated that 7 of the 53 segments

provide spawning habitat for chinook

and steelhead salmon. Of these 7, there

were 4 which Idaho had not already

designated for salmonid spawning use.

As a result of this information, EPA is

proposing an additional designated use

of salmonid spawning for the following

four segments: Grasshopper Creek, Little

Bear Creek, Blackbird Creek, Panther

Creek.

Based on the information provided,

EPA determined that salmonid

spawning, which requires more

stringent temperature and dissolved

oxygen criteria than those assigned to

cold water biota, was the appropriate

beneficial use to ensure ‘‘fishable’’ water

quality for these four water body

segments.

5. Request for Comment and Data

EPA believes the above beneficial

uses are appropriate considering the

requirements of the CWA and given the

time frame which the court had ordered.

Nonetheless, it is possible that

information exists which may further

support or refute their attainability or

support or refute the appropriateness of

the State’s uses. Accordingly, EPA will

evaluate any data which is submitted

with regard to the aquatic life uses (i.e.,

cold water biota and salmonid

spawning) of the 35 water body

segments as well as the proposed

primary contact recreational use. Based

on such information EPA can make a

final decision whether the designated

uses in today’s proposal are appropriate

and required by the Clean Water Act. To

assist the Agency in ensuring that its

decisions are based upon the best

available information, the Agency is

soliciting information. To assist

commenters the following paragraphs

provide guidance on what information

is relevant.

Specifically EPA is seeking

information that would assist in

determining whether the beneficial uses

identified above are currently being

attained, can be attained, or have been

attained since or before 1975; whether

natural conditions or features or human

caused conditions prevent the

attainment of these uses and cannot be

remedied or would cause more

environmental damage to correct than to

leave in place; or whether the controls

more stringent than those required by

Section 301(b) and 306 of the Clean

Water Act would be needed to attain the

uses and would cause substantial and

widespread economic and social

impact. Below is a general discussion of

the types of data/information requested

by the Agency:

Ambient Monitoring Information: (1)

Any in-stream data for any of the above

stream segments reflecting either natural

conditions (e.g., in-stream flow data or

other data relating to stream hydrology)

or irretrievable human-caused

conditions which prevent the uses or

water quality criteria from being

attained; (2) any available in-stream

biological data; (3) any chemical and

biological monitoring data that verify

improvements to water quality as a

result of treatment plant/facility

upgrades and/or expansions; and (4) any

in-stream data reflecting nonpoint

sources of pollution or best management

practices that have been implemented

for nonpoint source control.

Current and Historical Effluent Data:

(1) Any data and information relating to

mass loadings from point source

discharges of pollutants such as BOD,

NH3-N, chlorine, metals (e.g., As, Cd, Cr,

Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Ag, Zn), toxics (e.g.,

volatile organic chemicals such as

benzene or toluene, acid extractables

such as pentachlorophenol, base

neutrals such as anthracene, fluorene or

pyrene, and pesticides such as aldrin,

lindane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin and

toxaphene); (2) data and information

related to facility or treatment plant

effluent quality; and (3) any information

related to releases of pollutants from

other sources such as landfills,

transportation facilities, construction

sites, agriculture/silviculture,

incinerators, and contaminated

sediments.

Models: (1) Any data or information

on analytical models which can be used

to evaluate or predict stream quality,

flow, morphology; (2) any physical,

biological or chemical characteristics

relating to beneficial uses; and (3) the

results of any such models which can be

used to evaluate beneficial uses.

Economic Data: Any information

relating to costs and benefits associated

with facility or treatment plant

expansions or upgrades. This

information includes: (1) Qualitative

descriptions or quantitative estimates of

any costs and benefits associated with

facility or treatment plant expansions or

upgrades, or associated with facilities or

treatment plants meeting limits; (2) any

information on costs to households in

the community with facility or

treatment plant expansions or upgrades,

whether through an increase in user

fees, an increase in taxes, or a

combination of both; (3) descriptions of

the geographical area affected; (4) any

changes in median household income,

employment, and overall net debt as a

percent of full market value of taxable

property; and (5) any effects of changes

in tax revenues if the private-sector

entity were to go out of business,

changes in income to the community if

workers lose their jobs, and effects on

other businesses both direct and

indirect.

E. Temperature Criteria for Threatened

and Endangered Species

1. Background

Water quality standards consist, in

part, of designated uses and criteria to

protect those uses. States designate uses

for aquatic life to provide protection for

a variety of aquatic species which may

be present in their waters. Thermal

requirements for these species vary

among species and among different life

stages. Providing protection for these

varied species and their temperature

requirements can be accomplished a
23010 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

number of ways. Most commonly,

temperature criteria are set to protect

the more sensitive species residing at a

site, or subcategories of uses are

established with criteria tailored to

address and protect particular species

and/or life stages.

Idaho has three aquatic life designated

beneficial uses, cold water biota, warm

water biota and salmonid spawning,

with each category having differing

applicable temperature criteria. When

designating uses and applying this

categorical aquatic life based approach,

Idaho is required to ensure that the

criteria are sufficiently protective to

safeguard the full range of waters in the

State to which the uses are assigned.

EPA’s review of the criteria assigned by

Idaho to its cold water biota beneficial

use designation indicated that the

temperature criteria did not provide

adequate protection to some more

sensitive species. Accordingly, EPA

disapproved aspects of Idaho’s cold

water biota temperature criteria in the

June 1996 letter. Idaho has not revised

these criteria to meet EPA’s objection.

EPA’s approach today is to propose

more protective temperature criteria to

apply to Idaho’s current cold water biota

beneficial use designation for those

segments and river reaches with more

sensitive species. The Agency believes

this approach minimizes the impact on

Idaho’s current water quality standards

while providing the protection required

by the CWA. EPA proposes to modify

only the temperature criteria applicable

to the cold water biota beneficial use

designation for specific water bodies

[for a list of these waters see § 131.33

(c)–(e) of today’s proposed rule]. The

remaining criteria applicable to

coldwater biota (i.e., turbidity,

ammonia, and dissolved oxygen) remain

unchanged. Specifically, today’s

proposal includes more stringent

temperature criteria for specified waters

in Idaho in order to protect the Kootenai

River white sturgeon, five species of

aquatic snails (hereinafter ‘‘snails’’), and

bull trout. The literature indicates that

Idaho’s temperature criteria are

inadequate to protect these aquatic

species. EPA is consulting with the FWS

concerning the adequacy of the criteria

being proposed today. The following is

a discussion of why EPA determined

more stringent criteria were needed and

how EPA selected the criteria being

proposed today.

FWS has determined that Kootenai

River white sturgeon and five species of

aquatic snails are threatened by

extinction in Idaho. In addition, the bull

trout is a candidate for listing as

threatened or endangered. (Although

FWS was petitioned to list the bull

trout, it has not yet listed it.) Where a

species is likely to be listed EPA

assesses the effects to candidate aquatic

species in a similar manner as listed

species. Therefore EPA specifically

assessed the impacts of Idaho’s water

quality standards to bull trout.

In order to determine whether EPA’s

approval of Idaho’s water quality

standards would adversely effect

species listed or candidates for listing

under ESA, EPA reviewed applicable

scientific literature. Based on a review

of the literature available to EPA, the

Agency determined that Idaho’s

temperature criteria were inadequate in

providing protection to Kootenai River

white sturgeon, 5 species of aquatic

snails and bull trout. As discussed more

fully below, the scientific literature

indicates that temperatures in

exceedance of applicable requirements,

along with other habitat parameters, are

threats to each of these aquatic species.

EPA determined that temperatures

lower than those currently specified

under the State’s designated uses are

more appropriate for these species.

Based on this determination, on June 25,

1996 EPA disapproved Idaho’s

temperature criteria in certain water

body segments which provide habitat

for these species.

2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon

i. EPA’s Review

According to the literature and review

of the data from the Kootenai River

monitoring programs conducted from

1990 through 1995, Kootenai River

white sturgeon (Acipenser

transmontanus) spawned within a 16

river kilometer (10 river mile) stretch of

the Kootenai River, primarily from

Bonners Ferry downstream to the lower

end of Shorty’s Island (White Sturgeon:

Kootenai River Population Draft

Recovery Plan, U.S. FWS). Kootenai

River sturgeon spawn from May through

July (58 FR 36379–86; July 7, 1993).

Spawning is dependent on, and

therefore occurs when, the physical

environment permits egg development

and cues ovulation. Following

fertilization, white sturgeon eggs attach

to river substrate and undergo a

relatively short incubation period of 8 to

15 days until they hatch (Brannon et.

al., 1985). Landlocked populations of

white sturgeon normally spawn during

the period of peak flows from April

through July (Duke et. al. 1990).

According to the literature, significant

modification to the natural hydrograph

in the Kootenai River caused by flow

regulation at Libby Dam is considered

the primary reason for the Kootenai

River sturgeon’s declining numbers

(Apperson and Anders 1991). Since

1972, when Libby Dam began operating,

spring flows in the Kootenai River have

been reduced an average 50 percent, and

winter flows have increased by 300

percent over normal. As a consequence,

natural high spring flows required by

white sturgeon for reproduction rarely

occur during the May to July spawning

season when suitable temperature,

water velocity and photoperiod

conditions exist.

Based on recent monitoring studies of

Kootenai River flow, temperature, and

fertilized egg distribution, water

temperatures corresponding to

estimated spawning dates of Kootenai

River sturgeon range from

approximately 8.5 to 14 °C and have

been estimated to occur in the May–July

time period. During 1970, 1974 and

1980, where successful, natural

recruitment of Kootenai sturgeon is

believed to have occurred, temperatures

associated with peak flow events during

the presumed spawning period ranged

from 11 to 13 °C (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Columbia River Basin Field

Office, ‘‘Rationale for Reestablishment

of Natural Recruitment of Kootenai

River White Sturgeon’’). Elsewhere,

spawning of white sturgeon has been

documented at higher temperatures than

Kootenai sturgeon, with reported

spawning in the lower Columbia River

occurring at temperatures ranging from

10–18 °C during 1987 to 1991 (Parsley

et al., 1993). Parsley et al. further report

that most of the spawning in the lower

Columbia River occurred between 10

and 12 °C. Because the Columbia River

white sturgeon may be acclimated to

warmer temperatures than those

experienced by sturgeon in the Kootenai

River, the applicability of Columbia

River data to Kootenai sturgeon is

unclear. It should be further noted that

white sturgeon spawning is cued by

other factors, of which flow is among

the most important, and therefore, the

lack of spawning at some temperatures

may be due to suboptimal flow

conditions or other important factors.

Thus, while the available information

suggests that 8–14 °C is a reasonable

temperature range to be considered for

maintenance of Kootenai River sturgeon,

the current optimal temperature range

for Kootenai River white sturgeon is not

entirely certain.

Partly because of the uncertainty in

defining optimal spawning conditions

for Kootenai sturgeon, the FWS and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are

experimenting with agreed upon

operational guidelines for flow releases

at Libby Dam during 1997 and 1998 in

part, to obtain more data to determine

optimal spawning conditions for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23011

sturgeon. Future studies and monitoring

may more accurately determine

Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning

requirements.

Data on temperature requirements of

other life stages of white sturgeon is

much more limited. An optimum

temperature for egg development of 

14 °C is reported by Wang et al. (1985

as cited by Parsley et al., 1993), with

elevated mortality occurring at 18 °C

and complete mortality at 20 °C.

Temperature tolerance data for other life

stages was not found, although older

sturgeon are reported to inhabit deeper

locations in Kootenai River locations

with temperatures ranging from 14 to

20 °C (PSMFC, 1992).

In addition to evaluation of the

literature, EPA conferred with FWS and

COE staff in determining appropriate

temperature values protective of

sturgeon spawning. EPA reviewed data

from monitoring efforts by the COE on

the Kootenai River from 1993 through

1997.

ii. Idaho’s Temperature Criteria

Idaho’s current designated beneficial

use for the Kootenai River from Bonners

Ferry to Shorty’s Island is cold water

biota, which has applicable temperature

criteria of 22 °C or less with a maximum

daily average of 19 °C Hence, EPA

concluded that Idaho’s cold water biota

temperature criteria do not provide an

adequate level of protection for

Kootenai River white sturgeon

spawning.

iii. EPA’s Proposed Temperature

Criteria

Temperature criteria being proposed

for the Kootenai River from Bonners

Ferry to Shorty’s Island were derived

using EPA’s temperature criteria

guidance (‘‘Temperature Criteria for

Freshwater Fish: Protocol and

Procedures’’; U.S. EPA, 1977). The EPA

protocol recommends expression of

temperature criteria in two forms: (1) A

short-term maxima (protection against

lethal conditions, usually for a duration

of 24 hours), and (2) a mean temperature

value (expressed as the maximum

weekly average temperature) that is

designed to protect critical life stage

functions such as spawning,

embryogenesis, growth, maturation and

development. For sturgeon, sufficient

data were available to derive weekly

mean temperature criteria to protect

spawning and egg incubation.

In addition to data sources discussed

previously, EPA relied on

communications with relevant Corps

and FWS staff.

Based on the information reviewed,

EPA is proposing seasonal minimum

and maximum weekly average

temperature criteria to protect for white

sturgeon spawning [see § 131.33(d) of

today’s proposed rule]. Rather than

setting temperature criteria based on

fixed calendar dates, the temperature

criteria for Kootenai River sturgeon are

designed to protect critical spawning

and egg incubation life stages, but allow

for some temporal flexibility as to when

such temperatures for spawning and egg

incubation activities can occur. This

flexibility is desirable given known,

natural temperature variations that

occur at the Kootenai River site from

year to year. Therefore, such criteria are

based on first establishing a minimum

weekly average temperature of 8 °C

(believed to be the lower limit for

spawning), followed by an 8-week time

period where the maximum weekly

average temperature does not exceed the

upper spawning temperature limit of 14

°C currently estimated for Kootenai

River sturgeon. Selection of an 8-week

‘‘spawning window’’ approximates the

length of the spawning period currently

estimated for Kootenai River sturgeon.

The maximum weekly average

temperature criterion of 16 °C set for

weeks 9 and 10 (after achievement of

the 8 °C minimum temperature) is

intended to protect egg incubation of

late spawners based on 1–2 week egg

incubation time reported for Kootenai

River sturgeon. The 16 °C maximum

weekly average temperature criterion is

an EPA inferred estimate of the

threshold for egg incubation based on

data reported by Wang et al. (1985; as

cited in Parsley et al., 1993) and reflects

natural gradual warming of water

temperatures that will likely occur at

this site during mid to late July.

EPA believes that these temperature

criteria in combination with the time

frame regime will provide appropriate

protection for white sturgeon spawning

in the Kootenai River while maintaining

necessary flexibility due to natural

variability in seasonal temperature

regimes. While recognizing that other

factors besides temperature are also

limiting to a viable population of

sturgeon in the Kootenai River system,

EPA determined that revising the

temperature criteria in this known

spawning segment was an appropriate

and needed measure towards the

protection and conservation of this

species.

EPA is soliciting comments and data

on the proposed temperature criteria.

Comments are particularly sought

concerning: (a) Additional information

on range, distribution, and population

of the species; (b) the relationship

between water velocities, temperature

and spawning; (c) appropriate time

frames for sturgeon spawning; (d)

implementation issues associated with

the weekly moving average and onset of

the maximum weekly average; and (e)

appropriateness of both the minimum

and maximum weekly average values.

3. Freshwater Aquatic Snails

i. EPA’s Review

EPA reviewed the available scientific

literature in order to determine the

water quality requirements for the

following five species of freshwater

aquatic snails which are listed as

threatened or endangered under the

ESA: the Bliss Rapids snail, the Snake

River physa, Banbury Springs lanx,

Utah valvata snail and Idaho

springsnail.

According to the 1995 Snake River

Aquatic Species Recovery Plan

developed by the FWS, these 5 snails

occupy habitat in the middle Snake

River from C.J. Strike Reservoir to

American Falls Dam. The recovery area

for 4 of the species (Idaho springsnail,

Utah valvata snail, Snake River physa

and Bliss Rapids snail) has been

delineated in the mainstem Snake River

between river kilometers (rkm) 834–

1142 (rivermiles (rm) 518–709). The

recovery area for the one remaining

species (Banbury Springs lanx) includes

cold-water spring complexes to the

Snake River between rkm 941.5–948.8

(rm 584.8–589.3).

Little is known about the ecology of

the listed snail species. A priority

recovery measure in the Recovery Plan

is to obtain more data to describe habitat

and life history requirements. EPA

reviewed available literature on the

distribution and habitat conditions

where the listed snails are found in the

Snake River. From a survey conducted

by Idaho Power in the Middle Snake

River from April through December

1995 (Crazier and Myers, 1996) there is

data showing that the Bliss Rapids snail

occurred in water temperatures of 7.6

degrees C to 19.8 degrees C, the Banbury

Springs lanx occurred in temperatures

of 11.8 degrees C to 14.5 degrees C, and

the Idaho springsnail was found in

water temperatures of 7.6 degrees C to

19.8 degrees C. The Utah valvata and

Snake River physa were not found in

the portion of the river that was

surveyed. The Snake River Recovery

Plan (1995) notes that the Banbury

Springs lanx had only been found at

that time in waters of 15 degrees C. to

16 degrees C. The Recovery Plan

recommends annual average

temperatures below 18 degrees C,

however an annual average is not likely

to provide an adequate basis for
23012 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

implementation of a temperature

criterion.

ii. Idaho’s Temperature Criteria

The current Idaho water quality

standards designate part of the recovery

area within the Snake River,

specifically, water body segment SWB–

10, Snake River from King Hill to

Marsing, primary contact recreation,

which has no applicable temperature

criteria, and designate other parts of the

recovery area cold water biota, which

has temperature criteria of 22 °C or less

with a maximum daily average of 19 °C.

Based on the information which was

reviewed and conferring with FWS, EPA

determined that the cold water biota

temperature criteria do not provide an

adequate level of protection for these

five species of snails. Therefore, on June

25, 1996, EPA disapproved Idaho’s

temperature criteria applicable within

the specified geographic ranges or

recovery areas for each of the 5 snail

species.

iii. EPA’s Proposed Temperature

Criterion

In order to provide adequate and

protective temperatures for the listed

snail species EPA is proposing a

maximum daily average temperature of

18 degrees C in the Middle Snake River

from river mile 518 to river mile 709.

