Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby, 64996-65060 [2011-26301]
Download as PDF
64996
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0085; MO
92210–0–0009]
RIN 1018–AX39
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Revised
Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise critical habitat for the tidewater
goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In total, approximately
12,157 acres (4,920 hectares) are being
proposed for designation as critical
habitat. The proposed revised critical
habitat is located in Del Norte,
Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin,
San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura,
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, California.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
December 19, 2011. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at one of the addresses shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
by December 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.
regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or
ID box, enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–
2011–0085, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011–
0085; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, and information
about the proposed designation in Santa
Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles
Counties, contact Diane K. Noda, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805–644–
1766; facsimile 805–644–3958.
For information about the proposed
designation in Del Norte, Humboldt,
and Mendocino Counties, contact Nancy
Finley, Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish
and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon
Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (telephone 707–
822–7201; facsimile 707–822–8411).
For information about the proposed
designation in Sonoma, Marin, and San
Mateo Counties, contact Susan Moore,
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–
2605, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone
916–414–6600; facsimile 916–414–
6712).
For information about the proposed
designation in Orange and San Diego
Counties, contact Jim Bartel, Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Service Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011
(telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile
760–431–5901).
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 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 other concerned
government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this
proposed revised rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘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 may not be prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
tidewater goby habitat;
(b) Which areas that are within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing (or are currently occupied)
contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be
included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed for the physical or biological
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
features essential to the conservation of
the species in areas we are proposing,
including managing for the potential
effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas outside the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that should be included in the
designation because they are essential
for the conservation of the species and
why.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on the tidewater goby, the
features essential to its conservation and
the areas proposed as critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national
security, environmental, cultural, or
other relevant impacts of designating
any area that may be included in the
final designation; in particular, any
impacts on small entities, and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Any information on potential
threats to habitat and the feasibility of
reintroduction or introduction of the
tidewater goby to: Walker Creek, Bolinas
Lagoon, Pomponio Creek, Waddell
Creek, Salinas River, Arroyo del Cruz,
Oso Flaco Lake, Arroyo Sequit, Zuma
Creek, Aliso Creek, or any other areas
identified for reintroduction or
introduction in the recovery plan for the
tidewater goby (Service 2005), and the
reasons why we should or should not
designate these or other unoccupied
areas as critical habitat for the tidewater
goby.
(7) Specifically with reference to
those State Park lands under the
jurisdiction of the California
Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR) that are proposed for
designation, information on any areas
covered by conservation or management
plans that we should consider for
exclusion from the designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8) Any additional proposed critical
habitat areas covered by conservation or
management plans that we should
consider for exclusion from the
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. We specifically request any
information on any operative or draft
habitat conservation plans for the
tidewater goby that have been prepared
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or
any other management or other
conservation plan or agreement that
benefits the tidewater goby or its
primary constituent elements.
(9) Any information concerning tribal
lands or trust resources that may be
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
impacted by this proposed revision to
critical habitat.
(10) Whether our exemption under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act of
Department of Defense land at
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in
Santa Barbara County, and Marine
Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton in
San Diego County, is or is not
appropriate, and why.
(11) 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.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We request that you
send comments only by the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section. We
will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://www.
regulations.gov. You may request at the
top of your document that we withhold
personal information such as your street
address, phone number, or email
address from public review; however,
we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed 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, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat for the
tidewater goby in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule incorporates new
information on tidewater goby genetics
and distribution that was not available
when we completed our 2008 final
critical habitat designation (73 FR 5920;
January 31, 2008). A summary of topics
that are relevant to this proposed critical
habitat designation is provided below.
For more information on tidewater goby
taxonomy, biology, and ecology, please
refer to: the final listing rule published
in the Federal Register on February 4,
1994 (59 FR 5494); the first and second
rules proposing critical habitat
published in the Federal Register on
August 3, 1999 (64 FR 42250) and
November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68914),
respectively; and the subsequent final
critical habitat designations published
in the Federal Register on November 20,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
2000 (65 FR 69693) and January 31,
2008 (73 FR 5920). Additionally, more
species information can be found in the
Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby
(Recovery Plan) (Service 2005), and in
the Tidewater Goby 5-year review
(Service 2007).
Species Description and Genetic/
Morphological Characteristics
The tidewater goby is a small,
elongate, grey-brown fish rarely
exceeding 2 inches (in) (5 centimeters
(cm)) in length. This species possesses
large pectoral fins, with the pelvic or
ventral fins joined to each other
beginning below the chest and belly and
from below the gill cover back to just
anterior of the anus. Male tidewater
goby are nearly transparent with a
mottled brown upper surface. Female
tidewater goby develop darker colors,
often black, on the body and dorsal and
anal fins. Tidewater goby are short-lived
species; the lifespan of most individuals
appears to be about 1 year (Irwin and
Soltz 1984, p. 26; Swift et al. 1989, p.
4; M. Hellmair, pers. comm. 2010).
Various genetic markers demonstrate
that pronounced differences exist in the
genetic structure of the tidewater goby,
and that tidewater goby populations in
some locations are genetically distinct.
