[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2546]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 4, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determinations of 
Endangered Status; Final Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB88

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for the Tidewater Goby

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered 
status pursuant to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act), for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius 
newberryi). The tidewater goby is a fish that occurs in tidal streams 
associated with coastal wetlands in California. Since 1900, the 
tidewater goby has disappeared from nearly 50 percent of the coastal 
lagoons within its historic range, including 74 percent of the lagoons 
south of Morro Bay in central California. Only three populations 
currently exist south of Ventura County. This rule implements the 
protection and recovery provisions provided by the Act for the 
tidewater goby.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ventura Field 
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2140 Eastman Avenue, suite 100, 
Ventura, California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Benz at the above address (805/
644-1766).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is a small fish, 
rarely exceeding 50 millimeters (2 inches) standard length, and is 
characterized by large pectoral fins and a ventral sucker-like disk 
formed by the complete fusion of the pelvic fins. The tidewater goby 
was first described as a new species (Gobius newberryi) by Girard 
(1856), from specimens collected in the San Francisco Bay area. Based 
on Girard's specimens, Gill (1862) reassigned Gobius newberryi to the 
newly described genus Eucyclogobius (Eschmeyer 1990).
    A member of the family Gobiidae, the tidewater goby is the only 
species in the genus Eucyclogobius and is almost unique among fishes 
along the Pacific coast of the United States in its restriction to 
waters with low salinities in California's coastal wetlands. All life 
stages of tidewater gobies are found at the upper end of lagoons in 
salinities less than 10 parts per thousand (ppt); however, gobies from 
two populations have been collected and reared in slightly higher 
salinities (Ramona Swenson, University of California, Berkeley, in 
litt. 1993). Although its closest relatives are marine species, the 
tidewater goby does not have a marine life history phase. This lack of 
a marine phase severely restricts the frequency of genetic exchange 
between coastal lagoon populations and significantly lowers the 
potential for natural recolonization of a locality once extirpated. 
Studies by Crabtree (1985) noted that some populations of gobies have 
differentiated genetically, indicating a long period of isolation. 
Tidewater gobies have a short lifespan and seem to be an annual species 
(Irwin and Stoltz 1984, Swift 1990), further restricting their 
potential to recolonize habitats from which they have been extirpated.
    The tidewater goby occurs in loose aggregations of a few to several 
hundred individuals on the substrate in shallow water less than 1 meter 
(3 feet) deep (Swift et al. 1989), although gobies have been observed 
at depths of 1.5 to 2.3 meters (4.9 to 7.6 feet) (Dan Holland, 
University of Southwestern Louisiana, in litt. 1993). Peak nesting 
activities commence in late April through early May, when male gobies 
dig a vertical nesting burrow 10 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches) deep 
in clean, coarse sand. Suitable water temperatures for nesting are 18 
to 22 deg.C (75.6 to 79.6 deg.F) with salinities of 5 to 10 ppt. Male 
gobies remain in the burrows to guard eggs, which are hung from the 
ceiling and walls of the burrow until hatching. Larval gobies are found 
midwater around vegetation until they become benthic (Swift et al. 
1989). Although the potential for year round spawning exists, it is 
probably unlikely because of seasonal low temperatures and disruptions 
of lagoons during winter storms. Ecological studies performed at two 
sites documented spawning occurring as early as the first week in 
January (Swenson in litt. 1993). Although usually associated with 
lagoons, the tidewater goby has been documented in ponded freshwater 
habitats as far as 8 kilometers (5 miles) upstream from San Antonio 
lagoon in Santa Barbara County (Irwin and Stoltz 1984).
    The tidewater goby is discontinuously distributed throughout 
California, ranging from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River) in 
Del Norte County south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County. 
Areas of precipitous coastlines that preclude the formation of lagoons 
at stream mouths have created three natural gaps in the distribution of 
the goby. Gobies are apparently absent from three sections of the coast 
between: (1) Humboldt Bay and Ten Mile River, (2) Point Arena and 
Salmon Creek, and (3) Monterey Bay and Arroyo del Oso.