Additionally, for water body segment

SWB 10, which does not currently have

cold water biota designated use, EPA is

also proposing that use as well as a

maximum daily average of 18 degrees C

temperature criterion. This proposal is

based on the limited temperature

information available related to the

species occurrence, the Recovery Plan

recommendation, and correspondence

between the FWS and Idaho on April

11, 1997. The FWS letter responded to

a State request for clarification of the

Recovery Plan recommendation, and it

again stressed the need for a

temperature at or below 18 degrees C as

a level necessary to move toward

recovery of the listed aquatic snails. The

letter additionally noted that spring

habitats where listed snails occur

adjacent to the Snake River will likely

require even lower temperatures for

optimal habitat conditions.

EPA is soliciting comments on the

proposed temperature criterion. Because

of the limited information available at

the time of this proposal, EPA is

soliciting additional data. Data and

information are sought pertinent to:

(1)aquatic snail occurrence in the

Middle Snake River, and (2) refining the

habitat and temperature requirements of

the individual species. EPA is also

soliciting comments on other options for

applying temperature criteria to the

Middle Snake River for protection of

listed aquatic snails.

4. Bull Trout

i. EPA’s Review

According to the literature, bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus) is a species

which is considered an indicator of the

environmental health of watersheds and

is known to reproduce only in clean,

cold relatively pristine streams.

EPA evaluated the literature and

conferred with biologists from the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, and the

Interior Columbia Ecosystem

Management Project. According to the

literature, bull trout is a species

requiring a narrow and relatively cold

range of temperature conditions to

reproduce and survive. They appear to

be one of the most temperature

intolerant species of salmonids. They

spawn in late summer through fall (late

August-November) and have a long egg

incubation period (typically lasting from

early fall to April). High temperatures

are therefore a concern for migration

and spawning in the late summer and

early fall.

Incubation of bull trout eggs requires

cold temperatures ranging from 1 to 6 °C

and occurs at optimum temperatures of

approximately 4 °C (ORDEQ, 1994;

Weaver and White, 1985; McPhail and

Murray, 1979). Specifically, Weaver and

White (1985) report 4 to 6 °C as being

needed for egg incubation of bull trout

embryos in Montana streams. Further,

McPhail and Murray (1979) report 0%

to 20% survival of incubating bull trout

embryos at temperatures ranging from 8

to 10 °C; 60% to 90% survival at 6 °C;

and 85–95% survival at 2–4 °C, further

suggesting 6 °C as close to a reasonable

threshold for egg incubation.

Based on EPA’s review of the

literature, in addition to a review

conducted by the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ORDEQ, 1994),

a temperature range of 4–10 °C is

believed to be necessary to maintain

successful bull trout spawning. A

temperature range of approximately 6 to

8 °C is believed approximate the

optimum spawning temperatures of bull

trout (Idaho Department of Fish and

Game). Optimum temperatures for fry

growth have been reported to be 4 °C

(McPhail and Murray, 1979). For later

life stages of bull trout, temperatures

less than 12 °C appear to be most

suitable for juvenile rearing and adult

migration. Specifically, Shepard et al.

(1984) report the highest densities of

bull trout in Montana streams at

temperatures of 12 °C and below, some

presence of bull trout at 15 to 18 °C and

complete absence of bull trout in

streams with temperatures exceeding 19

°C. Based on field observations of the

presence of juvenile bull trout in Idaho

streams, 12 °C also appears to be a

maximum temperature where juveniles

are found (Idaho Dept. Fish and Game).

Temperatures between 10 and 12 °C are

also reported to be the optimum range

for adult migration, which occurs

between bull trout feeding and

spawning areas (ORDEQ, 1994).

ii. Idaho’s Temperature Criteria

The current temperature criteria

applicable to the cold water biota use

classification (22 °C or less with a

maximum daily average of 19 °C) does

not provide an adequate level of

protection for bull trout. Therefore, on

June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved Idaho’s

temperature criteria applicable within

geographic ranges where bull trout

occur.

iii. EPA’s Proposed Temperature

Criteria and Bull Trout Distribution

Temperature criteria being proposed

for Idaho streams designated as bull

trout habitat were derived using EPA’s

temperature criteria guidance

(‘‘Temperature Criteria for Freshwater

Fish: Protocol and Procedures; U.S.

EPA, 1977). The EPA protocol

recommends expression of temperature

criteria in two forms: (1) a short-term

maxima (protection against lethal

conditions, usually for a duration of 24

hours), and (2) a mean temperature

value (expressed as the maximum

weekly average temperature) that is

designed to protect critical life stage

functions such as spawning,

embryogenesis, growth, maturation and

development. Sufficient data were

available to derive temperature criteria

as maximum weekly average

temperatures (MWAT) that would be

protective of various bull trout life

stages, including spawning, egg

incubation, juvenile rearing and adult

migration. Because of the complex life

history of bull trout, EPA is proposing

temperature criteria that would span a

calendar year, but that would vary

depending on the presence and thermal

tolerances of various bull trout life

stages [see § 131.33(c)(1) in today’s

proposed rule].

During January and February, the

maximum weekly average temperature

(MWAT) criterion is proposed at 4 °C to

protect optimum temperatures required

for egg incubation. During March, a

MWAT of 6 °C is being proposed based

on data discussed earlier that indicate 6

°C approximates a maximum

temperature threshold for successful egg

incubation. A MWAT of 8 °C during the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23013

month of April is being proposed to

account for an expected gradual

increase in stream temperatures during

this time period and is considered to be

within the optimum range for juvenile

growth. During May, a MWAT of 10 °C

is proposed because it reflects an

expected gradual increase in stream

temperatures that is likely to occur at

this time and is considered an optimum

temperature for adult migration and

juvenile growth. A MWAT criterion of

12 °C is being proposed for the months

of June, July and through August 15 to

protect against exceedence of

temperature limits reported for juvenile

rearing. A MWAT criterion of 10 °C is

proposed from August 16 through the

month of September because this

temperature reflects the upper range for

spawning reported in the literature for

bull trout and bull trout spawning

occurs during this time period. During

the month of October, a MWAT value of

8 °C is proposed to maintain optimal

temperature conditions for bull trout

spawning and reflects an expected

gradual decrease in stream

temperatures. Finally, a MWAT value of

6 °C is proposed for the months of

November and December to reflect the

limit for egg incubation and spawning

optimum.

At the time of the disapproval, EPA

had not identified the exact geographic

areas inhabited by bull trout. EPA

believed that Idaho had the resources to

ascertain this information as the Office

of the Governor of Idaho was in the

process of developing a bull trout

conservation plan. On July 1, 1996 a

final version of the Governor’s Bull

Trout Plan was released. This plan

identifies 59 key watersheds which

should be targeted for the protection

and restoration of bull trout

populations. Although this plan

identifies watersheds of concern, it did

not provide the level of resolution

which EPA deems necessary in

describing distribution of bull trout.

Today’s proposed rulemaking

includes a list of water bodies where

revised temperature criteria are needed

in order to protect bull trout. In deriving

this list, EPA relied upon bull trout

distribution data from the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP) as well as bull trout

distribution data from the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game.

Section 131.33(c)(2) of today’s

proposed rule contains a list of Idaho

water bodies that are known, suspected,

and/or predicted to serve as spawning

and rearing areas of bull trout. The

ICBEMP’s ‘‘Key Salmonid’’ database

[footnote 1 to § 131.33(c)(2)], and the

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Digital Bull Trout Distribution Database

[footnote 2 to § 131.33(c)(2)] were both

used in deriving this list.

The ICBEMP data are tied to subwatersheds, also known as ‘‘6th-code

HUCs’’. ICBEMP scientists determined

criteria to identify sub-watersheds that

represent spawning and rearing areas.

Sub-watersheds identified as migration

corridors only are excluded. The

resultant sub-watersheds were overlaid

with the digital Pacific Northwest River

Reach File in the EPA Geographic

Information System to produce a file of

streams within these sub-watersheds

with possible spawning and rearing

activity. Only streams with attributed

names in the dataset were used in this

process. Some streams with no actual

bull trout spawning and rearing activity

are probably included, as only one

stream with bull trout presence was

sufficient to cause the entire sub

watershed (thus all named streams

within) to indicate spawn and rearing

presence from this database. EPA used

the 1994–1995 version of this database.

The Idaho Department of Fish and

Game attributed bull trout distribution

data to Pacific Northwest River Reach

File segments. Water bodies coded as

having ‘‘known or suspected’’ bull trout

presence are contained in the table with

a superscript of ‘‘2’’. Hence the water

bodies from this database in the table

contain areas that may be used as only

migration corridors, as there was no way

to specifically exclude them.

EPA had discussions with FWS on the

temperature requirements for bull trout

protection. Additionally EPA consulted

with staff from Idaho Department of

Fish & Game as well as numerous

biologists familiar with bull trout

requirements and distribution.

Based on the above information, EPA

is proposing maximum weekly average

seasonal temperature criteria. These

criteria are proposed in § 131.33(c)(1) of

today’s proposed rule.

EPA is soliciting comment on both the

temperature criteria as well as the

distribution data. Comments are

particularly sought concerning (a)

affirmation of the presence of bull trout

spawning in the current list of water

bodies in section (c)(2) of today’s

proposed rule; (b) the adequacy of the

proposed methodology for defining bull

trout distribution; (c) whether or not

there is a better way to describe the

distribution; (d) site specific

temperature data for any of the listed

water bodies; (e) site specific or

laboratory temperature data on bull

trout; (f) proposals to address protection

of migratory corridors; (g) identification

of water bodies in § 131.33(c)(2) of

today’s proposed rule which are not

spawning and rearing areas; (h)

identification of additional known water

bodies which provide spawning and

rearing habitat; (i) original information

which would refine the list down to

stream level as opposed to watershed

level along with geographic identifiers

for these streams i.e., USGS hydrologic

unit codes; and (j) other methods for

refining the geographic distribution list.

F. Antidegradation Policy

The third component of a State’s

water quality standards, in addition to

designated uses and criteria to support

those uses, is an antidegradation policy

consistent with 40 CFR 131.12. Section

131.12(a) specifies three levels of

protection to be accorded waters. The

first level (commonly referred to as Tier

I) requires that existing uses, and the

level of water quality needed to protect

such uses, be protected and maintained

[§ 131.12(a)(1)]. The second level (Tier

II) requires that water quality in certain

high quality waters not be lowered

unless the lowering is found to be

necessary to accommodate important

social and economic development

[§ 131.12(a)(2)]. The highest level of

protection (Tier III) applies to waters

identified as ‘‘Outstanding National

Resource Waters;’’ water quality in such

waters shall be maintained and

protected [§ 131.12(a)(3)].

EPA Region X’s June 1996 letter

disapproved the Tier III portion of

Idaho’s antidegradation policy (IDAPA

16.01.02.051.03) because it did not

protect Tier III waters from degradation

caused by point sources, and thus did

not provide effective protection for such

waters. On November 14, 1996, the State

adopted a temporary rule which added

protection from point sources and

addressed EPA’s concern. This rule was

effective December 1, 1996. The State

formally submitted this revised rule to

EPA for approval by a letter dated

March 13, 1997, which was received by

EPA on March 24, 1997. Because of the

timing of this State submission and the

work involved in preparing today’s

proposal, EPA has not yet completed its

approval process on the State’s revision.

Accordingly, EPA believes it is still

bound by the court’s order to propose a

federal water quality standard

addressing the deficiency in section

16.01.02.051.03 of Idaho’s 1993

antidegradation policy.

Therefore, EPA is today proposing a

Tier III antidegradation provision

applicable to waters of the United States

within the State of Idaho. EPA’s

proposed rule uses the wording of the

revised Idaho antidegradation policy,

both because that revision addressed

EPA’s concern and because using the
23014 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

same language will facilitate the

ultimate withdrawal of EPA’s proposal

upon formal approval by EPA of Idaho’s

revision.

G. Mixing Zone Policy

1. Idaho’s Existing Policy

Idaho’s mixing zone policy at IDAPA

16.01.02.060. applies to point source

wastewater discharges. The policy

States that, after a biological, chemical,

and physical appraisal of a receiving

water and proposed discharge, the

Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) will determine the

appropriateness of a mixing zone, its

size, configuration, and location. In

making such a determination, the DEQ

is required to consider a number of

parameters specified in subsections

060.01.a–h. Subsections 060.01.a–d.

address the use of submerged pipes and

diffusers; unreasonable interferences to

the beneficial uses; and limitations for

overlapping or multiple mixing zones.

In addition, subsections 060.01.e. and f.

specify discrete physical limitations to

the size, shape, and location of mixing

zones for discharges to free-flowing

systems (e.g., streams and rivers) and

discharges to open waters (e.g., lakes or

reservoirs). Subsection 060.01.g. allows

water quality within a mixing zone to be

exempt from both Idaho’s chemicalspecific water quality criteria at

16.01.02.250. and selected narrative

criteria at 16.01.02.200.01.,

16.01.02.200.02., and 16.01.02.200.03.

(Idaho’s subsection 200.01. prohibits

State surface waters from containing

concentrations of hazardous materials

that are of significance to public health;

subsection 200.02 prohibits toxic

substances in toxic concentrations; and

subsection 200.03. prohibits deleterious

materials in concentrations that impair

designated beneficial uses.)

EPA disapproved subsection 060.01.g.

of Idaho’s mixing zone policy because,

although the principles identified in the

remainder of Idaho’s mixing zone policy

are adequate to ensure that the

designated uses of the receiving water

are maintained, the language of the

policy makes these principles nonbinding. Subsection 060.01. States ‘‘the

Department will consider [emphasis

added] the following principles’’

(060.01.a–h). Thus, although

subsections 060.01.a.–f. and h. contain

explicit language regarding the physical

limitations to the size, shape, and

location of mixing zones, which on their

face would appear to protect designated

beneficial uses even if narrative criteria

are not applicable, the word ‘‘consider’’

indicates that compliance with

subsections 060.01.a.–f. and h. is not

mandatory.

Clean Water Act § 303(c)(2)(A)

requires States to adopt water quality

criteria to protect designated beneficial

uses. EPA’s implementing regulations at

40 CFR 131.11 further clarify that such

criteria ‘‘must contain sufficient

parameters or constituents to protect the

designated use.’’ There are no

exceptions identified, or alluded to in

the CWA or EPA’s implementing

regulations. Water quality within a

mixing zone is not exempted. By

definition a mixing zone is an area

where chemical-specific acute and

chronic water quality criteria can be

exceeded as long as a number of other

protections are maintained (Water

Quality Standards Handbook; EPA–823–

B–94–005a, August 1994). These other

protections are narrative criteria. EPA is

not precluding flexibility in how Idaho

chooses to interpret the narrative

criteria at subsections 200.01.–03. EPA

has simply disapproved an authorized,

categorical exemption from the narrative

criteria in the absence of other binding

requirements in the mixing zone policy.

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR

131.11(a)(2) require States and tribes to

identify methods for implementing

narrative criteria. Such methods need to

address all mechanisms to be used by

the State to ensure that narrative criteria

are attained. Chemical-specific ambient

water quality criteria are most

frequently used to ensure that narrative

criteria and beneficial designated uses

are attained. However, when chemicalspecific criteria are absent or do not

apply, as is the case for water quality

within a mixing zone, other

implementation methods are needed to

ensure the designated uses are attained

(WQS Handbook, Chap. 3). While

mixing zones allow the magnitude

component of an ambient water quality

criterion to be exceeded, controlling the

exposure component ensures the

beneficial designated use is maintained.

Idaho’s implementation methods at

060.01.a.–h. would control exposure by

limiting the size, shape, and location of

a mixing zone, if they were mandatory.

2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho

To address the above deficiency, EPA

considered two options. Under the first

option, EPA would make the

requirements of subsections 060.01.a.–f.

and h. mandatory. This would protect

the water quality within a mixing zone

and ensure that the designated

beneficial uses for the water body as a

whole are maintained. However, EPA

was concerned that this approach would

disregard site-specific situations that

may warrant some flexibility. For

example, stream-specific and dischargespecific conditions may allow a mixing

zone to consume more than 25% of the

volume of stream flow (as specified in

060.01.e.ii.) and still ensure that the

designated beneficial use is attained.

For that reason, EPA also considered

a second option that changes the

language at 060.01.g. so as not to exempt

water quality within a mixing zone from

the narrative criteria at subsections

200.01.–03. This approach allows Idaho

to retain the discretion on when to rely

on the default implementation methods

specified in subsections 060.01.a.–f. and

h., and when to rely on alternative

methods to ensure the designated

beneficial use is maintained. Today’s

proposed rule contains this second

option.

EPA solicits comment on the

appropriateness of option 1 and option

2. Does the increased flexibility

provided in option 2 leave too much

discretion to the State? Are there other

alternatives for protecting the water

quality within a mixing zone to ensure

the designated beneficial uses for the

water body as a whole are maintained?

H. Excluded Waters Provision

Each State is required to have water

quality standards for all navigable

waters in the State. CWA § 303. The

term ‘‘navigable waters’’ is defined in

§ 502(7) of the CWA to mean the

‘‘waters of the United States, including

the territorial seas’’. In accordance with

the intent expressed by the legislative

history of the CWA, the term ‘‘waters of

the United States’’ is in turn defined in

regulations to include, inter alia,

intrastate waters whose use,

degradation, or destruction would or

could affect interstate commerce. 40

CFR 122.2 and § 232.2(q). This portion

of the definition is further explained at

53 FR 20765 (June 6, 1988).

Idaho’s standards provide that, unless

designated for particular uses, lakes,

ponds, pools, streams, and springs

outside public lands but located wholly

and entirely upon a person’s land are

not protected specifically and generally

for any beneficial use (see IDAPA

16.01.02.101.03.).

The fact that a water may be located

wholly on a person’s land does not

necessarily preclude it from being a

water ‘‘the use, degradation or

destruction of which would or could

affect interstate commerce.’’ Hence, it is

at least theoretically possible that some

of these unprotected excluded waters

could be waters of the United States. To

ensure that any such waters receive the

protection afforded other unclassified

waters, EPA is today proposing a rule

which effectively adds to the State’s
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23015

excluded waters provision the

qualifying phrase ‘‘unless such waters

* * * are ‘waters of the United States’

as defined at 40 CFR § 122.2.’’

This proposal is precautionary in

nature. EPA has not identified any

specific waters which would be affected

by this change. However, the language

EPA is proposing ensures that, if such

waters are later identified, their

beneficial uses will be protected in the

same way uses of other unclassified

waters are.

I. Federal Variances

As explained above in Sections C. and

D., because of the scope of rulemaking

and the schedule ordered by the District

Court, EPA has relied on a rebuttable

presumption approach to designating

beneficial uses and is only able to

provide a 30-day comment period.