A study of mitochondrial DNA and
cytochrome b (molecular material used
in genetic studies) sequences from
tidewater goby that were collected at 31
locations throughout the species’
geographic range has identified six
major phylogeographic units (Dawson et
al. 2001, p. 1171). These six regional
units are the basis for the recovery units
in the Recovery Plan (Service 2005), and
include the following areas: (1) Tillas
Slough (Smith River) in Del Norte
County to Lagoon Creek in Mendocino
County (North Coast (NC) Unit); (2)
Salmon Creek in Sonoma County to
Bennett’s Slough in Monterey County
(Greater Bay (GB) Unit); (3) Arroyo del
Oso to Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo
County (Central Coast (CC) Unit); (4)
San Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis
Obispo County to Rincon Creek in Santa
Barbara County (Conception (CO) Unit);
(5) Ventura River in Ventura County to
Topanga Creek in Los Angeles County
(Los Angeles-Ventura (LV) Unit); and (6)
San Pedro Harbor in Los Angeles
˜
County to Los Penasquitos Lagoon in
San Diego County (South Coast (SC)
Unit).
A more recent study to gather genetic
distribution data for the tidewater goby
used a panel of novel microsatellite loci
(repeating sequences of DNA) assessed
in a first-order (unbound strands of
DNA) survey across its range (Earl et al.
2010, p. 104). More specifically, Earl et
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64997
al. (2010, p. 103) described 19 taxonspecific microsatellite loci, and assessed
genetic variation across the tidewater
goby’s range relative to genetic
subdivision. The study concluded: (1)
Populations of tidewater goby in
northern San Diego County form a
highly divergent clade (a genetically
related group) with reduced genetic
variation that appears to merit status as
a separate species; (2) populations along
the mid-coast of California are
subdivided into regional groups, which
are more similar to each other than
different, contrary to conclusions from
previous mitochondrial sequence-based
studies (Dawson et al. 2001, p. 1176);
and (3) that tidewater goby dispersal
during the Pleistocene/Holocene sealevel rise (approximately 7,000 years
ago), followed by increased isolation
during the Holocene, formed a star
phylogeny (recent population formed
from a common ancestor) with
geographic separation in the
northernmost populations and some
local differentiation (Earl et al. 2010,
p. 103). Genetic diversity among
populations within a species may be
important to long-term persistence
because it represents the raw material
for adapting to differing local conditions
and environmental stochasticity
(Frankham 2005, p. 754).
The conclusion that the North Coast
populations of the tidewater goby
formed as a result of a single recent
episode of colonization of newly formed
habitats is supported by McCraney and
Kinziger (2009, p. 30). They compared
genetic variation of 13 naturally and
artificially fragmented populations of
the tidewater goby in northern
California, including eight Humboldt
Bay populations and five coastal lagoon
populations, and reached similar
conclusions to Earl et al. (2010, p. 113).
McCraney et al. (2010, p. 3325) also
concluded that natural and artificial
habitat fragmentation caused marked
divergence among the tidewater goby in
the North Coast populations. Their
study showed that Humboldt Bay
populations, due to isolation by manmade barriers, exhibited very high
levels of genetic differentiation between
populations, extremely low levels of
genetic diversity within populations,
and no migration among populations.
They concluded that this pattern makes
the Humboldt Bay populations of
tidewater goby vulnerable to extirpation
(McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 37). In
contrast, the study found that while
coastal lagoon populations also
exhibited very high levels of genetic
differentiation between populations,
these populations displayed substantial
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
64998
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
levels of genetic diversity within
populations indicating occasional
migration among lagoons (McCraney
and Kinziger 2009, p. 32). Populations
in all coastal lagoons, with the
exception of Lake Earl in Del Norte
County, appear to be stable and
genetically healthy (McCraney and
Kinziger 2009,
p. iii). The Lake Earl population
exhibited reduced levels of genetic
diversity in comparison to similar
coastal lagoon populations (McCraney
and Kinziger 2009, p. 34). The reduced
genetic diversity detected within Lake
Earl is likely due to repeated population
bottlenecks (reduced genetic diversity
due to reduced population size)
resulting from regular artificial
breaching of the lagoon mouth
(McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 34).
The conclusions from these studies
are:
(1) The tidewater goby exhibits
considerable genetic diversity across its
range.
(2) The species can be divided into six
phylogeographic units based upon
genetic similarities and differences.
(3) The tidewater goby to the south of
the gap between Los Angeles and
Orange Counties is probably a distinct
species from populations to the north
based on its divergent genetic makeup.
(4) Natural and anthropogenic barriers
have contributed to genetic
differentiation among populations.
(5) Although genetic differences occur
between populations north of Los
Angeles County, they are not as
divergent as those populations found
south of Los Angeles County.
Metapopulation Dynamics
Local populations of tidewater goby
are best characterized as
metapopulations (Lafferty et al. 1999a,
p. 1448). A metapopulation is defined as
a population made up of a group of
subpopulations interconnected through
patterns of gene flow, extinction, and
recolonization, and at least somewhat
geographically isolated from other
populations (Meffe and Carrol 1994, p.
