[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23003-23029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10723]



[[Page 23003]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 131



Water Quality Standards for Idaho; Proposed Rule

[[Page 23004]]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL-5817-8]


Water Quality Standards for Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing water quality standards that would be 
applicable to the waters of the United States in the State of Idaho. If 
promulgated as final standards, they will supersede those aspects of 
Idaho's water quality standards that EPA disapproved in 1993 and 1996. 
EPA is taking this action because it believes those State water quality 
standards are inconsistent with the Clean Water Act and EPA's 
implementing regulations. The timing of this rulemaking is designed to 
comply with a court order directing EPA to propose standards by April 
21, 1997 and to promulgate final standards 90 days thereafter. EPA is 
proposing new use designations on currently unclassified waters in the 
State, and new use designations on 53 specified water body segments 
whose use designations do not meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and 
which have not been justified by the State. EPA is also proposing new 
temperature criteria necessary to protect certain threatened and 
endangered species and species being considered for listing as 
threatened and endangered. Finally, EPA's proposal addresses the 
State's mixing zone and anti-degradation policies as well as its 
excluded waters provision.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this rulemaking until May 28, 
1997. Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered. EPA is 
sponsoring two public hearings on today's proposed water quality 
standards for Idaho on May 12, 1997. The first is scheduled for 2-5:00 
pm (MDT), and the second for 6:30-9:30 pm (MDT).

ADDRESSES: An original plus 2 copies, and if possible an electronic 
version of comments either in WordPerfect or ASCII format, should be 
addressed to Lisa Macchio, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Water, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101.
    The public hearings will be held in Rooms A and B of the Department 
of Environmental Quality Earl Chandler Building, 1410 North Hilton, 
Boise, Idaho.
    The administrative record for today's proposed rule is available 
for public inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of Water, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, between 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Macchio at U.S.EPA Region 10, 
Office of Water, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101 
(telephone: 206-553-1834), or William Morrow in U.S.EPA Headquarters at 
202-260-3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

A. Potentially Affected Entities
B. Background
    1. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    2. Factual Background
C. Unclassified Waters
    1. Background
    2. Idaho's Unclassified Waters Provision
    3. Federal Use Designation for Unclassified Waters in Idaho
D. Stream Segments With Specific Beneficial Use Designations
    1. Background
    2. EPA Review of Idaho's Use Designations
    3. Recent Idaho Actions
    4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations for Specific Water Body 
Segments
    i. Primary Contact Recreation
    ii. Cold Water Biota
    iii. Salmonid Spawning
    5. Request for Comment and Data
E. Temperature Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species
    1. Background
    2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon
    i. EPA's Review
    ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria
    iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria
    3. Freshwater Aquatic Snails
    i. EPA's Review
    ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria
    iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criterion
    4. Bull Trout
    i. EPA's Review
    ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria
    iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria and Bull Trout 
Distribution
F. Antidegradation Policy
G. Mixing Zone Policy
    1. Idaho's Existing Policy
    2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho
H. Excluded Waters Provision
I. Federal Variances
J. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    1. Use Attainability
    2. Costs
    i. Overview of Methodology to Estimate Potential Costs Related 
to New Use Designations
    ii. Results for Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations 
and Unclassified Waters
    iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate Potential Costs Related to 
New Temperature Criteria
K. Executive Order 12866
L. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
O. Executive Order 12875

A. Potentially Affected Entities

    Citizens concerned with water quality in Idaho may be interested in 
this rulemaking. Entities discharging pollutants to waters of the 
United States in Idaho could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking 
since water quality standards are used in determining National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. 
Categories and entities which may ultimately be affected include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially affected  
             Category                             entities              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Industries discharging pollutants to
                                     surface waters in Idaho.           
Municipalities....................  Publicly-owned treatment works      
                                     discharging pollutants to surface  
                                     waters in Idaho.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding NPDES regulated entities likely to be 
affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that 
EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action.

B. Background

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under section 303 (33 U.S.C. 1313) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 
States are required to develop water quality standards for waters of 
the United States within the State. Section 303(c) provides that water 
quality standards shall include the designated use or uses to be made 
of the water and criteria necessary to protect the uses. States are 
required to review their water quality standards at least once every 
three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards. The 
results of this triennial review must be submitted to EPA, and EPA must 
approve or disapprove any new or revised standards.

[[Page 23005]]

    EPA regulations implementing section 303(c) are published at 40 CFR 
Part 131. Under these rules, the minimum elements that must be included 
in a State's water quality standards include: use designations for all 
water bodies in the State, water quality criteria sufficient to protect 
those use designations, and an anti-degradation policy consistent with 
EPA's water quality standards. 40 CFR 131.6. States may also include in 
their standards policies generally affecting the standards' application 
and implementation. See 40 CFR 131.13. These policies are subject to 
EPA review and approval.
    The authority to review and to approve or disapprove new or revised 
water quality standards for EPA Region X has been delegated from the 
Administrator to the Regional Administrator, and redelegated to the 
Regional Director of Water. See EPA's Delegation Manual, Sec. 2-10, 
dated January 28, 1976, and EPA Region X's redelegation manual, 
Sec. R10 1250.42, September 12, 1995. The authority to determine that 
new or revised standards are needed, notwithstanding a prior approval, 
has not been delegated, and so remains with the Administrator.
    Section 303(c) of the CWA authorizes EPA to promulgate water 
quality standards to supersede State standards that have been 
disapproved, or in any case where the Administrator determines that a 
new or revised standard is needed to meet the CWA's requirements. EPA 
is acting today to promulgate standards superseding State standards 
that have been deemed disapproved by the U.S. District Court for the 
Western District of Washington's in Idaho Conservation League v. 
Browner (No. C96-807WD, February 20, 1997, herein ``ICL v. Browner''). 
Today's proposal represents a preliminary determination by the 
Administrator that each of the elements in today's rulemaking is 
necessary and appropriate.
    EPA's usual practice when promulgating a water quality standard is 
to provide 45 days advance notice of a hearing, and a public comment 
period that extends at least until the date of the hearing. 40 CFR 
Sec. 25.5(a). However, the regulations also allow for the modification 
of specific deadlines where necessary to accommodate the specific 
provisions of court orders. Here, EPA is under a court order to propose 
standards in 60 days and to promulgate 90 days after proposal. A 
comment period of 45 days would not allow EPA sufficient time to 
analyze and consider a substantial set of comments. Accordingly, EPA is 
providing a comment period of 30 days as well as holding two public 
hearings on May 12, 1997. The demanding schedule for promulgation of 
standards in this case has also led EPA to propose a special procedure 
by which the Regional Administrator for Region 10 may grant variances 
from EPA-designated uses where, following promulgation of these 
standards, information becomes available showing that an EPA-designated 
use is unattainable. See section I. below for a detailed discussion.
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies, 
in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to insure that their actions 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat 
of such species which have been designated as ``critical.'' 
Consultation is designed to assist federal agencies in complying with 
the requirements of section 7 by supplying a process within which FWS 
and NMFS provide such agencies with advice and guidance on whether an 
action complies with the substantive requirements of ESA. Approval of 
State water quality standards and federal promulgation of water quality 
standards are considered federal actions, and hence EPA is required to 
comply with the requirements of section 7 of ESA prior to final 
promulgation.
    As a result of EPA's responsibilities and duties under Section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act, EPA has initiated informal consultation 
with FWS and NMFS on this rulemaking. As part of this process EPA is 
preparing a biological assessment document which will be submitted to 
FWS and NMFS prior to the final rulemaking. EPA expects to conclude 
consultation with the Services prior to the final rulemaking.
    EPA developed today's proposed standards by application of existing 
State requirements for development of water quality standards set out 
in 40 CFR Part 131, EPA's implementing policies and procedures, and 
existing methodologies for criteria development. The basis for the 
proposed rule is described more fully below in sections C-I.

2. Factual Background

    On July 11, 1994, Idaho submitted a complete set of water quality 
standards to EPA for review and approval. Pursuant to section 303(c)(3) 
of the CWA, EPA reviewed this complete set of standards. Under the 
mistaken assumption that all the standards submitted in 1994 were new 
or revised, EPA reviewed and approved or disapproved all of the State's 
standards in a June 25, 1996 letter from Chuck Clarke, Region X 
Regional Administrator, to Wallace Cory, Director, Idaho Division of 
Environmental Quality. Specifically, the letter disapproved the State's 
default use designation for unclassified waters, the use designations 
for 53 waters with designated uses, temperature criteria, portions of 
the mixing zone and antidegradation policies, the Kinross-Delamar 
variance, and the excluded waters provision. The letter stated that EPA 
was approving the remainder of Idaho's water quality standards, subject 
to completing the consultation required under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act.
    Subsequent to the June 25, 1996 action, EPA Region X discovered 
records that clarified that the standards it had acted on included not 
only new and revised standards, but also standards which had been 
previously approved in the same or substantially the same form. This 
discovery was significant because Region X had been delegated authority 
to approve or disapprove only new or revised State standards; the 
Administrator has reserved the authority to determine that new or 
revised federal standards are needed where State standards have 
previously been approved. EPA promptly notified the parties and the 
court of this discovery.
    To ensure that all the deficiencies in Idaho's standards were 
addressed in these circumstances, by a November 22, 1996 memorandum 
from Chuck Clarke to the Administrator, Region X acknowledged its error 
and recommended that the EPA Administrator act pursuant to her 
discretionary authority to fill those gaps where Region X had acted 
beyond its authority. On February 20, 1997, the District Court in ICL 
v. Browner held that EPA was obligated to promulgate standards to 
supersede all of those disapproved in the June 25, 1996 letter, 
regardless of whether the standards were new or revised.

C. Unclassified Waters

1. Background

    Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses, 
criteria necessary to protect those uses, and an antidegradation 
policy. Water quality standards establish the ``goals'' for a water 
body. Designated beneficial uses determine what criteria apply to the 
water body. In general, States have not

[[Page 23006]]

had the resources to designate beneficial uses on a segment-by-segment 
basis for all of the State's surface waters. States usually initially 
designate beneficial uses site-specifically for a subset of water 
segments that are potentially threatened by degradation, and then as 
resources and information become available gradually begin to classify 
the remainder. This allows States to focus limited resources on 
collecting information to protect the water segments at most risk. This 
approach combined with a default use designation for unclassified 
waters ensures all State surface waters have designated beneficial uses 
and are protected for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
    Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act States the national goal 
of achieving by July 1, 1983, ``water quality which provides for the 
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and * * * 
recreation in and on the water,'' wherever attainable. These national 
goals are commonly referred to as the ``fishable/swimmable'' goals of 
the Clean Water Act. Section 303(c)(2)(A) requires water quality 
standards to ``protect the public health and welfare, enhance the 
quality of water, and serve the purposes of this Act.'' EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 131 interpret and implement these provisions 
through a requirement that water quality standards provide for 
fishable/swimmable uses unless those uses have been shown to be 
unattainable, effectively creating a rebuttable presumption of 
attainability. Unless that presumption has been rebutted, a default 
designation of fishable/swimmable beneficial uses apply.
    Under 40 CFR Sec. 131.10(j), States and Tribes are required to 
conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA) whenever the State or Tribe 
designates or has designated uses that do not include the uses 
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, or when the State or Tribe 
wishes to remove a designated use that is specified in Section 
101(a)(2) of the Act, or adopt subcategories of uses that require less 
stringent criteria. Section 131.10 lists grounds upon which a finding 
of un-attainability may be based. At a minimum, uses are considered by 
EPA to be attainable if the uses can be achieved when (1) effluent 
limitations under Section 301(b)(1) (A) and (B) and Section 306 are 
established for point source dischargers, and (2) cost effective and 
reasonable best management practices are established for nonpoint 
source dischargers.
    A UAA is defined in 40 CFR Sec. 131.3(g) as a ``structured 
scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of a use 
which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors 
as described in Sec. 131.10(g).'' In a UAA, the physical, chemical and 
biological factors affecting the attainment of a use are evaluated 
through a water body survey and assessment. In addition, where the 
economic impact of attaining a use is an issue, those impacts may be 
documented in the UAA.

2. Idaho's Unclassified Waters Provision

    Idaho's regulations at 16.01.02.101.01. adopted August 24, 1994, 
protected unclassified surface waters for primary contact recreation, 
unless the physical characteristics of a water body prevented primary 
contact recreation. In those cases, the water body was protected for 
secondary contact recreation. While providing for swimmable waters 
unless and until such use is shown to be unattainable, this provision 
did not provide any protection for aquatic life, that is, the 
``fishable'' component of fishable/swimmable uses. In its June 1996 
letter, EPA disapproved this provision because it did not protect 
unclassified waters for ``protection and propagation of fish, shellfish 
and wildlife'' and because the State had not demonstrated that such 
uses were unattainable in unclassified waters, as required by sections 
101(a) and 303(c) of the CWA and by EPA's regulations.
    On December 1, 1996, Idaho adopted a modified unclassified waters 
provision which protects unclassified waters for all recreational use 
in and on the water and the protection and propagation of fish, 
shellfish and wildlife, ``wherever attainable.'' By letter dated 
September 23, 1996, Idaho explained that this language was not intended 
to establish a default designation for aquatic life, but rather that 
the State contemplated that when regulatory decisions such as NPDES 
permit decisions arose, data would be reviewed to determine the 
appropriate beneficial use. Based on this letter and conversations with 
Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality, it is EPA's understanding 
that under Idaho's intended interpretation, this provision does not 
presume that unclassified waters will be protected for fishable/
swimmable uses and does not require that such uses be demonstrated to 
be unattainable before a lesser use is employed in regulatory 
decisions. Idaho's approach appears to shift the burden so as to 
require a demonstration that fishable/swimmable uses are attainable 
before they will be protected. This is inconsistent with the goals of 
CWA Sec. 101(a)(2) and the requirements of CWA Sec. 303(b)(2) and 40 
CFR 131.10.

3. Federal Use Designation for Unclassified Waters in Idaho

    EPA is proposing to promulgate a default use designation for 
unclassified waters which provides for the protection and propagation 
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, 
unless it is demonstrated to EPA for a particular water body that such 
use(s) are unattainable. Demonstrations that a fishable/swimmable use 
is unattainable for a particular unclassified water body can be made by 
applying for a variance to the federal standard. The federal variance 
procedure is discussed in section I. The CWA specifies that States are 
to establish water quality standards which includes designating 
beneficial uses. It is only when a State adopts standards inconsistent 
with the CWA, that EPA must promulgate replacement standards. If Idaho 
formally designates a beneficial use for a specific unclassified water 
body, that water body would no longer be subject to the proposed 
unclassified waters provision. Such designations are subject to EPA 
review and approval under CWA Sec. 303(c)(2). In addition, if Idaho 
corrects the deficiency in their current designated use for 
unclassified waters, and EPA approves, EPA will remove today's federal 
designated use for unclassified waters.
    In order to provide for the protection and propagation of aquatic 
life in unclassified waters, it is necessary to determine the 
predominant type of aquatic life in Idaho's surface waters. Aquatic 
life in different ecosystems have different needs. Salmonid fishes, 
especially chinook salmon and bull trout, are often referred to as 
cold-water fish (ODEQ, 1995). Cold-water fish occur in all of Idaho's 
basins, with some limited exceptions of isolated sub-basins in southern 
Idaho. Table 1 shows the non-salmonid fish found in Idaho (Simpson and 
Wallace, 1982). These fish are classified as cool/cold-and warm-water 
species (ODEQ, 1995; Simpson and Wallace, 1982; Sigler and Sigler, 
1987). Non-salmonid cool/cold-water fish native to Idaho include 
several species of sculpin, dace, chub, and suckers. The only known 
warm-water species of fish native to Idaho are the Utah sucker and the 
Utah chub.

[[Page 23007]]



                        Table 1.--Nonsalmonid Fishes of Idaho (Simpson and Wallace, 1982)                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Family                    Common names             Introduced or native         Warm or  cool/cold  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLUPEIDAE.....................  American Shad, Herring..  Introduced...................  Warm.                  
CENTRARCHIDAE.................  Bass, Largemouth Bass,    Introduced...................  Warm.                  
                                 Pumpkinseed, White                                                             
                                 Crappie, Green Sunfish,                                                        
                                 Warmouth, Bluegill.                                                            
                                Black Crappie,            Introduced...................  Cool/Cold.             
                                 Smallmouth Bass.                                                               
COTTIDAE......................  Bear Lake Sculpin,        Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
                                 Mottled Sculpin, Paiute                                                        
                                 Sculpin, Shorthead                                                             
                                 Sculpin, Shoshone                                                              
                                 Sculpin, Slimy Sculpin,                                                        
                                 Torrent Sculpin, Wood                                                          
                                 River Sculpin.                                                                 
ICTALURIDAE...................  Black Bullhead, Brown     Introduced...................  Warm.                  
                                 Bullhead, Channel                                                              
                                 Catfish, Tadpole                                                               
                                 Madtom, Flathead                                                               
                                 Catfish.                                                                       
CATOSTOMIDAE..................  Bluehead Sucker,          Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
                                 Bridgelip Sucker,                                                              
                                 Largescale Sucker,                                                             
                                 Longnose Sucker,                                                               
                                 Mountain Sucker.                                                               
                                Utah Sucker.............  Native.......................  Warm.                  
GADIDAE.......................  Burbot..................  Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
CYPRINIDAE....................  Common Carp, Fathead      Introduced...................  Warm.                  
                                 Minnow, Goldfish,                                                              
                                 Tench, Tui Chub.                                                               
                                Chiselmouth, Leatherside  Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
                                 Chub, Leopard Dace,                                                            
                                 Longnose Dace, Northern                                                        
                                 Squawfish, Peamouth,                                                           
                                 Redside Shiner,                                                                
                                 Speckled Dace, Lake                                                            
                                 Chub.                                                                          
                                Utah Chub...............  Native.......................  Warm.                  
POECILIIDAE...................  Guppy, Western            Introduced...................  Warm.                  
                                 Mosquitofish.                                                                  
PETROMYZONTIDAE...............  Pacific Lamprey.........  Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
ESOCIDAE......................  Northern Pike...........  Introduced...................  Cool/Cold.             
OSMERUS.......................  Rainbow Smelt...........  Introduced...................  Cool/Cold.             
PERCOPSIDAE...................  Sand Roller.............  Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
ACIPENSERIDAE.................  White Sturgeon..........  Native.......................  Cool/Cold.             
PERCIDAE......................  Walleye, Yellow Perch...  Introduced...................  Cool/Cold.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Utah Chub is native to the Bear River basin and the Snake River 
basin above Shoshone falls. It is also found in the Wood River system 
and in Henry's Fork of the Snake River with its range restricted to the 
area below Mesa Falls (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub 
prefers lake, pond and reservoir environments and is tolerant of warmer 
water temperatures (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). The Utah Chub is 
considered a ``nuisance'' in trout waters, and the Idaho Department of 
Fish and Game has attempted, unsuccessfully to eradicate Utah Chub from 
important trout waters (Simpson and Wallace, 1982). Although no life 
cycle studies have been conducted in Idaho, the successful colonization 
of the Utah Chub in trout waters would seem to indicate that the Utah 
Chub can reproduce and survive in cold water. The Utah Sucker is also 
found in the Bear River basin and the Snake River basin above Shoshone 
Falls. Although the temperature requirements for different stages of 
its life cycle are unknown, its geographic distribution covers a wide 
range of warm to very cold waters which suggest it is an adaptable 
species (Simpson and Wallace, 1982).
    The majority of native Idaho fish are classified as cold water 
species and the presence of these species occurs throughout the entire 
State. The only two warm water native fish species are of limited 
geographic range and also occur where cold water native fish species 
exist. In addition, of the 240 water segments that Idaho has 
specifically designated beneficial uses for in their water quality 
standards (see IDAPA 16.01.02.100.-161.), only 3 have been designated 
as warm water biota. Of those three, EPA is proposing to promulgate 
cold water protection for one of those streams based on the presence of 
cold water species (see section D.4.ii.). EPA believes having a default 
assumption protective of cold water species applicable in the State of 
Idaho is reasonable based upon the State's beneficial use designations 
to date and the scientific information presented above.
    Idaho has set out in its water quality standards at 
16.01.02.250.02.c. criteria necessary to support cold water aquatic 
life. Because the predominant ecosystem in Idaho is comprised of cold 
water aquatic life, EPA is proposing to rely on Idaho's existing 
criteria for cold water biota for the protection of unclassified 
waters, except where lower temperatures are required to protect 
threatened and endangered species (see section E below). Idaho's 
existing criteria for cold water biota include criteria for dissolved 
oxygen (D.O.), temperature, ammonia, and turbidity. EPA solicits 
comment on the selection of cold water biota as a default beneficial 
use for unclassified waters. In particular, EPA seeks information about 
the present distribution of various salmonid and non-salmonid cold 
water species in Idaho. EPA also solicits comment on the distribution 
of warm water species in Idaho. EPA seeks data on the temperature 
requirements of sensitive life cycle stages for the Idaho Chub and the 
Idaho Sucker. EPA also seeks comment on the historical distribution of 
both native cold water and native warm water species in Idaho.
    The second component of ``fishable/swimmable'' is proposed to be 
addressed through the primary contact recreation use and associated 
criteria. However, as discussed below in section D.4.i., Idaho's 
criteria for secondary contact recreation are adequate to protect 
swimming. EPA seeks comment on the option of relying on secondary 
contact recreation for protection of recreation in unclassified waters. 
Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on whether a primary contact 
recreation use designation is necessary when the criteria associated 
with secondary contact recreation are protective of swimming.
    When Idaho designates a beneficial use for a specific water body 
that is currently unclassified, that water body will no longer be 
within the scope of EPA's unclassified waters beneficial designated 
use. EPA will review the State's beneficial use designation for 
specific water bodies and approve or disapprove as part of EPA's review 
process under section 303(c) of the CWA.

D. Stream Segments With Specific Beneficial Use Designations

1. Background

    As discussed in Section ``C. Unclassified Waters'' above, the 
federal water quality standards regulations require that water quality 
standards

[[Page 23008]]

provide for fishable/swimmable uses unless it has been demonstrated 
that attaining the designated beneficial uses is not feasible for any 
of the reasons described in 40 CFR 131.10(g). Whenever the State 
designates or has designated uses that do not include these fishable/
swimmable uses or when the State wishes to remove a designated use, a 
use attainability analysis (UAA) must be completed and submitted to EPA 
for review.

2. EPA Review of Idaho's Use Designations

    Idaho's 1994 water quality standards which were submitted to EPA 
for review contained 53 water body segments which had designated 
beneficial uses which were less than fishable/swimmable. More 
specifically, the designated beneficial uses for 9 segments were 
missing cold water biota, for 18 were missing primary contact 
recreation and for 26 were missing both cold water biota and primary 
contact recreation. Idaho had not submitted UAA's justifying the 
lowered uses for these segments.
    In a letter to Idaho from EPA in October 1995, EPA pointed out this 
deficiency. Idaho took no action. On June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved the 
uses for these 53 water body segments because the State had failed to 
justify lower use classifications in accordance with 40 CFR 
Sec. 131.10(j). EPA Stated that, to meet the requirements of the CWA, 
Idaho must either submit use attainability analyses providing the 
justification for less than fishable/swimmable uses for the subject 
waters or revise the standards to include fishable and swimmable uses.