EPA’s final rule will reflect

consideration of the data made available

to it by the close of the comment period.

However, it is possible that subsequent

data may become available which will

be material to the attainability of the

uses involved in today’s proposal.

If this occurs, one option available to

EPA would be to propose to revise or

withdraw the federal use designation.

An alternative approach, particularly

where the information is dischargerspecific and/or it appears that the use in

question will eventually be attainable, is

to grant a water quality standards

variance applicable to the discharger in

question. EPA has approved the

granting of water quality standards

variances by States in circumstances

which would otherwise justify changing

a use designation on grounds of

unattainability. In contrast to a change

in standards which removes a use

designation for a waterbody, a water

quality standards variance applies only

to the discharger to whom it is granted

and only to the pollutant parameter(s)

upon which the finding of

unattainability was based; the

underlying standard remains in effect

for all other purposes.

For example, if a designated aquatic

life use is currently precluded because

of high levels of metals from past

mining activities which cannot be

remediated in the short term, but it is

expected that water quality will

eventually improve, a temporary

variance may be granted to a discharger

with relaxed criteria for such metals,

until remediation progresses and the use

becomes attainable. The practical effect

of such a variance is to allow a permit

to be written using less stringent

criteria, while encouraging ultimate

attainment of the underlying standard.

A water quality standards variance

provides a mechanism for assuring

compliance with sections 301(b)(1)(C)

and 402(a)(1) of the CWA that require

NPDES permits meet applicable water

quality standards, while granting

temporary relief to point source

dischargers.

While 40 §CFR 131.13 allows States

to adopt variance procedures for Stateadopted water quality standards, such

State procedures may not be used to

grant variances from federally adopted

standards. EPA believes that it is

appropriate to provide comparable

federal procedures where, as proposed

here, EPA adopts use designations

which rely, at least in part, on a

rebuttable presumption that fishable/

swimmable uses are attainable or adopts

more stringent criteria for the State’s use

designations. Therefore, EPA is

proposing to authorize the Region X

Regional Administrator to grant water

quality standard variances where a

permittee submits data indicating that

an EPA-designated use is not attainable

for any of the reasons in 40 CFR

§ 131.10(g) or that a State designated use

is not attainable due to EPApromulgated temperature criteria. This

variance procedure will apply to

standards promulgated by EPA for

specific named segments. EPA does not

believe it is necessary to have a variance

procedures for unclassified waters,

since Idaho may effectively provide the

same relief by classifying an

unclassified water, but invites comment

on this point.

Today’s proposed rule spells out the

process for applying for and granting

such variances. Because water quality

standard variances are technically

revised water quality standards, the

proposal requires a variance to go

through the same basic steps as the

originally promulgated standard, that is,

publication of the proposed variance,

the opportunity for a hearing, and

publication of the final variance.

However, the Administrator is

delegating to the Regional Administrator

the authority to propose and grant these

variances. This delegation should

expedite the processing of variance

requests, as they will typically arise in

the context of NPDES proceedings being

handled by EPA Region X.

The proposed variance procedures

require an applicant for a water quality

standards variance to submit a request

to the Regional Administrator (or his

delegatee) with supporting information.

To avoid delays in the permitting

process attributable to the variance

request, the proposal requires the

applicant to submit the variance request

prior to or concurrent with the NPDES

application. EPA seeks comment on the

appropriateness of this timing

requirement.

The burden is on the applicant to

demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction that

the designated use is unattainable for

one of the reasons specified in 40 CFR

131.10(g). A variance may not be

granted if the use could be attained by

all dischargers implementing effluent

limitations required under sections

301(b) and 306 of the CWA and the

applicant implementing reasonable best

management practices for nonpoint

source control. EPA will incorporate

into the permittee’s NPDES permit all

conditions needed to implement the

variance.

Under the proposal, a variance may

not exceed 5 years or the term of the

NPDES permit, whichever is less. A

variance may be renewed if the

permittee demonstrates that the use in

question is still not attainable. Renewal

of the variance may be denied if the

permittee did not comply with the

conditions of the original variance.

EPA is soliciting comment on the

need for a variance process for EPApromulgated use designations, the

appropriateness of the particular

procedures proposed today, and

whether the proposed variance

procedures are sufficiently detailed.

J. Regulatory Impact Analysis

As explained more fully below in

section L (Regulatory Flexibility Act),

EPA’s proposed rule does not itself

establish any requirements directly

applicable to regulated entities. While

implementation of today’s proposed

rule may ultimately result in some new

or revised permit conditions for some

dischargers, EPA’s action today does not

impose any of these as yet unknown

requirements on dischargers.

Nonetheless, EPA is attempting, within

the limits of these uncertainties, to make

an estimate of the possible indirect costs

which might ultimately result from this

rulemaking.

The following is a summary of the

proposed methodology being used for

the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that

is being prepared for this rule. Further

discussion will be included in the full

RIA, which will be included in the

docket as part of the final rulemaking.

Under the CWA, costs cannot be a

basis for adopting water quality criteria

that will not be protective of designated

uses. If a range of scientifically

defensible criteria that are protective

can be identified, however, costs may be

considered in selecting a particular

criterion within that range.

The designated uses and water quality

criteria of the proposed rule are not

enforceable requirements until separate
23016 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

steps are taken to implement them.

Therefore, this publication of the

proposed rule does not have an

immediate effect on dischargers. Until

actions are taken to implement these

designated uses and criteria, there will

be no economic effect on any

dischargers.

In the short time prior to proposal

EPA attempted to assess, to the best of

its ability, compliance costs for facilities

that could eventually be indirectly

affected by the designated uses and

water quality criteria of today’s

proposed rule. As described below, EPA

searched readily available data sources

but did not find the information

necessary to accurately estimate these

potential costs. Although the costs are

not expected to be significant, EPA has

developed a methodology to estimate

the potential indirect cost impacts on

facilities discharging pollutants to

waters subject to the numeric water

quality criteria and uses established by

this proposal. During the public

comment period EPA will continue to

gather additional data and information

on the facilities and waters needed to

evaluate use attainability and the costs

attributable to this rule.

EPA is soliciting public comment and

supporting data on the facilities and

waters it intends to evaluate as part of

the RIA, and on the methodology it will

use to estimate costs associated with

implementation of the proposed rule.

EPA will review the comments and data

provided by the public as well as the

information and data it gathers during

the public comment period, and will

estimate the potential costs to facilities

as an indirect result of attaining

numeric water quality criteria and uses

proposed in this rule. EPA will include

this information as part of the final

rulemaking.

1. Use Attainability

As discussed earlier in this preamble,

EPA is relying on the rebuttable

presumption that fishable/swimmable

uses are attainable in the water body

segments affected by this rulemaking.

However, in order to properly assess the

impact of EPA’s new use designations in

Idaho, EPA performed a preliminary

evaluation to determine if this

presumption is appropriate for all

assessed water body stream segments

affected by this proposal.

Although an appropriate evaluation of

use attainability should consider

physical, biological, and chemical

indicators, the court-ordered schedule

did not provide adequate time to

properly evaluate all indicators. EPA

did, however, extract chemical-specific

data from the EPA STORET data base,

which houses ambient water quality

data for water bodies throughout the

U.S., including Idaho. If EPA were to

find that significant exceedances of

water quality criteria (in terms of

relative magnitude above the applicable

criteria, duration of exceedance above

the criteria, and the number and types

of pollutants) has occurred, then an

upgrade of designated uses might not be

appropriate.

EPA’s STORET extraction included

all data on record, and all pollutants for

which EPA’s new use designation

would result in more stringent water

quality criteria. EPA focused on the 35

water body segments for which the cold

water biota protection designated use

will be applied. Upon extraction, EPA

generated summary statistics

(minimum, average, and maximum

values on record) for the ambient water

quality within each affected stream

segment and compared them to the

applicable water quality criteria to

protect the cold water biota use

designation.

Most data on record in STORET for

the affected water body stream segments

is from the period prior to the mid-to

late-1980’s. Based on this data, EPA

found periodic exceedances of water

quality criteria for several water body

stream segments for several specific

parameters. However, due to the age of

most of the data, and the fact that data

for all applicable parameters were not

available, EPA could not definitively

conclude that a downgrade for any

water body stream segment affected by

this rule was justified. Therefore for

purposes of cost estimates, EPA

assumed that the new use designation

would apply to all affected water

bodies. EPA is requesting comments and

data regarding the applicability of the

new use designation for these water

body stream segments. The affected

water body stream segments can be

found in Section 131.33(b), Tables 1–6,

within this proposal. EPA is most

interested in the following types of

information: instream characteristics

(e.g., mean width/depth, flow/velocity,

reaeration rates); riparian

characteristics; biological inventory;

biological potential (e.g., diversity,

intolerant species); and ambient

pollutant concentrations for applicable

parameters of concern for the stream

segment.

2. Costs

i. Overview of Methodology To Estimate

Potential Costs Related to New Use

Designations

The new use designations being

proposed by EPA, by themselves, will

have no impact or effect. However,

when the water quality criteria to

protect these uses are applied to

dischargers through the NPDES permit

program, then costs may be incurred by

regulated entities (i.e., point source

dischargers) but these costs can vary

significantly because of the wide range

of control strategies available to

dischargers. Since the NPDES

permitting authority also has significant

flexibility and discretion in how it

chooses to implement water quality

criteria, analysis of potential costs

would be difficult to perform for all

potentially affected entities, even if EPA

had more time than was allowed under

the Court established time-frame. EPA

attempted to estimate the potential costs

attributable to the proposal by

developing detailed cost estimate for a

selected subset (a sample) of facilities

from the point source dischargers that

may be impacted by the proposed rule

and then used the sample results to

extrapolate to the universe of potentially

affected facilities. As explained below,

EPA has not been able to come up yet

with a reliable cost estimate due to

significant data gaps. The following

discussion addresses the approach

which EPA has attempted to use, and

plans to follow if more data is obtained.

The actual impact of the proposed

rule will depend upon the procedures

and policy decisions that will be

established by the permitting authority

to implement the rule and on which

control strategy the discharger selects in

order to bring the facility into

compliance. These procedures and

policy decisions established by the

permitting authority typically provide

the methods to determine the need for

water quality-based effluent limits

(WQBELs) and, if WQBELs are required,

how to derive WQBELs from applicable

water quality criteria. The

implementation procedures used to

derive WQBELs for this analysis were

based on the methods recommended in

the EPA ‘‘Technical Support Document

for Water Quality-based Toxics Control’’

(or TSD) (EPA/505/2–90–001; March

1991). Specifically, a projected effluent

quality (PEQ) was calculated and

compared to the projected WQBEL. A

PEQ is considered an effluent value

statistically adjusted for uncertainty to

estimate a maximum value that may

occur.

The PEQ for each selected pollutant

was compared to the projected WQBEL.

If the PEQ exceeded the projected

WQBEL, a reasonable potential existed

to exceed the WQBEL. Pollutants with

a reasonable potential to exceed then

were analyzed to determine potential

costs to achieve the projected WQBEL.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23017

Prior to estimating compliance costs,

an engineering analysis of how each

sample facility could comply with the

projected WQBEL was performed. The

costs were then estimated based on the

decisions and assumptions made in the

analysis. To ensure consistency and

reasonableness in estimating the general

types of controls that would be

necessary for a sample facility to

comply with the proposal (assuming

that implementation of the rule resulted

in more stringent discharge

requirements), as well as to integrate

into the cost analysis the other

alternatives available to regulated

facilities, a costing decision matrix was

used for each sample facility. Specific

rules were established in the matrix to

provide the reviewing engineers with

guidance in consistently selecting

options.

Under the decision matrix, costs for

minor treatment plant operation and

facility changes were considered first.

Minor, low-cost modification or

adjustment of existing treatment was

determined to be feasible where

literature indicated that the existing

treatment process could achieve the

projected WQBEL and where the

additional pollutant reduction was

relatively small (e.g., 10 to 25 percent of

current discharge levels).

Where it was not technically feasible

to simply adjust existing operations, the

next most attractive control strategy was

determined to be waste minimization/

pollution prevention controls. However,

costs for these controls were estimated

only where they were considered

feasible based on the reviewing

engineer’s understanding of the

process(es) at a facility. The practicality

of techniques was determined based on

several criteria established in the

decision matrix. Decision

considerations included the level of

pollutant reduction achievable through

waste minimization/pollution

prevention techniques, appropriateness

of waste minimization/pollution

prevention for the specific pollutant,

and knowledge of the manufacturing

processes generating the pollutant of

concern.

If waste minimization/pollution

prevention alone was deemed not

feasible to reduce pollutant levels to

those needed to comply with the

projected WQBELs, as calculated for

this analysis, a combination of waste

minimization/pollution prevention,

simple treatment, and/or process

optimization was considered. If these

relatively low-cost controls could not

achieve the projected WQBELs, more

expensive controls (e.g., end-of-pipe

treatment) were considered.

Development of end-of-pipe treatment

cost estimates constituted a review of

the existing treatment systems at each

facility. Decisions to add new treatment

systems or to supplement existing

treatment systems were based on this

initial evaluation. For determining the

need for additional or supplemental

treatment, sources of performance

information included the EPA Office of

Research and Development (ORD), Risk

Reduction Engineering Laboratory’s

‘‘RREL Treatability Database’’ (Version

4.0). The pollutant removal capabilities

of the existing treatment systems and/or

any proposed additional or

supplemental systems were evaluated

based on the following criteria: (1) The

effluent levels that were being achieved

currently at the facility; and (2) the

levels that are documented in the EPA

‘‘RREL Treatability Database.’’ If this

analysis showed that additional

treatment was needed, unit processes

that would achieve compliance with the

projected WQBELs were chosen using

the same documentation.

ii. Results for Stream Segments With

Specific Use Designations and

Unclassified Waters

EPA identified 46 facilities that

possess NPDES permits to discharge to

stream segments with specific use

designations for which new use

designations are being proposed in this

rule. Of these 46 facilities, 12 are

classified as major dischargers, and 34

are classified as minor dischargers. For

purposes of sample selection, EPA

grouped the facilities into six categories

of dischargers, including mining, food

products manufacturing, power plants,

logging and lumber production, publicly

owned treatment works (POTWs), and

miscellaneous facilities (e.g.,

universities, agricultural supplies

manufacturers, etc.). The following table

presents the universe of facilities and

the number of sample facilities

randomly selected by EPA to represent

each category. The number of sample

facilities selected by EPA was based on

ensuring adequate representation of the

dischargers within the group (relative to

other groups), as well as considering the

time frame available to perform the

analyses.

SUMMARY OF DISCHARGERS TO STREAM SEGMENTS WITH SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS

Category

No. of point source dischargersNo. of sample facilities

selected

Major Minor Major Minor

Mining ............................................................................................................................... 7 1 1 1

Food Products Manufacturing .......................................................................................... 2 1 1 ....................

Power Plants .................................................................................................................... .................... 4 .................... 1

Logging and Lumber Production ...................................................................................... .................... 1 .................... 1

Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................... .................... 11 .................... 2

POTWs ............................................................................................................................. 3 16 1 4

Total ........................................................................................................................... 12 34 3 9

An exact number of NPDES permitted

facilities that discharge to unclassified

waters was not possible due to the court

ordered schedule to propose the rule.

However, EPA estimated the potential

number of facilities that could be

affected by the proposal through data

and information contained in the EPA

Permit Compliance System (PCS).

Specifically, EPA manually subtracted

from the entire list of NPDES permitted

dischargers within Idaho, all dischargers

to stream segments with specific use

designations (including those stream

segments for which EPA is proposing

new use designations). Exclusion of a

facility was based on the receiving water

name for the discharge as contained in

PCS. As a result of this effort, EPA

estimates that 110 facilities have NPDES

permits to discharge to unclassified

waters within Idaho. Of the 110, eight

are classified as majors and 102 are

classified as minors. The following table

presents the estimated universe of

facilities discharging to unclassified

waters and the number of sample
23018 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

facilities randomly selected by EPA to

represent each category. Again, the

number of sample facilities selected by

EPA was based on ensuring adequate

representation of the dischargers within

the group (relative to other groups), as

well as considering the time frame

available to perform the analyses.

SUMMARY OF DISCHARGERS TO UNCLASSIFIED WATERS

Category

No. of point source dischargersNo. of sample facilities

selected

Major Minor Major Minor

Mining ............................................................................................................................... 3 15 1 2

Food Products Manufacturing .......................................................................................... .................... 3 .................... 1

Power Plants .................................................................................................................... .................... 4 .................... 1

Logging and Lumber Production ...................................................................................... .................... 3 .................... 1

Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................... 4 52 2 4

POTWs ............................................................................................................................. 1 25 1 3

Total ........................................................................................................................... 8 102 4 12

To estimate costs for each of the

sample facilities, EPA obtained data

from NPDES permit files (permit

application, permit, fact sheet or

Statement of basis), and downloaded

effluent monitoring data from PCS.

For each sample facility, EPA

performed an evaluation of reasonable

potential to exceed water quality-based

effluent limits (WQBELs) based on

applicable water quality criteria to

protect new use designations (i.e., cold

water biota protection). EPA considered

any pollutant for which water quality

criteria existed and for which data were

available. EPA assumed that reasonable

potential existed if a permit limit for the

pollutant of concern was included in

the existing permit for the sample

facility. In the absence of a permit limit,

but where monitoring data were

available, EPA evaluated reasonable

potential based on the monitoring data

and the procedures contained in the

TSD (EPA 505/2–90–001; March 1991).

It should be noted that evaluation of the

reasonable potential to exceed the

applicable dissolved oxygen criteria was

not possible in most cases, due to the

lack of data. However, there were

several sample facilities that were

discharging oxygen-demanding

pollutants. To account for the possible

effect of the oxygen demand potential

from these facilities, EPA used a flowbased approach to determine the

reasonable potential to exceed the

dissolved oxygen criteria. In particular,

if the discharge from a sample facility

was to an effluent dominated stream

(i.e., the effluent discharge flow from

the sample facility was greater than 50

percent of the receiving stream flow),

then EPA assumed that treatment was

needed to meet the dissolved oxygen

criteria.

To calculate WQBELs, EPA used the

TSD procedures to derive maximum

daily and monthly average limits.