189). Local tidewater goby populations
are frequently isolated from other local
populations by extensive areas of
unsuitable habitat. They occupy coastal
lagoons and estuaries that in most cases
are separated by the open ocean. Very
few tidewater goby have ever been
captured in the marine environment
(Swift et al. 1989, p. 7), which suggests
that this species rarely occurs in the
open ocean. Studies of the tidewater
goby suggest that some populations
persist on a consistent basis, while other
populations appear to experience
intermittent extirpations (local
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
extinctions) (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p.
1452). These extirpations may result
from one or a series of factors, such as
the drying up of some small streams
during prolonged droughts (Lafferty et
al. 1999a, p. 1451). Some of the areas
where the tidewater goby has been
extirpated apparently have been
recolonized by nearby (within 6 miles
(mi) (10 kilometers (km))) populations
(Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1451). These
recolonization events suggest that
tidewater goby populations exhibit a
metapopulation dynamic where some
populations survive or remain viable by
continually exchanging individuals and
recolonizations after occasional
extirpations (Doak and Mills 1994,
p. 619).
Lafferty et al. (1999b, p. 618)
monitored the post-flood persistence of
several tidewater goby populations in
Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties
after the heavy winter floods of 1995.
All of the monitored populations
persisted after the floods, and no
significant changes in population sizes
were noted (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p.
621). However, tidewater goby
˜
apparently colonized Canada Honda in
Santa Barbara County after one flood
event (Lafferty et al. 1999b,
p. 621). This suggests that flooding may
sometimes have a positive effect by
contributing to recolonization of
habitats where a tidewater goby
population has become extirpated.
The largest wetland habitats where
the tidewater goby has been known to
occur are not necessarily the most
secure, as evidenced by the fact that the
Santa Margarita River in San Diego
County and the San Francisco Bay have
lost their populations of tidewater goby.
Today, the most stable locations with
the largest tidewater goby populations
consist of lagoons and estuaries of
intermediate sizes (5 to 125 ac (2 to 50
ha)) that have remained relatively
unaffected by human activities (Service
2005, p. 12). Many of the locations
where tidewater goby are consistently
present are likely to be ‘‘source’’
populations, which probably provide
the colonists for locations where
tidewater goby are intermittently
extirpated.
Historical records and survey results
for several areas occupied by tidewater
goby are available (Swift et al. 1989, pp.
18–19; Swift et al. 1994, pp. 8–16).
These documents suggest that the
persistence of tidewater goby
populations is related to habitat size,
configuration, location, and proximity
to human development. In general, the
most stable and persistent tidewater
goby populations occur in lagoons and
estuaries that are more than 2.47 ac
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1 ha) in size, and that have remained
relatively unaffected by human
activities (Lafferty et al. 1999a, pp.
1450–1453). We note, however, that
some systems that are affected or altered
by human activities also have relatively
large and stable populations, for
example, Humboldt Bay in Humboldt
County, Pismo Creek in San Luis Obispo
County, Santa Ynez River in Santa
Barbara County, and the Santa Clara
River in Ventura County. Also, some
habitats less than 2.47 ac (1 ha) in size
have tidewater goby populations that
persist on a regular basis, such as
˜
Canada del Agua Caliente in Santa
Barbara County (Swift et al. 1997, p. 3).
The best available information suggests
that the lagoons and estuaries with
persistent tidewater goby populations
are likely the source of core populations
that provide individuals that colonize
adjacent smaller locations with
intermittent populations (Lafferty et al.
1999a, p. 1452).
Distribution
The known geographic range of the
tidewater goby is limited to the coast of
California (Eschmeyer et al. 1983,
p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p. 12). The
species historically occurred from
locations 3 mi (5 km) south of the
California-Oregon border (Tillas Slough
in Del Norte County) to 44 mi (71 km)
north of the United States-Mexico
border (Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San
Diego County). The available
documentation (e.g., Eschmeyer et al.
1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p. 12)
suggests that the northernmost extent of
the current geographic range has not
changed over time. Tidewater goby
historically occurred in Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, but do not currently. The
species’ southernmost known currently
occupied locality is the San Luis Rey
River, 5 mi (8 km) north of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Although the
northernmost and southernmost extent
of the tidewater goby’s range has not
changed, its overall distribution has
become patchy and fragmented along
the coast.
The tidewater goby appears to be
naturally absent from several long (50 to
135 mi (80 to 217 km)) stretches of
coastline lacking lagoons or estuaries,
where steep topography or swift
currents may prevent the tidewater goby
from dispersing between adjacent
locations (Swift et al. 1989, p. 13; Earl
et al. 2010, p. 104). One such gap occurs
between the Eel River in Humboldt
County and the Ten Mile River in
Mendocino County. A second gap exists
between Davis Lake in Mendocino
County and Salmon Creek in Sonoma
County. Another large natural gap
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
occurs between the Salinas River in
Monterey County and Arroyo del Oso in
San Luis Obispo County. Habitat loss
and other anthropogenic-related factors
have resulted in the tidewater goby’s
absence from several locations where it
historically occurred; their recent
disappearance from some of these
locations has created additional gaps in
the species’ geographic distribution
(Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such locations
include San Francisco Bay in San
Francisco and Alameda Counties, and
Redwood Creek and Freshwater Lagoon
in Humboldt County.
Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that,
as of 1984, tidewater goby occurred or
had been known to occur at 87
locations, including those at the extreme
northern and southern end of the
species’ historical geographic range. An
assessment of the species’ distribution
in 1993, using records that were limited
to the area between the Monterey
Peninsula in Monterey County and the
United States-Mexico border, found the
tidewater goby occurring at four
additional sites since 1984 (Swift et al.
1993, p. 129). Other locations have been
identified since 1993, and to date the
tidewater goby has been documented at
135 locations within its historical range.
Of these 135 locations, 23 (17 percent)
are no longer occupied by the tidewater
goby. Therefore, 112 locations are
currently occupied (Service 2005, p. 6).
Habitat
The lagoons, estuaries, backwater
marshes, and freshwater tributaries that
tidewater goby occupy are dynamic
environments subject to considerable
fluctuations on a seasonal and annual
basis. Typically, a sandbar forms in the
late spring as flow into a lagoon
declines enough to allow the ocean surf
to build up sand at the mouth of the
lagoon. Winter rains and increased
stream flows may bring in considerable
sediment and dramatically affect the
bottom profile and substrate
composition of a lagoon or estuary. Fine
mud and clay either move through the
lagoon or estuary, or settle out in the
backwater marshes, while heavier sand
is left behind. High flows associated
with winter rains can scour out the
lagoon bottom to a lower level,
especially after breaching the mouth
sandbar, with sand building up again
after flows decline. These dynamic
processes result in wetland habitats
that, over time, move both up or down
coast, and inland or coastward.
The horizontal extent of the lentic
(pond-like) wetland habitat associated
with a particular tidewater goby locality
varies, and is affected in part, by local
precipitation patterns and topography.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
In coastal areas where the topography is
steep and precipitation relatively low,
such as areas adjacent to the Santa Ynez
Mountains in Santa Barbara County, the
habitats occupied by tidewater goby
may be a few acres in size, only extend
a few hundred feet inland from the
ocean, with backwater marshes small or
absent. In other coastal settings where
topography is less steep and
precipitation is more abundant, surface
streams are larger, coastal lagoons or
estuaries may be hundreds of acres in
size and extend many miles inland, and
may include extensive backwater
marshes (Lake Earl in Del Norte County
and Ten Mile River in Mendocino
County). Some locations occupied by
the tidewater goby, for example,
Bennett’s Slough in Monterey County,
receive water from upstream areas on a
year-round basis. Such locations tend to
possess wetland habitats that are larger
and can extend inland for several miles.
Other occupied locations do not possess
stream channels or tributaries that
provide a considerable amount of water
throughout the summer or fall months.
Such locations, such as Little Pico Creek
in San Luis Obispo County, tend to
possess wetland habitats that extend
only a short distance inland.
Reproduction
The tidewater goby has been observed
to spawn in every month of the year
except December (Swenson 1999, p.
107). Reproduction tends to peak in late
April or May to July, and can continue
into November depending on seasonal
temperature and rainfall. Swenson
(1995, p. 31) has documented the
spawning activities of adult fish or the
presence of egg clutches at water
temperatures between 48 and 77 degrees
Fahrenheit (F) (9 and 25 degrees Celsius
(C)). Spawning tidewater goby have
been observed in water salinities
between 2 and 27 parts per thousand
(ppt) (Swenson 1999, p. 31).
Threats
The final listing rule for the tidewater
goby published in 1994 (59 FR 5494;
February 4, 1994) and the 5-year review
(Service 2007) states that this species is
threatened, or potentially threatened,
by: (1) Coastal development projects
that result in the loss or alteration of
coastal wetland habitat; (2) water
diversions and alterations of water flows
upstream of coastal lagoons and
estuaries that negatively impact the
species’ breeding and foraging activities;
(3) groundwater overdrafting; (4)
channelization of the rivers where the
species occurs; (5) discharge of
agricultural and sewage effluents; (6)
cattle grazing and feral pig activity that
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64999
results in increased sedimentation of
coastal lagoons and riparian habitats,
removal of vegetative cover, increased
ambient water temperatures, and
elimination of plunge pools and
undercut banks utilized by the tidewater
goby; (7) introduced species that prey
on the tidewater goby (e.g., bass
(Micropterus spp.) and crayfish
(Cambaris spp.)); (8) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; (9)
drought conditions that result in the
deterioration of coastal and riparian
habitats; and (10) competition with
introduced species, such as the
yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius
flavimanus) and chameleon goby
(Tridentiger trigonocephalus).
Previous Federal Actions
On April 15, 2009, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California
challenging a portion of the January 31,
2008, final rule that designated 44
critical habitat units in Del Norte,
Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin,
San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura,
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, California (73 FR 5920,
January 31, 2008). In a consent decree
dated December 11, 2009, the U.S.
District Court: (1) Stated that the 44
critical habitat units should remain in
effect, (2) stated that the final rule
designating critical habitat was
remanded in its entirety for
reconsideration, and (3) directed the
Service to promulgate a revised critical
habitat rule that considers the entire
geographic range of the tidewater goby
and any currently unoccupied tidewater
goby habitat. The consent decree
requires that the Service submit
proposed and final revised rules to the
Federal Register no later than October
7, 2011, and November 27, 2012,
respectively. For additional information
on previous Federal actions please refer
to the 1994 listing rule (59 FR 5494;
February 4, 1994), and previous critical
habitat designation (73 FR 5920; January
31, 2008).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
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
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
65000
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific 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.