3. Recent Idaho Actions

    To date, Idaho has taken action to revise the designated beneficial 
uses for 2 of the 53 water body segments. Idaho adopted a temporary 
rule on February 11, 1997 for the upgrade of uses for West Fork 
Blackbird Creek, SB 4211 in the Salmon Basin, and Lindsay Creek, CB 210 
in the Clearwater Basin. The temporary rule designated cold water biota 
and salmonid spawning use for West Fork Blackbird Creek and secondary 
contact recreation for Lindsay Creek and became effective on March 1, 
1997. Idaho submitted this temporary rule to EPA on March 24, 1997.
    With these changes, it appears that the beneficial use designations 
for these segments meet the requirements of 40 CFR 131.10. However, the 
process followed by Idaho in adopting this temporary rule has not yet 
provided an opportunity for public hearing or comment on the rule as 
required by 40 CFR 131.20. Because these segments are covered by Judge 
Dwyer's order, and because EPA has not completed its approval/
disapproval action on Idaho's temporary rules for these segments, they 
are included in today's proposal. If EPA approves these or other State 
adopted standards before promulgating a final Federal rule, there will 
be no need to include them in the final promulgation.

4. Federal Beneficial Use Designations for Specific Water Body Segments

    In its modified order, the District Court ordered EPA to propose 
water quality standards by April 21, 1997 for the 53 water body 
segments whose designations EPA had disapproved in June 1996. The 
brevity of this schedule did not allow EPA time to complete its review 
of available data on each of these segments, nor did it allow EPA time 
to solicit data prior to this proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, in 
proposing designated beneficial uses for the water body segments of 
concern, EPA is relying on the rebuttable presumption implicit in its 
regulations, that fishable/swimmable uses are attainable. If further 
data indicates that this presumption is not appropriate for particular 
water bodies, EPA's final rule will be revised accordingly. In 
particular, if EPA determines, based on the record, that any of Idaho's 
designations are justified, there will not be a need for federally 
promulgated use designations for the water bodies in question. EPA 
believes that this approach is reasonable because it is consistent with 
the goals in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA and the implementing 
requirements in the water quality standards regulations at 40 CFR Part 
131.
    Idaho's use classification system includes a number of beneficial 
uses for its waters, including ``domestic water supply'', 
``agricultural water supply'', ``cold water biota'', ``warm water 
biota'', ``salmonid spawning'', ``primary contact recreation'' and 
``secondary contact recreation''. EPA's approach in proposing 
beneficial uses for the 53 water body segments is to select uses from 
Idaho's system which correspond to ``fishable/swimmable'' uses. This 
approach meets the requirements of the CWA while facilitating ultimate 
withdrawal of federal standards.
i. Primary Contact Recreation
    Forty-four of the water bodies whose beneficial use designations 
were disapproved by EPA were missing primary contact recreation. In 
most instances, the water bodies were assigned secondary contact 
recreation; a few segments had neither primary or secondary. In light 
of recent discussions with the State, it now appears that the criteria 
assigned by Idaho to protect secondary contact recreation are 
consistent with EPA guidance on bacteriological criteria for primary 
contact recreation.
    In the current Idaho water quality standards, except for fecal 
coliform bacteria, all of the criteria applicable to primary contact 
recreation are also applicable to secondary contact recreation (i.e., 
all toxic substance criteria for the protection of human health apply 
to both primary and secondary contact recreation, see IDAPA 
16.01.02.250.01.c.). It is only the bacteriological criteria which 
differ between primary and secondary contact recreation.
    Idaho's current bacteriological criteria for the protection of 
secondary contact recreation are concentrations of fecal coliform 
bacteria not to exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 milliliters (ml) 
based on a minimum of five samples taken over a thirty day period, 800/
100 ml at any time; and 400/100 ml in more than ten percent of the 
total samples taken over a thirty day period. (See IDAPA 
16.01.02.250.01.b.)
    Idaho's current bacteriological criteria applicable for the 
protection of primary contact recreation apply between May 1 and 
September 30 of each calendar year and are concentrations of fecal 
coliform bacteria not to exceed a geometric mean of 50/100 ml based on 
a minimum of five samples taken over a thirty day period, 500/100 ml at 
any time; and 200/100 ml in more than ten percent of the total samples 
taken over a thirty day period. (See IDAPA 16.01.02.250.01.a.). EPA's 
section 304(a)(1) bacteriological criteria document published in 1976 
recommended a log mean fecal coliform limits of 200 FC/100 ml.
    EPA believes it is required by the terms of the District Court's 
order to propose primary contact recreation as a designated beneficial 
use for those water bodies which already have secondary contact as a 
designated beneficial use. However, EPA is soliciting comment on 
whether Idaho's secondary contact recreation, with its associated 
criteria, is sufficient. Specifically, EPA seeks comment on (1) whether 
Idaho's criteria for secondary contact recreation are in fact 
sufficient to protect primary contact recreation; and (2) if that is 
so, whether there is any reason to promulgate federal primary contact 
recreation use designations for the streams already subject to the 
secondary contact recreation criteria.
ii. Cold Water Biota
    Thirty five of the 53 segments addressed in EPA's June 1996 letter

[[Page 23009]]

were disapproved because they were missing a cold water biota 
beneficial use designation. As discussed above, under section C 
(Unclassified Waters), cold water biota is the appropriate default 
aquatic life classification for Idaho. To the extent possible prior to 
proposal, EPA also examined data for these 35 segments relevant to the 
existence of, or potential to support, cold water biota.
    EPA solicited and collected water chemistry data for the South Fork 
Coeur d'Alene River Basin from Idaho Fish and Game, the Coeur d'Alene 
Tribe and from within EPA's Superfund Program. In addition, biological 
monitoring data on marcroinvertebrates and fish population data was 
collected from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Coeur 
d'Alene Tribe for this basin.
    EPA also reviewed physical, chemical and biological data on West 
Fork Blackbird Creek which Idaho DEQ submitted to EPA. Additionally 
Idaho DEQ submitted to EPA preliminary results of assessment data which 
either they had collected or had been collected from other sources, 
such as Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on the 35 water body 
segments which were lacking a cold water biota beneficial use 
designation.
    Based on the above data, as well as EPA's approach discussed in 
Section C above, EPA determined that it is appropriate to propose a 
cold water biota designated beneficial use for the 35 water body 
segments.
iii. Salmonid Spawning
    As a result of EPA's responsibilities and duties under Section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act, EPA initiated informal consultation with 
FWS and NMFS on our proposed action. In conferring with NMFS on 
designating beneficial uses for these 53 segments, EPA obtained data 
from Idaho Department of Fish and Game which indicated that 7 of the 53 
segments provide spawning habitat for chinook and steelhead salmon. Of 
these 7, there were 4 which Idaho had not already designated for 
salmonid spawning use. As a result of this information, EPA is 
proposing an additional designated use of salmonid spawning for the 
following four segments: Grasshopper Creek, Little Bear Creek, 
Blackbird Creek, Panther Creek.
    Based on the information provided, EPA determined that salmonid 
spawning, which requires more stringent temperature and dissolved 
oxygen criteria than those assigned to cold water biota, was the 
appropriate beneficial use to ensure ``fishable'' water quality for 
these four water body segments.

5. Request for Comment and Data

    EPA believes the above beneficial uses are appropriate considering 
the requirements of the CWA and given the time frame which the court 
had ordered. Nonetheless, it is possible that information exists which 
may further support or refute their attainability or support or refute 
the appropriateness of the State's uses. Accordingly, EPA will evaluate 
any data which is submitted with regard to the aquatic life uses (i.e., 
cold water biota and salmonid spawning) of the 35 water body segments 
as well as the proposed primary contact recreational use. Based on such 
information EPA can make a final decision whether the designated uses 
in today's proposal are appropriate and required by the Clean Water 
Act. To assist the Agency in ensuring that its decisions are based upon 
the best available information, the Agency is soliciting information. 
To assist commenters the following paragraphs provide guidance on what 
information is relevant.
    Specifically EPA is seeking information that would assist in 
determining whether the beneficial uses identified above are currently 
being attained, can be attained, or have been attained since or before 
1975; whether natural conditions or features or human caused conditions 
prevent the attainment of these uses and cannot be remedied or would 
cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or 
whether the controls more stringent than those required by Section 
301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act would be needed to attain the 
uses and would cause substantial and widespread economic and social 
impact. Below is a general discussion of the types of data/information 
requested by the Agency:
    Ambient Monitoring Information: (1) Any in-stream data for any of 
the above stream segments reflecting either natural conditions (e.g., 
in-stream flow data or other data relating to stream hydrology) or 
irretrievable human-caused conditions which prevent the uses or water 
quality criteria from being attained; (2) any available in-stream 
biological data; (3) any chemical and biological monitoring data that 
verify improvements to water quality as a result of treatment plant/
facility upgrades and/or expansions; and (4) any in-stream data 
reflecting nonpoint sources of pollution or best management practices 
that have been implemented for nonpoint source control.
    Current and Historical Effluent Data: (1) Any data and information 
relating to mass loadings from point source discharges of pollutants 
such as BOD, NH3-N, chlorine, metals (e.g., As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, 
Hg, Ni, Ag, Zn), toxics (e.g., volatile organic chemicals such as 
benzene or toluene, acid extractables such as pentachlorophenol, base 
neutrals such as anthracene, fluorene or pyrene, and pesticides such as 
aldrin, lindane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin and toxaphene); (2) data and 
information related to facility or treatment plant effluent quality; 
and (3) any information related to releases of pollutants from other 
sources such as landfills, transportation facilities, construction 
sites, agriculture/silviculture, incinerators, and contaminated 
sediments.
    Models: (1) Any data or information on analytical models which can 
be used to evaluate or predict stream quality, flow, morphology; (2) 
any physical, biological or chemical characteristics relating to 
beneficial uses; and (3) the results of any such models which can be 
used to evaluate beneficial uses.
    Economic Data: Any information relating to costs and benefits 
associated with facility or treatment plant expansions or upgrades. 
This information includes: (1) Qualitative descriptions or quantitative 
estimates of any costs and benefits associated with facility or 
treatment plant expansions or upgrades, or associated with facilities 
or treatment plants meeting limits; (2) any information on costs to 
households in the community with facility or treatment plant expansions 
or upgrades, whether through an increase in user fees, an increase in 
taxes, or a combination of both; (3) descriptions of the geographical 
area affected; (4) any changes in median household income, employment, 
and overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable 
property; and (5) any effects of changes in tax revenues if the 
private-sector entity were to go out of business, changes in income to 
the community if workers lose their jobs, and effects on other 
businesses both direct and indirect.

E. Temperature Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species

1. Background

    Water quality standards consist, in part, of designated uses and 
criteria to protect those uses. States designate uses for aquatic life 
to provide protection for a variety of aquatic species which may be 
present in their waters. Thermal requirements for these species vary 
among species and among different life stages. Providing protection for 
these varied species and their temperature requirements can be 
accomplished a

[[Page 23010]]

number of ways. Most commonly, temperature criteria are set to protect 
the more sensitive species residing at a site, or subcategories of uses 
are established with criteria tailored to address and protect 
particular species and/or life stages.
    Idaho has three aquatic life designated beneficial uses, cold water 
biota, warm water biota and salmonid spawning, with each category 
having differing applicable temperature criteria. When designating uses 
and applying this categorical aquatic life based approach, Idaho is 
required to ensure that the criteria are sufficiently protective to 
safeguard the full range of waters in the State to which the uses are 
assigned. EPA's review of the criteria assigned by Idaho to its cold 
water biota beneficial use designation indicated that the temperature 
criteria did not provide adequate protection to some more sensitive 
species. Accordingly, EPA disapproved aspects of Idaho's cold water 
biota temperature criteria in the June 1996 letter. Idaho has not 
revised these criteria to meet EPA's objection.
    EPA's approach today is to propose more protective temperature 
criteria to apply to Idaho's current cold water biota beneficial use 
designation for those segments and river reaches with more sensitive 
species. The Agency believes this approach minimizes the impact on 
Idaho's current water quality standards while providing the protection 
required by the CWA. EPA proposes to modify only the temperature 
criteria applicable to the cold water biota beneficial use designation 
for specific water bodies [for a list of these waters see Sec. 131.33 
(c)-(e) of today's proposed rule]. The remaining criteria applicable to 
coldwater biota (i.e., turbidity, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen) remain 
unchanged. Specifically, today's proposal includes more stringent 
temperature criteria for specified waters in Idaho in order to protect 
the Kootenai River white sturgeon, five species of aquatic snails 
(hereinafter ``snails''), and bull trout. The literature indicates that 
Idaho's temperature criteria are inadequate to protect these aquatic 
species. EPA is consulting with the FWS concerning the adequacy of the 
criteria being proposed today. The following is a discussion of why EPA 
determined more stringent criteria were needed and how EPA selected the 
criteria being proposed today.
    FWS has determined that Kootenai River white sturgeon and five 
species of aquatic snails are threatened by extinction in Idaho. In 
addition, the bull trout is a candidate for listing as threatened or 
endangered. (Although FWS was petitioned to list the bull trout, it has 
not yet listed it.) Where a species is likely to be listed EPA assesses 
the effects to candidate aquatic species in a similar manner as listed 
species. Therefore EPA specifically assessed the impacts of Idaho's 
water quality standards to bull trout.
    In order to determine whether EPA's approval of Idaho's water 
quality standards would adversely effect species listed or candidates 
for listing under ESA, EPA reviewed applicable scientific literature. 
Based on a review of the literature available to EPA, the Agency 
determined that Idaho's temperature criteria were inadequate in 
providing protection to Kootenai River white sturgeon, 5 species of 
aquatic snails and bull trout. As discussed more fully below, the 
scientific literature indicates that temperatures in exceedance of 
applicable requirements, along with other habitat parameters, are 
threats to each of these aquatic species. EPA determined that 
temperatures lower than those currently specified under the State's 
designated uses are more appropriate for these species. Based on this 
determination, on June 25, 1996 EPA disapproved Idaho's temperature 
criteria in certain water body segments which provide habitat for these 
species.

2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon

i. EPA's Review
    According to the literature and review of the data from the 
Kootenai River monitoring programs conducted from 1990 through 1995, 
Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) spawned within 
a 16 river kilometer (10 river mile) stretch of the Kootenai River, 
primarily from Bonners Ferry downstream to the lower end of Shorty's 
Island (White Sturgeon: Kootenai River Population Draft Recovery Plan, 
U.S. FWS). Kootenai River sturgeon spawn from May through July (58 FR 
36379-86; July 7, 1993). Spawning is dependent on, and therefore occurs 
when, the physical environment permits egg development and cues 
ovulation. Following fertilization, white sturgeon eggs attach to river 
substrate and undergo a relatively short incubation period of 8 to 15 
days until they hatch (Brannon et. al., 1985). Landlocked populations 
of white sturgeon normally spawn during the period of peak flows from 
April through July (Duke et. al. 1990).
    According to the literature, significant modification to the 
natural hydrograph in the Kootenai River caused by flow regulation at 
Libby Dam is considered the primary reason for the Kootenai River 
sturgeon's declining numbers (Apperson and Anders 1991). Since 1972, 
when Libby Dam began operating, spring flows in the Kootenai River have 
been reduced an average 50 percent, and winter flows have increased by 
300 percent over normal. As a consequence, natural high spring flows 
required by white sturgeon for reproduction rarely occur during the May 
to July spawning season when suitable temperature, water velocity and 
photoperiod conditions exist.
    Based on recent monitoring studies of Kootenai River flow, 
temperature, and fertilized egg distribution, water temperatures 
corresponding to estimated spawning dates of Kootenai River sturgeon 
range from approximately 8.5 to 14  deg.C and have been estimated to 
occur in the May-July time period. During 1970, 1974 and 1980, where 
successful, natural recruitment of Kootenai sturgeon is believed to 
have occurred, temperatures associated with peak flow events during the 
presumed spawning period ranged from 11 to 13  deg.C (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Columbia River Basin Field Office, ``Rationale for 
Reestablishment of Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White 
Sturgeon''). Elsewhere, spawning of white sturgeon has been documented 
at higher temperatures than Kootenai sturgeon, with reported spawning 
in the lower Columbia River occurring at temperatures ranging from 10-
18  deg.C during 1987 to 1991 (Parsley et al., 1993). Parsley et al. 
further report that most of the spawning in the lower Columbia River 
occurred between 10 and 12  deg.C. Because the Columbia River white 
sturgeon may be acclimated to warmer temperatures than those 
experienced by sturgeon in the Kootenai River, the applicability of 
Columbia River data to Kootenai sturgeon is unclear. It should be 
further noted that white sturgeon spawning is cued by other factors, of 
which flow is among the most important, and therefore, the lack of 
spawning at some temperatures may be due to suboptimal flow conditions 
or other important factors. Thus, while the available information 
suggests that 8-14  deg.C is a reasonable temperature range to be 
considered for maintenance of Kootenai River sturgeon, the current 
optimal temperature range for Kootenai River white sturgeon is not 
entirely certain.
    Partly because of the uncertainty in defining optimal spawning 
conditions for Kootenai sturgeon, the FWS and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (COE) are experimenting with agreed upon operational 
guidelines for flow releases at Libby Dam during 1997 and 1998 in part, 
to obtain more data to determine optimal spawning conditions for

[[Page 23011]]

sturgeon. Future studies and monitoring may more accurately determine 
Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning requirements.
    Data on temperature requirements of other life stages of white 
sturgeon is much more limited. An optimum temperature for egg 
development of     14  deg.C is reported by Wang et al. (1985 as cited 
by Parsley et al., 1993), with elevated mortality occurring at 18 
deg.C and complete mortality at 20  deg.C. Temperature tolerance data 
for other life stages was not found, although older sturgeon are 
reported to inhabit deeper locations in Kootenai River locations with 
temperatures ranging from 14 to     20  deg.C (PSMFC, 1992).
    In addition to evaluation of the literature, EPA conferred with FWS 
and COE staff in determining appropriate temperature values protective 
of sturgeon spawning. EPA reviewed data from monitoring efforts by the 
COE on the Kootenai River from 1993 through 1997.
ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria
    Idaho's current designated beneficial use for the Kootenai River 
from Bonners Ferry to Shorty's Island is cold water biota, which has 
applicable temperature criteria of 22  deg.C or less with a maximum 
daily average of 19  deg.C Hence, EPA concluded that Idaho's cold water 
biota temperature criteria do not provide an adequate level of 
protection for Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning.
iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria
    Temperature criteria being proposed for the Kootenai River from 
Bonners Ferry to Shorty's Island were derived using EPA's temperature 
criteria guidance (``Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol 
and Procedures''; U.S. EPA, 1977). The EPA protocol recommends 
expression of temperature criteria in two forms: (1) A short-term 
maxima (protection against lethal conditions, usually for a duration of 
24 hours), and (2) a mean temperature value (expressed as the maximum 
weekly average temperature) that is designed to protect critical life 
stage functions such as spawning, embryogenesis, growth, maturation and 
development. For sturgeon, sufficient data were available to derive 
weekly mean temperature criteria to protect spawning and egg 
incubation.
    In addition to data sources discussed previously, EPA relied on 
communications with relevant Corps and FWS staff.
    Based on the information reviewed, EPA is proposing seasonal 
minimum and maximum weekly average temperature criteria to protect for 
white sturgeon spawning [see Sec. 131.33(d) of today's proposed rule]. 
Rather than setting temperature criteria based on fixed calendar dates, 
the temperature criteria for Kootenai River sturgeon are designed to 
protect critical spawning and egg incubation life stages, but allow for 
some temporal flexibility as to when such temperatures for spawning and 
egg incubation activities can occur. This flexibility is desirable 
given known, natural temperature variations that occur at the Kootenai 
River site from year to year. Therefore, such criteria are based on 
first establishing a minimum weekly average temperature of 8  deg.C 
(believed to be the lower limit for spawning), followed by an 8-week 
time period where the maximum weekly average temperature does not 
exceed the upper spawning temperature limit of 14  deg.C currently 
estimated for Kootenai River sturgeon. Selection of an 8-week 
``spawning window'' approximates the length of the spawning period 
currently estimated for Kootenai River sturgeon. The maximum weekly 
average temperature criterion of 16  deg.C set for weeks 9 and 10 
(after achievement of the 8  deg.C minimum temperature) is intended to 
protect egg incubation of late spawners based on 1-2 week egg 
incubation time reported for Kootenai River sturgeon. The 16  deg.C 
maximum weekly average temperature criterion is an EPA inferred 
estimate of the threshold for egg incubation based on data reported by 
Wang et al. (1985; as cited in Parsley et al., 1993) and reflects 
natural gradual warming of water temperatures that will likely occur at 
this site during mid to late July.
    EPA believes that these temperature criteria in combination with 
the time frame regime will provide appropriate protection for white 
sturgeon spawning in the Kootenai River while maintaining necessary 
flexibility due to natural variability in seasonal temperature regimes. 
While recognizing that other factors besides temperature are also 
limiting to a viable population of sturgeon in the Kootenai River 
system, EPA determined that revising the temperature criteria in this 
known spawning segment was an appropriate and needed measure towards 
the protection and conservation of this species.
    EPA is soliciting comments and data on the proposed temperature 
criteria. Comments are particularly sought concerning: (a) Additional 
information on range, distribution, and population of the species; (b) 
the relationship between water velocities, temperature and spawning; 
(c) appropriate time frames for sturgeon spawning; (d) implementation 
issues associated with the weekly moving average and onset of the 
maximum weekly average; and (e) appropriateness of both the minimum and 
maximum weekly average values.