Background concentrations were based

on the average of data contained in

STORET for upstream monitoring

stations (including nearby tributaries);

in the absence of background data, EPA

assumed zero. Critical low flows were

calculated from data contained in the

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Daily Flow file data base for nearby gage

stations; the 1-day, 10-year low flow

(1Q10) was used for acute aquatic life

protection and the 7-day, 10-year low

flow (7Q10) was used for chronic

aquatic life protection. In the absence of

stream flow data, EPA conservatively

assumed zero low flow.

Once WQBELs were derived, EPA

attempted to derive cost estimates that

represent the cost to remove the

incremental amount of pollutant(s) to

levels needed to comply with WQBELs

(based on the existing effluent limit or

reported effluent quality in the absence

of a limit). Ideally, this assessment

would be based on an evaluation of the

performance of existing treatment

system units, as well as consideration of

other possible control options (e.g.,

waste minimization, pollution

prevention). However, the general lack

of appropriate information and data,

particularly for the minor sample

facilities, prohibited EPA from assessing

the feasibility of potential control

options to reduce pollutant

concentrations. Although EPA does not

expect significant costs based on initial

examination of the types and number of

pollutants that would be affected by the

proposed rule, any estimates made by

EPA without an adequate information

base would be speculation.

As a result of the significant data gaps

for the sample facilities, EPA was

unable to estimate costs for the sample

facilities. The following table presents

the facilities that were randomly

selected as sample facilities for the cost

analysis.

SAMPLE FACILITIES SELECTED BY EPA FOR COST ANALYSIS

Category Sample facility name NPDES

permit No.

Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations

Mining ............................................................................................ Goldback Mines Corp .................................................................... ID0026026

Hecla Mining Co ............................................................................ ID0000167

Star/Morning Mine and Mill.

Food Products Manufacturing ....................................................... Armour Fresh ................................................................................ ID0000787

Power Plants .................................................................................. Idaho Power—Swans Falls ........................................................... ID0022551

Logging and Lumber Production ................................................... Boise Cascade Council Sawmill ................................................... ID0025631

Miscellaneous ................................................................................ University of Idaho Irrigation Lagoons .......................................... ID0027464

Agway Inc. Seed Coop ................................................................. ID0027464

POTWs .......................................................................................... City of Preston ............................................................................... ID0020214
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23019

SAMPLE FACILITIES SELECTED BY EPA FOR COST ANALYSIS—Continued

Category Sample facility name NPDES

permit No.

City of Troy .................................................................................... ID0023604

Clarkia Water & Sewer District ..................................................... ID0025071

Cambridge Sewer Association ...................................................... ID0020338

City of Franklin .............................................................................. ID0025569

Unclassified Waters

Mining ............................................................................................ Beartrack Gold .............................................................................. ID0027022

Caladay Project—Daly Gulch ........................................................ ID0025429

Unnamed Discharge to Crooked Creek ........................................ ID0024881

Food Products Manufacturing ....................................................... Wippco Processing Plant .............................................................. ID0026794

Power Plants .................................................................................. Idaho Power Company .................................................................. ID0027502

Logging and Lumber Production ................................................... Jaype Plywood .............................................................................. ID0000451

Miscellaneous ................................................................................ Niagara Springs Hatchery ............................................................. ID0022381

Snake River Hatchery ................................................................... ID0000752

Standal Ponds ............................................................................... ID0027782

Yoder Farms .................................................................................. ID0024236

Great Western Chemical ............................................................... ID0027537

Unnamed Discharge to Lapwai Creek .......................................... ID0025168

POTWs .......................................................................................... Unnamed Discharge to American Falls Reservoir ........................ ID0020176

City of Kamiah ............................................................................... ID0027545

Unnamed Discharge to Hangman Creek ...................................... ID0025101

Unnamed Discharge to Four Mile Creek ...................................... ID0026310

EPA is requesting comments, data,

and information for the sample facilities

that could assist EPA in evaluating the

potential indirect costs to the sample

facilities, including, but not limited to,

descriptions of existing treatment

systems and pollutant control systems;

pollutants expected in effluent

discharge; long-term average discharge

flow and pollutant effluent

concentrations; long-term average

receiving water pollutant

concentrations; and critical low flow

values for receiving water stream

segments.

iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate

Potential Costs Related to New

Temperature Criteria

EPA is also including as part of

today’s proposed rule temperature

criteria for threatened and endangered

species. Due to the number of water

body stream segments that are affected

by this more stringent temperature

criteria and lack of data, EPA was not

able to project the potential costs to

NPDES permitted dischargers associated

with proposal of the more stringent

temperature criteria. The water body

stream segments with more stringent

temperature criteria to protect

threatened and endangered species can

be found in Sections 131.33 (c) through

(e) of today’s proposed rule.

If sufficient data can be obtained, the

approach EPA plans to use to estimate

potential costs is similar to the approach

used for estimating the costs for new use

designations (i.e., randomly selecting

sample facilities to represent the

universe of affected facilities). The data

requirements to evaluate the potential

costs would include not only ambient

and effluent temperature data for critical

times of the year during which

spawning and rearing occur, but also

detailed operational information to

evaluate the ability of a facility to

comply with the more stringent

temperature criteria.

This detailed data were not available

to EPA within the time-frame to

complete the cost analysis, and

therefore EPA was not able to fully

assess the impact to NPDES permitted

dischargers. EPA is soliciting the above

mentioned data for facilities located on

water body stream segments identified

in Sections 131.33 (c)–(e) of today’s

proposed rule.

K. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this is not

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866, and

is therefore not subject to OMB review.

L. Regulatory Flexibility Act as

Amended By the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

provides that, whenever an agency

publishes a rule under 5 U.S.C. § 553,

after being required to publish a general

notice of proposed rulemaking, an

agency must prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis unless the head of

the agency certifies that the proposed

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. §§ 604

& 605. The Administrator is today

certifying, pursuant to § 605(b) of the

RFA, that this proposed rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, the Agency did not prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

Under the CWA water quality

standards program, States must adopt

water quality standards for their waters
23020 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

that must be submitted to EPA for

approval. If the Agency disapproves a

State standard, EPA must promulgate

standards consistent with the statutory

requirements. These State standards (or

EPA-promulgated standards) are

implemented through the NPDES

program that limits discharges to

navigable waters except in compliance

with an EPA permit or permit issued

under an approved State program. The

CWA requires that all NPDES permits

must include any limits on discharges

that are necessary to meet State water

quality standards.

Thus under the CWA, EPA’s

promulgation of water quality standards

where State standards are inconsistent

with statutory requirements establishes

standards that are implemented through

the NPDES permit process by

authorized States, or, in the absence of

an approved State NPDES program, by

EPA. EPA implements the NPDES

program in Idaho. EPA and authorized

States have discretion in deciding how

to meet the water quality standards and

in developing discharge limits as

needed to meet the standards. While

State or EPA implementation of

federally-promulgated water quality

standards may result in new or revised

discharge limits being placed on small

entities, the standards themselves do

not apply to any discharger, including

small entities.

Today’s proposed rule imposes

obligations on EPA but, as explained

above, does not itself establish any

requirements that are applicable to

small entities. As a result of this action,

EPA will need to ensure that permits

issued in the State of Idaho include any

limitations on discharges necessary to

comply with the standards in the final

rule. EPA and the State have a number

of discretionary choices associated with

permit writing and total maximum daily

load (TMDL) calculations and waste

load allocations (WLAs) which can

affect the burden felt by any small entity

as a result of EPA action to implement

the final rule. While implementation of

the final rule may ultimately result in

some new or revised permit conditions

for some dischargers, including small

entities, EPA’s action today does not

impose any of these as yet unknown

requirements on small entities.

The RFA requires analysis of the

impacts of a rule on the small entities

subject to the rules’ requirements. See

United States Distribution Companies v.

FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir.

1996). Today’s proposed rule establishes

no requirements applicable to small

entities, and so is not susceptible to

regulatory flexibility analysis as

prescribed by the RFA. (‘‘[N]o analysis

is necessary when an agency determines

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities that are subject

to the requirements of the rule,’ ’’ United

Distribution at 1170, quoting Mid-Tex

Elec. Co-op v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342

(D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added by

United Distribution court).) The Agency

is thus certifying that today’s proposed

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, within the

meaning of the RFA.

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and Tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

Statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for

which a written Statement is needed,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the rule

an explanation why that alternative was

not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including Tribal governments, it must

have developed under section 203 of the

UMRA a small government agency plan.

The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

enabling officials of the affected small

governments to have meaningful and

timely input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

As noted above, this proposed rule is

limited to water quality standards for a

limited number of waters within the

State of Idaho. EPA believes that this

proposed rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. EPA

also believes that this proposed rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s proposed rule is not subject to

the requirements of sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

Today’s rulemaking imposes no new

or additional information collection

activities subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Therefore, no Information Collection

request will be submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget for review

in compliance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

O. Executive Order 12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, EPA has involved State

governments in the development of this

rule. Prior to this rulemaking action,

EPA met numerous times with

representatives of Idaho’s Division of

Environmental Quality and Idaho’s

Attorney General’s office to discuss our

concerns with the State’s water quality

standards, possible remedies for

addressing the disapproved sections of

the water quality standards, and the

rulemaking process. EPA has also

corresponded with Idaho’s Division of

Environmental Quality and the

Governor’s office. EPA has held

telephone conferences and meetings

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Marine Fisheries Service to

discuss Endangered Species Act

consultation issues related to this

action. In addition, EPA issued a notice

on March 21, 1997, (62 FR 13567)

outlining EPA’s rulemaking plans and

informing the public that EPA would be

seeking information on specific streams

in Idaho. EPA will continue to work

with affected parties before finalizing

water quality standards for Idaho.

EPA has scheduled two public

hearings for May 12, 1997, in Boise,

Idaho. EPA’s public notification process

is targeting interested parties, both

within and outside of government, to

ensure them the opportunity for

involvement.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

Environmental protection, Water

pollution control, Water Quality

Standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23021

Dated: April 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40

CFR Part 131 as follows:

PART 131—WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 131

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D—[Amended]

2. Section 131.33 is added to read as

follows:

§ 131.33 Idaho.

(a) Prior to classification by the State,

unclassified waters shall be protected

for primary contact recreation and cold

water biota.

(b) In addition to the State adopted

use designations, the following water

body segments in Idaho have the

beneficial uses designated in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

Idaho map code Waters Cold water

biota

Salmonid

spawning

Primary

contact

recreation

(1) Panhandle Basin

PB 11S ....................................... Granite Creek-source to mouth ...................................................... .................... .................... x

PB 121S ..................................... Canyon Creek-below mining impact ............................................... x .................... x

PB 140S ..................................... South Fork Coeur d’Alene River-Daisy Gulch to mouth ................. x .................... x

PB 142S ..................................... Nine Mile Creek-below mining impact ............................................ x .................... x

PB 143S ..................................... Big Creek-below mining impact ...................................................... x .................... x

PB 145S ..................................... Government Gulch-source to mouth ............................................... x .................... x

PB 146S ..................................... Pine Creek-below mining impact .................................................... .................... .................... x

PB 147S ..................................... Lake Creek-below mining impact .................................................... x .................... x

PB 148S ..................................... Shields Gulch-below mining impact ................................................ x .................... x

PB 220P ..................................... Trestle Creek-source to mouth ....................................................... .................... .................... x

PB 322S ..................................... St. Maries-Fernwood to mouth ....................................................... x .................... ....................

PB 340S ..................................... Plummer Creek-source to mouth .................................................... x .................... x

PB 450S ..................................... Hangman Creek-source to Idaho-Washington border .................... x .................... x

PB 451S ..................................... Rock Creek-source to Idaho-Washington border ........................... x .................... x

(2) Clearwater Basin

CB 152 ....................................... Cottonwood Creek-source to mouth ............................................... x .................... ....................

CB 170 ....................................... Palouse River-Princeton to Idaho-Washington border ................... x .................... x

CB 171 ....................................... So. Fork Palouse River-source to Idaho-Washington border ......... x .................... x

CB 210 ....................................... Lindsay Creek ................................................................................. .................... .................... x

CB 1321 ..................................... Three Mile Creek-source to mouth ................................................. .................... .................... x

CB 1322 ..................................... Cottonwood Creek-source to mouth ............................................... .................... .................... x

CB 1421 ..................................... Grasshopper Creek-source to mouth ............................................. x x ....................

CB 1541 ..................................... Little Bear Creek-source to mouth .................................................. x x x

CB 1711 ..................................... Cow Creek-source to Idaho-Washington border ............................ x .................... x

CB 1712 ..................................... Paradise Creek source to Idaho-Washington border ..................... x .................... x

(3) Salmon Basin

SB 130 ........................................ Thompson Creek-source to mouth ................................................. .................... .................... x

SB 140 ........................................ Squaw Creek-source to mouth ....................................................... .................... .................... x

SB 421 ........................................ Blackbird Creek-source to mouth ................................................... x x x

SB 430 ........................................ Panther Creek-Blackbird Creek to mouth ....................................... .................... x x

SB 4211 ...................................... West Fork Blackbird Creek-source to mouth .................................. x x x

(4) Southwest Idaho Basin

SWB 10 ...................................... Snake River-King Hill to Marsing .................................................... x .................... ....................

SWB 20 ...................................... Snake River-Marsing to Boise River ............................................... x .................... ....................

SWB 30 ...................................... Snake River-Payette River to Boise River ...................................... x .................... ....................

SWB 271 .................................... Ten Mile Creek-source to mouth .................................................... .................... .................... x

SWB 271 .................................... Five Mile Creek-source to mouth .................................................... .................... .................... x

SWB 282 .................................... Indian Creek-below Sugar Avenue Nampa to mouth ..................... x .................... x

SWB 410 .................................... Weiser River-source to Midvale ...................................................... x .................... ....................

SWB 421 .................................... Crane Creek-source to mouth ........................................................ x .................... ....................

(5) Upper Snake Basin

USB 235 ..................................... North Fork Teton River-source to mouth ........................................ .................... .................... x

USB 236 ..................................... South Fork Teton River-source to mouth ....................................... .................... .................... x

USB 320 ..................................... Willow Creek-Ririe Dam to mouth .................................................. .................... .................... x

USB 360 ..................................... Blackfoot River-Equalizing Dam to mouth ...................................... x .................... x

USB 411 ..................................... Marsh Creek-source to mouth ........................................................ x .................... x

USB 430 ..................................... Bannock Creek-source to mouth .................................................... x .................... x

USB 730 ..................................... Rock Creek-Rock Creek City to mouth .......................................... .................... .................... x

USB 740 ..................................... Cedar Draw-source to mouth .......................................................... .................... .................... x

USB 800 ..................................... Mud Creek-Deep Creek Road to mouth ......................................... .................... .................... x
23022 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Idaho map code Waters Cold water

biota

Salmonid

spawning

Primary

contact

recreation

USB 810 ..................................... Deep Creek-source to mouth .......................................................... .................... .................... x

BB 310 ........................................ Soda Creek-source to mouth .......................................................... x .................... x

BB 430 ........................................ Battle Creek—source to mouth ....................................................... x .................... x

BB 420 ........................................ Worm Creek-source to Idaho-Washington border .......................... x .................... x

BB 450 ........................................ Cub Creek-Mapleton to Idaho-Utah border .................................... x .................... x

BB 470 ........................................ Malad River-Little Malad River to Idaho-Utah border ..................... x .................... x

BB 480 ........................................ Deep Creek-source to Idaho-Utah border ...................................... x .................... ....................

(c) Temperature Criteria for Bull

Trout.

(1) The following seasonal

temperature requirements and

maximum weekly average temperature

criteria apply to the Idaho waterbody

segments identified in paragraph (c)(2)

of this section.

Date

Maximum

weekly average temperature

(°C)

January ..................................... 4

February .................................... 4

March ........................................ 6

April ........................................... 8

May ........................................... 10

June .......................................... 12

July ............................................ 12

August 1–15 .............................. 12

August 15–30 ............................ 10

September ................................ 10

October ..................................... 8

November ................................. 6

December ................................. 6

(2) Note: In paragraph (c)(2), ‘‘1’’

denotes waterbody segments included

in the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project is ‘‘Key

Salmonid’’ Database; ‘‘2’’ denotes

waterbody segments included in the

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Digital Bulltrout Distribution Database.

