[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56970-57119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19096]
[[Page 56969]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 56970]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT89
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy
Plover
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the Pacific coast population of the
western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 12,145 acres (ac) (4,921 hectares (ha)) fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat is
located within 3 states, and a total of 20 counties. The county
breakdown by State is as follows: California--San Diego, Orange, Los
Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz,
San Mateo, Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte; Oregon--Curry, Coos,
Douglas, Lane, Tillamook; and Washington--Pacific, Grays Harbor.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on October 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA
95521 (telephone 707/822-7201). The final rule, economic analysis, and
supporting Geographic Information System (GIS) reports will also be
available via the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/default.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521
(telephone 707/822-7201; facsimile 707/822-8411).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection
to Species
In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology,
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs.
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to
the species most in need of protection.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 473 species or 38 percent
of the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the
Service have designated critical habitat.
We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed species through
conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the
Section 4 recovery planning process, the Section 9 protective
prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to the States, and
the Section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.
We note, however that two courts found our definition of adverse
modification to be invalid (March 15, 2001, decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service et al., F.3d 434 and the August 6, 2004, Ninth
Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service). In response to these decisions, we are
reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification in relation
to the conservation of the species.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result of
this consequence, listing petition responses, the Service's own
proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing
determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before
making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the
risks associated with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines.
This situation in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which
those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations
challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless,
is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little
additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
costs of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis
of the economic effects and the costs of requesting and responding to
public comments, and, in some cases, the costs of compliance with
National Environmental Policy Act. None of these costs result in any
benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections
of the Act enumerated earlier, and these associated costs directly
reduce the scarce funds available for direct and tangible conservation
actions.
[[Page 56971]]
Background
Background information on the Pacific coast population of the
western snowy plover (Pacific Coast WSP) can be found in our final rule
listing of the Pacific Coast WSP, published in the Federal Register
(FR) on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864), and our recent proposal of
critical habitat for this population, published on December 17, 2004
(69 FR 75608). Additional background information is also available in
our previous final designation of critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP, published on December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68508).
Previous Federal Actions
For a discussion of previous Federal actions regarding the Pacific
Coast WSP, please see our final rule listing the population, published
on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864), our recent proposal of critical habitat
for this population, published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608), and
the December 7, 1999, final rule to designate critical habitat for the
Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (64 FR 68508). The
December 7, 1999, was remanded and partially vacated by the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon on July 2, 2003, for
the Service to reconsider the designation and conduct a new analysis of
economic impacts (Coos County Board of County Commissioners et. al. v.
Department of the Interior et al., CV 02-6128, M. Hogan). The court set
a deadline of December 1, 2004, for submittal of a new proposed
critical habitat designation to the Office of the Federal Register; the
proposed rule was published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608). On
August 16, 2005, we published in the FR (70 FR 48094) a notice of
availability for the draft economic analysis associated with the
proposed rule and we reopened the comment period on the proposed rule
for 30 days. The court-established deadline for submittal of the final
designation is September 20, 2005. This final rule complies with the
September 20, 2005, deadline.
In August 2002, we received a petition to delist the Pacific Coast
WSP from the Surf Ocean Beach Commission of Lompoc, California. The
City of Morro Bay submitted largely the same petition dated May 30,
2003. On March 22, 2004, we published a notice that the petition
presented substantial information to indicate that delisting may be
warranted (69 FR 13326). We are currently conducting both a 12-month
and a 5-year status review of the population under sections 4(b)(3)(A),
4(b)(3)(B) and 4(c)(2) of the Act, in order to issue the finding
required by section 4(b)(3)(B) in response to the petitions.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP in the
proposed rule published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608). We also
contacted the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes;
scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them
to comment on the proposed rule. We received two requests for a public
hearing or ``workshop'' prior to the published deadline. Public
meetings were held in Tomales, California, and Crescent City,
California, on February 14, 2005, and March 8, 2005, respectively. The
initial comment period closed on February 15, 2005. A second comment
period for the draft Economic Analysis (DEA) was open from August 16,
2005 to September 15, 2005. All comments and new information received
during the two comment periods have been incorporated into this final
rule as appropriate.
A total of 1,055 commenters responded during the two comment
periods, including 8 Federal agencies, 4 State agencies, 17 local
agencies, 21 organizations, and 1005 individuals. Form letters
attributed the most comments on the proposed Lake Earl unit (CA 1), and
comment cards and a petition accounted for most of the comments
regarding the proposal of Dillon Beach (CA 7). Thirty-four commenters
submitted two separate sets of comments. During the comment period from
December 17, 2004, to February 15, 2005, we received 36 comments
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation and DEA:
1 from a State agency, 6 from local agencies, and 29 from organizations
and individuals.
Most comments did not support designation of critical habitat. The
vast majority of comments objected to the designation of Dillon Beach
(CA 7) and Lake Earl (CA 1). Five hundred ninety petition signatures
and form letters objected to designation of Dillon Beach (CA 7) as
critical habitat, and 117 form letters opposed designation of the Lake
Earl unit (CA 1). The petition and form letters associated with these 2
units skewed the overall support for designation; representing
approximately 67 percent of the comments received. We reviewed all
comments for substantive information and new data regarding the listed
population and its critical habitat. Comments containing substantive
information have been grouped together by issue and are addressed in
the following summary. All comments and information have been
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from at least three
knowledgeable individuals who have expertise with the species, the
geographic region where the species occurs, and/or familiarity with the
principles of conservation biology. Of the five individuals contacted,
three responded. The peer reviewers generally supported the proposal
and provided us with comments which are included in the summary below
and incorporated into the final rule, as appropriate. Unless otherwise
noted, the peer review commented on our proposed rule published
December 17, 2004. Subsequent changes to our proposal reflected in the
final rule resulting from comments received during the second comment
period did not receive peer review comment.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for the western snowy plover, and addressed them in the
following summary.
Peer Reviewer Comments
1. Comment: A peer reviewer who conducts shorebird research in
northern California through an academic institution agreed with the
general biology presented in the proposed rule; however, the reviewer
felt that describing the Pacific Coast WSP's social system as
territorial was misleading. Although true for breeding areas where the
densities of nesting plovers is high, the reviewer stated that plovers
in many parts of the Pacific Coast WSP's range do not defend a well-
defined space (i.e. territory). This point may be important when
estimating the number of individual breeders that can be supported by
an area of particular size.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer regarding the
territorial nature of the Pacific Coast WSP, and his point relative to
estimating the number of breeders capable of using a specified area.
Our estimates provided in the unit descriptions were based on the best
historical information we had from surveys conducted in the late 1970s.
It is unknown if those estimates were
[[Page 56972]]
based on an already declining population, or a population that was at
carrying capacity. In addition, changing conditions in the dynamic
habitats preferred by the Pacific Coast WSP likely affects an area's
capacity to support breeding plovers.
2. Comment: One peer reviewer is investigating the importance of
social attraction in relation to the settlement of inexperienced
Pacific Coast WSPs (i.e. first-time breeders). Preliminary data from
Coal Oil Point suggest that social factors play a role in attracting
plovers to nest in an area. If true, the management of wintering flocks
may be important relative to determining where plovers nest (e.g. Coal
Oil Point Preserve at U.C. Santa Barbara, California).
Our Response: We agree with the commenter's preliminary assessment
of the Coal Oil Point Preserve study. Our designation of critical
habitat recognizes the importance of both wintering and breeding areas.
3. Comment: Two of the peer reviewers commented on our proposal to
designate critical habitat only in areas currently occupied, or
occupied at the time of listing. Specifically, the 1993 listing was
based, in part, on the absence of breeding plovers at formerly occupied
sites, and the former critical habitat designation in 1999 made use of
former and current site (1998) occupancy. Birds absent from formerly
occupied sites may be an outcome of low population size, not
necessarily because habitat has become unsuitable at a site. The
proposed units place a higher emphasis on occupied sites than
unoccupied. As the Pacific Coast WSP recovers, it will presumably need
areas in which to expand; some of which are currently suitable, but
unoccupied.
Our Response: Although we acknowledge that unoccupied areas may be
important for the conservation of many species, the Service determined
that no unoccupied units were essential for conservation of this DPS.
4. Comment: A peer reviewer suggested that the Eel River gravel
bars below (i.e. downstream) of Fernbridge be included as designated
critical habitat due to their importance as breeding habitat both
locally, and in northern California and southern Oregon region.
Our Response: We acknowledge the importance of the lower gravel
bars on the Eel River to plover conservation in northern California;
however, our data show that the pre-listing discovery of plovers on the
Eel River system were above Fernbridge, and subsequent data from the
mid to late 1990s indicates that most plover use was also between
Fernbridge and the Van Duzen River. We also acknowledge that plover
surveys outside of the area proposed for critical habitat (CA 4D) were
inadequate during that time period. Without supporting data, we did not
propose the lower portions of the Eel River as critical habitat.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, if a State agency files comments
disagreeing with a proposed regulation, and the Service issues a final
regulation in conflict with the State's comments, or fails to adopt a
regulation petitioned by a State agency, the Secretary shall submit to
the State agency a written justification for her failure to adopt
regulation consistent with the agency's comments or petition. Comments
received from States regarding the proposal to designate critical
habitat for the western snowy plover are addressed below.
5. State Comment: The California Department of Boating and
Waterways commented that designation of critical habitat at Dillon
Beach would restrict and prohibit boat launching along the beach and at
the Lawson's Landing facility, resulting in a significant fiscal
impact.
Our Response: Critical habitat has been designated at the proposed
location since 1999 (64 FR 68508). The draft economic analysis for the
proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR 48094) differs from the State's
assessment, and concludes there is no significant economic impact at
the proposed Dillon Beach unit. However, this unit was excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
6. State Comment: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
supports the proposed designations in occupied units with the exception
of unit boundaries for OR 8A and OR 10A. The State would like those
unit boundaries to more closely coincide with the State's draft HCP.
Additionally, ODFW proposes designation of Bayocean and Clatsop River
Spit as critical habitat.
Our Response: Where possible, unit boundaries have been adjusted to
conform more closely to the management boundaries presented in the
State's draft HCP. Bayocean Spit (OR 3) is designated as critical
habitat. We believe that ODFW was referring to the Columbia River Spit
regarding their comment on the Clatsop River Spit because of the
underlying federal ownership at that location. We are not designating
the Columbia River Spit (subunit OR 1A in the proposed rule) because it
was determined not to be essential to the conservation of the species.
7. State Comment: The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department also
generally supported designation of the proposed units; however,
believes that only the occupied units should be designated to conform
to the State's HCP effort.
Our Response: We have made adjustments to our occupied proposed
units to have them more closely aligned with the State's HCP effort.
Comments Related to Previous Federal Actions, the Act, and Implementing
Regulations
8. Comment: Several commenters noted that the Service has pending
action on the 12-month finding for a petition to delist the Pacific
Coast WSP as a threatened species.
Our Response: We are currently in the process of completing our
status review for this species. The court's deadline for completing
this designation does not permit us to take into account whatever
actions, if any, might ultimately result from our status review. If we
conclude that the species remains in need of the protections of the
Act, the critical habitat designated here will remain in place. If we
determine that the species is not in need of the protection of the Act,
and ultimately remove it from the list, then this critical habitat
designation would be vacated.
9. Comment: Several commenters indicated that the Service was
violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not preparing
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement on the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP.
Our Response: It is our position that we do not need to comply with
NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act
outside the jurisdictional areas of the Tenth Circuit Court. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)).
10. Comment: A commenter stated that the Service's contention that
several areas could be excluded because ``existing management is
sufficient to conserve the species'' is incorrect. They state that
areas where management activities are being implemented to conserve the
plover by definition ``require special management
[[Page 56973]]
considerations or protection.'' Otherwise, management activities would
not have been implemented (e.g., Center for Biological Diversity v.
Norton, 240 F. Supp 2d 1090 (D. Az. 2003)). They also state that
excluding areas under section 4(b)(2) based on the Service's conclusion
that the benefits of designating any area as critical habitat is
insignificant, is also incorrect. They maintain that critical habitat
designation can provide significant protection to a species' habitat,
particularly as that habitat pertains to recovery (as opposed to mere
survival) (see Natural Resources Defense Council v. Department of
Interior, 113 F. 3d 1121, 1125-1127 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation
Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1285-1286 (D. Ha.
1998)).
Our Response: Rationale for any exemptions and exclusions of
particular areas have been included in this document. We believe that
the commenter has oversimplified the process by which lands are
determined to be included, exempted, or excluded from a critical
habitat determination. It is incorrect to state that the Service views
the all benefits of designating critical habitat in any particular area
as insignificant. Our analyses under section 4(b)(2) of the Act weigh
the benefits of exclusion against the benefits of inclusion and
determine within any particular area whether it is appropriate to
exclude.
11. Comment: A commenter disagreed with the statement in the
proposed rule, that ``In 30 years of implementing the Act the Service
has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides
little additional protection to most listed species * * *'' The
commenter stated that the proposal includes absolutely no evidence to
bolster these assertions, which are inconsistent with recent,
controlling judicial decisions, congressional intent, and sound
science. They asserted that the fact that the Service's critical
habitat decisions are driven by lawsuits and court-ordered deadlines is
irrelevant to the Service's mandatory obligation to designate critical
habitat for the plover and other listed species. They also assert that
the Service's budget requests typically fall short of the amount of
money necessary to address the backlog of listing and critical habitat,
and that limited resources should not be used as an excuse for not
designating critical habitat.
Our Response: Comment noted. As discussed in the sections
``Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection
to Species,'' ``Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of
Administering and Implementing the Act,'' and ``Procedural and Resource
Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat'' and other sections of
this and other critical habitat designations, we believe that, in most
cases, conservation mechanisms provided through section 7
consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the
States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative
programs with private and public landholders and tribal nations provide
greater incentives and conservation benefits than does the designation
of critical habitat.
12. Comment: A commenter stated that the Service improperly
excluded habitat areas that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that were included in the 1999 designation because they did
not qualify based on either the criteria for breeding sites or the
criteria for wintering sites. The Service failed to provide an adequate
explanation of these criteria or any justification for the application
of the criteria. Any areas included in the 1999 designation that are
not included in the proposed designation must be identified and the
reasons for the reversal must be explained. They state that an agency
changing a prior decision must apply a reasoned analysis.
Our Response: The Service in issuing this new designation of
critical habitat for the West Coast WSP conducted a new evaluation in
order to determine what habitat features are essential. Further, new
information has become available since the previous designation of
critical habitat. We do not believe it is necessary to identify all
changes from the previous CH designation; this new designation
supercedes the previous designation. We also believe that a reasoned
analysis is provided to justify the final designation of critical
habitat for this population.
Comments Related to Site-Specific Areas and Unoccupied Areas Identified
for Possible Inclusion
13. Comment: One commenter stated that the Service's assertion that
human activity is the primary threat to plovers is erroneous as animal
predators are more responsible for plover kills. The commenter opines
that the Service should focus its efforts on predator controls over
global land use and development restrictions. Another commenter states
that human activity reduces the adverse effects of predators and
increases the plover's success.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that predators may
directly kill and injure more plovers than humans do. However, we don't
agree that human activity in an area reduces the adverse effects of
predators on plovers. Red foxes, crows, and ravens all may be equally
or more effective at preying upon plovers in areas which are subject to
human activity; plovers in contact with humans are probably more likely
to be flushed from their nests and subject to subsequent predation. We
do agree that a reduction of predation is beneficial to plovers; nest
exclosures, predator-proof trash receptacles, and both lethal and non-
lethal control of predators have been successful in reducing the
impacts of predators on plover reproduction and survival. We believe
that effective conservation measures for enhancing reproduction and
survival can include a combination of actions to reduce both predator
and human effects, depending upon the specific threats which need to be
addressed.
14. Comment: Two commenters recommended that Clatsop Spit (OR-1) be
considered occupied because the Necanicum River Spit (OR-1B) had
confirmed breeding plovers in 2000 and 2002.
Our Response: Our definition of occupancy required that the unit be
occupied by snowy plovers at the time of listing. The definition of
critical habitat in the ESA refers to habitat occupied at the time of
listing, and Congress has established different criteria for
designating habitat not occupied at the time of listing. Monitoring
data from 1991 to 1995 indicate that the area in question was likely
unoccupied in 1993 at the time of the plover's listing. Consequently,
critical habitat units that were unoccupied during that period, but
later occupied, were considered unoccupied for the purposes of this
designation. The units described above were not designated as critical
habitat because they were not found to be essential to the conservation
of the species.
15. Comment: One commenter believed that Sand Lake North (OR-5A)
should not be included in the critical habitat designation because it
was viewed as having little recovery benefit in the draft Oregon coast-
wide Habitat Conservation Plan (DHCP) process.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter. Sand Lake North (OR-5A)
has not been designated as critical habitat.
16. Comment: Three commenters recommended adjusting the northern
boundary of the Siltcoos River Spit unit (OR-8A) to correspond with the
edge of the dry sand nesting season restriction that is approximately
0.6 mile (0.96 kilometer) north of the Siltcoos River
[[Page 56974]]
mouth. A separate commenter noted that the ``breach'' just north of the
Siltcoos River is a winter site that warrants special management
consideration.
Our Response: We agree with the commenters, and have adjusted the
northern boundary of the critical habitat unit to correspond with the
2005 snowy plover management area.
17. Comment: One commenter suggested adjusting the southern
boundary of the Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit (OR-8B) critical
habitat unit to match the off-highway vehicle closure boundary.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter and have made this
adjustment.
18. Comment: One commenter recommended that Tenmile Creek Spit (OR-
8D) be reduced in size to no more than 100 feet north and 100 feet
south of Tenmile Creek to maintain the current population and no more
than 100 yards north and south to accommodate recovery.
Our Response: We did not modify the critical habitat designation.
Reducing the size of this critical habitat unit would reduce
protections afforded by the designation to highly mobile chicks during
the rearing period, and to nesting and wintering adults.
19. Comment: Two commenters suggested the southern boundary of Coos
Bay North Spit (OR-9) be moved from \1/3\ to \1/2\ mile north of the
jetty because western snowy plovers do not nest on the beach in that
area. Another commenter recommended that we move the northern boundary
of OR-9 about \1/4\ mile south of the New Carrissa because western
snowy plovers do not nest on the beach in that area.
Our Response: We did not make the requested adjustment. Reducing
the size of this critical habitat unit would reduce protections
afforded by the designation to highly mobile chicks during the rearing
period, and to nesting and wintering adults.
20. Comment: Two commenters wanted to exclude the sand road behind
the foredune in OR-9 as this is used for recreation and access by Corps
of Engineers.
Our Response: The foredune road at Coos Bay North Spit (OR-9)
currently bisects a large habitat restoration (HRA) area that is
managed and maintained as a breeding area. The management of the site
includes closing the foredune road from 15 March to 15 September each
year to reduce human disturbance and to facilitate brood movement from
the HRA to the beach. Two alternate routes are available to access the
north jetty, both of which avoid the HRA. These alternate routes are
suitable to accommodate routine use. Consequently, we did not modify
the designation in response to the commenters' suggestion.
21. Comment: Three commenters suggested moving the southern
boundary of Bandon to Floras Lake unit (OR-10A) about 0.6 miles north
since the area immediately west of Floras Lake is managed cooperatively
with Curry County. Another commenter wanted to reduce the size of OR-
10A to just those sites actually used by breeding snowy plovers with no
more than a 100-yard buffer to the north and south of those sites.
Our Response: We did not make the requested adjustments. Reducing
the size of the critical habitat unit reduces protections afforded by
the designation to highly mobile chicks during the rearing period, and
to nesting and wintering adults as the Pacific Coast WSP expands with
recovery.
22. Comment: Many commenters (including a number of form letters)
suggested removing the proposed Lake Earl unit (CA 1) from the final
designation, while other commenters suggested eliminating the northern
part, or the entire unit due to economic reasons, its narrowness, steep
slope, and unsuitability resulting from dense European beachgrass.
Commenters also questioned the value of designating critical habitat at
the Lake Earl lagoon, stating that the Service has failed to show that
nesting ever occurred at the unit's location.
Our Response: We agree with those commenters that provided
information regarding the unsuitability of the narrow, northern portion
of the proposed Lake Earl unit. The boundaries of the Lake Earl unit
have been adjusted to remove the narrow, unsuitable portion to the
north. The unit has been expanded to the State Park boundary to the
south, resulting in an overall reduction in the unit's size. However,
we believe that the remainder of the unit is important geographically
to other essential habitat areas for the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP. Lake Earl was designated as critical habitat because of its
importance as a wintering area and its potential to support significant
breeding populations. Plovers have been observed in the Lake Earl
lagoon system during the breeding season in 1991 (PRBO, unpublished
data) and nesting at Lake Talawa in 1997 (Page et al. 1981). We believe
the economic impact presented by commenters is overstated because the
current importance of the unit to plovers is based primarily on its
utility as wintering habitat. Impacts to OHV and other recreational
uses are minimal because much of the revised unit is difficult to
access in winter due to the open breach of the Lake Earl lagoon.
23. Comment: One commenter states that the Arcata Fish and Wildlife
Office has failed to meet with the representatives and citizens of Del
Norte County to discuss how critical habitat designation may restrict
recreational use, reduce land values, and effect the breaching of
lakes.
Our Response: Staff from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
provided a presentation on the proposed critical habitat and answered
questions at a Del Norte County Board of Supervisors (Board) meeting on
March 8, 2005. The Arcata office held an additional public meeting in
the Board's chambers on June 9, 2005, to discuss issues with the public
regarding critical habitat designation. At both meetings, staff stated
that restrictions applied to recreation and other uses within suitable
plover habitat are dependant on the managing entity's actions, and are
usually implemented in an effort to avoid take of a listed species
rather than as a result of critical habitat designation. Service staff
also stated that they are not qualified to make economic determinations
regarding land values, and advised the Board and meeting participants
to review the economic analysis when it became available. Service staff
also discussed their January 05, 2005 biological/conference opinion for
the 10-year Permit to breach the Lake Earl sandbar. In that biological
opinion, no restrictions were imposed as a result of the proposal to
designate critical habitat at the breach site (Section 7 consultation
8-14-05-2577).
24. Comment: A few commenters believed that the Clam Beach/Little
River subunit should not be designated as critical habitat because of
impacts to recreational uses and the resultant impacts to the local
economy. One commenter mentioned that he had in his possession an
informal survey support the impacts attributed to plover management
activities.
Our Response: The draft Economic Analysis does not attribute a
significant fiscal impact to designating critical habitat at the Clam
Beach/Little River subunit (CA 3A). Additionally, the Humboldt County
Public Works Department has stated that visitation is increasing at
Clam Beach County Park (within subunit CA 3A), further indicating that
visitor use is not significantly affected by plover management or
potential critical habitat designation.
[[Page 56975]]
25. Comment: Many people (including signers of several petitions
and form letters) commented on the proposed Dillon Beach (CA 7) unit.
Overall, six supported designation of the unit; 14 did not state their
position but requested information or public hearings, or suggested
foci for the economic assessment; and the rest were opposed to the
designation. Of those opposed, all but three indicated concern over
loss of access to the beach. Other concerns raised included potential
negative impacts to small businesses and local property values due to
loss of beach access (94 commenters); and a perception that the
proposed unit is not important to WSP conservation since snowy plovers
do not nest there (458 commenters). People also disputed the
conservation importance of the site, claiming that some other site
would be better (39 commenters), and that the plovers are doing well
enough at Dillon Beach to make critical habitat designation unnecessary
(39 commenters). Four commenters pointed out that the identification of
humans and pets as potential threats in the unit description implies an
intent to restrict access by humans and pets. One hundred eight
commenters requested a public workshop or hearing. Additional points
raised included a concern that designation would influence state or
local agencies to restrict recreational activities or land-use permits
in the area. One commenter also argued that since plovers from outside
the listed coastal population over winter on California beaches, there
is no way to know whether those at Dillon Beach are from the listed or
unlisted population.
Our Response: This unit was excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, primarily based upon the
landowner's willingness to enter a partnership ensure conservation (see
section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). We identified the Dillon
Beach site as essential to the conservation of the species because it
has the essential habitat features, and because surveys have found
higher populations of wintering plovers there than any other coastal
site north of San Francisco (Page in litt. 2003). Adult over wintering
survival is essential to the recovery of the population (Nur et al
1999). The surveys have also consistently noted numerous plovers banded
as chicks at other coastal beaches, indicating that all or a
substantial portion of plovers at the site are from the listed
population (Watkins, in litt. 2005). In response to the requests for a
public workshop or hearing, we hosted a well-attended public workshop
in the area on February 14th, 2005, where these points were explained.
26. Comment: Several people commented on the units proposed for
Sonoma, Marin and San Francisco Counties. One comment was on behalf of
the Pt. Reyes National Seashore in support of the designation. Another
was written at the public workshop held for Dillon Beach, and was
generally supportive. A third letter provided information regarding
pets at Limantour Spit (CA 9) but was otherwise neutral. The final two
letters were neutral but encouraged us to include additional areas;
specifically Ocean Beach, San Francisco County, and Salmon Creek and
Doran Spit, Sonoma County.
Our Response: We appreciate the information and support provided,
and support the habitat restoration measures outlined by the Pt. Reyes
National Seashore. We have decided not to include the suggested
additional areas because they do not meet our three criteria from the
Methods section: They do not support either sizeable nesting
populations or wintering populations, nor do they provide unique
habitat or facilitate genetic exchange between otherwise widely
separated units. Although we do not consider these areas essential for
recovery, we do consider them important, and will continue to review
projects in these areas that might affect WSP as required by sections 7
and 10 of the Act.
27. Comment: One commenter requested the Service exclude, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, certain lands within the Oceano Dunes State
Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA), from the designation of critical
habitat for the western snowy plover for economic and other reasons.
The commenter suggested that because no direct public access exists
from the south, the structure of the park requires vehicles to drive
along the shoreline, through areas proposed for critical habitat, to
access areas of the dunes used by off-road vehicles.
Our Response: In the final rule, we have removed the heavily
disturbed open riding area of the ODSVRA from the entrance of the park
and extending to the southern exclosure. The remainder of this unit was
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act based upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application
of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act).
28. Comment: The same commenter stated that economic costs of
inclusion (at ODSVRA) are great.
Our Response: This unit was excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high
economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
29. Comment: The same commenter pointed out that conservation
measures have been implemented at ODSVRA that have resulted in an
increase in the number of nesting western snowy plovers, as well as an
increase in their fledge rate, at this site.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that conservation
measures implemented at ODSVRA have been very effective, resulting in
increased numbers of nesting western snowy plovers. Consequently,
during the 2004 nesting season, ODSVRA supported approximately 4.6
percent of the coastal population of western snowy plovers. Of the 147
nests located at this site in 2004, 95 percent were found within the
areas managed for western snowy plovers (State Parks 2004).
30. Comment: The same commenter stated that State Parks is
currently preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the San Luis
Obispo Coast District including the ODSVRA.
Our Response: We are aware that State Parks is preparing a draft
HCP for this area. It is not our policy to exclude areas from critical
habitat based upon management plans which have not yet been made
available for our review. However, this unit was excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its
high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
31. Comment: Two commenters requested exclusion of three parcels
(identified as the McDonald site (16.2 acres), the Sterling site
(approximately 7 acres), and the Lonestar site (39 acres)) along the
coastline of Sand City from critical habitat for the western snowy
plover, stating that a 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (1996 MOU)
between the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Monterey
Peninsula Regional Parks District, City of Sand City, and Sand City
Redevelopment Agency established a plan that ``* * * would actively
manage (western snowy plover)/human interaction, thus maximizing the
likelihood of (western snowy plover) recovery * * *.''
Our Response: We have reviewed the 1996 MOU. At no point does it
mention
[[Page 56976]]
western snowy plovers or their management. It does state that the
signatories ``desire'' to ``(s)upport efforts to restore sand dunes and
associated dune vegetation and habitat'' and ``(c)reate and preserve a
north/south habitat corridor for endangered and threatened species''.
However, the 1996 MOU does not outline any specific actions to meet the
habitat needs of western snowy. However, this unit was excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based
upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
32. Comment: Two commenters requested exclusion of three parcels
(as described above) along the coastline of Sand City from critical
habitat for the western snowy plover, stating that a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) being developed for the area is likely to
assist in the recovery of the species and that designation of critical
habitat within the subject parcels could disrupt the HCP planning
process.
Our Response: We are available to assist non-federal landowners in
development of HCPs that address listed species, including the western
snowy plover. However, the ongoing development of a draft habitat
conservation plan does not assure that the plan will be adequate or
implemented. This unit was excluded from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high economic costs
(see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
33. Comment: A commenter requested exclusion of three parcels (as
described above) along the coastline of Sand City from critical habitat
for the western snowy plover, stating that there would be little
benefit to designating critical habitat within the subject parcels
(largely because the commenter believes that there would be no
consultation under section 7 of the Act for activities within those
parcels).
Our Response: This unit was excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high
economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). The primary
benefit of any critical habitat with regard to activities that require
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act is to ensure that the
activities will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat. We believe that the commenter's conclusion that activities
within the subject parcels would not require section 7 consultation(s)
is premature. At a minimum, the Service would be required to conduct an
internal section 7 consultation before any incidental take permit could
be issued through the HCP process. Any other action authorized, funded,
or carried out by a Federal agency that may affect a listed species
would also require section 7 consultation.
34. Comment: A commenter requested exclusion of three parcels along
the coastline of Sand City (as described above) from critical habitat
for the western snowy plover, stating that designation of critical
habitat within the subject parcels would have adverse economic effects
on the City of Sand City by preventing future development activities
within the subject parcels.
Our Response: This unit was excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high
economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
35. Comment: A commenter requested exclusion of three parcels (as
described above) along the coastline of Sand City from critical habitat
for the western snowy plover, stating that because the subject parcels
account for only approximately 20 percent of the Sand City coastline
and represent marginal habitat, that their development would not impede
recovery of the species.
Our Response: The majority of documented western snowy plover nests
along the Sand City coastline have occurred within the three subject
parcels (Noda in litt. 2003). In addition to breeding habitat, Sand
City beaches have provided habitat for wintering western snowy plovers
(Noda in litt. 2003). However, this unit was excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its
high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
36. Comment: One commenter requested the Service minimize the areas
of the Nipomo Dunes and Morro Bay designated as critical habitat for
the ``coastal plover''.
Our Response: This unit was excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high
economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
37. Comment: One commenter suggested that two beaches in Santa
Barbara County (East Beach and the breakwater Sand Spit in Santa
Barbara Harbor) should be included in the final rule. The commenter
also stated that these two sites were included in the 1999 final rule,
but were excluded in our proposed rule without explanation. The
exclusion of these two beaches without proper documentation and
analysis is unsupported.
Our Response: Our current designation of critical habitat is
different from the 1999 rule in two primary ways. In this designation,
we utilized a different methodology for determining essential areas,
and we relied upon additional scientific information which was not
available in 1999. Thus, this rule, while similar in many respects to
that in 1999, is a new designation, and does not designate the same
areas.
38. Comment: Several commenters noted a discrepancy between the
description of subunit CA 19A and the map for this subunit. The subunit
is described as extending 6.1 mi (9.8 km) along the coast from the
north jetty of the Channel Islands harbor. However the map of this
subunit (Map 54) depicts it as starting about 1 mile north of the
jetty. The commenters noted that the area immediately north of the
jetty is known as Hollywood Beach and is an ``active critical habitat
area of the western snowy plover.''
Our Response: Although the description of subunit CA 19A in the
proposed rule included the Hollywood Beach area, an error was made
during the preparation of the maps and Hollywood Beach was
inadvertently not shown. We have now corrected that error, and
Hollywood Beach is included in this final designation for the plover.
39. Comment: A commenter pointed out that, although the 2004
proposed rule states that all 61 ac proposed for designation at unit CA
13 (Pt. Sur Beach) are privately owned, a portion of the 61 ac is
actually state lands. If the intent of the critical habitat designation
is only to include private lands, then the commenter objects because
the habitat features essential for the conservation of the plover are
equally present in both the public and private portions of the unit and
both public and private lands should be included.
Our Response: A table in the proposed rule (69 FR 75608)
erroneously listed unit CA 13 as being private land. In actuality, unit
CA 13 is entirely made up of State-owned land as stated in the text
description for the unit.
[[Page 56977]]
40. Comment: A commenter stated that one of the functions of the
jetty at the south end of subunit CA 19A is to act as a sand trap.
Every 2 years they are required to dredge sand from this location and
transport it farther south along to coast where there is erosion
occurring. The commenter further noted that the biannual dredging has
been ongoing for 40 years, and that the discontinuation of dredging
could result in the creation of extremely hazardous conditions to
vessels in the area. The commenter urged the Service to remove this
sand trap area from the designation.
Our Response: Hollywood Beach, the area north of the jetty to which
the commenter is referring is both a nesting and a wintering area for
snowy plovers and has been determined to contain features essential to
the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have included it in this
final designation. We also point out that the designation of critical
habitat does not prevent the sand dredging from occurring. If the
action is permitted or authorized by a Federal agency, the Service
would likely be involved with or without the critical habitat
designation through a section 7 consultation with the Federal agency.
We will continue to work with dredging operators to ensure endangered
species conservation is made compatible with the safety of all vessels.
41. Comment: A commenter requested that two areas within or near
the city of Morro Bay not be included in the designation. The commenter
characterized the area south of Highway 41/Atascadero Road to Morro Bay
Rock in subunit CA 15B as being heavily used for recreation and
including parking lots, restrooms, lifeguard towers. The commenter also
stated that we were in error when we said that subunit 15B is near the
city of Morro Bay and is managed entirely by the California Department
of Parks and Recreation. The area south of Atascadero Road is within
the city limits and is owned and managed by the city. Similarly, the
commenter stated we were in error when we said that the area south of
Atascadero Road is an important breeding area supporting up to 40 nests
each year when in fact there has never been any documentation of
nesting or breeding in this area.
The second area the commenter requested not be included in subunit
CA 15B extends north from Azure Street to the north end of the subunit.
The commenter characterizes this area as being heavily populated with
hundreds of homes and a State campground with thousands of visitors per
year. The commenter further noted that few nests have been observed in
this area and only in some years does nesting occur at all in the area.
Our Response: When we stated in the proposed rule (69 FR 75608)
that subunit 15B was an important breeding area supporting up to 40
nests each year, we were discussing the entire subunit, not just the
area south of Atascadero Road. However, as no nests have been
documented for the area south of Atascadero Road and this area is
highly disturbed, we have removed it from the designation as not being
essential to the conservation of the plover. The remainder of this
subunit was excluded from critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high economic costs (see section
titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
42. Comment: A commenter requested that Hueneme Beach Park in
subunit CA 19B not be included in the designation. The commenter
characterized the park as a highly disturbed and heavily used
recreational resource that is not appropriate for critical habitat. The
park includes a fishing pier, picnic tables, barbeques, restaurant,
parking lots, dog walk, and volleyball courts, and is also the location
of biennial sand replenishment activities.
Our Response: Based on the information provided by the commenter
and because there are no nesting plovers in the area, we have removed
Hueneme Beach Park from subunit CA 19B because it is highly disturbed
and not essential to the conservation of the western snowy plover.
However, the remainder of subunit CA 19B has been designated as
critical habitat.
43. Comment: A commenter requested that the Santa Barbara Harbor
from Pt. Castillo to Salinas Creek and including the sand spit at the
end of the breakwater be included in the critical habitat designation
as it was in 1999.
Our Response: Although the area to which the commenter is referring
was included in the 1999 designation (64 FR 68508) as CA-14 unit 2--
Point Castillo/Santa Barbara Harbor Beach, we used a different
methodology and set of criteria to determine critical habitat in the
2004 proposal (69 FR 75608). The Point Castillo/Santa Barbara Harbor
Beach area was not included in the 2004 proposal because it did not
meet the criteria for critical habitat established for the designation.
44. Comment: A commenter believes that the expansion of critical
habitat in CA-18, Devereux Beach would be an ineffective form of
conservation for the plover. As stated in the proposed designation (69
FR 75608), ``In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found
that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little
additional protection to most listed species, while consuming
significant amounts of available conservation resources.'' Furthermore,
research conducted by Lafferty (2001) at Coal Oil Point indicates that
expansion of the fenced area on the beach did not provide comparable
gains in plover protection.
Our Response: This unit does not represent an expansion. This area
was included in the original 1999 critical habitat designation for the
plover (64 FR 68508) as CA-14, unit 1--Devereux Beach. In the original
designation, the unit contained approximately 57 ac, while in the 2004
proposed rule, the unit is only 36 ac. The referenced fenced area is
for the protection of nesting plovers. However, nesting plovers may
forage over the entire beach and plovers also winter over the entire
beach. Therefore, we have designated Devereux Beach as critical habitat
for the plover, not just the area that is fenced to protect nesting
plovers.
45. Comment: Another commenter noted that the California Coastal
Commission has banned dogs from Devereux Beach (unit CA 18) where
critical habitat has been designated and that the area designated at
Devereux Beach should be reduced.
Our Response: Devereux Beach is both a plover breeding area and a
wintering area, with as many as 360 wintering birds. Unit CA 18 also
contains the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Therefore, we have designated 36 ac in
this area as critical habitat for the plover, which is reduced from the
approximately 57 ac designated in this area in 1999 (64 FR 68508).
46. Comment: Los Padres National Forest concurred with the decision
of the Service not to include in the critical habitat designation
location CA-69 (San Carpoforo Beach) from the draft recovery plan for
the western snowy plover. San Carpoforo Beach is a very small beach
that is occupied mainly by a few (about 35) wintering plovers.
Our Response: We concur. San Carpoforo Beach was not included in
the critical habitat designation because it did not meet the criteria
we set forth in this final designation.
47. Comment: One commenter applauded the Service for designating
critical habitat for the plover in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura Counties, but also stated that all areas occupied by plovers
should be designated.
[[Page 56978]]
Our Response: The Act states, at section 3(5)(C), that except in
particular circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat
shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by
the threatened or endangered species. We have designated habitat that
contain sufficient features essential for the conservation of the
species.
48. Comment: One commenter asked that Morro Bay's sandspit and
beach [CA 15C] not be designated.
Our Response: This subunit was excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high
economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
49. Comment: One commenter believed that San Buenaventura Beach
should be included as it was in the 1999 designation.
Our Response: Although the area to which the commenter is referring
was included in the 1999 designation, we used a different methodology
and set of criteria to determine critical habitat in the 2004 proposal
(69 FR 75608). The San Buenaventura Beach area was not included because
it did not meet the criteria for critical habitat established for the
designation.
50. Comment: Two commenters stated that, since the criteria used to
determine critical habitat for the western snowy plover are improper,
those areas in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties
that were included in the 1999 designation but excluded in the 2004
proposal (Arroyo Hondo, Arroyo Laguna, Torro Creek, Jalama, Point
Castillo/Santa Barbara Harbor, Carpinteria Beach, and San Buenaventura)
should be included as critical habitat. These beaches should be
included in the final designation as they are utilized by the species
for wintering, they contain the identified primary constituent elements
that may require special management, and the sites are essential to the
survival and recovery of the plover.
Our Response: Although the areas to which the commenters are
referring were included in the 1999 designation, we used a different
methodology and set of criteria to determine critical habitat in the
2004 proposal (69 FR 75608). These areas were not included in the 2004
proposal because they did not meet the criteria for critical habitat
established for the designation.
51. Comment: A commenter stated that the Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes
National Wildlife Refuge should be included in the final designation
and that the Service's exclusion of this area because it is subject to
a ``plover management plan'' that has undergone section 7 review was
improper. No information was provided on the management plan to
determine whether or not the plan provides a conservation benefit or
otherwise meets the Service's criteria for adequate plans. In addition,
the fact that the plan has undergone section 7 consultation does not
demonstrate that the plan provides any benefits for the plover. The
Service also failed to adequately balance the benefits of inclusion vs.
the benefits of inclusion for the area when it was excluded.
Our Response: We have now included more detailed information on the
Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge plover management plan
in this final rule. The refuges meet our criteria for management plans.
See the Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below for a detailed discussion of
our exclusion of this refuge.
52. Comment: One commenter noted two areas in Orange County that
were not proposed for critical habitat but are used by wintering
plovers and constitute high quality habitat. One area is Surfside Beach
in northern Orange County and the other is Newport Beach between Balboa
Pier and the entrance to Newport Bay.
Our Response: Snowy Plovers were not discovered using these sites
until the fall of 2004. We recognize that both locations support high
quality habitat with large concentrations of snowy plovers, and have
the potential to support breeding birds. However, the Service did not
determine these areas to be essential to the conservation of the DPS
and they were not designated as critical habitat. We are working with
local jurisdictions and managers to reduce the threats to snowy plovers
at these sites.
53. Comment: Two commenters stated that the Subunit CA 21D, Hermosa
State Beach, is located in a heavily populated urban environment and
should not be considered critical habitat. They also expressed concern
over future restrictions on beach use.
Our Response: Hermosa Beach annually supports a relatively large
wintering flock of snowy plovers (69 FR 75627). This flock persists
despite the heavy recreational use of the beach area. Nearly all
beaches in southern California are subject to heavy recreational use.
To restrict snowy plovers to beaches without heavy recreational use
would limit the plovers to few if any beaches in southern California.
54. Comment: Some commenters questioned the value of designating
critical habitat at the Lake Earl lagoon (CA 1), and state that the
Service failed to show that nesting ever occurred at the unit's
location.
Our Response: Plovers were observed during the breeding season west
of the Lake Earl lagoon during a breeding season window survey in 1991
(PRBO unpublished data). No plovers were observed during the subsequent
survey in 1995 (an incomplete survey year, PRBO unpublished data).
Page, et al., 1981, states that nesting plovers were found on the beach
at Lake Talawa (i.e. western most portion of the Lake Earl lagoon
system) during May, 1997. Yocom and Harris suspected breeding at the
same location in 1975, but were unable to confirm it. Plovers currently
overwinter within the designated CA 1 unit.
55. Comment: One commenter states that the Arcata Fish and Wildlife
Office has failed to meet with the County of Del Norte and private
citizens to comment on restricted recreational use, loss in land
values, and effects on the ``Federal project'' of breaching lakes.
Our Response: Staff from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
provided a presentation on the proposed critical habitat and answered
questions at a Del Norte County Board of Supervisors (Board) meeting on
March 8, 2005, at the Board's request. The Arcata office held an
additional public meeting in the Board's chambers on June 9, 2005, to
discuss issues with the public regarding critical habitat designation.
At both meetings, staff stated that restrictions applied to recreation
and other uses within suitable plover habitat are dependant on the
managing entity's actions, and are usually implemented in an effort to
avoid take of a listed species rather than as a result of critical
habitat designation. Staff also stated that they are not qualified to
make economic determinations regarding land values, and further stated
that is why the Service contracts out the economic analysis for
designation. With regards to the ``Federal Project'' of breaching the
Lake Earl lagoon system, Service staff referenced the recently
completed biological/conference opinion (January 05, 2005) for the 10-
year Permit to breach the Lake Earl sandbar. No mitigation, protective
measures, or restrictions on the proposed action, or any activity, were
imposed as a result of the proposal to designate critical habitat at
the breach site (Section 7 consultation 8-14-05-2577). If not for the
Federal action (i.e. mechanical breaching), the lagoon would breach on
its own at a higher water level.
