Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover, 16046-16165 [2011-4906]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16046-16165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4906]



[[Page 16045]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 55

March 22, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat 
for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 16046]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AX10


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical 
Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
revise the designated critical habitat for the Pacific Coast population 
of the Western Snowy Plover (Pacific Coast WSP) (Charadrius 
alexandrinus nivosus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a 
revision of the areas designated as critical habitat for the Pacific 
Coast WSP, published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2005. In 
the final rule, we designated a total of 12,145 acres (ac) (4,915 
hectares (ha)) of critical habitat range-wide in 32 units in 
Washington, Oregon, and California. We are now proposing to revise the 
existing critical habitat to a total of 68 units totaling approximately 
28,261 ac (11,436 ha). The area breakdown by State is as follows: 
Washington: 6,265 ac (2,497 ha) in 4 units; Oregon: 5,219 ac (2,112 ha) 
in 13 units; and California: 16,777 ac (6,789 ha) in 51 units.

DATES: We will consider comments from all interested parties until May 
23, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at 
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by May 
6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-
0070.
    (2) U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 
FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments section below 
for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Watkins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 
95521; telephone (707) 822-7201; facsimile (707) 822-8411. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed 
revised critical habitat rule will be based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as 
possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other 
interested parties concerning this proposed revised rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the designation 
of ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) Areas that provide habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP that we 
did not discuss in this proposed revised critical habitat rule,
    (b) Areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing that contain elements of the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species which 
may require special management considerations or protection and that we 
should include in the designation, and reason(s) why (see Physical and 
Biological Features section).
    (3) Specific information on our proposed designation of back-dune 
systems and other habitats in an attempt to offset the anticipated 
effects of sea-level rise caused by a warming trend associated with 
climate change (see Critical Habitat Units section).
    (4) Specific information on the Pacific Coast WSP, habitat 
conditions, and the presence of physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species at any of the critical 
habitat units proposed in this revised rule (see Critical Habitat Units 
section and previous rules (64 FR 68508, December 7, 1999; 70 FR 56970, 
September 29, 2005)).
    (5) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or 
clarifying the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    (6) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be 
refined to more closely circumscribe the areas identified as containing 
the features essential to the species' conservation.
    (7) How we mapped the water's edge and whether any alternative 
methods could be used to better determine the critical habitat 
boundaries.
    (8) Any probable economic, national-security, or other impacts of 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, and, in particular, 
any impacts on small entities (e.g., small businesses or small 
governments), and the benefits of including or excluding areas that 
exhibit these impacts.
    (9) Whether any specific areas being proposed as revised critical 
habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and 
whether the benefits of potentially excluding any particular area 
outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act (see Exclusions section for further discussion).
    (10) Any information regarding the areas exempted from this 
proposed revised rule (see Exemptions section for exempted units and 
further discussion).
    (11) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of 
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
    (12) Information on Tribal lands within the proposed revised 
designation.
    (13) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Our final determination concerning critical habitat for the Pacific 
Coast WSP will take into consideration all written comments we receive 
during the comment period, including comments we have requested from 
peer reviewers, comments we receive during a public hearing should we 
receive a request for one, and any additional information we receive 
during the 60-day comment period. Our final determination will also 
consider all written comments and any additional information we receive 
during the comment period for the draft economic analysis. All comments 
will be included in the public record for this rulemaking. On the basis 
of peer reviewer and public comments, we may, during the development of 
our final determination, find that areas included

[[Page 16047]]

in this proposal do not meet the definition of critical habitat, that 
some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or that 
some areas may be excluded from the final determination under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act based on Secretarial discretion.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
revised rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. 
Please include sufficient information with your comment to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial data you submit. We will not accept 
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If your written 
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at 
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as a list of supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed revised rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    You may obtain copies of this proposed revised rule by mail from 
the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT) or by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed revised rule. For 
more information on the Pacific Coast WSP, refer to the final rule 
listing the species as threatened that was published in the Federal 
Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). See also the discussion of 
habitat in the sections below.

Species Description

    The western snowy plover, one of two subspecies of snowy plover 
recognized by the American Ornithologists' Union to nest in North 
America, is a small shorebird with pale brown to gray upperparts, gray 
to black legs and bill, and dark patches on the forehead, behind the 
eyes, and on either side of the upper breast (Page et al. 1995, p. 2). 
The species was first described in 1758 by Linnaeus (American 
Ornithologists' Union 1957). The Pacific Coast distinct population 
segment of the western snowy plover (Pacific Coast WSP) is defined as 
those individuals nesting adjacent to tidal waters within 50 miles (mi) 
(80 kilometers (km)) of the Pacific Ocean, including all nesting birds 
on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, 
estuaries and coastal rivers. For a more complete discussion of the 
ecology and life history of this population, please see the final rule 
for listing the Pacific Coast WSP as a threatened species, which was 
published in the Federal Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864), or 
the Service's April 21, 2006, 12-month finding on a petition to delist 
the Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR 20607).

