Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AU81

FWS ID: [FWS-R8-ES-2008-0010; 92210-1117-0000-B4]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi)

DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 3, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising the critical habitat designation for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 10,003 acres (ac) (4,050 hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of the final revised critical habitat designation. The revised critical habitat is located in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, California.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the revised designation of critical habitat in this final rule. For additional information on the tidewater goby, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on February 4, 1994 (59 FR 5494); the original proposed and final critical habitat rules published in the Federal Register on August 3, 1999 (64 FR 42250) and November 20, 2000 (65 FR 69693), respectively; and the proposed revised critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68914).
Species Description and Genetic/Morphological Characteristics

The tidewater goby is a small, elongate, greybrown fish rarely exceeding 2 inches (in) (5 centimeters (cm)) in length. This species possesses large pectoral fins, and the pelvic or ventral fins are joined to each other below the chest and belly from below the gill cover back to just anterior of the anus. Male tidewater gobies are nearly transparent with a mottled brownish upper surface. Female tidewater gobies develop darker colors, often black, on the body and dorsal and anal fins. The tidewater goby is a shortlived species; the lifespan of most individuals appears to be about 1 year (Irwin and Soltz 1984, pg 26; Swift et al. 1989, pg 4).

Various genetic markers demonstrate that pronounced differences in the genetic structure of tidewater gobies exist, and that tidewater gobies in some locations are genetically distinct. A recent study of mitochondrial DNA and cytochrome b (molecular material used in genetic studies) sequences from tidewater gobies that were collected at 31 locations throughout the species' range identified six major phylogeographic (geographic differences in the evolution of a species) or regional groups (Dawson et al. 2001, pg 1171). These six regional groups include the following areas: (1) Tillas Slough (Smith River) in Del Norte County to Lagoon Creek in Mendocino County, i.e., the North Coast (NC) Unit; (2) Salmon Creek in Sonoma County to Bennett's Slough in Monterey County, i.e., the Greater Bay (GB) Unit; (3) Arroyo del Oso to Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County, i.e., the Central Coast (CC) Unit; (4) San Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo County to Rincon Creek in Santa Barbara County, i.e., the Conception (CO) Unit; (5) Ventura River in Ventura County to Topanga Creek in Los Angeles County, i.e., the Los AngelesVentura (LV) Unit; and (6) San Pedro Harbor in Los Angeles County to Los Pe[ntilde]asquitos Lagoon in San Diego County, i.e., the South Coast (SC) Unit.

Metapopulation Dynamics

Local populations of tidewater gobies are best characterized as metapopulations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1448). First, local goby populations are frequently isolated from other local populations by extensive areas of unsuitable habitat. Second, gobies occupy coastal lagoons and estuaries that in most cases are separated from each other by the open ocean. Very few tidewater gobies have ever been captured in the marine environment (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7), which suggests this species rarely occurs in the open ocean. Studies of the tidewater goby suggest that some populations persist on a consistent basis (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1452), while other tidewater goby populations appear to experience intermittent extirpations. These extirpations may result from one or a series of factors, such as the drying up of some small streams during prolonged droughts (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1451). Some of the areas where tidewater gobies have been extirpated apparently have been recolonized when extant populations were present within a relatively short distance of the extirpated population (i.e., less than 6 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km)). These recolonization events suggest that tidewater goby populations exhibit a metapopulation dynamic where some populations survive or remain viable by continually exchanging individuals, and recolonizations may occur after occasional extirpations (Doak and Mills 1994, pg 619).

Lafferty et al. (1999b) monitored the postflood persistence of several tidewater goby populations in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties during and after the heavy winter floods of 1995. All of the monitored populations persisted after the floods, and no significant changes in population sizes were noted (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 621). Tidewater gobies apparently colonized Ca[ntilde]ada Honda in Santa Barbara County after one flood event (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 621). This information suggests that flooding may sometimes contribute to recolonization of habitats where a tidewater goby population has become extirpated.

The largest wetland habitats where tidewater gobies have been known to occur are not necessarily the most secure, as evidenced by the fact that the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County and the San Francisco Bay have lost their populations of tidewater goby. Today, the majority of the most stable and largest tidewater goby populations consist of lagoons and estuaries of intermediate sizes, i.e., 5 to 125 ac (2 to 50 ha) that have remained relatively unaffected by human activities (Service 2005, p. 12). Many of the localities where tidewater gobies are consistently present may be ``source'' populations, and such locations may provide the
[[Page 5921]]
colonists for localities that intermittently lose their tidewater goby populations.

Historical records and survey results for several localities occupied by the tidewater goby are available (e.g., Swift et al. 1989, pp. 1819; Swift et al. 1994, pp. 816). These documents suggest the persistence of tidewater goby populations is related to habitat size, configuration, location, and proximity to human development. In general, the most stable and persistent tidewater goby populations occur in the lagoons and estuaries that are more than 2.47 ac (1 ha) in size and that have remained relatively unaffected by human activities (Lafferty et al. 1999a, pp. 14501453). We note, however, that some systems that are affected or altered by human activities also have relatively large and stable populations (e.g., Humboldt Bay in Humboldt County, Pismo Creek in San Luis Obispo County, Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, and the Santa Clara River in Ventura County). Also, some habitats less than 2.47 ac (1 ha) in size have tidewater goby populations that persist on a regular basis (Swift et al. 1997, p. 3; Keegan 2006, p. 8). The best available information suggests that the lagoons and estuaries that have persistent populations are likely the core populations that provide the individuals that colonize adjacent, smaller localities that have ephemeral tidewater goby populations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1452).