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 an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to 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, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise 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
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
seeks or 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 obligation of the Federal
action agency and the landowner 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 the physical or 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or 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 (PCEs)) 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 or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and 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 outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing may, however, be essential for
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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, expert opinion, or personal
knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species (or
habitats) may naturally shift within an
area, or from one area to another, over
time. Climate change will be a particular
challenge for biodiversity because the
addition of stressors associated with
climate change to current stressors may
push species beyond their ability to
survive (Lovejoy and Hannah 2005, pp.
325–326). The synergistic implications
of climate change and habitat
fragmentation are the most threatening
facet of climate change for biodiversity
(Lovejoy and Hannah 2005, p. 4),
because species may not be able to
migrate with shifting habitats. Current
climate change predictions for terrestrial
areas in the Northern Hemisphere
generally indicate warmer air
temperatures, more intense
precipitation events, and increased
summer continental drying, although
predictions vary for any given specific
location (Field et al. 1999, pp. 1–3;
Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et
al. 2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 11;
Cayan et al. 2009, p. xi). Climate change
may lead to increased frequency and
duration of severe storms and droughts
(McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook
et al. 2004, p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004,
p. 504).
Furthermore, these predictions also
point to a future of warmer oceans and
melting glaciers and icecaps, all of
which are expected to raise mean sea
levels, leading to the inundation and
displacement of many estuaries and
lagoons. A rise in sea level will most
dramatically affect those estuaries that
have been confined by surrounding
development that prohibits their
boundaries from naturally shifting in
response to inundation. Projections for
sea-level rise by the year 2100 vary from
0.59 to 6.2 ft (0.18 to 1.9 m) (Raper and
Braithwaite 2006, p. 311, IPCC 2007, p.
11; Rahmstorf 2007, p. 368; Herberger et
al. 2009, p. 8; Vermeer and Rahmstorf
2009, p. 21530). Paleoclimatic data
suggest that the rate of future melting of
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
and related sea level rise could be faster
than currently projected (Overpeck et al.
2006, p. 1747). Park et al. (1989, pp. 1–
52) projected that of the salt marshes
along the coast of the contiguous United
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
States, 30 percent would be lost with a
1.6-ft (0.5-m) sea level rise, 46 percent
with a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise, 52
percent with a 6.6-ft (2-m) sea level rise,
and 65 percent with a 9.8-ft (3-m) sea
level rise.
We cannot project directly to
California the percentage of salt marsh
habitat that would be lost based upon
the estimates of Park et al. (1989, p. 1–
52), who focused on the east coast and
Gulf coast of the United States;
however, we can anticipate that with a
projected sea level rise of up to almost
6.6 ft (2 m), much of the marshlands and
estuaries in the state will be lost by
2100. In addition to the inundation and
displacement of estuaries/lagoons, there
would be shifts in the quality of the
habitats in affected coastal regions. Prior
to being inundated, coastal watersheds
would become saline due to saltwater
intrusion into the surface and
groundwater. However, predictions of
climatic conditions for smaller subregions, such as California, remain less
certain. The full effects of these changes
on aquatic organisms, such as the
tidewater goby, are not well known.
Thus, the information currently
available on the effects of global climate
change is not sufficiently precise to
determine what additional areas, if any,
may be appropriate to include in the
revised critical habitat for this species to
address the effects of climate change.
Additionally, we recognize that
critical habitat designated at a particular
point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later
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 be required for recovery of the
species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the tidewater goby, 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
ensure that 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 result in take of 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
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 new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Physical or 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 or 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, or
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 or
biological features required for
tidewater goby from studies of this
species’ habitat, ecology, and life history
as described below. Additional
information can be found in the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on February 4, 1994 (59 FR
5494), the Tidewater Goby 5-Year
Review (Service 2007), and the
Recovery Plan (Service 2005). Based on
our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, ecology, and the habitat
requirements of the species, we have
determined that the tidewater goby
requires the following physical or
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Saline Aquatic Habitat
The tidewater goby occurs in lagoons,
estuaries, and backwater marshes that
are adjacent to the Pacific Ocean (Wang
1982, p. 14; Irwin and Soltz 1984, p. 27;
Swift et al. 1989, p. 1; Swenson 1993,
p. 3; Moyle 2002, p. 431). The tidewater
goby is most commonly found in waters
with relatively low salinities (less than
10 to 12 parts per thousand (ppt)) (Swift
et al. 1989, p. 7). This species can,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65001
however, tolerate a wide range of
salinities, and is frequently found in
coastal habitats with higher salinity
levels (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7; Worcester
1992, p. 106; Swift et al. 1997, pp. 15–
22); it has been collected in salinities as
high as 42 ppt by Swift et al. (1989, p.
7) and at 63 ppt in McDaniel Slough,
Arcata Bay, Humboldt County (G.
Goldsmith pers. comm. 2011). The
species’ tolerance of high salinities
likely enables it to withstand some
exposure to the marine environment,
allowing it to recolonize nearby lagoons
and estuaries following flood events.