Life History

    Pacific Coast WSPs typically forage for small invertebrates in wet 
or dry beach sand, tide-cast kelp (Macrocystis sp.), low foredune 
vegetation (vegetation along the coastal dune or ridge that is parallel 
to the shoreline), and near water seeps in salt pans. Prey species 
include mole crabs (Emerita analoga), crabs (Pachygrapsus crassipes), 
polychaete worms (Neridae, Lumbrineris zonata, etc.), amphipods 
(Corophium spp., etc.), sand hoppers (Orchestoidea), flies (Ephydridae, 
Dolichopodidae), and beetles (Carabidae, etc.). Accordingly, beach-
cleaning activities that remove kelp and rake sand can harm plover 
foraging success (Page et al. 1995, p. 15; Dugan 2003, p. 138; Dugan & 
Hubbard 2009, p. 72).
    Generally, the breeding season for Pacific Coast WSP extends from 
early March to late September, with birds at more southerly locations 
nesting earlier in the season than birds located farther north (Page et 
al. 1995, p. 10). Courtship behavior and pair bonding can occur in 
February, and in the southern portion of the range, a few nests have 
been initiated as early as late-January. Males establish nesting 
territories from which they advertise for mates using calls and 
behavioral displays. Territory sizes can vary from about 0.25 to 2.5 ac 
(0.1 to 1.0 ha) at interior sites (Page et al. 1995, p. 7). A study of 
coastal plovers found a maximum territory size of 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) in 
coastal salt pan habitat, but speculated in the absence of 
observational data that beach territories may have been larger 
(Warriner et al. 1986, p. 21). After pair formation, both sexes defend 
the nesting territory from other plovers. The purpose of such defense 
is apparently unrelated to protection of food resources within the 
territory, since both sexes frequently forage in nonterritorial areas 
up to 5 mi (8 km) from the nest when not incubating, and since the 
chicks and attending adults typically leave the nesting territory 
shortly after hatching (Page et al. 1995, p. 10).
    Clutches normally consist of three eggs laid in a shallow 
depression scraped in the sand by the male. Such ``nests'' are 
typically located in open flat areas, often near some conspicuous 
feature such as a piece of driftwood (Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 2; Page 
et al. 1995, p. 10). They are usually located within 328 feet (ft) (100 
meters (m)) of the shore, but may be farther where shore access remains 
unblocked by dense vegetation (Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 2; Page et al. 
1995, p. 7). Pacific Coast WSPs also tend to nest in relatively higher 
densities near fresh water or brackish wetlands such as river mouths, 
estuaries, and tidal marshes (Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 2). They use 
these areas both as foraging sites, and in the case of freshwater 
sources, for drinking water (Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 2; Page et al. 
1995, p. 10). They may also be capable of functioning for long-periods 
without freshwater by subsisting on water obtained from insect prey 
(Purdue 1976, p. 352; Page et al. 1995, p. 5).
    Both sexes incubate the eggs; typically females during daylight 
hours, and males during night. The male may relieve the female for a 
period during the day. Females often desert the chicks approximately 1 
week after hatching (Warriner et al. 1986, p. 27; Page et al. 1995, p. 
10). The last brood of the season may be raised by both the male and 
female. Leaving the brood for the male to raise allows females to nest 
up to three times in a season, particularly in more southern areas 
where nesting seasons are longer in duration. Males typically stay with 
the chicks until they fledge (take their first flight) about 30 days 
after hatching. Newly hatched chicks are capable of running and 
foraging almost immediately; from this point, parental behavior 
consists of defending chicks from other plovers, brooding them in cold 
weather, leading them to suitable feeding areas, and warning of 
approaching predators. Adults may also employ distraction displays to 
lead predators away from their young (Page et al. 1995, p. 9).
    After their first chicks fledge, males may attempt to raise a new 
brood with a new partner. Both sexes will also readily attempt to 
renest if they lose an entire clutch of eggs or brood of chicks, 
assuming enough time remains in the nesting season (Page et al. 1995, 
p. 12). Clutches and broods may be lost to predators, tides and storms, 
and human recreational activities. Examples of the latter include both 
repeated flushings of incubating adult plovers and direct

[[Page 16048]]

damage to nests or young, as a result of humans, dogs, horses, or 
vehicles that either approach plover nests too closely or actually 
overrun plovers and nests (Service 1993, p. 12872; Ruhlen et al. 2003, 
p. 303).