Distribution

The known geographic range of the tidewater goby is limited to the coast of California (Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p. 12). The species historically occurred from localities that extended from 3 mi (5 km) south of the CaliforniaOregon border (i.e., Tillas Slough in Del Norte County) to 44 mi (71 km) north of the United StatesMexico border (i.e., Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County). The available documentation (e.g., Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p. 12) suggests the northernmost locality that forms one end of the historical and current geographic range of the tidewater goby has not changed over time. Tidewater gobies do not currently occur in Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the species' southernmost known locality currently is located in Cockleburr Canyon 9.2 mi (14.8 km) north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Although the northernmost and southernmost extent of the tidewater goby's range has not changed much over time, the tidewater goby's overall population has become patchy and fragmented along the coast.

Tidewater gobies appear to be naturally absent from several large (50 to 135 mi (80 to 217 km)) stretches of coastline where lagoons or estuaries are absent, and steep topography or swift currents may prevent tidewater gobies from dispersing between adjacent localities (Swift et al. 1989, p. 13). One such gap in lagoons and estuaries occurs between the Eel River in Humboldt County and the Ten Mile River in Mendocino County. A second gap exists between Lagoon Creek in Mendocino County and Salmon Creek in Sonoma County. Another large, natural gap occurs between the Salinas River in Monterey County and Arroyo del Oso in San Luis Obispo County. Habitat loss and other anthropogenicrelated factors have resulted in the tidewater goby now being absent from several locations where it historically occurred; their recent disappearance from specific locations has created smaller, artificial gaps in the species' geographic distribution (Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such locations include Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County, Calleguas Creek/Mugu Lagoon in Ventura County, San Francisco Bay in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, and Redwood Creek and Freshwater Lagoon in Humboldt County.

Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that, as of 1984, tidewater gobies occurred, or had been known to occur, at 87 localities; these localities included those at the extreme northern and southern end of the species' historical geographic range. An assessment of the species' distribution in 1993, using records that were limited to the area between the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County and the United StatesMexico border, found tidewater gobies occurring at four additional localities (Swift et al. 1993, p. 129). Other goby localities have been identified since 1993, and currently tidewater gobies have been documented at 135 localities within the historical geographic range of the species (Service 2005, p. 6). Of these 135 localities, 23 (17 percent) are no longer known to be occupied by tidewater gobies. Therefore, 112 localities are currently occupied. Habitat

The lagoons, estuaries, backwater marshes, and freshwater tributaries that tidewater gobies occupy are dynamic environments that are subject to considerable fluctuations on a seasonal and annual basis. In a typical year, the formation of a sandbar occurs in the late spring as flow into a lagoon declines enough to allow the ocean surf to build up the sandbar at the mouth of the lagoon. Winter rains and subsequently increased stream flows may bring in considerable sediment and dramatically affect the bottom profile and substrate composition of a lagoon or estuary. Fine mud and clay either moves through the lagoon or estuary or settles out in backwater marshes, while heavier sand is left in the lagoon or estuary. High flows associated with winter rains can scour out the lagoon bottom to lower levels, with sand building up again after flows decline. These dynamic processes result in wetland habitats that, over time, move both laterally and upordowngradient relative to stationary features that exist outside the flood zone (e.g., roads or buildings).

The horizontal extent of the lentic (pondlike) wetland habitat associated with a particular tidewater goby locality varies on a site specific basis, and is affected in part by local precipitation patterns and topography. In coastal areas where the topography is steep and precipitation is relatively low (e.g., areas adjacent to the Santa Ynez Mountains in Santa Barbara County), the habitats occupied by tidewater gobies may be a few acres in size, only extend a few hundred feet inland from the ocean, and backwater marshes may be small or absent. In other coastal settings where precipitation is more abundant: (1) Topography is less steep and surface streams are larger; (2) coastal lagoons or estuaries may be hundreds of acres in size and extend many miles inland; and (3) extensive backwater marshes may be present (e.g., Lake Earl in Del Norte County and Ten Mile River in Mendocino County).

Some localities occupied by tidewater gobies receive surface or ground water from upstream areas on a yearround basis. Such localities (e.g., Bennett's Slough in Monterey County) tend to possess wetland habitats that are larger and can extend inland for several hundred feet or even miles. Other occupied locations do not possess stream channels or tributaries that provide a considerable amount of water throughout the summer or fall months. Such locations (e.g., Little Pico Creek in San Luis Obispo County) tend to possess wetland habitats that only extend a short distance inland from the ocean (i.e., 290 ft (88 m)). Reproduction

Tidewater gobies have been observed spawning in every month of the year except December (Swenson 1999, p. 107). Reproduction tends to peak in late April or May to July, and can continue into November depending on seasonal
[[Page 5922]]
temperature and rainfall. Swenson (1995, p. 31) has documented spawning behavior in adult fish and the presence of egg clutches at water temperatures between 48 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (9 and 25 degrees Celsius (C)). Spawning tidewater gobies have been observed in water salinities between 2 and 27 parts per thousand (ppt) (Swenson 1999, p. 31).

Threats

The final listing rule for the tidewater goby that was published in 1994 (59 FR 5494) states that this species is threatened, or potentially threatened, by: (1) Coastal development projects that result in the loss or alteration of coastal wetland habitat; (2) water diversions and alterations of water flows upstream of coastal lagoons and estuaries that negatively impact the species' breeding and foraging activities; (3) groundwater overdrafting; (4) channelization of the rivers where the species occurs; (5) discharge of agricultural and sewage effluents; (6) cattle grazing and feral pig activity that results in increased sedimentation of coastal lagoons and riparian habitats, removal of vegetative cover, increased ambient water temperatures, and elimination of plunge pools and undercut banks utilized by tidewater gobies; (7) introduced species that prey on the tidewater goby (e.g., bass (Micropterus spp.) and crayfish (Cambaris spp.)); (8) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; (9) drought conditions that result in the deterioration of coastal and riparian habitats; and (10) competition with introduced species such as the yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus) and chameleon goby (Tridentiger trigonocephalus).