However, tidewater goby have only
rarely been captured in the marine
environment (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7),
and they appear to enter the ocean only
when flushed out of lagoons, estuaries,
and river mouths by storm events or
human-caused breaches of sand bars.
Freshwater Habitat
The tidewater goby also occurs in
freshwater streams up-gradient and
tributary to brackish habitats; the
salinity of these freshwater streams is
typically less than 0.5 ppt. The available
documentation demonstrates that, in
some areas, tidewater goby can occur
1.6 to 7.3 mi (2.6 to 11.7 km) upstream
from the ocean environment (Irwin and
Soltz 1984, p. 27; Swift et al. 1997, p.
20; Chamberlain and Goldsmith 2006, p.
1). Within a 2-hour period, hundreds of
tidewater goby have been observed to
move upstream of a fixed location into
areas in the Santa Ynez River 3.2 mi (5.1
km) from the ocean in Santa Barbara
County (Swift et al. 1997, p. 20). The
fact that this many individuals were
observed to move through an area
suggests that freshwater tributaries in
some riverine systems provide
important habitat for individual and
population growth.
We have reviewed a variety of
documents to determine how far
tidewater goby have been detected
upstream from the ocean. Chamberlain
and Goldsmith (2006, p. 1) found
tidewater goby 1.6 to 2.0 mi (2.6 to 3.3
km) upstream from the ocean in the Ten
Mile River in Mendocino County, Swift
et al. (1997, p. 18) found tidewater goby
4.6 mi (7.3 km) upstream from the ocean
in the San Antonio River in Santa
Barbara County, Swift et al. (1997, p. 20)
found tidewater goby at various
distances from 3.9 to 7.3 mi (6.2 to 11.7
km) upstream from the ocean in the
Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara
County, and Holland (1992, p. 9) found
tidewater goby 3 mi (5 km) upstream
from the ocean in the Santa Margarita
River in San Diego County. Collectively,
these data suggest the average distance
tidewater goby have been detected
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65002
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
upstream from the ocean in medium to
large rivers is approximately 3.8 mi (6.1
km). Other than a high stream gradient,
the reasons for the variation in upstream
movement between one locality and
another have not been determined;
salinity could be an important factor.
Upstream salinity levels may vary with
time of year, tidal cycles, storm events,
and topography. However, Swift et al.
(1997, p. 26) indicate that stream
gradient and lack of barriers (e.g., beaver
dams, sills) are more important factors
than salinity to upstream dispersal.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The tidewater goby is most commonly
collected in water less than 6 feet (ft) (2
meters (m)) deep (Wang 1982, pp. 4–5;
Worchester 1992, p. 53). However,
tidewater goby were recently collected
in Big Lagoon in Humboldt County
during the breeding season at a water
depth of 15 ft (4.6 m) (Goldsmith 2006a,
p. 1). Whether use of these deeper
waters is confined to this locality or is
more widespread will require additional
sampling at various depths and
locations. The tidewater goby tends to
avoid currents and concentrate in slackwater areas; this suggests they are less
likely to occur in areas with a steep
gradient or microhabitats with a
substantial current. At Pescadero Creek
in San Mateo County, tidewater goby
were absent from portions of the flowing
creek that had a surface velocity of 0.15
m per second (0.49 ft per second), and
were instead more densely concentrated
in nearby eddies with lower water
velocities (Swenson 1993, p. 3).
Backwater marshes, including lateral
sloughs, are likely to be important to the
tidewater goby for multiple reasons.
Flood waters with increased water
velocities can have a negative effect on
the tidewater goby (Irwin and Soltz
1984, p. 27), and backwater marshes
may provide important refuges that
reduce the likelihood that tidewater
goby will be flushed out of the lagoons
or estuaries and into the marine
environment during heavy winter floods
(Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 619). Evidence
that increased flows can eliminate
tidewater goby from a locality is
Cover or Shelter
A variety of native and nonnative fish
species and fish-eating bird species,
such as egrets (Egretta spp.) and herons
(e.g., great blue herons (Ardea
herodias)), prey on tidewater goby. A
species’ ability to persist when it is
subject to predation pressure frequently
depends on the presence of escape cover
or shelter, heterogeneous features that
provide a greater level of structure to
make it more likely to avoid predation
(Crowder and Cooper 1982, p. 1802;
Gilinsky 1984, p. 455). At locations
where the tidewater goby occurs,
submerged and emergent aquatic
vegetation can create habitat
heterogeneity and structure to provide a
greater degree of cover from predators
than would exist without it. Stable
lagoons often possess dense aquatic
vegetation, including sago pondweed
(Potamogeton pectinatus) or widgeon
grass (e.g., Ruppia maritima and R.
cirrhosa). At some locations, juvenile
tidewater goby are more prevalent in
areas with at least some submergent
vegetation compared to areas with little
or no vegetation (Wang 1984, p. 16;
Swenson 1994, p. 6; Trihey &
Associates, Inc. 1996, p. 11). The
presence of submerged or emergent
vegetation appears to reduce the
likelihood that tidewater goby will be
preyed upon. Aquatic vegetation also
may provide some degree of shelter or
refuge during flash flood events
(Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 621) by
lowering water velocity compared to
unvegetated areas. Such refuges would
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Diet
Sandbars
Many of the locations occupied by the
tidewater goby closely correspond to
stream drainages. Under natural
conditions these stream drainages and
the marine environment collectively act
to produce sandbars that form a barrier
between the ocean and the lagoon,
estuary, backwater marsh, and
freshwater stream system (Habel and
Armstrong 1977, p. 39). These sandbars
tend to be present during the late spring,
summer, and fall seasons. The presence
of a sandbar can create a lower salinity
level (5 to 10 ppt) in the area inshore
from the sandbar (Carpelan 1967, p.