[[Page 56979]]
56. Comment: One commenter stated that the Service's assertion that
human activity is the primary threat to plovers is erroneous as animal
predators are more responsible for plover kills. The commenter opines
that the Service should focus its efforts on predator controls over
global land use and development restrictions. Another commenter states
that human activity lowers the adverse effects of predators, and
increases the plover's success.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that predators are likely
responsible for more direct kills and injuries; however, humans have
contributed to the impacts of predators. Nest and chick predators have
been introduced into areas where they are not native, and impact the
reproductive success and survival of plovers (e.g. red fox). When
humans and their pet flush nesting plovers on sandy beaches, the
plovers leave tracks in the sand as they move off and on to the nest.
Corvids use the plover tracks to locate nests, increasing the
opportunities for successful nest predation. Human development and
trash in and adjacent to suitable plover habitat has increased the
incidence of some plover predators (ravens and crows). Additionally,
human activities, such as development and beach raking, have rendered
some beach sections totally unusable to breeding plovers, reducing the
number of areas suitable for nesting. The areas with the highest
predation rates usually do have some predator management associated
with them. Nest exclosures, predator-proof trash receptacles, aversions
conditioning, and both lethal and non-lethal control of predators has
been successful in reducing the impacts of predators on plover
reproduction and survival. We believe that these actions implemented to
reduce the impact of predators on plover nesting, and other management
measures designed to reduce the potential impacts of humans (e.g. use
of symbolic fencing, public education, and enforcement of regulations),
are responsible for the increases in plover breeding success documented
at many locations.
Comments Related to Military Lands
57. Comment: A commenter stated Vandenberg Air Force Base should
not be excluded unless there is a final integrated natural resources
management plan.
Our Response: All lands essential to the conservation of the
western snowy plover at Vandenberg have been excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation of critical habitat
because of alternative protective measures provided by the Air Force
and because of the national security issues the Air Force stated in
their February 7, 2005, comment letter (see the Application of Section
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below for a detailed discussion).
58. Comment: The Air Force submitted several comments relating to
the exclusion of Vandenberg Air Force Base (Vandenberg) from critical
habitat. They state that: (1) The Air Force has worked with the Service
to revise the INRMP (which is expected to be completed in 2005), and
that the INRMP contains special management activities that adequately
address the conservation of suitable habitat important to long-term
protection and recovery of the western snowy plover; (2) the western
snowy plover and its habitat are already being protected at Vandenberg
by the Air Force's Beach Management Plan; (3) all the proposed critical
habitat areas on Vandenberg are occupied throughout the year and
subject to consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act; (4) the INRMP
and Beach Management Plan together provide a greater level of
protection for the western snowy plover and its habitat than a
designation of critical habitat would provide; and (5) that the
designation of critical habitat at Vandenberg would interfere with its
mission execution and military training critical to national security.
Our Response: All lands essential to the conservation of the
western snowy plover at Vandenberg have been excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation of critical habitat
because of alternative protective measures provided by the Air Force
and because of the national security issues the Air Force discussed in
their February 7, 2005, comment letter (see the Application of Section
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below for a detailed discussion).
59. Comment: The Navy commented that Naval Base Ventura County has
a finalized INRMP that contains management actions that benefit the
western snowy plover and its habitat. Naval Base Ventura County also
has a biological opinion from the Service (issued on June 6, 2001) for
all routine operations, a major part of which covers the western snowy
plover. The INRMP incorporates all management actions being carried out
by Naval Base Ventura County in response to the biological opinion.
Our Response: We have reviewed Naval Base Ventura County's INRMP
and biological opinion. The Secretary determined, in writing, that
Naval Base Ventura County's INRMP provides a benefit to the western
snowy plover and therefore, consistent with Public Law 108-136 (Nov.
2003): Nat. Defense Authorization Act for FY04 and Section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, the Department of Defense's Naval Base Ventura County is
exempt from critical habitat based on the adequacy of their legally
operative INRMP (see the Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below for a
detailed discussion).
60. Comment: The U.S. Navy requested that their facilities around
San Diego Bay that were included in the proposed critical habitat,
including NAS North Island, NAB Coronado, Naval Radio Receiving
Facility, and NOLF Imperial Beach, be excluded from the final critical
habitat as they are covered by an INRMP that provides a benefit to the
species.
Our Response: The Secretary has determined the San Diego Bay Navy
INRMP provides a benefit for the western snowy plover; accordingly, the
Navy's San Diego Bay facilities are exempt from critical habitat
designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, based on the
adequacy of their legally operative INRMP (see the Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section below for a detailed discussion).
61. Comment: Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton commented that snowy
plover habitat on the base receives substantial benefit from management
actions directed through their Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plan (INRMP). Therefore, all lands on Camp Pendleton should be excluded
from the Final Rule, per Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the
2004 Defense Authorization Act.
Our Response: Camp Pendleton actively manages snowy plover nesting
and wintering habitat and this management has contributed to an
increasing snowy plover population on the base over the past several
years. The INRMP reinforces management actions stipulated under
previous Section 7 consultations with the Service. The Secretary has
determined the San Diego Bay Navy INRMP provides a benefit for the
western snowy plover; accordingly, the Navy's San Diego Bay facilities
are exempt from critical habitat designation pursuant to section
4(a)(3) of the Act, based on the adequacy of their legally operative
INRMP (see the Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below for a
detailed discussion). However, we note that not all lands within Camp
Pendleton are
[[Page 56980]]
covered by the INRMP subject to Marine Corps management. Unit CA 24 is
located at the far north end of the base on land leased to the
California Department of Parks and Recreation, and is therefore
actively managed by State Parks and not by the Base. The San Onofre
State Beach within unit CA 24 is a recreational beach utilized by
thousands of people throughout the year. Despite this heavy use, the
beach is annually used by a substantial wintering flock of snowy
plovers (69 FR 75628). As described in the proposed rule, this flock
and the habitat that it utilizes are subject to disturbance due to the
heavy recreational use of the area, which also likely precludes the use
of the beach for breeding. With special management, the habitat in the
proposed unit has a high potential to be managed and restored to a
point where it is used by plovers for both breeding and wintering.
Accordingly, we consider this beach to meet the definition of critical
habitat and it is included in this designation.
62. Comment: Camp Pendleton also commented that the proposed
critical habitat potentially impacts their military mission due to
constraints on lands that have value for military training and
operations. They particularly objected to the designation of critical
habitat on Green Beach, an amphibious landing and training beach.
Our Response: We have refined our mapping for Unit CA 24 to more
accurately define the essential snowy plover habitat between San Onofre
Creek and San Mateo Creek. The majority of snowy plover use in this
area currently is located in a less visited portion of the beach closer
to the mid-point between the two creek mouths. The result of this
refined mapping is a reduction in the length of the proposed unit at
both ends, removing critical habitat from Green Beach as well as beach
areas to the north of San Mateo Creek mouth.
Comments Related to HCPs, NCCP Program, and Section 7
63. Comment: Several commenters stated that the Pacific Coast WSP
already had adequate protections under Section 7 of the Act, and
therefore did not need to provide additional protection afforded by
designating critical habitat.
Our Response: A critical habitat designation means that Federal
agencies are required to consult with the Service on the impacts of
actions they undertake, fund, or permit on designated critical habitat.
While in many cases, these requirements may not provide substantial
additional protection for most species, they do direct the Service to
consider specifically whether a proposed action will affect the
functionality of essential habitat to serve its intended conservation
role for a species rather than to focus exclusively on whether the
action is likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence. We
agree, however, that even absent a critical habitat designation,
Federal agencies are still required to consult on the impacts of their
activities on listed species and their habitat.
Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis; Other Relevant
Impacts
64. Comment: Several commenters stated that the DEA inappropriately
ignores benefits although it is possible to quantify the economic
benefits associated with species protection. One commenter offers, for
example, that contingent valuation studies have demonstrated existence
value of non-human species. Another commenter states that the DEA
should consider ``non-use'' welfare benefits, such as existence,
option, stewardship, and bequest values, associated with protecting
plover habitat.
Our Response: In the context of a critical habitat designation, the
primary purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is to
designate areas in need of special management that contain the features
that are essential to the conservation of listed species.
The designation of critical habitat may result in two distinct
categories of benefits to society: (1) Use; and (2) non-use benefits.
Use benefits are simply the social benefits that accrue from the
physical use of a resource. Visiting critical habitat to see endangered
species in their natural habitat would be a primary example. Non-use
benefits, in contrast, represent welfare gains from ``just knowing''
that a particular listed species' natural habitat is being specially
managed for the survival and recovery of that species. Both use and
non-use benefits may occur unaccompanied by any market transactions.
A primary reason for conducting this analysis is to provide
information regarding the economic impacts associated with a proposed
critical habitat designation. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the
Secretary to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific
data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, and
any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat. Economic impacts can be both positive and negative
and by definition, are observable through market transactions.
Where data are available, this analysis attempts to recognize and
measure the net economic impact of the proposed designation. For
example, if the fencing of a species' habitat to restrict motor
vehicles results in an increase in the number of individuals visiting
the site for wildlife viewing, then the analysis would recognize the
potential for a positive economic impact and attempt to quantify the
effect (e.g., impacts that would be associated with an increase in
tourism spending by wildlife viewers). In this particular instance,
however, the economic analysis did not identify any credible estimates
or measures of positive economic impacts that could offset some of the
negative economic impacts analyzed earlier in this analysis.
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to
provide an assessment of both the social costs and benefits of proposed
regulatory actions. OMB's Circular A-4 distinguishes two types of
economic benefits: Direct benefits and ancillary benefits. Ancillary
benefits are defined as favorable impacts of a rulemaking that are
typically unrelated, or secondary, to the statutory purpose of the
rulemaking. In the context of critical habitat, the primary purpose of
the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is the potential to enhance
conservation of the species. The published economics literature has
documented that social welfare benefits can result from the
conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species. In its
guidance for implementing Executive Order 12866, OMB acknowledges that
it may not be feasible to monetize, or even quantify, the benefits of
environmental regulations due to either an absence of defensible,
relevant studies or a lack of resources on the implementing agency's
part to conduct new research. Rather than rely on economic measures,
the Service believes that the direct benefits of the proposed rule are
best expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the
expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.
We have accordingly considered, in evaluating the benefits of
excluding versus including specific area, the biological benefits that
may occur to a species from designation (see below, Exclusions Under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act), but these biological benefits are not
addressed in the economic analysis.
64a. Comment: Many commenters state that the DEA fails to
distinguish costs specific to critical habitat designation from the
costs of ESA listing and other co-extensive costs. One
[[Page 56981]]
comment states that critical habitat will not increase management as
plover management is already in place.
Our Response: In conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the
10th Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all
impacts, ``regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-
extensively to other causes.'' As explained in the analysis, due to
possible overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, there are
also some elements of the analysis that may overstate some costs.
65. Comment: Another comment stated that the DEA should not include
past costs as these costs are sunk costs that can not be recouped.
Our Response: As part of our economic analysis, we have estimated
the past costs associated with the listing of the species prior to
designating critical habitat. However, we have only used the
prospective estimated costs for excluding certain units from this final
critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
66. Comment: Several commenters state that the DEA should address
``other relevant impacts'' in addition to the economic impacts.
Our Response: The Service believes the words ``other relevant
impacts'' refer to policy issues, such as, for example fostering
conservation partnerships and relations with tribal governments. These
policy considerations are inappropriate for review in an economic
analysis. If the Service considers excluding areas for these reasons,
it conducts a separate analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to
balance the benefits of excluding these areas with the benefits of
including them.
67. Comment: One commenter states that the DEA should examine the
costs of not designating critical habitat and the impacts of the plover
being delisted. For example, it should consider impacts of legal
challenges, relisting, and the need to fund management efforts for a
species further from recovery than when originally listed.
Our Response: As part of our economic analysis, we estimate the
costs associated with those economic activities believed to most likely
threaten the plover and its habitat within the boundaries of the
proposed designation. Due to cost and time constraints, it is not
possible for us to estimate costs associated with different listing
procedures.
68. Comment: One commenter states that, in the DEA, the area that
will experience the greatest future economic impacts from plover
conservation efforts is Unit CA-12C, including the area of Sand City.
The cost in this area is disproportionate to the benefit of inclusion
and the area should be excluded from the final designation. The comment
further states that excluding Sand City from critical habitat will
contribute to a more positive climate for voluntary habitat
conservation efforts, which provide greater conservation benefits than
critical habitat. This comment also asserts that it can not be argued
that exclusion of the land area within Sand City would lead to the
extinction of the plover or appreciably reduce its recovery.
Our Response: As part of this final rule, we have excluded Unit CA-
12C from this final critical habitat designation pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act. For further information see section titled
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act below.
69. Comment: One comment states that Morro Bay should be excluded
from CHD as the DEA identifies it as one of the high cost areas while
no plovers fledged there in 2004 and only one in 2003. The costs are
therefore greater than the benefits for the community. The comment
further states that the critical habitat designation is not working as
there were more plovers on the beach in Morro Bay before the
restrictions went into place.
Our Response: We have excluded the Morro Bay unit from this final
critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see section titled below Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3)
and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
70. Comment: One comment noted that the Service did not provide the
minimum required 60-day comment period and that comments are due only
days before the court-ordered final designation deadline of September
20, 2005.
Our Response: The Service provided a 60-day comment period on the
proposed critical habitat designation. The need to meet the court
ordered deadline of September 20, 2005 made it impossible for us to
open the comment period on the economic analysis for 60 days as well.
71. Comment: A comment on the proposed designation requests that
the Service correct the mapping errors in its December 17, 2004,
proposed rule to protect Sand City and landowners should the proposed
critical habitat boundaries become relevant.
Our Response: Our maps are used only as a general guide to assist
landowners to determine the location of the boundaries of a proposed or
final critical habitat designation. The legal coordinates presented at
the end of this final rule represent the actual boundaries of this
final critical habitat designation. As part of this rule making
process, we have made every effort to ensure that our maps are as
accurate as possible. The final rule, economic analysis, and supporting
Geographic Information System (GIS) maps will also be available via the
Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/default.htm.
72. Comment: One commenter requests that the Service clarify the
exclusion of the Metropolitan's property at Ormond Beach by delineating
it on the map in the final rule as this was not clear in the maps
contained in the proposed rule.
Our Response: Our maps only depict those areas we have proposed or
designated as critical habitat. We include some features on those maps
so that the public can determine where the general boundaries of the
proposed and final designation occur. Unfortunately, we can not have
all features identified on these maps. In the case of areas excluded
from the proposed and final designation, these areas would not be
identified as critical habitat. Please be aware that the use of these
maps is only intended to serve as a general guide for the public to
determine the boundaries of critical habitat, and to determine the
actual boundaries of this designation, a person should use the legal
coordinates located at the end of this final rule.
73. Comment: One commenter suggests that it might be instructive to
do a study on how many people choose not to go to a beach because it is
being used by vehicles.
Our Response: In essence of costs and time, we have conducted our
economic analysis to identify those economic activities believed to
most likely threaten the plover and its habitat and, where possible,
quantify the economic impact to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for such
threats within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. We
found no evidence that beach use would increase if vehicle use was not
permitted.
74. Comment: One comment states that the Arcata Fish and Wildlife
Office has failed to meet with the County of Del Norte and private
citizens to comment on restricted recreational use, loss in land
values, and effects on the ``Federal project'' of breaching lakes.
[[Page 56982]]
Our Response: Staff from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
provided a presentation on the proposed critical habitat and answered
questions at a Del Norte County Board of Supervisors (Board) meeting on
March 8, 2005, at the Board's request. The Arcata office held an
additional public meeting in the Board's chambers on June 9, 2005, to
discuss issues with the public regarding critical habitat designation.
At both meetings, staff stated that restrictions applied to recreation
and other uses within suitable plover habitat are dependant on the
managing entity's actions, and are usually implemented in an effort to
avoid take of a listed species rather than as a result of critical
habitat designation. Staff also stated that they are not qualified to
make economic determinations regarding land values, and further stated
that is why the Service contracts out the economic analysis for
designation. With regards to the ``Federal Project'' of breaching the
Lake Earl lagoon system, Service staff referenced the recently
completed biological/conference opinion (January 5, 2005) for the 10-
year Permit to breach the Lake Earl sandbar. No mitigation, protective
measures, or restrictions on the proposed action, or any activity, were
imposed as a result of the proposal to designate critical habitat at
the breach site (Section 7 consultation 8-14-05-2577). If not for the
Federal action (i.e. mechanical breaching), the lagoon would breach on
its own at a higher water level.
75. Comment: One commenter states that the maps within the proposed
rule are misleading as they do not make it clear that the majority of
the designation is private property. The commenter states that 87
percent of the proposed designation is private property. The commenter
also highlights that the map delineating Unit CA-1 is incorrect.
Our Response: As part of our proposed and final designation of
critical habitat, we have done our best to present maps of those areas
we have determined to be critical habitat. We have provided legal
coordinates so that a landowner can determine where the proposed or
final critical habitat designations exist, maps to serve as a general
reference or guide of where those boundaries occur, and have provided a
table indicating the quantity of the proposed and final designation
that is in private ownership, or is owned by the State, Federal, or
local governments. In total, approximately 3191 ac (1,296 ha) of this
final designation is privately owned land. The final rule, economic
analysis, and supporting Geographic Information System (GIS) maps will
also be available via the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/default.htm.
76. Comment: One comment states that the DEA frequently uses the
term ``opportunity costs,'' but fails to mention the potential for
``substitution effects.''
Our Response: Section 4.3 and 4.4 (specifically, paragraphs 147,
152-153, 159, 171, 189, and 205, and Exhibit 4-32) of the DEA address
substitution effects. In addition, the analysis acknowledges the
availability of substitute sites could lower the per-trip loss.
Accordingly, the DEA assumes beaches where less than ten percent of the
linear extent of the beach is fenced have sufficient substitute
possibilities for beach-goers such that quantification of small changes
in consumer surplus is not feasible.
77. Comment: According to one commenter, an economic impact
analysis should include the following elements: (1) Direct, indirect,
and induced economic activities (output, employment and employee
compensation); (2) changes in property values; (3) property takings;
(4) recreational impacts; (5) business activity and potential economic
growth; (6) commercial values; (7) County and State tax bases; (8)
public works project impacts; (9) disproportionate economic burdens on
society sections; (10) impacts to custom and culture; (11) impacts to
other endangered species; (12) environmental impacts to other types of
wildlife; and (13) any other relevant impacts.
Our Response: The DEA does not address property takings, impacts to
custom and culture, impacts to other endangered species, and
environmental impacts to other types of wildlife as these elements are
outside of the scope of the analysis as described in Section 1. The
remainder of these elements were explicitly considered and described in
the DEA, and quantified where possible.
78. Comment: Multiple comments state the resources employed to
administer plover protection (i.e., labor, fencing, monitoring, etc.)
injects spending into the local economy and this should be considered
in the DEA. For example, one comment states that while the DEA only
includes the economic costs associated with plover research and
management activities, it should be noted that these activities also
bring money into Humboldt County in the form of research grants and
contracts that pay graduate students, consultants, and other
researchers that live in the area. The comment highlights a recent
Humboldt State University (HSU) Study that indicates that each HSU
student not living at home contributes approximately $10,000 per year
to the local economy, not including state fees. Three to four graduate
students at HSU have studied the plover over the past five years.
Another comment states the economic benefits and income from
designation, habitat protection, monitoring, and management of snowy
plover and other species utilizing the habitat, and recreational and
educational opportunities should be included in the DEA.
Our Response: The DEA acknowledges that certain communities may
experience increased economic activity as a result of plover management
efforts. The expenditure of management resources to protect the plover,
however, represents an opportunity cost as these resources are no
longer available for other uses. The fact that management expenditures
generate local employment and associated spending for consultants,
students and researchers represents a distributional effect rather than
a compensating surplus gain.
79. Comment: One commenter stated that while the forecast period of
the DEA is only 20 years, the Service has a duty to imagine that our
ancestors will be present for hundreds or thousands of years and the
birds should be here along with them.
Our Response: Section 1.3 of the DEA discusses the analytic time
frame. To be credible, the economic analysis must estimate economic
impacts based on activities that are reasonably foreseeable. A 20 year
time horizon is used, because many land managers do not have specific
plans for projects beyond 20 years, and forecasting beyond this time
increases the subjectivity of estimating potential economic impacts
(i.e., any results would run the risk of being speculative). In
addition, forecasts used in the analysis of future economic activity
are based on current socioeconomic trends and the current level of
technology, both of which are likely to change over the long term.
80. Comment: Multiple comments expressed concern that while the DEA
acknowledges that no data exist on whether or to what extent plover
habitats might affect the use of beaches, it still applies the
assumption that fewer visitors will visit a beach during breeding
season. For example, several commenters highlight that no evidence
exists that recreation has declined at particular sites (e.g., Coal Oil
Point Reserve) where critical habitat has been designated since 1999.
Further, California Department of Parks and Recreation states that they
have not found that plover fencing significantly reduces visitation or
diminishes
[[Page 56983]]
recreational experiences, except for at the Oceano Dunes State
Vehicular Recreation. The comment states that data indicate that from
1995 to 2004, visitation at many state beaches showed an upward trend
in visitor attendance. For example, Salinas River State Beach is one of
the most productive and heavily fenced parks units in CA-12C, with 99
nests reported in 2004 over the 3.5 miles of beach habitat. Attendance
figures for this park unit have steadily increased since 1997 despite
critical habitat designation in 1999 and an increase in number of
fenced plover nesting areas.
Our Response: Section 4.3 of the DEA details the methodology
applied to determine what, if any, impacts may occur due to plover
fencing on beaches. While attendance at State beaches may have
increased, it is not necessarily the case the plover fencing did not
impact visitation. Data are not available, for example, to estimate
whether visitation would have increased at an even greater rate in the
absence of plover protections. Ideally, visitation rates at individual
beaches would be compared before and after plover conservation efforts
were undertaken. Such data were not available for use in the DEA.
Therefore, absent empirical evidence of the change in visitation
levels, the assumption that fewer recreators visit plover beaches than
would have absent fencing is an appropriate means to bound the
potential impact of conservation efforts. This approach was peer
reviewed and determined to be reasonable.
81. Comment: Many comments disagree with that the assumption in the
DEA that all the foregone acres of beach set aside for plover breeding
could be used for recreation. In particular, commenters state that the
assumption that recreation is completely eliminated from entire
stretches of beach where symbolic fences or exclosures are erected
overestimates impacts. They state that most access restrictions occur
on the foredune, away from the wave slope (or wet sand) where most
recreation (e.g., walking, riding, driving) occurs. In addition, for a
number of the beaches, the fenced areas are not amenable to recreation
for much of the plover breeding season. One commenter asserts that this
is not considered in the DEA, which assumes year round usage of all
acreage designated.
Our Response: Paragraphs 148-149 of the DEA present the anecdotal
evidence provided in the literature and by interest groups and beach
managers that beach visitors may or may not be affected by plover
conservation efforts depending on, for example, their primary purpose
of visitation and location of fencing. In fact, some visitors may
consider their beach visit enhanced due to the possibility of plover
viewing, while others may consider it degraded due to restricted access
at particular stretches of beach. Because of the uncertainty
surrounding the potential reactions of beach visitors to plover-related
access restrictions, the DEA employs two alternative methods to
estimate the potential magnitude as discussed in Section 4.3. The first
method, scenario 1, used in the DEA assumes that as a result of plover
restrictions, recreators take fewer trips to the beach. The
availability of substitutes is considered. For beaches at which less
than 10 percent of the beach length restricts recreation, this analysis
assumes that recreators may visit substitute sites of the beach
resulting in negligible welfare losses. The second method used in the
DEA, scenario 2, assumes that rather than losing beach trips,
recreators visit their first choice sites but have a diminished
experience as a result of plover restrictions. This second approach may
overstate losses at beaches that are sparsely visited and therefore are
not likely to experience significant congestion as a result of fencing.
This scenario, however, does not account for the losses to recreators
who choose to visit a less-preferred beach or who make fewer trips.
82. Comment: Multiple commenters assert that the methodology used
to estimate lost recreational opportunities in the DEA is flawed. One
commenter noted that the assumption that all beach users get less
enjoyment from short stretches of beach, specifically that pedestrians
and equestrians lose $1.42 in daily net economic value for every one
mile reduction in beach length, means that everyone gets less pleasure
from visiting shorter beaches, such as College Cove, than longer
beaches, such as Mad River.
Our Response: The DEA assumes that visitors hold the same value for
each one mile stretch of beach at all beaches across the designation.
Accordingly, if a stretch of beach is restricted, the value to the
visitor of that stretch is lost. The DEA does not make inter-beach
comparisons of value. That is, the lost value of a restricted area on a
particular beach reduces the value of that same beach absent plover
fencing. The total values of various beaches (for example, shorter to
longer beaches) can not be compared using only the value per mile per
person per day. Other variables factor into estimating the value the
public places on a beach, for example, the availability of parking.
83. Comment: One commenter states that the claim in section 4.5.1
of the DEA that 70 percent of total annual beach attendance occurs
during plover nesting season is incorrect. The commenter offers that a
more likely estimate is 20 to 25 percent as nesting season occurs five
to six weeks before school is over for the summer and that peak beach
attendance is in July and August. Another commenter stated that
reliance on vehicle-counters and vehicle counts in parking lots can
overstate visitors.
Our Response: As described in the proposed rule, the DEA considers
plover nesting season to be from early March to late September.
Paragraph 158 describes that the estimate of 70 percent visitation
during the nesting season is based on monthly visitation rates for
beaches managed by California Department of Parks and Recreation with
greater than ten plovers. In each instance, the DEA employs the most
comprehensive data available in estimating number of visitors to the
beach, in some cases visitor logs are kept by the beach managers, in
other cases vehicle counts are considered the best indicator of
visitation rates.
84. Comment: A comment highlights that the DEA states ``Where data
are not available for a beach area considered in the analysis, the
closest similar site was identified and its attendance rate is used to
calculate expected visitation.'' The comment notes that this assumption
is very problematic in California, where beach visitation varies
significantly from beach to beach and it is inappropriate to assume
that beaches near one another would have similar visitation.
Our Response: In the absence of specific visitation data for
particular beaches, the analysis applies the visitation rates from the
nearest beach with similar characteristics. The DEA acknowledges the
limitations of this transfer and notes that better data are not
currently available to improve upon these visitation estimates. The
Service also notes that this type of data limitation only occurred in
four subunits, only one of which experiences fencing.
85. Comment: One commenter offers that estimates of plover
exclosure diameters of five to eight meters as assumed in the DEA far
exceeds the actual size of the exclosures.
Our Response: As described in paragraph 165 of the DEA, the five to
eight foot diameter design for exclosures assumed in the DEA is equal
to that prescribed in the California Department of Parks and
Recreation's Plover Systemwide Management Guidelines.
86. Comment: Other commenters question the DEA's assumption that
the
[[Page 56984]]
value of a diminished beach trip is directly proportional to length of
beach closed. The commenters note that the Lew and Larson study (Lew,
Daniel K. and Douglas M. Larson, 2005, Valuing Recreation and Amenities
at San Diego County Beaches, Coastal Management, 33:71-86) from which
this information was obtained also offers the following information
cited in the DEA ``the coefficient on the length variables indicate
utility increases with the length of the beach at a decreasing rate. In
fact, the Lew and Larson paper provides the coefficients, which show
that while beach length is positive, beach length squared is negative,
making apparent that there is a non-linear and diminishing effect of
additional beach length. Thus, the last few linear yards or miles of
beach have less effect on visitation and value than the first linear
years or miles of beach.'' The commenters therefore state that the DEA
should incorporate this information or estimate elasticity of demand
for recreation at the beaches to account for this affect.
Our Response: Paragraph 196 of the DEA describes the method applied
to estimate value per mile of beach. The DEA applies the mean beach
length from the peer-reviewed California-based study (Lew and Larson,
2005) of 2.06 miles, and divides it by the implicit price estimated
from the study's utility function. This results in a value of $1.42 per
beach mile per visitor on average. While Lew and Larson do use a
functional form (quadratic) that allows them to estimate a non-constant
marginal impact of beach length, strictly applying this functional form
to individual beaches creates complications. For example, the Lew and
Larson results imply that for all beaches longer than 8.4 miles,
additional length will decrease the value of a visit. Equivalently, the
results imply that partial closures may lead to benefits for visitors
at such beaches. In order to apply the results of this study to our
sample of beaches, the DEA derives and applies a single average value
from the Lew and Larson study. Further, plover fencing may occur
anywhere along the beach (e.g., at the beginning, end, at multiple
locations, or at access points) and therefore result in fragmented
beach access; that is, access restrictions for plover conservation are
not necessarily continuous. The DEA does not assume that there is a
negative value to incremental reductions in beach length for sites
longer than 8.4 miles but instead assumes visitors value incremental
length on longer beaches as much as on shorter (below 8.4 miles)
beaches. This method of applying the Lew and Larson study to estimate
decreased value of beaches due to plover restrictions was determined by
peer reviewers to be reasonable with the data available.
87. Comment: Several comments state that the assumption that
visitors are distributed evenly along the entire length of the beach is
false. Specifically, the California Department of Parks and Recreation
comments that beach users at most non-motorized beaches areas tend to
spend the majority of their time within a quarter of a mile from the
access points or along the wet sand near the waters edge.
Our Response: Exhibit 4-32 the DEA acknowledges that, to the extent
visitors congregate around access points, this analysis overstates the
lost recreation value associated with plover conservation efforts.
However, quantified estimates of the distribution of visitors away from
access points are not available for California. In addition, the
estimation of the specific visitor densities in the vicinity of the
plover fencing or exclosures is complicated by the fact that the
location plover fencing may change over time depending on the location
of nest sites.
88. Comment: One comment on the DEA states that the $30 per person
per day value of lost recreation applied in the DEA is drawn from a
study of beach use in the San Diego area and may not apply to rural
areas such as Humboldt County. Similarly, another comment states the
use of Southern California value estimates for other regions that are
vastly different in populace and land uses overstates recreation
impacts in the other regions.
Our Response: Ideally, specific per person per day values for lost
recreation would be applied for each individual beach in the analysis.
During the development of the DEA, however, these data were not
determined to be available for each beach in California, Oregon, and
Washington. Available studies that estimate value of beaches for
recreation are based on beaches in Santa Monica and Orange Counties,
California and the east coast (e.g. Florida and New Jersey). Values
reported in these other studies of beach recreation, range from
approximately $12 to $62. The DEA estimate of $30 per person per day
for a beach trip falls well within this range. Based on location, date,
and study characteristics, the Lew and Larson (2005) value of general
beach recreation on San Diego beaches was determined to be the most
appropriate for the DEA. Peer reviewers of the DEA agreed that this
value was reasonable considering available information.
89. Comment: Multiple comments on the DEA assert that the value of
the birding, botonizing, and general nature-related enjoyment should be
included. The comments provide numerous specific examples of essential
habitat units where birders travel specifically to see plovers and
where plover management results in a more aesthetically pleasing area.
The Service's 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation estimates 1.3 million individuals visited the
California ocean side to engage in shorebird viewing accounting for
over 22 million non-residential (i.e., away from home) bird observation
days in California. This study highlights that in 2001, expenditures in
California by all wildlife viewers amounted to an estimated $2.1
billion, and that shorebird viewing constitutes an important component
of all wildlife viewing in California. Finally, a comment states that
the preservation of open space for the plover draws local, regional,
and international visitors that contribute to the local economy.
Our Response: The DEA acknowledges the potential for benefits to
the birding community of plover conservation efforts and notes that, to
the extent that birding, botanizing, and general nature-related
enjoyment are increased by the plover conservation efforts, the DEA
overstates the economic impact of these conservation efforts. Evidence
exists that some percentage of visitors engage in birding activities.
The Oregon Shores Recreational Use Study estimates that 0.2 percent of
visitors to all beaches across the State identified birding as the
primary reason for their trip. Data are not available, however, to
estimate the number of visitors that may engage specifically in plover-
viewing. Further, the National Survey described above evidences the
importance of wildlife-viewing in the entire State, not that
specifically related to plover habitat. The Survey also does not offer
sufficient information to determine how many viewers visit the plover
beaches, and further, how their decision to visit is related to the
plover conservation efforts quantifies in the DEA.
90. Comment: One comment highlights the availability of literature
valuing wildlife-viewing in California (Cooper and Loomis, 1991, ``The
Economics and Management of Water and Drainage,'' Agriculture, Dinar
and Zilberman, eds.). These data could be used to value the benefits
that seeing additional plovers might provide to beach visitors.
[[Page 56985]]
Our Response: The study cited in the comment offers a metric to
correlate bird populations with increased value for a birding trip.
While the DEA acknowledges the potential for improved conditions for
bird-watching, as mentioned above, data are lacking in the numbers of
visitors to the plover beaches that participate in bird-viewing. In
addition, data on the number of birds typically seen on a single trip
at each site absent plover conservation activities, and the increase in
plovers seen as a result of conservation activities, is unavailable. It
is therefore not clear how these value estimates in the cited study may
be applied to this analysis.
91. Comment: Another comment states that the DEA uses the average
value per trip of $30 from the Lew and Larson (2005) article. However,
page 4-21, footnote 118 of the DEA notes that when substitute beach
opportunities are taken into account, the losses from completely
closing a single beach is between $0 and $1 per person trip; for
example, for Silver Strand State Beach the loss per trip is $0.09. As
stated in the footnote, the losses estimated recognizing the
availability of substitutes can lower the recreational losses by an
order of magnitude. The comment further expresses that the Lew and
Larson research could be used somehow to estimate the lost value from
closing several beaches as an upper bound on partial closures of
beaches due to critical habitat.
Our Response: As noted in the Lew and Larson study, the values
referred to in the comment, $0 to $1, are per-trip economic values of
closing individual beaches out of choice set of 31 beaches in San Diego
County. The per-trip value is multiplied by all the individuals in the
county who ever visit any beach, regardless of whether their first
choice site is the beach that closes. This aggregate value represents
the welfare loss of closing a single beach. Transferring this value to
the DEA requires estimating the total number of people who visit any
beaches (public and private) within California, Oregon, and Washington,
and not simply the plover beaches addressed in the DEA. In other words,
value losses would occur to all visitors for which a plover beach is
within his or her choice set. Estimating the number of beach users
cannot be accomplished simply by looking at beach visitation data, as
single users may visit the beach multiple times. In addition, data are
not available at the State level to group beaches into choice sets, and
to understand the total number of visitors to each set. These issues
present significant limitations to using these data to estimate impacts
of plover restrictions. In addition, although the per trip value loss
is less than the value used in the DEA, the number of beach users by
which this value is multiplied is likely more than the number of
visitors to plover beaches. Therefore, a method that applies the $0 to
$1 values may not result in a significantly lower estimate of impact.
92. Comment: One party comments that the DEA assumption that the
entire length of the critical habitat unit is closed where information
on the amount of fencing is not available is not appropriate. The
comment offers that the DEA should use instead estimate an average
fencing length to total length of the critical habitat unit to make an
informed estimate.
Our Response: In the absence of information regarding length of
fencing, the DEA assumes the entire length of critical habitat publicly
owned or managed is fenced in four units. Estimating an average ratio
of fenced to total beach is complicated by the extreme variation in
this value across beaches. The ratio varies from 0.01 percent to 100
percent across the proposed designation. In the case that the fenced
area is smaller than the proposed habitat in these four units, impacts
to recreation are likely overestimated. It is not clear, however, that
the methodology suggested by the commenter would yield more accurate
results than that employed in the DEA.
93. Comment: A commenter states that the seventy mile portion of
the coast between Gaviota and Guadalupe has only four coastal access
points; those at Surf Beach and Ocean Beach provide the nearest coastal
access for the 65,000 residents of Lompoc Valley. The comment further
states that both beaches have been affected by the beach closures due
to the designation of critical habitat for the plover. For Lompoc
Valley residents, coastal access alternatives are almost an hour drive.
Our Response: This comment provides anecdotal evidence supporting
the assumption applied in the DEA that beach users may be impacted by
plover conservation efforts and that limited substitutes may exist in
particular areas.
94. Comment: A commenter states that the recreational impacts to
CA-17A and CA-17B are underestimated in the DEA and that the total
economic loss in beach use at these sites is $627,908 per season
(2002$). The comment questions the DEA conclusion that five other
stretches of the California coast experience greater economic losses
despite the fact that they have other beach access alternatives. The
commenter requests that the DEA consider both the number of users and
the availability of alternative beach access locations.
Our Response: The data used to calculate the number of visitors
impacted at these sites were provided by Santa Barbara County and Surf
Ocean Beach Commission. Because data are available for the period after
plover restrictions were put in place, based on the length of beach
previously available, the analysis assumes visitation may have been
four times higher without plover fencing. As described in Section 4.3,
the DEA employs two distinct scenarios to estimated the potential
magnitude of loss associated with reduced recreational opportunities.
Scenario 1 assumes that as a result of plover restrictions, recreators
take fewer trips to the beach and assigns a value obtained from the
published economics literature to those lost beach trips. Under this
scenario the DEA estimates an annualized loss of $5.14 million for
subunits CA-17A and CA-17B. Scenario 2 assumes that rather than losing
beach trips, recreators still visit their first choice sites but have a
diminished experience as a result of plover-related access
restrictions. According to this scenario, an annualized loss of
$120,000 is forecast in subunits CA-17A and CA-17B. The estimate
provided by Santa Barbara County falls within the range of potential
impacts as estimated in the DEA.
95. Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA should not estimate
losses to recreation on beaches at which access is restricted for
national security reasons, such as Vandenburg Air Force Base, or on
beaches for which the purpose of public acquisition is for habitat
preservation, such as Coal Oil Point Reserve and Nipomo Dune National
Wildlife Refuge.
Our Response: The DEA estimates losses to recreation at Vandenburg
Air Force Base as stretches of beach that were previously open to the
public were closed due to the presence of the plover and not for
national security reasons (see Section 4). Similarly, stretches of
beach that were open to the public at Coil Oil Point Reserve have been
fenced for the plover. The economic analysis assumes that these access
restrictions for the purpose of plover conservation may impact the
visitors to these beaches and quantifies the impact. The DEA does not,
however, estimate any impact to recreation at Nipomo Dune National
Wildlife Refuge as access to this site restricts access to the public
for reasons unrelated to the plover.
[[Page 56986]]
96. Comment: One comment expresses concern that the DEA applies an
estimate of the value recreational vehicle use from a study based in
Utah and North Carolina, while the plover habitat is within California,
Oregon, and Washington.
Our Response: Ideally, the DEA would employ a California-based
study to determine the value of beach vehicle recreation. However, no
such study was identified during the development of the DEA. The
estimates used were contemplated by peer reviewers on the DEA and
determined to be the most reasonable given currently available
information.
97. Comment: One comment states that the DEA does not take into
account the fact that Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area
(ODSVRA) is the only beach in California that legally permits the
general public to drive on the beach and camp with recreational
vehicles (RVs) directly on the beach. The comment further states that
the DEA does not account for the value visitors place on restrictions
to the unique beach camping opportunities at ODSVRA. Given the high
visitation rate, as well as the location of camping restrictions,
plover conservation has substantially reduced the value of the camping
experience by creating a congested camping environment.
Our Response: The DEA assumes that no substitute sites for this
beach exist and accordingly estimates the value of restricted trips by
assuming these visits are completely lost. Further, the DEA values
pedestrian trips to this site at $30 per day and OHV trips to this site
at $54 per day, consistent with the other sites in the analysis and
relying on data provided by OSDVRA on the relative proportions of
visitor types. The increment by which the opportunity for camping may
increase the value that recreators hold for this site is unknown, and
no additional information about this value was provided in public
comment. If the value of a camping trip to this site is greater than
$30 per day, the DEA may underestimate impacts to pedestrian users who
camp at ODSVRA. Similarly, if the value of a camping trip at this
unique site exceeds $54 per day, the DEA may understate impacts to OHV
users who camp at ODSVRA.
98. Comment: One commenter states that visitors to ODSVRA tend not
to be local residents and that applying the studies of expenditures of
beach users for southern California, where many of the visitors are
local, underestimates the impact to the regional economy. The comment
further states that the DEA appears to underestimate attendance at
ODSVRA. Page 4-45 of the DEA indicates beach attendance to be constant
at 1,486,158 visitors (2002 data) through 2025. The DEA does not take
into account increasing visitation. Also, the comment states that the
DEA does not provide information on how the annual visits per mile
(200,812) during the breeding season was calculated.
Our Response: Based on a study published by the State of
California's Department of Parks and Recreation in 1993 and provided in
public comment, ODSVRA users spend more per trip than assumed in the
DEA. In response to this comment, the regional impact modeling tool,
IMPLAN, employed in the DEA was re-run to determine impacts as a result
of recreation restrictions at ODSVRA for San Luis Obispo County,
California assuming each lost trip results in a decrease in local
expenditures of $97, as opposed to the $51 originally assumed in the
DEA. This value is applied to a reduction in 209,164 trips in an
average year from 2005 to 2025 resulting in an estimated impact of
$30.1 million. This loss represents 0.25 percent of the annual baseline
economy of San Luis Obispo County. This loss in trips is also estimated
to impact 597 jobs in the County, or 0.45 percent of the annual
baseline jobs.
To estimate visitation, the DEA used attendance data provided for
ODSVRA by California State Parks for years 1997 to 2004. The values
presented on page 4-45 represent average annual attendance during the
nesting season. Attendance in 2004 was estimated to be 1,763,948.
Further, as described in paragraph 159, the annual visitor estimates
are assumed to increase two percent annually and are not assumed to be
constant across future years.
To estimate the average annual number of visitors per mile at
ODSVRA, the DEA assumes that 6.4 miles of beach are available for
recreation in Unit CA-16. The average annual visitation to the entire
area is estimated to be 1.8 million and the DEA assumes that 70 percent
of annual visitation occurs during the plover breeding season. The
estimate of visitors per mile during the breeding season is calculated
by dividing the annual number of visitors by the length of beach and
multiplying it by the percent of annual visitation occurring during the
breeding season.
99. Comment: One commenter states that the DEA relies on the Second
Administrative Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the California
Department of Parks and Recreation San Luis Obispo Coast District and
Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) to describe
plover conservation efforts on ODSVRA. This draft incorrectly states
that exclosures occur only as far as pole seven on the beach when in
fact they extend further to pole six.
Our Response: The DEA relies on the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan
to determine the extent of plover fencing at ODSVRA. To the extent that
this plan underestimates the length of the restricted area, the DEA may
underestimate impacts. The distance between poles six and seven is one
half mile.
100. Comment: One commenter offers that the DEA should have based
its estimate of recreational impacts in OR-9 on the recreation losses
estimated as a result of the New Carissa tanker spill in the pre-
assessment report. The use of the New Carissa value is valid, because
the report estimates losses that recreationists were awarded in a court
settlement.
Our Response: The value per trip applied in the New Carissa impact
study is $14.39 per person per trip compared to $30 assumed in the DEA.