Previous Federal Actions

On August 31, 2001, Cabrillo Power L.L.C. (Cabrillo) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging a portion of the November 20, 2000, final rule (65 FR 69693) that designated the 10 critical habitat units for the tidewater goby in Orange and San Diego Counties. Specifically, Cabrillo objected to the critical habitat unit involving Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Creek. In a consent decree dated February 27, 2003, the U.S. District Court: (1) Agreed to vacate the critical habitat designation involving Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Creek; (2) stated the nine other critical habitat units should remain in effect; (3) stated the final rule designating critical habitat was remanded in its entirety for reconsideration; and (4) directed the Service to promulgate a revised critical habitat rule that considers the entire geographic range of the tidewater goby and any currently unoccupied tidewater goby habitat. The consent decree requires that the Service submit proposed and final revised rules to the Federal Register no later than November 15, 2006, and November 15, 2007, respectively. On November 28, 2006, we published the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the tidewater goby in the Federal Register (71 FR 68914). An extension of the due date for the final critical habitat rule was approved by the court on November 19, 2007, and the Service is now required to submit the final rule to the Federal Register by January 18, 2008.

A draft economic analysis (DEA) for the proposed revised designation was completed on August 23, 2007, and a notice of availability for this DEA was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54411). Publication of the notice of availability opened a public comment period for the DEA as well as the proposed revised designation from September 25, 2007, to October 10, 2007. For a discussion of additional Federal actions that occurred prior to the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for this species, please refer to the Previous Federal Actions section of the proposed revised critical habitat rule for the tidewater goby (71 FR 68914).

On September 28, 2007, we completed a 5year review for the tidewater goby. In the 5year review we recommended that the tidewater goby be downlisted to threatened because we believe that it is not in imminent danger of extinction. The main reason for this recommendation is that the number of localities known to be occupied has more than doubled since listing (from 48 to 106). We believe this indicates the tidewater goby is more resilient in the face of severe drought events than believed at the time of listing. Furthermore, we believe threats identified at the time of listing have been reduced or are not as serious as thought. One of the main reasons why the tidewater goby was listed was because of habitat destruction and alteration. Current laws and regulations have largely eliminated the major destruction of habitat that occurred in the past along the coast of California. The 5 year review concluded that tidewater goby populations are highly dynamic and will periodically be extirpated or reach such low numbers that they cannot be detected at some localities. This is a natural occurrence within many species exhibiting a metapopulation dynamic including the tidewater goby. Although the rate of extirpation or reduction to low levels is expected to be higher during drought conditions, during wetter periods, we expect that these localities will again be occupied assuming that suitable habitat still exists. Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for tidewater goby in the proposed rule (71 FR 68914, November 28, 2006) and in the subsequent notice of availability for the DEA (72 FR 54411, September 25, 2007). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed revised rule.

During the comment period that opened on November 28, 2006, and closed on January 29, 2007, we received 23 comments directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation: 4 from peer reviewers, 2 from Federal agencies, 1 from the State of California, 2 from local government, and 14 from organizations or individuals. Seventeen commenters generally supported the revised designation of critical habitat for tidewater goby, 4 opposed it, and 2 were neither for nor against it. During the comment period that opened September 25, 2007, and closed on October 10, 2007, we received seven comments addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation and/or the draft economic analysis: two from local governments and five from organizations or individuals. One commenter supported the revised designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby, five opposed it and/or the draft economic analysis, and one was neither for nor against it. Comments received were grouped into six general issues and are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided
[[Page 5923]]
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final revised critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

1. Comment: Four peer reviewers stated that more extant populations need to be designated or new populations established in order to potentially increase connectivity and persistence of present tidewater goby distribution and diversity.

Our Response: We have not designated all areas currently occupied by tidewater gobies as critical habitat, nor have we designated any areas that were historically occupied but are now unoccupied by the species. However, we believe the 44 critical habitat units we are designating for the tidewater goby, all of which are currently occupied, are the areas that are necessary for the conservation of the tidewater goby and, therefore, meet the definition of critical habitat in the Act. The goal of the recovery plan for the tidewater goby is to preserve the diversity of habitats that occur within the range of the species, the metapopulation structure of the species (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section for a definition and additional details on the recovery plan for the tidewater goby), and genetic diversity (Service 2005). The recovery plan identifies 26 subunits throughout the range of the tidewater goby. We designated critical habitat in all 26 subunits included in the recovery plan, except for those on Vandenberg Air Force Base (Santa Barbara County) and Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton (San Diego County), which have Integrated National Resource Management Plans (INRMP) that provide protection for the tidewater goby. These areas have been exempted from this final designation of critical habitat (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the ActApproved Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans section). We believe these 44 critical habitat units, in addition to those subunits covered by INRMPs, are sufficient for the conservation of the species throughout its range, as they adequately represent the variation of both the habitat and genetic composition of the species, and they will support the species' recovery. As such, we did not designate any areas that are not currently occupied (see Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat and 2006 Proposed Rule section for more information).

We also agree with the commenters that the introduction of new populations could potentially benefit the tidewater goby. However, we did not include any unoccupied habitat in this designation because we concluded that the 44 units we are designating are the areas essential for conservation.