324) than would otherwise exist if there
were no sandbar. The tidewater goby is
more commonly associated with these
lower salinity levels than with the
salinity levels that occur in the ocean or
an estuary without a sandbar (about 35
ppt). The formation of a sandbar also
creates more habitat for aquatic
organisms because water becomes
ponded behind the sandbar. Artificial
breaching of a sandbar tends to result in
a rapid decrease in water levels, and
increases the likelihood that adult
tidewater goby, their nests, and their fry
could become stranded and die, or
become concentrated and subject to
greater levels of predation pressure by
birds or other predators.
In Humboldt Bay and the Eel River
estuary in Humboldt County, a large
amount of salt and brackish marsh
habitat was eliminated through the
construction of levees and drainage
channels. As a result, several of the
locations occupied by tidewater goby do
not contain natural sandbars between
the ocean and habitat where the species
is present. Instead, manmade water
control structures such as tidegates and
culverts, exist between tidal waters and
the locations where tidewater goby
occur. These tidegates have been in
place for decades, and in some cases
they provide habitat conditions similar
to those created by the presence of a
seasonal sandbar. In fact, most of the
occupied tidewater goby habitat in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Water Depth, Velocity, and Temperature
suggested by the extirpation of tidewater
goby from Waddell Creek in Santa Cruz
County following a flood event in the
winter of 1972–73 (Nelson as cited in
Swift 1990, p. 2); this creek had been
channelized and no longer afforded
protection from high flows during flood
events. Likewise, the channelization
and elimination of habitat lateral to the
main stream channel upstream of San
Onofre Lagoon in San Diego County
probably led to the flushing and
extirpation of tidewater goby from this
locality during a storm in 1993 (Swift et
al. 1994, pp. 22–23). The importance of
backwater marshes is also highlighted
by the fact that tidewater goby in these
habitats can achieve a greater size than
in adjacent lagoons and creeks
(Swenson 1993, pp. 6–7).
Therefore, lagoons and estuaries with
a variety of aquatic macroinvertebrates
providing food for tidewater goby as
well as backwater marshes, including
lateral sloughs, which are used as refuge
during storm events and sandbar
breaches, are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Humboldt Bay-Eel River estuaries are
above tidegates.
Therefore, lagoons and estuaries with
relatively low salinities for suitable
breeding conditions, upstream
freshwater habitat for refuge, and
sandbars, which creates larger areas of
suitable habitat with lower salinities,
are essential to the conservation of the
species.
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
The tidewater goby feeds mainly on
macroinvertebrates such as mysid
shrimp, gammarid amphipods,
ostracods, and aquatic insects such as
chironomid midge larvae (Irwin and
Soltz 1984, pp. 21–23; Swift et al. 1989,
p. 6; Swenson 1995, p. 87). The diets of
adult and juvenile tidewater goby tend
to include the same relative abundance
of different invertebrate species
(Swenson and McCray 1996, p. 962).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
be especially important to fish species,
such as tidewater goby, that are not
strong swimmers. Therefore, lagoons
and estuaries with submerged and
emerged vegetation, which provide
protection from predators and provide
refuge during flood events, are essential
to the conservation of the species.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
The eggs of the tidewater goby are laid
in burrows excavated by male fish.
Burrows most commonly occur in areas
with relatively unconsolidated, clean,
coarse sand (Swift et al. 1989, p. 8), and
in silt or mud (Wang 1982, p. 6).
Swenson (1995, p. 148) demonstrated
that tidewater goby prefer a sandy
substrate in the laboratory. Male
tidewater goby remain in the burrow to
guard the eggs attached to the burrow
ceiling and walls, and care for the
embryos for approximately 9 to 11 days
until they hatch. They rarely, if ever,
emerge from the burrow to feed (Swift
et al. 1989, p. 4). The tidewater goby
larvae occupy the water column after
the eggs hatch (Wang 1982, p. 15), then
move to the bottom substrate as they
mature. Worcester (1992, pp. 77–79)
found that larval tidewater goby in Pico
Creek Lagoon in San Luis Obispo
County tended to use the deeper portion
of the lagoon at a depth of 29 in (73 cm),
which is considerably deeper than the
depth level of 17 in (42 cm) where they
were not detected. Therefore, lagoons
and estuaries with relatively
unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand, and
silt or mud, which provide for breeding,
are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or
Representative of the Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
The majority of lagoons, estuaries,
and coastal streams that currently
support the tidewater goby have
experienced some level of disturbance.