(i) Boise-Mores Basin: Boise River,2

Devils Creek,1 2 East Fork Sheep

Creek,1 2 Middle Fork Boise River,2

North Fork Boise River,2 Sheep Creek.1 2

(ii) Brownlee Reservoir Basin: Allison

Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 Board Gulch,1

Brownlee Creek,1 Butterfield Gulch,1

Calf Pen Gulch,1 Cave Creek,1 Cold

Spring Creek,1 Cottonwood Creek,1 Cow

Creek,1 Crooked River,1 2 Deer Creek,1

Dick Ross Creek,1 Doe Creek,1 Dukes

Creek,1 Eckels Creek,1 Fawn Creek,1

Gladheart Gulch,1 Grouse Creek,1 Hoo

Hoo Gulch,1 Indian Creek,2 Jackson

Gulch,1 Kinney Creek,1 Lick Creek,1

Little Bear Creek,1 Raft Creek,1 Sheep

Creek,1 Snake River,1 Stevens Creek,1

Sumac Creek,1 Summit Gulch,1 Swapit

Creek,1 Thorn Creek,1 Thorn Spring

Creek,1 Trail Creek,1 Wayle Creek,1

Wickiup Creek,1 Wolf Creek.1

(iii) Bruneau Basin: Bruneau River,1

East Fork Jarbidge River,2 Jarbidge

River,2 Stiff Tree Draw.1

(iv) Clearwater Basin: Beardy Gulch,1

Big Canyon Creek,2 Clearwater River,1

Cole Canyon,1 Cougar Creek,1 Feather

Creek,1 Laguna Creek,1 Lolo Creek,2

Nikesa Creek,1 North Fork Clearwater

River,1 Orofino Creek,2 Rattlesnake

Canyon,1 Talapus Creek,1 West Fork

Potlatch River,1 Wheeler Canyon.1

(v) Coeur D’Alene Lake Basin: Canary

Creek,1 Cataldo Gulch,1 Cave Lake,1

Clark Creek,1 Coeur d’Alene Lake,1

Coeur d’Alene River,1 Cougar Creek,1

Evans Creek,1 Fernan Creek,1 Fortier

Creek,1 French Gulch,1 Hardy Gulch,1

Hayden Gulch,1 Kid Creek,1 Killarney

Creek,1 Killarney Lake,1 Lane Creek,1

Medicine Lake,1 Mica Creek,1 Robinson

Creek,1 Rose Creek,1 Skeel Gulch,1

South Fork Mica Creek,1 Squaw Creek,1

Turner Creek,1 Whiteman Draw,1

Willow Creek.1

(vi) Hells Canyon Basin: Bear Gulch,1

Bernard Creek,1 Big Canyon Creek,1 Big

Sulphur Creek,1 Brush Creek,1 Camp

Creek,1 Caribou Creek,1 Clarks Fork,2

Corral Creek,1 Deep Creek,1 Devils Farm

Creek,1 Dog Creek,1 Doug Creek,1 Dry

Creek,1 2 East Fork Sheep Creek,1 Fir

Creek,1 Getta Creek,2 Granite Creek,1 2

Highrange Creek,1 Jones Creek,1 Kirby

Creek,1 Klopton Creek,1 2 Kurry Creek,1 2

Left Fork Dry Creek,1 Little Granite

Creek,1 North Fork Klopton Creek,1

Oxbow Creek,1 Salt Creek,2 Sheep

Creek,1 2 Snake River,1 2 Steep Creek,1

Thorn Creek,1 Trail Creek,1 Two Creek,1

Vance Gulch,1 West Creek,1 West Fork

West Creek,1 Wyley Creek,1 Zigzag

Creek.1

(vii) Lemhi Basin: Adams Creek,1

Alder Creek,1 Baldy Creek,1 Basin

Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 Bear Valley

Creek,1 2 Big Eightmile Creek,1 2 Big

Springs Creek,1 Big Timber Creek,1 2

Bray Creek,1 Bull Creek,1 Cabin Creek,1

Canyon Creek,1 2 Carol Creek,1

Chamberlain Creek,1 Clear Creek,1

Climb Creek,1 Cooper Creek,1 Dairy

Creek,1 2 Deer Creek,1 2 Deer Park

Creek,1 Divide Creek,1 Dry Creek,1 East

Fork Hayden Creek,1 2 East Fork Kenney

Creek,1 East Fork Kirtley Creek,1

Eighteenmile Creek,1 2 Falls Creek,1

Ferry Creek,1 Ford Creek,1 Gary Creek,1

Geertson Creek,1 2 Goose Creek,1 Grove

Creek,1 Hawley Creek,1 2 Hayden

Creek,1 2 Haynes Creek,1 Kadletz Creek,1

Kenney Creek,1 2 Kirtley Creek,1 2 Lake

Creek,1 Lee Creek,2 Lemhi River,1 2

Little Eightmile Creek,1 2 Little Mill

Creek,1 Little Sawmill Creek,1 Little

Timber Creek,1 2 McGinty Creek,1

McNutt Creek,1 Meadow Creek,1 Middle

Fork Little Timber Creek,1 2 Milk Creek,1

Mill Creek,1 2 Mogg Creek,1 Muddy

Creek,1 Mulkey Creek,1 Negro Green

Creek,1 North Fork Kirtley Creek,1 2

North Fork Little Timber Creek,1

Paradise Creek,1 Patterson Creek,1

Payne Creek,1 Poison Creek,1 Prospect

Creek,1 Reese Creek,1 Rocky Creek,1

Ryegrass Creek,1 Short Creek,1 Squaw

Creek,1 Squirrel Creek,1 Texas Creek,1

Tobias Creek,1 Trail Creek,1 Walter

Creek,1 Warm Spring Creek,1 West Fork

Hayden Creek,1 2 West Fork Little

Eightmile Creek,1 Wright Creek.1

(viii) Little Lost Basin: Aspen Creek,1

Badger Creek,1 2 Barney Creek,1 Bear

Canyon,1 Bear Creek,1 Bell Mountain

Creek,1 Big Creek,1 2 Bird Canyon,1

Black Creek,1 Buck Canyon,1 Bull

Creek,1 Cedar Run Creek,1 Chicken

Creek,1 Coal Creek,1 Corral Creek,1 Deep

Creek,1 Dry Creek,1 Dry Creek Canal,1

Firbox Creek,1 2 Garfield Creek,1 Hawley

Canyon,1 Hawley Creek,1 2 Horse

Creek,1 Horse Lake Creek,1 Iron Creek,1 2

Jackson Creek,1 2 Little Lost River,1 2

Mahogany Creek,1 Main Fork Sawmill

Creek,1 2 Massacre Creek,1 Meadow

Creek,1 Mill Creek,1 2 Moffett Creek,1

Moonshine Creek,1 Quigley Creek,1 Red

Rock Creek,1 2 Sands Creek,1 Sawmill

Creek,1 2 Slide Creek,1 Smithie Fork,1 2

Squaw Creek,1 2 Summerhouse Canyon,1

Summit Creek,1 2 Timber Creek,1 2

Warm Creek,1 2 Wet Creek,1 2 Williams

Creek.1 2

(ix) Little Salmon Basin: Bascum

Canyon,1 Boulder Creek,2 Brown Creek,1

Campbell Ditch,1 Castle Creek,1

Clayburn Creek,1 Copper Creek,1

Granite Fork Lake Fork Rapid River,1

Hard Creek,1 2 Hazard Creek,1 2 Hyatt

Creek,1 Jacks Creek,1 Lake Fork Rapid

River,1 Little Salmon River,1 2 Paradise
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23023

Creek,1 Pony Creek,2 Rapid River,1 2

Squirrel Creek,2 Trail Creek,1 Warm

Springs Creek,1 West Fork Rapid River.2

(x) Lochsa Basin: Apgar Creek,1

Badger Creek,1 Bald Mountain Creek,1

Bear Mtn. Creek,1 Beaver Creek,1 2 Big

Flat Creek,1 2 Big Stew Creek,1 Boulder

Creek,1 2 Brushy Fork,1 2 Cabin Creek,1

California Creek,1 Castle Creek,1 Chain

Creek,2 Chimney Creek,1 Cliff Creek ,1

Colgate Creek,1 Coolwater Creek,1

Cooperation Creek,1 Crab Creek,1

Crooked Fork Lochsa River,1 2 Dan

Creek,1 Deadman Creek,2 Doe Creek,1 2

Dutch Creek,1 Eagle Creek,1 Eagle

Mountain Creek,1 East Fork Papoose

Creek,1 2 East Fork Split Creek,1 East

Fork Squaw Creek,1 Eel Creek,1 Fern

Creek,1 Fire Creek,2 Fish Creek,1 2 Fish

Lake Creek,1 2 Fox Creek,1 2 Freezeout

Creek,1 Gass Creek,2 Gold Creek,1

Greystone Creek,1 Gypsy Creek,1 Ham

Creek,1 Handy Creek,1 Hard Creek,1

Haskell Creek,1 Heather Creek,1 Helix

Creek,1 Hellgate Creek,1 Heslip Creek,1

Hidden Creek,1 Holly Creek,1 Hopeful

Creek,1 2 Hungery Creek,2 Indian Grave

Creek,1 2 Indian Meadow Creek,1 Jay

Creek,1 Kerr Creek,1 Kinnikinnick

Creek,1 Kube Creek,1 Lochsa River,1 2

Lone Knob Creek,1 Lost Creek,1 Lottie

Creek,1 Macaroni Creek,1 Maud Creek,1

Middle Fork Clearwater River,2 Mocus

Creek,1 No-see-um Creek,1 North Fork

Spruce Creek,1 North Fork Storm

Creek,1 Nut Creek,1 Old Man Creek,1

Otter Slide Creek,1 Pack Creek,1

Papoose Creek,1 2 Parachute Creek,1 Pass

Creek,1 Pedro Creek,1 Pell Creek,1 Pete

King Creek,1 2 Placer Creek,1 Polar

Creek,1 Postoffice Creek,1 2 Queen

Creek,1 Robin Creek,1 Rock Creek,1 Rye

Patch Creek,1 Sardine Creek,1 Selway

River,1 2 Shoot Creek,1 Shotgun Creek,1

Skookum Creek,1 Snowshoe Creek,1

South Fork Spruce Creek,1 South Fork

Storm Creek,1 Split Creek,1 Sponge

Creek,1 2 Spring Creek,1 Spruce Creek,1 2

Squaw Creek,1 2 Storm Creek,1 2 Tadpole

Creek,1 Tick Creek,1 Tomcat Creek,1

Tumble Creek,1 Twin Creek,1 Wag

Creek,1 Walde Creek,1 2 Walton Creek,1 2

Warm Springs Creek,1 2 Weir Creek,1 2

Wendover Creek,1 2 West Fork Boulder

Creek,1 West Fork Papoose Creek,1 2

West Fork Squaw Creek,1 2 West Fork

Wendover Creek,1 White Sands Creek,1 2

Willow Creek.1

(xi) Lower Clark Fork Basin: Cascade

Creek,1 Clark Fork,1 2 East Fork,1 East

Fork Creek,2 East Fork East Fork Creek,1

Gold Creek,1 Johnson Creek,1 2

Lightning Creek,1 2 Middle Fork Clark

Fork,2 Mosquito Creek,1 North Fork

Clark Fork,2 Porcupine Creek,2 Rattle

Creek,2 South Fork Clark Fork,2 Spring

Creek,1 2 Twin Creek,2 Wellington

Creek.1 2

(xii) Lower Kootenai Basin: Ball

Creek,1 Boundary Creek,2 Brush Creek,1

Brush Lake,1 Cabin Creek,1 Caribou

Creek,1 2 Cascade Creek,1 Cedar Creek,1

Cooks Creek,1 Cow Creek,1 Curley

Creek,2 Deep Creek,1 2 Fall Creek,1 Grass

Creek,2 Hall Creek,1 Highland Creek,1

Jim Creek,1 Kootenai River,1 2 Lime

Creek,1 Long Canyon Creek,1 2 Mack

Creek,1 Mission Creek,2 Molar Creek,1

Moyie River,2 Myrtle Creek,1 2 Peak

Creek,1 Roman Nose Creek,1 Snow

Creek,1 2 Trout Creek.1 2

(xiii) Lower Middle Fork Salmon

Basin: Acorn Creek,1 Alpine Creek,1

Anvil Creek,1 Arrastra Creek,1 Bar

Creek,1 Beagle Creek,1 Beaver Creek,1 2

Belvidere Creek,1 2 Big Creek,1 2

Birdseye Creek,1 Bismark Creek,1

Boulder Creek,1 Brush Creek,2 Buck

Creek,1 Bull Creek,1 Cabin Creek,2

Camas Creek,1 2 Camp Creek,1 Canyon

Creek,1 Castle Creek,1 2 Cave Creek,1

Chalk Creek,1 Cinch Creek,1 Clark

Creek,1 Coin Creek,1 Color Creek,1

Copper Creek,1 Corner Creek,1 Coxey

Creek,1 Crooked Creek,1 2 Dame Creek,1

Deer Creek,1 Doe Creek,1 Duck Creek,1

East Fork Crooked Creek,1 East Fork

Holy Terror Creek,1 Fall Creek,1 Fawn

Creek,1 Flume Creek,1 Fly Creek,1 Forge

Creek,1 Furnace Creek,1 Garden Creek,1

Goat Creek ,1 Gold Creek,1 Government

Creek,1 Grouse Creek,1 Hammer Creek,1

Hand Creek,1 2 Holy Terror Creek,1 J Fell

Creek,1 Jackass Creek,1 Jacobs Ladder

Creek,1 Jenny Creek,1 Lake Creek,1

Lewis Creek,1 Liberty Creek,1 Lick

Creek,1 Lime Creek,1 Little Jacket

Creek,1 Little Marble Creek,1 Little

Ramey Creek,1 Little White Goat Creek,1

Little Woodtick Creek,1 Logan Creek ,1 2

Lookout Creek,1 Loon Creek ,2

Marttindale Creek,1 Meadow Creek,1

Middle Fork Salmon River,1 2 Middle

Fork Smith Creek,1 2 Milk Creek,1

Monumental Creek,1 2 Moore Creek,1

Mud Creek,1 Mulligan Creek,1 North

Fork Smith Creek,1 North Fork Stoddard

Creek,1 Norton Creek,1 Pack Horse

Creek,1 Paint Creek,1 Placer Creek,1 Pole

Creek,1 Rams Creek,1 Range Creek,1

Roaring Creek,1 Routson Creek,1 Rush

Creek,1 2 Sawlog Creek,1 Sheep Creek,1

Sheldon Creek,1 Shellrock Creek,1 Ship

Island Creek,1 Shovel Creek,1 Silver

Creek,1 2 Slide Creek,1 Smith Creek,1 2

Snowslide Creek,2 Soda Creek,1 Soldier

Creek,1 South Fork Camas Creek,1 South

Fork Chamberlain Creek,2 South Fork

Holy Terror Creek,1 South Fork Norton

Creek,1 South Fork Rush Creek,1 South

Fork Sheep Creek,1 Spider Creek,1

Spletts Creek,1 Spring Creek,1 Stoddard

Creek,1 Tale Creek,1 Telephone Creek,1

Trail Creek,1 Twin Creek,1 Two Point

Creek,1 West Fork Beaver Creek,1 West

Fork Camas Creek,1 2 West Fork Crooked

Creek,1 West Fork Monumental Creek,1 2

West Fork Rush Creek,1 Whiskey

Creek,1 White Goat Creek,1 Wild Horse

Creek,1 Wilson Creek,1 2 Woodtick

Creek,1 Yellowjacket Creek.1

(xiv) Lower North Fork Clearwater

Basin: Adair Creek,1 Anderson Creek,1

Badger Creek,1 Bathtub Creek,1 Bear

Creek,1 Beaver Creek,1 2 Bertha Creek,1

Bingo Creek,1 Black Creek,1 Bonner

Creek,1 Brush Creek,1 Buck Creek,1

Butte Creek,1 Canyon Creek,1 2 Caribou

Creek,1 Cataract Creek,1 Crampton

Creek,1 Crescendo Creek,1 Crimper

Creek,1 Delate Creek,1 Devils Club

Creek,1 Dip Creek,1 Dog Creek,1 2

Dworshak Reservoir,1 East Fork Beaver

Creek,1 Elkberry Creek,1 Elmberry

Creek,1 Elmer Creek,1 Falls Creek,1 Fern

Creek,1 Floodwood Creek,1 Foehl

Creek,1 Goat Creek,1 Grandad Creek,1

Harlan Creek,1 Hodson Creek,1 Idaho

Creek,1 Isabella Creek,1 2 John Creek,1

Jug Creek,1 Jungle Creek,1 2 Ladds

Creek,1 Larkins Creek,1 Len Creek,1

Lightning Creek,1 Little Lost Lake

Creek,1 Little Meadow Creek,1 Little

North Fork Clearwater River,1 2 Lost

Lake Creek,1 2 Lund Creek,1 2 Marquette

Creek,1 McKinnon Creek,1 Meadows

Creek,1 Milk Creek,1 Minnesaka Creek,1

Montana Creek,1 Mowitch Creek,1

Mulligan Creek,1 North Fork Clearwater

River,1 2 Northbound Creek,1 Papoose

Creek,1 Pitchfork Creek,1 Rocky Run,1 2

Rooney Creek,1 Rutledge Creek,1 2

Salmon Creek,1 Sawtooth Creek,1 Sheep

Mountain Creek,1 Sourdough Creek,1

Sousie Creek,1 South Fork Beaver

Creek,1 Spires Creek,1 Spotted Louis

Creek,1 2 Springs Creek,1 Stoney Creek,1

Thompson Creek,1 Thrasher Creek,1

Triple Creek,1 Twin Creek,1 2 West Fork

Butte Creek,1 West Fork Hodson Creek,1

West Fork Meadows Creek,1 West Fork

Montana Creek,1 West Fork Rooney

Creek,1 White Creek,1 Willow Creek.1

(xv) Lower Salmon Basin: Baker

Gulch,1 Bear Gulch,1 Berg Creek,1

Chapman Creek,1 Cottonwood Creek,1

East Fork John Day Creek,1 Elkhorn

Creek,2 Fiddle Creek,2 French Creek,1 2

Hagen Draw,1 Hurley Creek,1 John Day

Creek,1 2 Kelly Creek,2 Klip Creek,1 Lake

Creek,2 Little Salmon River,2 Little Slate

Creek,2 Little Van Buren Creek,1 No

Buisiness Creek,1 North Creek,1 North

Fork Baker Gulch,1 North Fork Slate

Creek,1 2 North Fork White Bird Creek,2

Partridge Creek,2 Price Creek,1 Salmon

River,1 2 Slate Creek,1 2 Slide Creek,1

South Fork Baker Gulch,1 South Fork

John Day Creek,1 South Fork White Bird

Creek,2 Trough Creek,1 Warm Springs

Creek,1 Waterspout Creek,1 White Bird

Creek,1 Willow Creek.1

(xvi) Lower Selway Basin: Anderson

Creek,1 Bailey Creek,2 Barren Creek,1

Browns Spring Creek,2 Buck Lake
23024 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Creek,2 Butte Creek,1 Butter Creek,1

Cabin Creek,1 Cedar Creek,1 2 Chain

Creek,1 2 Chute Creek,1 Crew Creek,1

Dent Creek,1 2 Disgrace Creek,1 Double

Creek,2 East Fork Meadow Creek,1 East

Fork Moose Creek,1 2 East Fork Sable

Creek,1 Elbow Creek,2 Fitting Creek,1

Fivemile Creek,2 Fourmile Creek,1

Freeman Creek,1 Gate Creek,1 Gedney

Creek,2 Goddard Creek,2 Grotto Creek,1

Heath Creek,1 Higgins Creek,1 Horse

Creek,2 Indian Hill Creek,1 2 Isaac

Creek,1 Lark Creek,1 Little Boulder

Creek,1 2 Little Creek,1 Little Schwar

Creek,1 Lizard Creek,1 Lone Creek,1

Matteson Creek,1 Meadow Creek,1 2

Monument Creek,1 2 Moose Creek,2

Moss Creek,1 Newsome Creek,2 North

Fork Moose Creek,1 2 Pea Creek,1

Porphyry Creek,1 Rabbit Creek,1 Rhoda

Creek,1 2 Sable Creek,1 Saddle Creek,1

Schwar Creek,2 Selway River,2 Shake

Creek,1 Simmons Creek,1 Sled Creek,1

Spook Creek,1 Spur Creek,1 Squirrel

Creek,1 Tamarack Creek,1 Three Prong

Creek,1 Twomile Creek,1 West Fork

Anderson Creek,1 West Fork Gedney

Creek,1 2 West Fork Sable Creek,1 West

Fork Three Links Creek,1 West Moose

Creek,1 2 Wounded Doe Creek,2 Wye

Creek.1

(xvii) Lower Snake-Asotin Basin: Big

Cougar Creek,1 Buffalo Draw,1 Cave

Gulch,1 China Garden Creek,1

Cottonwood Creek,1 Crowers Canyon,1

First Creek,1 Frenchy Creek,1 Salmon

River,2 Snake River,1 2 Thiessen

Canyon.1

(xviii) Middle Fork Clearwater Basin:

Baldy Creek,2 Big Cedar Creek,2 Browns

Spring Creek,1 2 Clear Creek,1 2 Kay

Creek,1 Middle Fork Clear Creek,1 2

Middle Fork Clearwater River,2 Pine

Knob Creek,1 2 Solo Creek,1 South Fork

Clear Creek,1 2 South Fork Clearwater

River.2

(xix) Middle Fork Payette Basin:

Albright Gulch,1 Bell Creek,1 Boom

Creek,1 Bridge Creek,1 Bryan Creek,1

Bull Creek,1 2 Dash Creek,1 Easley

Creek,1 Fool Creek,1 Goat Creek,1

Gooseberry Creek,1 Ground Hog Creek,1

Koppes Creek,1 Lake Creek,1 Lightning

Creek,1 Little Gooseberry Creek,1

Middle Fork Payette River,1 2 Oxtail

Creek,1 2 Pine Creek,1 Pyle Creek,1

Rattlesnake Creek,1 Rocky Canyon,1

Silver Creek,2 Sixteen-to-one Creek,1

Skull Creek,1 Smith Creek,1 South Fork

Payette River,2 South Fork West Fork

Creek,1 Tie Creek,1 Trail Creek,1 Warm

Springs Creek,1 West Fork Creek,1 Wet

Foot Creek.1

(xx) Middle Salmon-Chamberlain

Basin: Arlington Creek,1 Arrow Creek,1

Bargamin Creek,1 2 Basin Creek,1 Bat

Creek,1 Bay Creek,1 Bear Creek,2 Bemis

Creek,1 Bend Creek,1 Big Elkhorn

Creek,1 Big Harrington Creek,1 Big

Mallard Creek,1 2 Big Squaw Creek,1

Bleak Creek,1 Bronco Creek,1 Broomtail

Creek,1 Brown Creek,1 Bull Creek,1

Butts Creek,1 Canyon Creek,1 Cayuse

Creek,1 Center Creek,1 Chamberlain

Creek,1 2 Cliff Creek,1 Club Creek,1 Colt

Creek,1 Corn Creek,2 Cottonwood

Creek,1 Crooked Creek,1 2 Deer Creek,1

Dennis Creek,1 Disappointment Creek,1

Dismal Creek,1 Dog Creek,1 East Fork

Fall Creek,1 2 East Fork Horse Creek,1

East Fork Noble Creek,1 East Fork Sheep

Creek,1 East Fork Whimstick Creek,1

Fall Creek,1 2 Farrow Creek,1 Filly

Creek,1 Fish Creek,1 Fitz Creek,1 Flossie

Creek,1 Game Creek,1 2 Gap Creek,1

Ginger Creek,1 Green Creek,1 Grouse

Creek,1 Guard Creek,2 Hamilton Creek,1

Hartan Creek,1 Horse Creek,1 2 Hot

Springs Creek,1 Hotzel Creek,1 Houston

Creek,1 Hungry Creek,1 Hurst Creek,1

Iodine Creek,1 Jack Creek,1 Jersey

Creek,2 Kitchen Creek,1 Lake Creek,1 2

Left Fork Slaughter Creek,1 Little Horse

Creek,1 2 Little Lodgepole Creek,1 Little

Mallard Creek,1 2 Lodgepole Creek,1

Mayflower Creek,1 2 McCalla Creek,1 2

Meadow Creek,1 Moose Creek,1 2 Moose

Jaw Creek,1 Mule Creek,1 Mustang

Creek,1 My Creek,1 No Name Creek,1

Our Creek,1 Owl Creek,2 Peak Creek,1

Plummer Creek,1 Poet Creek,1 Pole

Creek,1 Porcupine Creek,1 Power Creek,1

Prospector Creek,1 Pup Creek,1 Queen

Creek,1 Rainey Creek,1 Ranch Creek,1

Rattlesnake Creek,1 Red Top Creek,1

Reynolds Creek,1 Richardson Creek,1

Rim Creek,1 2 Ring Creek,1 Rock Creek,1

Root Creek,1 Runaway Creek,1 Sabe

Creek,1 Saddle Creek,1 Salmon River,1 2

Salt Creek,1 Schissler Creek,2 Sheep

Creek,1 2 Short Creek,1 Shovel Creek,1

Skull Creek,1 Slaughter Creek,1 2 Slide

Creek,1 Smith Creek,1 South Fork

Cottonwood Creek,1 South Fork

Chamberlain Creek,1 2 South Fork

Kitchen Creek,1 South Fork Salmon

River,2 South Fork Whimstick Creek,1

Spread Creek,1 Spring Creek,1

Starvation Creek,1 Steamboat Creek,2

Steep Creek,1 Stud Creek,1 Wapiti

Creek,1 Warren Creek,1 2 Webfoot

Creek,1 2 West Fork Butts Creek,1 West

Fork Chamberlain Creek,1 2 West Fork

Rattlesnake Creek,1 West Fork

Whimstick Creek,1 West Horse Creek,1

Whimstick Creek,1 2 Wind River,2

Woods Fork Horse Creek.1

(xxi) Middle Salmon-Panther Basin:

Allan Creek,1 Allen Creek,1 Anderson

Creek,1 Arnett Creek,1 2 Badger Creek,1

Beaver Creek,1 2 Big Deer Creek,2 Big

Jureano Creek,1 Big Silverlead Creek,1

Blackbird Creek,1 Boulder Creek,1 2

Cabin Creek,1 Camp Creek,1 Carmen

Creek,1 2 Chipps Creek,1 Clear Creek,1 2

Cliff Creek,1 Colson Creek,2 Copper

Creek,1 Corral Creek,1 Cougar Creek,1

Cove Creek,1 Cow Creek,2 Dahlonega

Creek,1 Daly Creek,1 Deadhorse Creek,1

Deep Creek,1 2 Ditch Creek,1 Dump

Creek,1 East Boulder Creek,1 East Fork

Indian Creek,1 East Fork Owl Creek,1

East Fork Pierce Creek,1 East Fork

Spring Creek,1 Ebenezer Creek,1 Elk

Creek,1 Elkhorn Creek,1 Fawn Creek,1

Fourth Of July Creek,1 Freeman Creek,2

Hammerean Creek,1 Homet Creek,1

Hughes Creek,1 2 Hull Creek,1 2 Humbug

Creek,1 Indian Creek,1 2 Iron Creek,1 2

Jackass Creek,1 Jefferson Creek,1 Jesse

Creek,1 2 Lake Creek,1 2 Lemhi River,2

Lick Creek,1 Little Deep Creek,1 2 Little

Deer Creek,1 Little Ditch Creek,1 Little

Hat Creek,2 Little Moose Creek,1 Little

Sheep Creek,1 Little Silverlead Creek,1

Little Woodtick Creek,1 McConn

Creek,1 2 McKim Creek,1 2 Middle Fork

Salmon River,2 Mink Creek,1 Moccasin

Creek,1 Moose Creek,1 2 Moyer Creek,1 2

Musgrove Creek,1 2 Napias Creek,1 2 Nez

Perce Creek,1 North Fork Hughes

Creek,1 North Fork Iron Creek,1 2 North

Fork McKim Creek,1 North Fork Salmon

River,1 2 North Fork Williams Creek,2

Opal Creek,1 Otter Creek,1 Owl Creek,1 2

Panther Creek,1 2 Park Creek,2 Peel Tree

Creek,1 Phelan Creek,1 Pierce Creek,1

Pine Creek,1 2 Pony Creek,1 Porphyry

Creek,1 2 Pruvan Creek,1 Quartz Creek,1

Rabbit Creek,1 Rancherio Creek,1

Ransack Creek,1 Rapps Creek,1 Salmon

River,1 2 Salt Creek,1 Salzer Creek,1 Saw

Pit Creek,1 Sharkey Creek,1 Sheep

Creek,1 2 Slide Creek,1 Smithy Creek,1

South Fork Cabin Creek,1 South Fork

Hull Creek,1 South Fork Iron Creek,1 2

South Fork Moyer Creek,1 South Fork

Phelan Creek,1 South Fork Sheep

Creek,1 South Fork Williams Creek,2

Spring Creek,1 2 Squaw Creek,1 2 State

Creek,1 Swamp Creek,1 Thompson

Gulch,1 Threemile Creek,1 Trail

Creek,1 2 Twelvemile Creek,1 2 Twin

Creek,1 2 Vine Creek,1 Votler Creek,1

Wallace Creek,1 Weasel Creek,1 West

Fork Anderson Creek,1 West Fork

Blackbird Creek,1 2 West Fork Hughes

Creek,1 West Fork Hull Creek,1 West

Fork Indian Creek,1 West Fork Iron

Creek,1 2 West Fork Nez Perce Creek,1

West Fork Salmon River,1 West Fork

Squaw Creek,1 Williams Creek,2

Woodtick Creek.1 2

(xxii) Moyie Basin: Brass Creek,1

Bussard Creek,1 Copper Creek,1 Deer

Creek,1 2 Faro Creek,1 Keno Creek,1

Kreist Creek,1 Line Creek,1 McDougal

Creek,1 Mill Creek,1 Moyie River,1 2

Placer Creek,1 Rutledge Creek,1 Skin

Creek,1 Spruce Creek,1 West Branch

Deer Creek.1

(xxiii) North and Middle Fork Boise

Basin: Abby Creek1 , Arrastra Creek,1

Bald Mountain Creek,2 Ballentyne

Creek,1 2 Banner Creek,1 2 Bayhouse

Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 2 Bear River,1 2 Big
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23025

Gulch,1 Big Silver Creek,1 2 Billy Creek,1

Blackwarrior Creek,1 2 Bow Creek,1 2

Browns Creek,1 2 Buck Creek,1 2 Cabin

Creek,1 Cahhah Creek,1 Camp Gulch,1

China Fork,1 Coma Creek,1 Corbus

Creek,1 Cow Creek,1 Crooked River,1 2

Cub Creek,1 Decker Creek,1 2 Dutch

Creek,1 Dutch Frank Creek,1 East Fork

Roaring River,1 2 East Fork Swanholm

Creek,1 East Fork Yuba River,1 Flint

Creek,1 Flytrip Creek,1 Gotch Creek,1

Graham Creek,1 Granite Creek,1 Grays

Creek,1 Greylock Creek,1 Grouse

Creek,1 2 Hot Creek,1 Hungarian Creek,2

Joe Daley Creek,1 Johnson Creek,1 2 Kid

Creek,1 King Creek,1 La Mayne Creek,1

Leggit Creek,1 Lightening Creek,1 Little

Queens River,1 2 Little Silver Creek,1

Louise Creek,1 Lynx Creek,1 Mattingly

Creek,1 McKay Creek,1 McLeod Creek,1 2

McPhearson Creek,1 Middle Fork Boise

River,1 2 Middle Fork Corbus Creek,1

Middle Fork Roaring River,1 2 Mill

Creek,1 Misfire Creek,1 Montezuma

Creek,1 North Fork Boise River,1 2 Phifer

Creek,1 Pikes Fork,1 2 Quartz Gulch,1

Queens River,1 2 Rabbit Creek,2 Right

Creek,1 Roaring River,1 2 Robin Creek,1

Rock Creek,1 Rockey Creek,1 2 Sawmill

Creek,1 2 Scenic Creek,1 2 Scotch Creek,1

Scott Creek,1 Shorip Creek,1 Smith

Creek,1 Snow Creek,1 Snowslide Creek,1

South Fork Corbus Creek,1 South Fork

Cub Creek,1 Spout Creek,1 Steamboat

Creek,1 Steel Creek,1 Steppe Creek,1

Swanholm Creek,1 Timpa Creek,1 Trail

Creek,1 2 Trapper Creek,1 Tripod Creek,1

West Fork Creek,1 West Warrior

Creek,1 2 Willow Creek,1 2 Yuba River.1 2

(xxiv) North Fork Payette Basin:

Foolhen Creek,1 Gold Fork River,2

Lodgepole Creek,1 North Fork Gold Fork

River,1 2 North Fork Payette River,1

Pearsol Creek.1

(xxv) Pahsimeroi Basin: Anderson

Spring,1 Baby Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 Big

Creek,1 2 Big Gulch,1 Burnt Creek,1

Burnt Spring Gulch,1 Christian Gulch,1

Dead Cat Canyon,1 Ditch Creek,1

Donkey Creek,1 Doublespring Creek,1

Dry Canyon,1 Dry Gulch,1 East Fork

Burnt Creek,1 East Fork Morgan Creek,1

East Fork Pahsimeroi River,1 2 East Fork

Patterson Creek,1 Elkhorn Creek,1 Ennis

Gulch,1 Falls Creek,1 2 Goldberg

Creek,1 2 Grouse Creek,1 Hillside Creek,1

Inyo Creek,1 John Short Springs,1

Lawson Creek,1 Long Creek,1 Mahogany

Creek,1 2 Meadow Creek,1 Middle Fork

Lawson Creek,1 Mill Creek,1 Morgan

Creek,1 2 Morse Creek,1 2 Mulkey

Gulch,1 North Fork Big Creek,1 2 North

Fork Lawson Creek,1 North Fork Morgan

Creek,1 Pahsimeroi River,1 2 Patterson

Creek,1 2 Rock Creek,1 Rock Spring

Canyon,1 Salmon River,1 2 Short Creek,1

Snowslide Creek,1 South Fork Big

Creek,1 2 South Fork Lawson Creek,1

Spring Gulch,1 Squaw Creek,1 Stinking

Creek,1 Sulphur Creek,1 Tater Creek,1 2

West Fork Burnt Creek,1 West Fork

North Fork Big Creek,1 West Fork

Pahsimeroi River.1

(xxvi) Payette Basin: Buck Canyon,1

Lava Gulch,1 Middle Fork Payette

River,2 Poison Creek,1 Pole Creek,1

South Fork Payette River,2 Squaw

Creek,1 2 Third Fork Squaw Creek.1 2

(xxvii) Pend Oreille Basin: Pend

Oreille River,1 South Salmo River,1

Branch North Gold Creek,1 Cheer

Creek,1 Chloride Gulch,1 Dry Gulch,1

Dyree Creek,1 Flume Creek,1 Gold

Creek,1 2 Granite Creek,1 2 Grouse

Creek,1 2 Kick Bush Gulch,1 North Fork

Clark Fork,2 North Fork Grouse Creek,1 2

North Gold Creek,1 2 Pack River,1 2 Pend

Oreille River,2 Plank Creek,1 Priest

River,2 Rapid Lightning Creek,2 South

Fork Grouse Creek,1 Strong Creek,2 Thor

Creek,1 Trestle Creek,1 2 West Branch

Pack River,1 West Gold Creek,1 2 Wylie

Creek,1 Zuni Creek.1

(xxviii) Priest Basin: Abandon Creek,1

Athol Creek,1 Bath Creek,1 Bear Creek,1

Bench Creek,1 2 Blacktail Creek,1 2 Bog

Creek,1 Boulder Creek,1 2 Bugle Creek,1

Canyon Creek,1 Caribou Creek,1 2 Cedar

Creek,1 2 Chicopee Creek,1 Deadman

Creek,1 East Fork Trapper Creek,1 East

River,2 Fedar Creek,1 Floss Creek,1 Gold

Creek,2 Granite Creek,1 2 Horton Creek,1

Hughes Fork,1 2 Indian Creek,1 2 Jackson

Creek,1 2 Jost Creek,1 2 Kalispell Creek,1 2

Kent Creek,1 Keokee Creek,1 Lime

Creek,1 2 Lion Creek,1 2 Lost Creek,1

Lucky Creek,1 Malcom Creek,1 2 Middle

Fork East River,1 2 Muskegon Creek,2

North Fork Granite Creek,1 North Fork

Indian Creek,1 2 Packer Creek,1 2 Priest

Lake,1 Priest River,2 Rock Creek,1 Ruby

Creek,1 South Fork Granite Creek,1

South Fork Indian Creek,1 South Fork

Lion Creek,1 Squaw Creek,1 Tango

Creek,1 Tarlac Creek,1 2 The Thorofare,1

Trapper Creek,1 2 Two Mouth Creek,1 2

Uleda Creek,1 2 Upper Priest Lake,1

Upper Priest River,1 2 Zero Creek.1 2

(xxix) South Fork Boise Basin:

Anderson Ranch Reservoir,2 Badger

Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 Bear Gulch,1 Big

Smoky Creek,2 Big Water Gulch,2

Boardman Creek,1 Burnt Log Creek,1

Cayuse Creek,1 Corral Creek,1 Cow

Creek,1 Edna Creek,1 Elk Creek,1 Emma

Creek,1 2 Feather River,1 Fern Gulch,1

Grape Creek,1 Gunsight Creek,1

Haypress Creek,1 Heather Creek,1 Helen

Creek,1 Johnson Creek,1 Lincoln Creek,1

Little Cayuse Creek,1 Little Rattlesnake

Creek,1 2 Little Skeleton Creek,1 Little

Smoky Creek,2 Loggy Creek,1 Marsh

Creek,1 Mule Creek,1 North Fork Ross

Fork,1 Pinto Creek,1 Rattlesnake

Creek,1 2 Regina Creek,1 Ross Fork,1 2

Russel Gulch,1 Salt Creek,1 Shake

Creek,1 Skeleton Creek,1 2 Slater Creek,1

Smokey Dome Canyon,1 South Fork

Boise River,1 2 South Fork Ross Fork,1

Stevens Gulch,1 Three Forks Creek,1

Tipton Creek,1 Vienna Creek,1 Virginia

Gulch,1 Weeks Gulch,1 West Fork Big

Smoky Creek,1 West Fork Salt Creek,1

West Fork Shake Creek,1 West Fork

Skeleton Creek,1 Willow Creek.1 2

(xxx) South Fork Clearwater Basin:

American Creek,1 American River,1 2

Aubion Creek,1 Baker Gulch,1 Baldy

Creek,1 2 Baston Creek,1 Bear Creek,2

Beaver Creek,2 Big Canyon Creek,1 Big

Elk Creek,1 2 Blanco Creek,1 Boundary

Creek,1 2 Box Sing Creek,1 Boyer Creek,1

Bridge Creek,1 Cartwright Creek,1 Cole

Creek,1 Crooked River,1 2 Dawson

Creek,1 Deer Creek,1 Ditch Creek,1 East

Fork American River,1 2 East Fork

Crooked River,1 2 East Fork Trail Creek,1

Elk Creek,1 2 Fivemile Creek,1 Flint

Creek,1 Fourmile Creek,1 Fox Creek,1 2

Frank Brown Creek,1 French Gulch,1

Galena Creek,1 Gilmore Creek,1 Gospel

Creek,1 2 Hagen Creek,1 2 Hays Creek,1

Johns Creek,1 2 Jungle Creek,1 Kirks Fork

American River,1 2 Leggett Creek,1 Lick

Creek,1 Limber Luke Creek,1 Little Elk

Creek,1 2 Little Moose Creek,1 Little

Siegel Creek,1 Loon Creek,1 Mackey

Creek,1 2 Meadow Creek,2 Melton

Creek,1 2 Middle Fork Red River,1 Mill

Creek,1 2 Monroe Creek,1 Moores

Creek,1 2 Moores Lake Creek,1 2 Moose

Butte Creek,1 2 Morgan Creek,1 2 Mule

Creek,2 Newsome Creek,2 Nuggett

Creek,2 Open Creek,1 Otterson Creek,1 2

Pat Brennan Creek,1 Pilot Creek,1 Quartz

Creek,1 Queen Creek,1 Rabbit Creek,2

Rainbow Gulch,1 Red River,1 2 Relief

Creek,1 2 Ryan Creek,1 Sally Ann Creek,2

Sawmill Creek,1 2 Schooner Creek,1

Schwartz Creek,2 Sharmon Creek,1

Shissler Creek,1 Siegel Creek,1 2 Silver

Creek,1 2 Sixmile Creek,1 2 Sixtysix

Creek,1 Snoose Creek,1 Soda Creek,1

Sourdough Creek,1 South Fork

Clearwater River,2 South Fork Gilmore

Creek,1 South Fork Red River,1 2 Square

Mountain Creek,1 2 Swale Creek,1 Swift

Creek,1 Taylor Creek,1 Tenmile Creek,1 2

Trail Creek,1 2 Trapper Creek,1 2 Trout

Creek,1 Twentymile Creek,1 2 Twin

Lakes Creek,1 2 Umatilla Creek,1 West

Fork American River,1 West Fork Big

Elk Creek,1 West Fork Crooked River,1 2

West Fork Gospel Creek,1 2 West Fork

Newsome Creek,2 West Fork Red River,1

West Fork Twentymile Creek,1 2

Whiskey Creek,2 Whitaker Creek,1

Williams Creek.1 2.