    Roughly 10 percent of the coastal lagoons presently containing 
populations of tidewater goby are under Federal ownership. Over 40 
percent of the remaining populations are either entirely or partly 
owned and managed by the State of California. The remainder are 
privately owned.

Previous Federal Action

    The tidewater goby was first classified by the Service as a 
category 2 species in 1982 (47 FR 58454). It was reclassified as a 
category 1 candidate in 1991 (56 FR 58804) based on status and threat 
information in Swift et al. (1989). Category 2 applies to taxa for 
which information now in the possession of the Service indicates that 
proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, 
but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats 
are not currently available to support a listing proposal. Category 1 
applies to taxa for which the Service has on file substantial 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species.
    On October 24, 1990, the Service received a petition from Dr. Camm 
Swift, Associate Curator of Fishes at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural 
History, to list the tidewater goby as endangered (Swift 1990). The 
petition, status surveys, and accompanying data describe the goby as 
threatened because of past and continuing losses of coastal and 
riparian habitats within its historic range. The Service's finding that 
this petition presented substantial information that the requested 
action may be warranted was published on March 22, 1991 (56 FR 12146). 
Following this finding, the Service initiated a status review on the 
tidewater goby.
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended 
in 1982, requires the Secretary to make a finding within 12 months of 
the date a petition is received as to whether or not the requested 
action is warranted. On December 11, 1992, the Service published a 
proposal to list the tidewater goby as an endangered species (57 FR 
58770). The proposed rule constituted the 12-month finding that the 
petitioned action was warranted.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the December 11, 1992 proposed rule, all interested parties were 
requested to submit factual reports or information that might 
contribute to the development of a final determination. Appropriate 
Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and 
requested to comment. Newspaper notices were published in The Los 
Angeles Times on January 1, 1993, The San Francisco Sunday Examiner and 
Chronicle on January 3, 1993, and The San Diego Union-Tribune on 
February 4, 1993. The public comment period ended on February 9, 1993. 
A total of 548 comments were received. The Service received one letter 
from a Federal agency, three letters from State offices, and five from 
city or county agencies. Five hundred and ten of the comments were post 
cards from individuals urging support for the listing of the species. 
The Service received 29 letters from individuals and private 
organizations. Of those, only one expressed an opinion in opposition to 
listing the tidewater goby as endangered.
    The National Park Service (Santa Monica Mountains National 
Recreation Area) stated support for the listing of the tidewater goby 
as endangered and suggested locations within the recreation area 
boundaries that may be candidates for reintroduction of the species. 
The National Park Service also sought assistance from the Service in 
determining potential habitat locations on lands not under public 
ownership that may be acquired under its land acquisition program.
    Three California State agencies offered comments. The Topanga-Las 
Virgenes Resource Conservation District, a subdivision of State 
government, expressed full support for the listing of the goby. The 
California Coastal Commission stated, ``The acute vulnerability of the 
tidewater goby to man-induced changes of estuarine habitat makes the 
development of comprehensive management strategies and plans, including 
development of recovery plans, for this species imperative.'' The 
California Department of Fish and Game submitted information pertaining 
to a project to reestablish a population of tidewater gobies on Waddell 
Creek Lagoon. The population was reintroduced in the fall of 1991 and 
subsequently sampled in November 1992. Gobies were reported from three 
sites in the lagoon. The Department will continue to obtain information 
on that population as it is surveyed.
    Five letters of information were received from city or county 
agencies. Two of these, one from the County of Santa Barbara Resource 
Management Department and one from the City of Santa Cruz, detailed 
population occurrences that were already known to the Service. Two 
letters from the cities of San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara cited 
possible impacts to goby habitat due to proposed or ongoing projects. 
These letters listed threats that are discussed under Factor A in the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section. The Santa Barbara 
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District stated support for 
listing, but expressed concerns regarding the designation of critical 
habitat.
    The Environmental Defense Center identified three issues concerning 
the proposed rule.