2. Comment: Several peer reviewers stated that all available evidence suggests that the southern tidewater goby is a distinct taxon of, or equivalent to, species rank and given the critical habitat proposed, is very likely to go extinct.

Our Response: At this time, the tidewater goby is listed as a single species, following the currently accepted taxonomy for the species. If a change in the taxonomy of the tidewater goby is published in a peerreviewed journal, we will evaluate the listing status of the species at that time. We have not designated any critical habitat in Orange and San Diego Counties because all the areas in these Counties that meet the first part of the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act (``the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species * * *'') are located on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base (Base). The Base has a completed INRMP that provides a conservation benefit to the tidewater goby. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act prohibits the Secretary from designating critical habitat on any lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense that are subject to an INRMP if the Secretary has determined that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is being proposed for designation. As such, pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we have exempted the Base from this final designation of critical habitat (see Application of Section 4(a)(3)Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton section). We also did not designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species as critical habitat for the reasons given in our response to comment 1 above and the Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat and 2006 Proposed Rule section.

3. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that our identification of tidewater goby populations serving as source populations for other areas is not supported by available information.

Our Response: We are not aware of any single definition of source population that can be applied to every species. The recovery plan for the tidewater goby defines a source population as a subpopulation of a metapopulation that has an average birth rate that exceeds the average death rate, and therefore produces an excess of juveniles that may disperse to other areas (Service 2005). We do not have information on either tidewater goby population size or productivity for each occupied area. Therefore, for purposes of this rule, we have used the term ``source population'' to describe those areas that are currently occupied and have been consistently occupied for three or more consecutive years based on presence/absence survey data and published reports. We believe these areas are more likely to be capable of maintaining populations over many years and more likely to be capable of providing individuals to recruit into surrounding subpopulations.

4. Comment: Two peer reviewers asserted that coastal lagoon restoration plans that establish tidal salt marshes rather than brackish coastal lagoons should be included as an additional new threat.

Our Response: We acknowledge that coastal lagoon restoration projects may be a threat to tidewater goby habitat. Although we have not specifically mentioned this type of project in this rule, we consider this as a coastal development project (see Critical Habitat Designation section and the Special Management Considerations or Protection section below).

5. Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that critical habitat units should be related to recovery units because the units designated as they are now do not provide for recovery.

Our Response: We believe that our approach to this designation complies with the definitions in the Act, reflects the intent of the recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Service 2005), and identifies the areas essential to the conservation of the species throughout its range (see our response to comment 1 above). Developing recovery plans and designating critical habitat are not necessarily synonymous under the Act. The Act does not include specific instructions as to the areas that should be included in recovery plans, and often recovery plans include redundant areas. In comparison, critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as, ``the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed * * *'' Critical habitat is further defined in the Act as those specific areas, ``on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the
[[Page 5924]]
species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.'' Under section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed may only be designated as critical habitat, ``upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' Each of these definitions requires us to look at what is essential to the conservation of the species. The word essential means ``absolutely necessary, indispensable.'' We interpret this as Congressional direction to designate only those areas that are indispensable to conservation, not to designate areas that may be desirable or helpful for conservation. Furthermore, section 3(5)(C) of the Act prohibits us from designating the entire geographical area which can be occupied by a species without the approval of the Secretary. Thus, we considered the 26 subunits in the recovery plan and designated critical habitat units accordingly as discussed in more detail in comment 1 above.

6. Comment: One peer reviewer questioned why we did not include the Smith River locality in the critical habitat designation and make it a priority for protection because it is the northernmost population and may be divergent genetically.

Our Response: We determined that the survey history shows the species to be consistently rare at this location, and within the past 5 years, surveys in this location have only sporadically located a few individuals. Based on this information, we believe this locality does not serve as a source population and does not provide connectivity between localities (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section). We also do not have any information that indicates this locality is occupied by a genetically distinct population. Therefore, we do not consider this locality to have the features that are essential to the conservation of the species.

7. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that Scott Creek lagoon in Santa Cruz County should be considered for addition to critical habitat because it is substantially isolated and could be genetically distinct and therefore, may be an important potential stepping stone site.

Our Response: Scott Creek lagoon was not occupied at the time of listing, although it was subsequently colonized (Service 2005). Over the years, survey efforts indicate that occupancy by tidewater gobies at this locality is intermittent and therefore, we do not consider it a source population (Service 2005). We also do not have information that indicates this locality is occupied by a genetically distinct population. Finally, Scott Creek is not likely to provide connectivity between localities because the next locality to the north, Bean Hollow Creek, is 16.1 mi (26 km) from Scott Creek. This distance is well beyond what experts believe to be the dispersal abilities of the tidewater goby (see Background section). Therefore, we do not consider this locality to be essential to the conservation of the species.

8. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that Wilder Creek lagoon in Santa Cruz County should be considered for addition to critical habitat because it has a larger late summer population than Baldwin Creek and may be more likely to supply large numbers of dispersing tidewater gobies to other sites in the metapopulation.

Our Response: As described in the recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Service 2005), the subunit that includes Wilder Creek consists of several small, closely spaced localities. Only small numbers of individuals have been found in many of these localities and occupancy is intermittent in most areas; survey efforts indicate that occupancy by tidewater gobies at Wilder Creek is intermittent (Service 2005). Tidewater gobies are only regularly abundant at one locality in this subunit, Baldwin Creek, which we have designated as critical habitat. We consider Baldwin Creek to be the source population for this subunit. For these reasons, we do not consider the Wilder Creek lagoon to contain the features essential to the conservation of the species.