However, the DEA estimates a lesser number of visitors experiencing
diminished recreation value. For example, the data applied in the DEA
estimate 71 visitors to OR-9 in 1999 compared to 18,400 visitors
considered in the New Carissa study. The visitor count data used in the
New Carissa report are 1999 vehicle count data taken at the BLM boat
ramp north of OR-9. Based on information provided by BLM personnel,
this visitor data is not an accurate count of visitor use in the
critical habitat area. The BLM anticipates that most of the visitors
counted in the New Carissa study use the boat ramp and do not access
the plover area. To get to the plover area, a visitor would need a four
wheeled drive vehicle to access the beach via the South Dike Road. No
vehicle count data is available for the South Dike Road. The DEA
therefore considers the best available visitor use data for OR-9 to be
the Oregon Shore Recreational Use Study that specifically surveyed the
beach contained within OR-9.
101. Comment: One commenter states that overestimation of impacts
is inherent in the following quote from the text box on page 4-5 of the
DEA: ``* * * assuming half of the beach is inaccessible as a result of
plover conservation efforts approximately 9,200 trips would be lost
annually * * *. However, it is unclear what proportion of the visitors
using this parking lot are precluded from recreating in these areas
proposed for designation as a result of plover conservation efforts.''
The commenter states that it seems there should be no
[[Page 56987]]
loss in visitation at this BLM site associated with the plover critical
habitat unit.
Our Response: The text box on page 4-5 presents information
provided by the County Commissioner of Coos Bay, Oregon in contrast to
that provided in the DEA. This information is included for comparison
but not quantified in the total economic impacts described in the DEA.
102. Comment: Two commenters disagree with the DEA's assumption
that saltwater fishing trips involve beach vehicle use.
Our Response: Information provided by managers and stakeholders
during the development of the DEA indicated that vehicles are used to
facilitate surf fishing and that surf fishing may therefore be reduced
by restrictions on driving. Peer review of the DEA also determined this
assumption was reasonable.
103. Comment: One comment provided on the DEA states that the
regional economic impact model overstates lost regional spending
resulting from restricted beach visitation. The commenters opine that
spending would simply be redistributed toward substitute goods.
Our Response: Section 4.6 of the DEA discusses this limitation of
the regional economic impact model, IMPLAN. This model does not assume
that spending would occur on substitute goods within the region. To the
extent that visitors purchase substitute goods and services in the
region, the DEA may overestimate regional economic impacts. The
regional economic impacts as estimated, however, are considered to
represent a reasonable upper bound of impacts to the local economic as
a result of restricting recreational visitation.
104. Comment: One comment expressed concern about the sources of
data used to estimate reductions in recreational use. The commenters
were unable to verify data assumed to be provided by Humboldt County
Public Works and BLM's Arcata Office.
Our Response: Beach visitation data were not provided by Humboldt
County Public Works or BLM's Arcata Office for the DEA. These data were
provided by Humboldt County Parks Department. BLM's Arcata office
provided information on OHV restrictions, but not visitor attendance.
105. Comment: Two comments were provided stating that the number of
visitors impacted at Silver Strand State Beach is overstated in the
DEA. The number of vehicles and campers counted in 2004 was 97,949.
Our Response: Monthly attendance data for Silver Strand State Beach
provided by California Department of Parks of Recreation from 2001 to
2005 are used in the DEA. According to these data 326,746 visitors were
recorded in 2004. This source was determined to provide the best
available data.
106. Comment: Two commenters noted that reductions in some types of
recreation, such as off-highway vehicle (OHV), or equestrian use, may
result in increases in beach trip value for other user groups.
Our Response: Exhibit 4-32 of the DEA describes that, to the extent
that plover-related vehicle restrictions increases the value of a beach
trip for other recreational user groups, the analysis overstates
economic impacts to recreational users. Data were not identified,
however, that describe the relationship of beach vehicle use and value
to the pedestrian or equestrian recreators.
107. Comment: One comment asserts that the regional economic impact
analysis in the DEA does not take into account the impact to visitors
with complex mechanical needs stemming from the use of Recreational
Vehicles (RVs), OHVs, and dune buggies.
Our Response: As discussed above, in response to comments on the
DEA, the IMPLAN regional modeling tool was used to determine regional
impacts of restrictions to vehicle use at ODSVRA for San Luis Obispo
County, California. Following comment, this revised IMPLAN analysis
assumes a greater decrease in local expenditures per trip than used in
the DEA based on a study published by the State of California's
Department of Parks and Recreation in 1993 on ODSVRA users. Impacts to
vehicle recreation-related activities, such as gas and equipment were
considered in this analysis, which estimated an of impact of $30.1
million to the regional economy.
108. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that while dog-
walking has occurred on Sands Beach for decades, recently, the
California Coastal Commission has banned dogs from the beach as a
result of a land swap deal to protect a nearby bluff.
Our Response: Footnote 128 of the DEA discusses the value that
beach visitors may have for dog-walking on plover beaches. This comment
provides anecdotal evidence that some visitors may experience
diminished trip value in the case that this activity is restricted for
the purposes of plover conservation. The incremental value that the
opportunity for dog-walking may have on the value of a beach trip,
however, is unclear.
109. Comment: One commenter states that the DEA does not report
that approximately 15 acres of CA-18 are owned and managed by the City.
Public uses on this 15 acres include fishing, trails, scuba diving,
swimming, vista points, windsurfing, and wildlife viewing. Excluding
the impact to these recreational uses underestimates the economic
impact of plover conservation in this unit. The City of Goleta is in
the process of implementing a long-term management plan, covering these
15 acres, that includes plover protection provisions.
Our Response: This comment provides new information of recreation
taking place on a City beach within the potential plover habitat in
Unit CA-18. The DEA does not currently estimate impacts in this area.
Additional information would be required on the number and type of
visitors and on the potential plover management activities on this
beach in order to estimate impacts. That visitors engage in dog walking
evidences the positive value of this type of beach recreation, however
this value has not explicitly been studied.
110. Comment: A commenter states the DEA does not recognize the
impacts to recreational activities that occur within Unit CA-1, or the
businesses that rely on those activities. The DEA does not recognize
the historic use of the area by the general public for uses such as
horseback riding, hiking, fishing, OHVs, birding, and camping. The use
of the area is promoted as a public access point as part of the County
Local Coastal Program, and the County maintains a parking facility at
the west end of Kellog Road to serve the general public.
Our Response: Based on this information, the DEA likely
underestimates impacts to recreation in CA-1 of plover conservation.
More information is needed on the extent of recreational activity and
of plover conservation efforts in this area, however, before economic
impacts may be estimated.
111. Comment: One comment states that the DEA did not consider
recreational impacts to Kellogg Beach in Unit CA-1.
Our Response: This comment provided did not indicate that plover
management would occur at Kellogg Beach that would impact recreation.
Further, conversation with Del Norte County did not indicate that
plover fencing occurs in this area. To the extent that plover
management does occur at Kellogg Beach in the future, the DEA may
underestimate impacts to CA-1.
112. Comment: One comment states that the DEA underestimates the
number of recreational trips lost at Clam Beach, at 55 trips per year,
and therefore
[[Page 56988]]
underestimates the regional impact of these lost trips.
Our Response: As described in Exhibit 4-30 of the DEA, an average
annual loss of 1,109 trips is estimated for Unit CA-3A at Clam Beach.
The commenter appears to have assumed that the 1,109 trips lost were
estimated over 25 years, when in fact the estimate is annual.
113. Comment: According to one commenter, the DEA should include
any economic impact on commercial beach fishing.
Our Response: In developing the DEA, no information was identified
concerning any commercial beach fishing operations within the proposed
critical habitat designation. To the extent that commercial beach
fishing operations does occur, impacts to these beach users are not
incorporated. The extent to which commercial fishers were included in
the visitor counts, impacts to these parties were included in the DEA.
However, they were assigned a recreational fishing value, which may
differ from values of trips to commercial fishers.
114. Comment: One comment asserts that the DEA underestimates the
regional economic impact of plover conservation efforts. The commenter
states that his/her Clam Beach horseback riding business was impacted,
harassed, and eventually closed due to plover listing, plover
advocates, and agency threats and that $20,000 per year is lost to the
community by this business being closed.
Our Response: The DEA considers the impact of plover conservation
efforts on small recreation-related businesses in this region in
Section 4.6.
115. Comment: Multiple commenters state that the DEA did not
consider potential reductions in property value due to plover-related
land use restrictions. For example, according to one comment, property
owners within critical habitat will bear ``stigma impacts,'' including
``changes to private property values associated with public attitudes
about the limits and costs of implementing a project in critical
habitat.'' In contrast, other commenters assert that the DEA suggestion
that restricting beach access can only have a negative effect on
property values is incorrect and suggest that restricting beach access
could have a positive offsetting impact on certain types of property
value, particularly beach residents, if beach congestion is reduced.
The DEA does not include potential benefits from restricted beach
access, or cite relevant hedonic price literature quantifying the
relationship between congestion externalities and housing prices.
Our Response: Section 1.2.3 of the DEA describes the potential for
stigma impacts. More specifically, Section 5.1 of the DEA discusses the
potential for plover conservation efforts to affect property values.
While property value research demonstrates that proximity and access to
beaches may increase the value of a property, research was not
identified that correlates the level of beach access to property value.
Plover conservation efforts are not anticipated to completely preclude
access to beaches, and no data are available to estimate potential
percentage decrease in property value if beach access is restricted but
not precluded. Section 4.3.2 of the DEA discusses the effect of beach
congestion on value of a beach trip, but no literature was identified
in the development of the DEA correlating beach congestions and housing
price.
116. Comment: A comment provided states that while the DEA
acknowledges the three development nodes on the Sand City Cost, the
Monterey Bay Shores', MacDonald, and Sterling sites, it only considers
impacts to the Monterey Bay Shores' site.
Our Response: Section 5.3.3 of the DEA describes the impacts of
implementing plover conservation efforts in the implementation of the
Sand City development project. The DEA acknowledges the three sites
that comprise this development project: The McDonald Site, Sterling
Site, and Lone Star Site (also referred to as Monterey Bay Shores). The
DEA, however, incorrectly refers to the three sites collectively as the
``Monterey Shores development project.'' The description of plover
conservation efforts to minimize impacts is from the draft Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Monterey Bay Shores Project site
specifically. The DEA assumes that similar conservation efforts may be
required at all three sites. Importantly, however, the economic impacts
as quantified in the DEA were obtained from personal communication with
the attorney from Sand City and include impacts to the entire Sand City
development project.
117. Comment: Two commenters assert that the DEA should not include
economic impacts to Sand City associated with HCP development.
Commenters offers that the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) denial
of a development permit for this project was based on a number of
reasons involving the project's failure to meet legal standards under
California's Coastal Act and was not predicated solely on the presence
of plovers on the property. Comment from the CCC asserts that they did
not permit the project primarily due to a water availability issue, and
not because of the plover.
Our Response: Section 5.3.3 of the DEA acknowledges that initial
project plans were not permitted for multiple reasons and that it is
unclear to what extent the re-planning efforts were driven by the
plover. The DEA further acknowledges that consideration of multiple
factors influenced the currently proposed mitigation measures
associated with the revised plan for development of Sand City, for
example the purchase of private lots for open space and development.
Particular conservation efforts described such as hiring of full-time
plover monitors, however, are clearly related to the plover. The DEA
isolates conservation efforts associated with the development that
specifically benefit the plover and its habitat for inclusion in the
estimate of impacts to Sand City. Of note, Unit 12C of the proposed
critical habitat, which contains this proposed development site, is
excluded from final critical habitat.
118. Comment: One commenter states that the DEA's assumption that
there will be no development impacts on the Oxfoot Property (Unit CA-7)
is unreasonable. The commenter asserts that the Dillon Beach site will
likely be developed in some fashion during the next 20 years and that
the lack of a current formal development application is not a basis for
concluding that none will occur. This comment further states that when
development is proposed, the permitting authority will impose land use
and beach access restrictions related to plover critical habitat.
Because beach access has a positive effect on property value, the
commenter states that restricting beach access to future development
will have a negative effect on property value.
Our Response: Section 5.3.4 of the DEA acknowledges the development
potential of Dillon Beach within Unit CA-7. Communication with the
Marin County Planning commission indicated that development projects in
the area in the past have not been influenced by the plover or habitat.
During the development of the DEA, the commenter provided plans for the
proposed Lawson Family Dillon Beach Resort, which were developed in
1995-1996 and included a memorandum on environmental constraints
associated with the project which was reviewed by the County in
preparing the Dillon Beach Community Plan. This memorandum highlighted
impacts to special status species within the vicinity of the proposed
project site. The plover
[[Page 56989]]
is not included in this list and the memorandum concludes that other
wildlife species are not found at the site. It is therefore considered
unlikely that plover conservation efforts would be a condition of
permitting for this or similar development projects within the Dillon
Beach area.
119. Comment: One commenter states that, ``there will be future
costs for administration of habitat conservation plans for the private
lands within Area CA-1,'' that are not captured in the DEA. For
example, administrative costs of section 7 consultation associated with
breaching of Lake Earl are not included.
Our Response: As described in Section 5.3.4, Unit CA-1 is within
Del Norte County, California and is 87 percent private lands. While
attempts to develop the area have occurred, it has not been permitted
for various reasons unrelated to the plover. Primarily the water table
is very high in this area. Breaching of the adjacent lake would need to
occur more often in order to make development possible, but the lake
breaching presents an issue for the endangered tidewater goby. (Note
that breaching of the lake could be beneficial to the plover.) No
information was uncovered in the development of the DEA indicating
future habitat conservation plans for the plover in this unit. Past
consultation in 2003 on the lake breaching did not result in any
conservation efforts for the plover. The consultation did, however,
consider impacts of the project to the plover and administrative costs
are therefore captured. In the case that consultation were to occur for
the similar breaching efforts in the future, the DEA underestimates the
administrative costs of considering the plover, although no plover-
related conservation efforts are expected to result consistent with
previous consultations on the same project.
120. Comment: According to one comment, the DEA does not include
the economic loss of potential reduced campground development in Unit
CA-3A, Clam Beach/Little River.
Our Response: As detailed in Section 5.3.3 of the DEA, Humboldt
County Public Works estimates that in the case that plover conservation
efforts limit the planned expansion of the existing public campgrounds
in Humboldt County, the County could lose up to $30,000 per year in
unrealized revenue. This impact is included in the DEA.
121. Comment: According to a comment, the DEA underestimates
management costs for ODSVRA. The DEA estimates that from 1993 to 2000,
California Department of Parks and Recreation spent approximately
$200,000 annually on plover management, almost all of which was spent
at Oceano Dunes. Those costs increased to $750,000 per year from 2001
to 2004. Future management costs at ODSVRA are expected to exceed
$750,000 per year going forward. No mention is made, however, of the
recent settlement of litigation between California Department of Parks
and Recreation and Sierra Club, in which State Parks committed to
spending in excess of $500,000 in plover conservation and monitoring
efforts.
Our Response: Paragraph 100 of the DEA describes the expected
expenditures for plover management by California Department of Parks
and Recreation as a result of the litigation referenced in this
comment. The future management costs of $750,000 per year referenced
above, and incorporated in the DEA's impact estimate, includes the
$500,000 for plover management resulting from the consent decree
between California Department of Parks and Recreation and the Sierra
Club.
122. Comment: One comment suggests the DEA underestimates
management costs at California Department of Parks and Recreation sites
by not using the average cost to protect a plover nest at ODSVRA of
$5,700 per nest. The DEA instead uses an estimate of $750 per nest for
other sites.
Our Response: Paragraphs 99 and 100 of the DEA discuss California
Department of Parks and Recreation per nest management costs. As
highlighted elsewhere in this comment, ODSVRA is unique when compared
to all other California Department of Parks and Recreation sites, in
that it provides large-scale vehicular recreation and camping on the
dunes. California Department of Parks and Recreation provided an
estimate of future management costs of $300,000 annually for all sites
other than ODSVRA and $750,000 annually for ODSVRA. These estimates
were divided by the number of nests present to determine a per nest
cost. The per nest cost is used in the DEA to estimate management
expenditures at each unit as expenditures are not tracked by California
Department of Parks and Recreation according to individual unit. It is
therefore not appropriate to apply per nest management costs estimated
for ODSVRA to other California Department of Parks and Recreation
sites.
123. Comment: One commenter asserts that the DEA should consider
cost savings resulting from converting from daily, weekly, or other
raking, to less frequent raking schemes.
Our Response: The mechanical beach cleaning restrictions estimated
in Section 4.5.2 of the DEA occur entirely within Los Angeles County.
The County indicated that the Los Angeles County Fire Department--
Lifeguard Division requires that the tide line be raked daily to create
an even surface for safe emergency vehicular response and for general
safety patrol. In addition, if mechanized beach cleaning were reduced
the county would have to hire additional staff to manually clean the
required beaches. Therefore, no cost savings are anticipated associated
with decreasing the frequency of beach raking in Los Angeles County.
124. Comment: One commenter states that cost estimates for
management and monitoring appear to have been exaggerated in the DEA by
including staff and contractor activities not specifically related to
the presence or potential presence of plovers. For example, Silver
Strand State Beach has limited beach raking, and Border Field State
Park has no beach raking related to plover.
Our Response: The DEA agrees with this comment and does not
estimate any impacts of reduced beach raking for either of these sites.
125. Comment: One comment asserts that cost estimates for
management and monitoring are overstated at Border Field State Park.
Monitoring, management, and fencing at this park are focused on the
California least tern and no areas are specifically closed due to the
presence of plover.
Our Response: Management costs estimated in Section 3 for this
assume that California State Parks will spend $750 per nest for plover
management, which includes construction of exclosures and symbolic
fencing, dog prohibitions, and predator controls. These efforts have
been undertaken at other California State Parks and are therefore
assumed to be potentially relevant at other State Parks that support
the plover in the future. As described in Section 4 of the DEA does not
estimate any recreational losses in this unit.
126. Comment: According to one commenter, impacts calculated for
Unit CA-12A, Jetty Road to Aptos are based on the future use of
exclosures. While it is true exclosures have been used in the past,
they may not necessarily be in the future. For example, in the 2005
breeding season no exclosures were used on this beach section.
Our Response: The DEA assumes past management efforts may continue
into the future in the case that the area is designated as critical
habitat. To the extent that plover fencing or exclosures
[[Page 56990]]
are not constructed, the DEA likely overestimates the impacts of plover
conservation efforts at this site. Unit 12A has been excluded from
final critical habitat designation.
127. Comment: One commenter states that the DEA does not include
any economic impacts of predator control.
Our Response: Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the DEA discuss and quantify
management costs, including predator control.
128. Comment: A comment provided on the DEA requests that the range
in gravel mining costs related to plover monitoring be explained.
Our Response: Paragraph 335 of the DEA summarizes impacts to gravel
mining. Gravel mining costs are expected to range from $5,000 to
$50,000 for plover monitoring. The range is great as costs depend on
whether and where the plovers are located in the area. Costs may
increase, for example, if plovers are in the proposed extraction area.
129. Comment: One comment states that the DEA does not properly
distinguish property ownership and cost associated with North Island
North (CA-27A) and North Island South (CA-27B). North Island North is
Naval Base Coronado. The Department of Defense (DOD) owns land in both
units but are listed in Exhibit 3-4 as private. Further, North Island
South costs are included as DOD costs but the property is primarily
owned and managed by City of Coronado.
Our Response: The Proposed Rule states that both subunits are
located entirely on land owned by the Department of Defense. Exhibit 3-
4 of the DEA however, incorrectly identifies the land manager as
private. The DEA does not estimate costs other than military for these
two subunits as described in Section 6.2.2. Therefore, this correction
is purely descriptive and does not affect impact estimates.
130. Comment: One commenter states that the DEA should include
costs attributable to section 7 consultations, law enforcement, or
additional expenses to public works related to plover conservation
efforts.
Our Response: Section 3.3 of the DEA quantifies the administrative
costs of section 7 consultation; Sections 3.1 and 3.2 quantify and
discuss management costs, including law enforcement costs where
appropriate. Further, impacts to public works project, such as the
Humboldt County camp grounds, are considered in the DEA.
131. Comment: One commenter highlights that paragraph 18 of the DEA
does not acknowledge that the HCP developed by the California State
Parks for Oceano Dunes is only a draft and includes several state park
units in the San Luis Obispo County in addition to Oceano Dunes State
Vehicular Recreation Area.
Our Response: Paragraph 100 acknowledges the draft HCP includes
Estero Bluffs, Morro Strand State Beach, Montana Del Oro State Park,
Pismo Dunes Natural Preserve, and Oceano Dunes State Vehicular
Recreation Area.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In developing the final critical habitat designation for the
Pacific Coast WSP, we reviewed public comments received on the proposed
designation of critical habitat published December 17, 2004 (69 FR
75608), and the draft economic analysis published on August 16, 2005
(70 FR 48094); conducted further evaluation of lands proposed as
critical habitat; refined our mapping methodologies; and excluded
additional habitat from the final designation. Table 1, included in the
``Critical Habitat Designation'' section, outlines changes in acreages
for each subunit where changes occurred between the proposed rule
published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608) and this final rule. In
addition to clarifications in the text pertainting to units or
subunits, we made changes to our proposed designation as follows:
(1) We mapped critical habitat more precisely by eliminating
habitat areas of marginal quality that we do not expect to be used by
Pacific Coast WSP. In certain locations, we determined that habitat had
been degraded by extensive stands of non-native vegetation where beach
managers are unable to plan dune system restoration due to shortages in
funding or staff. In some instances, habitat may have also been
degraded by overuse by humans, such as at OHV parks. As a result, the
following critical habitat units had adjustments to their boundaries.
The rationale for each adjustment is provided under the unit
description. The affected critical habitat units are: CA 1, CA 15B, CA
16, and CA 19B.
(2) Several military areas were exempted from critical habitat
designation due to their legally operative INRMPs. In addition, three
National Wildlife Refuges were found to not to meet the definition of
critical habitat under section 3(5)(a) of the Act, and were removed
from the designation. Finally, several areas were excluded from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. These areas were
excluded either for national security reasons, operative habitat
conservation plans, or because of the high economic costs of critical
habitat designation. For a complete description of these areas, please
see the section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(3) Although we attempted to remove as many areas of unsuitable
habitat to Pacific Coast WSP as possible before publishing the proposed
rule, we were not able to eliminate all of them. As a result, the final
rule represents a more precise delineation of essential habitat
containing one or more of the primary constituent elements. This
correction resulted in a reduction in the total acreage published in
the proposed rule. The affected critical habitat units are: CA 4D, and
CA 19A, which contained areas in the proposed rule that were removed in
the final designation. Some other designated units may also contain
small portions which do not contain the primary constituent elements.
Since it is not possible to remove each and every area that may be
unsuitable Pacific Coast WSP habitat, even at the refined mapping scale
used, the maps of the designation still may include areas that do not
contain primary constituent elements. These areas lacking the primary
constituent elements at time of the final rule's publication are not
designated as critical habitat.
(4) Some mapping errors occurred in the proposed critical habitat
rule for the Pacific Coast WSP, resulting in misnaming a proposed unit,
an error in the depiction of unit boundaries, or in supplying the wrong
UTMs (Universal Transverse Mercator) in a unit's legal description. The
affected units corrected in this final rule are CA 4D, CA 12C, and CA
22. Refer to the specific unit description for corrections.
(5) The Unoccupied Areas Identified for Possible Inclusion
presented in the proposed rule were determined not to be essential to
the conservation of the species. Consequently, we are not designating
those areas in Washington and Oregon that were not occupied at the time
of listing in 1993. Those units are WA 1, OR 1A, OR 1B, OR 2, OR 4, OR
5A, OR 5B, OR 6, OR 8, OR 10B, OR 10C, OR 11, and OR 12.
(6) An error was made during development of the proposed rule
concerning the occupancy of CA 11A at the time of listing. We
mistakenly stated that CA 11A (Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz County,
California) was unoccupied during 1993, resulting in us not formally
proposing this subunit as critical habitat. We were referred to data in
our possession at the time of listing indicating that breeding plovers
were present at Waddell Creek in 1991, and again in 1995. No surveys
were
[[Page 56991]]
conducted during the interim period. Consequently, we assume CA 11A was
occupied at the time of listing, thereby fully meeting our designation
criteria as critical habitat.
We present brief descriptions below of the changes that have been
made to units from those proposed or considered under the proposed rule
(69 FR 75608), and provide the rationale for their change. A more
complete discussion of changes is provided in the unit descriptions for
those units that are designated as critical habitat. The critical
habitat features essential for the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP are defined in the ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below.
All designated units are located within the range of the population, in
the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. They are all
considered currently occupied (with documented use by plovers since
2000), unless otherwise noted.
Washington
WA 4, Leadbetter Point/Gunpowder Sands, 832 ac (337 ha): The
portion of the spit within the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge does
not meet the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(a) of the
Act, as it does not require special management. As a result, the unit
size has decreased to its designated 832 acres (337 ha) from its
proposed 1,069 acres (433 ha) with the exclusion of the Refuge.
Oregon
OR 8, (Subunits OR 8A and OR 8B): A number of changes to the
Siltcoos River Spit (OR 8A) and Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit
(OR 8B) subunits were made in response to public comment. The changes
reduced the total size of the unit from 563 to 535 acres and included:
(1) Creating a new smaller unit (Siltcoos Breach) from the northern
portion of OR 8A; (2) locating the northern boundary of OR 8A 0.6-miles
north of the Siltcoos River; and (3) combining proposed subunits OR 8B
with OR 8A. These modifications better reflect the current biological
and management conditions at the site since they designate an important
wintering area (the Siltcoos Breach), support the existing snowy plover
management areas, and provide consistency with the Draft Habitat
Conservation Plan for the Western Snowy Plover (Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department 2004).
California
CA 1, Lake Earl, 57 ac (24 ha): The portion of the proposed unit
extending north to Kellogg Road, has been dropped from the final
critical habitat designation, reducing the size of the unit from 91
acres (37 ha) to the designated 57 acres (24 ha). The narrow portion of
the proposed unit that extended along the Pacific Shores housing
development was eliminated from the final rule because of information
received regarding the dense stands of non-native European beachgrass
along an already narrow beach, the slope of the beachfront, and
intensive use by OHVs. These combined factors make the northern portion
of the proposed unit non-essential habitat. As a consequence, the
unit's northern boundary has been moved to exclude the private
property. The southern boundary has been changed to extend slightly to
the south onto State Park property.
CA 4D, Eel River Gravel Bars, 1,190 ac (481 ha): The overall
acreage of this unit has changed from the proposed 1,193 ac (483 ha)
due to information received regarding the inclusion of developed
properties managed by the California Department of Transportation. The
three acres containing road developments have been dropped from the
final designation, and are considered a mapping error.
CA 7, Dillon Beach, 30 ac (12 ha): This unit was excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
primarily based upon the landowner's willingness to enter a partnership
ensure conservation (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
CA 12A, Jetty Road to Aptos, 272 ac (110 ha): This subunit was
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act based upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application
of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act).
CA 12C, Monterey to Moss Landing, 788 ac (319 ha): We have
corrected a mapping error which was made during preparation of the
proposed rule; to correct that error, we have removed 15 ac from the
final designation. The remainder of this subunit was excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based
upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
CA 15B, Atascadero Beach, 101 ac (40 ha): A 43-ac (17 ha) portion
of this subunit managed by the City of Morro Bay was removed from the
proposed subunit because we determined that this area is not essential
to the conservation of the plover. The remainder of this subunit was
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act based upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application
of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act).
CA 16, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, 969 ac (392 ha): A 300-ac (121.4-
ha) heavily used open riding area within Oceano Dunes State Vehicular
Recreation Area was removed from the proposed unit because we
determined that this area is not essential to the conservation of the
plover. The remainder of this subunit was excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its
high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
CA 17, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 930 ac (376 ha): This unit,
comprised of subunits CA 17A and CA 17B, is located on Vandenberg Air
Force Base in Santa Barbara County, California. We have excluded all
essential lands in this unit from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion).
CA 19A, Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River, 410 ac (166 ha): As
stated in the unit description in the proposed rule (69 FR 75608), this
subunit extends 6.1 mi (9.8 km) north along the coast from the north
jetty of the Channel Islands harbor to the Santa Clara River. However,
the map of this subunit (Map 54), as published in the proposed rule,
depicted this unit as starting about 1 mile north of the jetty
(Hollywood Beach). We have corrected the map of subunit 19A to display
the complete subunit, which includes Hollywood Beach.
CA 19B, Ormond Beach, 175 ac (71 ha): We removed a 28-ac (11 ha)
area of subunit CA 19B, from the J Street drainage to the south jetty
of Port Hueneme, because it is a highly disturbed and a heavily used
recreational area. We determined that the area removed is not essential
to the conservation of the plover.
CA 19C, Mugu Lagoon North, 321 ac (130 ha): This subunit is owned
entirely by the Department of Defense (Naval Base Ventura). Naval Base
Ventura County has a final approved INRMP that provides a conservation
benefit to the western snowy plover. We have now determined that the
Naval Base Ventura County is exempted under 4(a)(3) of the Act and thus
these lands are removed from final designation.
CA 19D, Mugu Lagoon South, 87 ac (35 ha): This subunit is mostly
owned
[[Page 56992]]
by Department of Defense (Naval Base Ventura). Based on a final INRMP
which the Secretary has determined provides a benefit to the plover,
the military portion is therefore exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. However, there is a 18.3-ac (7.4 ha) section at its southern end
of the subunit which extends into Pt Mugu State Park, owned and managed
by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The portion
within the State Park is designated as critical habitat.
CA 22B, Bolsa Chica State Beach, 4 ac (2 ha): This subunit was
mislabeled during the proposed rule process. The correct name, shown
here for subunit CA 22B, is Bolsa Chica State Beach. The UTMs for the
unit's legal description were also presented in error during the
proposed rule, and are correctly provided with the subunits map. The
overall acreage and ownership remain the same, as does the subunit's
narrative description provided in the proposed rule (69 FR 75608).
CA 24, San Onofre Beach, 40 ac (16 ha): We have refined our mapping
for Unit CA 24 to more accurately define the essential snowy plover
habitat between San Onofre Creek and San Mateo Creek. The majority of
snowy plover use in this area currently is located in a less visited
portion of the beach closer to the mid-point between the two creek
mouths. The result of this refined mapping is a reduction in the length
of the proposed unit at both ends, removing critical habitat from Green
Beach as well as beach areas to the north of San Mateo Creek mouth.
CA 27A, North Island/Coronado, 117 ac (47 ha): This subunit is
exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of their approved
INRMP that provides a benefit to the species (see Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion).
Subunit CA 27C, Silver Strand, 99 ac (40 ha): All Navy lands within
subunit CA 27C are exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of
their approved INRMP that provides a benefit to the species (see
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion). The remainder of
this subunit (Silver Strand State Beach) was excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its
high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
Subunit CA 27D, Delta Beach, 85 ac (35 ha): All lands within
subunit CA 27D have been exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
because of the Navy's approved INRMP that provides a benefit to the
species (see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow government or public access to private lands.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential
life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing
management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below,
such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to
section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when the best available scientific and
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best
scientific and commercial data available. They require Service
biologists to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical
habitat, a primary source of information is generally the listing
package for the species. Additional information sources include the
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals,
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is
used in accordance with the provisions of section 515 of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issues by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the
[[Page 56993]]
action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species
outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that
contain habitat features essential to the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP. Data sources include research published in peer-reviewed
articles; previous Service documents on the species, including the
original critical habitat designation (Service 1999) and final listing
determination (Service 1993); numerous surveys; and, aerial photographs
and GIS mapping information from State sources and our files. We
designated no areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by
the species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species. Sources of information include
data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by
biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research
published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses
and agency reports; regional Geographic Information System (GIS)
coverages; and data colleted in support of Habitat Conservation Plans
and other local, State, and Federal planning documents.
Four steps were conducted to identify critical habitat units.
First, we identified those areas occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP at
the time of listing. Secondly, we identified, in accordance with
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the
physical and biological habitat features (also called primary
constituent elements, or PCEs) at those sites that are essential to the
conservation of the species. We mapped critical habitat unit boundaries
at each site based on the extent of habitat containing sufficient PCEs
to support biological function. The mapping itself was the third step,
while the fourth and final step was to find that certain units, which
do not require special management, do not meet the definition of
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, and to exempt other
units that are subject to an approved INRMP that provides a benefit to
the species under section 4(a)(3), and to exclude certain units based
on section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below, for
a detailed description). We discuss each of these steps more fully
below in the section titled ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat'.
Our mapping process was based on the need to exclude areas that
lack PCEs, while simultaneously accounting for the dynamic nature of
beach habitat. Our mapping process also allowed us to provide a
reasonable level of certainty to landowners regarding the location of
unit boundaries relative to private lands.
We used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to establish
landward bounds for those breeding and wintering sites that meet the
criteria identified under the section titled ``Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat''. We drew the landward bounds so as to
exclude habitat lacking PCEs, as determined using the most recent
digital orthorectified aerial photographs available. We also
incorporated appropriate input regarding PCEs received during the
public comment periods. We set the landward bounds to remain fixed in
place, defined by the UTM North American Datum 27 coordinates of their
vertices and endpoints, because most private land is located near the
landward bounds, and because the landward side of the unit is likely to
change less over time than other boundaries.
We depict the mapped shoreline, or waterline, bounds of each unit
according to mean low water (MLW), including waters of the Pacific
Ocean proper, bays, estuaries, and rivers where water level is
significantly influenced by tides. However, the actual critical habitat
designation includes the intertidal zone extending to the water's edge.
Use of the shoreline, or water's edge, as a boundary provides an easy-
to-find landmark when visiting one of the designated critical habitat
units. The water's edge incorporates essential habitat features that
are constantly changing due to tides and wave action, beach erosion and
aggradation, deposition of driftwood and stabilization due to
vegetation growth, shifting windblown sand dunes, and other processes.
For purposes of estimating unit sizes, we approximated MLW in
California using the most recent GIS projection of MHW. We chose MHW
because it is the only approximation of the coastline currently
available in GIS format. We were unable to obtain recent GIS maps of
MHW or MLW for Oregon and Washington. Therefore, we approximated MLW
for units in those States based on aerial photographs.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base critical habitat determinations
on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider
those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements
(PCEs)) that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that
may require special management considerations and protection. These
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter;
sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of
offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
The specific primary constituent elements for the Pacific Coast WSP
are derived from the biological needs of the Pacific Coast WSP as
described in the previously published in our recent re-proposal of
critical habitat, published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608).
Space for Individual and Population Growth, and Normal Behavior
Pacific Coast WSPs establish nesting territories, but these can
vary widely in size and do not provide adequate habitat for foraging.
Pacific Coast WSP broods rarely remain in the nesting area until
fledging (Warriner et al. 1986, Stern et al. 1990), and may travel
along the beach as far as 4 miles (6.4 kilometers from their natal area
)(Casler et al. 1993). Critical habitat must therefore extend beyond
nesting territories to include space for foraging and water
requirements during the nesting season, and space for over wintering.
Food and Water
Pacific Coast WSPs typically forage in open areas by locating prey
visually and then running to seize it with their beaks (Page et al.
1995a). They may also probe in the sand for burrowing invertebrates, or
charge flying insects that are resting on the ground, snapping at them
as they flush. Accordingly, they need open areas to forage and
facilitate both prey location and capture. Areas with deposits of tide-
cast wrack (e.g., kelp or driftwood) provide important foraging sites
because they attract certain
[[Page 56994]]
invertebrates that plovers consume (Page et al. 1995a). Plovers forage
both above and below high tide, but not while those areas are
underwater. Therefore, foraging areas will typically be limited by
water on their shoreward side and by dense vegetation or development on
their landward sides.
Coastal plovers use sites of fresh water for drinking where
available. However, some historic nesting sites have no obvious nearby
freshwater sources, particularly in southern California. Researchers
assume that adults and chicks in these areas obtain their necessary
water from the food they eat. Accordingly, we have not included
freshwater sites among the primary constituent elements of the Pacific
Coast WSP population.
Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring
Pacific Coast WSPs nest in depressions that are open, relatively
flat, and near tidal waters but far enough away to avoid being
inundated by daily tides. Typical substrate is beach sand, although
plovers are known to lay eggs in existing depressions with harder
ground such as salt pan, cobblestones, or dredge tailings. Where
available, dune systems with numerous flat areas and easy access to the
shore are particularly favored for nesting. Additionally, plover
nesting areas require shelter from predators and human disturbance, as
discussed below. If nesting is successful, unfledged chicks will forage
with one or both parents, using the same foraging areas and behaviors
as adults.
Cover or Shelter
Plovers and their eggs are well camouflaged against light colored,
sandy or pebbly backgrounds (Page et al. 1995a). Therefore, open areas
with such substrates actually constitute shelter for purposes of
nesting and foraging. Such areas provide little cover to predators, and
allow plovers to fully utilize their camouflage and running speed.
Chicks may also crouch near driftwood, dune plants and piles of kelp to
hide from predators (Page and Stenzel 1981). Consequently, open areas
do not provide shelter from wind and storms. These weather events are
known to cause many nest losses, along with extreme high tides. Plovers
readily scrape blown sand out of their nests, although there is little
they can do to protect the nests against serious storms or flooding
other than attempting to lay a new clutch if one is destroyed (Page et
al. 1995a).
No studies have quantified the amount of vegetation cover that
would make an area unsuitable for nesting or foraging. However, coastal
nesting and foraging locations typically have relatively well-defined
boundaries between the favorable open sandy substrates and the
unfavorable dense vegetation that occurs inland. Such boundaries are
clearly visible in aerial and satellite photographs and therefore were
used by us to map essential habitat features for this species.
Undisturbed Areas
Disturbance of nesting or brooding plovers by humans and domestic
animals is a major factor affecting nest success of the Pacific Coast
WSP. Plovers leave their nests when humans or pets approach too
closely. Dogs may also deliberately chase plovers and trample nests,
while vehicles may directly crush adults, chicks or nests, separate
chicks from brooding adults, and interfere with foraging (Warriner et
al. 1986, Service 1993 Ruhlen et al. 2003). Additionally, repeated
flushing of incubating plovers exposes the eggs to the weather and
deplete energy reserves needed by the adult. As a result, this could
lead to reductions in nesting success. Surveys from 1994 to 1997 at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, found the rate of nest loss on
southern beaches with higher recreational use to be consistently higher
than on north beaches where recreational use was much lower (Persons
and Applegate 1997). Ruhlen et al. (2003) found that increased human
activities on Point Reyes beaches resulted in a lower chick survival
rate. Additionally, recent efforts (i.e., use of docents, symbolic
fencing, and public outreach) in various locations throughout the
Pacific Coast WSP's range to direct recreational beach use away from
nesting plovers, has resulted in higher reproductive success positively
correlated with protection efforts in these areas (Page, et al. 2003
(summer 93 survey), Palermo 2004).
Primary Constituent Elements for Pacific Coast WSP
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the Pacific Coast WSP's primary constituent elements are:
(1) Sparsely vegetated areas above daily high tides (e.g., sandy
beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt
flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, dredge spoil sites, artificial
salt ponds and adjoining levees) that are relatively undisturbed by the
presence of humans, pets, vehicles or human-attracted predators;
(2) Sparsely vegetated sandy beach, mud flats, gravel bars or
artificial salt ponds subject to daily tidal inundation but not
currently under water, that support small invertebrates such as crabs,
worms, flies, beetles, sand hoppers, clams, and ostracods; and,
(3) Surf or tide-cast organic debris such as seaweed or driftwood
located on open substrates such as those mentioned above (essential to
support small invertebrates for food, and to provide shelter from
predators and weather for reproduction).
All areas designated as critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP
were occupied by the species at the time of listing and contain
sufficient primary constituent elements to support essential biological
function. These primary constituent elements were identified on the
bases that they are essential for Pacific Coast WSP reproduction, food
supplies, and shelter from predators and weather elements.
Additionally, these areas are essential because they provide protection
from disturbance and space for growth and normal behavior.
Unoccupied Areas Identified for Inclusion
The Act has different standards for designation of critical habitat
in occupied and unoccupied habitat. For areas occupied by the species,
these are--(i) the specific areas on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection. For
areas not occupied, a determination is required that the entire area is
essential for the conservation of the species before it can be included
in critical habitat.
Our proposed rule included a section containing Unoccupied Areas
Identified for Inclusion, for which we requested comment regarding
whether they should be included (in whole or in part) in the
designation. Those areas identified for specific review were: WA 1, OR
1A, OR 1B, OR 2, OR 4, OR 5A, OR 5B, OR 6, OR 8C, OR 10B, OR 10C, OR
11, and OR 12. We also asked for comment on the appropriateness of
designating areas that were occupied at the time of listing but are
currently unoccupied.
Although public comment was generally favorable towards including
the unoccupied areas in final critical habitat designation, we are
designating only areas actually occupied at the time of listing in 1993
because we do not believe that the unoccupied areas are essential to
the conservation of the species. Most of the unoccupied habitat
considered for designation was in Oregon, where a State-wide effort is
[[Page 56995]]
underway to improve the survival and recovery of the Pacific Coast WSP
through the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Additionally,
the western snowy plover is State listed throughout Oregon, thereby
already receiving regulatory protection beyond that associated with the
Act. No areas outside of the range of the Pacific Coast WSP have been
designated as critical habitat in this final rule.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
To identify sites containing habitat features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP (as defined above in our Methods
section), we applied the following three criteria:
(1) Our first criterion for critical habitat unit selection was to
choose sites in a geographic region capable of supporting breeding
plovers. Where appropriate, we adjusted our estimates of the number of
breeding birds a site could support according to additional information
supplied by surveys and by local species and habitat experts.
(2) We added any major, currently occupied wintering sites not
already selected under criterion one. This was necessary to provide
sufficient habitat for the survival of breeding birds during the non-
breeding season. A ``major'' wintering site must support more wintering
birds than average for the geographical region.
(3) Finally, we added additional sites that provide unique habitat,
or that are situated to facilitate interchange between otherwise widely
separated units. This criterion is based on standard conservation
biology principles for the conservation of rare and endangered animals
and their habitats (Shaffer 1981, 1987, 1995; Fahrig and Merriam 1985;
Gilpin and Soule 1986; Goodman 1987a, 1987b; Stacey and Taper 1992;
Mangel and Tier 1994; Lesica and Allendorf 1995; Fahrig 1997; Noss and
Csuti 1997; Huxel and Hastings 1998; Redford and Richter 1999; Debinski
and Holt 2000; Sherwin and Moritz 2000; Grosberg 2002; and, Noss et al.
2002). By protecting a variety of habitats and facilitating interchange
between them, we increase the ability of the species to adjust to
various limiting factors that affect the population, such as predators,
disease, major storms, and inbreeding.
We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain the PCEs.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the
permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate
the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-
Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing
operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Those HCPs that meet our issuance
criteria and have been released for public notice and comment have been
excluded from final critical habitat (see Table 2).
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid proposing the designation of developed areas such as
buildings, paved areas, boat ramps and other structures that lack PCEs
for the Pacific Coast WSP. Any such structures inadvertently left
inside proposed critical habitat boundaries are not considered part of
the proposed unit. This also applies to the land on which such
structures sit directly. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these
areas would not trigger section 7 consultations, unless they affect the
species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical
habitat.
A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is
provided in the unit descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is
contained in our supporting record for this rulemaking.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and contain the PCEs
may require special management considerations or protections.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to contain habitat features essential for conservation may
require special management considerations or protections. The threats
affecting the continued survival and recovery of the Pacific Coast WSP
within each of the proposed critical habitat units and that may require
special management are described in the critical habitat unit
descriptions in our December 17, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608).