Habitat, Geographic Range, and Status

    The Pacific Coast WSP breeds primarily on coastal beaches from 
southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. Sand spits, 
dune-backed beaches, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans 
at lagoons and estuaries are the preferred habitats for nesting plovers 
(Wilson 1980, p. 4; Stenzel et al. 1981, p. 14). Additional Pacific 
Coast WSP nesting habitats include bluff-backed beaches, dredged 
material disposal sites, salt ponds and their adjacent levees, and 
river bars (Wilson 1980, p. 4; Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 14; Powell et 
al. 1996, p. 16; Tuttle et al. 1997, p. 174). This habitat is variable 
because of unconsolidated soils, high winds, storms, wave action, and 
colonization by plants.
    Small changes in the adult survival rate can have relatively large 
effects on population stability (Nur et al. 1999, p. 14), so the 
maintenance of quality overwintering habitat is important to 
conservation. In western North America, both coastal and inland-nesting 
western snowy plovers winter along the coast (Page et al. 1995, p. 4). 
Some coastal plovers migrate up or down the coast to wintering 
locations, while others remain at their nesting beaches. Coastal 
individuals may also migrate some years and not others (Warriner et al. 
1986, p. 18; Page et al. 1995, p. 2). Beaches used for nesting are also 
often used for wintering, but birds will also winter at several beaches 
where nesting does not occur (Service 2007, p. 19). Pacific Coast WSPs 
also visit or nest at other non-beach habitats such as human-made salt 
ponds, and estuarine sand and mud flats (Page et al. 1986, p. 4). Sites 
that have historically supported nesting, but which currently support 
only wintering plovers, have the potential to attract new nesters with 
appropriate management. This has been successfully carried out at Coal 
Oil Point and Hollywood Beach in southern California (Lafferty 2001). 
These management successes are important to conservation, since the 
loss of numerous historical nesting sites was a major consideration in 
the plover's original listing. See the final listing rule (58 FR 12864, 
March 5, 1993) and the Special Management Considerations or Protection 
section below for additional discussion of the current threats to the 
species in areas included in this proposed revised critical habitat 
designation.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Pacific Coast WSP was listed as a threatened species on March 
5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). A 5-year status review of the population under 
section 4(c)(2) of the Act was completed June 8, 2006, based on the 
analysis conducted for the section 4(b)(3)(B) status review for the 12-
month finding on a petition to delist the Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR 
20607, April 21, 2006). Because the Pacific Coast WSP was listed prior 
to our 1996 policy published in the Federal Register on February 7, 
1996 (61 FR 4721) regarding recognition of distinct population 
segments, in our 12-month finding, we reviewed and confirmed our 
determination that the Pacific Coast WSP constituted a valid distinct 
population segment. For a complete discussion of previous Federal 
actions regarding the Pacific Coast WSP, please see the September 29, 
2005, final rule to designate critical habitat for the Pacific Coast 
WSP (70 FR 56969).
    We are revising our 2005 critical habitat designation as a result 
of legal action initiated by the Center for Biological Diversity on 
October 2, 2008, and the subsequent settlement of that action (Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, et al., No. C-08-4594 PJH). The 
complaint raised several challenges to the 2005 critical habitat 
designation. Under the settlement agreement that resolved this action, 
the Service agreed to conduct a rulemaking to consider potential 
revisions to the designated critical habitat for Pacific Coast WSP, to 
submit for publication to the Federal Register a proposed regulation 
setting forth any proposed revisions to critical habitat by December 1, 
2010, and to submit a final determination on any proposed revisions to 
the Federal Register by June 5, 2012. By order dated November 30, 2010, 
the district court approved a modification to the settlement agreement 
that extends the deadline to March 1, 2011, for submission of the 
proposed revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register. 
The deadline for submission of a final revised critical habitat 
designation to the Federal Register is June 5, 2012.
    This proposal relies upon the best scientific and commercial data 
available to us, including the biological and habitat information 
described in the previous final rules, the Recovery Plan for the 
Pacific Coast WSP (Service 2007) which was released September 24, 2007 
(72 FR 54279), and recognized principles of conservation biology. 
Similar to the previous critical habitat designations for the Pacific 
Coast WSP, this proposal includes units that were occupied at the time 
of listing that have habitat features essential to the conservation of 
the species. This proposal differs from the previous designations in 
that it includes units that may not have been occupied at the time of 
listing, but that have areas considered to be essential for the 
conservation of the species, such as those that contain degraded 
habitat requiring restoration. Restored habitat is essential to the 
species' conservation in order to offset anticipated loss of current 
habitat resulting from effects of sea-level rise associated with 
climate change.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical 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:
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical 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, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not 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 the government 
or public to access private lands. Such

[[Page 16049]]

designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, 
or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a 
destruction or adverse modification finding, the landowner's obligation 
is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable 
and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain physical and biological features which are essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations 
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial 
data available, those physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or 
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an 
area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 
soil type). Primary constituent elements are the elements of physical 
and biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history 
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate 
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied 
by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, 
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be 
included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we determine which areas should be designated as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may 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.
    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 habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For 
these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not promote 
the recovery of the species.
    Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both 
inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to 
be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 
7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the 
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 
insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) the 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions occurring in these 
areas may affect the species. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These 
protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to 
recovery of this species. 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 (HCPs), or other species 
conservation planning efforts if information available at the time of 
these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. We 
reviewed the approach to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP 
provided in the December 7, 1999, final critical habitat designation 
for the Pacific Coast WSP (64 FR 68507); the September 29, 2005, final 
revised critical habitat designation (70 FR 56969); the Recovery Plan 
(Service 2007); information from Federal, State, and local government 
agencies; and information from academia and private organizations that 
collected scientific data on the species. Other information used for 
this proposed revised critical habitat includes: Published and 
unpublished papers, reports, academic theses, species and habitat 
surveys; Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as species 
occurrence data, habitat data, land use, topography, digital aerial 
photography, and ownership maps); correspondence to the Service from 
recognized experts; site visits by Service biologists; and other 
information as available. Mapping for this proposed revised critical 
habitat designation was completed using ESRI ArcMap 9.3.1 (ESRI, Inc. 
2009). Specifically, the most recent National Agriculture Imagery 
Program images (2009 NAIP Imagery) were used to delineate unit 
boundaries.
    The water's edge comprises the westernmost boundary of each 
proposed unit. Although the images were taken at different tide levels, 
we believe these images represent the best mapping information as beach 
and river habitats change seasonally, and from year to year. In part, 
the dynamic nature of beach and river habitats is one reason for the 
differences in the size of past designated critical habitat units and 
those units being proposed for designation in this revised rule. 
Additionally, the unit boundaries were extended eastward in 
anticipation of sea-level rise expected as a result of climate change. 
We used widely accepted models to help predict the amount of sea-level 
rise that is likely to

[[Page 16050]]

occur (Baker et al. 2006; Overpeck et al. 2006; Pfeffer et al. 2008; 
Fletcher 2009; Grinsted et al. 2009; Mitrovica et al. 2009; Vermeer and 
S. Rahmstorf 2009). Biologists used Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) 
data to help determine the extent of potential habitat loss at the 
water's edge resulting from future sea-level rise. As a consequence, 
they then extended the eastern unit boundary where appropriate to 
compensate for this future habitat degradation and loss.
    Pacific Coast WSPs are expected to adjust their use of nesting 
habitat as sea level rises, provided that ample habitat is available at 
higher elevations. Pacific Coast WSPs have evolved to modify their use 
of areas due to these areas being dynamic changing habitats and are, 
therefore, expected to use the inland areas which we propose be 
restored to constitute habitat.
    Maps in this revised rule use shoreline data derived from U.S. 
Geological Survey 7.5 minute series digital raster graphics (DRGs). 
Although the DRGs may not represent the exact location of the dynamic 
shoreline environment, they are considered to be the best vector 
mapping product for that purpose in common use, and are easily 
referenced. As a result, the depicted shoreline on the maps may not 
correspond directly to the proposed critical habitat unit boundaries, 
which were digitized using 2009 NAIP imagery. Reference information is 
available at: https://topomaps.usgs.gov/drg/drg_overview.html, 7.5-
minute DRG series, U.S. Geological Survey.

Physical and Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical and biological features required 
for the Pacific Coast WSP from studies of this species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described below, in the Background section 
in this proposed revised rule, in the final listing rule published in 
the Federal Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864), in the designation 
of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on September 29, 
2005 (70 FR 56969), and in the 12-month finding on a petition to delist 
the Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR 20607; April 21, 2006). On the basis of 
the biological needs of the population, and on the relationship of 
those needs to the population's habitat, as indicated by the best 
scientific data available and summarized below, we have determined that 
the Pacific Coast WSP requires the following physical and biological 
features:
Habitats That Are Representative of the Historical Geographical and 
Ecological Distribution of the Species
    The Pacific Coast WSP typically utilizes flat, open areas with 
sandy or saline substrates; vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse 
or absent (Stenzel et al. 1981, p. 18), such as sandy beaches, dune 
systems, salt flats, mud flats, and dredge spoil sites. They also 
regularly nest on gravel bars along the Eel River in northern 
California. Salt ponds in San Francisco Bay, and elsewhere, have become 
important habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. These areas provide space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior and may 
provide micro-topographic relief offering refuge from high winds and 
cold weather and sites for nesting.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Pacific Coast WSPs require space for foraging and establishment of 
nesting territories. These areas vary widely in size depending on 
habitat type, habitat availability, life-history stage and activity. As 
stated in the Background section above, males establish nesting 
territories that vary from about 0.25 to 2.5 ac (0.1 to 1.0 ha) at 
interior sites (Page et al. 1995, p.10) and 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) in coastal 
salt pan habitat, with beach territories perhaps larger (Warriner et 
al. 1986, p. 18). The birds forage in nonterritorial areas up to 5 mi 
(8 km) from the nesting sites when not incubating. Critical habitat 
must, therefore, extend beyond nesting territories to include space for 
foraging during the nesting season, and space for overwintering, and to 
provide for connectivity with other portions of the Pacific Coast WSPs 
range. Pacific Coast WSPs may overwinter at locations where there is no 
current breeding, but which are historical breeding locations (e.g., 
Dillon Beach, CA-9). Designating wintering areas as critical habitat 
provides essential areas for overwinter survival, provides protections 
for historical nesting areas, and allows connectivity between sites. 
Sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach face, 
salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, salt ponds and 
adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites are areas that provide space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Pacific Coast WSPs typically forage in open areas by locating prey 
visually and then running to seize it with their beaks (Page et al. 
1995, p. 12). 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 in 
which to forage, to facilitate both prey location and capture. Deposits 
of tide-cast wrack such as kelp or driftwood tend to attract certain 
invertebrates, and so provide important foraging sites for plovers 
(Page et al. 1995, p. 12). Pacific Coast WSPs forage both above and 
below high tide, but not while those areas are underwater. Foraging 
areas will, therefore, typically be limited by water on their shoreward 
side, and by dense vegetation or development on their landward sides. 
These areas that are subject to inundation but not currently under 
water support essential small invertebrate food sources such as crabs, 
worms, flies, beetles, spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and ostracods.
    Pacific Coast WSPs use sites of freshwater for drinking where 
available, but some historical nesting sites, particularly in southern 
California, have no obvious nearby freshwater sources. Adults and 
chicks in those areas must be assumed to obtain their necessary water 
from the food they eat. Accordingly we have not included freshwater 
sites among the essential features of habitat for the population.
Cover or Shelter
    Pacific Coast WSPs and their eggs are well camouflaged against 
light-colored, sandy, or pebbly backgrounds (Page et al. 1995, p. 12). 
Open areas with these substrates actually constitute shelter for 
purposes of nesting and foraging. Such areas provide little cover to 
predators, and allow plovers to fully utilize their