3. Freshwater Aquatic Snails

i. EPA's Review
    EPA reviewed the available scientific literature in order to 
determine the water quality requirements for the following five species 
of freshwater aquatic snails which are listed as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA: the Bliss Rapids snail, the Snake River 
physa, Banbury Springs lanx, Utah valvata snail and Idaho springsnail.
    According to the 1995 Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan 
developed by the FWS, these 5 snails occupy habitat in the middle Snake 
River from C.J. Strike Reservoir to American Falls Dam. The recovery 
area for 4 of the species (Idaho springsnail, Utah valvata snail, Snake 
River physa and Bliss Rapids snail) has been delineated in the mainstem 
Snake River between river kilometers (rkm) 834-1142 (rivermiles (rm) 
518-709). The recovery area for the one remaining species (Banbury 
Springs lanx) includes cold-water spring complexes to the Snake River 
between rkm 941.5-948.8 (rm 584.8-589.3).
    Little is known about the ecology of the listed snail species. A 
priority recovery measure in the Recovery Plan is to obtain more data 
to describe habitat and life history requirements. EPA reviewed 
available literature on the distribution and habitat conditions where 
the listed snails are found in the Snake River. From a survey conducted 
by Idaho Power in the Middle Snake River from April through December 
1995 (Crazier and Myers, 1996) there is data showing that the Bliss 
Rapids snail occurred in water temperatures of 7.6 degrees C to 19.8 
degrees C, the Banbury Springs lanx occurred in temperatures of 11.8 
degrees C to 14.5 degrees C, and the Idaho springsnail was found in 
water temperatures of 7.6 degrees C to 19.8 degrees C. The Utah valvata 
and Snake River physa were not found in the portion of the river that 
was surveyed. The Snake River Recovery Plan (1995) notes that the 
Banbury Springs lanx had only been found at that time in waters of 15 
degrees C. to 16 degrees C. The Recovery Plan recommends annual average 
temperatures below 18 degrees C, however an annual average is not 
likely to provide an adequate basis for

[[Page 23012]]

implementation of a temperature criterion.
ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria
    The current Idaho water quality standards designate part of the 
recovery area within the Snake River, specifically, water body segment 
SWB-10, Snake River from King Hill to Marsing, primary contact 
recreation, which has no applicable temperature criteria, and designate 
other parts of the recovery area cold water biota, which has 
temperature criteria of 22  deg.C or less with a maximum daily average 
of 19  deg.C.
    Based on the information which was reviewed and conferring with 
FWS, EPA determined that the cold water biota temperature criteria do 
not provide an adequate level of protection for these five species of 
snails. Therefore, on June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved Idaho's 
temperature criteria applicable within the specified geographic ranges 
or recovery areas for each of the 5 snail species.
iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criterion
    In order to provide adequate and protective temperatures for the 
listed snail species EPA is proposing a maximum daily average 
temperature of 18 degrees C in the Middle Snake River from river mile 
518 to river mile 709. Additionally, for water body segment SWB 10, 
which does not currently have cold water biota designated use, EPA is 
also proposing that use as well as a maximum daily average of 18 
degrees C temperature criterion. This proposal is based on the limited 
temperature information available related to the species occurrence, 
the Recovery Plan recommendation, and correspondence between the FWS 
and Idaho on April 11, 1997. The FWS letter responded to a State 
request for clarification of the Recovery Plan recommendation, and it 
again stressed the need for a temperature at or below 18 degrees C as a 
level necessary to move toward recovery of the listed aquatic snails. 
The letter additionally noted that spring habitats where listed snails 
occur adjacent to the Snake River will likely require even lower 
temperatures for optimal habitat conditions.
    EPA is soliciting comments on the proposed temperature criterion. 
Because of the limited information available at the time of this 
proposal, EPA is soliciting additional data. Data and information are 
sought pertinent to: (1)aquatic snail occurrence in the Middle Snake 
River, and (2) refining the habitat and temperature requirements of the 
individual species. EPA is also soliciting comments on other options 
for applying temperature criteria to the Middle Snake River for 
protection of listed aquatic snails.

4. Bull Trout

i. EPA's Review
    According to the literature, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is 
a species which is considered an indicator of the environmental health 
of watersheds and is known to reproduce only in clean, cold relatively 
pristine streams.
    EPA evaluated the literature and conferred with biologists from the 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Interior Columbia Ecosystem 
Management Project. According to the literature, bull trout is a 
species requiring a narrow and relatively cold range of temperature 
conditions to reproduce and survive. They appear to be one of the most 
temperature intolerant species of salmonids. They spawn in late summer 
through fall (late August-November) and have a long egg incubation 
period (typically lasting from early fall to April). High temperatures 
are therefore a concern for migration and spawning in the late summer 
and early fall.
    Incubation of bull trout eggs requires cold temperatures ranging 
from 1 to 6  deg.C and occurs at optimum temperatures of approximately 
4  deg.C (ORDEQ, 1994; Weaver and White, 1985; McPhail and Murray, 
1979). Specifically, Weaver and White (1985) report 4 to 6  deg.C as 
being needed for egg incubation of bull trout embryos in Montana 
streams. Further, McPhail and Murray (1979) report 0% to 20% survival 
of incubating bull trout embryos at temperatures ranging from 8 to 10 
deg.C; 60% to 90% survival at 6  deg.C; and 85-95% survival at 2-4 
deg.C, further suggesting 6  deg.C as close to a reasonable threshold 
for egg incubation.
    Based on EPA's review of the literature, in addition to a review 
conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ, 
1994), a temperature range of 4-10  deg.C is believed to be necessary 
to maintain successful bull trout spawning. A temperature range of 
approximately 6 to 8  deg.C is believed approximate the optimum 
spawning temperatures of bull trout (Idaho Department of Fish and 
Game). Optimum temperatures for fry growth have been reported to be 4 
deg.C (McPhail and Murray, 1979). For later life stages of bull trout, 
temperatures less than 12  deg.C appear to be most suitable for 
juvenile rearing and adult migration. Specifically, Shepard et al. 
(1984) report the highest densities of bull trout in Montana streams at 
temperatures of 12  deg.C and below, some presence of bull trout at 15 
to 18  deg.C and complete absence of bull trout in streams with 
temperatures exceeding 19  deg.C. Based on field observations of the 
presence of juvenile bull trout in Idaho streams, 12  deg.C also 
appears to be a maximum temperature where juveniles are found (Idaho 
Dept. Fish and Game). Temperatures between 10 and 12  deg.C are also 
reported to be the optimum range for adult migration, which occurs 
between bull trout feeding and spawning areas (ORDEQ, 1994).
ii. Idaho's Temperature Criteria
    The current temperature criteria applicable to the cold water biota 
use classification (22  deg.C or less with a maximum daily average of 
19  deg.C) does not provide an adequate level of protection for bull 
trout. Therefore, on June 25, 1996, EPA disapproved Idaho's temperature 
criteria applicable within geographic ranges where bull trout occur.
iii. EPA's Proposed Temperature Criteria and Bull Trout Distribution
    Temperature criteria being proposed for Idaho streams designated as 
bull trout habitat were derived using EPA's temperature criteria 
guidance (``Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and 
Procedures; U.S. EPA, 1977). The EPA protocol recommends expression of 
temperature criteria in two forms: (1) a short-term maxima (protection 
against lethal conditions, usually for a duration of 24 hours), and (2) 
a mean temperature value (expressed as the maximum weekly average 
temperature) that is designed to protect critical life stage functions 
such as spawning, embryogenesis, growth, maturation and development. 
Sufficient data were available to derive temperature criteria as 
maximum weekly average temperatures (MWAT) that would be protective of 
various bull trout life stages, including spawning, egg incubation, 
juvenile rearing and adult migration. Because of the complex life 
history of bull trout, EPA is proposing temperature criteria that would 
span a calendar year, but that would vary depending on the presence and 
thermal tolerances of various bull trout life stages [see 
Sec. 131.33(c)(1) in today's proposed rule].
    During January and February, the maximum weekly average temperature 
(MWAT) criterion is proposed at 4  deg.C to protect optimum 
temperatures required for egg incubation. During March, a MWAT of 6 
deg.C is being proposed based on data discussed earlier that indicate 6 
 deg.C approximates a maximum temperature threshold for successful egg 
incubation. A MWAT of 8  deg.C during the

[[Page 23013]]

month of April is being proposed to account for an expected gradual 
increase in stream temperatures during this time period and is 
considered to be within the optimum range for juvenile growth. During 
May, a MWAT of 10  deg.C is proposed because it reflects an expected 
gradual increase in stream temperatures that is likely to occur at this 
time and is considered an optimum temperature for adult migration and 
juvenile growth. A MWAT criterion of 12  deg.C is being proposed for 
the months of June, July and through August 15 to protect against 
exceedence of temperature limits reported for juvenile rearing. A MWAT 
criterion of 10  deg.C is proposed from August 16 through the month of 
September because this temperature reflects the upper range for 
spawning reported in the literature for bull trout and bull trout 
spawning occurs during this time period. During the month of October, a 
MWAT value of 8  deg.C is proposed to maintain optimal temperature 
conditions for bull trout spawning and reflects an expected gradual 
decrease in stream temperatures. Finally, a MWAT value of 6  deg.C is 
proposed for the months of November and December to reflect the limit 
for egg incubation and spawning optimum.
    At the time of the disapproval, EPA had not identified the exact 
geographic areas inhabited by bull trout. EPA believed that Idaho had 
the resources to ascertain this information as the Office of the 
Governor of Idaho was in the process of developing a bull trout 
conservation plan. On July 1, 1996 a final version of the Governor's 
Bull Trout Plan was released. This plan identifies 59 key watersheds 
which should be targeted for the protection and restoration of bull 
trout populations. Although this plan identifies watersheds of concern, 
it did not provide the level of resolution which EPA deems necessary in 
describing distribution of bull trout.
    Today's proposed rulemaking includes a list of water bodies where 
revised temperature criteria are needed in order to protect bull trout. 
In deriving this list, EPA relied upon bull trout distribution data 
from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) 
as well as bull trout distribution data from the Idaho Department of 
Fish and Game.
    Section 131.33(c)(2) of today's proposed rule contains a list of 
Idaho water bodies that are known, suspected, and/or predicted to serve 
as spawning and rearing areas of bull trout. The ICBEMP's ``Key 
Salmonid'' database [footnote 1 to Sec. 131.33(c)(2)], and the Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game Digital Bull Trout Distribution Database 
[footnote 2 to Sec. 131.33(c)(2)] were both used in deriving this list.
    The ICBEMP data are tied to sub-watersheds, also known as ``6th-
code HUCs''. ICBEMP scientists determined criteria to identify sub-
watersheds that represent spawning and rearing areas. Sub-watersheds 
identified as migration corridors only are excluded. The resultant sub-
watersheds were overlaid with the digital Pacific Northwest River Reach 
File in the EPA Geographic Information System to produce a file of 
streams within these sub-watersheds with possible spawning and rearing 
activity. Only streams with attributed names in the dataset were used 
in this process. Some streams with no actual bull trout spawning and 
rearing activity are probably included, as only one stream with bull 
trout presence was sufficient to cause the entire sub watershed (thus 
all named streams within) to indicate spawn and rearing presence from 
this database. EPA used the 1994-1995 version of this database.
    The Idaho Department of Fish and Game attributed bull trout 
distribution data to Pacific Northwest River Reach File segments. Water 
bodies coded as having ``known or suspected'' bull trout presence are 
contained in the table with a superscript of ``2''. Hence the water 
bodies from this database in the table contain areas that may be used 
as only migration corridors, as there was no way to specifically 
exclude them.
    EPA had discussions with FWS on the temperature requirements for 
bull trout protection. Additionally EPA consulted with staff from Idaho 
Department of Fish & Game as well as numerous biologists familiar with 
bull trout requirements and distribution.
    Based on the above information, EPA is proposing maximum weekly 
average seasonal temperature criteria. These criteria are proposed in 
Sec. 131.33(c)(1) of today's proposed rule.
    EPA is soliciting comment on both the temperature criteria as well 
as the distribution data. Comments are particularly sought concerning 
(a) affirmation of the presence of bull trout spawning in the current 
list of water bodies in section (c)(2) of today's proposed rule; (b) 
the adequacy of the proposed methodology for defining bull trout 
distribution; (c) whether or not there is a better way to describe the 
distribution; (d) site specific temperature data for any of the listed 
water bodies; (e) site specific or laboratory temperature data on bull 
trout; (f) proposals to address protection of migratory corridors; (g) 
identification of water bodies in Sec. 131.33(c)(2) of today's proposed 
rule which are not spawning and rearing areas; (h) identification of 
additional known water bodies which provide spawning and rearing 
habitat; (i) original information which would refine the list down to 
stream level as opposed to watershed level along with geographic 
identifiers for these streams i.e., USGS hydrologic unit codes; and (j) 
other methods for refining the geographic distribution list.

F. Antidegradation Policy

    The third component of a State's water quality standards, in 
addition to designated uses and criteria to support those uses, is an 
antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12. Section 131.12(a) 
specifies three levels of protection to be accorded waters. The first 
level (commonly referred to as Tier I) requires that existing uses, and 
the level of water quality needed to protect such uses, be protected 
and maintained [Sec. 131.12(a)(1)]. The second level (Tier II) requires 
that water quality in certain high quality waters not be lowered unless 
the lowering is found to be necessary to accommodate important social 
and economic development [Sec. 131.12(a)(2)]. The highest level of 
protection (Tier III) applies to waters identified as ``Outstanding 
National Resource Waters;'' water quality in such waters shall be 
maintained and protected [Sec. 131.12(a)(3)].
    EPA Region X's June 1996 letter disapproved the Tier III portion of 
Idaho's antidegradation policy (IDAPA 16.01.02.051.03) because it did 
not protect Tier III waters from degradation caused by point sources, 
and thus did not provide effective protection for such waters. On 
November 14, 1996, the State adopted a temporary rule which added 
protection from point sources and addressed EPA's concern. This rule 
was effective December 1, 1996. The State formally submitted this 
revised rule to EPA for approval by a letter dated March 13, 1997, 
which was received by EPA on March 24, 1997. Because of the timing of 
this State submission and the work involved in preparing today's 
proposal, EPA has not yet completed its approval process on the State's 
revision. Accordingly, EPA believes it is still bound by the court's 
order to propose a federal water quality standard addressing the 
deficiency in section 16.01.02.051.03 of Idaho's 1993 antidegradation 
policy.
    Therefore, EPA is today proposing a Tier III antidegradation 
provision applicable to waters of the United States within the State of 
Idaho. EPA's proposed rule uses the wording of the revised Idaho 
antidegradation policy, both because that revision addressed EPA's 
concern and because using the

[[Page 23014]]

same language will facilitate the ultimate withdrawal of EPA's proposal 
upon formal approval by EPA of Idaho's revision.

G. Mixing Zone Policy

1. Idaho's Existing Policy

    Idaho's mixing zone policy at IDAPA 16.01.02.060. applies to point 
source wastewater discharges. The policy States that, after a 
biological, chemical, and physical appraisal of a receiving water and 
proposed discharge, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will 
determine the appropriateness of a mixing zone, its size, 
configuration, and location. In making such a determination, the DEQ is 
required to consider a number of parameters specified in subsections 
060.01.a-h. Subsections 060.01.a-d. address the use of submerged pipes 
and diffusers; unreasonable interferences to the beneficial uses; and 
limitations for overlapping or multiple mixing zones. In addition, 
subsections 060.01.e. and f. specify discrete physical limitations to 
the size, shape, and location of mixing zones for discharges to free-
flowing systems (e.g., streams and rivers) and discharges to open 
waters (e.g., lakes or reservoirs). Subsection 060.01.g. allows water 
quality within a mixing zone to be exempt from both Idaho's chemical-
specific water quality criteria at 16.01.02.250. and selected narrative 
criteria at 16.01.02.200.01., 16.01.02.200.02., and 16.01.02.200.03. 
(Idaho's subsection 200.01. prohibits State surface waters from 
containing concentrations of hazardous materials that are of 
significance to public health; subsection 200.02 prohibits toxic 
substances in toxic concentrations; and subsection 200.03. prohibits 
deleterious materials in concentrations that impair designated 
beneficial uses.)
    EPA disapproved subsection 060.01.g. of Idaho's mixing zone policy 
because, although the principles identified in the remainder of Idaho's 
mixing zone policy are adequate to ensure that the designated uses of 
the receiving water are maintained, the language of the policy makes 
these principles non-binding. Subsection 060.01. States ``the 
Department will consider [emphasis added] the following principles'' 
(060.01.a-h). Thus, although subsections 060.01.a.-f. and h. contain 
explicit language regarding the physical limitations to the size, 
shape, and location of mixing zones, which on their face would appear 
to protect designated beneficial uses even if narrative criteria are 
not applicable, the word ``consider'' indicates that compliance with 
subsections 060.01.a.-f. and h. is not mandatory.
    Clean Water Act Sec. 303(c)(2)(A) requires States to adopt water 
quality criteria to protect designated beneficial uses. EPA's 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11 further clarify that such 
criteria ``must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to 
protect the designated use.'' There are no exceptions identified, or 
alluded to in the CWA or EPA's implementing regulations. Water quality 
within a mixing zone is not exempted. By definition a mixing zone is an 
area where chemical-specific acute and chronic water quality criteria 
can be exceeded as long as a number of other protections are maintained 
(Water Quality Standards Handbook; EPA-823-B-94-005a, August 1994). 
These other protections are narrative criteria. EPA is not precluding 
flexibility in how Idaho chooses to interpret the narrative criteria at 
subsections 200.01.-03. EPA has simply disapproved an authorized, 
categorical exemption from the narrative criteria in the absence of 
other binding requirements in the mixing zone policy.
    EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2) require States and tribes 
to identify methods for implementing narrative criteria. Such methods 
need to address all mechanisms to be used by the State to ensure that 
narrative criteria are attained. Chemical-specific ambient water 
quality criteria are most frequently used to ensure that narrative 
criteria and beneficial designated uses are attained. However, when 
chemical-specific criteria are absent or do not apply, as is the case 
for water quality within a mixing zone, other implementation methods 
are needed to ensure the designated uses are attained (WQS Handbook, 
Chap. 3). While mixing zones allow the magnitude component of an 
ambient water quality criterion to be exceeded, controlling the 
exposure component ensures the beneficial designated use is maintained. 
Idaho's implementation methods at 060.01.a.-h. would control exposure 
by limiting the size, shape, and location of a mixing zone, if they 
were mandatory.

2. Federal Mixing Zone Policy for Idaho

    To address the above deficiency, EPA considered two options. Under 
the first option, EPA would make the requirements of subsections 
060.01.a.-f. and h. mandatory. This would protect the water quality 
within a mixing zone and ensure that the designated beneficial uses for 
the water body as a whole are maintained. However, EPA was concerned 
that this approach would disregard site-specific situations that may 
warrant some flexibility. For example, stream-specific and discharge-
specific conditions may allow a mixing zone to consume more than 25% of 
the volume of stream flow (as specified in 060.01.e.ii.) and still 
ensure that the designated beneficial use is attained.
    For that reason, EPA also considered a second option that changes 
the language at 060.01.g. so as not to exempt water quality within a 
mixing zone from the narrative criteria at subsections 200.01.-03. This 
approach allows Idaho to retain the discretion on when to rely on the 
default implementation methods specified in subsections 060.01.a.-f. 
and h., and when to rely on alternative methods to ensure the 
designated beneficial use is maintained. Today's proposed rule contains 
this second option.
    EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of option 1 and option 
2. Does the increased flexibility provided in option 2 leave too much 
discretion to the State? Are there other alternatives for protecting 
the water quality within a mixing zone to ensure the designated 
beneficial uses for the water body as a whole are maintained?

H. Excluded Waters Provision

    Each State is required to have water quality standards for all 
navigable waters in the State. CWA Sec. 303. The term ``navigable 
waters'' is defined in Sec. 502(7) of the CWA to mean the ``waters of 
the United States, including the territorial seas''. In accordance with 
the intent expressed by the legislative history of the CWA, the term 
``waters of the United States'' is in turn defined in regulations to 
include, inter alia, intrastate waters whose use, degradation, or 
destruction would or could affect interstate commerce. 40 CFR 122.2 and 
Sec. 232.2(q). This portion of the definition is further explained at 
53 FR 20765 (June 6, 1988).
    Idaho's standards provide that, unless designated for particular 
uses, lakes, ponds, pools, streams, and springs outside public lands 
but located wholly and entirely upon a person's land are not protected 
specifically and generally for any beneficial use (see IDAPA 
16.01.02.101.03.).
    The fact that a water may be located wholly on a person's land does 
not necessarily preclude it from being a water ``the use, degradation 
or destruction of which would or could affect interstate commerce.'' 
Hence, it is at least theoretically possible that some of these 
unprotected excluded waters could be waters of the United States. To 
ensure that any such waters receive the protection afforded other 
unclassified waters, EPA is today proposing a rule which effectively 
adds to the State's

[[Page 23015]]

excluded waters provision the qualifying phrase ``unless such waters * 
* * are `waters of the United States' as defined at 40 CFR 
Sec. 122.2.''
    This proposal is precautionary in nature. EPA has not identified 
any specific waters which would be affected by this change. However, 
the language EPA is proposing ensures that, if such waters are later 
identified, their beneficial uses will be protected in the same way 
uses of other unclassified waters are.

I. Federal Variances

    As explained above in Sections C. and D., because of the scope of 
rulemaking and the schedule ordered by the District Court, EPA has 
relied on a rebuttable presumption approach to designating beneficial 
uses and is only able to provide a 30-day comment period. EPA's final 
rule will reflect consideration of the data made available to it by the 
close of the comment period. However, it is possible that subsequent 
data may become available which will be material to the attainability 
of the uses involved in today's proposal.
    If this occurs, one option available to EPA would be to propose to 
revise or withdraw the federal use designation. An alternative 
approach, particularly where the information is discharger-specific 
and/or it appears that the use in question will eventually be 
attainable, is to grant a water quality standards variance applicable 
to the discharger in question. EPA has approved the granting of water 
quality standards variances by States in circumstances which would 
otherwise justify changing a use designation on grounds of 
unattainability. In contrast to a change in standards which removes a 
use designation for a waterbody, a water quality standards variance 
applies only to the discharger to whom it is granted and only to the 
pollutant parameter(s) upon which the finding of unattainability was 
based; the underlying standard remains in effect for all other 
purposes.
    For example, if a designated aquatic life use is currently 
precluded because of high levels of metals from past mining activities 
which cannot be remediated in the short term, but it is expected that 
water quality will eventually improve, a temporary variance may be 
granted to a discharger with relaxed criteria for such metals, until 
remediation progresses and the use becomes attainable. The practical 
effect of such a variance is to allow a permit to be written using less 
stringent criteria, while encouraging ultimate attainment of the 
underlying standard. A water quality standards variance provides a 
mechanism for assuring compliance with sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 
402(a)(1) of the CWA that require NPDES permits meet applicable water 
quality standards, while granting temporary relief to point source 
dischargers.
    While 40 Sec. CFR 131.13 allows States to adopt variance procedures 
for State-adopted water quality standards, such State procedures may 
not be used to grant variances from federally adopted standards. EPA 
believes that it is appropriate to provide comparable federal 
procedures where, as proposed here, EPA adopts use designations which 
rely, at least in part, on a rebuttable presumption that fishable/
swimmable uses are attainable or adopts more stringent criteria for the 
State's use designations. Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize the 
Region X Regional Administrator to grant water quality standard 
variances where a permittee submits data indicating that an EPA-
designated use is not attainable for any of the reasons in 40 CFR 
Sec. 131.10(g) or that a State designated use is not attainable due to 
EPA-promulgated temperature criteria. This variance procedure will 
apply to standards promulgated by EPA for specific named segments. EPA 
does not believe it is necessary to have a variance procedures for 
unclassified waters, since Idaho may effectively provide the same 
relief by classifying an unclassified water, but invites comment on 
this point.
    Today's proposed rule spells out the process for applying for and 
granting such variances. Because water quality standard variances are 
technically revised water quality standards, the proposal requires a 
variance to go through the same basic steps as the originally 
promulgated standard, that is, publication of the proposed variance, 
the opportunity for a hearing, and publication of the final variance. 
However, the Administrator is delegating to the Regional Administrator 
the authority to propose and grant these variances. This delegation 
should expedite the processing of variance requests, as they will 
typically arise in the context of NPDES proceedings being handled by 
EPA Region X.
    The proposed variance procedures require an applicant for a water 
quality standards variance to submit a request to the Regional 
Administrator (or his delegatee) with supporting information. To avoid 
delays in the permitting process attributable to the variance request, 
the proposal requires the applicant to submit the variance request 
prior to or concurrent with the NPDES application. EPA seeks comment on 
the appropriateness of this timing requirement.
    The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction 
that the designated use is unattainable for one of the reasons 
specified in 40 CFR 131.10(g). A variance may not be granted if the use 
could be attained by all dischargers implementing effluent limitations 
required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA and the applicant 
implementing reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source 
control. EPA will incorporate into the permittee's NPDES permit all 
conditions needed to implement the variance.
    Under the proposal, a variance may not exceed 5 years or the term 
of the NPDES permit, whichever is less. A variance may be renewed if 
the permittee demonstrates that the use in question is still not 
attainable. Renewal of the variance may be denied if the permittee did 
not comply with the conditions of the original variance.
    EPA is soliciting comment on the need for a variance process for 
EPA-promulgated use designations, the appropriateness of the particular 
procedures proposed today, and whether the proposed variance procedures 
are sufficiently detailed.

J. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    As explained more fully below in section L (Regulatory Flexibility 
Act), EPA's proposed rule does not itself establish any requirements 
directly applicable to regulated entities. While implementation of 
today's proposed rule may ultimately result in some new or revised 
permit conditions for some dischargers, EPA's action today does not 
impose any of these as yet unknown requirements on dischargers. 
Nonetheless, EPA is attempting, within the limits of these 
uncertainties, to make an estimate of the possible indirect costs which 
might ultimately result from this rulemaking.
    The following is a summary of the proposed methodology being used 
for the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that is being prepared for 
this rule. Further discussion will be included in the full RIA, which 
will be included in the docket as part of the final rulemaking.
    Under the CWA, costs cannot be a basis for adopting water quality 
criteria that will not be protective of designated uses. If a range of 
scientifically defensible criteria that are protective can be 
identified, however, costs may be considered in selecting a particular 
criterion within that range.
    The designated uses and water quality criteria of the proposed rule 
are not enforceable requirements until separate

[[Page 23016]]

steps are taken to implement them. Therefore, this publication of the 
proposed rule does not have an immediate effect on dischargers. Until 
actions are taken to implement these designated uses and criteria, 
there will be no economic effect on any dischargers.
    In the short time prior to proposal EPA attempted to assess, to the 
best of its ability, compliance costs for facilities that could 
eventually be indirectly affected by the designated uses and water 
quality criteria of today's proposed rule. As described below, EPA 
searched readily available data sources but did not find the 
information necessary to accurately estimate these potential costs. 
Although the costs are not expected to be significant, EPA has 
developed a methodology to estimate the potential indirect cost impacts 
on facilities discharging pollutants to waters subject to the numeric 
water quality criteria and uses established by this proposal. During 
the public comment period EPA will continue to gather additional data 
and information on the facilities and waters needed to evaluate use 
attainability and the costs attributable to this rule.
    EPA is soliciting public comment and supporting data on the 
facilities and waters it intends to evaluate as part of the RIA, and on 
the methodology it will use to estimate costs associated with 
implementation of the proposed rule. EPA will review the comments and 
data provided by the public as well as the information and data it 
gathers during the public comment period, and will estimate the 
potential costs to facilities as an indirect result of attaining 
numeric water quality criteria and uses proposed in this rule. EPA will 
include this information as part of the final rulemaking.

1. Use Attainability

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, EPA is relying on the 
rebuttable presumption that fishable/swimmable uses are attainable in 
the water body segments affected by this rulemaking. However, in order 
to properly assess the impact of EPA's new use designations in Idaho, 
EPA performed a preliminary evaluation to determine if this presumption 
is appropriate for all assessed water body stream segments affected by 
this proposal.
    Although an appropriate evaluation of use attainability should 
consider physical, biological, and chemical indicators, the court-
ordered schedule did not provide adequate time to properly evaluate all 
indicators. EPA did, however, extract chemical-specific data from the 
EPA STORET data base, which houses ambient water quality data for water 
bodies throughout the U.S., including Idaho. If EPA were to find that 
significant exceedances of water quality criteria (in terms of relative 
magnitude above the applicable criteria, duration of exceedance above 
the criteria, and the number and types of pollutants) has occurred, 
then an upgrade of designated uses might not be appropriate.
    EPA's STORET extraction included all data on record, and all 
pollutants for which EPA's new use designation would result in more 
stringent water quality criteria. EPA focused on the 35 water body 
segments for which the cold water biota protection designated use will 
be applied. Upon extraction, EPA generated summary statistics (minimum, 
average, and maximum values on record) for the ambient water quality 
within each affected stream segment and compared them to the applicable 
water quality criteria to protect the cold water biota use designation.
    Most data on record in STORET for the affected water body stream 
segments is from the period prior to the mid-to late-1980's. Based on 
this data, EPA found periodic exceedances of water quality criteria for 
several water body stream segments for several specific parameters. 
However, due to the age of most of the data, and the fact that data for 
all applicable parameters were not available, EPA could not 
definitively conclude that a downgrade for any water body stream 
segment affected by this rule was justified. Therefore for purposes of 
cost estimates, EPA assumed that the new use designation would apply to 
all affected water bodies. EPA is requesting comments and data 
regarding the applicability of the new use designation for these water 
body stream segments. The affected water body stream segments can be 
found in Section 131.33(b), Tables 1-6, within this proposal. EPA is 
most interested in the following types of information: instream 
characteristics (e.g., mean width/depth, flow/velocity, reaeration 
rates); riparian characteristics; biological inventory; biological 
potential (e.g., diversity, intolerant species); and ambient pollutant 
concentrations for applicable parameters of concern for the stream 
segment.

2. Costs

i. Overview of Methodology To Estimate Potential Costs Related to New 
Use Designations
    The new use designations being proposed by EPA, by themselves, will 
have no impact or effect. However, when the water quality criteria to 
protect these uses are applied to dischargers through the NPDES permit 
program, then costs may be incurred by regulated entities (i.e., point 
source dischargers) but these costs can vary significantly because of 
the wide range of control strategies available to dischargers. Since 
the NPDES permitting authority also has significant flexibility and 
discretion in how it chooses to implement water quality criteria, 
analysis of potential costs would be difficult to perform for all 
potentially affected entities, even if EPA had more time than was 
allowed under the Court established time-frame. EPA attempted to 
estimate the potential costs attributable to the proposal by developing 
detailed cost estimate for a selected subset (a sample) of facilities 
from the point source dischargers that may be impacted by the proposed 
rule and then used the sample results to extrapolate to the universe of 
potentially affected facilities. As explained below, EPA has not been 
able to come up yet with a reliable cost estimate due to significant 
data gaps. The following discussion addresses the approach which EPA 
has attempted to use, and plans to follow if more data is obtained.
    The actual impact of the proposed rule will depend upon the 
procedures and policy decisions that will be established by the 
permitting authority to implement the rule and on which control 
strategy the discharger selects in order to bring the facility into 
compliance. These procedures and policy decisions established by the 
permitting authority typically provide the methods to determine the 
need for water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) and, if WQBELs 
are required, how to derive WQBELs from applicable water quality 
criteria. The implementation procedures used to derive WQBELs for this 
analysis were based on the methods recommended in the EPA ``Technical 
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control'' (or TSD) 
(EPA/505/2-90-001; March 1991). Specifically, a projected effluent 
quality (PEQ) was calculated and compared to the projected WQBEL. A PEQ 
is considered an effluent value statistically adjusted for uncertainty 
to estimate a maximum value that may occur.
    The PEQ for each selected pollutant was compared to the projected 
WQBEL. If the PEQ exceeded the projected WQBEL, a reasonable potential 
existed to exceed the WQBEL. Pollutants with a reasonable potential to 
exceed then were analyzed to determine potential costs to achieve the 
projected WQBEL.

[[Page 23017]]

    Prior to estimating compliance costs, an engineering analysis of 
how each sample facility could comply with the projected WQBEL was 
performed. The costs were then estimated based on the decisions and 
assumptions made in the analysis. To ensure consistency and 
reasonableness in estimating the general types of controls that would 
be necessary for a sample facility to comply with the proposal 
(assuming that implementation of the rule resulted in more stringent 
discharge requirements), as well as to integrate into the cost analysis 
the other alternatives available to regulated facilities, a costing 
decision matrix was used for each sample facility. Specific rules were 
established in the matrix to provide the reviewing engineers with 
guidance in consistently selecting options.
    Under the decision matrix, costs for minor treatment plant 
operation and facility changes were considered first. Minor, low-cost 
modification or adjustment of existing treatment was determined to be 
feasible where literature indicated that the existing treatment process 
could achieve the projected WQBEL and where the additional pollutant 
reduction was relatively small (e.g., 10 to 25 percent of current 
discharge levels).
    Where it was not technically feasible to simply adjust existing 
operations, the next most attractive control strategy was determined to 
be waste minimization/pollution prevention controls. However, costs for 
these controls were estimated only where they were considered feasible 
based on the reviewing engineer's understanding of the process(es) at a 
facility. The practicality of techniques was determined based on 
several criteria established in the decision matrix. Decision 
considerations included the level of pollutant reduction achievable 
through waste minimization/pollution prevention techniques, 
appropriateness of waste minimization/pollution prevention for the 
specific pollutant, and knowledge of the manufacturing processes 
generating the pollutant of concern.
    If waste minimization/pollution prevention alone was deemed not 
feasible to reduce pollutant levels to those needed to comply with the 
projected WQBELs, as calculated for this analysis, a combination of 
waste minimization/pollution prevention, simple treatment, and/or 
process optimization was considered. If these relatively low-cost 
controls could not achieve the projected WQBELs, more expensive 
controls (e.g., end-of-pipe treatment) were considered.
    Development of end-of-pipe treatment cost estimates constituted a 
review of the existing treatment systems at each facility. Decisions to 
add new treatment systems or to supplement existing treatment systems 
were based on this initial evaluation. For determining the need for 
additional or supplemental treatment, sources of performance 
information included the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), 
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory's ``RREL Treatability Database'' 
(Version 4.0). The pollutant removal capabilities of the existing 
treatment systems and/or any proposed additional or supplemental 
systems were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) The 
effluent levels that were being achieved currently at the facility; and 
(2) the levels that are documented in the EPA ``RREL Treatability 
Database.'' If this analysis showed that additional treatment was 
needed, unit processes that would achieve compliance with the projected 
WQBELs were chosen using the same documentation.
ii. Results for Stream Segments With Specific Use Designations and 
Unclassified Waters
    EPA identified 46 facilities that possess NPDES permits to 
discharge to stream segments with specific use designations for which 
new use designations are being proposed in this rule. Of these 46 
facilities, 12 are classified as major dischargers, and 34 are 
classified as minor dischargers. For purposes of sample selection, EPA 
grouped the facilities into six categories of dischargers, including 
mining, food products manufacturing, power plants, logging and lumber 
production, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and miscellaneous 
facilities (e.g., universities, agricultural supplies manufacturers, 
etc.). The following table presents the universe of facilities and the 
number of sample facilities randomly selected by EPA to represent each 
category. The number of sample facilities selected by EPA was based on 
ensuring adequate representation of the dischargers within the group 
(relative to other groups), as well as considering the time frame 
available to perform the analyses.

                    Summary of Dischargers To Stream Segments With Specific Use Designations                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 No. of point source    No. of sample facilities
                                                                     dischargers                selected        
                          Category                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Major        Minor        Major        Minor   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining......................................................            7            1            1            1
Food Products Manufacturing.................................            2            1            1  ...........
Power Plants................................................  ...........            4  ...........            1
Logging and Lumber Production...............................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Miscellaneous...............................................  ...........           11  ...........            2
POTWs.......................................................            3           16            1            4
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................           12           34            3            9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An exact number of NPDES permitted facilities that discharge to 
unclassified waters was not possible due to the court ordered schedule 
to propose the rule. However, EPA estimated the potential number of 
facilities that could be affected by the proposal through data and 
information contained in the EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS). 
Specifically, EPA manually subtracted from the entire list of NPDES 
permitted dischargers within Idaho, all dischargers to stream segments 
with specific use designations (including those stream segments for 
which EPA is proposing new use designations). Exclusion of a facility 
was based on the receiving water name for the discharge as contained in 
PCS. As a result of this effort, EPA estimates that 110 facilities have 
NPDES permits to discharge to unclassified waters within Idaho. Of the 
110, eight are classified as majors and 102 are classified as minors. 
The following table presents the estimated universe of facilities 
discharging to unclassified waters and the number of sample

[[Page 23018]]

facilities randomly selected by EPA to represent each category. Again, 
the number of sample facilities selected by EPA was based on ensuring 
adequate representation of the dischargers within the group (relative 
to other groups), as well as considering the time frame available to 
perform the analyses.

                                  Summary of Dischargers To Unclassified Waters                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 No. of point source    No. of sample facilities
                                                                     dischargers                selected        
                          Category                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Major        Minor        Major        Minor   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining......................................................            3           15            1            2
Food Products Manufacturing.................................  ...........            3  ...........            1
Power Plants................................................  ...........            4  ...........            1
Logging and Lumber Production...............................  ...........            3  ...........            1
Miscellaneous...............................................            4           52            2            4
POTWs.......................................................            1           25            1            3
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................            8          102            4           12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate costs for each of the sample facilities, EPA obtained 
data from NPDES permit files (permit application, permit, fact sheet or 
Statement of basis), and downloaded effluent monitoring data from PCS.
    For each sample facility, EPA performed an evaluation of reasonable 
potential to exceed water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) based 
on applicable water quality criteria to protect new use designations 
(i.e., cold water biota protection). EPA considered any pollutant for 
which water quality criteria existed and for which data were available. 
EPA assumed that reasonable potential existed if a permit limit for the 
pollutant of concern was included in the existing permit for the sample 
facility. In the absence of a permit limit, but where monitoring data 
were available, EPA evaluated reasonable potential based on the 
monitoring data and the procedures contained in the TSD (EPA 505/2-90-
001; March 1991). It should be noted that evaluation of the reasonable 
potential to exceed the applicable dissolved oxygen criteria was not 
possible in most cases, due to the lack of data. However, there were 
several sample facilities that were discharging oxygen-demanding 
pollutants. To account for the possible effect of the oxygen demand 
potential from these facilities, EPA used a flow-based approach to 
determine the reasonable potential to exceed the dissolved oxygen 
criteria. In particular, if the discharge from a sample facility was to 
an effluent dominated stream (i.e., the effluent discharge flow from 
the sample facility was greater than 50 percent of the receiving stream 
flow), then EPA assumed that treatment was needed to meet the dissolved 
oxygen criteria.
    To calculate WQBELs, EPA used the TSD procedures to derive maximum 
daily and monthly average limits. Background concentrations were based 
on the average of data contained in STORET for upstream monitoring 
stations (including nearby tributaries); in the absence of background 
data, EPA assumed zero. Critical low flows were calculated from data 
contained in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Daily Flow file 
data base for nearby gage stations; the 1-day, 10-year low flow (1Q10) 
was used for acute aquatic life protection and the 7-day, 10-year low 
flow (7Q10) was used for chronic aquatic life protection. In the 
absence of stream flow data, EPA conservatively assumed zero low flow.
    Once WQBELs were derived, EPA attempted to derive cost estimates 
that represent the cost to remove the incremental amount of 
pollutant(s) to levels needed to comply with WQBELs (based on the 
existing effluent limit or reported effluent quality in the absence of 
a limit). Ideally, this assessment would be based on an evaluation of 
the performance of existing treatment system units, as well as 
consideration of other possible control options (e.g., waste 
minimization, pollution prevention). However, the general lack of 
appropriate information and data, particularly for the minor sample 
facilities, prohibited EPA from assessing the feasibility of potential 
control options to reduce pollutant concentrations. Although EPA does 
not expect significant costs based on initial examination of the types 
and number of pollutants that would be affected by the proposed rule, 
any estimates made by EPA without an adequate information base would be 
speculation.
    As a result of the significant data gaps for the sample facilities, 
EPA was unable to estimate costs for the sample facilities. The 
following table presents the facilities that were randomly selected as 
sample facilities for the cost analysis.

           Sample Facilities Selected by EPA for Cost Analysis          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NPDES permit 
            Category              Sample facility name         No.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining.........................  Goldback Mines Corp...  ID0026026      
                                 Hecla Mining Co.......  ID0000167      
                                 Star/Morning Mine and                  
                                  Mill.                                 
Food Products Manufacturing....  Armour Fresh..........  ID0000787      
Power Plants...................  Idaho Power--Swans      ID0022551      
                                  Falls.                                
Logging and Lumber Production..  Boise Cascade Council   ID0025631      
                                  Sawmill.                              
Miscellaneous..................  University of Idaho     ID0027464      
                                  Irrigation Lagoons.                   
                                 Agway Inc. Seed Coop..  ID0027464      
POTWs..........................  City of Preston.......  ID0020214      

[[Page 23019]]

                                                                        
                                 City of Troy..........  ID0023604      
                                 Clarkia Water & Sewer   ID0025071      
                                  District.                             
                                 Cambridge Sewer         ID0020338      
                                  Association.                          
                                 City of Franklin......  ID0025569      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Unclassified Waters                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining.........................  Beartrack Gold........  ID0027022      
                                 Caladay Project--Daly   ID0025429      
                                  Gulch.                                
                                 Unnamed Discharge to    ID0024881      
                                  Crooked Creek.                        
Food Products Manufacturing....  Wippco Processing       ID0026794      
                                  Plant.                                
Power Plants...................  Idaho Power Company...  ID0027502      
Logging and Lumber Production..  Jaype Plywood.........  ID0000451      
Miscellaneous..................  Niagara Springs         ID0022381      
                                  Hatchery.                             
                                 Snake River Hatchery..  ID0000752      
                                 Standal Ponds.........  ID0027782      
                                 Yoder Farms...........  ID0024236      
                                 Great Western Chemical  ID0027537      
                                 Unnamed Discharge to    ID0025168      
                                  Lapwai Creek.                         
POTWs..........................  Unnamed Discharge to    ID0020176      
                                  American Falls                        
                                  Reservoir.                            
                                 City of Kamiah........  ID0027545      
                                 Unnamed Discharge to    ID0025101      
                                  Hangman Creek.                        
                                 Unnamed Discharge to    ID0026310      
                                  Four Mile Creek.                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is requesting comments, data, and information for the sample 
facilities that could assist EPA in evaluating the potential indirect 
costs to the sample facilities, including, but not limited to, 
descriptions of existing treatment systems and pollutant control 
systems; pollutants expected in effluent discharge; long-term average 
discharge flow and pollutant effluent concentrations; long-term average 
receiving water pollutant concentrations; and critical low flow values 
for receiving water stream segments.
iii. Overview of Approach to Estimate Potential Costs Related to New 
Temperature Criteria
    EPA is also including as part of today's proposed rule temperature 
criteria for threatened and endangered species. Due to the number of 
water body stream segments that are affected by this more stringent 
temperature criteria and lack of data, EPA was not able to project the 
potential costs to NPDES permitted dischargers associated with proposal 
of the more stringent temperature criteria. The water body stream 
segments with more stringent temperature criteria to protect threatened 
and endangered species can be found in Sections 131.33 (c) through (e) 
of today's proposed rule.
    If sufficient data can be obtained, the approach EPA plans to use 
to estimate potential costs is similar to the approach used for 
estimating the costs for new use designations (i.e., randomly selecting 
sample facilities to represent the universe of affected facilities). 
The data requirements to evaluate the potential costs would include not 
only ambient and effluent temperature data for critical times of the 
year during which spawning and rearing occur, but also detailed 
operational information to evaluate the ability of a facility to comply 
with the more stringent temperature criteria.
    This detailed data were not available to EPA within the time-frame 
to complete the cost analysis, and therefore EPA was not able to fully 
assess the impact to NPDES permitted dischargers. EPA is soliciting the 
above mentioned data for facilities located on water body stream 
segments identified in Sections 131.33 (c)-(e) of today's proposed 
rule.

K. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review.

L. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended By the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provides that, whenever an 
agency publishes a rule under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553, after being required 
to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless the head of the agency 
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 604 & 
605. The Administrator is today certifying, pursuant to Sec. 605(b) of 
the RFA, that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Agency did not 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
    Under the CWA water quality standards program, States must adopt 
water quality standards for their waters

[[Page 23020]]

that must be submitted to EPA for approval. If the Agency disapproves a 
State standard, EPA must promulgate standards consistent with the 
statutory requirements. These State standards (or EPA-promulgated 
standards) are implemented through the NPDES program that limits 
discharges to navigable waters except in compliance with an EPA permit 
or permit issued under an approved State program. The CWA requires that 
all NPDES permits must include any limits on discharges that are 
necessary to meet State water quality standards.
    Thus under the CWA, EPA's promulgation of water quality standards 
where State standards are inconsistent with statutory requirements 
establishes standards that are implemented through the NPDES permit 
process by authorized States, or, in the absence of an approved State 
NPDES program, by EPA. EPA implements the NPDES program in Idaho. EPA 
and authorized States have discretion in deciding how to meet the water 
quality standards and in developing discharge limits as needed to meet 
the standards. While State or EPA implementation of federally-
promulgated water quality standards may result in new or revised 
discharge limits being placed on small entities, the standards 
themselves do not apply to any discharger, including small entities.
    Today's proposed rule imposes obligations on EPA but, as explained 
above, does not itself establish any requirements that are applicable 
to small entities. As a result of this action, EPA will need to ensure 
that permits issued in the State of Idaho include any limitations on 
discharges necessary to comply with the standards in the final rule. 
EPA and the State have a number of discretionary choices associated 
with permit writing and total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculations 
and waste load allocations (WLAs) which can affect the burden felt by 
any small entity as a result of EPA action to implement the final rule. 
While implementation of the final rule may ultimately result in some 
new or revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including small 
entities, EPA's action today does not impose any of these as yet 
unknown requirements on small entities.
    The RFA requires analysis of the impacts of a rule on the small 
entities subject to the rules' requirements. See United States 
Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 
Today's proposed rule establishes no requirements applicable to small 
entities, and so is not susceptible to regulatory flexibility analysis 
as prescribed by the RFA. (``[N]o analysis is necessary when an agency 
determines that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities that are subject to the 
requirements of the rule,' '' United Distribution at 1170, quoting Mid-
Tex Elec. Co-op v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis 
added by United Distribution court).) The Agency is thus certifying 
that today's proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the 
RFA.