Primary threats requiring special management considerations include
disturbance of nesting or foraging plovers by humans, vehicles, and
domestic animals, high levels of predation on eggs and young, and loss
of habitat due to development and encroachment of dune-stabilizing
vegetation such as European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) (Service
1993).
The areas designated as critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP
will require some level of management and/or protection to (1) address
the current and future threats to the species; and, (2) maintain the
primary constituent elements essential to its conservation in order to
ensure the overall conservation of the species. The designation of
critical habitat does not imply that lands outside of critical habitat
do not play an important role in the conservation of the plover.
Federal activities that may affect those unprotected areas outside of
critical habitat are still subject to review under section 7 of the Act
if they may affect the Pacific Coast WSP. The prohibitions of section 9
(e.g., prohibitions against killing, harming, harassing, capturing
plovers) also continue to apply both inside and outside of designated
critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 32 units in Washington, Oregon, and California
as critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. All these units are
within the range occupied by the species, and constitute our best
assessment at this time of the areas containing habitat features
essential for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. The areas
designated as critical habitat are outlined in Table 2 below.
Tables 1 and 2 show the approximate area not included in critical
habitat pursuant to sections 3(5)(A), 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act
(Table 1), and the approximate area designated as critical habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP by land ownership and State (Table 2).
[[Page 56996]]
Table 1.--Approximate Area ac (ha) Not Included in Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP Pursuant to
Sections 3(5)(A), 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size
----------------------
Unit Acres ha Basis of exclusion
-------------------------------------
WA 4. Leadbetter Pt................. 270 109 Mgt. Plan.............. 3(5)(A)
CA 7. Dillon Beach.................. 30 12 Conserv. Agreement..... 4(b)(2)
San Francisco Bay................... 1,847 747 Mgt. Plan.............. 4(b)(2)
CA 12A. Jetty Rd. to Aptos.......... 272 110 Economics.............. 4(b)(2)
CA 12C. Monterey to Moss Lnd........ 803 325 Mgt. Plan economics.... 3(5)(A)/4(b)(2)
CA 15B. Atascadero.................. 144 58 Economics.............. 4(b)(2)
CA 15C. Morro Bay................... 611 247 Economics.............. 4(b)(2)
CA 16. Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes..... 1,269 513 Mgt. Plan/economics.... 3(5)(A)/4(b)(2)
CA 17A. Vandenberg North............ 626 253 National Security...... 4(b)(2)
CA 17B. Vandenberg South............ 304 123 National Security...... 4(b)(2)
San Nicholas Island................. 534 212 INRMP.................. 4(a)(3)
CA 19C. Magu Lagoon................. 321 130 INRMP.................. 4(a)(3)
CA 19D. Magu Lagoon................. 69 28 INRMP.................. 4(a)(3)
Camp Pendleton...................... 49 20 INRMP.................. 4(a)(3)
San Diego MSCP/HCP.................. 23 9 Mgt. Plan.............. 4(b)(2)
CA 27A. North Island................ 117 47 INRMP.................. 4(a)(3)
CA 27C. Silver Strand............... 174 70 INRMP/economics........ 4(a)(3)/4(b)(2)
CA 27D. Delta Beach................. 85 35 INRMP.................. 4(a)(3)
----------------------
Total........................... 7,548 3048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for the use of an exclusion or exemption is provided
in the sections below discussing the application of section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Designated for the Pacific Coast WSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State/local Private Total
Unit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acres ha acres ha acres ha acres ha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington:
WA 2. Damon Pt., Oyhut.. 0 0 908 368 0 0 908 368
WA 3. Midway Beach...... 0 0 266 108 520 210 786 318
WA 4. Leadbetter Pt..... 0 0 832 337 0 0 832 337
------------
Subtotal............ 0 0 2006 813 520 210 2526 1023
============
Oregon:
OR 3. Bayocean Spit..... 85 34 122 49.5 0 0 207 83.5
OR 7. Baker/Sutton 260 105 0 0 0 0 260 105
Beaches................
OR 8. Siltcoos to
Tenmile:
OR 8A. Siltcoos 8 3 0 0 0 0 8 3
BreachltcoosreachBr
eeBreach...........
OR 8B. Siltcoos 527 213 0 0 0 0 527 213
River Spit to
Tahkenitch Cr. Spit
OR 8D. Tenmile Creek 234.5 95 0 0 0 0 234.5 95
Spit...............
OR 9. Coos Bay North 278 113 0 0 0 0 278 113
Spit...................
OR 10A. Bandon to Floras 298 121 171 69 163 66 632 256
Creek..................
------------
Subtotal.......... 1690.5 684 293 118.5 163 66 2146.5 868.5
============
California:
CA 1. Lake Earl......... 0 0 11 5 46 19 57 24
CA 2. Big Lagoon........ 0 0 280 113 0 0 280 113
CA 3. McKinleyville
Area:
CA 3A. Clam Beach/ 0 0 131 53 24 10 155 63
Little River.......
CA 3B. Mad River.... 0 0 161 65 217 88 377 153
CA 4. Eel River Area:
CA 4A. Humboldt Bay, 20 8 354 143 0 0 375 152
S. Spit............
CA 4B. Eel River N 0 0 278 112 5 2 283 114
Spit/Beach.........
CA 4C. Eel River S 0 0 4 2 397 161 402 163
Spit/Beach.........
CA 4D. Eel River 0 0 255 103 938 379 1193 483
Gravel Bars........
CA 5. MacKerricher Beach 0 0 1017 412 31 13 1048 424
CA 6. Manchester Beach.. 0 0 336 136 5 2 341 138
CA 8. Pt. Reyes Beach... 462 187 0 0 0 0 462 187
CA 9. Limantour Spit.... 124 50 0 0 0 0 124 50
CA 10. Half Moon Bay.... 0 0 37 15 0 0 37 15
[[Page 56997]]
CA 11. Santa Cruz Coast:
CA 11A. Waddell Cr. 0 0 8 3 1 0.5 9 4
Beach..............
CA 11B. Scott Cr. 0 0 0 0 19 8 19 8
Beach..............
CA 11C. Wilder Cr. 0 0 10 4 0 0 10 4
Beach..............
CA 12. Monterey Bay
Beaches:
CA 12B. Elkhorn Sl 0 0 281 114 0 0 281 114
Mudflat............
CA 13. Pt.Sur Beach..... 0 0 61 25 0 0 61 25
CA 14. San Simeon Beach. 0 0 28 11 0 0 28 11
CA 15. Estero Bay
Beaches:
CA 15A. Villa Cr. 0 0 17 7 0 0 17 7
Beach..............
CA 18. Devereux Beach... 0 0 36 15 0 0 36 15
CA 19. Oxnard Lowlands:
CA 19A. Mandalay to 0 0 245 99 105 42 350 142
Santa Clara R Mouth
CA 19B. Ormond Beach 0 0 175 71 0 0 175 71
CA 19D. Magu Lagoon 0 0 87 35 0 0 87 35
S..................
CA 20. Zuma Beach....... 0 0 60 24 8 3 68 28
CA 21. Santa Monica Bay:
CA 21A. Santa Monica 0 0 6 2 19 8 25 10
Beach..............
CA 21B. Dockweiler N 0 0 43 17 0 0 43 17
CA 21C. Dockweiler S 0 0 13 5 11 5 24 10
CA 21D. Hermosa 0 0 10 4 0 0 10 4
Beach..............
CA 22. Bolsa Chica Area:
CA 22A. Bolsa Chica 0 0 0 0 591 239 591 239
Reserve............
CA 22B. Bolsa Chica 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 2
St. Beach..........
CA 23. Santa Ana R Mouth 0 0 12 5 1 0 13 5
CA 24. San Onofre Beach. 0 0 40 16 9 4 49 20
CA 25. Batiquitos
Lagoon:
CA 25A. Batiquitos 0 0 15 6 6 3 21 9
West...............
CA 25B. Batiquitos 0 0 15 6 8 3 23 9
Middle.............
CA 25C. Batiquitos 0 0 0 0 21 8 21 8
East...............
CA 26. Los Penasquitos.. 0 0 24 10 0 0 24 10
CA 27. S. San Diego:
CA 27B. North Island ......... ........ 44 18 ........ ........ 44 18
CA 27E. Sweetwater 77 31 0 0 51 21 128 52
NWR................
CA 27F. Tijuana R. 105 42 77 31 0 0 182 73
Beach..............
------------
Subtotal.......... 788 318 4175 1689 2508 1018.5 7477 3029
============
Total........... 2478.5 1002 6474 2620.5 3191 1294.5 12145 4921
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all of the units, and reasons why
they are essential for the conservation of Pacific Coast WSP. The
critical habitat features essential for the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP are defined in the ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section
above. All units are located within the range of the population, in the
States of Washington, Oregon, and California. They are all considered
currently occupied (with documented use by plovers since 2000), unless
otherwise noted. Those units not currently occupied are considered
essential to the conservation of the population for the reasons
provided in the description.
Washington
WA 2, Damon Point/Oyhut Wildlife Area, 908 ac (368 ha): This unit
is located at the southern end of the community of Ocean Shores and is
a sandy spit that extends into Grays Harbor. Damon Point includes the
following features essential to the conservation of the species: sandy
beaches that are relatively undisturbed by human or tidal activity
(nesting habitat), large expanses of sparsely vegetated barren terrain,
and mudflats and sheltered bays that provide ample foraging areas.
Research in the mid 1980's indicated that up to 20 snowy plovers used
the area for nesting. Plover use has declined somewhat over the past 20
years; currently between 6 and 9 adult birds use the site during the
breeding season (average reproductive success at Damon is 1.5 chicks
per male) (WDFW in litt. 2003). The conservation goal for WA 2 is 12
adult plovers. Approximately 99 percent of the 908-acre unit is
administered by the State (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife--
227 ac (92 ha); Washington State Parks--63.6 ac (25.7 ha); and
Washington Department of Natural Resources--605.6 ac (245.1 ha)). The
western edge of the unit lies adjacent to a municipal wastewater
treatment facility that is managed by the City of Ocean Shores (9 ac
(3.6 ha)). The access road has washed out and the area is currently
inaccessible to motorized vehicles. Management may be needed to address
threats to plovers from recreational use (pedestrians with dogs),
habitat loss from European beachgrass, and potential re-opening of the
vehicle access road.
WA 3, Midway Beach, 786 ac (318 ha): This unit is located between
the community of Grayland and Willapa Bay and covers an area called
Twin Harbors Beaches. Midway is an expansive beach and is nearly 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) wide at the widest point. Beach accretion since 1998 has
greatly improved habitat conditions, resulting in the re-establishment
of a plover population at this site (WDFW in litt.
[[Page 56998]]
2000). Nearly half of the birds that nest and/or over-winter at Midway
were banded in Oregon or Humboldt County, California (WDFW in litt.
2003). Threats at Midway include motorized vehicles combined with a
lack of enforcement of the wet sand driving restrictions and human
activity on holiday weekends (e.g., Fourth of July fireworks). Although
public access is restricted on private property, beach driving is
permitted below MHW. Approximately \2/3\ (about 520 ac (210.4 ha)) of
this unit is on private property with the remainder (266 ac (107.6 ha))
on State park lands. Private property rights extend to the mean low
water line (MLW) in Washington State. The conservation goal for Midway
Beach is 30 adult breeding birds. Twenty-eight plovers nested at this
site during the 2003 breeding season, and the site has shown a
relatively high average annual production of 1.3 to 1.9 chicks per male
(WDFW in litt. 2003).
WA 4. Leadbetter Point/Gunpowder Sands, 832 ac (337 ha): The
Leadbetter Point/Gunpowder Sands critical habitat unit is located at
the northern end of the Long Beach Peninsula, a 26-mile (41.8-km) long
spit that defines the west side of Willapa Bay and extends down to the
mouth of the Columbia River. The unit is located just north of the
community of Ocean Park. The portion of the spit within the Willapa
National Wildlife Refuge has not been included in the final critical
habitat designation under subsection 3(5)(a) of the Act, based on its
existing management. As a result of Refuge exclusion, the unit size has
decreased from 1,069 acres (433 ha) to its current 832 acres (337 ha).
The southern portion of the unit, including Leadbetter Point State Park
and the beach south of the state park boundary, is managed by the
Washington State Parks and Recreation Department. State regulations,
including motorized vehicle access during special shellfish seasons and
recreational use, apply to the portion of the beach that is managed by
the State. South of the Willapa NWR boundary, the state park
jurisdiction follows an 1880 property line that extends well above the
mean high tide line and includes all of the snowy plover nesting and
foraging habitat in that part of the unit.
Leadbetter is the largest of the critical habitat units in
Washington and covers approximately 832 acres (337 ha) over 7 miles
(11.3 km) of coastline. The entire unit is on lands that are managed by
Washington State. Approximately 30 snowy plovers nest and over-winter
on the spit, with about 20-25 birds nesting north of the refuge
boundary and 5-10 birds using the state park beaches to the south
(Service in litt. 2004). Plover use of the beaches south of the refuge
boundary appears to be increasing. The unit includes PCEs such as:
sandy beaches and sparsely vegetated dunes for nesting as well as miles
of surf-cast organic debris and sheltered bays for foraging. The
combined dynamics of weather and surf cause large quantities of wood
and shell material to accumulate on the spit, providing prime nesting
habitat, hiding areas from predators, foraging opportunities, and
shelter from inclement weather for plover broods. The plover population
at Leadbetter has been slowly increasing since intensive monitoring
began in 1993 and we consider the area capable of supporting at least
30 breeding plovers given appropriate management.
The primary threat north of the refuge boundary is human
disturbance during the spring razor clam season, which opens beaches to
motorized vehicle and provides access into plover nesting areas that
normally receive limited human use. Beaches south of the refuge are
open to public use year round. The State Parks department has posted
interpretive signs in areas being used by plovers and is increasing
enforcement of the wet sand driving regulations.
Oregon
OR 3, Bayocean Spit, 207 ac (84 ha): This unit is on the western
coast of Tillamook County, Oregon, and about 8 mi (12.9 km) northwest
of the City of Tillamook. It is bounded by Tillamook Bay on the east,
the Tillamook Bay South Jetty to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to
the west. The unit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach in close
proximity to mud flats and an estuary. It includes the following
features essential to the conservation of the species (PCEs): large
areas of sandy dune relatively undisturbed by human or tidal activity
(for nesting and foraging); areas of sandy beach above and below the
high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for foraging); and close proximity to tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats (for foraging). Two breeding plovers and one
wintering plover were documented in this unit in 1993 and 2000,
respectively (ODFW in litt. 1994; Service in litt. 2004). This unit
provides habitat capable of supporting 16 breeding plovers under proper
management. The unit consists of 85 ac (34.4 ha) of federally owned
land and 122 ac (49.4 ha) of county-owned land. The primary threats
that may require special management in this unit are introduced
European beachgrass that encroaches on the available nesting and
foraging habitat; disturbance from humans, dogs and horses in important
foraging and nesting areas; and predators such as the common raven.
OR 7, Sutton/Baker Beaches, 260 ac (105.2 ha): This unit is on the
western coast of Lane County, Oregon, about 8 mi (12.9 km) north of the
City of Florence. It is bounded by Sutton Creek to the south, Heceta
Head to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The unit is
characteristic of a dune-backed beach and wide sand spits with overwash
areas. It includes the following features essential to the conservation
of the species: large areas of sandy dunes or sand spit overwashes
relatively undisturbed by human or tidal activity (for nesting and
foraging) and areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (for
foraging). Most recently documented plovers for this unit include an
average of 2 breeding plovers in 2003 and 8 wintering plovers in 2004
(Lauten et al. in litt. 2003; Service in litt. 2004). This unit is
capable of supporting 12 breeding plovers under proper management. The
unit consists of 260 federally owned ac (105.2 ha) managed by the U.S.
Forest Service in Siuslaw National Forest. The primary threats that may
require special management in this unit are introduced European
beachgrass that encroaches on the available nesting and foraging
habitat; disturbance from humans, dogs and horses in important foraging
and nesting areas; and predators such as the American crow and common
raven.
Unit OR 8, Siltcoos to Tahkenitch Creek Spit: This unit includes
two subunits within Lane and Douglas counties, Oregon.
Subunit OR 8A, Siltcoos Breach, 8 ac (3 ha): This subunit is on the
southwestern coast of Lane County, Oregon, about 7 mi (11.3 km)
southwest of the City of Florence. It is a large opening in the
foredune just north of the Siltcoos River and is an important winter
roost. The subunit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach in close
proximity to a tidally influenced river mouth. It includes the
following features essential to the conservation of the species:
Sparsely vegetated areas of sandy dune relatively undisturbed by human
or tidal activity (for roosting); areas of sandy beach above and below
the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for foraging); and close proximity to tidally influenced
freshwater areas (for foraging). Recently documented plovers for this
subunit include 20 wintering plovers in 2004 (Service in litt. 2004).
The subunit consists of 8 federally owned acres (3.4
[[Page 56999]]
ha) managed by the U.S. Forest Service as the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area in the Siuslaw National Forest. The primary threats
that may require special management in this subunit are introduced
European beachgrass that encroaches on the available roosting habitat
and disturbance from OHVs in the important roosting areas.
Subunit OR 8B, Siltcoos River to Tahkenitch Creek Spit, 527 ac (213
ha): The northern end of this subunit is on the southwestern coast of
Lane County, Oregon, about 7 mi (11.3 km) southwest of the City of
Florence. The southern end is on the northwestern coast of Douglas
County, Oregon, about 10 mi (16.1 km) northwest of the City of
Reedsport. It is bounded by the Siltcoos River to the north, Tahkenitch
Creek to the south and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The subunit is
characteristic of a dune-backed beach and sand spit in close proximity
to a tidally influenced river mouth. It includes the following features
essential to the conservation of the species: Wide sand spits or wash
overs and sparsely vegetated areas of sandy dune relatively undisturbed
by human or tidal activity (for nesting and foraging); areas of sandy
beach above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates (for foraging); and close
proximity to tidally influenced freshwater areas (for foraging).
Recently documented plovers for this subunit include an average of
seven breeding plovers in 2003 and two wintering plovers in 2003
(Lauten et al. in litt. 2003; Service in litt. 2004). This subunit is
capable of supporting 20 breeding plovers under proper management. The
subunit consists of 527 federally owned acres (213.3 ha) managed by the
U.S. Forest Service as the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area in the
Siuslaw National Forest. The primary threats that may require special
management in this subunit are introduced European beachgrass that
encroaches on the available nesting and foraging habitat; disturbance
from humans, dogs and OHVs in important foraging and nesting areas; and
predators such as the American crow and common raven.
OR 9, Coos Bay North Spit, 278 ac (112.5 ha): This unit is on the
western coast of Coos County, Oregon, about 5 mi (8.0 km) west of the
City of Coos Bay. It is bounded by Coos Bay to the east, the Coos Bay
North Jetty to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The unit
is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and interior interdune flats
created through dredge material disposal or through habitat
restoration. It includes the following features essential to the
conservation of the species (PCEs): Expansive sparsely vegetated
interdune flats (for nesting and foraging); areas of sandy beach above
and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging); and close proximity to
tidally influenced estuarine areas (for foraging). The most recently
documented plovers for this unit include an average of 17 breeding and
3 wintering plovers in 2003 (Lauten et al. in litt. 2003; Service in
litt. 2004). This unit provides habitat capable of supporting 54
breeding plovers under proper management. The unit consists of 278
federally owned acres (112.5 ha) primarily managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. Threats that may require special management in this
unit are introduced European beachgrass that encroaches on the
available nesting and foraging habitat; disturbance from humans, dogs
and OHVs in important foraging and nesting areas; and predators such as
the American crow and common raven.
OR 10, Bandon/Cape Blanco Area: One subunit within this unit was
identified as essential to the conservation of the species, near the
town of Bandon in Coos and Curry Counties, Oregon.
Subunit OR 10A, Bandon to Floras Lake, 632 ac (256 ha): This
subunit is on the southwestern coast of Coos County, Oregon, about 4 mi
(6.4 km) south of the City of Bandon. It is bounded by China Creek to
the north, the New River to the east, Floras Lake to the south, and the
Pacific Ocean to the west. The subunit is characteristic of a dune-
backed beach and barrier spit. It includes the following features
essential to the conservation of the species: Wide sand spits or
washovers and sparsely vegetated areas of sandy dune relatively
undisturbed by human or tidal activity (for nesting and foraging);
areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line with occasional
surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (foraging); and close
proximity to tidally influenced freshwater areas (for foraging). The
most recently documented plovers for this subunit include an average of
15 breeding and 18 wintering plovers in 2003 (Lauten et al. in litt.
2003; Service in litt. 2004). This subunit is capable of supporting 54
breeding plovers under proper management. The subunit consists of 298
ac (120 ha) of federally owned land, 171 ac (69 ha) of State-owned
land, 12 ac of county-owned land (5 ha), and 163 ac (66 ha) of
privately owned land. The Bureau of Land Management and the Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department are the unit's primary land managers.
Threats that may require special management in this subunit are
introduced European beachgrass that encroaches on the available nesting
and foraging habitat; disturbance from humans, dogs, horses and OHVs in
important foraging and nesting areas; and predators such as the common
raven and red fox.
California
Unit CA 1, Lake Earl; 57 ac (24 ha): This unit is located directly
west of the Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa lagoon system. The portion of the
proposed unit extending north to Kellogg Road has been dropped from the
final critical habitat designation, reducing the size of the unit from
91 acres (37 ha) to the designated 57 acres (24 ha). The narrow portion
of the proposed unit that extended along the Pacific Shores housing
development was removed from the final rule because of information
received regarding the dense stands of non-native European beachgrass
along an already narrow beach, the relatively steep slope of the
beachfront, and intensive use by OHVs. These factors combined make the
northern portion of the proposed unit non-essential habitat. As a
consequence, the final designated unit extends slightly to the south on
to State Park property, while avoiding the private property to the
north.
The Lake Earl lagoon is approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) in length,
encompasses 90.8 ac (36.7 ha), and lies approximately 2 mi (3.2 km)
north of Point Saint George and the McNamara Airfield. Essential
features of the unit for Pacific Coast WSP conservation include sandy
beaches above and below the mean high tide line, wind-blown sand in
dune systems immediately inland of the active beach face, and the wash
over area at the lagoon mouth. The Lake Earl unit is a historical
breeding site, and has harbored a small population of wintering plovers
in recent years (Watkins, pers. comm. 2004). We expect this unit is
capable of supporting 10 breeding plovers with adaptive management. All
57 ac (24 ha) are managed by the State under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Fish and Game, and California State Parks.
Threats to the species include the following: Degradation of the sand
dune system due to encroachment of European beachgrass; destruction of
habitat and loss of wintering and nesting plovers from OHV use; and,
destruction of habitat from annual mechanical breaching (as authorized
by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE)) of the Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa
lagoon.
[[Page 57000]]
Monitoring indicates that the practice of breaching has only temporary,
short-term effects to wintering plovers.
CA 2, Big Lagoon, 280 ac (113 ha): This unit consists of a large
sand spit that divides the Pacific Ocean from Big Lagoon. The northern
extent of the Big Lagoon spit is approximately three mi (4.8 km) south
of the Town of Orick. The unit contains the following features
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP (PCEs): Low
lying sandy dunes and open sandy areas that are relatively undisturbed
by humans; and sandy beach above and below the high tide line that
supports small invertebrates. The Big Lagoon spit is historical nesting
habitat, and currently maintains a winter population of fewer than 10
plovers (Watkins, pers. comm. 2001). We estimate the unit can support
16 breeding plovers. The unit is located on the spit, which is
approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) in length. Most of the unit (279.2 ac,
113.0 ha) is managed by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation (CA State Parks). An additional 0.6 ac (0.26 ha) are
Humboldt County-managed. State Parks has conducted habitat restoration
at this unit through the hand-removal of non-native vegetation. The
primary threat to wintering and breeding plovers that may require
special management is the disturbance from humans and dogs walking
through winter flocks and potential nesting areas.
CA 3, McKinleyville Area: This unit consists of two subunits in the
vicinity of McKinleyville, California, in Humboldt County.
CA 3A, Clam Beach/Little River, 155 ac (63 ha): The Little River/
Clam Beach subunit's northern boundary is directly across from the
south abutment of the U.S. Highway 101 bridge that crosses the Little
River. The southern subunit boundary is aligned with the north end of
the southernmost, paved Clam Beach parking area. The length of the unit
is approximately 1.8 mi (2.8 km). Essential features of the subunit
that contribute towards the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP
include large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and
below the high tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain. The subunit currently supports a breeding population of
approximately 12 plovers, and a winter population of up to 55 plovers
(Colwell, et al. 2003). It has developed into one of four primary
nesting locations within northern California. We expect the subunit to
be capable of supporting six pairs of breeding plovers. The primary
threats to nests, chicks, and both wintering and breeding adult plovers
in this subunit are OHV use, predators, and disturbance caused by
humans and dogs. Of the total 154.9 ac (62.7 ha), approximately 81.5
acres (33 ha) are under the jurisdiction of the CA State Parks, 24.1
acres (9.8 ha) are in private ownership, and 49.5 acres (20 ha) are
under the ownership and management of Humboldt County.
CA 3B, Mad River Beach, 377 ac (153 ha): This subunit was largely
swept clean of European beachgrass when the Mad River temporarily
shifted north in the 1980's and 1990's. The Mad River Beach subunit is
approximately 2.8 mi (4.5 km) long, and ranges from the U.S. Highway
101 Vista Point below the Arcata Airport in the north, to School Road
in the south. One hundred sixty one acres (65 ha) are owned and managed
by Humboldt County, and 216.5 (87.6 ha) are privately owned. Essential
features of the subunit that contribute towards the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP include large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy
beach above and below the high tide line, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain. We expect the subunit to eventually support
12 breeding plovers with proper management. The current breeding
population is believed to be less than 5 plovers, although plovers from
this subunit readily intermix with plovers in CA 3A (Colwell, et al.
2003). Occasional winter use by plovers has been intermittently
documented, with most wintering within the adjacent critical habitat
unit to the north (Hall, pers. comm. 2003). The primary threats to
nests, chicks, and both wintering and breeding adult plovers are OHV
use, and disturbance caused by equestrians and humans with accompanying
dogs.
Unit CA 4, Eel River Area: This unit consists of 4 subunits, 1 each
on the north and south spits of the mouth of the Eel River, 1 for the
Eel River gravel bars supporting nesting plovers approximately 5 to 10
mi (3 to 6 km) inland, and 1 extending from the south spit of Humboldt
Bay to the beach adjacent to the north Eel River spit subunit.
Subunit CA 4A, Humboldt Bay, South Spit Beach, 375 ac (152 ha):
This subunit is located across Humboldt Bay, less than one mile (<1.6
km) west of the City of Eureka, with the southern boundary being Table
Bluff. Three hundred forty-four acres (139.3 ha) of the unit are owned
by the California Department of Fish and Game, but are managed by the
Federal Bureau of Land Management, 10.1 ac (4.1 ha) are owned and
managed by the County of Humboldt, and 20.2 ac (8.2 ha) are owned by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The subunit is 4.8 mi (7.7 km) in
total length. The following features essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP can be found within the unit: Large areas of
sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line,
and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain. The plover
wintering population is estimated at under 15 individuals, and three
nests, from 4 breeders, were attempted within the subunit in 2003
(Colwell, et al. 2003). This subunit is capable of supporting 30
breeding plovers. The Bureau of Land Management has conducted habitat
restoration within the subunit, in consultation with us. The primary
threats to adult plovers, chicks, and nests, are OHV use, and
disturbance from equestrians and humans with dogs.
Subunit CA 4B, Eel River North Spit and Beach, 283 ac (114 ha):
This subunit stretches from Table Bluff on the north to the mouth of
the Eel River in the south. The subunit is estimated to be 3.9 miles
(6.3 km) long, and is managed by the California Department of Fish and
Game, except for five acres of private land. Essential features of the
unit include: Large areas of sandy, sparsely vegetated dunes for
reproduction and foraging, and areas of sandy beach above and below the
high tide line supporting small invertebrates for foraging. Driftwood
is an important component of the habitat in this subunit, providing
shelter from the wind both for nesting plovers and for invertebrate
prey species. The subunit's winter population of plovers is estimated
at less than 20 (LeValley, 2004). As many as 11 breeders have been
observed during breeding season window surveys, with a breeding
population estimated at less than 15 (Colwell, et al. 2003). We expect
this subunit to eventually support 20 breeding plovers with proper
management. Threats include predators, OHVs, and disturbance from
equestrians and humans with dogs.
Subunit CA 4C, Eel River South Spit and Beach, 402 ac (163 ha):
This subunit encompasses the beach segment from the mouth of the Eel
River, south to Centerville Road, approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) west
of the Town of Ferndale. The subunit is 5 miles (8.3 km) long. 397.1
acres (160.7 ha) are private, and the remaining 4.4 ac (1.8 ha) are
managed by Humboldt County. Essential features of the subunit include:
Large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the
high tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
This subunit is capable of supporting 20 breeding plovers. A single
nest was found during the 2004 breeding season (McAllister, pers. comm.
2004). The
[[Page 57001]]
winter population is estimated at under 80 plovers, many of which breed
on the Eel River gravel bars (CA 5) (McAllister, pers. comm. 2003,
Transou, pers. comm. 2003). Threats include predators, OHVs, and
disturbance from equestrians and humans with dogs.
Subunit CA 4D, Eel River Gravel Bars; 1,190 ac (481 ha): The
overall acreage of this unit has changed from the proposed 1,193 ac
(483 ha) due to information received regarding the inclusion of
developed properties managed by the California Department of
Transportation. The 3 acres containing road developments have been
dropped from the final designation, and is considered a mapping error.
This subunit is inundated during winter months due to high flows in
the Eel River. It is 6.4 mi (10.3 km) from the Town of Fernbridge,
upstream to the confluence of the Van Duzen River. The Eel River is
contained by levees in this section, and consists of gravel bars and
wooded islands. The subunit contains a total of 1,190 ac (481 ha), of
which 176 ac (71) are owned and managed by Humboldt County, 76 ac (30
ha) are under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands
Commission, and 938 ac (379 ha) are privately owned. Essential features
of this subunit include bare, open gravel bars comprised of both sand
and cobble which support reproduction and foraging. This Subunit
harbors the most important breeding habitat in California north of San
Francisco Bay, having the highest fledging success rate of any area
from Mendocino County to the Oregon border. This subunit is capable of
supporting 40 breeding plovers. Recent window surveys documented 22
breeding birds in this subunit (LeValley, pers. comm. 2004). Threats
include predators, OHVs, and disturbance from gravel mining and humans
with dogs.
CA 5, MacKerricher Beach, 1,048 ac (424 ha): This unit is
approximately 3.5 miles (5.5 km) long. The unit is just south of the
Ten Mile River, and approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) north of the City of
Fort Bragg. 1,017.2 acres (411.6 ha) are managed by CA State Parks, and
31.2 acres (12.6 ha) are private. Essential features of the unit
include: Large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and
below the high tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain. State Parks has been conducting removal of European beachgrass
to improve habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and other sensitive dune
species within the unit. This unit is capable of supporting 20 breeding
plovers. The current breeding population is estimated at less than 10
(Colwell, et al. 2003). The winter population of plovers is under 45
(Cebula, pers. comm. 2004). Threats to nests, chicks and both wintering
and breeding adults include predators and disturbance from equestrians
and humans with dogs.
CA 6, Manchester Beach, 341 ac (138 ha): The Manchester Beach unit
is approximately 3.5 miles (5.7 km) in length. California State Parks
manages 336.2 ac (136.1 ha) of the unit, while the remaining 4.8 ac
(1.9 ha) are private. Essential features of the unit include: Large
areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the high
tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain. This
unit provides an important wintering site for the region (Service
2001). In 2003, a pair of plovers nested within the unit, and
successfully hatched 2 chicks. However, those chicks did not survive
(Colwell, et al. 2003). The current wintering population is estimated
at less than 20 (Cebula, pers. comm. 2004). Threats to nests, chicks
and both wintering and breeding adults include predators and
disturbance from equestrians and humans with dogs.
CA 7, Dillon Beach, 30 ac (12 ha): This unit was excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
primarily based upon the landowner's willingness to enter a partnership
ensure conservation (see section titled Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). This unit
is located at the mouth of Tomales Bay, just south of the town of
Dillon Beach. It stretches for about 1.25 mi (2.01 km) north from Sand
Point. PCEs provided by the unit include surf-cast debris supporting
small invertebrates for foraging, and large stretches of relatively
undisturbed, sparsely vegetated sandy beach, both above and below high
tide line, for foraging and potentially for nesting. Although nesting
has not been noted here, the unit is an important wintering area. One
hundred twenty three wintering plovers were counted at this spot during
the last winter survey in January 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). Other than
State lands intermittently exposed below mean high tide, the unit is
entirely on private land. Potential threats that may require special
management include predators and disturbance by humans and their pets.
CA 8, Pt. Reyes Beach, 462 ac (187 ha): This unit occupies most of
the west-facing beach between Point Reyes and Tomales Point. It is
located entirely within the Point Reyes National Seashore, and consists
primarily of dune backed beaches. The unit includes the following PCEs
essential to plover conservation: Sparsely vegetated sandy beach above
and below high tide for nesting and foraging, wind-blown sand dunes for
nesting and predator avoidance, and tide-cast debris attracting small
invertebrates for foraging. It supports both nesting and wintering
plovers, and can support 50 breeding birds with proper management.
Threats in the area that may require special management include
disturbance by humans and pets, and predators (particularly ravens and
crows).
CA 9, Limantour Spit, 124 ac (50 ha): Limantour Spit is a roughly
2.25 mile (4.0 km) sand spit at the north end of Drake's Bay. The unit
includes the end of the spit, and contracts to include only the south-
facing beach towards the base of the spit. It is completely within the
Point Reyes National Seashore. CA 9 can support both nesting and
wintering plovers, although nesting has not been documented since 2000
(Page in litt. 2003, 2004). Ninety-five wintering plovers were counted
at the site during the January 2004 survey (Page in litt. 2004). The
unit is expected to contribute significantly to plover conservation in
the region by providing habitat capable of supporting ten nesting
birds. PCEs at the unit include sparsely vegetated beach sand, above
and below high tide for nesting and foraging, and tide-cast debris
supporting small invertebrates. Threats that may require special
management include disturbance by humans and pets, and nest predators
such as crows and ravens.
CA 10, Half Moon Bay, 37 ac (15 ha): This unit stretches for about
1.25 mi (2.01 km) along Half Moon Bay State Beach, and is entirely
within California State Park land. It includes sandy beach above and
below the high tide line for nesting and foraging, and surf-cast debris
to attract small invertebrates. Small numbers of breeding birds have
been found at the location in the past three surveys, including four
breeding birds in the most recent survey, conducted in 2003 (Page in
litt. 2003). The unit also supports a sizeable winter flock, consisting
of 65 birds in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). We expect the unit to
eventually support ten breeding birds in the unit under proper
management, which makes it a potentially significant contributor to
plover conservation. Potential threats in the area that may require
special management include disturbance by humans and pets, and nest
predators.
CA 11, Santa Cruz Coast: This unit consists of three relatively
small pocket beaches in Santa Cruz County, California. The unit forms
an important link between larger breeding beeches to
[[Page 57002]]
the north and south, such as Half Moon Bay and the Monterey Bay
beaches.
Subunit CA 11A, Waddell Creek Beach, 9 ac (4 ha): This subunit
includes the mouth of Waddell Creek and is located about 20 mi (32.2
km) north of the city of Santa Cruz. It extends about 0.7 mi (1.1 km)
north along the coast from a point about 0.1 mi (0.2 km) south of the
creek mouth to a point about 0.6 mi (0.4 km) north of the creek. This
unit was listed as being unoccupied in the proposed rule in error. From
3 to 11 nesting plovers were counted in this unit in the early 1990's,
and the area also supported a sizeable wintering plover population of
up to 50 birds during that time (Service 1991). More recently, at least
one nest successfully hatched in 2004 and one in 2005 (G. Page, Point
Reyes Bird Observatory, pers. comm. 2005). The area provides several
essential habitat features, including wind-blown sand dunes, areas of
sandy beach above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-
cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging)
and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and
predator avoidance). With proper management, and in conjunction with
the other two small units proposed for Santa Cruz County (CA 11B and
11C), this subunit can attract additional nesting plovers and thereby
facilitate genetic interchange between the larger units at Half Moon
Bay (CA 10) and Palm Beach and Moss Landing (CA 12) (see Criterion 3,
Methods section, above). CA 11A encompasses approximately 8.1 ac (3.3
ha) of State land and 1.3 ac (0.5 ha) of private land. Human
disturbance is the primary threat to plovers in the subunit that might
require special management.
Subunit CA 11B, Scott Creek Beach, 19 ac (8 ha): This subunit
includes the mouths of Scott and Molino creeks and is located about 13
mi (20.9 km) north of the city of Santa Cruz. It extends about 0.7 mi
(1.1 km) north along the coast from the southern end of the sandy beach
(0.3 mi (0.5 km) south of Molino Creek) to a point about 0.1 mi (0.4
km) north of Scott Creek. Recent surveys have found from 12 (in 2000)
to 1 (in 2004) nesting plovers occupying the area (Page in litt. 2004),
and it is an important snowy plover wintering area, with up to 114
birds each winter (Page in litt. 2004). This subunit is essential to
the conservation of the species because with proper management, and in
conjunction with the other two small units proposed for Santa Cruz
County (CA 11B and 11C), it can attract additional nesting plovers and
thereby facilitate genetic interchange between the larger units at Half
Moon Bay (CA 10) and Palm Beach and Moss Landing (CA 12) (see Criterion
3, Methods section, above). The subunit includes the following habitat
features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below
the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). CA 13
is situated entirely on private land. Human disturbance and predators
are the primary threats to snowy plovers in this subunit that may
require special management.
Subunit CA 11C, Wilder Creek Beach, 10 ac (4 ha): This subunit is
located at the mouth of Laguna Creek and is about 8 mi (12.9 km) north
of the city of Santa Cruz. It extends about 0.5 mi (0.3 km) north along
the coast from the southern end of the sandy beach to the northern end
of the beach across the mouth of Laguna Creek. Five nesting plovers
were found in the area in 2000 (Page in litt. 2004). The subunit
includes the following essential features: Areas of sandy beach above
and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). CA
11C is capable of supporting sixteen breeding birds under proper
management. The subunit is entirely situated on State-owned land.
Disturbance from humans and pets, development, OHV use, pets, and
predators are the primary threats to snowy plovers in this subunit that
may require special management.
CA 12, Monterey Bay Beaches: This unit now includes one subunit
within Monterey Bay, California, in parts of Santa Cruz and Monterey
Counties.
Subunit CA 12A, Jetty Rd to Aptos, 272 ac (110 ha): This subunit
was excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act based upon its high economic costs (see section titled
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act). This subunit is about 5 mi (8 km) west of the city
of Watsonville and includes Sunset and Zmudowski State beaches. The
mouth of the Pajaro River is located near the center of the unit, and
Elkhorn Slough is at the south end of the unit. It extends about 8.5 mi
(13.7 km) north along the coast from Elkhorn Slough to Zils Road. This
is an important snowy plover nesting area, with 8-38 birds nesting each
year, and is also an important wintering area, with up to 250 birds
each winter (Page in litt. 2004)). This subunit is capable of
supporting 54 breeding birds under proper management. It includes the
following features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above
and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). CA
12A exists entirely on State lands. Human disturbance, development,
horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and dune-stabilizing vegetation such
as European beachgrass are the primary threats to snowy plovers in this
subunit that may require special management.
Subunit CA 12B, Elkhorn Slough Mudflats, 281 ac (114 ha): CA 12B is
about 3.5 mi (5.6 km) north of the city of Castroville along the north
side of Elkhorn Slough east of Highway 1. It extends about 1 mi (1.6
km) along the north shore of Elkhorn Slough east of Highway 1 and about
0.5 mi (0.8 km) north from Elkhorn Slough to Bennett Slough. This is an
important nesting area, with 6-47 birds nesting each year, and is also
an important wintering area, with up to 95 birds each winter (Page in
litt. 2004, Stenzel in litt. 2004). This subunit is capable of
supporting 80 breeding birds under proper management. It includes the
following features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above
and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). The
subunit is situated entirely on State-owned land. Human disturbance,
development, horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and vegetation are the
primary threats to snowy plovers in this subunit that may require
special management.
Subunit CA 12C, Monterey to Moss Landing, 788 ac (319 ha): This
subunit was excluded from critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high economic costs (see section
titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). This subunit includes the beaches along
the southern half of Monterey Bay from the city of Monterey at the
south end of the subunit to Moss Landing and the mouth of Elkhorn
Slough at the north end of the unit. The mouth of the Salinas River is
located near the center of the unit. It extends about 15 mi (24.2 km)
north along the coast from Monterey to Moss Landing. This is an
important nesting area, with 61 to 104 nesting birds each year, and is
also an
[[Page 57003]]
important snowy plover wintering area, with up to 190 birds each winter
(Page in litt. 2004, Stenzel in litt. 2004). This subunit is capable of
supporting 162 breeding birds under proper management. It includes the
following habitat features essential to the species: Areas of sandy
beach above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and
predator avoidance). CA 12C includes approximately 470 ac (190 ha) of
State and local lands, and 63 ac (25 ha) of Federal land. It would
include an additional 142 ac (57.5 ha) of Federal land in the Salinas
River National Wildlife Refuge, but we are excluding that area based on
the existence of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Salinas River
NWR that has undergone section 7 consultation (see section titled
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act). Human disturbance, development, horses, OHV use,
pets, predators, and habitat changes resulting from exotic vegetation
are the primary threats to snowy plovers in this subunit that may
require special management.
CA 13, Point Sur Beach, 61 ac (25 ha): This unit is about 17 mi
(27.4 km) south of the city of Monterey and immediately north of Point
Sur. It extends about 1 mi (1.6 km) north along the coast from Point
Sur. This is an important snowy plover wintering area, with up to 65
birds each winter (Page in litt. 2004). A few nesting pairs (1-2) also
occupy this unit each year (Stenzel in litt. 2004). This unit is
capable of supporting 20 breeding birds under proper management. It
includes the following features essential to the species: Wind-blown
sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (for
nesting and foraging) and generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). This unit is situated
entirely on State-owned land. Human disturbance and habitat changes due
to exotic vegetation are the primary threats to snowy plovers in this
unit that may require special management.
CA 14, San Simeon Beach, 28 ac (11 ha): CA 14, which is entirely
within San Simeon State Beach, is located about 5 mi (8 km) south of
San Simeon. It extends about 0.9 mi (1.5 km) north along the coast from
a point opposite the intersection of Highway 1 and Moonstone Beach
Drive to the northwestern corner of San Simeon State Beach. This is an
important snowy plover wintering area, supporting 143 birds as
documented by the most recent winter survey (Page in litt. 2004). The
unit also supports a small number of nesting plovers: One nest hatched
three chicks in 2002, and one nest was initiated but lost to predators
in 2003 (Orr in litt. 2004). This unit includes the following features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below the high
tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). Human
disturbance, pets, and dune stabilizing vegetation are the primary
threats to snowy plovers in this unit that may require special
management.