[[Page 16051]]

camouflage and running speed. Pacific Coast WSPs are visually oriented 
and rely on open landscapes to detect predators. Chicks and adults may 
also crouch amongst the sand and pebbles or near driftwood, dune 
plants, and piles of kelp in an attempt to blend into their 
surroundings in plain sight (crypsis) as a means to hide from predators 
(Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 7; Stevens and Merilaita 2009, p. 423). Open 
areas do not provide shelter from winds, storms, and the extreme high 
tides associated with such events, and these conditions cause many nest 
losses. Pacific Coast WSP readily scrape blown sand out of their nests, 
but there is little they can do to protect their nests against serious 
storms or flooding other than to attempt to lay a new clutch if the old 
one is lost (Page et al. 1995, p. 8).
    Sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach 
face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, salt ponds 
and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites are areas that may provide 
micro-topographic relief offering refuge from high winds and cold 
weather and sites for nesting. Surf- or water-deposited organic debris 
such as seaweed or driftwood located on open substrates supports and 
attracts small invertebrates that plovers eat, provides cover or 
shelter from predators and weather, and assists in avoidance of 
detection (crypsis) for nests, chicks, and incubating adults.
    No studies have quantified the amount of vegetation cover that 
would make an area unsuitable for nesting or foraging, but coastal 
nesting and foraging locations typically have relatively well-defined 
boundaries between open sandy substrate favorable to Pacific Coast WSPs 
and unfavorably dense vegetation inland. These bounds show up well in 
aerial and satellite photographs, which we used to map essential 
habitat features.
Undisturbed Areas
    Disturbance of nesting or brooding plovers by humans and domestic 
animals is a major factor affecting nesting success. Pacific Coast WSPs 
leave their nests when humans or pets approach too closely. Dogs may 
also deliberately chase plovers and may trample nests, while vehicles 
may directly crush adults, chicks, or nests, separate chicks from 
brooding adults, and interfere with foraging and mating activities 
(Warriner et al. 1986, p. 25; Service 1993, p. 12871; Ruhlen et al. 
2003, p. 303). Repeated flushing of incubating plovers exposes the eggs 
to the weather and depletes energy reserves needed by the adult, which 
may result in reductions in nesting success. Surveys at Vandenberg Air 
Force Base, California, from 1994 to 1997, found the rate of nest loss 
on southern beaches at the Base to be consistently higher than on 
northern beaches where recreational use was much lower (Persons and 
Applegate 1997, p. 8). Ruhlen et al. (2003, p. 303) found that 
increased human activities on Point Reyes beaches resulted in a lower 
chick survival rate.
    Recent efforts in various areas along the Pacific Coast that have 
been implemented to isolate nesting plovers from recreational beach 
users through the use of docents, symbolic fencing (post and signage or 
single rope fencing), and public outreach, have correlated with higher 
nesting success in those areas (Page et al. 2003, p. 3). The level of 
acceptable disturbance varies by site and is partially dependent upon 
the level of human use when Pacific Coast WSPs initiate courtship and 
nesting. Pacific Coast WSPs have had reproductive success in both 
highly disturbed areas (e.g., Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation 
Area), and areas that for the most part have been off-limits to direct 
human-related activities (e.g., Vandenberg Air Force Base). Predators 
at some sites can provide a significant level of disturbance, as well 
as loss of eggs, chicks, and adults.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Pacific Coast WSPs nest in depressions in open, relatively flat 
areas, near to tidal waters but far enough away to avoid being 
inundated by daily tides. Typical substrate is beach sand, but plovers 
may also lay their eggs in existing depressions in 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. Plover nesting areas must provide 
shelter from predators and human disturbance, as discussed above. 
Unfledged chicks forage with one or both parents, using the same 
foraging areas and behaviors as adults.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Pacific Coast Western Snowy Plover
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP in areas occupied at the time of 
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We 
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical 
and biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history 
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species. We are 
proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical areas that were occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, that contain the primary constituent elements in the quantity 
and spatial arrangement to support life-history functions essential to 
the conservation of the species, and that may require special 
management considerations or protection. We are also proposing to 
designate areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of listing because we consider these areas essential for 
the conservation of the species. These sites are within the range of 
the Pacific Coast WSP, and were used by the species prior to listing. 
Due to habitat degradation and loss resulting from rising sea level, 
human development, and encroachment, we believe it prudent to include 
these additional sites in our designation to allow an expanding Pacific 
Coast WSP population to adjust to natural occurring dynamic conditions 
and threats. See Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section 
below for a discussion of the species' geographic range.
    We are proposing critical habitat designation of areas that provide 
some or all of the elements of physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of this species. The conservation of the 
Pacific Coast WSP is dependent upon multiple factors, including the 
conservation and management of areas to maintain normal ecological 
functions, where existing populations survive and reproduce. The areas 
proposed as critical habitat in this rule contain the quantity and 
arrangement of elements of physical and biological features we believe 
are essential for the conservation and recovery of the Pacific Coast 
WSP. The amount and distribution of areas proposed to be designated 
allow for the Pacific Coast WSP populations to be distributed 
throughout the area currently occupied and to return to areas formerly 
occupied within their range, to support recovery criteria outlined for 
each recovery unit, and, consequently, to support recovery range-wide 
(see recovery criteria in Service 2007). Based on the best available 
information, the primary constituent elements essential to conservation 
of the Pacific Coast WSP are the following:
    Sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach 
face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, artificial 
salt ponds