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written Statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written Statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of the 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    As noted above, this proposed rule is limited to water quality 
standards for a limited number of waters within the State of Idaho. EPA 
believes that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA also 
believes that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 
in any one year. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's rulemaking imposes no new or additional information 
collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). Therefore, no Information Collection request will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

O. Executive Order 12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State 
governments in the development of this rule. Prior to this rulemaking 
action, EPA met numerous times with representatives of Idaho's Division 
of Environmental Quality and Idaho's Attorney General's office to 
discuss our concerns with the State's water quality standards, possible 
remedies for addressing the disapproved sections of the water quality 
standards, and the rulemaking process. EPA has also corresponded with 
Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality and the Governor's office. 
EPA has held telephone conferences and meetings with U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to discuss 
Endangered Species Act consultation issues related to this action. In 
addition, EPA issued a notice on March 21, 1997, (62 FR 13567) 
outlining EPA's rulemaking plans and informing the public that EPA 
would be seeking information on specific streams in Idaho. EPA will 
continue to work with affected parties before finalizing water quality 
standards for Idaho.
    EPA has scheduled two public hearings for May 12, 1997, in Boise, 
Idaho. EPA's public notification process is targeting interested 
parties, both within and outside of government, to ensure them the 
opportunity for involvement.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control, Water Quality 
Standards.


[[Page 23021]]


    Dated: April 21, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR Part 131 as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as 
follows:

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

Subpart D--[Amended]

    2. Section 131.33 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 131.33  Idaho.

    (a) Prior to classification by the State, unclassified waters shall 
be protected for primary contact recreation and cold water biota.
    (b) In addition to the State adopted use designations, the 
following water body segments in Idaho have the beneficial uses 
designated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Primary  
            Idaho map code                          Waters               Cold water     Salmonid       contact  
                                                                            biota       spawning     recreation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (1) Panhandle Basin                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB 11S................................  Granite Creek-source to mouth.  ............  ............            x 
PB 121S...............................  Canyon Creek-below mining                 x   ............            x 
                                         impact.                                                                
PB 140S...............................  South Fork Coeur d'Alene River-           x   ............            x 
                                         Daisy Gulch to mouth.                                                  
PB 142S...............................  Nine Mile Creek-below mining              x   ............            x 
                                         impact.                                                                
PB 143S...............................  Big Creek-below mining impact.            x   ............            x 
PB 145S...............................  Government Gulch-source to                x   ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
PB 146S...............................  Pine Creek-below mining impact  ............  ............            x 
PB 147S...............................  Lake Creek-below mining impact            x   ............            x 
PB 148S...............................  Shields Gulch-below mining                x   ............            x 
                                         impact.                                                                
PB 220P...............................  Trestle Creek-source to mouth.  ............  ............            x 
PB 322S...............................  St. Maries-Fernwood to mouth..            x   ............  ............
PB 340S...............................  Plummer Creek-source to mouth.            x   ............            x 
PB 450S...............................  Hangman Creek-source to Idaho-            x   ............            x 
                                         Washington border.                                                     
PB 451S...............................  Rock Creek-source to Idaho-               x   ............            x 
                                         Washington border.                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (2) Clearwater Basin                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB 152................................  Cottonwood Creek-source to                x   ............  ............
                                         mouth.                                                                 
CB 170................................  Palouse River-Princeton to                x   ............            x 
                                         Idaho-Washington border.                                               
CB 171................................  So. Fork Palouse River-source             x   ............            x 
                                         to Idaho-Washington border.                                            
CB 210................................  Lindsay Creek.................  ............  ............            x 
CB 1321...............................  Three Mile Creek-source to      ............  ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
CB 1322...............................  Cottonwood Creek-source to      ............  ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
CB 1421...............................  Grasshopper Creek-source to               x             x   ............
                                         mouth.                                                                 
CB 1541...............................  Little Bear Creek-source to               x             x             x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
CB 1711...............................  Cow Creek-source to Idaho-                x   ............            x 
                                         Washington border.                                                     
CB 1712...............................  Paradise Creek source to Idaho-           x   ............            x 
                                         Washington border.                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 (3) Salmon Basin                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB 130................................  Thompson Creek-source to mouth  ............  ............            x 
SB 140................................  Squaw Creek-source to mouth...  ............  ............            x 
SB 421................................  Blackbird Creek-source to                 x             x             x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
SB 430................................  Panther Creek-Blackbird Creek   ............            x             x 
                                         to mouth.                                                              
SB 4211...............................  West Fork Blackbird Creek-                x             x             x 
                                         source to mouth.                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            (4) Southwest Idaho Basin                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWB 10................................  Snake River-King Hill to                  x   ............  ............
                                         Marsing.                                                               
SWB 20................................  Snake River-Marsing to Boise              x   ............  ............
                                         River.                                                                 
SWB 30................................  Snake River-Payette River to              x   ............  ............
                                         Boise River.                                                           
SWB 271...............................  Ten Mile Creek-source to mouth  ............  ............            x 
SWB 271...............................  Five Mile Creek-source to       ............  ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
SWB 282...............................  Indian Creek-below Sugar                  x   ............            x 
                                         Avenue Nampa to mouth.                                                 
SWB 410...............................  Weiser River-source to Midvale            x   ............  ............
SWB 421...............................  Crane Creek-source to mouth...            x   ............  ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              (5) Upper Snake Basin                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USB 235...............................  North Fork Teton River-source   ............  ............            x 
                                         to mouth.                                                              
USB 236...............................  South Fork Teton River-source   ............  ............            x 
                                         to mouth.                                                              
USB 320...............................  Willow Creek-Ririe Dam to       ............  ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
USB 360...............................  Blackfoot River-Equalizing Dam            x   ............            x 
                                         to mouth.                                                              
USB 411...............................  Marsh Creek-source to mouth...            x   ............            x 
USB 430...............................  Bannock Creek-source to mouth.            x   ............            x 
USB 730...............................  Rock Creek-Rock Creek City to   ............  ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 
USB 740...............................  Cedar Draw-source to mouth....  ............  ............            x 
USB 800...............................  Mud Creek-Deep Creek Road to    ............  ............            x 
                                         mouth.                                                                 

[[Page 23022]]

                                                                                                                
USB 810...............................  Deep Creek-source to mouth....  ............  ............            x 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BB 310................................  Soda Creek-source to mouth....            x   ............            x 
BB 430................................  Battle Creek--source to mouth.            x   ............            x 
BB 420................................  Worm Creek-source to Idaho-               x   ............            x 
                                         Washington border.                                                     
BB 450................................  Cub Creek-Mapleton to Idaho-              x   ............            x 
                                         Utah border.                                                           
BB 470................................  Malad River-Little Malad River            x   ............            x 
                                         to Idaho-Utah border.                                                  
BB 480................................  Deep Creek-source to Idaho-               x   ............  ............
                                         Utah border.                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Temperature Criteria for Bull Trout.
    (1) The following seasonal temperature requirements and maximum 
weekly average temperature criteria apply to the Idaho waterbody 
segments identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum  
                                                                weekly  
                            Date                               average  
                                                             temperature
                                                               ( deg.C) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January....................................................            4
February...................................................            4
March......................................................            6
April......................................................            8
May........................................................           10
June.......................................................           12
July.......................................................           12
August 1-15................................................           12
August 15-30...............................................           10
September..................................................           10
October....................................................            8
November...................................................            6
December...................................................            6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Note: In paragraph (c)(2), ``\1\'' denotes waterbody segments 
included in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project is 
``Key Salmonid'' Database; ``\2\'' denotes waterbody segments included 
in the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Digital Bulltrout Distribution 
Database.
    (i) Boise-Mores Basin: Boise River,\2\ Devils Creek,\1\ \2\ East 
Fork Sheep Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Boise River,\2\ North Fork Boise 
River,\2\ Sheep Creek.\1\ \2\
    (ii) Brownlee Reservoir Basin: Allison Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ 
Board Gulch,\1\ Brownlee Creek,\1\ Butterfield Gulch,\1\ Calf Pen 
Gulch,\1\ Cave Creek,\1\ Cold Spring Creek,\1\ Cottonwood Creek,\1\ Cow 
Creek,\1\ Crooked River,\1\ \2\ Deer Creek,\1\ Dick Ross Creek,\1\ Doe 
Creek,\1\ Dukes Creek,\1\ Eckels Creek,\1\ Fawn Creek,\1\ Gladheart 
Gulch,\1\ Grouse Creek,\1\ Hoo Hoo Gulch,\1\ Indian Creek,\2\ Jackson 
Gulch,\1\ Kinney Creek,\1\ Lick Creek,\1\ Little Bear Creek,\1\ Raft 
Creek,\1\ Sheep Creek,\1\ Snake River,\1\ Stevens Creek,\1\ Sumac 
Creek,\1\ Summit Gulch,\1\ Swapit Creek,\1\ Thorn Creek,\1\ Thorn 
Spring Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ Wayle Creek,\1\ Wickiup Creek,\1\ Wolf 
Creek.\1\
    (iii) Bruneau Basin: Bruneau River,\1\ East Fork Jarbidge River,\2\ 
Jarbidge River,\2\ Stiff Tree Draw.\1\
    (iv) Clearwater Basin: Beardy Gulch,\1\ Big Canyon Creek,\2\ 
Clearwater River,\1\ Cole Canyon,\1\ Cougar Creek,\1\ Feather Creek,\1\ 
Laguna Creek,\1\ Lolo Creek,\2\ Nikesa Creek,\1\ North Fork Clearwater 
River,\1\ Orofino Creek,\2\ Rattlesnake Canyon,\1\ Talapus Creek,\1\ 
West Fork Potlatch River,\1\ Wheeler Canyon.\1\
    (v) Coeur D'Alene Lake Basin: Canary Creek,\1\ Cataldo Gulch,\1\ 
Cave Lake,\1\ Clark Creek,\1\ Coeur d'Alene Lake,\1\ Coeur d'Alene 
River,\1\ Cougar Creek,\1\ Evans Creek,\1\ Fernan Creek,\1\ Fortier 
Creek,\1\ French Gulch,\1\ Hardy Gulch,\1\ Hayden Gulch,\1\ Kid 
Creek,\1\ Killarney Creek,\1\ Killarney Lake,\1\ Lane Creek,\1\ 
Medicine Lake,\1\ Mica Creek,\1\ Robinson Creek,\1\ Rose Creek,\1\ 
Skeel Gulch,\1\ South Fork Mica Creek,\1\ Squaw Creek,\1\ Turner 
Creek,\1\ Whiteman Draw,\1\ Willow Creek.\1\
    (vi) Hells Canyon Basin: Bear Gulch,\1\ Bernard Creek,\1\ Big 
Canyon Creek,\1\ Big Sulphur Creek,\1\ Brush Creek,\1\ Camp Creek,\1\ 
Caribou Creek,\1\ Clarks Fork,\2\ Corral Creek,\1\ Deep Creek,\1\ 
Devils Farm Creek,\1\ Dog Creek,\1\ Doug Creek,\1\ Dry Creek,\1\ \2\ 
East Fork Sheep Creek,\1\ Fir Creek,\1\ Getta Creek,\2\ Granite 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Highrange Creek,\1\ Jones Creek,\1\ Kirby Creek,\1\ 
Klopton Creek,\1\ \2\ Kurry Creek,\1\ \2\ Left Fork Dry Creek,\1\ 
Little Granite Creek,\1\ North Fork Klopton Creek,\1\ Oxbow Creek,\1\ 
Salt Creek,\2\ Sheep Creek,\1\ \2\ Snake River,\1\ \2\ Steep Creek,\1\ 
Thorn Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ Two Creek,\1\ Vance Gulch,\1\ West 
Creek,\1\ West Fork West Creek,\1\ Wyley Creek,\1\ Zigzag Creek.\1\
    (vii) Lemhi Basin: Adams Creek,\1\ Alder Creek,\1\ Baldy Creek,\1\ 
Basin Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Bear Valley Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Eightmile 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Springs Creek,\1\ Big Timber Creek,\1\ \2\ Bray 
Creek,\1\ Bull Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ \2\ Carol 
Creek,\1\ Chamberlain Creek,\1\ Clear Creek,\1\ Climb Creek,\1\ Cooper 
Creek,\1\ Dairy Creek,\1\ \2\ Deer Creek,\1\ \2\ Deer Park Creek,\1\ 
Divide Creek,\1\ Dry Creek,\1\ East Fork Hayden Creek,\1\ \2\ East Fork 
Kenney Creek,\1\ East Fork Kirtley Creek,\1\ Eighteenmile Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Falls Creek,\1\ Ferry Creek,\1\ Ford Creek,\1\ Gary Creek,\1\ Geertson 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Goose Creek,\1\ Grove Creek,\1\ Hawley Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Hayden Creek,\1\ \2\ Haynes Creek,\1\ Kadletz Creek,\1\ Kenney 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Kirtley Creek,\1\ \2\ Lake Creek,\1\ Lee Creek,\2\ Lemhi 
River,\1\ \2\ Little Eightmile Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Mill Creek,\1\ 
Little Sawmill Creek,\1\ Little Timber Creek,\1\ \2\ McGinty Creek,\1\ 
McNutt Creek,\1\ Meadow Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Little Timber Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Milk Creek,\1\ Mill Creek,\1\ \2\ Mogg Creek,\1\ Muddy Creek,\1\ 
Mulkey Creek,\1\ Negro Green Creek,\1\ North Fork Kirtley Creek,\1\ \2\ 
North Fork Little Timber Creek,\1\ Paradise Creek,\1\ Patterson 
Creek,\1\ Payne Creek,\1\ Poison Creek,\1\ Prospect Creek,\1\ Reese 
Creek,\1\ Rocky Creek,\1\ Ryegrass Creek,\1\ Short Creek,\1\ Squaw 
Creek,\1\ Squirrel Creek,\1\ Texas Creek,\1\ Tobias Creek,\1\ Trail 
Creek,\1\ Walter Creek,\1\ Warm Spring Creek,\1\ West Fork Hayden 
Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Little Eightmile Creek,\1\ Wright Creek.\1\
    (viii) Little Lost Basin: Aspen Creek,\1\ Badger Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Barney Creek,\1\ Bear Canyon,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Bell Mountain Creek,\1\ 
Big Creek,\1\ \2\ Bird Canyon,\1\ Black Creek,\1\ Buck Canyon,\1\ Bull 
Creek,\1\ Cedar Run Creek,\1\ Chicken Creek,\1\ Coal Creek,\1\ Corral 
Creek,\1\ Deep Creek,\1\ Dry Creek,\1\ Dry Creek Canal,\1\ Firbox 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Garfield Creek,\1\ Hawley Canyon,\1\ Hawley Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Horse Creek,\1\ Horse Lake Creek,\1\ Iron Creek,\1\ \2\ Jackson 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Lost River,\1\ \2\ Mahogany Creek,\1\ Main Fork 
Sawmill Creek,\1\ \2\ Massacre Creek,\1\ Meadow Creek,\1\ Mill 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Moffett Creek,\1\ Moonshine Creek,\1\ Quigley Creek,\1\ 
Red Rock Creek,\1\ \2\ Sands Creek,\1\ Sawmill Creek,\1\ \2\ Slide 
Creek,\1\ Smithie Fork,\1\ \2\ Squaw Creek,\1\ \2\ Summerhouse 
Canyon,\1\ Summit Creek,\1\ \2\ Timber Creek,\1\ \2\ Warm Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Wet Creek,\1\ \2\ Williams Creek.\1\ \2\
    (ix) Little Salmon Basin: Bascum Canyon,\1\ Boulder Creek,\2\ Brown 
Creek,\1\ Campbell Ditch,\1\ Castle Creek,\1\ Clayburn Creek,\1\ Copper 
Creek,\1\ Granite Fork Lake Fork Rapid River,\1\ Hard Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Hazard Creek,\1\ \2\ Hyatt Creek,\1\ Jacks Creek,\1\ Lake Fork Rapid 
River,\1\ Little Salmon River,\1\ \2\ Paradise

[[Page 23023]]

Creek,\1\ Pony Creek,\2\ Rapid River,\1\ \2\ Squirrel Creek,\2\ Trail 
Creek,\1\ Warm Springs Creek,\1\ West Fork Rapid River.\2\
    (x) Lochsa Basin: Apgar Creek,\1\ Badger Creek,\1\ Bald Mountain 
Creek,\1\ Bear Mtn. Creek,\1\ Beaver Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Flat Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Big Stew Creek,\1\ Boulder Creek,\1\ \2\ Brushy Fork,\1\ \2\ Cabin 
Creek,\1\ California Creek,\1\ Castle Creek,\1\ Chain Creek,\2\ Chimney 
Creek,\1\ Cliff Creek ,\1\ Colgate Creek,\1\ Coolwater Creek,\1\ 
Cooperation Creek,\1\ Crab Creek,\1\ Crooked Fork Lochsa River,\1\ \2\ 
Dan Creek,\1\ Deadman Creek,\2\ Doe Creek,\1\ \2\ Dutch Creek,\1\ Eagle 
Creek,\1\ Eagle Mountain Creek,\1\ East Fork Papoose Creek,\1\ \2\ East 
Fork Split Creek,\1\ East Fork Squaw Creek,\1\ Eel Creek,\1\ Fern 
Creek,\1\ Fire Creek,\2\ Fish Creek,\1\ \2\ Fish Lake Creek,\1\ \2\ Fox 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Freezeout Creek,\1\ Gass Creek,\2\ Gold Creek,\1\ 
Greystone Creek,\1\ Gypsy Creek,\1\ Ham Creek,\1\ Handy Creek,\1\ Hard 
Creek,\1\ Haskell Creek,\1\ Heather Creek,\1\ Helix Creek,\1\ Hellgate 
Creek,\1\ Heslip Creek,\1\ Hidden Creek,\1\ Holly Creek,\1\ Hopeful 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Hungery Creek,\2\ Indian Grave Creek,\1\ \2\ Indian 
Meadow Creek,\1\ Jay Creek,\1\ Kerr Creek,\1\ Kinnikinnick Creek,\1\ 
Kube Creek,\1\ Lochsa River,\1\ \2\ Lone Knob Creek,\1\ Lost Creek,\1\ 
Lottie Creek,\1\ Macaroni Creek,\1\ Maud Creek,\1\ Middle Fork 
Clearwater River,\2\ Mocus Creek,\1\ No-see-um Creek,\1\ North Fork 
Spruce Creek,\1\ North Fork Storm Creek,\1\ Nut Creek,\1\ Old Man 
Creek,\1\ Otter Slide Creek,\1\ Pack Creek,\1\ Papoose Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Parachute Creek,\1\ Pass Creek,\1\ Pedro Creek,\1\ Pell Creek,\1\ Pete 
King Creek,\1\ \2\ Placer Creek,\1\ Polar Creek,\1\ Postoffice 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Queen Creek,\1\ Robin Creek,\1\ Rock Creek,\1\ Rye Patch 
Creek,\1\ Sardine Creek,\1\ Selway River,\1\ \2\ Shoot Creek,\1\ 
Shotgun Creek,\1\ Skookum Creek,\1\ Snowshoe Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Spruce Creek,\1\ South Fork Storm Creek,\1\ Split Creek,\1\ Sponge 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Spring Creek,\1\ Spruce Creek,\1\ \2\ Squaw Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Storm Creek,\1\ \2\ Tadpole Creek,\1\ Tick Creek,\1\ Tomcat Creek,\1\ 
Tumble Creek,\1\ Twin Creek,\1\ Wag Creek,\1\ Walde Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Walton Creek,\1\ \2\ Warm Springs Creek,\1\ \2\ Weir Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Wendover Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Boulder Creek,\1\ West Fork Papoose 
Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Squaw Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Wendover 
Creek,\1\ White Sands Creek,\1\ \2\ Willow Creek.\1\
    (xi) Lower Clark Fork Basin: Cascade Creek,\1\ Clark Fork,\1\ \2\ 
East Fork,\1\ East Fork Creek,\2\ East Fork East Fork Creek,\1\ Gold 
Creek,\1\ Johnson Creek,\1\ \2\ Lightning Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork 
Clark Fork,\2\ Mosquito Creek,\1\ North Fork Clark Fork,\2\ Porcupine 
Creek,\2\ Rattle Creek,\2\ South Fork Clark Fork,\2\ Spring Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Twin Creek,\2\ Wellington Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xii) Lower Kootenai Basin: Ball Creek,\1\ Boundary Creek,\2\ Brush 
Creek,\1\ Brush Lake,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Caribou Creek,\1\ \2\ Cascade 
Creek,\1\ Cedar Creek,\1\ Cooks Creek,\1\ Cow Creek,\1\ Curley 
Creek,\2\ Deep Creek,\1\ \2\ Fall Creek,\1\ Grass Creek,\2\ Hall 
Creek,\1\ Highland Creek,\1\ Jim Creek,\1\ Kootenai River,\1\ \2\ Lime 
Creek,\1\ Long Canyon Creek,\1\ \2\ Mack Creek,\1\ Mission Creek,\2\ 
Molar Creek,\1\ Moyie River,\2\ Myrtle Creek,\1\ \2\ Peak Creek,\1\ 
Roman Nose Creek,\1\ Snow Creek,\1\ \2\ Trout Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xiii) Lower Middle Fork Salmon Basin: Acorn Creek,\1\ Alpine 
Creek,\1\ Anvil Creek,\1\ Arrastra Creek,\1\ Bar Creek,\1\ Beagle 
Creek,\1\ Beaver Creek,\1\ \2\ Belvidere Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Birdseye Creek,\1\ Bismark Creek,\1\ Boulder Creek,\1\ Brush 
Creek,\2\ Buck Creek,\1\ Bull Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\2\ Camas Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Camp Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ Castle Creek,\1\ \2\ Cave Creek,\1\ 
Chalk Creek,\1\ Cinch Creek,\1\ Clark Creek,\1\ Coin Creek,\1\ Color 
Creek,\1\ Copper Creek,\1\ Corner Creek,\1\ Coxey Creek,\1\ Crooked 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Dame Creek,\1\ Deer Creek,\1\ Doe Creek,\1\ Duck 
Creek,\1\ East Fork Crooked Creek,\1\ East Fork Holy Terror Creek,\1\ 
Fall Creek,\1\ Fawn Creek,\1\ Flume Creek,\1\ Fly Creek,\1\ Forge 
Creek,\1\ Furnace Creek,\1\ Garden Creek,\1\ Goat Creek ,\1\ Gold 
Creek,\1\ Government Creek,\1\ Grouse Creek,\1\ Hammer Creek,\1\ Hand 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Holy Terror Creek,\1\ J Fell Creek,\1\ Jackass Creek,\1\ 
Jacobs Ladder Creek,\1\ Jenny Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\1\ Lewis Creek,\1\ 
Liberty Creek,\1\ Lick Creek,\1\ Lime Creek,\1\ Little Jacket Creek,\1\ 
Little Marble Creek,\1\ Little Ramey Creek,\1\ Little White Goat 
Creek,\1\ Little Woodtick Creek,\1\ Logan Creek ,\1\ \2\ Lookout 
Creek,\1\ Loon Creek ,\2\ Marttindale Creek,\1\ Meadow Creek,\1\ Middle 
Fork Salmon River,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Smith Creek,\1\ \2\ Milk 
Creek,\1\ Monumental Creek,\1\ \2\ Moore Creek,\1\ Mud Creek,\1\ 
Mulligan Creek,\1\ North Fork Smith Creek,\1\ North Fork Stoddard 
Creek,\1\ Norton Creek,\1\ Pack Horse Creek,\1\ Paint Creek,\1\ Placer 
Creek,\1\ Pole Creek,\1\ Rams Creek,\1\ Range Creek,\1\ Roaring 
Creek,\1\ Routson Creek,\1\ Rush Creek,\1\ \2\ Sawlog Creek,\1\ Sheep 
Creek,\1\ Sheldon Creek,\1\ Shellrock Creek,\1\ Ship Island Creek,\1\ 
Shovel Creek,\1\ Silver Creek,\1\ \2\ Slide Creek,\1\ Smith Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Snowslide Creek,\2\ Soda Creek,\1\ Soldier Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Camas Creek,\1\ South Fork Chamberlain Creek,\2\ South Fork Holy Terror 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Norton Creek,\1\ South Fork Rush Creek,\1\ South 
Fork Sheep Creek,\1\ Spider Creek,\1\ Spletts Creek,\1\ Spring 
Creek,\1\ Stoddard Creek,\1\ Tale Creek,\1\ Telephone Creek,\1\ Trail 
Creek,\1\ Twin Creek,\1\ Two Point Creek,\1\ West Fork Beaver Creek,\1\ 
West Fork Camas Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Crooked Creek,\1\ West Fork 
Monumental Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Rush Creek,\1\ Whiskey Creek,\1\ 
White Goat Creek,\1\ Wild Horse Creek,\1\ Wilson Creek,\1\ \2\ Woodtick 
Creek,\1\ Yellowjacket Creek.\1\
    (xiv) Lower North Fork Clearwater Basin: Adair Creek,\1\ Anderson 
Creek,\1\ Badger Creek,\1\ Bathtub Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Beaver 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Bertha Creek,\1\ Bingo Creek,\1\ Black Creek,\1\ Bonner 
Creek,\1\ Brush Creek,\1\ Buck Creek,\1\ Butte Creek,\1\ Canyon 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Caribou Creek,\1\ Cataract Creek,\1\ Crampton Creek,\1\ 
Crescendo Creek,\1\ Crimper Creek,\1\ Delate Creek,\1\ Devils Club 
Creek,\1\ Dip Creek,\1\ Dog Creek,\1\ \2\ Dworshak Reservoir,\1\ East 
Fork Beaver Creek,\1\ Elkberry Creek,\1\ Elmberry Creek,\1\ Elmer 
Creek,\1\ Falls Creek,\1\ Fern Creek,\1\ Floodwood Creek,\1\ Foehl 
Creek,\1\ Goat Creek,\1\ Grandad Creek,\1\ Harlan Creek,\1\ Hodson 
Creek,\1\ Idaho Creek,\1\ Isabella Creek,\1\ \2\ John Creek,\1\ Jug 
Creek,\1\ Jungle Creek,\1\ \2\ Ladds Creek,\1\ Larkins Creek,\1\ Len 
Creek,\1\ Lightning Creek,\1\ Little Lost Lake Creek,\1\ Little Meadow 
Creek,\1\ Little North Fork Clearwater River,\1\ \2\ Lost Lake 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Lund Creek,\1\ \2\ Marquette Creek,\1\ McKinnon Creek,\1\ 
Meadows Creek,\1\ Milk Creek,\1\ Minnesaka Creek,\1\ Montana Creek,\1\ 
Mowitch Creek,\1\ Mulligan Creek,\1\ North Fork Clearwater River,\1\ 
\2\ Northbound Creek,\1\ Papoose Creek,\1\ Pitchfork Creek,\1\ Rocky 
Run,\1\ \2\ Rooney Creek,\1\ Rutledge Creek,\1\ \2\ Salmon Creek,\1\ 
Sawtooth Creek,\1\ Sheep Mountain Creek,\1\ Sourdough Creek,\1\ Sousie 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Beaver Creek,\1\ Spires Creek,\1\ Spotted Louis 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Springs Creek,\1\ Stoney Creek,\1\ Thompson Creek,\1\ 
Thrasher Creek,\1\ Triple Creek,\1\ Twin Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Butte 
Creek,\1\ West Fork Hodson Creek,\1\ West Fork Meadows Creek,\1\ West 
Fork Montana Creek,\1\ West Fork Rooney Creek,\1\ White Creek,\1\ 
Willow Creek.\1\
    (xv) Lower Salmon Basin: Baker Gulch,\1\ Bear Gulch,\1\ Berg 
Creek,\1\ Chapman Creek,\1\ Cottonwood Creek,\1\ East Fork John Day 
Creek,\1\ Elkhorn Creek,\2\ Fiddle Creek,\2\ French Creek,\1\ \2\ Hagen 
Draw,\1\ Hurley Creek,\1\ John Day Creek,\1\ \2\ Kelly Creek,\2\ Klip 
Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\2\ Little Salmon River,\2\ Little Slate Creek,\2\ 
Little Van Buren Creek,\1\ No Buisiness Creek,\1\ North Creek,\1\ North 
Fork Baker Gulch,\1\ North Fork Slate Creek,\1\ \2\ North Fork White 
Bird Creek,\2\ Partridge Creek,\2\ Price Creek,\1\ Salmon River,\1\ \2\ 
Slate Creek,\1\ \2\ Slide Creek,\1\ South Fork Baker Gulch,\1\ South 
Fork John Day Creek,\1\ South Fork White Bird Creek,\2\ Trough 
Creek,\1\ Warm Springs Creek,\1\ Waterspout Creek,\1\ White Bird 
Creek,\1\ Willow Creek.\1\
    (xvi) Lower Selway Basin: Anderson Creek,\1\ Bailey Creek,\2\ 
Barren Creek,\1\ Browns Spring Creek,\2\ Buck Lake