CA 15, Estero Bay Beaches: This unit now includes one subunit in
Estero Bay, California, San Luis Obispo County. The subunit designated
as critical habitat (CA 15A) is a pocket beach at the north end of the
bay.
Subunit CA 15A, Villa Creek Beach, 17 ac (7 ha): The Villa Creek
subunit is about 3.5 mi (5.6 km) northwest of the city of Cayucos, and
is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Villa
Creek Beach is located near the northern boundary of the Estero Bluffs
property. It extends 0.3 mi (0.5 km) northwest along the beach from an
unnamed headland 1.4 mi (2.3 km) north of Point Cayucos to an unnamed
headland northwest of Villa Creek, and inland (north) for 0.25 mi (0.4
km) along Villa Creek. This subunit is an important breeding area that
supports between 21 and 38 adults during the breeding season, and up to
31 nests (Larson 2003a). This area is also an important wintering site
that supports up to 30 wintering birds (George 2001). It includes the
following features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above
and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance).
Threats that may require special management include human disturbance,
pets, horses, and predators.
Subunit CA 15B, Atascadero Beach, 101 ac (40 ha): This subunit was
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act based upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application
of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act). A 43-ac (17 ha) portion of this subunit from Highway 41/
Atascadero Road south to Morro Bay Rock was removed as not essential to
the conservation of the plover. This area is heavily disturbed by
recreational beach users and does not provide the features essential
for the conservation of the species (e.g., an area free from
disturbance) and is not, by definition, critical habitat. However, the
remainder of subunit 15B was determined to be essential for western
snowy plover conservation.
The subunit is located at Morro Strand State Beach near the city of
Morro Bay, and is managed entirely by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation. It extends about 1.6 mi (2.5 km) north along the
beach from Atascadero Road/Highway 41 to an unnamed rocky outcrop
opposite the end of Yerba Buena Street at the north end of Morro Bay.
This is an important breeding area supporting up to 40 nests each year
(Larson 2003b). CA 15B is also an important wintering area, with up to
152 wintering birds (Service 2001). This subunit is essential to
species conservation because it contributes significantly to the
regional conservation goal by providing habitat capable of supporting
40 breeding birds under proper management (Service 2001). It includes
the following features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator
avoidance). Human disturbance, pets, and predators are the primary
threats to plovers in this unit that may require special management.
Subunit CA 15C, Morro Bay Beach, 611 ac (247 ha): This subunit was
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act based upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application
of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act). The subunit is located at Morro Bay near Morro Rock. The
majority of the beach is managed by the California Department of Parks
and Recreation, while the northern tip of the sand spit is owned by the
city of Morro Bay. It extends 6.9 miles (11.1 km) north along the beach
from a rocky outcrop about 0.2 mi (0.3 km) north of Hazard Canyon to
the northern tip of the sand spit. This is an important breeding and
wintering area that supports more than 100 breeding adults and up to
148 wintering birds (Page in litt. 2003). This subunit is capable of
supporting 110 breeding birds under proper management. It includes the
following features essential to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes,
areas of above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack
[[Page 57004]]
supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator
avoidance). Human disturbance, horses, pets, predators, and dune-
stabilizing vegetation are the primary threats to plovers that may
require special management.
CA 16, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, 969 ac (392 ha): A 300-ac (121.4-
ha) portion of this unit was removed because we determined it was not
essential to the conservation of the plover. The area removed consists
of the heavily used open riding area at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular
Recreation Area. The open riding area is the entire area open to
recreation vehicles during the western snowy plover nesting season, and
extends from the park entrance to post 6 (State Parks 2004). There are
marker posts, numbered 1 through 8 along the coastal strand of the
riding area to provide orientation. These posts are 0.5 miles apart.
The open riding area is not essential for the conservation of the
western snowy plover because it is subject to regular disturbance from
both street legal vehicles and OHVs. Vehicle disturbance in the open
riding area has precluded it from supporting a substantial number of
nesting western snowy plovers (only one nest was established in the
open riding area in 2004 [State Parks 2004]). The open riding area does
not contain the features essential for the conservation of the species
(e.g., an area free from disturbance) and is not, by definition,
critical habitat. Therefore, we are not designating the open riding
area, including the 3.5-mile (5.6 km) length of beach from the park
entrance to the start of the nesting area at post 6, as critical
habitat.
The remainder of this unit was either removed from critical habitat
pursuant to section 3(5)(a) of the Act, based upon its existing
management, or excluded from critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its high economic costs (see section
titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). The remainder of the unit consists of two
larger areas connected by a narrow strip of land below the mean high
water (MHW) line. The narrow strip is all that remains of that part of
the unit after the exclusion of Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes National
Wildlife Refuge. The Unit is located south of Grover City and Oceano
and includes areas of Rancho Guadalupe County Park, managed by Santa
Barbara County; and the Guadalupe Oil Field, the Oso Flaco Natural Area
and Oceano Dunes Off-road Vehicular Recreation Area, managed by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation. The unit extends about 9
mi (14.5 km) north along the beach from a point about 0.4 mi (0.6 km)
north of Mussel Point to Marker Post 6. Marker posts numbered 1 through
8, and 0.5 mile apart, occur along the coastal strand of the ODSVRA
riding area to provide orientation to park visitors. This is an
important breeding area capable of supporting between 123 and 246
breeding adults (Service 2001) and over 300 wintering birds (Service
2001; George 2001). This unit is essential to species conservation
because it contributes significantly to the regional conservation goal
by providing habitat capable of supporting 350 breeding birds under
proper management (Service 2001). It includes the following features
essential to the species: wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach
above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator
avoidance). This unit includes approximately 469.7 ac (190 ha) of State
and local land, and 498.9 ac (201.9 ha) of private land. Potential
threats that may require special management include direct human
disturbance, OHVs, horses, pets, and predators.
CA 17, Vandenberg: This unit, consisting of two subunits, is
located on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County,
California. We have excluded all essential lands in this unit from the
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion).
Subunit CA 17A, Vandenberg North, 626 ac (253 ha): We have excluded
all essential lands in this subunit from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion). This subunit is located on
Vandenberg Air Force Base about 14 mi (22.5 km) southwest of the city
of Santa Maria. It extends about 7.9 mi (12.7 km) north along the coast
from a point along the beach 0.5 mi (0.8 km) south of Purisima Point to
an unnamed creek or canyon 0.6 mi (1 km) south of Lion's Head, an area
of rocky outcrops. This is an important breeding area that supports
between 90 and 145 breeding adults (SRS 2003). This is also an
important wintering area with up to 265 wintering birds (Page in litt.
2004). This subunit is capable of supporting 250 breeding birds under
proper management. It includes the following features essential to the
species: wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below
the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). The
subunit is entirely owned by the U.S. Air Force. Disturbance of nesting
by humans and pets, military activities, predators, and the spread of
dense vegetation are the primary threats to plovers in this subunit
that may require special management.
Subunit CA 17B, Vandenberg South, 304 ac (123 ha): We have excluded
all essential lands in this subunit from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion). This subunit is located on
Vandenberg Air Force Base about 9 mi (14.5 km) west of the city of
Lompoc, and is entirely on U.S. Air Force land. It extends about 4.6 mi
(7.4 km) north along the coast from an unnamed rocky outcrop 0.2 mi
(0.3 km) north of Canada la Honda Creek to the first rock outcropping
along the beach north of the Santa Ynez River (0.8 mi (0.3 km) north of
the river). This is an important breeding area that supports between 10
and 97 breeding adults (SRS 2003). This is also an important wintering
area with up to 233 wintering birds (Page in litt. 2004). This subunit
is capable of supporting 150 breeding birds under proper management. It
includes the following features essential to the species: wind-blown
sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (for
nesting and foraging) and generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). Human disturbance,
military activities, pets, predators, and the spread of dense-growing
vegetation are the primary threats to plovers in this subunit that may
require special management.
CA 18, Devereux Beach, 36 ac (15 ha): This unit is situated
entirely on State and local land at Coal Oil Point, about 7 mi (11.3
km) west along the coast from the city of Santa Barbara. It extends
about 3.1 mi (1.9 km) north along the coast from the western boundary
of Isla Vista County Park to a point along the beach opposite the end
of Santa Barbara Shores Drive. In recent years, up to 18 breeding
plovers have occupied this unit (Sandoval 2004). This unit is also
[[Page 57005]]
an important wintering area; three hundred and sixty birds were found
in the area in the most recent winter survey (Page in litt. 2004). The
unit includes the following features essential to the species: areas of
sandy beach above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-
cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging)
and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and
predator avoidance). Disturbance by humans and pets is the primary
threat to snowy plovers in this unit that may require special
management.
CA 19, Oxnard Lowlands: This unit includes four subunits near the
city of Oxnard in Ventura County, California. This is an important
snowy plover breeding location for this region of the coast, as the
next concentration of nesting snowy plovers to the south is located on
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base about 100 mi (160 km) away.
Subunit CA 19A, Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River, 406 ac (164
ha): This subunit extends 6.1 mi (9.8 km) north along the coast from
the north jetty of the Channel Islands harbor to a point about 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) north of the Santa Clara River. However, the map of this
subunit (Map 54), published in the proposed rule, depicted this unit as
starting about 1 mile north of the jetty (Hollywood Beach). We have
corrected the map of subunit 19A to display the complete subunit, which
includes Hollywood Beach.
We removed a 4-ac (1.6 ha) area from the proposed subunit CA 19A
because it is a highly disturbed and heavily used recreational area
that includes volleyball courts. This area is heavily disturbed by
recreational beach users and does not include the PCEs for the
conservation of the species, and is not, by definition, critical
habitat. However, with this removal, the final designation includes the
remainder of subunit CA 19A as critical habitat.
This is an important snowy plover nesting area, with 9 to 70 birds
nesting each year and is also an important wintering area for the
plover, with up to 33 birds each winter (Service 2001). This unit is
essential to species conservation because it contributes significantly
to the regional conservation goal by providing habitat capable of
supporting 64 breeding birds under proper management (Service 2001). It
includes the following features essential to the species: wind-blown
sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates (for
nesting and foraging) and generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). This unit includes
approximately 104.5 ac (42.3 ha) of private land. The remaining 301.3
ac (123.5 ha) belongs to State or local agencies. Potential threats
that may require special management include direct human disturbance,
development, pets, and dune-stabilizing vegetation.
Subunit CA 19B, Ormond Beach, 175 ac (70.8 ha): This subunit is
located on State lands near the cities of Port Hueneme and Oxnard. It
extends about 2.9 mi (4.7 km) northwest along the coast from Arnold
Road and the boundary of the Navy Base Ventura County, Point Mugu
(NBVC) to the J Street Drainage, approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) east of
the south jetty of Port Hueneme. We removed a 28-ac (11.3 ha) area of
subunit CA 19B, from the J Street drainage to the south jetty of Port
Hueneme, because it is a highly disturbed and heavily used recreational
area that includes a fishing pier, picnic tables, barbeques,
restaurant, parking lots, dog walk, and volleyball courts. This area is
also the location of biennial sand replenishment activities. This area
is heavily disturbed by recreational beach users and does not provide
the PCEs essential for the conservation of the species (e.g., an area
free from disturbance) and is not, by definition, critical habitat.
However, we have designated the remainder of subunit CA 19B as critical
habitat.
This subunit is an important snowy plover nesting area for this
region of the coast, as the next concentration of nesting snowy plovers
to the south (other than the adjacent unit CA 19C) is located on Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base about 100 mi (160 km). The number of birds
nesting within this unit has varied from about 20 to 34 per year
(Service 2001). CA 19B is also an important wintering area for the
plover, with up to 123 birds each winter (Service 2001). This subunit
is essential to species conservation because it contributes
significantly to the regional conservation goal by providing habitat
capable of supporting 50 breeding birds under proper management
(Service 2001). It includes the following features essential to the
species: Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below
the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance).
Disturbance from humans and pets is the primary threat that may require
special management for snowy plovers in this unit.
Subunit CA 19C, Mugu Lagoon North, 321 ac (130 ha): This subunit is
owned by DOD (Naval Base Ventura). The DOD portion is exempted under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of their approved INRMP that
provides a benefit to the species (see Application of Section 3(5)(A)
and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for
a detailed discussion). This subunit begins immediately adjacent to
subunit CA 19B, at the northern coastal boundary of Navy Base Ventura
County, Pt Mugu (NBVC), and extends about 3.3 mi (5.3 km) southeast.
Surveys have generally provided information for the entire ``Mugu
Lagoon Beach'' area, so plover population information provided here for
CA 19C applies to CA 19D as well. The number of birds nesting in the
area has varied from about 40 to 80 per year (Stenzel in litt. 2004).
CA 19C and 19D are also important wintering areas for the plover, with
up to 62 birds each winter (Page in litt. 2004). CA 19C and 19D are
capable of supporting 110 breeding birds under proper management. They
include the following features essential to the species: Areas of sandy
beach above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and
predator avoidance). CA 19C is located entirely within the boundaries
of the NBVC. Important threats that may require special management
include direct human disturbance, military activities, and predators.
Subunit CA 19D, Mugu Lagoon South, 87 ac (35 ha): This subunit is
mostly owned by DOD (Naval Base Ventura). The DOD portion is exempted
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of the approved INRMP that
provides a benefit to the species. Remaining in the designation is an
18.3-ac (7.4 ha) section at its southern end, which extends into Pt
Mugu State Park, owned by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation. Because surveys have commonly treated CA 19C and CA 19D as
a single unit, plover population information for both subunits is
provided in the narrative for CA 19C. The subunit contains the
following features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above
and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance).
Important threats that may require special management include direct
human disturbance, military activities, and predators.
[[Page 57006]]
CA 20, Zuma Beach, 68 ac (28 ha): This unit is located about 8 mi
(3.2 km) west of the city of Malibu. It extends about 2.8 mi (4.5 km)
north along the coast from the north side of Point Dume to the base of
Trancas Canyon. This unit is an important wintering location for the
plover, with 130 birds surveyed in January, 2004 (Page in litt. 2004).
It includes the following essential features: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates (for foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance). This
unit encompasses approximately 60 ac (24.3 ha) of CA State Parks lands,
and 8 ac (3.2 ha) of privately owned land. Direct human disturbance,
development, horses, and pets are the primary threats to snowy plovers
in this unit that may require special management.
CA 21, Santa Monica Bay: This unit includes four subunits in Santa
Monica Bay, Los Angeles County, California.
Subunit CA 21A, Santa Monica Beach, 25 ac (10 ha): This subunit is
on the west coast of Los Angeles County, immediately west of the City
of Santa Monica. It stretches roughly 0.9 miles (1.4 km) from Montana
Avenue to the mouth of Santa Monica Canyon. This location includes the
following essential habitat features: A wide sandy beach with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates. It supported
a wintering flock of 32 plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004), and
annually supports a significant wintering flock of plovers in a
location with high quality breeding habitat. The subunit consists of 25
ac (10 ha), of which 6 ac (2.4 ha) are owned by the CA State Parks, and
19 acres (7.7 ha) are private. The primary threats that may require
special management in this subunit are disturbance from human
recreational use, as well as beach raking, which removes the wrack line
and reduces food resources.
Subunit CA 21B, Dockweiler North, 43 ac (17 ha): This subunit is
located immediately west of the Los Angeles International Airport,
south of Ballona Creek and west of the El Segundo Dunes. It stretches
roughly 0.5 miles (0.8 km) centered at Sandpiper Street. Essential
habitat features (PCEs) in the subunit include a wide sandy beach with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates. This
subunit, in conjuction with subunits 21C and 21D, annually supports a
significant wintering flock of plovers in a location with high quality
breeding habitat (Page in litt. 2004). It is entirely owned by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation. The primary threats that
may require special management are disturbance from human recreational
use, as well as beach raking, which removes the wrack line and reduces
food resources.
Subunit CA 21C, Dockweiler South, 24 ac (10 ha): This subunit is
located immediately west of the City of El Segundo and the Hyperion
Wastewater Treatment Plant. It stretches roughly 0.7 miles (1.1 km)
centered at Grand Avenue. This location includes the following
essential habitat features: A wide sandy beach with occasional surf-
cast wrack supporting small invertebrates. In conjuction with subunits
21B and 21D it annually supports a significant wintering flock of
plovers in a location with high quality breeding habitat (Page in litt.
2004). This subunit consists of 24 acres (9.7 ha), of which 13 acres
(5.3 ha) are owned by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation, and 11 acres (4.5 ha) are privately owned. The primary
threats that may require special management in this subunit are
disturbance from human recreational use, as well as beach raking, which
removes the wrack line and reduces food resources.
Subunit CA 21D, Hermosa State Beach, 10 ac (4 ha): This subunit is
located immediately west of the City of Hermosa Beach. This subunit
stretches roughly 0.25 miles (0.4 km) from 2nd Street to 6th Street.
This location includes the following PCEs: A wide sandy beach with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates. This
location contained a wintering flock of 33 plovers in 2004, and 43 in
2003 (Clark in litt. 2004; Page in litt. 2004). In conjunction with
subunits 21B and 21C it annually supports a large and significant
wintering flock of plovers. This subunit consists of 10 acres (4 ha),
all of which are owned by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation. The primary threats that may require special management in
this subunit are disturbance from human recreational use, as well as
beach raking, which removes the wrack line and reduces food resources.
CA 22, Bolsa Chica Area: This unit includes two subunits in the
vicinity of the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Orange County, California. The
first of these subunits includes essential habitat in the wetlands
themselves, while the second comprises a small area of beach
immediately adjacent.
Subunit CA 22A, Bolsa Chica Reserve, 591 ac (239 ha): This subunit
is located immediately west of the City of Huntington Beach and east of
the Pacific Coast Highway. It contains the following essential habitat
features: Tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small
invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds that provide nesting and
foraging habitat for snowy plovers. This location supported 31 breeding
adult plovers in 2003, and 38 in 2002 (Page in litt. 2003). This
subunit annually supports one of the largest breeding populations of
snowy plovers in the region, and contributes significantly to the
conservation goal for the region by providing habitat capable of
supporting 50 breeding birds under proper management. This subunit
consists of 591 acres (239.2 ha), all of which are privately owned. The
primary threat that may require special management in this subunit is
egg and chick predation. This site, an abandoned oil field, is planned
to undergo significant reconstruction and restoration, which should
greatly increase the available breeding habitat for snowy plovers.
Subunit CA 22B, Bolsa Chica State Beach; 13 ac (2 ha): This subunit was
mislabeled during the proposed rule process. The correct name, shown
here for subunit CA 22B, is Bolsa Chica State Beach. The UTMs for the
unit's legal description were also presented in error during the
proposed rule, and are correctly provided within this rule. CA 22B is
located immediately west of the City of Huntington Beach and south of
CA 22A. It stretches roughly 0.3 miles (0.4 km) from Seapoint Avenue
north to the future lagoon mouth channel into Bolsa Chica Ecological
Reserve. This location includes the following essential habitat
features: A wide sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates. The subunit contained a wintering flock of 11
plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004), and annually supports a
significant wintering flock of plovers in a location with high quality
breeding habitat. This subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) owned by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation and 1 ac (0.4 ha) that is
privately owned. The primary threats that may require special
management in this subunit are disturbance from human recreational use,
as well as beach raking, which removes the wrack line and reduces food
resources.
CA 23, Santa Ana River Mouth, 13 ac (5 ha): This unit is on the
west coast of Orange County, immediately west of the City of Huntington
Beach. It includes the following essential habitat features: A wide
sandy beach with surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats that provide nesting and
foraging habitat for snowy plovers. This site contains a large breeding
colony of
[[Page 57007]]
California Least Terns and has also supported occasional breeding snowy
plovers. This unit is the only beach front location in Orange County
that supports adult plovers through the breeding season. The entire
unit is owned by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The
primary threat that may require special management in this unit is
disturbance from human recreational use.
Unit CA 24, San Onofre Beach; 40 ac (16 ha): This unit is on the
west coast of San Diego County, at the northwest corner of Marine Corps
Base Camp Pendleton. This unit stretches roughly 0.8 miles (1 km) from
the mouth of San Mateo Creek to the mouth of San Onofre Creek and
includes the following essential habitat features: A wide sandy beach
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates. This
location contained a wintering flock of 14 plovers in January, 2004,
with 60 recorded in January, 2003 (Clark in litt. 2004, Page in litt.
2004). This unit annually supports a large and significant wintering
flock of plovers (Page in litt. 2004) and contributes significantly to
the conservation goal for the region by providing habitat capable of
supporting 15 breeding birds under proper management. The unit consists
of 40 acres (16 ha), of which 37.5 ac (15 ha) are owned by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation, and 2.5 ac (1 ha) are
privately owned. The primary threat that may require special management
in this unit is disturbance from human recreational use.
CA 25 (A, B and C), Batiquitos Lagoon, 65 ac (26 ha): This unit is
on the west coast of San Diego County, between the cities of Carlsbad
and Encinitas. The unit includes three subunits that make up the
breeding islands created for nesting seabirds and shorebirds during
restoration of the lagoon in 1996. Also included is a portion of South
Carlsbad State Beach that supports a significant wintering population
of plovers. This unit includes the following essential habitat
features: Sandy beaches and tidally influenced estuarine mud flats with
tide-cast organic debris supporting small invertebrates. This location
contained a wintering flock of 82 plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004).
Nineteen breeding adults were recorded during the 2003 window survey
(Page in litt. 2003). This unit annually supports a large and
significant wintering flock of plovers, and contributes significantly
to the conservation goal for the region by providing habitat capable of
supporting 70 breeding birds under proper management. This unit
consists of a total of 65 acres (26 ha), of which 9 acres (4 ha) are
owned by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, 21 acres (8
ha) are owned by the California Department of Fish and Game, and 35
acres (14 ha) are non-public. The primary threats that may require
special management in this unit are egg and chick predation, as well as
disturbance from human recreational use at South Carlsbad State Beach.
CA 26, Los Penasquitos, 24 ac (10 ha): This unit is located in San
Diego County, immediately south of the City of Del Mar. It includes a
portion of Torrey Pines State Beach that supports a significant
wintering population of plovers. Essential habitat features supported
by the unit include a wide sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, as well as tidally influenced estuarine
mud flats with tide-cast organic debris. This location contained a
wintering flock of 21 plovers in 2004, and 39 in 2003 (Clark in litt.
2004, Page in litt. 2004). This unit annually supports a large and
significant wintering flock of plovers, and contributes significantly
to the conservation goal for the region by providing habitat capable of
supporting ten breeding birds under proper management. The unit
consists of 24 acres (10 ha), all of which are owned by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation. The primary threat that may require
special management in this unit is disturbance from human recreational
use.
CA 27, South San Diego Beaches: This unit includes six subunits in
south San Diego County, California. Four of these subunits are on the
Pacific coast, extending southwards from the mouth of San Diego Bay.
The remaining two subunits (27D and 27E) are located in the San Diego
Bay itself while a sixth subunit (27E) is in San Diego Bay itself.
Subunit CA 27A, North Island North, 117 ac (47 ha): This subunit is
exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of their approved
INRMP that provides a benefit to the species (see Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion). It is located immediately west
of the City of Coronado. The subunit stretches roughly 1.9 miles (3 km)
from Zuniga Point to the north end of Coronado City Beach. This subunit
and the adjacent subunit 27B contain the following essential habitat
features: A wide sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates, as well as wind-blown sand in dune systems
immediately inland of the active beach face. This location contained a
wintering flock of 37 plovers in January, 2004 (Page in litt. 2004).
Biologists also recorded 17 breeding adults during the 2003 window
survey (Page in litt. 2003). These subunits annually support a large
and significant wintering flock of plovers, and contribute
significantly to the conservation goal for the region by providing
habitat capable of supporting 20 breeding birds under proper
management. This subunit is entirely on land owned by the Department of
Defense. The primary threats that may require special management in
these subunits are disturbance from human recreational use and military
activities, as well as beach raking, which removes the wrack line and
reduces food resources.
Subunit CA27B North Island S., 44 ac (18 ha): This subunit is
located immediately west of the City of Coronado. This subunit
stretches roughly 0.6 miles (0.9 km) from the boundary with NAS North
Island to the south end of the natural sand dunes at Coronado City
Beach. It includes the following essential habitat features: A wide
sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, as well as wind-blown sand in dune systems immediately
inland of the active beach face. This location is adjacent to the
sizable plover population at NAS North Island, which contained a
wintering flock of 37 plovers in January, 2004 (Page in litt. 2004).
Biologists also recorded 17 breeding adults at North Island during the
2003 window survey (Page in litt. 2003). This subunit contributes
significantly to the conservation goal for the region by providing
habitat, in conjunction with the adjacent military lands, capable of
supporting 20 breeding birds under proper management. This unit
consists of land 44 acres owned by the City of Coronado. The primary
threats that may require special management in these subunits are
disturbance from human recreational use as well as beach raking, which
removes the wrack line and reduces food resources.
Subunit CA 27C, Silver Strand, 99 ac (40 ha): All Navy lands within
subunit CA 27C have been exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
because of their approved INRMP that provides a benefit to the species
(see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion). The
remainder of this subunit (Silver Strand State Beach) was excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based
upon its high economic costs (see section titled Application of Section
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
[[Page 57008]]
4(b)(2) of the Act). This subunit is located immediately south of the
City of Coronado. It stretches roughly 3.5 miles (5.6 km) along the
Pacific coast side of the Silver Strand, from the southern end of NAB
Coronado to the south end of the Naval Radio Receiving Facility. The
essential habitat features of this subunit include a wide sandy beach
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, as well
as wind-blown sand in dune systems immediately inland of the active
beach face. In conjunction with excluded habitat on NAB Coronado, this
location contained wintering flocks totaling 56 plovers in 2004 (Page
in litt. 2004). Fifty eight breeding adults were recorded during the
2003 window survey (Page in litt. 2003). This subunit annually supports
a large and significant wintering flock of plovers (Page in litt.
2004), and will contribute significantly to the recovery goal for the
region by supporting 65 breeding birds under proper management. The
subunit consists of 96 ac (39 ha) owned by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation, and 3 ac (1 ha) of non-public land. The primary
threat that may require special management in this unit is disturbance
from human recreational use and military training, as well as egg and
chick predation.
Subunit CA 27D, Delta Beach, 85 ac (35 ha): All lands within
subunit CA 27D have been exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
because of the Navy's approved INRMP that provides a benefit to the
species (see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion).
This subunit is located immediately south of the City of Coronado on
the west side of San Diego Bay. It includes the following essential
habitat features: sandy beaches above and below mean high tide line and
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats with tide-cast organic debris
that provide nesting and foraging habitat for snowy plovers. This
location contained a wintering flock of 32 plovers in 2004 (Page in
litt. 2004). It annually supports a large and significant wintering
flock of plovers, and contributes significantly to the conservation
goal for the region by providing habitat capable of supporting 10
breeding birds under proper management. This subunit consists of 85.3
acres (34.5 ha), all of which are owned by the Department of Defense.
The primary threat that may require special management in this subunit
is egg and chick predation.
Subunit CA 27E, Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge, 128 ac (52
ha): This subunit is located immediately west of the City of Chula
Vista on the east side of San Diego Bay. It includes the following
essential habitat features: Sandy beaches above and below mean high
tide line and tidally influenced estuarine mud flats that provide
nesting and foraging habitat for snowy plovers. This location contained
a wintering flock of 36 plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). It
annually supports a large and significant wintering flock of plovers,
and contributes significantly to the conservation goal for the region
by providing habitat capable of supporting 20 breeding birds under
proper management. This subunit consists of 128 ac (52 ha), of which 77
ac (31 ha) are owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 51 ac
(21 ha) are privately owned. The primary threat that may require
special management in this subunit is egg and chick predation.
Subunit CA 27F, Tijuana Estuary and Beach, 182ac (73.5 ha): This
unit was slightly modified to remove a small amount of acreage of Navy
land exempted under 4(a)(3) (See exemptions under 4(a)(3) below). The
subunit is located immediately south of the City of Imperial Beach. It
stretches roughly 2.3 miles (3.7 km) from the end of Seacoast Drive to
the U.S./Mexico border. This location includes the following essential
habitat features: A wide sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, as well as tidally influenced estuarine
mud flats with tide-cast organic debris supporting small invertebrates
for foraging. This subunit contained wintering flocks totaling 93
plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). It also supported at least 12
breeding adults in 2003, as indicated by the 2003 window survey (Page
in litt. 2003). This subunit annually supports a large and significant
wintering flock of plovers, and contributes significantly to the
conservation goal for the region by providing habitat capable of
supporting 40 breeding birds under proper management. The subunit is
182ac (73.5 ha), of which 76 acres (31 ha) are owned by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, 83 acres (34 ha) are owned by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 22 acres (9 ha) are non-public. The
primary threats that may require special management in this unit are
disturbance from human recreational use and predation of chicks and
eggs.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.2, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to: Alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' We are currently reviewing the regulatory definition of
adverse modification in relation to the conservation of the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. We may issue a formal conference
report if requested by a Federal agency. Formal conference reports on
proposed critical habitat contain an opinion that is prepared according
to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical habitat were designated. We may adopt
the formal conference report as the biological opinion when the
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)). The conservation recommendations in a conference report are
advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the
action agency ensures that their actions do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also
[[Page 57009]]
provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that
can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of
the action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and
prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to
extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with
implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly
variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or a conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat, or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the Pacific Coast WSP or its
critical habitat will require consultation under section 7. Activities
on private or State-owned lands, or lands under County or local
jurisdictions requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such as a
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other
Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration
or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding), will be subject to the
section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal and private
lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not
require section 7 consultations.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the Pacific
Coast WSP. Federal activities that, when carried out, may adversely
affect critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions and management efforts affecting Pacific Coast WSP on
Federal lands such as national seashores, parks, and wildlife reserves;
(2) Dredging and dredge spoil placement activities that permanently
remove PCEs to the extent the essential biological function of plover
habitat is adversely affected for the foreseeable future;
(3) Construction and maintenance of eroded areas or structures
(e.g., roads, walkways, marinas, salt ponds, access points, bridges,
culverts) which interfere with plover nesting, breeding, or foraging,
produce increases in predation, or promote a dense growth of vegetation
that precludes an area's use by plovers;
(4) Stormwater and wastewater discharge from communities;
(5) Flood control actions that change the PCEs to the extent that
the habitat no longer contributes to the conservation of the species.
Such activities may adversely modify critical habitat by flooding,
covering with material, removing tide-cast organic debris, removing or
depositing substrate in such a way as to diminish invertebrate prey,
encourage dense vegetation growth, inundating an area with contaminants
or failing to adequately provide for contaminant removal, or by failing
to provide a relatively disturbance-free area for the completion of
biological functions.
All lands designated as critical habitat are within the historical
geographic area occupied by the species, and are likely to be used by
the Pacific Coast WSP whether for foraging, breeding, growth of
juveniles, dispersal, migration or sheltering. Some of these lands may
currently be subject to activities identified as potentially adversely
affecting the critical habitat. The Service will determine if Federal
actions taken within these areas result in adverse modification to
critical habitat when the Section 7 consultation process is
implemented. We consider all lands included in this designation to be
essential to the conservation of the species. Federal agencies already
consult with us on activities that may affect the Pacific Coast WSP in
areas currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do
not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Additionally,
many of the critical habitat units designated under this rule were
previously designated on December 9, 1999 (64 FR 68508). As a
consequence, we believe this designation of critical habitat is not
likely to result in a significant regulatory burden above that already
in place due to the presence of the listed species and previously
designated critical habitat.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,
contact the Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed
wildlife and plants and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered
Species, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232 (telephone 503/
231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243.
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are
found those physical and biological features (i) essential to the
conservation of the species and (ii) which may require special
management considerations or protection. Therefore, areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species that do not contain the
features essential for the conservation of the species are not, by
definition, critical habitat. Similarly, areas within the geographic
area occupied by the species that do not require special management
also are not, by definition, critical habitat. To determine whether an
area requires special management, we first determine if the essential
features located there generally require special management to address
applicable threats. If those features do not require special
management, or if they do in general but not for the particular area in
question because of the existence of an adequate management plan or for
some other reason, then the area does not require special management.
We consider a current plan to provide adequate management or
protection if it meets three criteria: (1) The plan is complete and
provides a conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must
maintain or provide for an increase in the species' population, or the
enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by
the plan); (2) the plan provides assurances that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented (i.e., those
responsible for implementing the plan are capable of accomplishing the
objectives, and have an implementation
[[Page 57010]]
schedule or adequate funding for implementing the management plan);
and, (3) the plan provides assurances that the conservation strategies
and measures will be effective (i.e., it identifies biological goals,
has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a duration sufficient
to implement the plan and achieve the plan's goals and objectives).
Section 318 of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization
Act (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to address the relationship of
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) to critical
habitat by adding a new section 4(a)(3)(B). This provision prohibits
the Service from designating as critical habitat any lands or other
geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or
designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary of the
Interior determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the
species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.
Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat
shall be designated, and revised on the basis of the best scientific
data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be
excluded from critical habitat if it is determined, following an
analysis, that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction
of the species.
In our critical habitat designations we used both the provisions
outlined in sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those
specific areas that we are proposing as critical habitat. Lands we have
found do not meet the definition of critical habitat under section
3(5)(A), and lands excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2), include those
covered by the following types of plans if they provide assurances that
the conservation measures they outline will be implemented and
effective: (1) Legally operative HCPs that cover the species; (2) draft
HCPs that cover the species and have undergone public review and
comment (i.e., pending HCPs); (3) Tribal conservation plans that cover
the species; (4) State conservation plans that cover the species; and,
(5) National Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
See below for a detailed discussion.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands--Application of
Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
As discussed above, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, the Secretary
is prohibited from designating as critical habitat any Department of
Defense lands or other geographical areas that are subject to an INRMP
if the Secretary has determined in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation. In order to qualify for this exemption, an INRMP must be
found to provide benefit to the species in question. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation
with stewardship of the natural resources found there. Each INRMP
includes an assessment of the ecological needs on the military
installation, including conservation provisions for listed species; a
statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of management
actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a
monitoring and adaptive management plan. We consult with the military
on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with
listed species. Habitat on military installations with completed and
approved INRMPs that provide a benefit to the species are exempt from
designation as critical habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B).
We are re-affirming our exemption of the U.S. Navy's San Nicolas
Island and have exempted lands owned by U.S. Navy (Naval Base Coronado,
Naval Base Ventura County) and the U.S. Marine Corps (Camp Pendleton)
from this final critical habitat designation pursuant to section
4(a)(3) of the Act based on legally operative INRMPs that provide a
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. This includes all or portions of
Units CA 27 at Naval Base Coronado, CA at Camp Pendleton, and CA 19 and
Naval Base Ventura County. In our December 17, 2004, proposed rule (69
FR 75608), we excluded Camp Pendleton and Naval Base Coronado under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for national security reasons, we now
recognize that we are prohibited from designating critical habitat on
those lands pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act based on their
legally operative INRMPs that have been found to provide a benefit to
the Pacific Coast WSP. We are excluding all essential habitat on
Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based
on impacts to national security. Vandenberg AFB is in the process of
completing an INRMP and accompanying Endangered Species Management Plan
(ESMP), which will provide management for the Pacific Coast WSP.
San Nicolas Island
As described in our December 17, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608)
all 534 ac (212 ha) of essential habitat on San Nicolas Island, in
Ventura County, California are exempt from this critical habitat
designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act. This area
corresponds roughly to location CA-100 in our Draft Recovery Plan, is
owned by the U.S. Navy, and contains habitat capable of supporting 150
breeding plovers with adaptive management. The U.S. Navy has completed
an INRMP which addresses plover management for the area. The Secretary
has determined that the INRMP provides a benefit to the species and
provided a biological opinion during formal consultation under section
7 of the Act.
Naval Base Coronado (NBC)
The U.S. Navy completed a final INRMP in May 2002 for Naval Base
Coronado, which includes North Island Naval Air Station, Naval
Amphibious Base, Coronado, and Naval Radio Receiving Facility, that
provides a benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. The Proposed Management
Strategy for the Western Snowy Plover (P. 4-56) itemizes the actions to
which the Navy has committed in order to manage the species on their
lands. Many of the items reiterate terms and conditions of previous
biological opinions issued by the Service. However, the INRMP does go
on to stipulate other actions above and beyond these requirements
including minimizing activities which can affect invertebrate
populations upon which shorebirds depend for foraging, identifying
opportunities to use dredge material having high sand content for
expansion and rehabilitation of beach areas to create improved nesting
substrate, and replacing exotic iceplant and other nonnatives from
remnant dunes with native vegetation to comply with Executive Order
13112 on Invasive Species and the Noxious Weed Act. These activities
would enhance the habitat and population of western snowy plovers on
Navy lands. Therefore, we find that the INRMP for Naval Base Coronado
provides a benefit for the Pacific Coast WSP and pursuant to section
4(a)(3) of the Act, Navy lands within proposed unit CA 27 are exempt
from critical habitat.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton (MCBCP)
The Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton completed a final INRMP in
[[Page 57011]]
October 2001 that provides a benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. This
INRMP itemizes the actions to which the Marine Corps has committed in
order to manage the species on their lands. Many of the items reiterate
terms and conditions of previous biological opinions issued by the
Service. These include annually fencing and posting warning signs
around the plover nesting areas; annually monitoring the plover
population and locations, providing estimates of the number of breeding
individuals, reproductive success, distribution, abundance, and
habitat; and continuing predator control measures within the vicinity
of plover nesting sites. These activities have enhanced the habitat and
population of western snowy plovers at Camp Pendleton. Therefore, we
find that the INRMP for Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton provides a
benefit for the Pacific Coast WSP and pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, Marine Corps lands at Camp Pendleton are exempt from critical
habitat.
Naval Base Ventura County
We have reviewed Naval Base Ventura County's INRMP and biological
opinion, and the Secretary has determined that Naval Base Ventura
County's INRMP provides a benefit to the western snowy plover and
therefore, consistent with Public Law 108-136 (Nov. 2003): Nat. Defense
Authorization Act for FY04 and Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, the
Department of Defense's Naval Base Ventura County (subunits CA 19C and
part of CA 19D) is exempt from critical habitat based on the adequacy
of their legally operative INRMP.
Vandenberg Air Force Base
We are excluding Vandenberg AFB under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
based on information we received regarding use of these areas for
mission-essential training and the potential impacts on national
security. Based on the following analysis, we find the benefit of
excluding these units outweighs the benefit of including them,
primarily due to the impact on national security.
The western snowy plover occupies 12.5 miles (20 km) of beach and
dune habitat on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Vandenberg contains features
essential to the conservation of the species and is of important
biological value because it supports approximately 20 percent of the
Pacific coast population of western snowy plovers.
The Air Force recognizes the need for protection and conservation
of sensitive species, including the western snowy plover, on military
lands and has identified conservation measures to protect and conserve
western snowy plovers and their habitat. The Air Force has coordinated
with us to finalize the development of their Endangered Species
Management Plan (ESMP) for the western snowy plover at Vandenberg,
which currently guides management of all lands occupied by western
snowy plovers at this base. The ESMP includes measures to minimize harm
to the western snowy plover from base activities and outlines actions
to ensure the persistence of western snowy plovers on the installation.
The ESMP is an appendix to, and part of, the INRMP for Vandenberg Air
Force Base. We anticipate the INRMP will be signed in late 2005.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
The primary benefit of any critical habitat with regard to
activities that require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act
is to ensure that the activity will not destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. However, because the Air Force has worked
cooperatively with the Service to develop an ESMP that protects the
western snowy plover and its essential habitat on Vandenberg, and the
nearly finalized INRMP is expected to be completed in 2005 (for which
we will complete a Section 7 consultation), we do not believe that
designation of critical habitat on the base will significantly benefit
the western snowy plover beyond the protection already afforded the
species under the Act. The designation of critical habitat may provide
a different level of protection under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for
the Pacific Coast WSP that is separate from the obligation of a Federal
agency to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the endangered species. Under the Gifford
Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than was previously believed, but
it is not possible to quantify this benefit at present. However, the
protection provided is still a limitation on the harm that occurs as
opposed to a requirement to provide a conservation benefit. We
completed a section 7 consultation on the ESMP.
The area excluded as critical habitat is currently occupied by the
species. If this area were designated as critical habitat, any actions
with a Federal nexus which might adversely affect the critical habitat
would require a consultation with us, as explained previously, in
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation section. However, inasmuch as
this area is currently occupied by the species, consultation for
Federal activities which might adversely impact the species or would
result in take would be required even without the critical habitat
designation. Primary constituent elements in this area would be
protected from destruction or adverse modification by federal actions
using a conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to
the requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to
the species' continued existence. However, as the area is occupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP, consultation for activities which may adversely
affect the species, including possibly significant habitat modification
(see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), would be required, even
without the critical habitat designation. The requirement to conduct
such consultation would occur regardless of whether the authorization
for incidental take occurs under either section 7 or section 10 of the
Act.
In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.
2001), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the
identification of habitat essential to the conservation of the species
can provide informational benefits to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The court
also noted that heightened public awareness of the plight of listed
species and their habitats may facilitate conservation efforts.
However, we believe that there would be little additional informational
benefit gained from including Vandenberg AFB within the designation
because the educational benefits have been largely accomplished through
the INRMP development process and development of the ESMP for the
western snowy plover. The Air Force is already aware of essential
western snowy plover habitat areas on the installation. In addition, we
have already completed formal section 7 consultation on the ESMP.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
Substantial benefits are expected to result from the exclusion of
Vandenberg from critical habitat. The Air Force has stated in their
February 7, 2005, comment letter that designation of beaches and
coastline at Vandenberg, as critical habitat, would limit the amount of
coastline available for executing their mission. Mission activities at
Vandenberg include: Launching and tracking satellites in space,
training missile crews, supporting ship to shore military training
exercises, testing and evaluating the country's intercontinental
ballistic missile
[[Page 57012]]
systems, and supporting aircraft tests in the Western Test Range/
Pacific Missile Range (California, Hawaii, and the western Pacific
Ocean). Designation of critical habitat on the base would require the
Air Force to engage in additional consultation with us on activities
that may affect designated critical habitat. The requirement to consult
on activities occurring on the base could delay and impair the ability
of the Air Force to conduct mission critical activities, thereby
adversely affecting national security.
In addition, exclusion of Vandenberg beaches from the final
designation will allow us to continue working with the Air Force in a
spirit of cooperation and partnership. The DOD generally views
designation of critical habitat on military lands as an indication that
their actions to protect the species and its habitat are inadequate.