(xxxi) South Fork Payette Basin:

Archie Creek,1 Ash Creek,1 Baron

Creek,1 Basin Creek,1 Bear Creek,1

Beaver Creek,1 2 Benedict Creek,1 Big

Gallagher Creek,1 Big Pine Creek,1 Big

Spruce Creek,1 Birch Creek,1 Bitter

Creek,1 Black Bear Creek,1 Blacks

Creek,1 Blue Jay Creek,1 Bunch Creek,1

Burn Creek,1 Bush Creek,1 Calderwood
23026 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Creek,1 Camp Creek,1 Canyon Creek,1 2

Carpenter Creek,1 Casner Creek,1 Castro

Creek,1 Cat Creek,1 Chapman Creek,1

Charters Creek,1 Clear Creek,1 2 Cooley

Creek,1 Coski Creek,1 Cup Creek,1

Danskin Creek,1 Dead Man Creek,1

Deadwood Jim Creek,1 Deadwood

Reservoir,1 Deadwood River,1 2 Deer

Creek,1 2 East Fork Big Pine Creek,1 East

Fork Deadwood Creek,1 East Fork

Eightmile Creek,1 East Fork Horn

Creek,1 East Fork Warm Springs

Creek,1 2 Eby Creek,1 Eightmile Creek,1

Elkhorn Creek,1 Emma Creek,1 Fall

Creek,1 Fence Creek,1 Fern Creek,1 Fine

Flat Creek,1 Fivemile Creek,1 Fox

Creek,1 Garney Creek,1 Gates Creek,1

Goat Creek,1 2 Grandjem Creek,1

Grayback Creek,1 Grouse Creek,1 Habit

Creek,1 Hanks Creek,1 Helende Creek,1

Hiyu Creek,1 Hole in the Wall,1 Horn

Creek,1 Horse Creek,1 Horseshoe Creek,1

Huckleberry Creek,1 Jackson Creek,1

Josie Creek,1 Julie Creek,1 Kettle Creek,1

Kirkham Creek,1 Lake Creek,1 Left Fork

Danskin Creek,1 Lick Creek,1 Little

Camp Creek,1 Little Fall Creek,1 Little

Hole in the Wall Creek,1 Little Sams

Creek,1 Little Tenmile Creek,1 Logging

Gulch,1 Long Creek,1 Long Gulch,1

Lorenzo Creek,1 MacDonald Creek,1

Meadow Camp Creek,1 Meadow Creek,1

Middle Fork Big Pine Creek,1 Middle

Fork Warm Springs Creek,1 2 Miller

Creek,1 Monument Creek,1 Moulding

Creek,1 Nellies Bash Creek,1 Nelson

Creek,1 Ninemile Creek,1 No Man

Creek,1 No Name Creek,1 North Fork

Baron Creek,1 North Fork Canyon

Creek,1 North Fork Deer Creek,1 2 North

Fork Whitehawk Creek,1 O’Keefe

Creek,1 Packsaddle Creek,1 2 Park

Creek,1 Pass Creek,1 Pinchot Creek,1

Pine Creek,1 Pitchfork Creek,1 Pole

Creek,1 Poorman Creek,1 Pungo Creek,1

Rae Creek,1 Reservoir Creek,1 Richards

Creek,1 Road Fork Rock Creek,1 Rock

Creek,1 Rough Creek,1 Sams Creek,1

Scott Creek,1 2 Silver Creek,1 Sixmile

Creek,1 Slaughterhouse Creek,1 Slide

Gulch,1 Slim Creek,1 Smith Creek,1 2

Smokey Creek,1 South Fork Beaver

Creek,1 2 South Fork Canyon Creek,1

South Fork Clear Creek,1 South Fork

Payette River,1 2 South Fork Scott

Creek,1 South Fork Warm Spring

Creek,1 Spring Creek,1 Steep Creek,1

Stevens Creek,1 Stratton Creek,1 Sweet

Creek,1 Tenlake Creek,1 Tenmile Creek,1

Topnotch Creek,1 Trail Creek,1 2 Wapiti

Creek,1 Warm Spring Creek,1 Warm

Springs Creek,1 2 Wash Creek,1 West

Fork Big Pine Creek,1 West Fork Horn

Creek,1 Whangdoodle Creek,1 Whiskey

Creek,1 Whitehawk Creek,1 Wild Buck

Creek,1 2 Wills Gulch,1 Wilson Creek,1

Wolf Creek.1

(xxxii) South Fork Salmon Basin: Alez

Creek,1 Back Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 2

Bishop Creek,1 Blackmare Creek,1 2 Blue

Lake Creek,1 Buck Creek,1 Buckhorn Bar

Creek,1 Buckhorn Creek,1 2 Burgdorf

Creek,1 Burntlog Creek,1 2 Cabin

Creek,1 2 Calf Creek,1 Camp Creek,1 2

Cane Creek,1 Caton Creek,2 Cinnabar

Creek,1 Cliff Creek,1 Cly Creek,1 Cougar

Creek,1 2 Cow Creek,1 Cox Creek,1 Curtis

Creek,2 Deep Creek,1 Dollar Creek,1 2

Dutch Creek,1 East Fork South Fork

Salmon River,1 2 East Fork Zena Creek,1

Elk Creek,1 2 Enos Creek,1 Falls Creek,1

Fernan Creek,1 Fiddle Creek,1 Fitsum

Creek,1 2 Flat Creek,1 Fourmile Creek,1 2

Goat Creek,1 Grimmet Creek,1 Grouse

Creek,1 2 Halfway Creek,1 Hanson

Creek,1 Hays Creek,1 Holdover Creek,1

Hum Creek,1 2 Indian Creek,1 Jeanette

Creek,1 Johnson Creek,1 2 Josephine

Creek,1 Jungle Creek,1 Knee Creek,1

Krassel Creek,1 Lake Creek,1 2 Landmark

Creek,1 Lick Creek,1 2 Little Buckhorn

Creek,1 2 Little Indian Creek,1 Lodgepole

Creek,1 2 Loon Creek,1 2 Maverick

Creek,1 Meadow Creek,1 2 Middle Fork

Elk Creek,1 Missouri Creek,1 2 Moose

Creek,1 Mormon Creek,1 2 Nasty Creek,1

Nethker Creek,1 Nick Creek,1 No Mans

Creek,1 North Fork Bear Creek,1 North

Fork Buckhorn Creek,1 North Fork

Camp Creek,1 North Fork Dollar Creek,1

North Fork Fitsum Creek,2 North Fork

Lake Fork,1 North Fork Lick Creek,1

North Fork Riordan Creek,1 North Fork

Six-bit Creek,1 Oompaul Creek,1

Paradise Creek,1 Park Creek,1 Peanut

Creek,1 Pepper Creek,1 Phoebe Creek,1

Piah Creek,1 Pid Creek,1 Pilot Creek,1

Pony Creek,2 Porcupine Creek,1

Porphyry Creek,2 Prince Creek,1 Profile

Creek,1 2 Quartz Creek,1 2 Reeves

Creek,1 2 Rice Creek,1 2 Riordan Creek,1 2

Roaring Creek,1 Ruby Creek,1 Rustican

Creek,1 Ryan Creek,1 Salt Creek,1 2 Sand

Creek,1 2 Secesh River,1 2 Sheep

Creek,1 2 Silver Creek,1 Sister Creek,1

Six-Bit Creek,1 2 South Fork Bear Creek,1

South Fork Blackmare Creek,1 2 South

Fork Buckhorn Creek,1 2 South Fork

Cougar Creek,1 South Fork Elk Creek,1

South Fork Fitsum Creek,1 South Fork

Fourmile Creek,1 South Fork Salmon

River,1 2 South Fork Threemile Creek,1

Split Creek,1 2 Steep Creek,1 Sugar

Creek,1 2 Summit Creek,1 2 Tamarack

Creek,1 2 Teepee Creek,1 Threemile

Creek,1 Trail Creek,2 Trapper Creek,1 2

Trout Creek,1 Tsum Creek,1 Two-bit

Creek,1 Tyndall Creek,1 2 Vein Creek,1

Victor Creek,1 2 Wardenhoff Creek,1

Warm Lake,1 2 Warm Lake Creek,1 2

Warm Spring Creek,1 West Fork

Buckhorn Creek,1 West Fork Elk

Creek,1 2 West Fork Enos Creek,1 West

Fork Zena Creek,1 Whangdoodle Creek,1

Willow Basket Creek,1 2 Willow Creek,1

Zena Creek.1 2

(xxxiii) St. Joe Basin: Bacon Creek,1

Bad Bear Creek,1 Basin Creek,1 Bean

Creek,1 2 Bear Creek,1 Beaver Creek,1 2

Bedrock Creek,1 Benewah Creek,1 Berge

Creek,1 Big Dick Creek,1 Bird Creek,2

Blue Grouse Creek,1 Boulder Creek,2

Broadaxe Creek,1 Bruin Creek,1 2 Burnt

Fork,1 California Creek,1 2 Cherry

Creek,2 Clear Creek,2 Color Creek,1 Coon

Creek,1 Copper Creek,1 Daveggio Creek,1

Davis Creek,1 Dolly Creek,1 Dump

Creek,1 Eagle Creek,1 2 East Fork Bluff

Creek,2 East Fork Emerald Creek,1 East

Fork Gold Creek,1 2 East Fork Mica

Creek,1 Emerald Creek,1 2 Engstrom

Creek,1 Fishhook Creek,2 Flat Creek,1

Float Creek,1 Fly Creek,1 2 Fortynine

Gulch,1 Fuzzy Creek,1 Gold Creek,1 2

Grouse Creek,1 Hammond Creek,1 Heller

Creek,1 Indian Creek,1 Kelley Creek,1

Kyle Creek,1 Long Liz Creek,1 Malin

Creek,1 Marble Creek,1 2 Medicine

Creek,1 2 Mica Creek,1 2 Mill Creek,1

Mosquito Creek,1 2 My Creek,1 North

Fork Bean Creek,1 North Fork Eagle

Creek,1 North Fork Saint Joe River,1 2

North Fork Simmons Creek,1 North Fork

Tyson Creek,1 Nugget Creek,1

Packsaddle Creek,1 Pass Creek,1

Periwinkle Creek,1 Plummer Creek,1

Pokey Creek,1 Pole Creek,1 Prospector

Creek,1 2 Quartz Creek,2 Red Cross

Creek,1 Red Ives Creek,1 2 Renfro Creek,1

Ruby Creek,1 2 Saint Joe River,1 2 Saint

Maries River,1 2 Setzer Creek,1 Sheep

Creek,1 Sherlock Creek,1 2 Simmons

Creek,1 2 Siwash Creek,1 2 Skookum

Creek,1 2 Soldier Creek,1 Squaw Creek,1

Thomas Creek,2 Thorn Creek,2 Three

Lakes Creek,1 Timber Creek,1 2 Tinear

Creek,1 Trout Creek,1 2 Tumbledown

Creek,1 2 Tyson Creek,1 Wahoo Creek,1

Washout Creek,1 West Fork Emerald

Creek,1 West Fork Mica Creek,1 Willow

Creek,1 Wilson Creek,1 2 Yankee Bar

Creek,1.

(xxxiv) Upper Coeur D’Alene Basin:

Big Hank Creek,1 Brett Creek,1 Brown

Creek,2 Cinnamon Creek,1 Coeur

d’Alene River,1 2 Debbs Creek,1 Dry

Creek,1 Fall Creek,1 Falls Creek,1 2 Gold

Creek,1 Graham Creek,2 Haystack

Creek,1 Hazendorf Gulch,1 Lightner

Draw,1 McPhee Gulch,1 Miners Creek,1

North Fork Falls Creek,1 Prado Creek,1

Shoshone Creek,1 South Fork Falls

Creek,1 Spion Kop Creek,1 Thomas

Creek,1 Valitons Creek,1.

(xxxv) Upper Kootenai Basin:

Halverson Creek,1 North Callahan

Creek,1 2 South Callahan Creek,1 2 West

Fork Keeler Creek,1.

(xxxvi) Upper Middle Fork Salmon

Basin: Asher Creek,1 Automatic Creek,1

Ayers Creek,1 Baldwin Creek,1 Banner

Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 Bear Valley

Creek,1 2 Bearskin Creek,1 2 Beaver
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23027

Creek,1 2 Bernard Creek,1 Big Chief

Creek,1 Big Cottonwood Creek,1 Birch

Creek,1 Blue Lake Creek,1 Blue Moon

Creek,1 Boundary Creek,1 2 Bridge

Creek,1 Browning Creek,1 Buck Creek,1

Burn Creek,1 Cabin Creek,1 Cache

Creek,1 2 Camp Creek,1 Canyon Creek,1

Cap Creek,1 Cape Horn Creek,1 2 Casner

Creek,1 Castle Fork,1 Casto Creek,1 Cat

Creek,1 Chokebore Creek,1 Chuck

Creek,1 Cliff Creek,1 Cold Creek,1 2

Collie Creek,1 Colt Creek,1 Cook Creek,1

Corley Creek,1 Cornish Creek,1

Cottonwood Creek,1 Cougar Creek,1

Crystal Creek,1 Cub Creek,1 2 Cultus

Creek,1 Dagger Creek,1 2 Deer Creek,1

Deer Horn Creek,1 Doe Creek,1 Dry

Creek,1 Duffield Creek,1 Dynamite

Creek,1 Eagle Creek,1 East Fork Elk

Creek,1 2 East Fork Indian Creek,1 East

Fork Mayfield Creek,1 2 East Fork

Thomas Creek,1 Elk Creek,1 2 Elkhorn

Creek,1 Endoah Creek,1 Fall Creek,1

Fawn Creek,1 Feltham Creek,1 Fir

Creek,1 2 Flat Creek,1 Float Creek,1

Foresight Creek,1 Forty-five Creek,1

Forty-four Creek,1 Fox Creek,1 Full

Moon Creek,1 2 Fuse Creek,1 Grays

Creek,1 Grenade Creek,1 Grouse Creek,1

Gun Creek,1 Half Moon Creek,1 Hogback

Creek,1 Honeymoon Creek,1 2 Hot

Creek,1 Ibex Creek,1 Indian Creek,1 2

Jose Creek,1 Kelly Creek,1 Kerr Creek,1

Knapp Creek,1 2 Kwiskwis Creek,1 Lime

Creek,1 Lincoln Creek,1 Little Beaver

Creek,1 2 Little Cottonwood Creek,1

Little East Fork Elk Creek,1 2 Little

Indian Creek,1 Little Loon Creek,1 Little

Pistol Creek,1 2 Lola Creek,1 Loon

Creek,1 2 Lucinda Creek,1 Lucky Creek,1

Luger Creek,1 Mace Creek,1 Mack

Creek,1 Marble Creek,1 2 Marlin Creek,1

Marsh Creek,1 2 Mayfield Creek,1 2

McHoney Creek,1 McKee Creek,1

Merino Creek,1 Middle Fork Elkhorn

Creek,1 Middle Fork Indian Creek,1

Middle Fork Salmon River,1 2 Mine

Creek,1 Mink Creek,1 Moonshine Creek,1

Mowitch Creek,1 Muskeg Creek,1

Mystery Creek,1 Nelson Creek,1 New

Creek,1 No Name Creek,1 North Fork Elk

Creek,1 2 North Fork Elkhorn Creek,1

North Fork Sheep Creek,1 North Fork

Sulphur Creek,1 2 Papoose Creek,1

Parker Creek,1 Patrol Creek,1 Phillips

Creek,1 Pierson Creek,1 Pinyon Creek,1

Pioneer Creek,1 2 Pistol Creek,1 2 Placer

Creek,1 Poker Creek,1 Pole Creek,1 2

Popgun Creek,1 Porter Creek,1 2 Prospect

Creek,1 Rabbit Creek,1 Rams Horn

Creek,1 Range Creek,1 Rapid River,1 2

Rat Creek,1 Remington Creek,1 Rock

Creek,1 Rush Creek,1 Sack Creek,1 2

Safety Creek,1 Salt Creek,1 Savage

Creek,1 Scratch Creek,1 Seafoam Creek,1

Shady Creek,1 Shake Creek,1 Sheep

Creek,1 Sheep Trail Creek,1 2 Shell

Creek,1 Shrapnel Creek,1 Siah Creek,1

Silver Creek,1 Slide Creek,1 Snowshoe

Creek,1 Soldier Creek,1 South Fork

Cottonwood Creek,1 South Fork Sheep

Creek,1 Spike Creek,1 Springfield

Creek,1 Squaw Creek,1 Sulphur Creek,1 2

Sunnyside Creek,1 Swamp Creek,1

Tennessee Creek,1 Thatcher Creek,1

Thicket Creek,1 Thirty-two Creek,1

Thomas Creek,1 Tomahawk Creek,1

Trail Creek,1 Trapper Creek,1 Trigger

Creek,1 Twenty-two Creek,1 Vader

Creek,1 Vanity Creek,1 Velvet Creek,1

Walker Creek,1 Wampum Creek,1 Warm

Spring Creek,1 2 West Fork Elk Creek,1 2

West Fork Little Loon Creek,1 West Fork

Mayfield Creek,1 West Fork Thomas

Creek,1 White Creek,1 Wickiup Creek,1

Winchester Creek,1 Winnemucca

Creek,1 Wyoming Creek,1 2.