[[Page 23024]]

Creek,\2\ Butte Creek,\1\ Butter Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Cedar 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Chain Creek,\1\ \2\ Chute Creek,\1\ Crew Creek,\1\ Dent 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Disgrace Creek,\1\ Double Creek,\2\ East Fork Meadow 
Creek,\1\ East Fork Moose Creek,\1\ \2\ East Fork Sable Creek,\1\ Elbow 
Creek,\2\ Fitting Creek,\1\ Fivemile Creek,\2\ Fourmile Creek,\1\ 
Freeman Creek,\1\ Gate Creek,\1\ Gedney Creek,\2\ Goddard Creek,\2\ 
Grotto Creek,\1\ Heath Creek,\1\ Higgins Creek,\1\ Horse Creek,\2\ 
Indian Hill Creek,\1\ \2\ Isaac Creek,\1\ Lark Creek,\1\ Little Boulder 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Creek,\1\ Little Schwar Creek,\1\ Lizard Creek,\1\ 
Lone Creek,\1\ Matteson Creek,\1\ Meadow Creek,\1\ \2\ Monument 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Moose Creek,\2\ Moss Creek,\1\ Newsome Creek,\2\ North 
Fork Moose Creek,\1\ \2\ Pea Creek,\1\ Porphyry Creek,\1\ Rabbit 
Creek,\1\ Rhoda Creek,\1\ \2\ Sable Creek,\1\ Saddle Creek,\1\ Schwar 
Creek,\2\ Selway River,\2\ Shake Creek,\1\ Simmons Creek,\1\ Sled 
Creek,\1\ Spook Creek,\1\ Spur Creek,\1\ Squirrel Creek,\1\ Tamarack 
Creek,\1\ Three Prong Creek,\1\ Twomile Creek,\1\ West Fork Anderson 
Creek,\1\ West Fork Gedney Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Sable Creek,\1\ West 
Fork Three Links Creek,\1\ West Moose Creek,\1\ \2\ Wounded Doe 
Creek,\2\ Wye Creek.\1\
    (xvii) Lower Snake-Asotin Basin: Big Cougar Creek,\1\ Buffalo 
Draw,\1\ Cave Gulch,\1\ China Garden Creek,\1\ Cottonwood Creek,\1\ 
Crowers Canyon,\1\ First Creek,\1\ Frenchy Creek,\1\ Salmon River,\2\ 
Snake River,\1\ \2\ Thiessen Canyon.\1\
    (xviii) Middle Fork Clearwater Basin: Baldy Creek,\2\ Big Cedar 
Creek,\2\ Browns Spring Creek,\1\ \2\ Clear Creek,\1\ \2\ Kay Creek,\1\ 
Middle Fork Clear Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Clearwater River,\2\ Pine 
Knob Creek,\1\ \2\ Solo Creek,\1\ South Fork Clear Creek,\1\ \2\ South 
Fork Clearwater River.\2\
    (xix) Middle Fork Payette Basin: Albright Gulch,\1\ Bell Creek,\1\ 
Boom Creek,\1\ Bridge Creek,\1\ Bryan Creek,\1\ Bull Creek,\1\ \2\ Dash 
Creek,\1\ Easley Creek,\1\ Fool Creek,\1\ Goat Creek,\1\ Gooseberry 
Creek,\1\ Ground Hog Creek,\1\ Koppes Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\1\ 
Lightning Creek,\1\ Little Gooseberry Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Payette 
River,\1\ \2\ Oxtail Creek,\1\ \2\ Pine Creek,\1\ Pyle Creek,\1\ 
Rattlesnake Creek,\1\ Rocky Canyon,\1\ Silver Creek,\2\ Sixteen-to-one 
Creek,\1\ Skull Creek,\1\ Smith Creek,\1\ South Fork Payette River,\2\ 
South Fork West Fork Creek,\1\ Tie Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ Warm 
Springs Creek,\1\ West Fork Creek,\1\ Wet Foot Creek.\1\
    (xx) Middle Salmon-Chamberlain Basin: Arlington Creek,\1\ Arrow 
Creek,\1\ Bargamin Creek,\1\ \2\ Basin Creek,\1\ Bat Creek,\1\ Bay 
Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\2\ Bemis Creek,\1\ Bend Creek,\1\ Big Elkhorn 
Creek,\1\ Big Harrington Creek,\1\ Big Mallard Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Squaw 
Creek,\1\ Bleak Creek,\1\ Bronco Creek,\1\ Broomtail Creek,\1\ Brown 
Creek,\1\ Bull Creek,\1\ Butts Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ Cayuse 
Creek,\1\ Center Creek,\1\ Chamberlain Creek,\1\ \2\ Cliff Creek,\1\ 
Club Creek,\1\ Colt Creek,\1\ Corn Creek,\2\ Cottonwood Creek,\1\ 
Crooked Creek,\1\ \2\ Deer Creek,\1\ Dennis Creek,\1\ Disappointment 
Creek,\1\ Dismal Creek,\1\ Dog Creek,\1\ East Fork Fall Creek,\1\ \2\ 
East Fork Horse Creek,\1\ East Fork Noble Creek,\1\ East Fork Sheep 
Creek,\1\ East Fork Whimstick Creek,\1\ Fall Creek,\1\ \2\ Farrow 
Creek,\1\ Filly Creek,\1\ Fish Creek,\1\ Fitz Creek,\1\ Flossie 
Creek,\1\ Game Creek,\1\ \2\ Gap Creek,\1\ Ginger Creek,\1\ Green 
Creek,\1\ Grouse Creek,\1\ Guard Creek,\2\ Hamilton Creek,\1\ Hartan 
Creek,\1\ Horse Creek,\1\ \2\ Hot Springs Creek,\1\ Hotzel Creek,\1\ 
Houston Creek,\1\ Hungry Creek,\1\ Hurst Creek,\1\ Iodine Creek,\1\ 
Jack Creek,\1\ Jersey Creek,\2\ Kitchen Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Left Fork Slaughter Creek,\1\ Little Horse Creek,\1\ \2\ Little 
Lodgepole Creek,\1\ Little Mallard Creek,\1\ \2\ Lodgepole Creek,\1\ 
Mayflower Creek,\1\ \2\ McCalla Creek,\1\ \2\ Meadow Creek,\1\ Moose 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Moose Jaw Creek,\1\ Mule Creek,\1\ Mustang Creek,\1\ My 
Creek,\1\ No Name Creek,\1\ Our Creek,\1\ Owl Creek,\2\ Peak Creek,\1\ 
Plummer Creek,\1\ Poet Creek,\1\ Pole Creek,\1\ Porcupine Creek,\1\ 
Power Creek,\1\ Prospector Creek,\1\ Pup Creek,\1\ Queen Creek,\1\ 
Rainey Creek,\1\ Ranch Creek,\1\ Rattlesnake Creek,\1\ Red Top 
Creek,\1\ Reynolds Creek,\1\ Richardson Creek,\1\ Rim Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Ring Creek,\1\ Rock Creek,\1\ Root Creek,\1\ Runaway Creek,\1\ Sabe 
Creek,\1\ Saddle Creek,\1\ Salmon River,\1\ \2\ Salt Creek,\1\ 
Schissler Creek,\2\ Sheep Creek,\1\ \2\ Short Creek,\1\ Shovel 
Creek,\1\ Skull Creek,\1\ Slaughter Creek,\1\ \2\ Slide Creek,\1\ Smith 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Cottonwood Creek,\1\ South Fork Chamberlain 
Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork Kitchen Creek,\1\ South Fork Salmon River,\2\ 
South Fork Whimstick Creek,\1\ Spread Creek,\1\ Spring Creek,\1\ 
Starvation Creek,\1\ Steamboat Creek,\2\ Steep Creek,\1\ Stud Creek,\1\ 
Wapiti Creek,\1\ Warren Creek,\1\ \2\ Webfoot Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork 
Butts Creek,\1\ West Fork Chamberlain Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork 
Rattlesnake Creek,\1\ West Fork Whimstick Creek,\1\ West Horse 
Creek,\1\ Whimstick Creek,\1\ \2\ Wind River,\2\ Woods Fork Horse 
Creek.\1\
    (xxi) Middle Salmon-Panther Basin: Allan Creek,\1\ Allen Creek,\1\ 
Anderson Creek,\1\ Arnett Creek,\1\ \2\ Badger Creek,\1\ Beaver 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Deer Creek,\2\ Big Jureano Creek,\1\ Big Silverlead 
Creek,\1\ Blackbird Creek,\1\ Boulder Creek,\1\ \2\ Cabin Creek,\1\ 
Camp Creek,\1\ Carmen Creek,\1\ \2\ Chipps Creek,\1\ Clear Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Cliff Creek,\1\ Colson Creek,\2\ Copper Creek,\1\ Corral Creek,\1\ 
Cougar Creek,\1\ Cove Creek,\1\ Cow Creek,\2\ Dahlonega Creek,\1\ Daly 
Creek,\1\ Deadhorse Creek,\1\ Deep Creek,\1\ \2\ Ditch Creek,\1\ Dump 
Creek,\1\ East Boulder Creek,\1\ East Fork Indian Creek,\1\ East Fork 
Owl Creek,\1\ East Fork Pierce Creek,\1\ East Fork Spring Creek,\1\ 
Ebenezer Creek,\1\ Elk Creek,\1\ Elkhorn Creek,\1\ Fawn Creek,\1\ 
Fourth Of July Creek,\1\ Freeman Creek,\2\ Hammerean Creek,\1\ Homet 
Creek,\1\ Hughes Creek,\1\ \2\ Hull Creek,\1\ \2\ Humbug Creek,\1\ 
Indian Creek,\1\ \2\ Iron Creek,\1\ \2\ Jackass Creek,\1\ Jefferson 
Creek,\1\ Jesse Creek,\1\ \2\ Lake Creek,\1\ \2\ Lemhi River,\2\ Lick 
Creek,\1\ Little Deep Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Deer Creek,\1\ Little Ditch 
Creek,\1\ Little Hat Creek,\2\ Little Moose Creek,\1\ Little Sheep 
Creek,\1\ Little Silverlead Creek,\1\ Little Woodtick Creek,\1\ McConn 
Creek,\1\ \2\ McKim Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Salmon River,\2\ Mink 
Creek,\1\ Moccasin Creek,\1\ Moose Creek,\1\ \2\ Moyer Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Musgrove Creek,\1\ \2\ Napias Creek,\1\ \2\ Nez Perce Creek,\1\ North 
Fork Hughes Creek,\1\ North Fork Iron Creek,\1\ \2\ North Fork McKim 
Creek,\1\ North Fork Salmon River,\1\ \2\ North Fork Williams Creek,\2\ 
Opal Creek,\1\ Otter Creek,\1\ Owl Creek,\1\ \2\ Panther Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Park Creek,\2\ Peel Tree Creek,\1\ Phelan Creek,\1\ Pierce Creek,\1\ 
Pine Creek,\1\ \2\ Pony Creek,\1\ Porphyry Creek,\1\ \2\ Pruvan 
Creek,\1\ Quartz Creek,\1\ Rabbit Creek,\1\ Rancherio Creek,\1\ Ransack 
Creek,\1\ Rapps Creek,\1\ Salmon River,\1\ \2\ Salt Creek,\1\ Salzer 
Creek,\1\ Saw Pit Creek,\1\ Sharkey Creek,\1\ Sheep Creek,\1\ \2\ Slide 
Creek,\1\ Smithy Creek,\1\ South Fork Cabin Creek,\1\ South Fork Hull 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Iron Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork Moyer Creek,\1\ 
South Fork Phelan Creek,\1\ South Fork Sheep Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Williams Creek,\2\ Spring Creek,\1\ \2\ Squaw Creek,\1\ \2\ State 
Creek,\1\ Swamp Creek,\1\ Thompson Gulch,\1\ Threemile Creek,\1\ Trail 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Twelvemile Creek,\1\ \2\ Twin Creek,\1\ \2\ Vine 
Creek,\1\ Votler Creek,\1\ Wallace Creek,\1\ Weasel Creek,\1\ West Fork 
Anderson Creek,\1\ West Fork Blackbird Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Hughes 
Creek,\1\ West Fork Hull Creek,\1\ West Fork Indian Creek,\1\ West Fork 
Iron Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Nez Perce Creek,\1\ West Fork Salmon 
River,\1\ West Fork Squaw Creek,\1\ Williams Creek,\2\ Woodtick 
Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xxii) Moyie Basin: Brass Creek,\1\ Bussard Creek,\1\ Copper 
Creek,\1\ Deer Creek,\1\ \2\ Faro Creek,\1\ Keno Creek,\1\ Kreist 
Creek,\1\ Line Creek,\1\ McDougal Creek,\1\ Mill Creek,\1\ Moyie 
River,\1\ \2\ Placer Creek,\1\ Rutledge Creek,\1\ Skin Creek,\1\ Spruce 
Creek,\1\ West Branch Deer Creek.\1\
    (xxiii) North and Middle Fork Boise Basin: Abby Creek1 , Arrastra 
Creek,\1\ Bald Mountain Creek,\2\ Ballentyne Creek,\1\ \2\ Banner 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Bayhouse Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ \2\ Bear River,\1\ \2\ 
Big

[[Page 23025]]