9. Comment: One peer reviewer recognized that, while Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton (Base) may be providing some protection to those tidewater goby populations on the Base, the protection of these populations is not sufficient to protect the southern population of the species as a whole and that areas outside the Base that were historically occupied should be designated.

Our Response: As discussed in the Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton section under Application of Section 4(a)(3), occupied tidewater goby habitat occurs on the Base. We have determined that the conservation efforts for estuarine habitat and species identified in the Base's INRMP provide a benefit to the tidewater goby. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act prohibits the Secretary from designating critical habitat on any lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense that are subject to an INRMP if the Secretary has determined that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is being proposed for designation. As such, pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we have exempted the Base from the designation of critical habitat.

Additionally, none of the historically occupied sites in southern California outside of the Base supported tidewater gobies at the time the species was listed in 1994. In fact, tidewater gobies have not been detected at any of the offBase southern California sites for several decades. As a result, none of these locations meets the first part of the definition of critical habitat.

As noted above, section 3(5)(A)(ii) requires us to determine whether areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species. While our final recovery plan for the tidewater goby identifies these offBase southern California locations as potential reintroduction sites, it also acknowledges that habitat improvements will be needed before these sites can be recolonized. We acknowledge that some of these sites, if restored, may be helpful contributors to the recovery of the species in southern California. However, we did not designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species as critical habitat for the reasons given in our response to comment 1 above and the Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat and 2006 Proposed Rule section.

Public Comments Regarding SiteSpecific Areas

10. Comment: One commenter stated that we should have included the area around Lake Earl Lagoon above the 4foot elevation, and we therefore, underestimated the size of the Lake Earl Lagoon critical habitat unit (see DN1: Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa section).

Our Response: Lake Earl is artificially breeched, and there are times when water level is well below the 4foot elevation. We determined that the 4foot elevation above mean sea level was appropriate for delineating critical habitat for Lake Earl because the portion of Lake Earl below that elevation is wetted during most times of the year, providing consistent habitat for tidewater goby. The area above the 4foot elevation that is frequently not submerged does not contain the features essential to the conservation of the species.

11. Comment: Several commenters wanted additional areas, including unoccupied areas, designated as critical habitat for the tidewater goby.

Our Response: Please see our response to comment 1 above. [[Page 5925]]

12: Comment: One commenter believed that Hathaway Creek in Mendocino County should be included in the critical habitat designation because it is good tidewater goby habitat and is occupied by tidewater gobies.

Our Response: We have no record that Hathaway Creek is occupied or has ever been occupied by tidewater gobies, and the commenter did not provide specific information that shows it to be occupied. As per our responses to comment 1 and 2 and as discussed in the Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat and 2006 Proposed Rule section, we have determined that unoccupied habitat is not essential for the conservation of the tidewater goby.

13. Comment: Two commenters believed that Arroyo Grande Lagoon in San Luis Obispo County should be considered for addition to critical habitat because: it is likely a source population, it possesses all four primary constituents, and it provides connectivity for the Pismo Creek population with the Santa Maria River population.

Our Response: We agree that Arroyo Grande Lagoon is likely to have some or all of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) for the tidewater goby; however, the mere presence of one or more PCEs does not mean that an area meets the definition of critical habitat. As described in the recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Service 2005), the subunit that includes Arroyo Grande Lagoon consists of five localities, of which four are currently occupied. Tidewater gobies occur only intermittently at San Luis Obispo Creek and Arroyo Grande Lagoon and only in small numbers. Tidewater gobies are only regularly abundant at two localities in this subunit, Pismo Creek and Santa Maria River, which we have designated as critical habitat. We consider Pismo Creek and Santa Maria River to be the source populations for this subunit. Survey efforts indicate that occupancy by tidewater gobies at Arroyo Grande Lagoon is intermittent (Service 2005) and therefore is not likely to be a source population. For these reasons, we do not consider this locality to contain the features essential to the conservation of the species.

14. Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the effects of a proposed multilane toll road on tidewater gobies in San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Base). The commenter stated that the Base's INRMP does not address potential impacts to the tidewater goby associated with the proposed toll road, and therefore we should designate habitat along San Mateo Creek and San Onofre on the Base as critical habitat.

Our Response: The proposed toll road is not a Marine Corps project and therefore is not directly subject to the Base's INRMP. The toll road is a separate Federal action with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration as the lead agency; as such, any adverse effects to federally listed species, including tidewater gobies, will be addressed under section 7 of the Act.

However, as described in the Base's INRMP, the Marine Corps agreed that (among other provisos) an onBase alignment of the toll road could be evaluated provided ``that any adverse environmental impacts created as a result of siting this route on the Base * * * must be fully and properly mitigated.'' Further, the lower portion of San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek is leased to California Department of Parks and Recreation, who is required by the Marine Corps to ``conduct its natural resources management consistent with the philosophies and supportive of the objectives'' of the Camp Pendleton INRMP. Moreover, the Marine Corps is implementing the INRMP, including actions benefiting the tidewater goby, within the San Mateo Creek and San Onofre watersheds. As stated above, pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act we are required to exempt the Base from critical habitat for the tidewater goby, which includes the lower portion of San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek.

15. Comment: One commenter stated that unlike Stone or Big Lagoons, Lake Earl is artificially managed and consequently, there is no official monitoring or rescue effort for tidewater gobies, no established population baseline, and a consistent failure to reach the appropriate lagoon level during the summer during tidewater goby breeding season (April to August), making this critical habitat unavailable to tidewater gobies.