(xxxvii) Upper North Fork Basin:

Adams Creek,1 Avalanche Creek,1

Bacon Creek,1 Ball Creek,1 Bar Creek,1

Barn Creek,1 Barnard Creek,1 2 Barren

Creek,1 Bates Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 2

Beaver Dam Creek,1 Bedrock Creek,1

Bennett Creek,1 Bill Creek,1 Birch

Creek,1 Bostonian Creek,1 Boundary

Creek,1 Bradbury Creek,1 Burn Creek,1

Burst Creek,1 Bush Creek,1 Butter

Creek,1 Cabin Creek,1 Camp George

Creek,1 Canyon Creek,1 Cave Creek,1

Cayuse Creek,1 2 Chamberlain Creek,1

Chateau Creek,1 Clayton Creek,1 Cliff

Creek,1 Coffee Creek,1 Cold Springs

Creek,1 2 Collins Creek,1 2 Colt Creek,1

Cool Creek,1 Copper Creek,1 Corral

Creek,1 Cougar Creek,1 Craig Creek,1

Crater Creek,1 Cub Creek,1 2 Davis

Creek,2 Dead Mule Creek,1 Deadhorse

Creek,1 Deadwood Creek,1 2 Death

Creek,1 Deception Gulch,1 Deer Creek,1

Dill Creek,1 Doris Creek,1 Drift Creek,1

Eagle Creek,1 Elizabeth Creek,1 2 Fall

Creek,1 Fawn Creek,1 Field Creek,1 Fire

Creek,1 Fisher Creek,1 Fix Creek,1 Flame

Creek,1 Flat Creek,1 Fly Creek,1 Fourth

of July Creek,1 2 Fro Creek,1 Frog

Creek,1 2 Frost Creek,1 Gilfillian Creek,1

Goose Creek,1 2 Grass Creek,1

Grasshopper Creek,1 Gravey Creek,1 2

Grizzly Creek,1 Hanson Creek,1 Heather

Creek,1 Hemlock Creek,1 Henry Creek,1

Hidden Creek,1 2 Howard Creek,1 2

Independence Creek,1 2 Jackknife

Creek,1 Jam Creek,1 Japanese Creek,1

Johnagan Creek,1 2 Johnny Creek,2

Junction Creek,1 Kelly Creek,1 2 Kid

Lake Creek,1 2 Kinney Creek,1 Kodiak

Creek,1 2 Lake Creek,1 2 Larch Creek,1

Larson Creek,1 Laundry Creek,2

Lightning Creek,1 2 Little Moose Creek,2

Little Washington Creek,1 Little Weitas

Creek,1 2 Liz Creek,1 2 Lodge Creek,1

Long Creek,1 2 Lookout Creek,1 Lost Pete

Creek,1 Lower Twin Creek,1 Marten

Creek,2 Meadow Creek,1 2 Middle

Creek,1 2 Middle North Fork Kelly

Creek,1 2 Middleton Creek,1 Mill Creek,1

Mink Creek,1 Mire Creek,2 Monroe

Creek,1 2 Moose Creek,1 2 Morgans

Gulch,1 Negro Creek,1 Nettle Creek,1

Never Creek,1 Niagra Gulch,1 North

Fork Clearwater River,1 2 Nub Creek,1

Osier Creek,2 Otter Creek,1 Owl Creek,1

Pack Creek,1 Perry Creek,1 Pete Ott

Creek,1 2 Placer Creek,1 Polar Creek,1 2

Pony Creek,1 Post Creek,1 Potato Creek,1

Quartz Creek,1 2 Rapid Creek,1

Raspberry Creek,1 Rawhide Creek,1 2

Rettig Creek,1 Roaring Creek,1 Rock

Creek,1 2 Rock Garden Creek,1 Rocky

Ridge Creek,1 Ruby Creek,1 2 Saddle

Creek,1 Salix Creek,1 Sand Creek,1

Scofield Creek,1 Scurry Creek,1 Seat

Creek,1 Sheep Creek,1 Short Creek,1 2

Shot Creek,1 Siam Creek,1 Silver

Creek,1 2 Skull Creek,1 2 Slick Creek,1

Slide Creek,1 Smith Creek,1 2 Sneak

Creek,1 Snow Creek,1 South Fork Kelly

Creek,1 2 Sprague Creek,1 Spruce Creek,1

Spud Creek,1 Spy Creek,1 Squaw Creek,1

Stolen Creek,1 2 Stove Creek,1 Sugar

Creek,2 Swamp Creek,2 Swanson Creek,1

Tepee Creek,1 Tinear Creek,1 Tinkle

Creek,1 Toboggan Creek,1 2 Trail Creek,1

Trap Creek,1 Tumble Creek,1 Upper

Twin Creek,1 Vanderbilt Gulch,1 2 Wall

Creek,1 Washington Creek,1 Weasel

Creek,1 Weitas Creek,1 2 Williams

Creek,1 2 Windy Creek,1 2 Wolf Creek,1

Yokum Creek,1 Young Creek.1

(xxxviii) Upper Salmon Basin: Alder

Creek,1 Alpine Creek,1 2 Alta Creek,1

Alturas Lake,1 2 Alturas Lake Creek,1 2

Anderson Creek,1 Aspen Creek,1 Basin

Creek,1 2 Bayhorse Creek,1 Bear Creek,1

Bear Lake Creek,1 Beaver Creek,1 2 Big

Boulder Creek,1 2 Block Creek,1 Blowfly

Creek,1 Blue Creek,1 Boundary Creek,1

Bowery Creek,1 2 Broken Ridge Creek,1

Bruno Creek,1 Buckskin Creek,1 Cabin

Creek,1 Camp Creek,1 Cash Creek,1

Challis Creek,1 2 Chamberlain Creek,1

Champion Creek,1 Cherry Creek,1

Cinnabar Creek,1 Cleveland Creek,1 Coal

Creek,1 Crooked Creek,1 Darling Creek,2

Deadwood Creek,1 Decker Creek,1 Deer

Creek,1 Dry Creek,1 Duffy Creek,1 East

Basin Creek,1 East Fork Herd Creek,1

East Fork Salmon River,1 2 East Fork

Valley Creek,1 East Pass Creek,1 2 Eddy

Creek,1 Eightmile Creek,1 Elevenmile

Creek,1 Elk Creek,1 Ellis Creek,1 2 Estes

Creek,1 First Creek,1 Fisher Creek,1

Fishhook Creek,1 2 Fivemile Creek,1

Fourth of July Creek,1 2 Frenchman

Creek,1 2 Garden Creek,2 Germania

Creek,1 2 Goat Creek,1 2 Gold Creek,1

Gooseberry Creek,1 Greylock Creek,1

Hay Creek,1 Hell Roaring Creek,1 Herd

Creek,1 2 Huckleberry Creek,1 2 Ibex

Creek,1 Iron Creek,1 2 Job Creek,1 Jordan

Creek,1 2 Juliette Creek,1 Kelly Creek,1

Kinnikinic Creek,1 Lick Creek,1

Lightning Creek,1 Little Basin Creek,1

Little Beaver Creek,1 Little Boulder
23028 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Creek,1 2 Little West Fork Morgan

Creek,1 Lodgepole Creek,1 Lone Pine

Creek,1 Long Tom Creek,1 Lost Creek,1

MacRae Creek,1 Martin Creek,1 McKay

Creek,1 2 Meadow Creek,1 Meridian

Creek,1 Mill Creek,1 Morgan Creek,1 2

Muley Creek,1 Ninemile Creek,1 Noho

Creek,1 North Fork Bowery Creek,1 Pack

Creek,1 Park Creek,1 Pat Hughes Creek,1

Pats Creek,1 Perkins Lake,1 2 Pig Creek,1

Pole Creek,1 2 Pork Creek,1 Prospect

Creek,1 Rainbow Creek,1 Redfish

Lake,1 2 Redfish Lake Creek,1 2 Road

Creek,2 Roaring Creek,1 Rough Creek,1

Sage Creek,1 Sagebrush Creek,1 Salmon

River,1 2 Sawmill Creek,1 Second Creek,1

Sevenmile Creek,1 Sheep Creek,1 Short

Creek,1 Sixmile Creek,1 Slate Creek,2

Smiley Creek,1 South Fork East Fork

Salmon River,1 2 Squaw Creek,1 2 Stanley

Creek,1 Stephens Creek,1 Summit

Creek,1 Sunday Creek,1 Swimm Creek,1

Taylor Creek,1 Tenmile Creek,1 Tennel

Creek,1 Thompson Creek,1 2 Three

Cabins Creek,1 Trail Creek,1 Trap

Creek,1 Trealor Creek,1 Twelvemile

Creek,1 Twin Creek,1 Valley Creek,1 2

Van Horn Creek,1 Vat Creek,1 Warm

Spring Creek,1 Warm Springs Creek,1 2

Washington Creek,1 West Beaver Creek,1

West Fork Creek,1 West Fork East Fork

Salmon River,1 2 West Fork Herd

Creek,1 2 West Fork Morgan Creek,1 2

West Fork Yankee Fork,1 2 West Pass

Creek,1 2 White Valley Creek,1 Wickiup

Creek,1 Williams Creek,1 Willow Creek,1

Yankee Fork,1 2.

(xxxix) Upper Selway Basin: Bad

Luck Creek,1 Baldy Creek,1 Barefoot

Creek,1 Basin Creek,1 Bear Creek,1 2 Big

Creek,1 Boxcar Creek,1 Brave Creek,1

Burn Creek,1 Burnt Knob Creek,1 Cactus

Creek,1 Camp Creek,1 Canyon Creek,1 2

Cayuse Creek,1 Cedar Creek,1 Cliff

Creek,1 Comb Creek,1 Cooper Creek,1

Crooked Creek,1 Cub Creek,2 Deep

Creek,1 2 Ditch Creek,1 Eagle Creek,2

East Fork Magruder Creek,1 Eben

Creek,1 Echo Creek,1 Elk Creek,1 2 Fall

Creek,1 Fire Creek,1 Flat Creek,1 Fox

Creek,1 French Creek,1 Fritz Creek,1

Gabe Creek,1 Gardner Creek,1 Goat

Creek,1 2 Gold Pan Creek,1 Granite

Creek,1 2 Grass Gulch,1 Halfway Creek,1

Haystack Creek,1 Hells Half Acre

Creek,1 Indian Creek,1 2 Kim Creek,1

Lake Creek,1 Langdon Gulch,1 Lazy

Creek,1 Line Creek,1 Little Clearwater

River,1 2 Little Creek,1 Lodge Creek,1

Lonely Creek,1 Lonesome Creek,1 Long

Prairie Creek,1 Lookout Creek,1 Lunch

Creek,1 MacGregor Creek,1 Magruder

Creek,1 Mist Creek,1 Nick Creek,1 North

Fork Goat Creek,1 North Star Creek,1

Paloma Creek,1 Paradise Creek,1 2 Peach

Creek,1 Pete Creek,1 Pettibone Creek,1 2

Raven Creek,1 Running Creek,2 Saddle

Gulch,1 Salamander Creek,1 Schofield

Creek,1 Scimitar Creek,1 Selway

River,1 2 Short Creek,1 Slow Gulch

Creek,1 Snake Creek,1 South Fork Goat

Creek,1 South Fork Lookout Creek,1

South Fork Running Creek,2 South Fork

Saddle Gulch,1 South Fork Surprise

Creek,1 Spire Creek,1 Spruce Creek,1 2

Squaw Creek,2 Steep Gulch,1 Storm

Creek,1 Stripe Creek,1 Surprise Creek,1

Swet Creek,1 Tepee Creek,1 Test Creek,1

Thirteen Creek,1 Three Lakes Creek,1

Throng Creek,1 Triple Creek,1 Vance

Creek,1 Wahoo Creek,1 2 Wapiti Creek,1

Washout Creek,1 West Fork Crooked

Creek,1 White Cap Creek,1 2 Wilkerson

Creek,1 Witter Creek,1 Wynn Creek.1

(xxxx) Weiser Basin: Anderson

Creek,1 2 Boulder Creek,1 Bull Corral

Creek,1 Cabin Creek,1 Cold Spring

Creek,1 Dewey Creek,1 2 East Fork

Weiser River,1 2 Fall Creek,1 Little Fall

Creek,1 Little Weiser River,1 2 Mica

Creek,1 Middle Fork Weiser River,1

Sheep Creek,1 Warm Spring Creek,1

Wolf Creek.1

(d) Temperature Criteria for Kootenai

River White Sturgeon.

(1) The following seasonal

temperature requirements and

maximum and minimum weekly

average temperature criteria apply to

that part of PB20K, Kootenai River, from

Bonners Ferry to Deep Creek; That part

of PB 30K, Kootenai River, from Deep

Creek to downstream end of Shorty’s

Island:

Date

Minimum

weekly

average

temperature

(°C)

Maximum

weekly

average

temperature

(°C)

By May 21 ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 ........................

up through 8 weeks post-achievement of 8 °C temperature ................................................................................... ........................ 14

9 through 10 weeks post-achievement of 8 °C temperature ................................................................................... ........................ 16

(e) Temperature Criteria for Snails. (1)

The waterbody segments identified in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall not

exceed a maximum daily average of 18

degrees C.

(2) USB 50—Snake River—American

Falls Dam to Minidoka Dam; USB60A—

Snake River—Minidoka Dam to

Heyburn/Burley Bridge; USB 70—Snake

River—Milner Dam to Buhl; USB 80—

Snake River—Buhl to King Hill; that

part of SWB 10—Snake River—from

King Hill to the headwaters of C.J Strike

Reservoir at rivermile 518.

(f) Mixing Zones. Water quality within

a mixing zone is subject to the narrative

surface water quality criteria contained

in Idaho’s water quality standards at

16.01.02.200.01.–03.

(g) Antidegradation Policy. (1)

Outstanding Resource waters. Where

Idaho identifies high quality waters as

an outstanding national resource, such

as waters of national and State parks

and wildlife refuges and waters of

exceptional recreational or ecological

significance, that water quality shall be

maintained and protected from the

impacts of point and nonpoint source

activities.

(2) [Reserved]

(h) Excluded Waters. Lakes, ponds,

pools, streams, and springs outside

public lands but located wholly and

entirely upon a person’s land are not

protected specifically or generally for

any beneficial use, unless such waters

are designated in Idaho 16.01.02.110.

through 160., or are unclassified waters

of the United States as defined at 40

CFR 122.2.

(i) Water Quality Standard Variances.

(1) The Regional Administrator, EPA

Region X, is authorized to grant

variances from the water quality

standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section where the requirements of

this subsection are met. A water quality

standard variance applies only to the

permittee requesting the variance and

only to the pollutant or pollutants

specified in the variance; the underlying

water quality standard otherwise

remains in effect.

(2) A water quality standard variance

shall not be granted if:

(i) Standards will be attained by

implementing effluent limitations

required under sections 301(b) and 306

of the CWA and by the permittee

implementing reasonable best

management practices for nonpoint

source control; or

(ii) The variance would likely

jeopardize the continued existence of

any threatened or endangered species

listed under section 4 of the Endangered

Species Act or result in the destruction
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 23029

or adverse modification of such species’

critical habitat.

(3) A water quality standards variance

may be granted if the applicant

demonstrates to EPA that attaining the

water quality standard is not feasible

because:

(i) Naturally occurring pollutant

concentrations prevent the attainment of

the use; or

(ii) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent

or low flow conditions or water levels

prevent the attainment of the use, unless

these conditions may be compensated

for by the discharge of sufficient volume

of effluent discharges without violating

State water conservation requirements

to enable uses to be met; or

(iii) Human caused conditions or

sources of pollution prevent the

attainment of the use and cannot be

remedied or would cause more

environmental damage to correct than to

leave in place; or

(iv) Dams, diversions or other types of

hydrologic modifications preclude the

attainment of the use, and it is not

feasible to restore the waterbody to its

original condition or to operate such

modification in a way which would

result in the attainment of the use; or

(v) Physical conditions related to the

natural features of the waterbody, such

as the lack of a proper substrate, cover,

flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like

unrelated to water quality, preclude

attainment of aquatic life protection

uses; or

(vi) Controls more stringent than

those required by sections 301(b) and

(306) of the CWA would result in

substantial and widespread economic

and social impact.

(4) Procedures. An applicant for a

water quality standards variance shall

submit a request to the Regional

Administrator not later than the date the

applicant applies for an NPDES permit

which would implement the variance.

The application shall include all

relevant information showing that the

requirements for a variance have been

satisfied. The burden is on the applicant

to demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction that

the designated use is unattainable for

one of the reasons specified in

paragraph (i)(3) of this section. If the

Regional Administrator preliminarily

determines that grounds exist for

granting a variance, he shall publish

notice of the proposed variance. Notice

of a final decision to grant a variance

shall also be published. EPA will

incorporate into the permittee’s NPDES

permit all conditions needed to

implement the variance.

(5) A variance may not exceed 5 years

or the term of the NPDES permit,

whichever is less. A variance may be

renewed if the applicant reapplies and

demonstrates that the use in question is

still not attainable. Renewal of the

variance may be denied if the applicant

did not comply with the conditions of

the original variance.

[FR Doc. 97–10723 Filed 4–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P