    Issue 1: The critical habitat finding failed to meet the standards 
of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and under Northern Spotted 
Owl v. Lujan, 758 F. Supp. 621 (W.D. Wash. 1991).
    Service Response: The Service concurs that critical habitat should 
be designated for the tidewater goby. Information needed to complete 
required economic impact analyses consists of identifying Federal 
actions that might be precluded or modified by the destruction/adverse 
modification standard but not by the jeopardy standard. Moreover, it 
will be necessary to describe how these actions may be modified by 
application of the destruction/adverse modification standard. This 
information will provide a basis for analyses on the economic effects 
of designating critical habitat.
    Issue 2: Without critical habitat, the Service lacks jurisdiction 
to prevent or modify certain actions affecting the tidewater goby.
    Service Response: Although in some cases critical habitat may 
provide protection otherwise unavailable through the jeopardy standard, 
jurisdiction is available through the jeopardy standard and section 9, 
both of which may be aggressively applied to protect listed species.
    Issue 3: The Service should at minimum propose the Santa Ynez 
estuary as critical habitat now.
    Service Response: The Service intends to propose as critical 
habitat all tidewater goby habitat that may be essential to the 
species' conservation, as opposed to the piecemeal approach advocated 
in the recommendation to propose one estuary. In the interim, the Santa 
Ynez estuary is owned by the U.S. Air Force, which is subject to the 
section 7(a)(1) affirmative conservation mandate and the prohibitions 
against jeopardy contained in section 7(a)(2).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all information 
available, the Service has determined that the tidewater goby should be 
classified as an endangered species. Procedures found at section 4 of 
the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 
CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the 
Act were followed. A species may be determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in 
section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to the tidewater 
goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. Coastal development projects that 
result in the loss of coastal saltmarsh habitat are currently the major 
factor adversely affecting the tidewater goby. Coastal marsh habitats 
have been drained and reclaimed for residential and industrial 
developments. Waterways have been dredged for navigation and harbors 
resulting in permanent and direct losses of wetland habitats, as well 
as indirect losses due to associated changes in salinity. Coastal road 
construction projects have severed the connection between marshes and 
the ocean, resulting in unnatural temperature and salinity profiles 
that the tidewater goby cannot tolerate.
    Furthermore, upstream water diversions adversely affect the 
tidewater goby by altering downstream flows, thereby diminishing the 
extent of marsh habitats that occurred historically at the mouths of 
most rivers and creeks in California. Alterations of flows upstream of 
coastal lagoons have already changed the distribution of downstream 
salinity regimes. Since the tidewater goby has relatively narrow 
salinity tolerances, changes in salinity distributions due to upstream 
water diversions may adversely affect both the size and distribution of 
goby populations (D. Holland, Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana, pers. 
comm., 1991).
    Historically, the tidewater goby occurred in at least 87 of 
California's coastal lagoons (Swift et al. 1989). Since 1900, it has 
disappeared from approximately 50 percent of formerly occupied lagoons. 
A rangewide status survey conducted in 1984 found that 22 historic 
populations of tidewater goby had been extirpated (Swift et al. 1989). 
Only 5 years later, a status survey documented the disappearance of an 
additional 21 populations. In the San Francisco Bay area, 9 of 10 
previously identified populations have disappeared (Swift et al. 1989, 
1990). Losses in the southern part of the State have been the greatest, 
including 74 percent of the coastal lagoons south of Morro Bay. Three 
populations currently remain south of Ventura County. Since 1989, three 
additional tidewater goby populations have been lost in San Luis Obispo 
and Santa Cruz Counties (Swift et al. 1989, 1990). Five small 
populations have been rediscovered since 1984, but the overall losses 
indicate a decline of 35 percent rangewide in 6 years (Holland 1991a, 
1991b, 1991c; Swift et al. 1991).
    Of the 43 remaining populations of tidewater gobies identified by 
Swift et al. (1990), most are small and threatened by a variety of 
human and natural factors. According to Swift et al. (1990), only eight 
extant localities contain populations that are considered large enough 
and free enough from habitat degradation to be safe for the immediate 
future. These areas are all located north of San Francisco Bay. The 
remaining lagoons are so small or modified that tidewater goby 
populations are restricted in distribution and vulnerable to 
elimination (Swift et al. 1989, 1990). The number of extirpated 
localities of gobies has left remaining populations so widely separated 
throughout most of the species' range that recolonization is unlikely.