Our Response: The current 10year Army Corps permit for the breaching of Lake Earl includes the requirement of a monitoring plan. Currently, there are specific postbreach monitoring requirements that include surveying for tidewater gobies in areas suspected to cause stranding. The current permit to breach Lake Earl includes a restriction on breaching after February 15 which is designed to protect tidewater goby habitat during the breeding season, allowing the lagoon sufficient time to close and fill naturally during the spring and summer months, when breeding is thought to peak.

The commenter is correct that there is not enough information available to precisely estimate population baseline. The Service is addressing this issue by looking into innovative methods of obtaining that information in a practical manner.

We believe that the lake levels during most breeding seasons are adequate for tidewater goby breeding to take place if the permit conditions for the artificial breaching are attained.

16. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed revised rule did not provide an analysis of why each individual area with suitable habitat for tidewater gobies, regardless of occupancy, was or was not designated.

Our Response: To determine which areas to designate as critical habitat for the tidewater goby, we developed a set of rules or criteria (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section) specific to tidewater gobies. We believe our criteria identify those areas which meet the definition of critical habitat in the Act and reflect the intent of the recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Service 2005). Based on these criteria, we determined that not all habitat occupied at the time of listing contain the PCEs in the spatial arrangement and quantity essential to the conservation of the species. We also considered localities that we know from surveys, or the lack thereof, were not occupied at the time of listing. We included unoccupiedat timeoflisting localities in the designation when they met our criteria and were essential to the conservation of the species. See response to Comment 1 for more details.

17. Comment: One commenter believed that the proposed critical habitat adjacent to the Mad River Slough Channel should not be designated because they do not include habitat for the tidewater goby.

Our Response: We believe tidewater goby habitat occurs in these areas adjacent to the Mad River Slough, which are included in Unit Hum 3: Humboldt Bay, because these areas are occupied by tidewater gobies (Goldsmith 2007). We have included these areas in this final revised designation because they form part of the hydrologically interconnected system of estuaries and seasonally flooded backwaters that make up the habitat of the tidewater goby along Humboldt Bay, and these areas have the features that are essential to the conservation of gobies. Comments Related to Threats to the Species

18. Comment: Two commenters stated that illegal breaching of sand bars across
[[Page 5926]]

lagoons should be included as an additional new threat.

Our Response: Untimely breaching of sandbars may be a threat to tidewater gobies in areas where sandbars play a role in the hydrology of estuaries and lagoons. We have provided a discussion of the effects of artificial breaching of sandbars on tidewater gobies, which would include illegal breaching, in the Primary Constituent Elements and Effects of Critical Habitat Designation sections of this rule. We have also more clearly identified artificial breaching of sandbars as a threat to tidewater goby habitat in the Special Management Considerations or Protection section.

19. Comment: One commenter stated that disease, particularly since a new species of microsporidian parasite was found in the tidewater goby population at Big Lagoon, should be included as an additional new threat.

Our Response: The discovery of the parasitic microsporidian referred to by the commenter is a new development. Currently, the parasite has only been identified from Big Lagoon, Humboldt County, with a possible detection from Rodeo Lagoon, Marin County. Surveys evaluating the extent of the parasite, and its role in the decline of the tidewater goby are needed to assess the level of threat to the goby. We have not included this as a threat to the tidewater goby at this time, but will continue to monitor and address new information as it becomes available.

20. Comment: One commenter stated we should take in account the potential effects of global warming on tidewater goby habitat and therefore the Service should expand its designation of critical habitat to include unoccupied habitat, particularly upstream of barriers.

Our Response: The average surface temperature of the Earth is widely recognized by scientists throughout the world to be increasing (IPCC 2007, p. 4). Projected changes in climate include changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and increased frequency and intensity in extreme climatic events leading to increased climate variability (IPCC 2002, p. 4). These changes will have a serious impact on the environment on a global scale. However, it is much more difficult to predict how the climate of a local area will change and how that change will affect the local environment. We are required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act to use the best scientific data available in determining the areas to designate as critical habitat for the tidewater goby. We simply do not have good science at this point that provides local predictions. Therefore, we cannot account for such potential but unknown changes in local climate in our critical habitat designation. However, we do believe this designation does address the potential for climate change by inclusion of critical habitat units over a wide range of latitudes.

Comments Related to Criteria and Methodology

21. Comment: One commenter stated that our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified through more public outreach, such as providing information about tidewater goby life history or habitat requirements at some of the critical habitat localities.

Our Response: We published the Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby in 2005. The recovery plan provides detailed information on the biology of the species, reasons for its decline, habitat requirements, the actions needed for recovery of the species, and additional information for each of the localities designated as critical habitat for the species. The recovery plan is available on the Web at http:// ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=E071. For future reference, all recovery plans and other documents relating to a species can be found on our Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov.

22. Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat for tidewater gobies should not be limited to only those areas downstream of barriers.

Our Response: We consider a barrier, such as sills, dams, and raised culverts, to be impassable by tidewater gobies. Therefore, we consider the areas above the barriers to not contain the features essential to the conservation of the species.

Comments on Other Critical Habitat Related Issues

23. Comment: One commenter's opinion was that designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for the tidewater goby.