Gulch,\1\ Big Silver Creek,\1\ \2\ Billy Creek,\1\ Blackwarrior 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Bow Creek,\1\ \2\ Browns Creek,\1\ \2\ Buck Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Cabin Creek,\1\ Cahhah Creek,\1\ Camp Gulch,\1\ China Fork,\1\ Coma 
Creek,\1\ Corbus Creek,\1\ Cow Creek,\1\ Crooked River,\1\ \2\ Cub 
Creek,\1\ Decker Creek,\1\ \2\ Dutch Creek,\1\ Dutch Frank Creek,\1\ 
East Fork Roaring River,\1\ \2\ East Fork Swanholm Creek,\1\ East Fork 
Yuba River,\1\ Flint Creek,\1\ Flytrip Creek,\1\ Gotch Creek,\1\ Graham 
Creek,\1\ Granite Creek,\1\ Grays Creek,\1\ Greylock Creek,\1\ Grouse 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Hot Creek,\1\ Hungarian Creek,\2\ Joe Daley Creek,\1\ 
Johnson Creek,\1\ \2\ Kid Creek,\1\ King Creek,\1\ La Mayne Creek,\1\ 
Leggit Creek,\1\ Lightening Creek,\1\ Little Queens River,\1\ \2\ 
Little Silver Creek,\1\ Louise Creek,\1\ Lynx Creek,\1\ Mattingly 
Creek,\1\ McKay Creek,\1\ McLeod Creek,\1\ \2\ McPhearson Creek,\1\ 
Middle Fork Boise River,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Corbus Creek,\1\ Middle 
Fork Roaring River,\1\ \2\ Mill Creek,\1\ Misfire Creek,\1\ Montezuma 
Creek,\1\ North Fork Boise River,\1\ \2\ Phifer Creek,\1\ Pikes 
Fork,\1\ \2\ Quartz Gulch,\1\ Queens River,\1\ \2\ Rabbit Creek,\2\ 
Right Creek,\1\ Roaring River,\1\ \2\ Robin Creek,\1\ Rock Creek,\1\ 
Rockey Creek,\1\ \2\ Sawmill Creek,\1\ \2\ Scenic Creek,\1\ \2\ Scotch 
Creek,\1\ Scott Creek,\1\ Shorip Creek,\1\ Smith Creek,\1\ Snow 
Creek,\1\ Snowslide Creek,\1\ South Fork Corbus Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Cub Creek,\1\ Spout Creek,\1\ Steamboat Creek,\1\ Steel Creek,\1\ 
Steppe Creek,\1\ Swanholm Creek,\1\ Timpa Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Trapper Creek,\1\ Tripod Creek,\1\ West Fork Creek,\1\ West Warrior 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Willow Creek,\1\ \2\ Yuba River.\1\ \2\
    (xxiv) North Fork Payette Basin: Foolhen Creek,\1\ Gold Fork 
River,\2\ Lodgepole Creek,\1\ North Fork Gold Fork River,\1\ \2\ North 
Fork Payette River,\1\ Pearsol Creek.\1\
    (xxv) Pahsimeroi Basin: Anderson Spring,\1\ Baby Creek,\1\ Bear 
Creek,\1\ Big Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Gulch,\1\ Burnt Creek,\1\ Burnt Spring 
Gulch,\1\ Christian Gulch,\1\ Dead Cat Canyon,\1\ Ditch Creek,\1\ 
Donkey Creek,\1\ Doublespring Creek,\1\ Dry Canyon,\1\ Dry Gulch,\1\ 
East Fork Burnt Creek,\1\ East Fork Morgan Creek,\1\ East Fork 
Pahsimeroi River,\1\ \2\ East Fork Patterson Creek,\1\ Elkhorn 
Creek,\1\ Ennis Gulch,\1\ Falls Creek,\1\ \2\ Goldberg Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Grouse Creek,\1\ Hillside Creek,\1\ Inyo Creek,\1\ John Short 
Springs,\1\ Lawson Creek,\1\ Long Creek,\1\ Mahogany Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Meadow Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Lawson Creek,\1\ Mill Creek,\1\ Morgan 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Morse Creek,\1\ \2\ Mulkey Gulch,\1\ North Fork Big 
Creek,\1\ \2\ North Fork Lawson Creek,\1\ North Fork Morgan Creek,\1\ 
Pahsimeroi River,\1\ \2\ Patterson Creek,\1\ \2\ Rock Creek,\1\ Rock 
Spring Canyon,\1\ Salmon River,\1\ \2\ Short Creek,\1\ Snowslide 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Big Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork Lawson Creek,\1\ 
Spring Gulch,\1\ Squaw Creek,\1\ Stinking Creek,\1\ Sulphur Creek,\1\ 
Tater Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Burnt Creek,\1\ West Fork North Fork Big 
Creek,\1\ West Fork Pahsimeroi River.\1\
    (xxvi) Payette Basin: Buck Canyon,\1\ Lava Gulch,\1\ Middle Fork 
Payette River,\2\ Poison Creek,\1\ Pole Creek,\1\ South Fork Payette 
River,\2\ Squaw Creek,\1\ \2\ Third Fork Squaw Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xxvii) Pend Oreille Basin: Pend Oreille River,\1\ South Salmo 
River,\1\ Branch North Gold Creek,\1\ Cheer Creek,\1\ Chloride 
Gulch,\1\ Dry Gulch,\1\ Dyree Creek,\1\ Flume Creek,\1\ Gold Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Granite Creek,\1\ \2\ Grouse Creek,\1\ \2\ Kick Bush Gulch,\1\ 
North Fork Clark Fork,\2\ North Fork Grouse Creek,\1\ \2\ North Gold 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Pack River,\1\ \2\ Pend Oreille River,\2\ Plank Creek,\1\ 
Priest River,\2\ Rapid Lightning Creek,\2\ South Fork Grouse Creek,\1\ 
Strong Creek,\2\ Thor Creek,\1\ Trestle Creek,\1\ \2\ West Branch Pack 
River,\1\ West Gold Creek,\1\ \2\ Wylie Creek,\1\ Zuni Creek.\1\
    (xxviii) Priest Basin: Abandon Creek,\1\ Athol Creek,\1\ Bath 
Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Bench Creek,\1\ \2\ Blacktail Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Bog Creek,\1\ Boulder Creek,\1\ \2\ Bugle Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ 
Caribou Creek,\1\ \2\ Cedar Creek,\1\ \2\ Chicopee Creek,\1\ Deadman 
Creek,\1\ East Fork Trapper Creek,\1\ East River,\2\ Fedar Creek,\1\ 
Floss Creek,\1\ Gold Creek,\2\ Granite Creek,\1\ \2\ Horton Creek,\1\ 
Hughes Fork,\1\ \2\ Indian Creek,\1\ \2\ Jackson Creek,\1\ \2\ Jost 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Kalispell Creek,\1\ \2\ Kent Creek,\1\ Keokee Creek,\1\ 
Lime Creek,\1\ \2\ Lion Creek,\1\ \2\ Lost Creek,\1\ Lucky Creek,\1\ 
Malcom Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork East River,\1\ \2\ Muskegon Creek,\2\ 
North Fork Granite Creek,\1\ North Fork Indian Creek,\1\ \2\ Packer 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Priest Lake,\1\ Priest River,\2\ Rock Creek,\1\ Ruby 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Granite Creek,\1\ South Fork Indian Creek,\1\ 
South Fork Lion Creek,\1\ Squaw Creek,\1\ Tango Creek,\1\ Tarlac 
Creek,\1\ \2\ The Thorofare,\1\ Trapper Creek,\1\ \2\ Two Mouth 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Uleda Creek,\1\ \2\ Upper Priest Lake,\1\ Upper Priest 
River,\1\ \2\ Zero Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xxix) South Fork Boise Basin: Anderson Ranch Reservoir,\2\ Badger 
Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Bear Gulch,\1\ Big Smoky Creek,\2\ Big Water 
Gulch,\2\ Boardman Creek,\1\ Burnt Log Creek,\1\ Cayuse Creek,\1\ 
Corral Creek,\1\ Cow Creek,\1\ Edna Creek,\1\ Elk Creek,\1\ Emma 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Feather River,\1\ Fern Gulch,\1\ Grape Creek,\1\ Gunsight 
Creek,\1\ Haypress Creek,\1\ Heather Creek,\1\ Helen Creek,\1\ Johnson 
Creek,\1\ Lincoln Creek,\1\ Little Cayuse Creek,\1\ Little Rattlesnake 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Skeleton Creek,\1\ Little Smoky Creek,\2\ Loggy 
Creek,\1\ Marsh Creek,\1\ Mule Creek,\1\ North Fork Ross Fork,\1\ Pinto 
Creek,\1\ Rattlesnake Creek,\1\ \2\ Regina Creek,\1\ Ross Fork,\1\ \2\ 
Russel Gulch,\1\ Salt Creek,\1\ Shake Creek,\1\ Skeleton Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Slater Creek,\1\ Smokey Dome Canyon,\1\ South Fork Boise River,\1\ \2\ 
South Fork Ross Fork,\1\ Stevens Gulch,\1\ Three Forks Creek,\1\ Tipton 
Creek,\1\ Vienna Creek,\1\ Virginia Gulch,\1\ Weeks Gulch,\1\ West Fork 
Big Smoky Creek,\1\ West Fork Salt Creek,\1\ West Fork Shake Creek,\1\ 
West Fork Skeleton Creek,\1\ Willow Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xxx) South Fork Clearwater Basin: American Creek,\1\ American 
River,\1\ \2\ Aubion Creek,\1\ Baker Gulch,\1\ Baldy Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Baston Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\2\ Beaver Creek,\2\ Big Canyon Creek,\1\ 
Big Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Blanco Creek,\1\ Boundary Creek,\1\ \2\ Box Sing 
Creek,\1\ Boyer Creek,\1\ Bridge Creek,\1\ Cartwright Creek,\1\ Cole 
Creek,\1\ Crooked River,\1\ \2\ Dawson Creek,\1\ Deer Creek,\1\ Ditch 
Creek,\1\ East Fork American River,\1\ \2\ East Fork Crooked River,\1\ 
\2\ East Fork Trail Creek,\1\ Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Fivemile Creek,\1\ 
Flint Creek,\1\ Fourmile Creek,\1\ Fox Creek,\1\ \2\ Frank Brown 
Creek,\1\ French Gulch,\1\ Galena Creek,\1\ Gilmore Creek,\1\ Gospel 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Hagen Creek,\1\ \2\ Hays Creek,\1\ Johns Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Jungle Creek,\1\ Kirks Fork American River,\1\ \2\ Leggett Creek,\1\ 
Lick Creek,\1\ Limber Luke Creek,\1\ Little Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Little 
Moose Creek,\1\ Little Siegel Creek,\1\ Loon Creek,\1\ Mackey Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Meadow Creek,\2\ Melton Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Red River,\1\ 
Mill Creek,\1\ \2\ Monroe Creek,\1\ Moores Creek,\1\ \2\ Moores Lake 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Moose Butte Creek,\1\ \2\ Morgan Creek,\1\ \2\ Mule 
Creek,\2\ Newsome Creek,\2\ Nuggett Creek,\2\ Open Creek,\1\ Otterson 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Pat Brennan Creek,\1\ Pilot Creek,\1\ Quartz Creek,\1\ 
Queen Creek,\1\ Rabbit Creek,\2\ Rainbow Gulch,\1\ Red River,\1\ \2\ 
Relief Creek,\1\ \2\ Ryan Creek,\1\ Sally Ann Creek,\2\ Sawmill 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Schooner Creek,\1\ Schwartz Creek,\2\ Sharmon Creek,\1\ 
Shissler Creek,\1\ Siegel Creek,\1\ \2\ Silver Creek,\1\ \2\ Sixmile 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Sixtysix Creek,\1\ Snoose Creek,\1\ Soda Creek,\1\ 
Sourdough Creek,\1\ South Fork Clearwater River,\2\ South Fork Gilmore 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Red River,\1\ \2\ Square Mountain Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Swale Creek,\1\ Swift Creek,\1\ Taylor Creek,\1\ Tenmile Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Trail Creek,\1\ \2\ Trapper Creek,\1\ \2\ Trout Creek,\1\ Twentymile 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Twin Lakes Creek,\1\ \2\ Umatilla Creek,\1\ West Fork 
American River,\1\ West Fork Big Elk Creek,\1\ West Fork Crooked 
River,\1\ \2\ West Fork Gospel Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Newsome 
Creek,\2\ West Fork Red River,\1\ West Fork Twentymile Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Whiskey Creek,\2\ Whitaker Creek,\1\ Williams Creek.\1\ \2\.
    (xxxi) South Fork Payette Basin: Archie Creek,\1\ Ash Creek,\1\ 
Baron Creek,\1\ Basin Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Beaver Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Benedict Creek,\1\ Big Gallagher Creek,\1\ Big Pine Creek,\1\ Big 
Spruce Creek,\1\ Birch Creek,\1\ Bitter Creek,\1\ Black Bear Creek,\1\ 
Blacks Creek,\1\ Blue Jay Creek,\1\ Bunch Creek,\1\ Burn Creek,\1\ Bush 
Creek,\1\ Calderwood

[[Page 23026]]

Creek,\1\ Camp Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ \2\ Carpenter Creek,\1\ 
Casner Creek,\1\ Castro Creek,\1\ Cat Creek,\1\ Chapman Creek,\1\ 
Charters Creek,\1\ Clear Creek,\1\ \2\ Cooley Creek,\1\ Coski Creek,\1\ 
Cup Creek,\1\ Danskin Creek,\1\ Dead Man Creek,\1\ Deadwood Jim 
Creek,\1\ Deadwood Reservoir,\1\ Deadwood River,\1\ \2\ Deer Creek,\1\ 
\2\ East Fork Big Pine Creek,\1\ East Fork Deadwood Creek,\1\ East Fork 
Eightmile Creek,\1\ East Fork Horn Creek,\1\ East Fork Warm Springs 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Eby Creek,\1\ Eightmile Creek,\1\ Elkhorn Creek,\1\ Emma 
Creek,\1\ Fall Creek,\1\ Fence Creek,\1\ Fern Creek,\1\ Fine Flat 
Creek,\1\ Fivemile Creek,\1\ Fox Creek,\1\ Garney Creek,\1\ Gates 
Creek,\1\ Goat Creek,\1\ \2\ Grandjem Creek,\1\ Grayback Creek,\1\ 
Grouse Creek,\1\ Habit Creek,\1\ Hanks Creek,\1\ Helende Creek,\1\ Hiyu 
Creek,\1\ Hole in the Wall,\1\ Horn Creek,\1\ Horse Creek,\1\ Horseshoe 
Creek,\1\ Huckleberry Creek,\1\ Jackson Creek,\1\ Josie Creek,\1\ Julie 
Creek,\1\ Kettle Creek,\1\ Kirkham Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\1\ Left Fork 
Danskin Creek,\1\ Lick Creek,\1\ Little Camp Creek,\1\ Little Fall 
Creek,\1\ Little Hole in the Wall Creek,\1\ Little Sams Creek,\1\ 
Little Tenmile Creek,\1\ Logging Gulch,\1\ Long Creek,\1\ Long 
Gulch,\1\ Lorenzo Creek,\1\ MacDonald Creek,\1\ Meadow Camp Creek,\1\ 
Meadow Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Big Pine Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Warm 
Springs Creek,\1\ \2\ Miller Creek,\1\ Monument Creek,\1\ Moulding 
Creek,\1\ Nellies Bash Creek,\1\ Nelson Creek,\1\ Ninemile Creek,\1\ No 
Man Creek,\1\ No Name Creek,\1\ North Fork Baron Creek,\1\ North Fork 
Canyon Creek,\1\ North Fork Deer Creek,\1\ \2\ North Fork Whitehawk 
Creek,\1\ O'Keefe Creek,\1\ Packsaddle Creek,\1\ \2\ Park Creek,\1\ 
Pass Creek,\1\ Pinchot Creek,\1\ Pine Creek,\1\ Pitchfork Creek,\1\ 
Pole Creek,\1\ Poorman Creek,\1\ Pungo Creek,\1\ Rae Creek,\1\ 
Reservoir Creek,\1\ Richards Creek,\1\ Road Fork Rock Creek,\1\ Rock 
Creek,\1\ Rough Creek,\1\ Sams Creek,\1\ Scott Creek,\1\ \2\ Silver 
Creek,\1\ Sixmile Creek,\1\ Slaughterhouse Creek,\1\ Slide Gulch,\1\ 
Slim Creek,\1\ Smith Creek,\1\ \2\ Smokey Creek,\1\ South Fork Beaver 
Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork Canyon Creek,\1\ South Fork Clear Creek,\1\ 
South Fork Payette River,\1\ \2\ South Fork Scott Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Warm Spring Creek,\1\ Spring Creek,\1\ Steep Creek,\1\ Stevens 
Creek,\1\ Stratton Creek,\1\ Sweet Creek,\1\ Tenlake Creek,\1\ Tenmile 
Creek,\1\ Topnotch Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ \2\ Wapiti Creek,\1\ Warm 
Spring Creek,\1\ Warm Springs Creek,\1\ \2\ Wash Creek,\1\ West Fork 
Big Pine Creek,\1\ West Fork Horn Creek,\1\ Whangdoodle Creek,\1\ 
Whiskey Creek,\1\ Whitehawk Creek,\1\ Wild Buck Creek,\1\ \2\ Wills 
Gulch,\1\ Wilson Creek,\1\ Wolf Creek.\1\
    (xxxii) South Fork Salmon Basin: Alez Creek,\1\ Back Creek,\1\ Bear 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Bishop Creek,\1\ Blackmare Creek,\1\ \2\ Blue Lake 
Creek,\1\ Buck Creek,\1\ Buckhorn Bar Creek,\1\ Buckhorn Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Burgdorf Creek,\1\ Burntlog Creek,\1\ \2\ Cabin Creek,\1\ \2\ Calf 
Creek,\1\ Camp Creek,\1\ \2\ Cane Creek,\1\ Caton Creek,\2\ Cinnabar 
Creek,\1\ Cliff Creek,\1\ Cly Creek,\1\ Cougar Creek,\1\ \2\ Cow 
Creek,\1\ Cox Creek,\1\ Curtis Creek,\2\ Deep Creek,\1\ Dollar 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Dutch Creek,\1\ East Fork South Fork Salmon River,\1\ \2\ 
East Fork Zena Creek,\1\ Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Enos Creek,\1\ Falls 
Creek,\1\ Fernan Creek,\1\ Fiddle Creek,\1\ Fitsum Creek,\1\ \2\ Flat 
Creek,\1\ Fourmile Creek,\1\ \2\ Goat Creek,\1\ Grimmet Creek,\1\ 
Grouse Creek,\1\ \2\ Halfway Creek,\1\ Hanson Creek,\1\ Hays Creek,\1\ 
Holdover Creek,\1\ Hum Creek,\1\ \2\ Indian Creek,\1\ Jeanette 
Creek,\1\ Johnson Creek,\1\ \2\ Josephine Creek,\1\ Jungle Creek,\1\ 
Knee Creek,\1\ Krassel Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\1\ \2\ Landmark Creek,\1\ 
Lick Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Buckhorn Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Indian 
Creek,\1\ Lodgepole Creek,\1\ \2\ Loon Creek,\1\ \2\ Maverick Creek,\1\ 
Meadow Creek,\1\ \2\ Middle Fork Elk Creek,\1\ Missouri Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Moose Creek,\1\ Mormon Creek,\1\ \2\ Nasty Creek,\1\ Nethker Creek,\1\ 
Nick Creek,\1\ No Mans Creek,\1\ North Fork Bear Creek,\1\ North Fork 
Buckhorn Creek,\1\ North Fork Camp Creek,\1\ North Fork Dollar 
Creek,\1\ North Fork Fitsum Creek,\2\ North Fork Lake Fork,\1\ North 
Fork Lick Creek,\1\ North Fork Riordan Creek,\1\ North Fork Six-bit 
Creek,\1\ Oompaul Creek,\1\ Paradise Creek,\1\ Park Creek,\1\ Peanut 
Creek,\1\ Pepper Creek,\1\ Phoebe Creek,\1\ Piah Creek,\1\ Pid 
Creek,\1\ Pilot Creek,\1\ Pony Creek,\2\ Porcupine Creek,\1\ Porphyry 
Creek,\2\ Prince Creek,\1\ Profile Creek,\1\ \2\ Quartz Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Reeves Creek,\1\ \2\ Rice Creek,\1\ \2\ Riordan Creek,\1\ \2\ Roaring 
Creek,\1\ Ruby Creek,\1\ Rustican Creek,\1\ Ryan Creek,\1\ Salt 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Sand Creek,\1\ \2\ Secesh River,\1\ \2\ Sheep Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Silver Creek,\1\ Sister Creek,\1\ Six-Bit Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork 
Bear Creek,\1\ South Fork Blackmare Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork Buckhorn 
Creek,\1\ \2\ South Fork Cougar Creek,\1\ South Fork Elk Creek,\1\ 
South Fork Fitsum Creek,\1\ South Fork Fourmile Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Salmon River,\1\ \2\ South Fork Threemile Creek,\1\ Split Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Steep Creek,\1\ Sugar Creek,\1\ \2\ Summit Creek,\1\ \2\ Tamarack 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Teepee Creek,\1\ Threemile Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\2\ 
Trapper Creek,\1\ \2\ Trout Creek,\1\ Tsum Creek,\1\ Two-bit Creek,\1\ 
Tyndall Creek,\1\ \2\ Vein Creek,\1\ Victor Creek,\1\ \2\ Wardenhoff 
Creek,\1\ Warm Lake,\1\ \2\ Warm Lake Creek,\1\ \2\ Warm Spring 
Creek,\1\ West Fork Buckhorn Creek,\1\ West Fork Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ West 
Fork Enos Creek,\1\ West Fork Zena Creek,\1\ Whangdoodle Creek,\1\ 
Willow Basket Creek,\1\ \2\ Willow Creek,\1\ Zena Creek.\1\ \2\
    (xxxiii) St. Joe Basin: Bacon Creek,\1\ Bad Bear Creek,\1\ Basin 
Creek,\1\ Bean Creek,1 2 Bear Creek,\1\ Beaver Creek,1 2 
Bedrock Creek,\1\ Benewah Creek,\1\ Berge Creek,\1\ Big Dick Creek,\1\ 
Bird Creek,\2\ Blue Grouse Creek,\1\ Boulder Creek,\2\ Broadaxe 
Creek,\1\ Bruin Creek,1 2 Burnt Fork,\1\ California Creek,1 2 
Cherry Creek,\2\ Clear Creek,\2\ Color Creek,\1\ Coon Creek,\1\ Copper 
Creek,\1\ Daveggio Creek,\1\ Davis Creek,\1\ Dolly Creek,\1\ Dump 
Creek,\1\ Eagle Creek,1 2 East Fork Bluff Creek,\2\ East Fork 
Emerald Creek,\1\ East Fork Gold Creek,1 2 East Fork Mica 
Creek,\1\ Emerald Creek,1 2 Engstrom Creek,\1\ Fishhook Creek,\2\ 
Flat Creek,\1\ Float Creek,\1\ Fly Creek,1 2 Fortynine Gulch,\1\ 
Fuzzy Creek,\1\ Gold Creek,1 2 Grouse Creek,\1\ Hammond Creek,\1\ 
Heller Creek,\1\ Indian Creek,\1\ Kelley Creek,\1\ Kyle Creek,\1\ Long 
Liz Creek,\1\ Malin Creek,\1\ Marble Creek,1 2 Medicine 
Creek,1 2 Mica Creek,1 2 Mill Creek,\1\ Mosquito Creek,1 
2 My Creek,\1\ North Fork Bean Creek,\1\ North Fork Eagle Creek,\1\ 
North Fork Saint Joe River,1 2 North Fork Simmons Creek,\1\ North 
Fork Tyson Creek,\1\ Nugget Creek,\1\ Packsaddle Creek,\1\ Pass 
Creek,\1\ Periwinkle Creek,\1\ Plummer Creek,\1\ Pokey Creek,\1\ Pole 
Creek,\1\ Prospector Creek,1 2 Quartz Creek,\2\ Red Cross 
Creek,\1\ Red Ives Creek,1 2 Renfro Creek,\1\ Ruby Creek,1 2 
Saint Joe River,1 2 Saint Maries River,1 2 Setzer Creek,\1\ 
Sheep Creek,\1\ Sherlock Creek,1 2 Simmons Creek,1 2 Siwash 
Creek,1 2 Skookum Creek,1 2 Soldier Creek,\1\ Squaw Creek,\1\ 
Thomas Creek,\2\ Thorn Creek,\2\ Three Lakes Creek,\1\ Timber 
Creek,1 2 Tinear Creek,\1\ Trout Creek,1 2 Tumbledown 
Creek,1 2 Tyson Creek,\1\ Wahoo Creek,\1\ Washout Creek,\1\ West 
Fork Emerald Creek,\1\ West Fork Mica Creek,\1\ Willow Creek,\1\ Wilson 
Creek,1 2 Yankee Bar Creek,\1\.
    (xxxiv) Upper Coeur D'Alene Basin: Big Hank Creek,\1\ Brett 
Creek,\1\ Brown Creek,\2\ Cinnamon Creek,\1\ Coeur d'Alene River,1 
2 Debbs Creek,\1\ Dry Creek,\1\ Fall Creek,\1\ Falls Creek,1 2 
Gold Creek,\1\ Graham Creek,\2\ Haystack Creek,\1\ Hazendorf Gulch,\1\ 
Lightner Draw,\1\ McPhee Gulch,\1\ Miners Creek,\1\ North Fork Falls 
Creek,\1\ Prado Creek,\1\ Shoshone Creek,\1\ South Fork Falls Creek,\1\ 
Spion Kop Creek,\1\ Thomas Creek,\1\ Valitons Creek,\1\.
    (xxxv) Upper Kootenai Basin: Halverson Creek,\1\ North Callahan 
Creek,1 2 South Callahan Creek,1 2 West Fork Keeler 
Creek,\1\.
    (xxxvi) Upper Middle Fork Salmon Basin: Asher Creek,\1\ Automatic 
Creek,\1\ Ayers Creek,\1\ Baldwin Creek,\1\ Banner Creek,\1\ Bear 
Creek,\1\ Bear Valley Creek,\1\ \2\ Bearskin Creek,\1\ \2\ Beaver

[[Page 23027]]