    Several specific proposed and ongoing coastal development 
activities threaten habitats supporting tidewater gobies, including 
road widening and bridge replacement projects along Highway 101, water 
diversion projects in San Luis Obispo County, expansion of several 
State Park Recreation areas in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo 
Counties, and hotel and golf course developments in San Luis Obispo and 
Marin Counties.
    In addition to these specific threats, the tidewater goby is 
vulnerable throughout its remaining range because of the loss of 
coastal marsh, as noted above, and because of other effects of water 
diversions as well. In addition to restricting the goby's overall range 
by altering downstream salinities, water diversions and alterations of 
water flows may negatively impact the species' breeding and foraging 
activities. Gobies in southern and central California breed primarily 
in sand/mud substrates and apparently avoid areas that contain large 
amounts of decaying vegetation (Holland 1991b). Reductions in water 
flows may allow aggressive plant species to colonize the otherwise bare 
sand/mud substrates of coastal lagoon margins, thus degrading the 
habitat quality for the goby. Decreases in stream flows also reduce the 
deep stream pools utilized by gobies venturing upstream from lagoons. 
In San Luis Obispo County alone, the effects of drought, either 
directly or exacerbated by upstream water diversions, have been 
responsible for the extirpation of at least three populations of gobies 
between 1986 to 1990 (K. Worcester, California Department of Fish and 
Game, pers. comm., 1991).
    The tidewater goby is also adversely affected by groundwater 
overdrafting and discharge of agricultural and sewage effluents. For 
example, in Santa Barbara County, increased groundwater pumpage and 
siltation from topsoil runoff in the San Antonio Creek drainage has 
significantly affected areas immediately upstream of occupied goby 
habitat (i.e., Barka Slough) (C. Swift, Los Angeles County Museum of 
Natural History, pers. comm., 1991). Enrichment by agricultural and 
sewage effluents may cause algal blooms and deoxygenation that restrict 
habitable areas of lagoons utilized by tidewater gobies, especially in 
summer (Swift et al. 1989). The potential for these factors to degrade 
remaining goby habitats has also been noted at all three extant 
localities south of Ventura County (D. Holland, pers. comm., 1991) and 
at several sites along the central California coast (T. Taylor, 
California State Parks and Recreation, pers. comm., 1991; K. Worcester, 
pers. comm., 1991).
    The tidewater goby is further threatened by channelization of the 
rivers it inhabits. Because most of the goby's localities have been 
moderately to extremely channelized, winter floods scour the species 
out of the restricted channelized areas where no protection is afforded 
from such high flows. This type of event was responsible for the 
disappearance of gobies from Waddell Creek lagoon in the winter 1972-73 
(C. Swift, pers. comm., 1991).
    Finally, cattle grazing and feral pig activity present a threat to 
the existence of the tidewater goby. These activities have resulted in 
increased sedimentation of coastal lagoons and riparian habitats, 
removal of vegetative cover, increased ambient water temperatures, and 
elimination of plunge pools and collapsed undercut banks utilized by 
tidewater gobies. In San Luis Obispo County, increased sedimentation 
into Morro Bay has significantly accelerated the conversion of wetland 
habitats to upland habitats (Josselyn et al. 1989). Presently, cattle 
continue to graze freely both upstream and in many of the coastal 
lagoons supporting tidewater gobies (K. Worcester, pers. comm., 1991).
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. Not known to be applicable.
    C. Disease or predation. Over the past 20 years, at least 60 
species of exotic fishes have been introduced to the western United 
States, 59 percent of which are predatory (Hayes and Jennings 1986, 
Jennings 1988). The introduction of exotic predators to southern 
California waters has been facilitated by the interbasin transport of 
water (e.g., California Aqueduct). Introduced predators, particularly 
centrarchid fishes, may have contributed to the elimination of the 
tidewater goby from several localities in California (Swift et al. 