[[Page 16052]]

and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites, with:
    (1) Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas 
and above the daily high tides,
    (2) Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse 
vegetation, that are between the annual low tide or low-water flow and 
annual high tide or high-water flow, subject to inundation but not 
constantly under water,
    (3) Surf- or water-deposited organic debris located on open 
substrates, and
    (4) Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets, 
vehicles, or human-attracted predators.
    The proposed critical habitat in this revised proposed rule 
contains the primary constituent elements in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the Pacific 
Coast WSP, and supports multiple life processes for the species. 
Portions of some proposed critical habitat units may be currently 
degraded; however, these areas could be restored with special 
management, thereby providing suitable habitat to offset habitat loss 
from anticipated sea-level rise resulting from climate change. 
Additional areas are proposed as critical habitat to allow a recovering 
Pacific Coast WSP population to occupy its former range, and allow 
adjustment to changing conditions (e.g., shifting sand dunes), expected 
sea-level rise, and human encroachment.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the physical 
and biological features within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation 
of the species may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    All areas included in our proposed revision of critical habitat 
will require some level of management to address the current and future 
threats to the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. Special management 
considerations or protection may be required to minimize habitat 
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation associated with the 
following threats, among others: Water diversions, stabilized dunes and 
watercourses associated with urban development, human recreational 
activities, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, beach raking, pets, 
nonnative vegetation, resource extraction, and fishing.
    Water diversions reduce the transport of sediments which contribute 
to suitable nesting and foraging substrates. Stabilized dunes and 
watercourses associated with urban development alter the dynamic 
processes of beach and river systems, thereby reducing the open nature 
of suitable habitat needed for predator detection. Human recreational 
activities disturb foraging or nesting activities, or may attract and 
provide cover for approaching predators. The use of OHVs has been 
documented to crush plover nests and strike plover adults. Beach raking 
or grooming can remove wrack, reducing food resources and cover, and 
contributing to beach erosion. Pets (leashed and unleashed) can cause 
incubating adults to leave the nest and establish trails in the sand 
that can lead predators to the nest. Nonnative vegetation reduces 
visibility plovers need to detect predators, and occupies otherwise 
suitable habitat. Resource extraction can disturb incubating, brooding, 
or foraging plovers. Fishing can disturb Pacific Coast WSPs and can 
attract predators by the presence of fish offal and bait (Lafferty 
2001, p. 2222; Dugan 2003, p. 134; Schlacher et al. 2007, p. 557; 
Service 2007, p. 33; Dugan and Hubbard 2010, p. 67).
    For discussion of the threats to the Pacific Coast WSP and its 
habitat, please see the Summary of Comments and Recommendations and 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species sections of the 12-Month 
Finding on the Petition to Delist the Pacific Coast WPS (71 FR 20607, 
April 21, 2006), the final listing rule (58 FR 12864, March 5, 1993) 
and the Public Comments and Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions sections 
of the final critical habitat rule (70 FR 56970, September 29, 2005). 
Please also see Critical Habitat Units section below for a discussion 
of the threats in each of the proposed revised critical habitat units.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. 
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements 
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing 
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating 
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those 
occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We are proposing to designate critical 
habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of listing in 1993. We also are proposing to designate 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing because such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. We have determined that limiting the 
designation of critical habitat to those areas that were considered 
occupied at the time of listing is no longer sufficient to conserve the 
species because:
    (1) There has been considerable loss and degradation of habitat 
throughout the species range since the time of listing;
    (2) We anticipate a further loss of habitat in the future due to 
sea-level rise resulting from climate change, and;
    (3) The species needs habitat areas that are arranged spatially in 
a way that will maintain connectivity and allow dispersal within and 
between units.
    The amount and distribution of critical habitat being proposed for 
designation will allow populations of Pacific Coast WSP to:
    (1) Maintain their existing distribution;
    (2) Increase their distribution into previously occupied areas 
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
    (3) Move between areas depending on resource and habitat 
availability (response to changing nature of coastal beach habitat) and 
support genetic interchange;
    (4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the 
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties 
are diminished; and
    (5) Maintain their ability to withstand local or unit level 
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
    All areas proposed for critical habitat designation are within the 
historical range of the species. We have identified areas to include in 
this proposed designation by applying Criteria 1 through 6 below. In an 
effort to update our 2005 final designation of critical habitat for the 
Pacific Coast WSP, we used the best available information on occupancy 
and habitat conditions of areas that were analyzed in 2005 and 
considered other areas throughout the species historical range to 
determine whether to add areas to or remove areas from this proposal to 
revise critical habitat.
    We used the following criteria to select appropriate units for this 
proposed revised rule:
    (1) Areas throughout the range of the Pacific Coast WSP located to 
allow the species to move and expand: The dynamic nature of beach, 
dune, and similar habitats necessitates that Pacific Coast WSPs move to 
adjust for changes in habitat availability, food sources, and