Creek,\1\ \2\ Bernard Creek,\1\ Big Chief Creek,\1\ Big Cottonwood 
Creek,\1\ Birch Creek,\1\ Blue Lake Creek,\1\ Blue Moon Creek,\1\ 
Boundary Creek,\1\ \2\ Bridge Creek,\1\ Browning Creek,\1\ Buck 
Creek,\1\ Burn Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Cache Creek,\1\ \2\ Camp 
Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ Cap Creek,\1\ Cape Horn Creek,\1\ \2\ Casner 
Creek,\1\ Castle Fork,\1\ Casto Creek,\1\ Cat Creek,\1\ Chokebore 
Creek,\1\ Chuck Creek,\1\ Cliff Creek,\1\ Cold Creek,\1\ \2\ Collie 
Creek,\1\ Colt Creek,\1\ Cook Creek,\1\ Corley Creek,\1\ Cornish 
Creek,\1\ Cottonwood Creek,\1\ Cougar Creek,\1\ Crystal Creek,\1\ Cub 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Cultus Creek,\1\ Dagger Creek,\1\ \2\ Deer Creek,\1\ Deer 
Horn Creek,\1\ Doe Creek,\1\ Dry Creek,\1\ Duffield Creek,\1\ Dynamite 
Creek,\1\ Eagle Creek,\1\ East Fork Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ East Fork Indian 
Creek,\1\ East Fork Mayfield Creek,\1\ \2\ East Fork Thomas Creek,\1\ 
Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Elkhorn Creek,\1\ Endoah Creek,\1\ Fall Creek,\1\ 
Fawn Creek,\1\ Feltham Creek,\1\ Fir Creek,\1\ \2\ Flat Creek,\1\ Float 
Creek,\1\ Foresight Creek,\1\ Forty-five Creek,\1\ Forty-four Creek,\1\ 
Fox Creek,\1\ Full Moon Creek,\1\ \2\ Fuse Creek,\1\ Grays Creek,\1\ 
Grenade Creek,\1\ Grouse Creek,\1\ Gun Creek,\1\ Half Moon Creek,\1\ 
Hogback Creek,\1\ Honeymoon Creek,\1\ \2\ Hot Creek,\1\ Ibex Creek,\1\ 
Indian Creek,\1\ \2\ Jose Creek,\1\ Kelly Creek,\1\ Kerr Creek,\1\ 
Knapp Creek,\1\ \2\ Kwiskwis Creek,\1\ Lime Creek,\1\ Lincoln Creek,\1\ 
Little Beaver Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Cottonwood Creek,\1\ Little East 
Fork Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Little Indian Creek,\1\ Little Loon Creek,\1\ 
Little Pistol Creek,\1\ \2\ Lola Creek,\1\ Loon Creek,\1\ \2\ Lucinda 
Creek,\1\ Lucky Creek,\1\ Luger Creek,\1\ Mace Creek,\1\ Mack Creek,\1\ 
Marble Creek,\1\ \2\ Marlin Creek,\1\ Marsh Creek,\1\ \2\ Mayfield 
Creek,\1\ \2\ McHoney Creek,\1\ McKee Creek,\1\ Merino Creek,\1\ Middle 
Fork Elkhorn Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Indian Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Salmon 
River,\1\ \2\ Mine Creek,\1\ Mink Creek,\1\ Moonshine Creek,\1\ Mowitch 
Creek,\1\ Muskeg Creek,\1\ Mystery Creek,\1\ Nelson Creek,\1\ New 
Creek,\1\ No Name Creek,\1\ North Fork Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ North Fork 
Elkhorn Creek,\1\ North Fork Sheep Creek,\1\ North Fork Sulphur 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Papoose Creek,\1\ Parker Creek,\1\ Patrol Creek,\1\ 
Phillips Creek,\1\ Pierson Creek,\1\ Pinyon Creek,\1\ Pioneer Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Pistol Creek,\1\ \2\ Placer Creek,\1\ Poker Creek,\1\ Pole 
Creek,\1\ \2\ Popgun Creek,\1\ Porter Creek,\1\ \2\ Prospect Creek,\1\ 
Rabbit Creek,\1\ Rams Horn Creek,\1\ Range Creek,\1\ Rapid River,\1\ 
\2\ Rat Creek,\1\ Remington Creek,\1\ Rock Creek,\1\ Rush Creek,\1\ 
Sack Creek,\1\ \2\ Safety Creek,\1\ Salt Creek,\1\ Savage Creek,\1\ 
Scratch Creek,\1\ Seafoam Creek,\1\ Shady Creek,\1\ Shake Creek,\1\ 
Sheep Creek,\1\ Sheep Trail Creek,\1\ \2\ Shell Creek,\1\ Shrapnel 
Creek,\1\ Siah Creek,\1\ Silver Creek,\1\ Slide Creek,\1\ Snowshoe 
Creek,\1\ Soldier Creek,\1\ South Fork Cottonwood Creek,\1\ South Fork 
Sheep Creek,\1\ Spike Creek,\1\ Springfield Creek,\1\ Squaw Creek,\1\ 
Sulphur Creek,\1\ \2\ Sunnyside Creek,\1\ Swamp Creek,\1\ Tennessee 
Creek,\1\ Thatcher Creek,\1\ Thicket Creek,\1\ Thirty-two Creek,\1\ 
Thomas Creek,\1\ Tomahawk Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ Trapper Creek,\1\ 
Trigger Creek,\1\ Twenty-two Creek,\1\ Vader Creek,\1\ Vanity Creek,\1\ 
Velvet Creek,\1\ Walker Creek,\1\ Wampum Creek,\1\ Warm Spring 
Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ West Fork Little Loon 
Creek,\1\ West Fork Mayfield Creek,\1\ West Fork Thomas Creek,\1\ White 
Creek,\1\ Wickiup Creek,\1\ Winchester Creek,\1\ Winnemucca Creek,\1\ 
Wyoming Creek,\1\ \2\.
    (xxxvii) Upper North Fork Basin: Adams Creek,\1\ Avalanche 
Creek,\1\ Bacon Creek,\1\ Ball Creek,\1\ Bar Creek,\1\ Barn Creek,\1\ 
Barnard Creek,1 2 Barren Creek,\1\ Bates Creek,\1\ Bear 
Creek,1 2 Beaver Dam Creek,\1\ Bedrock Creek,\1\ Bennett Creek,\1\ 
Bill Creek,\1\ Birch Creek,\1\ Bostonian Creek,\1\ Boundary Creek,\1\ 
Bradbury Creek,\1\ Burn Creek,\1\ Burst Creek,\1\ Bush Creek,\1\ Butter 
Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Camp George Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ Cave 
Creek,\1\ Cayuse Creek,1 2 Chamberlain Creek,\1\ Chateau Creek,\1\ 
Clayton Creek,\1\ Cliff Creek,\1\ Coffee Creek,\1\ Cold Springs 
Creek,1 2 Collins Creek,1 2 Colt Creek,\1\ Cool Creek,\1\ 
Copper Creek,\1\ Corral Creek,\1\ Cougar Creek,\1\ Craig Creek,\1\ 
Crater Creek,\1\ Cub Creek,1 2 Davis Creek,\2\ Dead Mule Creek,\1\ 
Deadhorse Creek,\1\ Deadwood Creek,1 2 Death Creek,\1\ Deception 
Gulch,\1\ Deer Creek,\1\ Dill Creek,\1\ Doris Creek,\1\ Drift Creek,\1\ 
Eagle Creek,\1\ Elizabeth Creek,1 2 Fall Creek,\1\ Fawn Creek,\1\ 
Field Creek,\1\ Fire Creek,\1\ Fisher Creek,\1\ Fix Creek,\1\ Flame 
Creek,\1\ Flat Creek,\1\ Fly Creek,\1\ Fourth of July Creek,1 2 
Fro Creek,\1\ Frog Creek,1 2 Frost Creek,\1\ Gilfillian Creek,\1\ 
Goose Creek,1 2 Grass Creek,\1\ Grasshopper Creek,\1\ Gravey 
Creek,1 2 Grizzly Creek,\1\ Hanson Creek,\1\ Heather Creek,\1\ 
Hemlock Creek,\1\ Henry Creek,\1\ Hidden Creek,1 2 Howard 
Creek,1 2 Independence Creek,1 2 Jackknife Creek,\1\ Jam 
Creek,\1\ Japanese Creek,\1\ Johnagan Creek,1 2 Johnny Creek,\2\ 
Junction Creek,\1\ Kelly Creek,1 2 Kid Lake Creek,1 2 Kinney 
Creek,\1\ Kodiak Creek,1 2 Lake Creek,1 2 Larch Creek,\1\ 
Larson Creek,\1\ Laundry Creek,\2\ Lightning Creek,1 2 Little 
Moose Creek,\2\ Little Washington Creek,\1\ Little Weitas Creek,1 
2 Liz Creek,1 2 Lodge Creek,\1\ Long Creek,1 2 Lookout 
Creek,\1\ Lost Pete Creek,\1\ Lower Twin Creek,\1\ Marten Creek,\2\ 
Meadow Creek,1 2 Middle Creek,1 2 Middle North Fork Kelly 
Creek,1 2 Middleton Creek,\1\ Mill Creek,\1\ Mink Creek,\1\ Mire 
Creek,\2\ Monroe Creek,1 2 Moose Creek,1 2 Morgans Gulch,\1\ 
Negro Creek,\1\ Nettle Creek,\1\ Never Creek,\1\ Niagra Gulch,\1\ North 
Fork Clearwater River,1 2 Nub Creek,\1\ Osier Creek,\2\ Otter 
Creek,\1\ Owl Creek,\1\ Pack Creek,\1\ Perry Creek,\1\ Pete Ott 
Creek,1 2 Placer Creek,\1\ Polar Creek,1 2 Pony Creek,\1\ 
Post Creek,\1\ Potato Creek,\1\ Quartz Creek,1 2 Rapid Creek,\1\ 
Raspberry Creek,\1\ Rawhide Creek,1 2 Rettig Creek,\1\ Roaring 
Creek,\1\ Rock Creek,1 2 Rock Garden Creek,\1\ Rocky Ridge 
Creek,\1\ Ruby Creek,1 2 Saddle Creek,\1\ Salix Creek,\1\ Sand 
Creek,\1\ Scofield Creek,\1\ Scurry Creek,\1\ Seat Creek,\1\ Sheep 
Creek,\1\ Short Creek,1 2 Shot Creek,\1\ Siam Creek,\1\ Silver 
Creek,1 2 Skull Creek,1 2 Slick Creek,\1\ Slide Creek,\1\ 
Smith Creek,1 2 Sneak Creek,\1\ Snow Creek,\1\ South Fork Kelly 
Creek,1 2 Sprague Creek,\1\ Spruce Creek,\1\ Spud Creek,\1\ Spy 
Creek,\1\ Squaw Creek,\1\ Stolen Creek,1 2 Stove Creek,\1\ Sugar 
Creek,\2\ Swamp Creek,\2\ Swanson Creek,\1\ Tepee Creek,\1\ Tinear 
Creek,\1\ Tinkle Creek,\1\ Toboggan Creek,1 2 Trail Creek,\1\ Trap 
Creek,\1\ Tumble Creek,\1\ Upper Twin Creek,\1\ Vanderbilt Gulch,1 
2 Wall Creek,\1\ Washington Creek,\1\ Weasel Creek,\1\ Weitas 
Creek,1 2 Williams Creek,1 2 Windy Creek,1 2 Wolf 
Creek,\1\ Yokum Creek,\1\ Young Creek.\1\
    (xxxviii) Upper Salmon Basin: Alder Creek,\1\ Alpine Creek,1 2 
Alta Creek,\1\ Alturas Lake,1 2 Alturas Lake Creek,1 2 
Anderson Creek,\1\ Aspen Creek,\1\ Basin Creek,1 2 Bayhorse 
Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ Bear Lake Creek,\1\ Beaver Creek,1 2 Big 
Boulder Creek,1 2 Block Creek,\1\ Blowfly Creek,\1\ Blue Creek,\1\ 
Boundary Creek,\1\ Bowery Creek,1 2 Broken Ridge Creek,\1\ Bruno 
Creek,\1\ Buckskin Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Camp Creek,\1\ Cash 
Creek,\1\ Challis Creek,1 2 Chamberlain Creek,\1\ Champion 
Creek,\1\ Cherry Creek,\1\ Cinnabar Creek,\1\ Cleveland Creek,\1\ Coal 
Creek,\1\ Crooked Creek,\1\ Darling Creek,\2\ Deadwood Creek,\1\ Decker 
Creek,\1\ Deer Creek,\1\ Dry Creek,\1\ Duffy Creek,\1\ East Basin 
Creek,\1\ East Fork Herd Creek,\1\ East Fork Salmon River,1 2 East 
Fork Valley Creek,\1\ East Pass Creek,1 2 Eddy Creek,\1\ Eightmile 
Creek,\1\ Elevenmile Creek,\1\ Elk Creek,\1\ Ellis Creek,1 2 Estes 
Creek,\1\ First Creek,\1\ Fisher Creek,\1\ Fishhook Creek,1 2 
Fivemile Creek,\1\ Fourth of July Creek,1 2 Frenchman Creek,1 
2 Garden Creek,\2\ Germania Creek,1 2 Goat Creek,1 2 Gold 
Creek,\1\ Gooseberry Creek,\1\ Greylock Creek,\1\ Hay Creek,\1\ Hell 
Roaring Creek,\1\ Herd Creek,1 2 Huckleberry Creek,1 2 Ibex 
Creek,\1\ Iron Creek,1 2 Job Creek,\1\ Jordan Creek,1 2 
Juliette Creek,\1\ Kelly Creek,\1\ Kinnikinic Creek,\1\ Lick Creek,\1\ 
Lightning Creek,\1\ Little Basin Creek,\1\ Little Beaver Creek,\1\ 
Little Boulder

[[Page 23028]]

Creek,1 2 Little West Fork Morgan Creek,\1\ Lodgepole Creek,\1\ 
Lone Pine Creek,\1\ Long Tom Creek,\1\ Lost Creek,\1\ MacRae Creek,\1\ 
Martin Creek,\1\ McKay Creek,1 2 Meadow Creek,\1\ Meridian 
Creek,\1\ Mill Creek,\1\ Morgan Creek,1 2 Muley Creek,\1\ Ninemile 
Creek,\1\ Noho Creek,\1\ North Fork Bowery Creek,\1\ Pack Creek,\1\ 
Park Creek,\1\ Pat Hughes Creek,\1\ Pats Creek,\1\ Perkins Lake,1 
2 Pig Creek,\1\ Pole Creek,1 2 Pork Creek,\1\ Prospect Creek,\1\ 
Rainbow Creek,\1\ Redfish Lake,1 2 Redfish Lake Creek,1 2 
Road Creek,\2\ Roaring Creek,\1\ Rough Creek,\1\ Sage Creek,\1\ 
Sagebrush Creek,\1\ Salmon River,1 2 Sawmill Creek,\1\ Second 
Creek,\1\ Sevenmile Creek,\1\ Sheep Creek,\1\ Short Creek,\1\ Sixmile 
Creek,\1\ Slate Creek,\2\ Smiley Creek,\1\ South Fork East Fork Salmon 
River,1 2 Squaw Creek,1 2 Stanley Creek,\1\ Stephens 
Creek,\1\ Summit Creek,\1\ Sunday Creek,\1\ Swimm Creek,\1\ Taylor 
Creek,\1\ Tenmile Creek,\1\ Tennel Creek,\1\ Thompson Creek,1 2 
Three Cabins Creek,\1\ Trail Creek,\1\ Trap Creek,\1\ Trealor Creek,\1\ 
Twelvemile Creek,\1\ Twin Creek,\1\ Valley Creek,1 2 Van Horn 
Creek,\1\ Vat Creek,\1\ Warm Spring Creek,\1\ Warm Springs Creek,1 
2 Washington Creek,\1\ West Beaver Creek,\1\ West Fork Creek,\1\ West 
Fork East Fork Salmon River,1 2 West Fork Herd Creek,1 2 West 
Fork Morgan Creek,1 2 West Fork Yankee Fork,1 2 West Pass 
Creek,1 2 White Valley Creek,\1\ Wickiup Creek,\1\ Williams 
Creek,\1\ Willow Creek,\1\ Yankee Fork,1 2.
    (xxxix) Upper Selway Basin: Bad Luck Creek,\1\ Baldy Creek,\1\ 
Barefoot Creek,\1\ Basin Creek,\1\ Bear Creek,\1\ \2\ Big Creek,\1\ 
Boxcar Creek,\1\ Brave Creek,\1\ Burn Creek,\1\ Burnt Knob Creek,\1\ 
Cactus Creek,\1\ Camp Creek,\1\ Canyon Creek,\1\ \2\ Cayuse Creek,\1\ 
Cedar Creek,\1\ Cliff Creek,\1\ Comb Creek,\1\ Cooper Creek,\1\ Crooked 
Creek,\1\ Cub Creek,\2\ Deep Creek,\1\ \2\ Ditch Creek,\1\ Eagle 
Creek,\2\ East Fork Magruder Creek,\1\ Eben Creek,\1\ Echo Creek,\1\ 
Elk Creek,\1\ \2\ Fall Creek,\1\ Fire Creek,\1\ Flat Creek,\1\ Fox 
Creek,\1\ French Creek,\1\ Fritz Creek,\1\ Gabe Creek,\1\ Gardner 
Creek,\1\ Goat Creek,\1\ \2\ Gold Pan Creek,\1\ Granite Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Grass Gulch,\1\ Halfway Creek,\1\ Haystack Creek,\1\ Hells Half Acre 
Creek,\1\ Indian Creek,\1\ \2\ Kim Creek,\1\ Lake Creek,\1\ Langdon 
Gulch,\1\ Lazy Creek,\1\ Line Creek,\1\ Little Clearwater River,\1\ \2\ 
Little Creek,\1\ Lodge Creek,\1\ Lonely Creek,\1\ Lonesome Creek,\1\ 
Long Prairie Creek,\1\ Lookout Creek,\1\ Lunch Creek,\1\ MacGregor 
Creek,\1\ Magruder Creek,\1\ Mist Creek,\1\ Nick Creek,\1\ North Fork 
Goat Creek,\1\ North Star Creek,\1\ Paloma Creek,\1\ Paradise Creek,\1\ 
\2\ Peach Creek,\1\ Pete Creek,\1\ Pettibone Creek,\1\ \2\ Raven 
Creek,\1\ Running Creek,\2\ Saddle Gulch,\1\ Salamander Creek,\1\ 
Schofield Creek,\1\ Scimitar Creek,\1\ Selway River,\1\ \2\ Short 
Creek,\1\ Slow Gulch Creek,\1\ Snake Creek,\1\ South Fork Goat 
Creek,\1\ South Fork Lookout Creek,\1\ South Fork Running Creek,\2\ 
South Fork Saddle Gulch,\1\ South Fork Surprise Creek,\1\ Spire 
Creek,\1\ Spruce Creek,\1\ \2\ Squaw Creek,\2\ Steep Gulch,\1\ Storm 
Creek,\1\ Stripe Creek,\1\ Surprise Creek,\1\ Swet Creek,\1\ Tepee 
Creek,\1\ Test Creek,\1\ Thirteen Creek,\1\ Three Lakes Creek,\1\ 
Throng Creek,\1\ Triple Creek,\1\ Vance Creek,\1\ Wahoo Creek,\1\ \2\ 
Wapiti Creek,\1\ Washout Creek,\1\ West Fork Crooked Creek,\1\ White 
Cap Creek,\1\ \2\ Wilkerson Creek,\1\ Witter Creek,\1\ Wynn Creek.\1\
    (xxxx) Weiser Basin: Anderson Creek,\1\ \2\ Boulder Creek,\1\ Bull 
Corral Creek,\1\ Cabin Creek,\1\ Cold Spring Creek,\1\ Dewey Creek,\1\ 
\2\ East Fork Weiser River,\1\ \2\ Fall Creek,\1\ Little Fall Creek,\1\ 
Little Weiser River,\1\ \2\ Mica Creek,\1\ Middle Fork Weiser River,\1\ 
Sheep Creek,\1\ Warm Spring Creek,\1\ Wolf Creek.\1\
    (d) Temperature Criteria for Kootenai River White Sturgeon.
    (1) The following seasonal temperature requirements and maximum and 
minimum weekly average temperature criteria apply to that part of 
PB20K, Kootenai River, from Bonners Ferry to Deep Creek; That part of 
PB 30K, Kootenai River, from Deep Creek to downstream end of Shorty's 
Island:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Minimum                   
                                              weekly      Maximum weekly
                  Date                        average         average   
                                          temperature  (  temperature  (
                                              deg.C)          deg.C)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By May 21...............................               8  ..............
up through 8 weeks post-achievement of 8                                
  deg.C temperature.....................  ..............              14
9 through 10 weeks post-achievement of 8                                
  deg.C temperature.....................  ..............              16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Temperature Criteria for Snails. (1) The waterbody segments 
identified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall not exceed a 
maximum daily average of 18 degrees C.
    (2) USB 50--Snake River--American Falls Dam to Minidoka Dam; 
USB60A--Snake River--Minidoka Dam to Heyburn/Burley Bridge; USB 70--
Snake River--Milner Dam to Buhl; USB 80--Snake River--Buhl to King 
Hill; that part of SWB 10--Snake River--from King Hill to the 
headwaters of C.J Strike Reservoir at rivermile 518.
    (f) Mixing Zones. Water quality within a mixing zone is subject to 
the narrative surface water quality criteria contained in Idaho's water 
quality standards at 16.01.02.200.01.-03.
    (g) Antidegradation Policy. (1) Outstanding Resource waters. Where 
Idaho identifies high quality waters as an outstanding national 
resource, such as waters of national and State parks and wildlife 
refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological 
significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected from 
the impacts of point and nonpoint source activities.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) Excluded Waters. Lakes, ponds, pools, streams, and springs 
outside public lands but located wholly and entirely upon a person's 
land are not protected specifically or generally for any beneficial 
use, unless such waters are designated in Idaho 16.01.02.110. through 
160., or are unclassified waters of the United States as defined at 40 
CFR 122.2.
    (i) Water Quality Standard Variances.
    (1) The Regional Administrator, EPA Region X, is authorized to 
grant variances from the water quality standards in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section where the requirements of this subsection are met. 
A water quality standard variance applies only to the permittee 
requesting the variance and only to the pollutant or pollutants 
specified in the variance; the underlying water quality standard 
otherwise remains in effect.
    (2) A water quality standard variance shall not be granted if:
    (i) Standards will be attained by implementing effluent limitations 
required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA and by the permittee 
implementing reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source 
control; or
    (ii) The variance would likely jeopardize the continued existence 
of any threatened or endangered species listed under section 4 of the 
Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction

[[Page 23029]]

or adverse modification of such species' critical habitat.
    (3) A water quality standards variance may be granted if the 
applicant demonstrates to EPA that attaining the water quality standard 
is not feasible because:
    (i) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the 
attainment of the use; or
    (ii) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or 
water levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions 
may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of 
effluent discharges without violating State water conservation 
requirements to enable uses to be met; or
    (iii) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the 
attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more 
environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or
    (iv) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications 
preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore 
the waterbody to its original condition or to operate such modification 
in a way which would result in the attainment of the use; or
    (v) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the 
waterbody, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, 
pools, riffles, and the like unrelated to water quality, preclude 
attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
    (vi) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) 
and (306) of the CWA would result in substantial and widespread 
economic and social impact.
    (4) Procedures. An applicant for a water quality standards variance 
shall submit a request to the Regional Administrator not later than the 
date the applicant applies for an NPDES permit which would implement 
the variance. The application shall include all relevant information 
showing that the requirements for a variance have been satisfied. The 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that 
the designated use is unattainable for one of the reasons specified in 
paragraph (i)(3) of this section. If the Regional Administrator 
preliminarily determines that grounds exist for granting a variance, he 
shall publish notice of the proposed variance. Notice of a final 
decision to grant a variance shall also be published. EPA will 
incorporate into the permittee's NPDES permit all conditions needed to 
implement the variance.
    (5) A variance may not exceed 5 years or the term of the NPDES 
permit, whichever is less. A variance may be renewed if the applicant 
reapplies and demonstrates that the use in question is still not 
attainable. Renewal of the variance may be denied if the applicant did 
not comply with the conditions of the original variance.

[FR Doc. 97-10723 Filed 4-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P