1989). The present day absence of the tidewater goby from the San 
Francisco delta area may well be explained by the presence of 
introduced predators such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and native 
predators including the Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus) 
(Swift et al. 1989, 1990). Two of the most recent disappearances of 
gobies from San Luis Obispo County (Old Creek) and San Diego County 
(San Onofre Creek) are likely due to the presence of exotic largemouth 
bass (Micropterous salmoides) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), 
respectively. Natural predation on gobies by rainbow trout 
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) has been documented (Swift et al. 1989). Other 
non-native predators, specifically crayfish (Cambarus spp.) and 
mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.), may also threaten goby populations 
through direct predation on adults, larvae, or eggs.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Section 10 of 
the Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
regulate the placement of dredge and fill materials into waters of the 
United States. Under section 404, nationwide permits, which undergo 
minimal public and agency review, can be issued for projects involving 
less than 10 acres of waters of the United States and adjacent 
wetlands, unless a listed species may be adversely affected. Individual 
permits, which are subject to more extensive review, are required for 
projects that affect greater than 10 acres.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the agency responsible 
for administering the section 10 and section 404 programs. The Service, 
as part of the section 404 review process, provides comments on both 
predischarge notices for nationwide permits and public notices for 
individual permits. The Service's comments are only advisory, although 
procedures exist for elevation when disagreements between the agencies 
arise. In practice, the Corps' actions under section 10 and section 404 
are insufficient to protect the tidewater goby.
    Most projects within the range of the tidewater goby considered in 
this proposal may require approval from the Corps as currently 
described in section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Projects proposed in 
coastal lagoons may also require a permit under section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act. Federal listing of this species requires 
Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize 
the tidewater goby's continued existence or destroy or adversely modify 
any habitat that is designated as critical.
    The National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental 
Quality Act require an intensive environmental review of projects that 
may adversely affect Federal candidate species. However, project 
proponents are not required to avoid impacts to these species, and 
proposed mitigation measures are frequently not adequately implemented. 
As with section 404 permits, the Service's comments through these 
environmental review processes are only advisory.
    The California Coastal Act regulates the approval of developments 
within the coastal zone. Although a significant slowing in wetland 
losses has occurred, the continued loss and degradation of coastal 
wetlands since the California Coastal Act was enacted in 1974 attests 
to the limitations of this legislation.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. By far, the most significant natural factor adversely 
affecting the tidewater goby is drought and resultant deterioration of 
coastal and riparian habitats. California has recently experienced 5 
consecutive years of lower than average rainfall. These drought 
conditions, when combined with human induced water reductions (i.e., 
diversions of water from streams, excessive groundwater withdrawals), 
have degraded coastal and riparian ecosystems and have created 
extremely stressful conditions for most aquatic species. Formerly large 
populations of tidewater gobies have declined in numbers because of the 
reduced availability of suitable lagoon habitats (i.e., San Simeon 
Creek, Pico Creek), others disappeared when the lagoons dried (i.e., 
Santa Rosa Creek). In San Luis Obispo County alone, 6 of 20 populations 
of tidewater gobies were extirpated between 1984 and 1989 because of 
drought, water diversions, and pollution (K. Worcester, pers. comm., 
1991).
    Habitat degradation and losses of the tidewater goby from weather 
related phenomena commonly occur due to the restriction of the species 
to coastal lagoon systems and its dependence on freshwater inflows. 
Events such as river flooding and heavy rainfall have been reported to 
destroy goby burrows and wash gobies out to sea. Storm surges that 
enter a lagoon may also adversely affect entire goby populations by 
rapidly changing its salinity.
    The tidewater goby was undoubtedly subjected to such natural flood 
events even before major human alteration of drainage basins. As 
mentioned under Factor A, channelization and urbanization have 
increased the frequency and perhaps the intensity of such flood events. 
In addition, populations of gobies are becoming more isolated from one 
another as intervening populations are extirpated, thus further 
decreasing the likelihood of successfully colonizing and reestablishing 
a population lost to a ``natural'' flood.