[[Page 16053]]

pressures on survivorship or reproductive success (Colwell et al. 2009; 
p. 5). Designating units in sufficient amount and in spatially 
appropriate areas throughout the range of the Pacific Coast WSP allows 
for seasonal migration, year-to-year movements, and expansion of the 
Pacific Coast WSP to its historical boundaries. We consider this 
necessary to conserve the species because it assists in 
counterbalancing catastrophes, such as extreme climatic events, oil 
spills, or disease that might depress regional survival or 
productivity. Having units across the species' range helps in 
maintaining a robust, well distributed population and enhances survival 
and productivity of the Pacific Coast WSP as a whole, facilitates 
interchange of genetic material between units, and promotes 
recolonization of any sites that experience declines or local 
extirpations due to low productivity or temporary habitat loss. By way 
of example, Recovery Unit 2 in northern California (Service 2007; p. 
129) currently relies on the immigration of breeding adults from other 
units to maintain its population as reproductive success remains low 
(Colwell et al. 2009; p. 4). Maintaining good habitat distribution is 
essential to maintaining a healthy range-wide population, reducing the 
potential for a gap in the Pacific Coast WSP's range to develop. Within 
this designation, we focused on areas within the six recovery units 
identified in the Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix A).
    (2) Breeding areas: Areas identified in the Recovery Plan (Service 
2007) known to support breeding Pacific Coast WSP were selected. 
Selected sites include historical breeding areas and areas currently 
being used by breeding plovers. These areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species because they contain the physical and 
biological features necessary for Pacific Coast WSPs to breed and 
produce offspring and ensure that population increases are distributed 
throughout the Pacific Coast WSP's range. By selecting breeding areas 
across the Pacific Coast WSP's range, we can assist in conserving the 
species' genetic and demographic robustness and important life-history 
stages for long-term sustainability of the entire listed species. Some 
breeding areas are occupied year-round and also are used as wintering 
areas by a portion of the population.
    (3) Wintering areas: Major wintering sites not already selected 
under criterion 2 above were added. A ``major'' wintering site is 
defined as one that supports more wintering birds than average for the 
geographical region based on current or historical numbers. We believe 
these areas are necessary to provide sufficient habitat for the 
survival of Pacific Coast WSPs during the nonbreeding season as they 
allow for dispersal of adults or juveniles to nonbreeding sites and 
provide roosting and foraging opportunities and shelter during 
inclement weather.
    (4) Diverse habitat: Additional sites were added that provide 
diverse habitat (mud flats, gravel bars, or salt ponds and salt pond 
levees), or that are situated to facilitate interchange between 
otherwise widely separated units. This criterion is based on standard 
conservation biology principles; 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, habitat loss and 
degradation, and rise in sea level.
    (5) Areas to maintain connectivity of habitat: Some areas that may 
be seasonally lacking in certain elements of essential physical and 
biological features and that contain marginal habitat were included if 
they were contiguous with areas containing one or more of those 
elements and if they contribute to the hydrologic and geologic 
processes essential to the ecological function of the system. These 
areas are essential to the conservation of the species because they 
maintain connectivity within populations, allow for species movement 
throughout the course of a given year, and allow for population 
expansion.
    (6) Restoration areas: We have selected some areas within occupied 
units that, once restored, would be able to support the Pacific Coast 
WSP. These areas generally are upland habitats, adjacent to beach and 
other areas used by the species, and contain introduced vegetation such 
as European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria) that currently limits use 
of the area by the species. These areas would provide habitat to off-
set the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat due to sea-level 
rise expected from the effects of climate change or due to development. 
These areas previously contained and would still contain the features 
essential to the conservation of the species once removal of the 
beachgrass and restoration of the area has occurred.
    In order to translate the criteria above to the areas on the 
ground, we used the following methodology to identify the mapped 
boundaries of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP:
    (1) We digitally mapped occurrence data within the range of the 
Pacific Coast WSP at the time and subsequent to the time of listing in 
the form of polygons and points using ArcMap 9.3.1 (ESRI 2009). An 
attempt was made to consider site-specific survey data that was both 
current and historical. Survey information used in this designation was 
compiled from several sources during various timeframes as identified 
in the Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix B);
    (2) We utilized National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP 2009) 
aerial imagery with a 3.3 ft (1 m) resolution to determine the lateral 
extent (width) between the water and upland areas of habitat. The 
western (seaward) boundary of the coastal units is the water's edge, 
which varies daily with each changing tide, and will vary seasonally 
with storm surges, and sand erosion and deposition. For mapping 
purposes, the western boundary of the coastal units is the water's edge 
based on the 2009 NAIP imagery. Given the dynamic nature of coastal 
beaches, riparian areas, and salt pond management, we also delineated 
the lateral extent to encompass the entire area up to the lower edge of 
permanent upland vegetation or to the edge of a permanent barrier, such 
as a bluff, levee, sea wall, human development, etc. Using aerial 
imagery (NAIP 2009), we also delineated the northern and southern 
extents of the proposed units to include the beach areas associated 
with the occurrence information identified above.
    When determining proposed revised critical habitat boundaries, we 
made every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands 
covered by buildings, sea walls, pavement, and other structures, 
because these areas lack physical and biological features for the 
Pacific Coast WSP. The scale of maps we prepared under the parameters 
for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect 
the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently 
left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this 
proposed revised critical habitat have been excluded by text in this 
proposed revised rule and are not proposed for designation as critical 
habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a 
Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the 
physical and biological features in adjacent critical habitat.
    In this proposed rule to revise critical habitat, we are proposing 
to designate lands that we have determined were within the geographic 
area occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient

[[Page 16054]]

elements of physical and biological features to support life-history 
processes essential to the conservation of the species. We are also 
proposing to designate lands outside of the geographical area occupied 
at the time of listing that we have determined are essential for the 
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. Units are proposed for revised 
designation based on the presence of elements of physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, not 
all of which are present in each unit, but which are contained in 
levels that support Pacific Coast WSP life-history processes. Some 
units contain all of the identified elements of physical and biological 
features and thus support multiple life-history processes. Some units 
contain only some elements of the physical and biological features and 
thus support the Pacific Coast WSP's particular use of that habitat.

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

    The areas identified in this proposed revised rule constitute a 
revision of the areas designated as critical habitat for the Pacific 
Coast WSP on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56969). In the 2005 final rule, 
we designated approximately 12,145 ac (4,921 ha) of critical habitat in 
a total of 32 units within the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
California. Refer to that final rule to compare critical habitat 
designations in 2005 with those being proposed here. Table 1 below 
outlines the changes in areas in each unit or subunit between the 2005 
final critical habitat rule and this proposed revised critical habitat 
rule. This proposed revision contains significant changes to the number 
of units and amount of acreage compared to the designation in 2005. 
These changes are based on updated information, changes to our criteria 
and methodologies for determining areas essential to the conservation 
of the Pacific Coast WSP, or exclusions based on section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act.
    A total of 39 new units and 16,116 ac (6,522 ha) are being proposed 
that were not designated in 2005. Of these, three (3) units in 
Washington are new or have new extensions; 8 units are new in Oregon; 
and 28 units are newly proposed in California. One (1) unit was 
designated as critical habitat in 2005 (San Onofre Beach, then 
designated as Unit CA 24), but is being exempted under section 4(a)(3) 
of the Act and is not being proposed in this revised rule (see 
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act section 
below).

  Table 1--A Comparison of the Areas (in Acres and Hectares) Identified as Containing Features Essential to the
   Conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP in the 2005 Final Critical Habitat Designation and This 2010 Proposed
                                      Revised Critical Habitat Designation
                               [Values in this table may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              2005                  2010
                Unit No.                           Unit name         -------------------------------------------
                                                                        Acres     Hectares    Acres     Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA 1.......................