Our Response: The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act requires that the Service identify those lands on which are found the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection, and the areas outside the current range of the species that are essential for its conservation. In identifying those lands, the Service must consider the recovery needs of the species, such that the habitat that is identified, if managed, could provide for the survival and recovery of the species. Furthermore, once critical habitat has been designated, Federal agencies must consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that their actions will not adversely modify designated critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of the species. As noted in the Ninth Circuit's Gifford Pinchot decision, the jeopardy and adverse modification standards are distinct, and adverse modification evaluations require consideration of impacts to the recovery of species. Thus, through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, critical habitat designations provide recovery benefits to species by ensuring that Federal actions will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

Another benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area. Although the designation of critical habitat may not, in and of itself, restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific management or conservation actions, it does help focus Federal, Tribal, State, and private conservation and management efforts in such areas by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for the tidewater goby. In general, critical habitat designation always has educational benefits; however, in some cases, they may be redundant with other educational effects.

24. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the October 9, 2007, press release noticing the completion of the tidewater goby 5year review and its recommendation to downlist the species throughout its range. More specifically, the commenter wanted to know how a reclassification to threatened would affect the status of designated critical habitat.

Our Response: Critical habitat applies equally to both endangered and threatened species. Therefore, reclassifying the tidewater goby from endangered to threatened would have no affect on the designated critical habitat.

25. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby may conflict with management of Aleutian Canada goose (Branta Canadensis leucopareia) habitat (Humboldt Bay and Eel River Delta areas) (grazing benefits the goose by improving its habitat), by restricting grazing in upland areas.

Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself, restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific management or conservation actions. However, one of [[Page 5927]]
the benefits of critical habitat is to help focus Federal, Tribal, State, and private conservation and management efforts in such areas. With the knowledge that there is an area that is important to both the Aleutian Canada goose and the tidewater goby, management actions compatible with both species may be undertaken.

Comments Related to Policy Compliance

26. Comment: One commenter stated that Federal statutes and regulations require Federal agencies to coordinate their initial planning efforts with local government. Presidential Executive Order 12372 requires Federal agencies to coordinate actions and projects with local governments. To date, the Service has failed to initiate coordination with Del Norte County as required by Federal statute.

Our Response: Executive Order 12372 (47 FR 30959; July 14, 1982), Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs pertains to Federal Assistance and is not directly pertinent to this designation of critical habitat. However, we do address the issue of FederalState Coordination below. Please see the Federalism section for additional information.

Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis

27. Comment: Several commenters requested that we extend the comment period on the draft economic analysis.

Our Response: Due to time constraints associated with the consent decree dated February 27, 2003, we were not able to extend or open an additional public comment period.

28. Comment: One commenter stated that the economic analysis does not provide grounds for exclusion of any critical habitat because it does not include benefits.

Our Response: The economic analysis for the tidewater goby did consider economic benefits. Our draft economic analysis predicted an overall net cost savings of $10.2 million to $65.2 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years.

29. Comment: One commenter stated that the economic analysis fails to estimate the benefits of critical habitat designation. This comment includes concerns that the Service: Did not identify the vast majority of benefits from designating critical habitat, including benefits to ecosystem services, wetland protection, and other use and nonuse values of habitat; violated the Act by failing to quantify benefits; improperly relied on flawed OMB guidance regarding the estimation of benefits; does not properly qualitatively describe the benefits of designation; improperly establishes the baseline because benefits are not estimated; does not prove the infeasibility of estimating and monetizing benefits in the analysis; could easily quantify the benefits of designating critical habitat; and ignores available information from multiple sources that could have been used to estimate benefits.

Our Response: The economic analysis for the tidewater goby did include benefits. Our draft economic analysis predicted an overall net cost savings of $10.2 million to $65.2 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years. The only quantifiable benefit of goby conservation identified through the economic analysis is the saving associated with not constructing a sewage bypass system. While the economic analysis acknowledges the potential for other types of economic benefits, data were not available, for example, to identify where and to what extent property values may be affected by tidewater goby conservation efforts. For example, while property valuation studies may provide estimates of the value to property of being near environmentally pristine area, these studies do not address what changes in property values will result from critical habitat designation.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Where data are available, the economic analyses do attempt to measure the net economic impact.

Most of the other benefit categories submitted by the commenter reflect broader social values, which are not the same as economic impacts. While the Secretary must consider economic and other relevant impacts as part of the final decisionmaking process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Act explicitly states that it is the government's policy to conserve all threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Thus, we believe that explicit consideration of broader social values for the subspecies and its habitat, beyond the more traditionally defined economic impacts, is not necessary as Congress has already clarified the social importance.

30. Comment: One commenter stated that the baseline is improperly set because it relies on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals instead of the Ninth Circuit, and that the baseline should be compared with the incremental impacts of the designation. Similarly, another commenter expressed concern that the economic analysis improperly measures the impacts of designation by including costs that would have been incurred regardless of critical habitat designation. This commenter stated that impacts such as land acquisition and grazing costs are not properly integrated into the baseline and should not be considered as a consequence of designation, and that the economic analysis does not describe the costs attributable solely to designation.

Our Response: Appendix B of the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) estimates the potential incremental impacts of critical habitat designation for the goby. It does so by attempting to isolate those direct and indirect impacts that are expected to be triggered specifically by the critical habitat designation. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts included in Appendix B would not be expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby. Total present value potential incremental impacts are estimated to be $206,000 discounted at three percent. All other impacts quantified in the FEA are considered baseline impacts and are not expected to be affected by the critical habitat designation.

31. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the 50meter (m) buffer used in the analysis of the study areas for the economic analysis. The commenter was concerned that the term ``buffer'' indicated that these areas will be barred from use.