Excluding these areas from the perceived negative consequences of
critical habitat will facilitate cooperative efforts between the
Service and the Air Force to formulate the best possible INRMP and
ESMP, and continue effective management of the western snowy plover at
Vandenberg Air Force Base.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
In 2004, we had a series of meetings with the Air Force to discuss
their management of western snowy plovers, their essential habitat, and
possible impacts to the base. We also received extensive comments from
the Air Force during the public comment period. In light of the Air
Force's ESMP for the western snowy plover, and the Air Force's need to
maintain a high level of readiness regarding mission critical National
security interests, we excluded critical habitat on all lands within
unit CA 17, including all Vandenberg lands, under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. We find that the benefits of excluding these lands from
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We find that the exclusion of these areas will not lead to the
extinction of the western snowy plover because Air Force activities at
Vandenberg have had little, if any, adverse effect on western snowy
plovers, and the ESMP is expected to effectively manage for the
persistence of the western snowy plovers at this installation. Also
because these lands are occupied by plovers, any actions which might
adversely affect the western snowy plover must undergo a consultation
with the Service under the requirements of section 7 of the Act. The
western snowy plover is protected from take under section 9. The
exclusions leave these protections unchanged from those which would
exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat. Based
upon the above, we find that these exclusions would not result in
extinction of the species.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to National Wildlife Refuges--
Application of Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
We are not including essential habitat in all or portions of units
CA 12C, CA 16, and WA 4 that fall within the boundaries of Salinas
River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR, or
Willapa NWR respectively under section 3(5)(A) of the Act. The Salinas
River NWR has completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that
addresses plovers, Willapa NWR is in the process of completing a CCP
and is actively managing for snowy plovers on refuge lands, and
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR has completed a plover management plan. In
order for the Secretary to determine that an area is adequately managed
and does not require special management, the Secretary must evaluate
existing management and find that it provides (1) a conservation
benefit to the species; (2) reasonable assurances for implementation;
and (3) reasonable assurances that conservation efforts will be
effective. The Secretary has reviewed the management plans and actions
for each of the three refuges and has determined that all three refuges
are adequately managed for the Pacific Coast WSP, and therefore do not
need special management are not included in this final critical habitat
designation pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
Salinas River NWR
We are re-affirming our application of section 3(5)(A) of the Act
to essential habitat at Salinas River NWR as described in our December
17, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608). Salinas River NWR has completed
a CCP that provides a conservation benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP.
The CCP emphasizes the protection of plovers by a variety of means,
including seasonal closure of nesting areas, nest exclosures, symbolic
fencing (low cable fence used to discourage humans from approaching
nests), and law enforcement patrols. Under the CCP plovers are
monitored each breeding season for reproductive success and all
nestlings are banded for further monitoring. In addition, mammalian
predators are managed to selectively remove problem predators during
the plover breeding season. We expect funding to continue to this
refuge through the Federal budget process to continue to implement the
CCP. An intra-Service section 7 consultation was completed on the CCP
on June 25, 2002 (Service 2002). The Service found that most of the
management actions proposed in the CCP would be effective and provide a
conservation benefit to plovers. Therefore, all essential habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP within the Salinas River NWR (142-ac (57.5 ha)
portion of subunit 12C) is not included in this final critical habitat
designation as these lands are adequately managed pursuant to section
3(5)(A) of the Act.
Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR
We are re-affirming our application of section 3(5)(A) of the Act
to essential habitat at Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR as described in our
December 17, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608). Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes
NWR has completed a plover management plan that provides a conservation
benefit to this species. The plan provides for the protection of
plovers by a variety of means, including seasonal closure of nesting
areas, nest exclosures, symbolic fencing (low cable fence used to
discourage humans from approaching nests), and law enforcement patrols.
Under the plan plovers are monitored each breeding season for
reproductive success; the number of plovers wintering on the refuge is
also monitored. We expect funding to continue to this refuge through
the Federal budget process to continue to implement the plover
management plan. An intra-Service section 7 consultation was completed
on the refuge's plover management plan on March 22, 2001 (Service
2001). The Secretary determined that the measures included in the plan
would be effective and benefit plovers. Therefore, all essential
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP within the Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR
(234-ac (94.7 ha) portion of unit 16) is not included in this final
critical habitat designation as these lands are adequately managed
pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
Willapa NWR
Willapa NWR is in the process of completing a CCP, and is currently
operating under a management plan that was signed in 1986, which
provides for management for the Pacific Coast WSP. Although the 1986
refuge management plan was signed and implemented prior to the Pacific
Coast WSP listing in 1993, it addresses issues related to human
disturbance and protection of the snowy
[[Page 57013]]
plover as a sensitive species, and serves as in interim management
plan.
The Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR is one of the northern-
most breeding sites for the Pacific Coast WSP. Refuge personnel from
Willapa NWR have been monitoring snowy plovers on the refuge annually
since 1984. Nest exclosures were first used on the refuge in 2004 and
are credited with significant improvement in hatching success. The
refuge has been posting snowy plover nesting areas on the Leadbetter
Unit since the species was listed. Area closure signs are erected in
early to mid-March each year and taken down in October. Symbolic
fencing is erected at two areas where hiking trails emerge onto the
beach to direct people to the wet sand portion of the beach. The
Leadbetter unit of Willapa NWR is closed to motor vehicles except
during special razor clam seasons (generally 2-3 days a month from late
fall through early spring). Dogs are not permitted on the beach. The
refuge is committed to minimizing disturbance to snowy plovers during
the nesting season and will continue to manage public use at the
Leadbetter Unit.
Historical nesting habitat for the snowy plover on Leadbetter Point
consisted of extensive areas of open or sparsely vegetated, low dunes.
Much of this habitat has been invaded by American and European
beachgrass. The refuge initiated habitat restoration of historical
nesting areas at Leadbetter Spit in 2002. Sixteen acres of beachgrass
have been cleared to date and snowy plovers have nested every year in
the restoration area since the first acre was cleared.
We expect funding to continue to this refuge through the federal
budget process to continue implementing plover management and
finalization and implementation of the CCP. The Secretary has
determined that the management measures at Willapa NWR are effective
and provide a conservation benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. Therefore,
all essential habitat for this species at Willapa NWR (Unit WA 4) is
not included in this final critical habitat designation as these lands
are adequately managed pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs)--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
We are excluding critical habitat from approximately 23 ac (9.3 ha)
of non-Federal lands within the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) Area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Non-Federal lands
we are excluding from critical habitat include lands at the mouth of
the San Diego River.
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data available after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be
excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as
critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we
may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic impacts,
impacts on national security, or other relevant impacts such as
preservation of conservation partnerships, if we determine the benefits
of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including the area in critical habitat, provided the action of
excluding the area will not result in the extinction of the species.
Below we first provide some general background information on the
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSCP/HCP), followed by an analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of the benefits of including San Diego MSCP/HCP land within the
critical habitat designation, an analysis of the benefits of excluding
this area, and an analysis of why we believe the benefits of exclusion
are greater than those of inclusion. Finally, we provide a
determination that exclusion of these lands will not result in
extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP.
In southwestern San Diego County, the MSCP effort encompasses more
than 236,000 ha (582,000 ac) and involves the participation of the
County of San Diego and 11 cities, including the City of San Diego.
This regional HCP is also a regional subarea plan under the NCCP
program and is being developed in cooperation with California
Department of Fish and Game. The MSCP provides for the establishment of
approximately 69,573 ha (171,000 ac) of preserve areas to provide
conservation benefits for 85 federally listed and sensitive species
over the life of the permit (50 years), including the Pacific Coast
WSP.
We have excluded from this critical habitat designation
approximately 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands within the Multiple
Habitat Preserve Alternative (MHPA) that are targeted for conservation
within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego Multiple
Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Non-
Federal lands that contain the features essential to the conservation
of the species are excluded from critical habitat include lands at the
mouth of the San Diego River for the Pacific Coast WSP.
Conservation measures specific to the Pacific Coast WSP within the
San Diego MSCP/HCP include conservation of 93% of potential habitat
(about 650 acres), including 99% of saltpan habitat and 90-95% of beach
outside of intensive recreational beaches. The City of San Diego must
implement measures to protect nesting sites from human disturbance
during the reproductive season and control predators. Based on habitat
preservation and potential impacts, direct effects to the species are
not anticipated from implementation of the plan. Indirect effects will
include edge effects from increased recreation uses, beach cleaning,
and predation resulting from additional landscaping and structures that
could be used as raptor perches. Effects to this species are to be
minimized through conditions for coverage that include protection of
nesting sites from human disturbance during the reproductive season and
specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects. No take
of plovers was authorized through the plan.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
Overall, we believe that there is minimal benefit from designating
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP within the San Diego MSCP/
HCP because, as explained above, these lands are already managed for
the conservation of covered species, including the Pacific Coast WSP.
Below we discuss benefits of inclusion of these HCP lands.
A benefit of including an area within a critical habitat
designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of
protection under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the Pacific Coast WSP
that is separate from the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the endangered species. Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species than was
[[Page 57014]]
previously believed, but it is not possible to quantify this benefit at
present. However, the protection provided is still a limitation on the
harm that occurs as opposed to a requirement to provide a conservation
benefit. We completed a section 7 consultation on the issuance of the
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the San Diego MSCP/HCP on June 6, 1997,
and concluded that no take of this species is authorized under the
plan, and therefore implementation of the plan is not likely to result
in jeopardy to the species.
The area excluded as critical habitat is currently occupied by the
species. If this area were designated as critical habitat, any actions
with a Federal nexus which might adversely affect the critical habitat
would require a consultation with us, as explained previously, in
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation section. However, inasmuch as
this area is currently occupied by the species, consultation for
Federal activities which might adversely impact the species or would
result in take would be required even without the critical habitat
designation.
Primary constituent elements in this area would be protected from
destruction or adverse modification by Federal actions using a
conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in
Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to the
requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to the
species' continued existence. However, as the mouth of the San Diego
River is occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP, consultation for activities
which may adversely affect the species, including possibly significant
habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), would
be required, even without the critical habitat designation. The
requirement to conduct such consultation would occur regardless of
whether the authorization for incidental take occurs under either
section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.
2001), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the
identification of habitat essential to the conservation of the species
can provide informational benefits to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The court
also noted that heightened public awareness of the plight of listed
species and their habitats may facilitate conservation efforts.
However, we believe that there would be little additional informational
benefit gained from including the San Diego MSCP/HCP within the
designation because this area is included in the HCP. Consequently, we
believe that the informational benefits are already provided even
though this area is not designated as critical habitat. Additionally,
the purpose of the San Diego MSCP/HCP to provide protection and
enhancement of habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP is already well
established among State and local governments, and Federal agencies.
The inclusion of these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal land as
critical habitat would provide some additional Federal regulatory
benefits for the species consistent with the conservation standard
based on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford Pinchot. A
benefit of inclusion would be the requirement of a Federal agency to
ensure that their actions on these non-Federal lands do not likely
result in jeopardizing the continued existence of the species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This
additional analysis to determine destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat is likely to be small because the lands are not under
Federal ownership and any Federal agency proposing a Federal action on
these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands would likely consider the
conservation value of these lands as identified in the San Diego MSCP/
HCP and take the necessary steps to avoid jeopardy or the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
As discussed below, however, we believe that designating any non-
Federal lands within the MHPA as critical habitat would provide little
additional educational and Federal regulatory benefits for the species.
Because the excluded areas are occupied by the species, there must be
consultation with the Service over any action which may affect these
populations or that would result in take. The additional educational
benefits that might arise from critical habitat designation have been
largely accomplished through the public review and comment of the
environmental impact documents which accompanied the development of the
San Diego MSCP/HCP and the recognition by the City of San Diego of the
presence of the threatened Pacific Coast WSP and the value of their
lands for the conservation and recovery of the species.
For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford
Pinchot, the Fish and Wildlife Service equated the jeopardy standard
with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. However, in Gifford Pinchot the court noted the government, by
simply considering the action's survival consequences, was reading the
concept of recovery out of the regulation. The court, relying on the
CFR definition of adverse modification, required the Service to
determine whether recovery was adversely affected. The Gifford Pinchot
decision arguably made it easier to reach an ``adverse modification''
finding by reducing the harm, affecting recovery, rather than the
survival of the species. However, there is an important distinction:
Section 7(a)(2) limits harm to the species either through take or
critical habitat. It does not require positive improvements or
enhancement of the species status. Thus, any management plan which
considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will
almost always provide more benefit than the critical habitat
designation.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
As mentioned above, the San Diego MSCP/HCP provides for the
conservation of occupied and potential habitat, the control of nest
predators, and measures to protect nesting sites from human
disturbance. The San Diego MSCP/HCP therefore provides for protection
of the PCEs, and addresses special management needs such as predator
control and management of habitat. Designation of critical habitat
would therefore not provide as great a benefit to the species as the
positive management measures in the plan.
The benefits of excluding lands within HCPs from critical habitat
designation include relieving landowners, communities, and counties of
any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by a critical
habitat designation consistent with the conservation standard based on
the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford Pinchot. Many HCPs,
particularly large regional HCPs take many years to develop and, upon
completion, become regional conservation plans that are consistent with
the recovery objectives for listed species that are covered within the
plan area. Additionally, many of these HCPs provide conservation
benefits to unlisted, sensitive species. Imposing an additional
regulatory review after an HCP is completed solely as a result of the
designation of critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and
partnerships in many areas. In fact, it could result in the loss of
species' benefits if participants abandon the voluntary HCP process
because the critical habitat designation may result in additional
regulatory requirements than faced by other parties who have not
voluntarily participated in species conservation. Designation of
critical habitat within the boundaries of
[[Page 57015]]
approved HCPs could be viewed as a disincentive to those entities
currently developing HCPs or contemplating them in the future. Another
benefit from excluding these lands is to maintain the partnerships
developed among the City of San Diego, the State of California, and the
Service to implement the San Diego MSCP/HCP. Instead of using limited
funds to comply with administrative consultation and designation
requirements which can not provide protection beyond what is currently
in place, the partners could instead use their limited funds for the
conservation of this species.
A related benefit of excluding lands within HCPs from critical
habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to seek new
partnerships with future HCP participants including States, Counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within HCP plan areas
are designated as critical habitat, it would likely have a negative
effect on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop HCPs,
particularly large, regional HCPs that involve numerous participants
and address landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP/HCP application must itself be
consulted upon. While this consultation will not look specifically at
the issue of adverse modification to critical habitat, unless critical
habitat has already been designated within the proposed plan area, it
will determine if the HCP jeopardizes the species in the plan area. In
addition, Federal actions not covered by the HCP in areas occupied by
listed species would still require consultation under section 7 of the
Act. HCP and NCCP/HCPs typically provide for greater conservation
benefits to a covered species than section 7 consultations because HCPs
and NCCP/HCPs assure the long-term protection and management of a
covered species and its habitat, and funding for such management
through the standards found in the 5 Point Policy for HCPs (64 FR
35242) and the HCP ``No Surprises'' regulation (63 FR 8859). Such
assurances are typically not provided by section 7 consultations that,
in contrast to HCPs, often do not commit the project proponent to long-
term special management or protections. Thus, a consultation typically
does not accord the lands it covers the extensive benefits a HCP or
NCCP/HCP provides. The development and implementation of HCPs or NCCP/
HCPs provide other important conservation benefits, including the
development of biological information to guide the conservation efforts
and assist in species conservation, and the creation of innovative
solutions to conserve species while allowing for development.
In the biological opinion for the San Diego MSCP/HCP, the Service
concluded that no take of this species is authorized under the plan and
therefore implementation of the plan is not likely to result in
jeopardy to the species.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We have reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of critical habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP from approximately 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-
Federal lands within the San Diego MSCP/HCP; and based on this
evaluation, we find that the benefits of exclusion (avoid increased
regulatory costs which could result from including those lands in this
designation of critical habitat, ensure the willingness of existing
partners to continue active conservation measures, maintain the ability
to attract new partners, and direct limited funding to conservation
actions with partners) of the lands containing features essential to
the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP within the San Diego MSCP/HCP
outweigh the benefits of inclusion (limited educational and regulatory
benefits, which are largely otherwise provided for under the MSCP) of
these lands as critical habitat. The benefits of inclusion of these 23
ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands as critical habitat are lessened
because of the significant level of conservation provided to the
Pacific Coast WSP under the San Diego MSCP/HCP (conservation of
occupied and potential habitat, control of nest predators, and
restrictions on disturbance and harassment). In contrast, the benefits
of exclusion of these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands as critical
habitat are increased because of the high level of cooperation by the
City of San Diego and State of California to conserve this species and
this partnership exceeds any conservation value provided by a critical
habitat designation.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We believe that exclusion of these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal
lands will not result in extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP since
these lands will be conserved and managed for the benefit of this
species pursuant to the San Diego MSCP/HCP. The San Diego MSCP/HCP
includes specific conservation objectives, avoidance and minimization
measures, and management for the San Diego MSCP/HCP that exceed any
conservation value provided as a result of a critical habitat
designation.
The jeopardy standard of section 7 and routine implementation of
habitat conservation through the section 7 process also provide
assurances that the species will not go extinct. In addition, the
species is protected from take under section 9 of the Act. The
exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from those that would
exist if the excluded areas were designated as critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the Pacific Coast WSP in
other areas that will be accorded the protection from adverse
modification by federal actions using the conservation standard based
on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford Pinchot. Additionally,
the species within the San Diego MSCP/HCP occurs on lands protected and
managed either explicitly for the species or indirectly through more
general objectives to protect natural values. These factors acting in
concert with the other protections provided under the Act, lead us to
find that exclusion of these 23 ac (9.3 ha) within the San Diego MSCP/
HCP will not result in extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to San Francisco Bay--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
We are re-affirming our December 17, 2004, proposed rule exclusion
of six units bordering the south San Francisco Bay totaling 1,847 ac
(747.4 ha) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (69 FR 75608). Pacific
Coast WSP habitat in this region consists primarily of artificial salt
ponds and associated levees, much of which has recently come under the
management of various local, State and Federal agencies including the
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The
agencies are developing a management and restoration plan for the salt
ponds that will take into account the conflicting habitat needs of at
least four threatened or endangered species (i.e., Pacific Coast WSPs,
clapper rails, salt marsh harvest mice, and least terns). Additionally,
millions of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds that use this area
yearly will be afforded protection in this area. The plan is expected
to be completed in 2007. (Margaret Kolar, Service, in litt., May 4,
2004).
[[Page 57016]]
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat
designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of
protection under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the Pacific Coast WSP
that is separate from the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the endangered species. Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species than was previously believed, but it is not possible to
quantify this benefit at present. However, the protection provided is
still a limitation on the harm that occurs as opposed to a requirement
to provide a conservation benefit.
Primary constituent elements in this area would be protected from
destruction or adverse modification by federal actions using a
conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in
Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to the
requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to the
species' continued existence. However, as San Francisco Bay is occupied
by the Pacific Coast WSP, consultation for activities which may
adversely affect the species, including possibly significant habitat
modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), would be
required, even without the critical habitat designation. The
requirement to conduct such consultation would occur regardless of
whether the authorization for incidental take occurs under either
section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
By including the six San Francisco Bay units in our final critical
habitat designations, we could provide those areas with immediate
critical habitat protection rather than waiting for the salt pond
management plan to be completed in 2007. However, as discussed in the
analyses for other excluded units above, the protections provided under
section 7 largely overlap with protections resulting from critical
habitat designation. Three of the excluded units are on the Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay NWR, which is managed by the Service. Any significant
changes to salt pond operations within those units would trigger
consultation under section 7, as would the completion of the salt pond
management plan itself. Two of the units are on land managed by the
CDFG, while the final and smallest unit is on land managed by a county
governmental agency called the Hayward Area Recreation District (HARD).
Both of these agencies are participating with the Service in
development of the management plan, and neither would be directly
affected by critical habitat designation since they are not Federal
agencies. The Service is participating as well in the development of
the management plan, making necessary an internal section 7
consultation evaluating the effects of the actions on the plan.
In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.
2001), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the
identification of habitat essential to the conservation of the species
can provide informational benefits to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The court
also noted that heightened public awareness of the plight of listed
species and their habitats may facilitate conservation efforts. The
additional educational benefits that might arise from critical habitat
designation have been largely accomplished through the ongoing
development of the management plan for these areas.
For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford
Pinchot, the Fish and Wildlife Service equated the jeopardy standard
with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. However, in Gifford Pinchot the court noted the government, by
simply considering the action's survival consequences, was reading the
concept of recovery out of the regulation. The court, relying on the
CFR definition of adverse modification, required the Service to
determine whether recovery was adversely affected. The Gifford Pinchot
decision arguably made it easier to reach an `adverse modification'
finding by reducing the harm, affecting recovery, rather than the
survival of the species. However, there is an important distinction:
Section 7(a)(2) limits harm to the species either through take or
critical habitat. It does not require positive improvements or
enhancement of the species status. Thus, any management plan which
considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will
almost always provide more benefit than the critical habitat
designation.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
By excluding the six units from critical habitat designation, we
avoid restricting the flexibility for the development of the salt pond
management plan which might otherwise establish habitat managed for
plovers in other locations. The six excluded San Francisco Bay units
were chosen based on recent high usage of those areas by plovers,
although the plovers have demonstrated a willingness to travel
relatively large distances within the Bay area to nest wherever habitat
is most appropriate (Kolar in litt. 2004). Because plover habitat in
the area can easily be created or removed in different areas by drying
or flooding particular ponds, the management planners currently have
the flexibility to move plover habitat to wherever it would be most
advantageous in light of the conservation needs of the population and
of other threatened and endangered species present in the Bay area. By
designating critical habitat according to the current locations of
essential habitat features, we would tend to lock the current
management scheme into place for the designated units, thereby reducing
management flexibility for other listed species and targeted
ecosystems.
Additionally, the management planning process is a collaborative
effort involving cooperation and input from numerous stakeholders such
as landowners, public land managers, and the general public. This
allows the best information and local knowledge to be brought to the
table, and may encourage a sense of commitment to the Pacific Coast
WSPs continuing well-being. We are unable to match this level of public
participation in the critical habitat designation process due to time
constraints. By excluding these lands, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional conservation actions in the
future. Finally, the enhancement and management of plover habitat will
benefit greatly from coordination between the various owners and
managers in the area. The ongoing planning process can provide for that
coordination, whereas the critical habitat designation process cannot.
Designation of critical habitat would therefore not provide as great a
benefit to the species as the positive management measures in a plan.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We find that the Pacific Coast WSP will obtain greater benefits if
we avoid designating habitat in the San Francisco Bay and instead allow
participating agencies to complete their salt pond management plan
unencumbered by critical habitat considerations. While
[[Page 57017]]
the salt pond management plan offers considerable benefits in
comparison to critical habitat, we must also consider the likelihood
that the plan will be completed. In this case we find the likelihood to
be high because the major participants are all resource management
agencies, and because the management plan is related to the recent
purchase (i.e., 16,500 ac (6,677 ha)) of salt ponds from a salt
manufacturing company) by the Service and CDFG. This purchase involved
the close cooperation of numerous resource management and environmental
organizations. Accordingly, we are excluding six units in the south San
Francisco Bay from designation.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
Critical habitat is being designated for the Pacific Coast WSP in
other areas that will be accorded the protection from adverse
modification by federal actions using the conservation standard based
on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford Pinchot. Also the
jeopardy standard of section 7 and routine implementation of habitat
conservation through the section 7 process provides assurances that the
species will not go extinct. In addition, the species is protected from
take under section 9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these protections
unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas were
designated as critical habitat.
Additionally, the species occurs on lands protected and managed
either explicitly for the species or indirectly through more general
objectives to protect natural values. These factors acting in concert
with the other protections provided under the Act, lead us to find that
exclusion the six south San Francisco units will not result in
extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Dillon Beach--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
We are excluding unit CA 7 (Dillon Beach) 30 ac (12 ha), at the
mouth of Tomales Bay in Marin County, California, under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. Pacific Coast WSP habitat in this region consists primarily
of sparsely vegetated sandy beach both above and below the high tide
line. Approximately 95 percent of the unit is owned by Lawson's
Landing, Inc. (Lawson), which operates a nearby campground. The
remainder is owned by Oxfoot Associates, LLC (Oxfoot), which operates a
day-use beach with associated parking lot. The location supports
wintering plovers, but does not currently support any nesting (Page in
litt. 2004, Stenzel in litt. 2004). Wintering plovers are typically
present at the site from July through February. The entire area is
subject to moderate use by human pedestrians and unleashed dogs, which
enter the beach from both the campground to the south and the day-use
beach to the north.
In the period between the proposed designation and the final
designation we have been in contact with the landowners and are in the
process of developing conservation measures to assist in conserving
Pacific Coast WSP and their habitat on Dillon Beach. Although
finalization of the conservation measures have not been completed, we
expect the measures will be finalized and will benefit Pacific Coast
WSP conservation in the area.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat
designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of
protection under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the Pacific Coast WSP
that is separate from the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the endangered species. Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species than was previously believed, but it is not possible to
quantify this benefit at present. However, the protection provided is
still a limitation on the harm that occurs as opposed to a requirement
to provide a conservation benefit.
Primary constituent elements in this area would be protected from
destruction or adverse modification by federal actions using a
conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in
Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to the
requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to the
species' continued existence. However, as Dillon Beach is occupied by
wintering plovers, consultation for activities which may adversely
affect the species, including possibly significant habitat modification
(see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), would be required, even
without the critical habitat designation. The requirement to conduct
such consultation would occur regardless of whether the authorization
for incidental take occurs under either section 7 or section 10 of the
Act.
The inclusion of these 30 ac (12 ha) of non-Federal lands as
critical habitat would provide some additional Federal regulatory
benefits for the species consistent with the conservation standard
based on the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford Pinchot.
However, this additional benefit is likely to be small because the
lands are not under Federal ownership and any Federal agency proposing
a Federal action on these 30 ac (12 ha) of non-Federal lands would
likely consider the conservation value of these lands as identified in
the proposed deed restrictions and conservation strategy, and take
necessary steps to avoid jeopardy or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
By including the Dillon Beach unit in our final critical habitat
designations, we could provide those areas with immediate critical
habitat protection rather than waiting for the agreement to be
completed. However, as discussed in the analyses for other excluded
units above, the protections provided under section 7 largely overlap
with protections resulting from critical habitat designation. The
Service is participating as well in the development of the conservation
measures with the landowners, and as such, evaluating the effects of
the actions on the Pacific Coast WSP. Excluding these privately owned
lands with conservation strategies from critical habitat may, by way of
example, provide positive social, legal, and economic incentives to
other non-Federal landowners who own lands that could contribute to
listed species recovery if voluntary conservation measures on these
lands are implemented.
In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.
2001), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the
identification of habitat essential to the conservation of the species
can provide informational benefits to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The court
also noted that heightened public awareness of the plight of listed
species and their habitats may facilitate conservation efforts. The
additional educational benefits that might arise from critical habitat
designation have been largely accomplished through the ongoing
development of the management plan for this area.
For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Gifford
Pinchot, the Fish and Wildlife Service equated the jeopardy standard
with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of
[[Page 57018]]
critical habitat. However, in Gifford Pinchot the court noted the
government, by simply considering the action's survival consequences,
was reading the concept of recovery out of the regulation. The court,
relying on the CFR definition of adverse modification, required the
Service to determine whether recovery was adversely affected. The
Gifford Pinchot decision arguably made it easier to reach an `adverse
modification' finding by reducing the harm, affecting recovery, rather
than the survival of the species. However, there is an important
distinction: Section 7(a)(2) limits harm to the species either through
take or critical habitat. It does not require positive improvements or
enhancement of the species status. Thus, any management plan, or in
this case proposed deed restriction with accompanying conservation
strategy, which considers enhancement or recovery as the management
standard will almost always provide more benefit than the critical
habitat designation.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
Lawson and Oxfoot (landowners) are working with the Service to
place deed restrictions over the 30 ac (12 ha) of privately owned land
at Dillon Beach identified as essential habitat. Working with the
Service, Lawson is proposing to restrict development and habitat
alteration on the 30 ac (12 ha) proposed for critical habitat, while
Oxfoot, who controls the major access point to the beach is proposing
to construct and maintain interpretive signage visible to beachgoers
entering the property. Additionally, the major landowner and the
Service are pursuing grant funding by the landowner and the Service to
produce additional interpretive signs and flyers, which would be placed
in easily visible locations on portions of the property. These
conservation measures will protect the wintering plover habitat at
Dillon Beach.
The provision restricting development and habitat alteration
addresses the general rangewide threat of habitat loss, while the
following provisions directly address the threat of disturbance by
humans and pets, and indirectly address the threat of predators by
encouraging beachgoers to avoid practices that might attract predators,
such as leaving trash on the beach. Therefore, designation of critical
habitat would not provide as great a benefit to the species as the
positive management measures in the proposed plan.
Additionally, the management planning process is a voluntary
collaborative effort involving cooperation and input from the
landowners and the Service. This cooperation allows the best
information and local knowledge to be brought to the table, and may
encourage a sense of commitment to the Pacific Coast WSPs continuing
well-being. In this case, the landowner has explicitly stated that they
would not be willing to work with the Service to conserve the Pacific
Coast WSP and implement conservation measures if critical habitat is
designated on their property. Finally, the enhancement and management
of plover habitat will benefit greatly from coordination between the
various owners and managers in the area. The ongoing planning process
can provide for that coordination, whereas the critical habitat
designation process cannot. Designation of critical habitat would
therefore not provide as great a benefit to the species as the positive
management measures in a plan. By excluding these lands, we preserve
our current partnerships and encourage additional conservation actions
in the future.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We have reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 30 ac
(12 ha) from the critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast
WSP. Based on this evaluation, we find that the benefits of exclusion
(ensure willingness of existing partners to enact conservation
measures, maintain ability to attract new partners) of the lands
containing features essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP within Dillon Beach unit outweigh the benefits of inclusion
(limited educational and regulatory benefits) of these lands as
critical habitat. Allowing landowners to participate voluntarily to
develop and implement management strategies and conservation measures
will provide greater benefit to the species than designation of
critical habitat alone. However, in weighing the benefits of inclusion
versus the benefits of exclusion, the Service must also consider the
likelihood that the conservation plan and accompanying deed
restrictions will be completed. In this case we find the likelihood to
be high because the major participants are all involved in the current
process of developing conservation strategies for the Pacific Coast WSP
and have voluntarily contacted the Service in the development of such
measures. During the period between the proposed designation and the
final designation we have been in contact with the local landowners and
have established an excellent working relationship with the local
landowners and their representative and feel confident that an
agreement will be reached in the near future for the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. Accordingly, we are excluding
the Dillon Beach unit from the designation.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We believe that exclusion of these 30 ac (12 ha) of non-Federal
lands will not result in extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP since
these lands are proposed to be conserved and managed under deed
restriction and an accompanying conservation strategy. Additionally,
critical habitat is being designated for the Pacific Coast WSP in other
areas that will be accorded the protection from adverse modification by
Federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth
Circuit Court's decision in Gifford Pinchot. Also the jeopardy standard
of section 7 and routine implementation of habitat conservation through
the section 7 process provides assurances that the species will not go
extinct. In addition, the species is protected from take under section
9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from
those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as
critical habitat.
Additionally, the species occurs on lands protected and managed
either explicitly for the species or indirectly through more general
objectives to protect natural values. These factors acting in concert
with the other protections provided under the Act, lead us to find that
exclusion of the 30 ac (12 ha) Dillon Beach unit would not result in
extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
This section allows the Secretary to exclude areas from critical
habitat for economic reasons if she determines that the benefits of
such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating the area as critical
habitat, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the
species concerned. This is a discretionary authority Congress has
provided to the Secretary with respect to critical habitat. Although
economic and other impacts may not be considered when listing a
species, Congress has expressly required their consideration when
designating critical habitat.
In general, we have considered in making the following exclusions
that all of the costs and other impacts predicted in the economic
analysis may not be avoided by excluding the area, due to
[[Page 57019]]
the fact that all of the areas in question are currently occupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP requirements for consultation under Section 7 of
the Act, or for permits under section 10 (henceforth ``consultation''),
for any take of this species, which should also serve to protect the
species and its habitat, and other protections for the species exist
elsewhere in the Act and under State and local laws and regulations. In
conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the 10th Circuit Court
of Appeal's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association case
(248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all impacts,
``regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively
to other causes.'' As explained in the analysis, due to possible
overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, there are also some
elements of the analysis that may overstate some costs.
Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (``Gifford
Pinchot'', 378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining
``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are invalid because they
define adverse modification as affecting both survival and recovery of
a species. The Court directed us to consider that determinations of
adverse modification should be focused on impacts to recovery. While we
have not yet proposed a new definition for public review and comment,
compliance with the Court's direction may result in additional costs
associated with the designation of critical habitat (depending upon the
outcome of the rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty concerning the
regulatory definition of adverse modification, our current
methodological approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs.
This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, 9, and 10
of the Act, and should encompass costs that would be considered and
evaluated in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.
We are excluding all or portions of six units or subunits of the
proposed critical habitat for economic reasons. Congress expressly
contemplated that exclusions under this section might result in such
situations when it enacted the exclusion authority. House Report 95-
1625, stated on page 17: ``Factors of recognized or potential
importance to human activities in an area will be considered by the
Secretary in deciding whether or not all or part of that area should be
included in the critical habitat * * * In some situations, no critical
habitat would be specified. In such situations, the Act would still be
in force preventing any taking or other prohibited act * * *''
(emphasis supplied). We accordingly believe that these exclusions, and
the basis upon which they are made, are fully within the parameters for
the use of section 4(b)(2) set out by Congress. In reaching our
decision about which areas should be excluded from the final critical
habitat designation for economic reasons, we considered the following
factors to be important: (1) The units (or subunits) with the highest
cost; (2) a substantial break in costs from one unit (or subunit) to
the next that may indicate disproportionate impacts; and (3) possible
cost impacts to public works projects such as transportation or other
infrastructure from the designation.
The draft economic analysis published in the Federal Register on
August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48094) analyzed the economic effects of the
proposed critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP in the
States of Washington, Oregon, and California. The economic impacts of
critical habitat designation vary widely between States, among
counties, and even within counties. The counties most impacted by the
critical habitat designation to the recreation and tourist industry are
all located in either central or southern California, and include Santa
Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and San Diego counties.
Further, economic impacts are unevenly distributed within counties. The
analysis was conducted at the proposed unit or subunit level. The
subunits with the greatest economic impacts include Vandenberg South
(CA 17B), Atascadero Beach (CA 15B), Vandenberg North (CA 17A), Silver
Strand (CA 27C), Jetty Road to Aptos (CA 12A), Morro Bay Beach (CA
15C), Pismo Beach/Nipomo (CA 16), and Monterey to Moss Landing (CA
12C). These 8 subunits make up approximately 90 percent of the total
costs of designation. Vandenberg North (CA 17A) and Vandenberg South
(CA 17B) are excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on
National Security concerns by the Air Force. Portions of Silver Strand
(CA 27C) are exempt from this critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. For a discussion of these exclusions and
exemptions see the Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands--
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
section. Had these units not already been excluded or exempted, they
likely would have been excluded for economic reasons.
Mitigation requirements increase the cost of development and
avoidance requirements are assumed to reduce coastal recreational
opportunities and the quality of visits, thereby affecting the amount
of localized tourism. Adverse impacts to coastal recreation and tourism
are estimated to be 95 percent of the costs associated with this
critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP. Management
activities designed to enhance plover conservation accounts for
approximately 3.3 percent of designation costs, while impacts to
military operations (1.4 percent), development (0.2 percent) and gravel
mining (0.1 percent) were also estimated. The total future costs (from
2005 to 2025) at the proposed critical habitat units are estimated to
be $272.8 million to $645.3 million on a present value basis ($514.9 to
$1,222.7 million expressed in constant dollars). Costs attributed to
lost or diminished recreation and tourism ranges from $244.4 million to
$611.1 million. Future costs to the military resulting from the
designation would be approximately $9.1 million in present value terms,
plus adverse impacts to military readiness and national security that
are not monetized.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES section).
Economic Exclusions
We have considered, but are excluding from critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP essential habitat in the six subunits and counties
listed in Table 3.
[[Page 57020]]
Table 3.--Excluded Subunits and Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic impact
Unit or subunit County in draft EA ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA 12A: Jetty Rd.--Aptos...... Santa Cruz and 48,563,000
Monterey.
CA 12C: Monterey--Moss Landing Monterey............. 210,378,000
CA 15B: Atascadero Beach...... San Luis Obispo...... 31,395,000
CA 15C: Morro Bay Beach....... San Luis Obispo...... 73,584,000
CA 16: Pismo Beach/Nipomo..... San Luis Obispo and 109,309,000
Santa Barbara.
CA 27C: Silver Strand......... San Diego............ 43,714,000
------------------------
Total..................... ..................... 516,943,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notice of availability of the draft economic analysis (70 FR
48094: August 16, 2005) solicited public comment on the potential
exclusion of high cost areas. As we finalized the economic analysis, we
identified high costs associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation throughout the range of the Pacific Coast WSP. Costs
related to conservation activities for the proposed Pacific Coast WSP
critical habitat pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are
estimated to be $272.8 to $645.3 million over the next 20 years on a
present value basis. In constant dollars, the draft economic analysis
estimates there will be an economic impact of $514.9 to $1,22.7 million
expressed in constant dollars over the next 20 years. The activities
affected by plover conservation may include recreation, plover
management, real estate development, military base operations, and
gravel extraction. Ninety percent of all future costs are associated
with 8 central and southern California units identified above (Table
3). On the basis of the significance of these costs, we determined that
these warrant exclusion from designation.
(1) Benefits to Inclusion of the Six Excluded Units or Subunits
The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat
designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act
that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may provide a different level of
protection under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the Pacific Coast WSP
that is separate from the obligation of a Federal agency to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the endangered species. Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species than was previously believed, but it is not possible to
quantify this benefit at present. However, the protection provided is
still a limitation on the harm that occurs as opposed to a requirement
to provide a conservation benefit.
The area excluded as critical habitat is currently occupied by the
species. If this area were designated as critical habitat, any actions
with a Federal nexus which might adversely affect the critical habitat
would require a consultation with us, as explained previously, in
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation section. However, inasmuch as
this area is currently occupied by the species, consultation for
Federal activities which might adversely impact the species or would
result in take would be required even without the critical habitat
designation. Primary constituent elements in this area would be
protected from destruction or adverse modification by federal actions
using a conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to
the requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to
the species' continued existence. However, as all six units are
occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP, consultation for activities which
may adversely affect the species, including possibly significant
habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), would
be required, even without the critical habitat designation. The
requirement to conduct such consultation would occur regardless of
whether the authorization for incidental take occurs under either
section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
We determined, however, in the economic analysis that designation
of critical habitat could result in up to $645.3 million in costs, the
majority of which are related to recreational and tourism impacts. We
believe that the potential decrease in coastal recreation and
associated tourism resulting from this designation of critical habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP, would minimize impacts to and potentially
provide some protection to the species, the sandy beach, river gravel
bar, and evaporation pond habitats where they reside, and the physical
and biological features essential to the species' conservation (i.e.,
the primary constituent elements). Thus, this decrease in recreation
and tourism would directly translate into a potential benefit to the
species that would result from this designation.
Another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is
education of landowners and the public regarding the potential
conservation value of these areas. This may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation values for certain species. However, we believe that
this education benefit has largely been achieved, or is being achieved
in equal measure by other means. Although we have not completed the
recovery planning process for the Pacific Coast WSP, the designation of
critical habitat would assist in the identification of potential core
recovery areas for the species. The critical habitat designation and
the current draft recovery plan provide information geared to the
general public, landowners, and agencies about areas that are important
for the conservation of the species and what actions they can implement
to further the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP within their own
jurisdiction and capabilities, and contains provisions for ongoing
public outreach and education as part of the recovery process.
In summary, we believe that inclusion of the six subunits as
critical habitat would provide some additional Federal regulatory
benefits for the species. However, that benefit is limited to some
degree by the fact that the designated critical habitat is occupied by
the species, and therefore there must, in any case, be consultation
with the Service over any Federal action which may affect the species
in those six units. The additional educational benefits which might
arise from critical habitat designation are largely accomplished
through the multiple opportunities for public notice and comments which
[[Page 57021]]
accompanied the development of this regulation, publicity over the
prior litigation, and public outreach associated with the development
of the draft and, ultimately, the implementation of the final recovery
plan for the Pacific Coast WSP.
(2) Benefits to Exclusion of the Six Excluded Units or Subunits
The economic analysis conducted for this proposal estimates that
the costs associated with designating these six subunits would be
approximately $645.3 million. Estimated costs would be associated with
the Pacific Coast WSP in amounts shown in Table 3 above. By excluding
these subunits, some or all of these costs will be avoided.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion of the Six
Units or Subunits
We believe that the benefits from excluding these lands from the
designation of critical habitat--avoiding the potential economic and
human costs, both in dollars and jobs, predicted in the economic
analysis-- exceed the educational and regulatory benefits which could
result from including those lands in this designation of critical
habitat.
We have evaluated and considered the potential economic costs on
the recreation and tourism industry relative to the potential benefit
for the Pacific Coast WSP and its primary constituent elements derived
from the designation of critical habitat. We believe that the potential
economic impact of up to approximately $645.3 million on the tourism
industry significantly outweighs the potential conservation and
protective benefits for the species and their primary constituent
elements derived from the residential development not being constructed
as a result of this designation.
We also believe that excluding these lands, and thus helping
landowners avoid the additional costs that would result from the
designation, will contribute to a more positive climate for Habitat
Conservation Plans and other active conservation measures which provide
greater conservation benefits than would result from designation of
critical habitat `` even in the post-Gifford Pinchot environment--which
requires only that the there be no adverse modification resulting from
actions with a Federal nexus. We therefore find that the benefits of
excluding these areas from this designation of critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of including them in the designation.
We believe that the required future recovery planning process would
provide at least equivalent value to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies in
providing information about habitat that contains those features
considered essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP, and
in facilitating conservation efforts through heightened public
awareness of the plight of the listed species. The draft recovery plan
contains explicit objectives for ongoing public education, outreach,
and collaboration at local, state, and federal levels, and between the
private and public sectors, in recovering the Pacific Coast WSP.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We believe that exclusion of these lands will not result in the
extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP as these areas are considered
occupied habitat. Actions which might adversely affect the species are
expected to have a Federal nexus, and would thus undergo a section 7
consultation with the Service. The jeopardy standard of section 7, and
routine implementation of habitat preservation through the section 7
process, as discussed in the economic analysis, provide assurance that
the species will not go extinct. In addition, the species is protected
from take under section 9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these
protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas
were designated as critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the species in other areas
that will be accorded the protection from adverse modification by
Federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth
Circuit decision in Gifford Pinchot. Additionally, the species occurs
on lands protected and managed either explicitly for the species, or
indirectly through more general objectives to protect natural values,
this provides protection from extinction while conservation measures
are being implemented. For example, the Pacific Coast WSP is protected
on lands such as State and National Parks, and are managed specifically
for the species e.g., Point Reyes National Seashore. The species also
occurs on lands managed to protect and enhance coastal ecosystems and
wetlands, e.g. Moss Landing Wildlife Area and the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
We believe that exclusion of the six subunits will not result in
extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP as they are considered occupied
habitat. Federal Actions which might adversely affect the species would
thus undergo a consultation with the Service under the requirements of
section 7 of the Act. The jeopardy standard of section 7, and routine
implementation of habitat preservation as part of the section 7
process, as discussed in the draft economic analysis, provide insurance
that the species will not go extinct. The exclusion leaves these
protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas
were designated as critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the Pacific Coast WSP in
other areas that will be accorded the protection from adverse
modification by federal actions using the conservation standard based
on the Ninth Circuit decision in Gifford Pinchot. Additionally, the
species occurs on lands protected and managed either explicitly for the
species, or indirectly through more general objectives to protect
natural values, this factor acting in concert with the other
protections provided under the Act for these lands absent designation
of critical habitat on them, and acting in concert with protections
afforded each species by the remaining critical habitat designation for
the species, lead us to find that exclusion of these six subunits will
not result in extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of Specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was
made available for public review on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48094). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis until September 15, 2005.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. This information is intended to
assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of
excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the
[[Page 57022]]
benefits of including those areas in the designation. This economic
analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from
the designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic sector.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES section) or for downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/default.htm.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this final rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the final
rule clearly stated? (2) Does the final rule contain technical jargon
that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the final rule
(grouping and order of the sections, use of headings, paragraphing, and
so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the
notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful
in understanding the final rule? (5) What else could we do to make this
final rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this final rule
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues,
but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect the economy in a material way.
Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. As
explained above, we prepared an economic analysis of this action. We
used this analysis to meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the
Act to determine the economic consequences of designating the specific
areas as critical habitat. We also used it to help determine whether to
exclude specific areas as critical habitat, as provided for under
section 4(b)(2), if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical
habitat, unless we determine, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as
critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis
for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also
amended the RFA to require a certification statement.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may
affect Pacific Coast WSP. Federal agencies also must consult with us if
their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical
habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on
small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
[[Page 57023]]
consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover would affect a
substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small
entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g.,
recreation, residential and related development, and commercial gravel
mining). We considered each industry or category individually to
determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of
small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted or authorized by
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the
designation.
In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities and small
governments resulting from conservation actions related to the listing
of this species and proposed designation of its critical habitat. We
evaluated small business entities in five categories: Habitat and
plover management activities, beach-related recreation activities,
residential and related development, activities on military lands, and
commercial mining. Of these five categories, impacts of plover
conservation to habitat and plover management, and activities on
military lands are not anticipated to affect small entities as
discussed in Appendix A of our draft economic analysis. The following
summary of the information contained in Appendix A of the draft
economic analysis provides the basis for our determination.
On the basis of our analysis of western snowy plover conservation
measures, we determined that this designation of critical habitat for
the western snowy plover would result in potential economic effects to
recreation. Section 4 of the draft economic analysis discusses impacts
of restrictions on recreational activity at beaches containing
potential critical habitat for the plover. Individual recreators may
experience welfare losses as a result of foregone or diminished trips
to the beach. If fewer trips are taken by recreators, then some local
businesses serving these visitors may be indirectly affected. In our
August 16, 2005, notice of availability on the draft economic analysis
and proposed rule (70 FR 48094), we did not believe that this proposed
designation would have an effect on a substantial number of small
businesses and would also not result in a significant effect to
impacted small businesses. In this final rule, we have excluded 8 units
(Vandenberg South (CA 17B), Atascadero Beach (CA 15B), Vandenberg North
(CA 17A), Silver Strand (CA 27C), Jetty Road to Aptos (CA 12A), Morro
Bay Beach (CA 15C), Pismo Beach/Nipomo (CA 16), and Monterey to Moss
Landing (CA 12C)) that contained approximately 90 percent of the
economic impacts of the proposed designation; approximately 95 percent
of the economic impacts are due to impacts to recreations. Because we
have excluded these 8 units, this further confirms that this
designation will not have an effect on a substantial number of small
businesses and would also not result in a significant effect to
impacted small businesses.
For development activities, a detailed analysis of impacts to these
activities is presented in Section 5 of the draft economic analysis.
For this analysis, we determined that two development projects
occurring within the potential critical habitat are expected to incur
costs associated with plover conservation efforts. One of these
projects is funded by Humboldt County, which does not qualify as a
small government, and is therefore not relevant to this small business
analysis. The economic impact to the one project that qualifies as a
small business is estimated to be 2.5 percent of the tax revenue.
Because only one small business is estimated to be impacted by this
proposal and only 2.5 percent of revenues are estimated to be incurred,
we have determined that this designation will not have an effect on a
substantial number of small businesses.
For gravel mining activities, we have determined that five gravel
mining companies exist within Unit CA-4D of the proposed designation of
critical habitat. We determined that the annualized impact from plover
conservation activities to these small businesses was approximately 0.5
percent of the total sales of these five mining companies. From this
analysis, we have determined that this designation would also not
result in a significant effect to the annual sales of these small
businesses impacted by this designation.
Based on this data we have determined that this final designation
would not affect a substantial number of small businesses involved in
recreation, residential and related development and commercial gravel
mining. Further, we have determined that this final designation would
also not result in a significant effect to the annual sales of those
small businesses impacted by this designation. As such, we are
certifying that this final designation of critical habitat would not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Please refer to Appendix A of our economic analysis of
this designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic
impacts to small business entities.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with
us each year regarding their project's impact on Pacific Coast WSP and
its habitat. First, if we conclude, in a biological opinion, that a
proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species or adversely modify its critical habitat, we can offer
``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of
listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. A
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
[[Page 57024]]
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule and this critical habitat designation. Within the final
CHUs, the types of Federal actions or authorized activities that we
have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Actions and management efforts affecting Pacific Coast WSP on
Federal lands such as national seashores, parks, and wildlife reserves;
(2) Dredging and dredge spoil placement activities that permanently
remove PCEs to the extent that essential biological function of plover
habitat is adversely affected;
(3) Construction and maintenance of eroded areas or structures
(e.g., roads, walkways, marinas, salt ponds, access points, bridges,
culverts) which interfere with plover nesting, breeding, or foraging;
produce increases in predation; or promote a dense growth of vegetation
that precludes an area's use by plovers;
(4) Stormwater and wastewater discharge from communities; and,
(5) Flood control actions that change the PCEs to the extent that
the habitat no longer contributes to the conservation of the species.
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect Pacific Coast WSP. The
kinds of actions that may be included if future reasonable and prudent
alternatives become necessary include conservation set-asides, predator
reduction activities, symbolic fencing to reduce human impacts to
breeding areas, management of nonnative species, restoration of
degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are based on our
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces, as
described in the final listing rule and proposed critical habitat
designation. These measures are not likely to result in a significant
economic impact to project proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether this would result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined, for the above reasons and based on currently
available information, that it is not likely to affect a substantial
number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus section 7
consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area designated. The
most likely Federal involvement could include Corps permits, permits we
may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, FHA funding for road
improvements, and regulation of recreation by the Park Service and BLM.
A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2))
Under the SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we determined that this rule will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule to
designated critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP is not expected
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority, ``if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
(b) The economic analysis discusses potential impacts of critical
habitat designation for the western snowy plover including
administrative costs, water management activities, oil and gas
activities, concentrated animal feeding operations, agriculture, and
transportation. The analysis estimates that costs of the rule could
range from $272.8 to $645.3 million over the next 20 years. In constant
dollars, the draft economic analysis estimates there will be an
economic impact of $514.9 to $1,222.7 million over the next 20 years.
In this final rule, we have excluded 8 units (Vandenberg South (CA
17B), Atascadero Beach (CA 15B), Vandenberg North (CA 17A), Silver
Strand (CA 27C), Jetty Road to Aptos (CA 12A), Morro Bay Beach (CA
15C), Pismo Beach/Nipomo (CA 16), and Monterey to Moss Landing (CA
12C)) that contained approximately 90 percent of the economic impacts
of the proposed designation. Recreational activities are expected to
experience the greatest economic impacts related to western snowy
plover conservation activities,
[[Page 57025]]
although those impacts are going to be greatly diminished as a result
of our exclusions pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Impacts on
small governments are not anticipated. Furthermore, any costs to
recreators would not be expected to be passed on to entities that
qualify as small governments. Consequently, for the reasons discussed
above, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for
the western snowy plover will significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(b) Due to current public knowledge of the species' protection, the
prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of the
designated areas, and the fact that critical habitat provides no
incremental restrictions, we do not anticipate that this rule will
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in California, Oregon and
Washington. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP habitat imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While
making this definition and identification does not alter where and what
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts
of the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir.
Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). This final
determination does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands essential for the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP has not been designated on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary author of this package is the Arcata Fish and Wildlife
Office staff (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.95(b), revise the entry for ``Western Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)--Pacific coast population'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(b) Birds.
* * * * *
[[Page 57026]]
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)--Pacific Coast
Population
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted on the maps below for the
following States and counties:
(i) Washington: Grays Harbor and Pacific counties;
(ii) Oregon: Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Tillamook counties;
and
(iii) California: Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura counties.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
pacific coast population of western snowy plover are the habitat
components that provide:
(i) Sparsely vegetated areas above daily high tides (such as sandy
beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt
flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, dredge spoil sites, artificial
salt ponds and adjoining levees) that are relatively undisturbed by the
presence of humans, pets, vehicles or human-attracted predators
(essential for reproduction, food, shelter from predators, protection
from disturbance, and space for growth and normal behavior);
(ii) Sparsely vegetated sandy beach, mud flats, gravel bars or
artificial salt ponds subject to daily tidal inundation, but not
currently under water, that support small invertebrates (essential for
food); and
(iii) Surf or tide-cast organic debris such as seaweed or driftwood
(essential to support small invertebrates for food, and to provide
shelter from predators and weather for reproduction).
(3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and
structures, such as buildings, paved areas, boat ramps, and other
developed areas, not containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements. Any such structures that were inside the boundaries of a
critical habitat unit at the time it was designated are not critical
habitat. The land on which such structures directly sit is also not
critical habitat, as long as the structures remain in place.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercatur, North American
Datum 1927 (UTM NAD 27) coordinates. These coordinates establish the
vertices and endpoints of the landward bounds of the units. Other
bounds are established descriptively according to compass headings and
the position of the mean low waterline (MLW). For purposes of
estimating unit sizes, we approximated MLW in California using the most
recent GIS projection of mean high water (MHW). We chose MHW both
because it is the only approximation of the coastline currently
available in GIS format. We were unable to obtain recent GIS maps of
MHW or MLW for Oregon and Washington; therefore, we approximated MLW
for units in those States based on aerial photographs.
(5) Exclusions from the critical habitat designation. Certain
geographic areas are excluded from the critical habitat designation as
described below in this paragraph (5).
(i) Exclusions under sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Vandenberg
Air Force Base, San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, six
units bordering the south San Francisco Bay totaling 1,847 ac (747.4
ha), Dillon Beach (Unit CA 7), Vandenberg South (CA 17B), Atascadero
Beach (CA 15B), Vandenberg North (CA 17A), Silver Strand (CA 27C),
Jetty Road to Aptos (CA 12A), Morro Bay Beach (CA 15C), Pismo Beach/
Nipomo (CA 16), and Monterey to Moss Landing (CA 12C).
(ii) [Reserved].
(6) Note: Maps M1-M4 (index maps) follow:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 57027]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.000
[[Page 57028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.001
[[Page 57029]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.002
[[Page 57030]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.003
[[Page 57031]]
(7) Unit WA 2, Gray's Harbor County, Washington.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps West Port, and Point Brown,
Washington, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 411969, 5198743; 412118, 5198955; 412321, 5199143; 412474,
5199276; 412581, 5199342; 412760, 5199464; 412914, 5199534; 413095,
5199617; 413220, 5199696; 413634, 5199705; 413834, 5199702; 413941,
5199606; 414011, 5199668; 414163, 5199815; 414189, 5199727; 414265,
5199581; 414434, 5199496; 414600, 5199488; 414816, 5199423; 414960,
5199536; 415149, 5199660; 415368, 5199839; 415604, 5199856; 415808,
5199733; 416012, 5199539; 416064, 5199233; 416059, 5198892; 416059,
5198535; 416020, 5198256; 415914, 5198083; 415679, 5198078; 415512,
5198134; 415356, 5198262; 415200, 5198457; 414976, 5198591; 414791,
5198696; 414626, 5198794; 414430, 5198897; 414260, 5199040; 414064,
5199151; 413809, 5199254; 413603, 5199268; 413412, 5199107; 413205,
5198905; 413067, 5198813; 412875, 5198772; 412670, 5198713; 412504,
5198634; 412411, 5198529; 412393, 5198396; 412460, 5198236; 412387,
5198123; 412260, 5197998; 412114, 5198138; 411995, 5198227; 411816,
5198366; returning to 411969, 5198743.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit WA 2 (Map M5) follows:
[[Page 57032]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.004
[[Page 57033]]
(8) Unit WA 3, Pacific County, Washington.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Grayland, and North Cove,
Washington, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 416476, 5177381; 415946, 5177482; 415875, 5177830; 415806,
5178119; 415755, 5178555; 415630, 5178985; 415500, 5179419; 415492,
5179835; 415746, 5180411; 415933, 5180734; 416091, 5181113; 416093,
5181429; 416098, 5181688; 416474, 5181685; 416492, 5181483; 416521,
5181242; 416550, 5180859; 416543, 5180507; 416559, 5180293; 416559,
5180171; 416537, 5180035; 416541, 5179894; 416545, 5179798; 416570,
5179614; 416563, 5179469; 416574, 5179293; 416561, 5179199; 416543,
5179101; 416528, 5178820; 416534, 5178526; 416523, 5178330; 416545,
5178157; 416516, 5177956; 416481, 5177740; 416481, 5177511; returning
to 416476, 5177381.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit WA 3 (Map M6) follows:
[[Page 57034]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.005
[[Page 57035]]
(9) Unit WA 4, Pacific County, Washington.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps North Cove, and Oysterville,
Washington, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 418747, 5156518; 418673, 5156518; 418673, 5156666; 418617,
5157830; 418525, 5159271; 418433, 5160860; 418285, 5162689; 418193,
5164185; 418201, 5164730; 418262, 5165289; 418377, 5166088; 418684,
5166723; 419029, 5166925; 419464, 5166919; 419684, 5166777; 419815,
5166467; 419904, 5166114; 419756, 5165718; 419549, 5165726; 419403,
5165688; 419283, 5165618; 418960, 5165433; 418727, 5165193; 418549,
5164867; 418423, 5164456; 418422, 5163778; 418444, 5162761; 418503,
5161719; 418570, 5160431; 418666, 5159127; 418777, 5157778; 418843,
5156510; 418747, 5156518; returning to 418747, 5156518.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit WA 4 (Map M7) follows:
[[Page 57036]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.006
[[Page 57037]]
(10) Unit OR 3, Tillamook County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Garibaldi, Oregon, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 425807,
5046046; 425855, 5046042; 425953, 5046029; 426052, 5045994; 426095,
5045969; 426142, 5045939; 426175, 5045895; 426208, 5045840; 426224,
5045807; 426227, 5045780; 426208, 5045772; 426184, 5045778; 426149,
5045794; 426122, 5045784; 426098, 5045756; 426081, 5045721; 426091,
5045643; 426120, 5045495; 426128, 5045441; 426159, 5045231; 426167,
5045131; 426167, 5045049; 426151, 5045006; 426143, 5044953; 426151,
5044898; 426159, 5044844; 426124, 5044732; 426104, 5044648; 426078,
5044433; 426052, 5044257; 426020, 5044062; 425972, 5043800; 425889,
5043253; 425718, 5043279; 425706, 5043277, proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 425807, 5046046.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 3 (Map M8) follows:
[[Page 57038]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.007
[[Page 57039]]
(11) Unit OR 7, Lane County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Mercer Lake OE W, and Mercer
Lake, Oregon, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 410183, 4883959; 410218, 4883951; 410246, 4883955; 410260,
4883947; 410265, 4883920; 410273, 4883864; 410269, 4883809; 410257,
4883747; 410252, 4883652; 410244, 4883585; 410241, 4883515; 410230,
4883391; 410213, 4883323; 410205, 4883270; 410202, 4883221; 410198,
4883167; 410200, 4883104; 410207, 4883029; 410211, 4882970; 410206,
4882928; 410206, 4882870; 410213, 4882806; 410239, 4882738; 410252,
4882699; 410254, 4882655; 410259, 4882615; 410261, 4882590; 410259,
4882532; 410230, 4882501; 410203, 4882470; 410179, 4882445; 410156,
4882418; 410135, 4882388; 410116, 4882344; 410099, 4882271; 410059,
4881847; 410020, 4881553; 410011, 4881367; 409963, 4881129; 409938,
4880858; 409903, 4880597; 409872, 4880368; 409867, 4880331; 409863,
4880299; 409874, 4880271; 409885, 4880244; 409903, 4880212; 409921,
4880180; 409943, 4880130; 409952, 4880094; 409956, 4880050; 409954,
4880012; 409933, 4879992; 409921, 4879973; 409921, 4879955; 409929,
4879927; 409941, 4879890; 409944, 4879863; 409941, 4879833; 409935,
4879815; 409920, 4879804; 409874, 4879770; 409848, 4879743; 409839,
4879717; 409832, 4879667; 409841, 4879634; 409837, 4879601; 409822,
4879571; 409801, 4879536; 409784, 4879508; 409775, 4879488; 409764,
4879474; 409753, 4879444; 409768, 4879273; 409762, 4879169; 409726,
4879017; 409708, 4878913; 409692, 4878839; 409682, 4878765; 409698,
4878740; 409696, 4878733; 409699, 4878717; 409701, 4878694; 409696,
4878656; 409687, 4878598; 409692, 4878500; 409693, 4878433; 409699,
4878296; 409699, 4878270; 409695, 4878244; 409682, 4878211; 409665,
4878174; 409645, 4878126; 409639, 4878088; 409638, 4878061; 409631,
4878025; 409629, 4877989; 409615, 4877967; 409609, 4877942; 409604,
4877919; 409604, 4877895; 409613, 4877852; 409597, 4877832; 409549,
4877801; 409529, 4877773; 409450, 4877776; 409382, 4877775; 409347,
4877775; proceed generally N following the mean low water mark (defined
at the beginning of the section) and returning to 410183, 4883959.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 7 (Map M9) follows:
[[Page 57040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.008
[[Page 57041]]
(12) Unit OR 8A, Lane County and Douglas County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Goose Pasture, and
Tahkenitch Creek, Oregon, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27
coordinates (E,N): 407380, 4860464; 407406, 4860666; 407511, 4860648;
407519, 4860648; 407522, 4860651; 407524, 4860654; 407527, 4860653;
407531, 4860649; 407535, 4860642; 407538, 4860635; 407538, 4860627;
407538, 4860619; 407537, 4860612; 407533, 4860609; 407530, 4860598;
407534, 4860589; 407553, 4860580; 407551, 4860572; 407549, 4860556;
407552, 4860545; 407556, 4860538; 407563, 4860528; 407570, 4860521;
407567, 4860514; 407566, 4860503; 407567, 4860492; 407577, 4860476;
407587, 4860473; 407596, 4860469; 407590, 4860435; 407561, 4860441;
407551, 4860436; 407542, 4860427; 407534, 4860424; 407526, 4860424;
407515, 4860451; 407380, 4860464; proceed generally N following the
mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and
returning to 407380, 4860464.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 8A (Map M10) follows:
[[Page 57042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.009
[[Page 57043]]
(13) Unit OR 8B, Douglas County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Tahkenitch Creek, Oregon,
land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 406189,
4851652; 406140, 4851272; 406110, 4850981; 406094, 4850863; 406112,
4850811; 406137, 4850770; 406164, 4850739; 406206, 4850717; 406241,
4850649; 406269, 4850528; 406271, 4850440; 406255, 4850358; 406244,
4850278; 406233, 4850190; 406208, 4850160; 406181, 4850149; 406192,
4850119; 406178, 4850053; 406151, 4849995; 406162, 4849965; 406181,
4849943; 406149, 4849887; 406142, 4849860; 406131, 4849819; 406125,
4849763; 406107, 4849710; 406076, 4849613; 406089, 4849502; 406063,
4849426; 406033, 4849394; 405990, 4849385; 405951, 4849350; 405932,
4849324; 405929, 4849295; 405921, 4849256; 405881, 4849256; 405830,
4849253; 405798, 4849226; 405769, 4849126; 405706, 4848682; 405673,
4848515; 405610, 4848210; 405577, 4847990; 405544, 4847815; 405461,
4847397; 405368, 4846903; 405280, 4846370; 405239, 4846137; 405096,
4845426; 405005, 4845434; 405022, 4845624; 405050, 4845765; 405069,
4845876; 405124, 4846045; 405154, 4846214; 405173, 4846400; 405225,
4846598; 405259, 4846861; 405308, 4847125; 405338, 4847285; 405365,
4847406; 405393, 4847605; 405432, 4847726; 405464, 4847878; 405505,
4848114; 405505, 4848215; 405526, 4848317; 405549, 4848411; 405568,
4848463; 405582, 4848526; 405588, 4848603; 405593, 4848630; 405626,
4848827; 405654, 4848993; 405681, 4849080; 405685, 4849161; 405712,
4849378; 405719, 4849497; 405744, 4849633; 405777, 4849767; 405819,
4849901; 405844, 4850059; 405879, 4850171; 405909, 4850333; 405898,
4850496; 405931, 4850644; 405953, 4850761; 406002, 4850989; 406034,
4851109; 406048, 4851202; 406062, 4851291; 406067, 4851372; 406069,
4851454; 406090, 4851580; 406079, 4851662; 406161, 4851892; 406192,
4852001; 406218, 4852092; 406239, 4852197; 406225, 4852259; 406209,
4852315; 406218, 4852367; 406230, 4852424; 406239, 4852484; 406266,
4852553; 406271, 4852635; 406273, 4852725; 406282, 4852799; 406294,
4852884; 406308, 4852962; 406321, 4853033; 406333, 4853104; 406348,
4853157; 406367, 4853248; 406379, 4853320; 406380, 4853362; 406377,
4853408; 406372, 4853454; 406369, 4853491; 406377, 4853533; 406406,
4853573; 406409, 4853618; 406406, 4853660; 406411, 4853702; 406426,
4853731; 406454, 4853795; 406476, 4853895; 406473, 4853951; 406476,
4854051; 406475, 4854119; 406494, 4854200; 406514, 4854270; 406530,
4854360; 406546, 4854443; 406532, 4854535; 406522, 4854585; 406551,
4854677; 406585, 4854767; 406603, 4854831; 406603, 4854865; 406608,
4854919; 406625, 4854991; 406645, 4855053; 406661, 4855121; 406679,
4855220; 406691, 4855306; 406702, 4855384; 406691, 4855441; 406671,
4855503; 406678, 4855555; 406691, 4855624; 406711, 4855718; 406739,
4855809; 406762, 4855906; 406774, 4855986; 406773, 4856058; 406762,
4856124; 406776, 4856189; 406787, 4856270; 406806, 4856354; 406815,
4856413; 406813, 4856487; 406833, 4856551; 406852, 4856628; 406860,
4856657; 406870, 4856676; 406877, 4856700; 406886, 4856729; 406887,
4856758; 406890, 4856789; 406904, 4856844; 406903, 4856902; 406899,
4856939; 406901, 4856996; 406910, 4857037; 406928, 4857075; 406954,
4857137; 406961, 4857195; 406963, 4857248; 406982, 4857293; 406989,
4857352; 406999, 4857467; 407004, 4857524; 407011, 4857598; 407012,
4857682; 407022, 4857762; 407023, 4857822; 407020, 4857860; 407039,
4857973; 407104, 4858294; 407093, 4858371; 407076, 4858441; 407082,
4858507; 407106, 4858572; 407131, 4858625; 407164, 4858662; 407179,
4858710; 407183, 4858790; 407200, 4858879; 407221, 4858961; 407247,
4859089; 407246, 4859131; 407241, 4859169; 407227, 4859248; 407237,
4859307; 407234, 4859358; 407347, 4859349; 407345, 4859280; 407338,
4859242; 407338, 4859206; 407336, 4859179; 407334, 4859157; 407329,
4859144; 407328, 4859128; 407331, 4859105; 407339, 4859089; 407347,
4859076; 407359, 4859065; 407371, 4859057; 407390, 4859051; 407418,
4859039; 407436, 4859030; 407457, 4859016; 407479, 4858997; 407513,
4858967; 407532, 4858949; 407554, 4858932; 407579, 4858907; 407587,
4858884; 407599, 4858847; 407612, 4858818; 407618, 4858790; 407626,
4858760; 407629, 4858742; 407628, 4858717; 407621, 4858691; 407615,
4858674; 407621, 4858634; 407632, 4858609; 407642, 4858582; 407654,
4858557; 407671, 4858533; 407691, 4858503; 407697, 4858486; 407699,
4858468; 407702, 4858459; 407680, 4858431; 407643, 4858402; 407633,
4858399; 407607, 4858357; 407565, 4858284; 407532, 4858252; 407492,
4858191; 407465, 4858156; 407454, 4858128; 407455, 4858063; 407402,
4858011; 407335, 4857992; 407298, 4857997; 407266, 4857992; 407232,
4857990; 407203, 4857980; 407181, 4857952; 407161, 4857909; 407146,
4857855; 407132, 4857793; 407127, 4857763; 407115, 4857726; 407092,
4857601; 407078, 4857519; 407056, 4857385; 407021, 4857166; 407011,
4857100; 406997, 4856986; 406943, 4856627; 406890, 4856228; 406828,
4855764; 406774, 4855388; 406720, 4855094; 406721, 4855074; 406731,
4855047; 406756, 4855023; 406791, 4855014; 406827, 4855005; 406838,
4854997; 406815, 4854865; 406816, 4854840; 406812, 4854805; 406803,
4854770; 406787, 4854746; 406784, 4854725; 406773, 4854681; 406749,
4854626; 406750, 4854589; 406731, 4854491; 406714, 4854455; 406710,
4854438; 406714, 4854398; 406700, 4854302; 406684, 4854217; 406675,
4854197; 406621, 4854191; 406594, 4854177; 406581, 4854167; 406555,
4853958; 406555, 4853937; 406601, 4853933; 406635, 4853937; 406665,
4853927; 406682, 4853911; 406679, 4853866; 406665, 4853816; 406650,
4853787; 406617, 4853748; 406582, 4853724; 406540, 4853706; 406525,
4853688; 406511, 4853681; 406504, 4853649; 406324, 4852508; 406312,
4852398; 406288, 4852280; 406189, 4851652; proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 406189, 4851652.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 8B (Map M11) follows:
[[Page 57044]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.010
[[Page 57045]]
(14) Unit OR 8D, Coos County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Lakeside, Oregon, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 401636,
4828760; 401679, 4828749; 401747, 4828726; 401658, 4828374; 401613,
4828096; 401470, 4827477; 401409, 4827191; 401129, 4826018; 401127,
4826013; 401086, 4825757; 401054, 4825630; 401025, 4825485; 400988,
4825352; 400986, 4825307; 401004, 4825278; 401041, 4825223; 401105,
4825207; 401218, 4825201; 401279, 4825159; 401303, 4825088; 401306,
4825027; 401290, 4824934; 401229, 4824826; 401173, 4824723; 401118,
4824609; 400993, 4824523; 400901, 4824418; 400880, 4824308; 400860,
4824209; 400860, 4824112; 400857, 4824072; 400855, 4824044; 400852,
4824012; 400827, 4823985; 400798, 4823971; 400769, 4823937; 400747,
4823910; 400729, 4823894; 400718, 4823871; 400697, 4823844; 400679,
4823812; 400650, 4823775; 400612, 4823704; 400552, 4823593; 400483,
4823365; 400446, 4823262; 400393, 4823043; 400362, 4822926; 400335,
4822833; 400320, 4822785; 400224, 4822422; 400189, 4822303; 400141,
4822147; 400030, 4822156; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
401636, 4828760.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 8D (Map M12) follows:
[[Page 57046]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.011
[[Page 57047]]
(15) Unit OR 9, Coos County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Empire, and Charleston,
Oregon, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N):
401636, 4828760; 394245, 4805890; 393957, 4805261; 393701, 4804768;
393592, 4804572; 393390, 4804169; 393440, 4804146; 393286, 4803816;
393209, 4803614; 393042, 4803271; 392971, 4803090; 392984, 4802913;
392971, 4802808; 392997, 4802749; 393060, 4802650; 392984, 4802525;
392909, 4802426; 392851, 4802339; 392965, 4802319; 393103, 4802120;
393037, 4801882; 392991, 4801895; 392942, 4801829; 392915, 4801780;
392702, 4801829; 392390, 4801908; 392192, 4801921; 392137, 4801773;
392058, 4801603; 391696, 4801111; 391595, 480115 proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 401636, 4828760.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 9 (Map M13) follows:
[[Page 57048]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.012
[[Page 57049]]
(16) Unit OR 10A, Coos County and Curry County, Oregon.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Bandon, Floras Lake, and
Langlois, Oregon, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27
coordinates (E,N): 383032, 4769361; 383046, 4769436; 383042, 4769495;
383042, 4769541; 383036, 4769584; 383034, 4769625; 383032, 4769672;
383047, 4769672; 383079, 4769666; 383115, 4769654; 383145, 4769655;
383178, 4769655; 383202, 4769645; 383228, 4769633; 383248, 4769596;
383259, 4769526; 383250, 4769486; 383225, 4769479; 383179, 4769476;
383171, 4769447; 383135, 4769361; 383100, 4769213; 383079, 4769128;
383063, 4769061; 383047, 4768989; 383045, 4768946; 383030, 4768890;
383012, 4768820; 382991, 4768707; 382977, 4768620; 382965, 4768535;
382940, 4768432; 382917, 4768316; 382895, 4768227; 382870, 4768128;
382853, 4768018; 382833, 4767920; 382798, 4767778; 382768, 4767645;
382735, 4767504; 382713, 4767389; 382691, 4767273; 382666, 4767174;
382643, 4767072; 382628, 4766975; 382608, 4766922; 382591, 4766834;
382566, 4766684; 382544, 4766554; 382576, 4766510; 382603, 4766451;
382644, 4766419; 382674, 4766392; 382671, 4766339; 382641, 4766274;
382588, 4766209; 382541, 4766138; 382545, 4766086; 382567, 4766024;
382556, 4765947; 382545, 4765889; 382529, 4765815; 382508, 4765731;
382480, 4765623; 382443, 4765515; 382432, 4765445; 382402, 4765359;
382379, 4765289; 382368, 4765189; 382358, 4765107; 382333, 4765011;
382296, 4764904; 382289, 4764842; 382255, 4764757; 382230, 4764699;
382219, 4764637; 382198, 4764585; 382190, 4764527; 382180, 4764495;
382154, 4764458; 382142, 4764403; 382142, 4764352; 382142, 4764287;
382120, 4764238; 382110, 4764191; 382108, 4764152; 382081, 4764081;
382057, 4764030; 382051, 4764000; 382053, 4763958; 382032, 4763917;
382035, 4763877; 382038, 4763851; 381965, 4763851; 381908, 4763845;
381855, 4763831; 381835, 4763787; 381815, 4763732; 381796, 4763652;
381768, 4763565; 381740, 4763474; 381700, 4763351; 381665, 4763216;
381633, 4763117; 381613, 4763049; 381577, 4762926; 381547, 4762797;
381509, 4762682; 381487, 4762602; 381457, 4762530; 381435, 4762449;
381415, 4762385; 381387, 4762281; 381356, 4762183; 381331, 4762117;
381322, 4762102; 381279, 4761979; 381241, 4761866; 381217, 4761735;
381284, 4761715; 381342, 4761681; 381292, 4761524; 381229, 4761341;
381210, 4761227; 381165, 4761047; 381126, 4760920; 381057, 4760801;
381017, 4760674; 380975, 4760600; 380940, 4760529; 380922, 4760431;
380893, 4760280; 380861, 4760150; 380845, 4760050; 380821, 4759978;
380771, 4759894; 380735, 4759845; 380710, 4759775; 380685, 4759712;
380647, 4759617; 380621, 4759515; 380602, 4759445; 380558, 4759388;
380539, 4759293; 380507, 4759191; 380469, 4759070; 380450, 4758982;
380431, 4758842; 380405, 4758791; 380386, 4758721; 380361, 4758639;
380348, 4758556; 380340, 4758479; 380312, 4758387; 380278, 4758300;
380183, 4758086; 379983, 4758087; 379957, 4757987; 379865, 4757759;
379821, 4757615; 379737, 4757407; 379704, 4757340; 379624, 4757140;
379560, 4756968; 379496, 4756803; 379432, 4756628; 379387, 4756528;
379333, 4756378; 379270, 4756202; 379190, 4756013; 379160, 4755949;
379119, 4755837; 379072, 4755728; 379003, 4755562; 378939, 4755407;
378934, 4755397; 378894, 4755299; 378848, 4755186; 378802, 4755067;
378732, 4754907; 378684, 4754772; 378652, 4754685; 378588, 4754546;
378553, 4754457; 378497, 4754350; 378440, 4754210; 378435, 4754197;
378372, 4754061; 378343, 4753975; 378311, 4753896; 378286, 4753834;
378276, 4753808; 378264, 4753779; 378238, 4753706; 378235, 4753663;
378233, 4753630; 378226, 4753586; 378215, 4753550; 378208, 4753517;
378208, 4753479; 378193, 4753454; 378168, 4753407; 378140, 4753371;
378140, 4753331; 378149, 4753278; 378140, 4753234; 378110, 4753195;
378099, 4753128; 378063, 4753070; 378034, 4753026; 378017, 4752979;
377999, 4752941; 377988, 4752913; 377955, 4752901; 377934, 4752879;
377939, 4752854; 377935, 4752828; 377911, 4752803; 377895, 4752751;
377879, 4752704; 377867, 4752664; 377851, 4752619; 377850, 4752586;
377832, 4752547; 377811, 4752531; 377785, 4752535; 377769, 4752528;
377750, 4752506; 377728, 4752511; 377714, 4752531; 377697, 4752531;
377703, 4752515; 377700, 4752489; 377688, 4752482; 377692, 4752456;
377673, 4752408; 377646, 4752346; 377641, 4752310; 377639, 4752271;
377630, 4752232; 377594, 4752154; 377575, 4752116; 377560, 4752101;
377543, 4752081; 377528, 4752077; 377524, 4752063; 377532, 4752050;
377506, 4752057; 377484, 4752070; 377462, 4752061; 377445, 4752023;
377415, 4751972; 377378, 4751899; 377368, 4751881; 377287, 4751726;
377202, 4751552; 377118, 4751382; 377052, 4751245; 377001, 4751131;
376982, 4751082; 376962, 4751045; 376928, 4750980; 376866, 4750871;
376751, 4750655; 376686, 4750517; 376667, 4750450; 376658, 4750421;
376640, 4750398; 376621, 4750368; 376621, 4750340; 376624, 4750312;
376624, 4750295; 376616, 4750282; 376607, 4750262; 376599, 4750241;
376588, 4750216; 376577, 4750207; 376442, 4750212; proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 383032, 4769361.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 10A (Map M14) follows:
[[Page 57050]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.013
[[Page 57051]]
(17) Unit CA 1, Del Norte County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Crescent City, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 398209,
4631037; 398218, 4631060; 398224, 4631082; 398235, 4631106; 398262,
4631184; 398262, 4631184; 398262, 4631185; 398373, 4631543; 398383,
4631574; 398467, 4631555; 398466, 4631552; 398670, 4631260; 398324,
4631005; 398289, 4630526; 398017, 4630524; 398209, 4631037; proceed
generally N following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning
of the section) and returning to 398209, 4631037.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 1 (Map M15) follows:
[[Page 57052]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.014
[[Page 57053]]
(18) Unit CA 2, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Rodgers Peak, and Trinadad,
California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 406854, 4563175; 406909, 4563169; 406777, 4562537; 406691,
4561673; 406135, 4560211; 405555, 4558600; 405187, 4557482; 404923,
4557330; proceed generally N following the mean low water mark (defined
at the beginning of the section) and returning to 406854, 4563175.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 2 (Map M16) follows:
[[Page 57054]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.015
[[Page 57055]]
(19) Unit CA 3A, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Crannell, and Arcata North,
California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 406554, 4541473; 406850, 4541471; 406870, 4540965; 406746,
4540695; 406583, 4540426; 406413, 4539149; 406354, 4538891; 406371,
4538797; 406294, 4538652; 406149, 4538652; proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 406554, 4541473.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 3A (Map M17) follows after description
of Unit CA 3B.
(20) Unit CA 3B, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Arcata North, and Tyee City,
California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 405657, 4536319; 405968, 4536317; 404931, 4531851; 404539,
4531879 proceed generally N following the mean low water mark (defined
at the beginning of the section) and returning to 405657, 4536319.