    Competition with introduced species is a potential threat to the 
tidewater goby. Although problems have not been documented so far, the 
spread of two introduced oriental gobies (yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius 
flavimanus) and chameleon goby (Tridentiger trigonocephalus)) may have 
a detrimental effect on the tidewater goby. According to Swift et al. 
(1990), the chameleon goby was recently found in Pyramid Lake, probably 
imported with central California water. If this goby becomes 
established in the Santa Clara River as other imported species have 
(e.g., prickly sculpin (Cottus asper)), the tidewater goby population 
at the mouth of the Santa Clara River may be at risk.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by this species in determining to make this rule 
final. The tidewater goby has been extirpated from nearly 50 percent of 
the lagoons within its historic range, including 74 percent of the 
lagoons south of Morro Bay. Forty-three populations remain; however, 
only six are large in number and reasonably free from immediate 
threats. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the 
tidewater goby as endangered. The tidewater goby has experienced a 
substantial decline throughout its historic range and faces threats 
indicating that this downward trend is likely to continue. This species 
lives within specific habitat zones that have been, and will continue 
to be, targeted for development and degradation by human activities. 
The goby is extremely vulnerable to adverse habitat modification and 
water quality changes. The tidewater goby is in imminent danger of 
extinction throughout its range and requires the full protection of 
listing as endangered under the Act to survive. For reasons discussed 
below, the Service is not proposing to designate critical habitat for 
this fish species at this time.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate 
critical habitat concurrently with determining a species to be 
endangered or threatened. Furthermore, the Service is to designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 
data available after taking into consideration the economic and other 
relevant impacts of specifying an area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(2)). In the case of the tidewater goby, critical habitat is not 
presently determinable. A final designation of critical habitat 
requires detailed information on the possible economic effects of such 
a designation. The Service does not currently have sufficient 
information needed to perform the economic analysis. A delay in the 
determination to list the species to gather additional information and 
perform analyses would not serve the needs of the species. Information 
is needed on actions that may be proposed within tidewater goby habitat 
and the degree to which a designation of critical habitat may affect 
these actions over and above effects associated with listing the goby 
as endangered (i.e., the jeopardy standard alone). It will also be 
necessary to determine how and to what extent application of the 
destruction/adverse modification standard will change various Federal 
actions. These data will be used in the economic analyses to determine 
the economic effects of critical habitat designation.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, 
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions 
against certain activities. Recognition through listing encourages and 
results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private 
agencies, groups, and individuals. The Endangered Species Act provides 
for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and 
requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. 
The protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions 
against taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    A number of Federal agencies or departments control lands that 
support the tidewater goby. These include the Department of Defense 
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. 
Marine Corps), Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service), and 
Department of the Interior (National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service). Federal actions that may be affected by this 
determination would be the funding or authorization of projects within 
the species' habitat, including the construction of roads, bridges, and 
dredging projects subject to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and special use permits. Other Federal 
actions that are subject to environmental review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act would also require consultation with the 
Service. Projects on federally owned land would also be subject to the 
provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
    The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, would make it illegal 
for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, 
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    The Act and 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23 also provide for the issuance of 
permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving 
endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. Such permits 
are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities, and for economic hardship under certain 
circumstances. Requests for copies of the regulations on listed plants 
and wildlife and inquiries regarding them may be addressed to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Permit Branch, 911 N.E. 
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181, telephone 503/231-6241, FAX 
503/231-6243.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice 
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Ventura Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are Donna C. Brewer, Cathy 
Brown, and Thomas Davidson of the Ventura Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following species, in 
alphabetical order under the group FISHES, to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                    Vertebrate population                                                  
----------------------------------------------------      Historic range          where endangered or      Status    When listed    Critical    Special 
       Common name              Scientific name                                       threatened                                    habitat      rules  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
          Fishes                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
Goby, tidewater..........  Eucyclogobius newberryi.  U.S.A. (CA).............  Entire..................  E                   527           NA         NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 31, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-2546 Filed 2-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P