Our Response: The study area analyzed in the draft economic analysis included the critical habitat units, which are primarily lagoons, estuaries, and coastal streams, and a 50meter (m) wide stream buffer that extended 100 m upstream of the critical habitat units. These buffer areas are not included in the critical habitat units. However, for the purposes of the analysis it was assumed that activities conducted in these areas could indirectly affect the critical habitat units. Therefore, the draft economic analysis took into consideration the potential economic costs that could result from conservation efforts for the tidewater goby within the buffer areas. Also, the term ``buffer'' as used in Chapter 3 of the FEA has been clarified to indicate that it is for analytical purposes only.

32. Comment: Two commenters stated that the land identified as private land within the grazing study area, which the economic analysis determined as
[[Page 5928]]
lacking a Federal nexus compelling consultation, should have been addressed in the economic analysis. The commenter is concerned that some combination of Federal, State, and local laws may affect grazing on those private lands.

Our Response: Review of existing land management documents, section 7 consultations, and State and private grazing practices do not indicate that this private land is likely to be affected. Private grazers have not been affected by goby conservation in the past, there are no known voluntary private grazing restrictions, and, under the Act, the critical habitat designation will not affect grazing on private land absent a Federal nexus. Further, no information is available to suggest that critical habitat designation may trigger additional regulation under other State and local laws concerning grazing. This analysis therefore forecasts that private grazing activity is not likely to be affected by goby conservation.

33. Comment: One commenter stated that the draft economic analysis does not address municipal land ownership of grazing land, but counts it as privatelyowned land instead. The commenter expressed concern that the economic analysis should predict future conservation efforts on municipal land.

Our Response: Review of existing land management documents, consultations, and State and private grazing practices do not indicate that municipal land is likely to be affected differently than private land. Grazing on municipal land has not been affected by goby conservation in the past, and information gathered in the development of the analysis did not suggest that it was likely to be affected in the future. Under the Act, the critical habitat designation will not affect grazing on municipal land absent a Federal nexus, and there is no information to suggest that State or local regulation may be tightened because of the designation of critical habitat. This analysis therefore forecasts that grazing on municipal lands is unlikely to be affected by goby conservation.

34. Comment: One commenter expressed concern about impacts of potential changes in grazing restrictions and management practices on the state lands due to critical habitat.

Our Response: Information received during the comment period concerning the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) grazing management practices on State lands in the study area has prompted changes in Chapter 3 of the economic analysis. The FEA estimates foregone forage values and construction costs as part of the baseline impacts of CDFG management. These ongoing, coextensive impacts are expected to continue into the future. There are no anticipated changes for grazing practices in the study area that will result from the critical habitat designation. Further, no additional impacts to grazing activities are expected to result from this rulemaking as described in Chapter 3 of the FEA.

35. Comment: One commenter stated that there are alternative ways to manage grazing other than exclusion.

Our Response: The commenter is correct; there are alternative ways to manage grazing other than exclusion. However, CDFG currently manages grazing in tidewater goby habitat through exclusion. As noted in Chapter 3 of the FEA, the practice of excluding livestock from tidewater goby habitat is unlikely to change after critical habitat designation as CDFG does not anticipate that there will be any future changes to grazing management practices. Chapter 3 provides post designation cost estimates for current CDFG management practices that CDFG has validated and indicates are unlikely to change. Total impacts to grazing are estimated to be $1.53 million, undiscounted (20 percent lost grazing value and 80 percent fencing maintenance and construction costs).

36. Comment: Two commenters stated that the undiscounted impacts to grazing of $1,430,000 are understated. The commenters pointed out that the number of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) should be multiplied by the number of months grazed.

Our Response: New information received during the comment period from the CDFG has been incorporated into the FEA regarding grazing impacts. As described in Chapter 3, the estimates of foregone grazing values incorporate the number of months in the grazing season. The information received during the comment period provided better data on both grazing and fencing construction and maintenance impacts. The FEA estimates foregone forage values and construction costs as part of the baseline impacts of CDFG management. These ongoing, coextensive impacts are expected to continue into the future. The draft economic analysis estimated $1.43 million in undiscounted total impacts (4 percent lost grazing value and 95 percent fence construction and maintenance costs). Based upon the information received during the comment period, total impacts to grazing are estimated to be $1.53 million, undiscounted (20 percent lost grazing value and 80 percent fencing maintenance and construction costs).

37. Comment: Three commenters stated that potential grazing land should be valued not at its rental rate, but at the opportunity cost in terms of the amount of livestock that could not be produced. These commenters stated that reducing grazing acreage has additional effects beyond the market value of the land.

Our Response: As discussed in Section 3.1.3 of the FEA, the analysis applies a wellaccepted method of assigning value to grazing land using the forage value available on that land, expressed in AUMs, as a proxy. The grazing rental rate is the opportunity cost of the forage that is given up. This price is the amount that would have to be paid to purchase an equivalent amount of grazing forage somewhere else.

38. Comment: Two commenters stated that some of the land that will be removed from grazing may be organic, which has a higher rental value.

Our Response: While the FEA quantifies ongoing, coextensive impacts of foregone grazing associated with goby conservation, it does not forecast further limitations on grazing activity as a result of critical habitat designation. While organic grazing rental rates are likely to be higher, consultation with CDFG has indicated that the rental estimates provided in Chapter 3 closely approximate the total impacts of the existing grazing management program.

39. Comment: One commenter stated that the economic analysis does not explain the presence of the predesignation impacts.

Our Response: As discussed in the introduction to Chapter 1 and in Section 1.4.6 of the FEA, predesignation impacts are provided as context for the ongoing goby conservation efforts in the post designation period. The continuation of existing policies and practices postdesignat

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Michael McCrary, Listing and Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone (805) 6441766 (see ADDRESSES section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 8008778339.