(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 3A and CA 3B (Map M17) follows:
[[Page 57056]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.016
[[Page 57057]]
(21) Unit CA 4A, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Eureka, Fields Landing, and
Cannibal Island, California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD
27 coordinates (E,N): 395866, 4512270; 395968, 4512054; 395898,
4511510; 395741, 4511140; 394616, 4509320; 394166, 4508589; 392132,
4505460; 392114, 4505473 proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
395866, 4512270.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4A (Map M18) follows:
[[Page 57058]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.017
[[Page 57059]]
(22) Unit CA 4B, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Cannibal Island, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 392114,
4505473; 392178, 4505423; 392157, 4505254; 391892, 4504800; 391616,
4504350; 390808, 4502622; 390100, 4501334; 389495, 4499927; 389538,
4499526; 389226, 4499809 proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
392114, 4505473.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4B (Map M19) follows:
[[Page 57060]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.018
[[Page 57061]]
(23) Unit CA 4C, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Cannibal Island, and
Ferndale, California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27
coordinates (E,N): 389046, 4499539; 389171, 4499501; 388506, 4498145;
385862, 4492184; 385723, 4492184 proceed generally N following the mean
low water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning
to 389046, 4499539.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4C (Map M20) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.019
[[Page 57062]]
(24) Unit CA 4D, Humboldt County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Fortuna, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 402468,
4488324; 402916, 4487812; 401861, 4487818; 401912, 4488452; 401713,
4490121; 402020, 4490920; 402257, 4491861; 402084, 4492244; 401310,
4493127; 401048, 4493965; 400511, 4494573; 399443, 4495225; 398221,
4496114; 398394, 4496472; 399149, 4496127; 400242, 4495244; 401586,
4494208; 402142, 4492667; 402449, 4491912; 402481, 4491253; 402263,
4490095; 402276, 4489021; 402468, 4488324; proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 402468, 4488324.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4D (Map M21) follows:
[[Page 57063]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.020
[[Page 57064]]
(25) Unit CA 5, Mendocino County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Inglenook, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 434183,
4378272; 434210, 4378274; 434246, 4377994; 434507, 4377586; 434498,
4376652; 434928, 4376643; 434941, 4376311; 434702, 4375952; 434316,
4375850; 434321, 4375592; 433949, 4375521; 433722, 4375797; 433623,
4375691; 433938, 4375209; 434062, 4374702; 434048, 4374174; 434190,
4373926; 434133, 4373749; 433892, 4373805; 433570, 4374036; 433436,
4374324; 433498, 4374626; 433493, 4374864; 433391, 4374920; 433325,
4374764; 433205, 4374397; 433246, 4374176; 433373, 4374009; 433684,
4372868; 433502, 4372573; 432647, 4372582; 432442, 4372975; proceed
generally N following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning
of the section) and returning to 434183, 4378272.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 5 (Map M22) follows:
[[Page 57065]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.021
[[Page 57066]]
(26) Unit CA 6, Mendocino County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Mallo Pass Creek, and Point
Arena California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27
coordinates (E,N): 439747, 4317317; 439796, 4317313; 439669, 4316995;
439235, 4315894; 438610, 4314327; 438483, 4314133; 438349, 4313805;
438391, 4313293; 438277, 4312863; 438136, 4312640; 438192, 4311851;
437426, 4311863; 437428, 4312213; 437179, 4312237; proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 439747, 4317317.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 6 (Map M23) follows:
[[Page 57067]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.022
[[Page 57068]]
(27) Unit CA 8, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Tomales, and Drakes Bay,
California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 504572, 4222726; 504572, 4222726; 504614, 4222726; 504533,
4222176; 504474, 4221753; 504423, 4221606; 504323, 4220932; 504115,
4220064; 504015, 4219779; 503828, 4219017; 503862, 4218832; 503786,
4218734; 503872, 4218442; 503881, 4218252; 503864, 4218189; 504076,
4218038; 504054, 4217950; 504303, 4217736; 503996, 4217911; 503852,
4217840; 503755, 4217538; 503404, 4217327; 503248, 4217088; 503131,
4216783; 503063, 4216501; 502871, 4215990; 502578, 4215108; 502379,
4214536; 502420, 4214406; 502698, 4214160; 502576, 4214092; 502308,
4214311; 501984, 4213425; 501745, 4212755; 501458, 4211988; 501205,
4211284; 501258, 4211192; 501175, 4211211; 500930, 4210500; 500900,
4210342; 500793, 4210193; 500720, 4209996; 500637, 4209716; 500474,
4209346; 500433, 4209173; 500364, 4209049; 500289, 4208756; 500194,
4208591; 500009, 4208106; 499997, 4207982; 499943, 4207897; 499858,
4207658; 499821, 4207609; 499817, 4207502; 499707, 4207202; 499580,
4206933; 499511, 4206729; 499411, 4206501; 499306, 4206118; 499361,
4205940; 499323, 4205958; 499335, 4205836; 499191, 4205825; 499100,
4205651; 498998, 4205696; 498933, 4205752; proceed generally N
following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the
section) and returning to 504572, 4222726.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 8 (Map M24) follows:
[[Page 57069]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.023
[[Page 57070]]
(28) Unit CA 9, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Drakes Bay, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 506112,
4209385; 506127, 4209403; 506148, 4209411; 506156, 4209407; 506160,
4209409; 506164, 4209409; 506175, 4209409; 506181, 4209408; 506190,
4209406; 506199, 4209398; 506212, 4209393; 506224, 4209381; 506227,
4209377; 506236, 4209364; 506250, 4209351; 506258, 4209335; 506283,
4209313; 506304, 4209295; 506356, 4209248; 506636, 4208969; 506702,
4208934; 506808, 4208934; 506886, 4208919; 506941, 4208908; 507068,
4208896; 507113, 4208881; 507123, 4208888; 507103, 4208939; 507113,
4208949; 507123, 4208947; 507125, 4208947; 507125, 4208947; 507136,
4208944; 507169, 4208919; 507257, 4208926; 507262, 4208927; 507276,
4208929; 507278, 4208928; 507398, 4208937; 507451, 4208967; 507465,
4208969; 507473, 4208976; 507475, 4208978; 507479, 4208977; 507486,
4208976; 507497, 4208980; 507504, 4208982; 507509, 4208988; 507513,
4208990; 507524, 4208995; 507539, 4208993; 507554, 4208995; 507557,
4208996; 507564, 4208994; 507571, 4208993; 507588, 4208983; 507672,
4208957; 507725, 4208955; 507734, 4208948; 507740, 4208941; 507742,
4208942; 507745, 4208943; 507754, 4208938; 507759, 4208931; 507809,
4208942; 507821, 4208933; 507826, 4208934; 507829, 4208935; 507833,
4208930; 507835, 4208929; 507838, 4208927; 507841, 4208925; 507848,
4208920; 507853, 4208911; 507860, 4208908; 507934, 4208927; 507969,
4208945; 507995, 4209003; 508011, 4209013; 508013, 4209018; 508016,
4209019; 508030, 4209025; 508047, 4209034; 508048, 4209035; 508050,
4209034; 508068, 4209029; 508081, 4209024; 508098, 4209021; 508101,
4209019; 508150, 4209009; 508228, 4208993; 508269, 4208978; 508305,
4208939; 508313, 4208932; 508315, 4208928; 508330, 4208912; 508483,
4208887; 508485, 4208887; 508500, 4208884; 508513, 4208881; 508589,
4208894; 508691, 4208894; 508700, 4208902; 508700, 4208822; 510301,
4208503; 510301, 4208469; 510275, 4208473; 510258, 4208478; 510237,
4208484; 510228, 4208485; 510202, 4208487; 510165, 4208496; 510134,
4208505; 510112, 4208510; 510072, 4208518; 510040, 4208527; 510006,
4208529; 509977, 4208540; 509963, 4208543; 509958, 4208543; 509938,
4208546; 509898, 4208553; 509862, 4208555; 509851, 4208558; 509835,
4208563; 509824, 4208566; 509802, 4208571; 509778, 4208576; 509750,
4208578; 509731, 4208579; 509680, 4208585; 509627, 4208595; 509577,
4208604; 509563, 4208609; 509555, 4208612; 509539, 4208617; 509508,
4208629; 509462, 4208642; 509448, 4208645; 509439, 4208647; 509429,
4208648; 509392, 4208661; 509385, 4208663; 509347, 4208677; 509308,
4208680; 509279, 4208688; 509258, 4208693; 509232, 4208697; 509196,
4208700; 509178, 4208701; 508902, 4208724; 508704, 4208751; 508696,
4208750; 508682, 4208746; 508665, 4208742; 508632, 4208740; 508601,
4208747; 508577, 4208748; 508560, 4208749; 508545, 4208753; 508525,
4208758; 508498, 4208761; 508450, 4208766; 508431, 4208764; 508396,
4208761; 508350, 4208763; 508347, 4208763; 508312, 4208768; 508275,
4208767; 508237, 4208774; 508216, 4208775; 508199, 4208775; 508178,
4208779; 508166, 4208782; 508150, 4208784; 508134, 4208786; 508100,
4208789; 508095, 4208789; 508065, 4208793; 508056, 4208793; 508019,
4208789; 507980, 4208798; 507948, 4208793; 507920, 4208793; 507910,
4208794; 507867, 4208789; 507821, 4208791; 507775, 4208790; 507763,
4208792; 507743, 4208793; 507736, 4208794; 507690, 4208795; 507651,
4208792; 507617, 4208793; 507611, 4208793; 507605, 4208792; 507602,
4208792; 507576, 4208790; 507547, 4208791; 507539, 4208791; 507487,
4208789; 507446, 4208791; 507393, 4208795; 507338, 4208787; 507282,
4208785; 507236, 4208792; 507235, 4208792; 507221, 4208796; 507202,
4208794; 507189, 4208799; 507180, 4208798; 507152, 4208804; 507140,
4208807; 507117, 4208812; 507104, 4208816; 507089, 4208816; 507071,
4208816; 507066, 4208818; 507040, 4208823; 507038, 4208824; 507007,
4208830; 507001, 4208833; 506975, 4208844; 506962, 4208850; 506875,
4208863; 506828, 4208855; 506821, 4208851; 506817, 4208849; 506799,
4208840; 506780, 4208829; 506759, 4208821; 506739, 4208815; 506738,
4208815; 506712, 4208815; 506711, 4208816; 506702, 4208812; 506675,
4208814; 506663, 4208811; 506659, 4208810; 506655, 4208811; 506640,
4208813; 506636, 4208814; 506624, 4208811; 506608, 4208809; 506582,
4208814; 506547, 4208824; 506518, 4208825; 506486, 4208836; 506484,
4208838; 506477, 4208840; 506457, 4208849; 506439, 4208863; 506434,
4208871; 506430, 4208877; 506423, 4208885; 506417, 4208891; 506409,
4208895; 506397, 4208910; 506367, 4208941; 506262, 4209015; 506194,
4209093; 506158, 4209192; 506115, 4209314; and returning to 506112,
4209385.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 9 (Map M25) follows:
[[Page 57071]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.024
[[Page 57072]]
(29) Unit CA 10, San Mateo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Half Moon Bay, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 548431,
4148414; 548480, 4148414; 548972, 4147370; 549024, 4146767; 549079,
4146435; 548995, 4146435; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
548431, 4148414.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 10 (Map M26) follows:
[[Page 57073]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.025
[[Page 57074]]
(30) Unit CA 11A, Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Ano Nuevo, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 564392,
4105215; 564379, 4105194; 564373, 4105195; 564326, 4105243; 564324,
4105252; 564324, 4105263; 564324, 4105285; 564319, 4105310; 564313,
4105344; 564310, 4105355; 564303, 4105380; 564295, 4105401; 564287,
4105409; 564275, 4105421; 564247, 4105442; 564236, 4105451; 564232,
4105454; 564226, 4105459; 564212, 4105471; 564207, 4105475; 564181,
4105500; 564173, 4105507; 564153, 4105525; 564145, 4105535; 564137,
4105544; 564104, 4105574; 564086, 4105594; 564072, 4105611; 564068,
4105616; 564041, 4105649; 564025, 4105671; 564013, 4105687; 564006,
4105696; 564007, 4105697; 564059, 4105657; 564114, 4105629; 564210,
4105606; 564224, 4105591; 564223, 4105587; 564223, 4105573; 564228,
4105565; 564239, 4105548; 564250, 4105535; 564261, 4105521; 564272,
4105509; 564284, 4105491; 564300, 4105478; 564307, 4105467; 564310,
4105464; 564320, 4105457; 564333, 4105437; 564335, 4105434; 564348,
4105415; 564352, 4105411; 564363, 4105397; 564376, 4105385; 564385,
4105367; 564395, 4105341; 564401, 4105321; 564403, 4105300; 564401,
4105280; 564400, 4105273; 564397, 4105249; 564392, 4105215; returning
to 564392, 4105215.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 11A (Map M27) follows:
[[Page 57075]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.026
[[Page 57076]]
(31) Unit CA 11B, Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Davenport, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 568335,
4099623; 568357, 4099641; 568491, 4099548; 568511, 4099559; 568644,
4099426; 568705, 4099359; 568766, 4099278; 568789, 4099227; 568743,
4099219; 568725, 4099203; 568732, 4099154; 568793, 4099079; 568797,
4099050; 568724, 4099017; 568788, 4098813; 568812, 4098739; 568810,
4098648; 568780, 4098657; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
568335, 4099623.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 11B (Map M28) follows:
[[Page 57077]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.027
[[Page 57078]]
(32) Unit CA 11C, Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Santa Cruz, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 581976,
4089882; 581995, 4089920; 582016, 4089973; 582043, 4090004; 582099,
4090029; 582146, 4090031; 582186, 4090014; 582190, 4089975; 582220,
4089960; 582286, 4089956; 582339, 4089976; 582379, 4089965; 582325,
4089864; 582317, 4089828; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
581976, 4089882.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 11C (Map M29) follows:
[[Page 57079]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.028
[[Page 57080]]
(33) Unit CA 12B, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Moss Landing, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 608763,
4074606; 608691, 4074563; 608670, 4074673; 608584, 4074676; 608543,
4074678; 608446, 4074735; 608439, 4074818; 608641, 4074826; 608664,
4074856; 608625, 4075263; 608614, 4075389; 608635, 4075389; 608631,
4075470; 608729, 4075467; 608787, 4075475; 608845, 4075503; 608883,
4075530; 608927, 4075571; 608956, 4075595; 608997, 4075637; 609048,
4075659; 609093, 4075666; 609168, 4075653; 609218, 4075654; 609270,
4075672; 609344, 4075728; 609380, 4075742; 609451, 4075750; 609528,
4075677; 609566, 4075533; 609597, 4075526; 609642, 4075452; 609672,
4075419; 609693, 4075383; 609709, 4075374; 609746, 4075376; 609782,
4075377; 609817, 4075380; 609856, 4075384; 609882, 4075367; 609917,
4075348; 609958, 4075367; 609985, 4075364; 610013, 4075359; 610058,
4075336; 610029, 4075268; 610029, 4075128; 609963, 4075106; 609930,
4075084; 609878, 4075050; 609842, 4075010; 609817, 4074970; 609801,
4074919; 609802, 4074868; 609786, 4074834; 609768, 4074794; 609748,
4074758; 609727, 4074728; 609705, 4074713; 609656, 4074713; 609581,
4074728; 609517, 4074739; 609454, 4074739; 609391, 4074732; 609351,
4074722; 609319, 4074708; 609280, 4074688; 609244, 4074671; 609173,
4074665; 609007, 4074650; 608939, 4074661; 608892, 4074643; 608840,
4074635; returning to 608763, 4074606.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 12B (Map M30) follows:
[[Page 57081]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.029
[[Page 57082]]
(34) Unit CA 13, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Point Sur, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 599299,
4019363; 599421, 4019200; 599320, 4018471; 599091, 4018323; 598903,
4018365; 598903, 4018365; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
599299, 4019363.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 13 (Map M31) follows:
[[Page 57083]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.030
[[Page 57084]]
(35) Unit CA 14, San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Pico Creek, and San Luis
Obispo, California, land bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27
coordinates (E,N): 669618, 3940622; 669684, 3940666; 669759, 3940658;
669823, 3940570; 669860, 3940553; 670111, 3939799; 670221, 3939478;
670238, 3939332; 670183, 3939330; proceed generally N following the
mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and
returning to 669618, 3940622.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 14 (Map M32) follows:
[[Page 57085]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.031
[[Page 57086]]
(36) Unit CA 15A, San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Cayucos, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 684204,
3925805; 684260, 3925827; 684349, 3925831; 684316, 3925944; 684374,
3925990; 684389, 3926027; 684425, 3926024; 684453, 3925985; 684721,
3925617; 684671, 3925608; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
684204, 3925805.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 15A (Map M33) follows:
[[Page 57087]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.032
[[Page 57088]]
(37) Unit CA 18, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Dos Pueblos Canyon, and
Goleta, California, land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27
coordinates (E,N): 234194, 3812313; 234195, 3812330; 234324, 3812283;
234446, 3812230; 234583, 3812107; 234686, 3812003; 234773, 3811918;
234823, 3811862; 234938, 3811694; 235005, 3811597; 235067, 3811524;
235171, 3811381; 235232, 3811310; 235359, 3811141; 235381, 3811072;
235424, 3811010; 235428, 3810963; 235437, 3810924; 235477, 3810884;
235498, 3810866; 235532, 3810858; 235570, 3810877; 235592, 3810897;
235616, 3810922; 235681, 3810981; 235729, 3811016; 235817, 3811054;
235933, 3811084; 236074, 3811089; 236175, 3811083; 236270, 3811077;
236314, 3811067; 236310, 3811029; proceed generally N following the
mean low water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and
returning to 234194, 3812313.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 18 (Map M34) follows:
[[Page 57089]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.033
[[Page 57090]]
(38) Unit CA 19A, Ventura County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Oxnard, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 291536,
3790654; 291943, 3790429; 293789, 3790422; 293909, 3790178; 292342,
3790186; 291693, 3789833; 291920, 3789159; 292048, 3788658; 292238,
3788005; 292271, 3787968; 292297, 3787886; 292292, 3787826; 292351,
3787673; 292404, 3787548; 292400, 3787482; 292954, 3786197; 293048,
3785979; 293018, 3785959; 293526, 3784688; 293569, 3784701; 293823,
3784111; 293981, 3783717; 293983, 3783693; 294439, 3782668; 294526,
3782458; 294707, 3782195; 294760, 3782104; 294683, 3782108; 294704,
3782086; 294750, 3781994; 294787, 3781952; 294852, 3781838; 294879,
3781802; 294729, 3781717; 294723, 3781760; 294713, 3781782; 294699,
3781800; 294676, 3781817; 294671, 3781819; 294650, 3781827; 294631,
3781835; 294604, 3781838; 294585, 3781849; 294568, 3781857; 294557,
3781878; 294553, 3781896; 294547, 3781922; 294544, 3781941; 294543,
3781964; 294543, 3781984; 294545, 3782006; 294549, 3782032; 294548,
3782058; 294542, 3782084; 294541, 3782090; 294535, 3782125; 294526,
3782156; 294514, 3782192; 294504, 3782226; 294498, 3782242; 294495,
3782249; 294489, 3782267; 294477, 3782306; 294463, 3782352; 294448,
3782403; 294434, 3782462; 294429, 3782477; 294420, 3782507; 294402,
3782554; 294389, 3782595; 294376, 3782626; 294351, 3782682; 294331,
3782729; 294314, 3782773; 294285, 3782829; 294273, 3782855; 294256,
3782890; 294239, 3782923; 294225, 3782962; 294208, 3783001; 294187,
3783054; 294180, 3783080; 294166, 3783116; 294149, 3783150; 294139,
3783176; 294130, 3783215; 294115, 3783248; 294099, 3783272; 294085,
3783303; 294074, 3783348; 294060, 3783377; 294040, 3783411; 294010,
3783460; 293994, 3783498; 293976, 3783551; 293962, 3783594; 293942,
3783648; 293922, 3783688; 293908, 3783715; 293898, 3783734; 293878,
3783755; 293874, 3783759; 293870, 3783763; 293864, 3783782; 293863,
3783783; 293855, 3783808; 293843, 3783854; 293829, 3783891; 293814,
3783926; 293794, 3783965; 293770, 3784021; 293761, 3784045; 293741,
3784092; 293716, 3784137; 293697, 3784189; 293677, 3784240; 293652,
3784289; 293623, 3784357; 293610, 3784393; 293588, 3784443; 293572,
3784479; 293561, 3784499; 293545, 3784529; 293527, 3784573; 293506,
3784617; 293486, 3784667; 293471, 3784713; 293448, 3784768; 293427,
3784825; 293410, 3784866; 293401, 3784887; 293385, 3784930; 293360,
3784986; 293337, 3785035; 293322, 3785078; 293314, 3785099; 293304,
3785127; 293286, 3785175; 293271, 3785215; 293256, 3785255; 293254,
3785261; 293240, 3785292; 293233, 3785328; 293230, 3785340; 293229,
3785342; 293224, 3785361; 293214, 3785382; 293213, 3785384; 293203,
3785400; 293191, 3785431; 293176, 3785478; 293174, 3785482; 293171,
3785492; 293158, 3785530; 293149, 3785548; 293144, 3785558; 293142,
3785562; 293120, 3785619; 293106, 3785651; 293096, 3785681; 293092,
3785691; 293084, 3785711; 293070, 3785746; 293066, 3785755; 293066,
3785757; 293055, 3785792; 293042, 3785823; 293023, 3785874; 293004,
3785916; 292989, 3785962; 292970, 3786005; 292947, 3786059; 292927,
3786101; 292916, 3786121; 292910, 3786135; 292902, 3786150; 292885,
3786181; 292872, 3786223; 292862, 3786258; 292848, 3786284; 292840,
3786303; 292825, 3786340; 292816, 3786363; 292800, 3786391; 292798,
3786395; 292792, 3786403; 292786, 3786410; 292785, 3786412; 292782,
3786419; 292775, 3786441; 292774, 3786443; 292764, 3786469; 292755,
3786493; 292725, 3786558; 292709, 3786595; 292709, 3786598; 292697,
3786625; 292681, 3786656; 292680, 3786658; 292676, 3786663; 292670,
3786673; 292666, 3786678; 292655, 3786700; 292654, 3786703; 292642,
3786740; 292634, 3786761; 292631, 3786772; 292628, 3786779; 292618,
3786802; 292609, 3786822; 292598, 3786846; 292590, 3786864; 292588,
3786870; 292581, 3786889; 292575, 3786906; 292568, 3786919; 292563,
3786931; 292562, 3786932; 292553, 3786951; 292552, 3786953; 292532,
3787000; 292512, 3787049; 292505, 3787071; 292494, 3787099; 292481,
3787132; 292478, 3787139; 292470, 3787163; 292452, 3787219; 292430,
3787265; 292425, 3787276; 292416, 3787297; 292400, 3787337; 292384,
3787381; 292380, 3787388; 292371, 3787404; 292371, 3787405; 292364,
3787417; 292343, 3787473; 292338, 3787485; 292337, 3787488; 292321,
3787526; 292297, 3787585; 292296, 3787588; 292295, 3787588; 292272,
3787635; 292243, 3787694; 292216, 3787767; 292196, 3787815; 292177,
3787876; 292159, 3787920; 292157, 3787926; 292153, 3787937; 292146,
3787962; 292136, 3787992; 292124, 3788022; 292122, 3788027; 292115,
3788043; 292095, 3788098; 292090, 3788116; 292077, 3788155; 292076,
3788157; 292076, 3788158; 292057, 3788206; 292055, 3788211; 292053,
3788216; 292048, 3788237; 292038, 3788270; 292023, 3788314; 292018,
3788330; 292002, 3788380; 291991, 3788411; 291986, 3788424; 291974,
3788463; 291968, 3788483; 291953, 3788529; 291952, 3788534; 291947,
3788560; 291943, 3788587; 291933, 3788636; 291931, 3788640; 291916,
3788679; 291897, 3788731; 291875, 3788782; 291856, 3788846; 291832,
3788928; 291818, 3788975; 291818, 3788976; 291813, 3788995; 291807,
3789010; 291807, 3789010; 291792, 3789048; 291766, 3789118; 291751,
3789171; 291739, 3789208; 291738, 3789212; 291717, 3789279; 291703,
3789322; 291696, 3789346; 291681, 3789395; 291671, 3789432; 291671,
3789434; 291665, 3789455; 291661, 3789464; 291652, 3789484; 291510,
3789962; 291510, 3789967; 291507, 3790007; 291508, 3790019; 291510,
3790052; 291509, 3790065; 291508, 3790095; 291505, 3790118; 291499,
3790142; 291490, 3790179; 291482, 3790214; 291470, 3790249; 291468,
3790254; 291456, 3790296; 291447, 3790332; 291431, 3790369; 291421,
3790398; 291419, 3790406; 291417, 3790413; 291414, 3790433; 291406,
3790485; 291387, 3790625; 291374, 3790687; 291368, 3790723; 291362,
3790759; 291358, 3790792; 291351, 3790831; 291349, 3790865; 291348,
3790900; 291344, 3790941; 291340, 3790980; 291336, 3791004; 291335,
3791012; 291362, 3791013; 291410, 3790772; 291536, 3790654; proceed
generally N following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning
of the section) and returning to 291536, 3790654.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 19A (Map M35) follows:
[[Page 57091]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.034
[[Page 57092]]
(39) Unit CA 19B, Ventura County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Oxnard, and Point Magu,
California, land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 301219, 3777693; 300831, 3777265; 300825, 3777270; 300806,
3777284; 300783, 3777305; 300751, 3777332; 300731, 3777349; 300698,
3777377; 300669, 3777400; 300643, 3777423; 300614, 3777448; 300567,
3777480; 300539, 3777504; 300514, 3777529; 300495, 3777545; 300468,
3777563; 300449, 3777582; 300422, 3777615; 300388, 3777639; 300367,
3777657; 300344, 3777676; 300326, 3777689; 300306, 3777706; 300289,
3777719; 300273, 3777733; 300255, 3777748; 300226, 3777778; 300207,
3777796; 300191, 3777809; 300174, 3777824; 300156, 3777841; 300139,
3777858; 300117, 3777878; 300081, 3777914; 300048, 3777944; 300039,
3777958; 300028, 3777971; 300018, 3777978; 299997, 3778002; 299978,
3778030; 299954, 3778052; 299937, 3778067; 299917, 3778082; 299885,
3778114; 299854, 3778146; 299827, 3778167; 299800, 3778187; 299773,
3778211; 299761, 3778227; 299739, 3778248; 299711, 3778277; 299687,
3778297; 299657, 3778325; 299637, 3778346; 299615, 3778366; 299579,
3778392; 299550, 3778418; 299529, 3778447; 299511, 3778468; 299494,
3778483; 299474, 3778503; 299455, 3778521; 299431, 3778534; 299401,
3778560; 299376, 3778579; 299357, 3778601; 299334, 3778630; 299313,
3778649; 299295, 3778670; 299271, 3778701; 299262, 3778707; 299243,
3778722; 299213, 3778747; 299194, 3778765; 299174, 3778786; 299144,
3778817; 299117, 3778840; 299089, 3778867; 299053, 3778901; 299018,
3778932; 298985, 3778961; 298957, 3778991; 298930, 3779014; 298897,
3779041; 298864, 3779067; 298836, 3779090; 298801, 3779115; 298770,
3779144; 298729, 3779181; 298683, 3779218; 298660, 3779236; 298620,
3779280; 298584, 3779310; 298559, 3779328; 298505, 3779359; 298474,
3779379; 298431, 3779413; 298396, 3779434; 298365, 3779448; 298317,
3779471; 298289, 3779490; 298266, 3779506; 298243, 3779519; 298216,
3779537; 298200, 3779545; 298189, 3779550; 298164, 3779563; 298122,
3779582; 298080, 3779603; 298042, 3779629; 298000, 3779648; 297961,
3779678; 297913, 3779700; 297864, 3779729; 297819, 3779758; 297771,
3779784; 297727, 3779819; 297691, 3779838; 297656, 3779855; 297613,
3779877; 297567, 3779900; 297534, 3779917; 297494, 3779932; 297453,
3779953; 297404, 3779980; 297359, 3780001; 297309, 3780030; 297242,
3780065; 297270, 3780182; 297633, 3780001; 298075, 3779695; 298150,
3779675; 299371, 3778748; 299746, 3778489; 300378, 3777964; 300888,
3777929; 300911, 3777924; 300923, 3777917; 300936, 3777908; 300956,
3777892; 301219, 3777693; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
301219, 3777693.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 19B (Map M36) follows:
[[Page 57093]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.035
[[Page 57094]]
(40) Unit CA 19D, Ventura County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Point Magu, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 309410,
3773725; 309460, 3773796; 309560, 3773719; 309596, 3773763; 309661,
3773726; 309714, 3773654; 309836, 3773503; 309847, 3773468; 309815,
3773441; 309804, 3773452; 309784, 3773467; 309774, 3773475; 309772,
3773477; 309751, 3773495; 309739, 3773506; 309712, 3773523; 309698,
3773533; 309676, 3773549; 309673, 3773550; 309661, 3773558; 309630,
3773578; 309589, 3773607; 309578, 3773614; 309530, 3773650; 309488,
3773677; 309462, 3773692; 309445, 3773703; 309433, 3773711; 309410,
3773725; proceed generally N following the mean low water mark (defined
at the beginning of the section) and returning to 309410, 3773725.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 19D (Map M37) follows:
[[Page 57095]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.036
[[Page 57096]]
(41) Unit CA 20, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Point Dume, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 329965,
3766877; 329924, 3766830; 329985, 3766786; 330017, 3766822; 330095,
3766754; 330094, 3766751; 330084, 3766734; 330081, 3766721; 330155,
3766656; 330233, 3766591; 330253, 3766588; 330272, 3766589; 330283,
3766586; 330337, 3766538; 330324, 3766526; 330377, 3766467; 330388,
3766467; 330428, 3766419; 330503, 3766346; 330597, 3766260; 330733,
3766164; 330734, 3766150; 330742, 3766140; 330970, 3765974; 331003,
3765952; 331025, 3765933; 331045, 3765912; 331281, 3765663; 331539,
3765394; 331669, 3765298; 331791, 3765248; 331956, 3765199; 331981,
3765198; 332021, 3765195; 332052, 3765196; 332076, 3765189; 332121,
3765165; 332140, 3765152; 332146, 3765142; 332147, 3765126; 332122,
3765074; 332087, 3765013; 332081, 3764993; 332081, 3764972; 332083,
3764966; 332099, 3764935; 332103, 3764929; 332037, 3764863; 332019,
3764880; 332003, 3764895; 331988, 3764908; 331973, 3764917; 331965,
3764922; 331957, 3764927; 331930, 3764951; 331913, 3764969; 331904,
3764979; 331897, 3764986; 331886, 3764999; 331883, 3765003; 331882,
3765004; 331876, 3765009; 331858, 3765025; 331836, 3765051; 331813,
3765078; 331797, 3765098; 331783, 3765116; 331774, 3765125; 331755,
3765144; 331738, 3765158; 331724, 3765168; 331683, 3765204; 331643,
3765243; 331640, 3765246; 331605, 3765278; 331589, 3765293; 331588,
3765294; 331564, 3765319; 331527, 3765350; 331486, 3765395; 331456,
3765417; 331433, 3765432; 331404, 3765452; 331401, 3765454; 331400,
3765455; 331389, 3765467; 331365, 3765493; 331361, 3765497; 331325,
3765542; 331299, 3765572; 331275, 3765604; 331248, 3765627; 331243,
3765631; 331212, 3765659; 331178, 3765688; 331147, 3765713; 331108,
3765746; 331070, 3765774; 331036, 3765797; 331035, 3765798; 331012,
3765818; 331009, 3765820; 330986, 3765838; 330962, 3765871; 330937,
3765897; 330904, 3765925; 330878, 3765944; 330853, 3765961; 330827,
3765983; 330795, 3766008; 330764, 3766026; 330752, 3766032; 330739,
3766039; 330732, 3766043; 330711, 3766057; 330706, 3766060; 330681,
3766090; 330679, 3766091; 330667, 3766104; 330663, 3766107; 330653,
3766117; 330644, 3766126; 330643, 3766127; 330629, 3766143; 330604,
3766172; 330587, 3766179; 330579, 3766181; 330573, 3766186; 330368,
3766380; 330365, 3766384; 330348, 3766403; 330328, 3766422; 330321,
3766428; 330279, 3766466; 330236, 3766502; 330207, 3766528; 330173,
3766550; 330136, 3766569; 330105, 3766597; 330085, 3766611; 330070,
3766624; 330023, 3766660; 330022, 3766661; 330018, 3766664; 330010,
3766673; 329969, 3766702; 329962, 3766707; 329960, 3766708; 329937,
3766727; 329911, 3766747; 329888, 3766766; 329882, 3766771; 329847,
3766792; 329813, 3766815; 329785, 3766836; 329781, 3766839; 329816,
3766887; 329836, 3766875; 329851, 3766892; 329890, 3766865; 329899,
3766877; 329886, 3766885; 329912, 3766923; 329924, 3766912; 329965,
3766877; proceed generally N following the mean low water mark (defined
at the beginning of the section) and returning to 329965, 3766877.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 20 (Map M38) follows:
[[Page 57097]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.037
[[Page 57098]]
(42) Unit CA 21A, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Topanga, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 359653,
3766064; 359698, 3766104; 359706, 3766112; 359794, 3766072; 359841,
3766016; 359865, 3765980; 359868, 3765955; 359871, 3765928; 359981,
3765838; 360136, 3765710; 360156, 3765737; 360157, 3765740; 360346,
3765605; 360713, 3765301; 360821, 3765208; 360782, 3765167; 360750,
3765131; proceed generally N following the mean low water mark (defined
at the beginning of the section) and returning to 359653, 3766064.
(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 21A (Map M39) follows:
[[Page 57099]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.038
[[Page 57100]]
(43) Unit CA 21B, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Venice, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 366261,
3757311; 366467, 3757409; 366791, 3756716; 366577, 3756633; proceed
generally N following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning
of the section) and returning to 366261, 3757311.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 21B (Map M40) follows after
description of Unit CA 21C.
(44) Unit CA 21C, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Venice, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 367740,
3753997; 367843, 3754038; 367860, 3754002; 367883, 3753980; 367924,
3753925; 367945, 3753827; 367911, 3753766; 367924, 3753739; 367968,
3753730; 368021, 3753592; 368235, 3753042; 368173, 3753011; proceed
generally N following the mean low water mark (defined at the beginning
of the section) and returning to 367740, 3753997.
(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 21B and CA 21C (Map M40) follows:
[[Page 57101]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.039
[[Page 57102]]
(45) Unit CA 21D, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Redondo Beach OE S,
California, land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates
(E,N): 370468, 3747024; 370560, 3747050; 370594, 3746936; 370696,
3746667; 370602, 3746644; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
370468, 3747024.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 21D (Map M41) follows:
[[Page 57103]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.040
[[Page 57104]]
(46) Unit CA 22A, Orange County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Seal Beach, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 403074,
3728680; 403074, 3728681; 403267, 3728834; 403265, 3728996; 403238,
3729044; 403290, 3729077; 403342, 3729164; 403545, 3729348; 403571,
3729356; 403635, 3729419; 404409, 3729117; 404407, 3728750; 404398,
3728717; 404399, 3728532; 404464, 3728525; 404727, 3728380; 404729,
3728299; 405337, 3727975; 405370, 3727979; 405369, 3727845; 405358,
3727807; 405339, 3727778; 405295, 3727725; 405113, 3727543; 405081,
3727505; 405050, 3727457; 405006, 3727428; 404907, 3727378; 404859,
3727355; 404833, 3727349; 404801, 3727356; 404766, 3727373; 404712,
3727387; 404584, 3727405; 404557, 3727413; 404529, 3727431; 404495,
3727462; 404465, 3727486; 404426, 3727492; 404372, 3727479; 404183,
3727422; 403756, 3727974; 403749, 3727975; 403740, 3727969; 403720,
3727949; 403709, 3727950; 403697, 3727958; 403684, 3727961; 403653,
3727943; returning to 403074, 3728680.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 22A (Map M42) follows after
description of Unit CA 22B.
(47) Unit CA 22B, Orange County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Seal Beach, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 404089,
3727241; 404122, 3727265; 404183, 3727186; 404256, 3727101; 404389,
3726951; 404360, 3726921; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
404089, 3727241.
(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 22A and CA 22B (Map M42) follows:
[[Page 57105]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.041
[[Page 57106]]
(48) Unit CA 23, Orange County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Newport Beach, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 411152,
3721501; 411152, 3721498; 411154, 3721486; 411161, 3721477; 411171,
3721472; 411183, 3721471; 411189, 3721473; 411197, 3721476; 411208,
3721485; 411217, 3721493; 411224, 3721488; 411220, 3721483; 411201,
3721465; 411198, 3721462; 411173, 3721438; 411154, 3721408; 411133,
3721368; 411117, 3721336; 411106, 3721293; 411094, 3721298; 411074,
3721321; 411069, 3721327; 411061, 3721335; 411054, 3721344; 411043,
3721354; 411039, 3721358; 411018, 3721375; 411000, 3721392; 410981,
3721413; 410958, 3721437; 410939, 3721452; 410903, 3721473; 410888,
3721489; 410971, 3721619; 410978, 3721616; 410989, 3721606; 410997,
3721617; 411008, 3721631; 411140, 3721534; 411157, 3721515; returning
to 411152, 3721501.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 23 (Map M43) follows:
[[Page 57107]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.042
[[Page 57108]]
(49) Unit CA 24, Orange County and San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Clemente, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 444728,
3694059; 444754, 3694175; 444782, 3694151; 444839, 3694108; 444911,
3694062; 445037, 3694001; 445278, 3693889; 445569, 3693753; 445795,
3693646; 445898, 3693601; 445898, 3693576; 445875, 3693547; 445874,
3693547; 445838, 3693559; 445747, 3693585; 445651, 3693593; 445618,
3693595; 445475, 3693623; 445447, 3693630; 445406, 3693640; 445385,
3693640; 445369, 3693641; 445347, 3693640; 445334, 3693645; 445329,
3693650; 445313, 3693664; 445271, 3693702; 445220, 3693751; 445194,
3693775; 445105, 3693840; 445062, 3693872; 445012, 3693898; 444957,
3693919; 444929, 3693926; 444928, 3693926; 444899, 3693930; 444882,
3693937; 444854, 3693959; 444852, 3693960; 444818, 3693980; 444814,
3693982; 444767, 3694004; 444736, 3694020; 444712, 3694035; 444709,
3694040; 444728, 3694059; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
444728, 3694059.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 24 (Map M44) follows:
[[Page 57109]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.043
[[Page 57110]]
(50) Unit CA 25A, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Encinitas, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 470975,
3660809; 470982, 3660811; 471014, 3660802; 471058, 3660765; 471085,
3660733; 471105, 3660704; 471122, 3660645; 471129, 3660592; 471148,
3660540; 471147, 3660511; 471155, 3660493; 471153, 3660485; 471153,
3660485; 471147, 3660482; 471122, 3660510; 471112, 3660507; 471106,
3660501; 471067, 3660464; 471066, 3660464; 471081, 3660447; 471084,
3660437; 471084, 3660417; 471077, 3660393; 471077, 3660378; 471085,
3660361; 471044, 3660341; 471013, 3660349; 471002, 3660338; 470992,
3660306; 470980, 3660296; 470977, 3660316; 470969, 3660338; 470968,
3660341; 470962, 3660360; 470955, 3660391; 470949, 3660420; 470943,
3660453; 470942, 3660456; 470933, 3660489; 470925, 3660522; 470924,
3660525; 470914, 3660562; 470907, 3660588; 470906, 3660597; 470901,
3660624; 470893, 3660651; 470892, 3660654; 470884, 3660676; 470877,
3660694; 470872, 3660706; 470864, 3660726; 470861, 3660740; 470860,
3660742; 470859, 3660754; 470862, 3660764; 470866, 3660765; 470874,
3660770; 470903, 3660785; 470962, 3660804; returning to 470975,
3660809.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 25A (Map M45) follows after
description of Unit CA 25C.
(51) Unit CA 25B, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Oceanside, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 472453,
3660939; 472518, 3660920; 472571, 3660894; 472603, 3660856; 472613,
3660817; 472614, 3660776; 472576, 3660736; 472538, 3660692; 472498,
3660666; 472478, 3660670; 472452, 3660693; 472451, 3660695; 472404,
3660732; 472373, 3660751; 472352, 3660760; 472335, 3660762; 472311,
3660758; 472296, 3660748; 472282, 3660746; 472264, 3660752; 472244,
3660769; 472209, 3660804; 472183, 3660843; 472164, 3660882; 472153,
3660903; 472145, 3660929; 472156, 3660952; 472190, 3660981; 472223,
3660990; 472288, 3660980; 472393, 3660956; returning to 472453,
3660939.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 25B (Map M45) follows after
description of Unit CA 25C.
(52) Unit CA 25C, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Oceanside, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 474053,
3661505; 474074, 3661515; 474082, 3661492; 474109, 3661464; 474118,
3661461; 474119, 3661450; 474144, 3661424; 474169, 3661398; 474189,
3661386; 474201, 3661384; 474210, 3661378; 474228, 3661376; 474237,
3661377; 474247, 3661359; 474263, 3661344; 474302, 3661334; 474357,
3661336; 474385, 3661334; 474386, 3661294; 474393, 3661252; 474413,
3661233; 474450, 3661217; 474494, 3661203; 474539, 3661214; 474584,
3661200; 474628, 3661181; 474654, 3661143; 474615, 3661062; 474594,
3661042; 474562, 3661043; 474543, 3661039; 474530, 3661043; 474504,
3661070; 474472, 3661111; 474452, 3661130; 474380, 3661179; 474321,
3661194; 474236, 3661205; 474200, 3661211; 474166, 3661225; 474140,
3661244; 474113, 3661268; 474081, 3661304; 474075, 3661333; 474076,
3661393; 474075, 3661440; 474048, 3661501; returning to 474053,
3661505.
(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 25A, CA 25B, and CA 25C (Map M45)
follows:
[[Page 57111]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.044
[[Page 57112]]
(53) Unit CA 26, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Del Mar California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 475548,
3644417; 475597, 3644428; 475626, 3644433; 475629, 3644418; 475632,
3644391; 475625, 3644370; 475626, 3644353; 475627, 3644350; 475633,
3644335; 475628, 3644322; 475637, 3644298; 475640, 3644293; 475647,
3644279; 475649, 3644271; 475641, 3644267; 475639, 3644267; 475635,
3644257; 475638, 3644237; 475642, 3644195; 475643, 3644190; 475648,
3644165; 475657, 3644139; 475658, 3644120; 475664, 3644091; 475671,
3644073; 475674, 3644054; 475683, 3644029; 475688, 3644001; 475693,
3643983; 475694, 3643965; 475701, 3643945; 475704, 3643929; 475708,
3643891; 475733, 3643895; 475749, 3643893; 475778, 3643878; 475815,
3643868; 475826, 3643878; 475869, 3643912; 475883, 3643920; 475893,
3643930; 475909, 3643935; 475919, 3643943; 475930, 3643950; 475923,
3643429; 475917, 3643436; 475902, 3643454; 475885, 3643478; 475864,
3643509; 475851, 3643533; 475838, 3643545; 475824, 3643566; 475804,
3643590; 475788, 3643603; 475774, 3643706; 475763, 3643718; 475756,
3643749; 475750, 3643781; 475748, 3643798; 475714, 3643792; 475685,
3643787; 475683, 3643797; 475689, 3643805; 475711, 3643807; 475723,
3643809; 475713, 3643871; 475701, 3643870; 475700, 3643870; 475699,
3643869; 475690, 3643866; 475667, 3643865; 475660, 3643894; 475657,
3643904; 475652, 3643926; 475647, 3643946; 475644, 3643956; 475641,
3643964; 475635, 3643986; 475630, 3644011; 475622, 3644032; 475613,
3644053; 475606, 3644077; 475599, 3644101; 475595, 3644132; 475593,
3644149; 475590, 3644179; 475586, 3644211; 475582, 3644230; 475580,
3644243; 475578, 3644258; 475573, 3644280; 475567, 3644312; 475563,
3644337; 475555, 3644376; 475550, 3644411; returning to 475548,
3644417.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 26 (Map M46) follows:
[[Page 57113]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.045
[[Page 57114]]
(54) Unit CA 27B, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Point Loma, California, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 481501,
3616480; 481510, 3616481; 481524, 3616453; 481540, 3616447; 481565,
3616444; 481580, 3616449; 481601, 3616462; 481613, 3616490; 481630,
3616491; 481669, 3616488; 481690, 3616481; 481734, 3616460; 481794,
3616435; 481826, 3616413; 481836, 3616401; 481893, 3616389; 481928,
3616379; 481996, 3616538; 481998, 3616537; 482008, 3616531; 482011,
3616518; 482024, 3616510; 482038, 3616511; 482160, 3616439; 482347,
3616345; 482534, 3616238; 482693, 3616137; 482984, 3615950; 483137,
3615853; 483030, 3615679; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
481501, 3616480.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 27B (Map M47) follows:
[[Page 57115]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.046
[[Page 57116]]
(55) Unit CA 27E, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map National City, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 490217,
3611878; 490174, 3611856; 490047, 3611789; 490028, 3611784; 489947,
3611738; 489878, 3611704; 489865, 3611701; 489834, 3611692; 489806,
3611682; 489792, 3611676; 489727, 3611655; 489611, 3611609; 489580,
3611587; 489555, 3611597; 489521, 3611593; 489412, 3611550; 489384,
3611531; 489366, 3611519; 489331, 3611518; 489282, 3611513; 489259,
3611508; 489253, 3611511; 489253, 3611512; 489237, 3611505; 489229,
3611501; 489208, 3611497; 489161, 3611496; 489138, 3611503; 489122,
3611535; 489097, 3611608; 489093, 3611675; 489094, 3611724; 489101,
3611774; 489123, 3611843; 489166, 3611914; 489200, 3611955; 489201,
3611954; 489200, 3611942; 489199, 3611931; 489204, 3611920; 489210,
3611918; 489219, 3611920; 489228, 3611922; 489240, 3611929; 489246,
3611938; 489245, 3611947; 489237, 3611952; 489225, 3611959; 489219,
3611969; 489220, 3611973; 489501, 3612069; 489791, 3612166; 490070,
3612259; 490144, 3612287; 490269, 3611906; 490231, 3611887; 490217,
3611878; returning to 490217, 3611878.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 27E (Map M48) follows:
[[Page 57117]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.047
[[Page 57118]]
(56) Unit CA 27F, San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Imperial Beach, California,
land bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 487747,
3603052; 487774, 3603045; 487775, 3602998; 487776, 3602973; 487782,
3602890; 487784, 3602855; 487795, 3602817; 487852, 3602714; 487855,
3602708; 487857, 3602705; 487884, 3602674; 487895, 3602625; 487900,
3602575; 487888, 3602515; 487865, 3602451; 487840, 3602415; 487840,
3602398; 487845, 3602382; 487865, 3602354; 487885, 3602334; 487935,
3602307; 487986, 3602298; 488089, 3602283; 488115, 3602272; 488115,
3602119; 488115, 3602119; 488163, 3602119; 488176, 3602119; 488191,
3602119; 488215, 3602040; 488220, 3602021; 488218, 3601977; 488214,
3601966; 488209, 3601953; 488199, 3601928; 488220, 3601871; 488227,
3601841; 488221, 3601817; 488207, 3601802; 488178, 3601790; 488177,
3601766; 488183, 3601680; 488201, 3601524; 488202, 3601514; 488218,
3601458; 488235, 3601397; 488267, 3601352; 488292, 3601337; 488296,
3601328; 488298, 3601324; 488290, 3601310; 488289, 3601309; 488294,
3601262; 488308, 3601227; 488338, 3601155; 488350, 3601139; 488372,
3601126; 488369, 3601108; 488364, 3601102; 488381, 3601046; 488393,
3601035; 488389, 3601016; 488385, 3601005; 488397, 3600864; 488414,
3600789; 488431, 3600753; 488442, 3600707; 488455, 3600623; 488460,
3600571; 488462, 3600541; 488516, 3600211; 488512, 3600098; 488525,
3599982; 488543, 3599731; 488519, 3599700; 488497, 3599679; 488484,
3599658; 488481, 3599607; 488479, 3599545; 488485, 3599487; 488391,
3599479; 488355, 3600146; 488284, 3600563; 488270, 3600623; 488268,
3600633; 488266, 3600640; 488262, 3600676; 488255, 3600707; 488246,
3600747; 488237, 3600787; 488226, 3600824; 488215, 3600867; 488203,
3600907; 488196, 3600938; 488192, 3600960; 488190, 3600970; 488188,
3600980; 488180, 3601013; 488175, 3601040; 488169, 3601068; 488156,
3601101; 488152, 3601121; 488148, 3601136; 488143, 3601148; 488104,
3601308; 488055, 3601513; 487954, 3601774; 487883, 3601935; 487822,
3602015; 487792, 3602053; 487789, 3602061; 487784, 3602072; 487780,
3602080; 487765, 3602103; 487754, 3602128; 487693, 3602349; 487693,
3602358; 487684, 3602390; 487674, 3602420; 487659, 3602478; 487655,
3602497; 487646, 3602564; 487645, 3602576; 487645, 3602586; 487644,
3602592; 487640, 3602616; 487639, 3602636; 487638, 3602646; 487636,
3602655; 487633, 3602674; 487631, 3602703; 487627, 3602732; 487623,
3602760; 487621, 3602791; 487615, 3602816; 487609, 3602849; 487607,
3602885; 487605, 3602894; 487602, 3602915; 487599, 3602941; 487595,
3602976; 487595, 3602998; 487592, 3603024; 487590, 3603045; 487669,
3603044; 487680, 3603054; 487682, 3603073; 487697, 3603064; 487705,
3603062; 487747, 3603052; proceed generally N following the mean low
water mark (defined at the beginning of the section) and returning to
487747, 3603052.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 27F (Map M49) follows:
[[Page 57119]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE05.048
* * * * *
Dated: September 20, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-19096 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C