These range in size from approximately
31.5 square feet (3 m2) of surface area to
about 2,000 acres (ac) (800 hectares
(ha)). Most lagoons and estuaries that
support tidewater goby range from about
1.25 to 12.5 ac (0.5 to 5 ha). Surveys of
tidewater goby locations and historic
records indicate that size, configuration,
location, and access by humans are all
factors in the persistence of populations
of this species (Swift et al. 1989, p. 15;
Swift et al. 1994, pp. 26–27). Lagoons
and estuaries smaller than about 5 ac (2
ha) generally exhibit patterns of
extirpation or population reduction and
subsequent recolonization to very low
levels. Many of the records for smaller
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
locations, less than about 1 ac (0.4 ha),
include one or a few large individuals
with no evidence of reproduction. These
small locations are also often within a
mile or so of another locality from
which recolonization could occur
following catastrophic events, such as
drought or artificial breaching of the
lagoon.
The largest locations are not
necessarily the most secure, such as the
San Francisco Bay or the Santa
Margarita River, which have lost their
populations of tidewater goby. However,
an exception is Lake Tolowa, Del Norte
County, which is several thousand acres
in size and has had a continuous
presence of tidewater goby. The most
stable or largest populations today are in
locations of intermediate sizes, which
range from 5 to 125 ac (2 to 50 ha). In
many cases, the tidewater goby
populations in these intermediate sized
locations likely serve as source
populations for the smaller ephemeral
sites (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 1452).
Therefore, lagoons and estuaries that
range in size from small to large are
important for maintaining the
metapopulation dynamics and are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Primary Constituent Elements for
Tidewater Goby
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of
tidewater goby in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, focusing
on the features’ primary constituent
elements. We consider primary
constituent elements to be the elements
of the physical or biological features
that provide for a species’ life-history
processes and, under the appropriate
circumstances, are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we determine that the
primary constituent element (and its
components) specific to tidewater goby
are:
(1) Persistent, shallow (in the range of
approximately 0.3 to 6.6 ft (0.1 to 2 m)),
still-to-slow-moving, lagoons, estuaries,
and coastal streams ranging in salinity
from 0.5 ppt to about 12 ppt, which
provides adequate space for normal
behavior and individual and population
growth that contain:
(a) Substrates (e.g., sand, silt, mud)
suitable for the construction of burrows
for reproduction;
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65003
(b) Submerged and emergent aquatic
vegetation, such as Potamogeton
pectinatus, Ruppia maritima, Typha
latifolia, and Scirpus spp., that provides
protection from predators and high flow
events; or
(c) Presence of a sandbar(s) across the
mouth of a lagoon or estuary during the
late spring, summer, and fall that closes
or partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
thereby providing relatively stable water
levels and salinity.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Special
management considerations or
protection may be necessary to
eliminate or reduce the magnitude of
threats that affect the tidewater goby.
Threats identified in the final listing
rule for the tidewater goby include: (1)
Coastal development projects that result
in the loss or alteration of coastal
wetland habitat; (2) water diversions
and alterations of water flows upstream
of coastal lagoons and estuaries that
negatively impact the species’ breeding
and foraging habitat and activities; (3)
groundwater overdrafting that results in
reduction of flows and negatively
impacts the species’ breeding and
foraging habitat and activities; (4)
channelization of habitats where the
species occurs that removes or reduces
quality of habitat; (5) discharge of
agricultural and sewage effluents; (6)
cattle grazing and feral pig activity that
result in increased sedimentation of
coastal lagoons and riparian habitats,
remove vegetative cover, increase
ambient water temperatures, and
eliminate plunge pools and collapsed
undercut banks utilized by the tidewater
goby; (7) introduced species that prey
on the tidewater goby (e.g., bass,
crayfish); (8) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; (9) drought
conditions that result in the
deterioration of coastal and riparian
habitats; and (10) competition with
introduced species, such as the
yellowfin goby and chameleon goby.
For the purposes of this proposed
rule, we have combined the ‘‘water
diversions and alterations of water flows
upstream of coastal lagoons and
estuaries that negatively impact the
species’ breeding and foraging
activities’’ threats category with
‘‘drought conditions’’ and ‘‘groundwater
overdrafting,’’ along with the addition of
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
65004
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
artificial breaching of sandbars, into one
threat category, i.e., ‘‘water diversions,
alterations of water flows, artificial
sandbar breaching, and groundwater
overdrafting that negatively impact the
species’ breeding and foraging
activities.’’ Similarly, we have
combined the two threat categories of
‘‘introduced species that prey on the
tidewater goby (e.g., bass, crayfish)’’ and
‘‘competition with introduced species
such as the yellowfin goby and
chameleon goby’’ into one category, i.e.,
‘‘introduced species that prey on, or
compete with, the tidewater goby (e.g.,
yellowfin goby, bass, and crayfish).’’
Where special management may be
necessary, regulatory mechanisms may
need to be added or amended by local,
State, or Federal governmental entities if
sufficient management is not achievable
through voluntary mechanisms.
The tidewater goby exhibits a pattern
of occupancy and extirpation
throughout its range. The species
requires refugia under drought
conditions and places to recolonize
under wetter conditions; otherwise, the
tidewater goby would be relegated to
existing only within those few lagoons
and estuaries large enough to support it
during periods of drought. If the suitable
localities that are occupied during
periods of normal precipitation cease to
function as tidewater goby habitat due
to modification or destruction while the
localities are unoccupied, the
metapopulation dynamics may be
disrupted and the species may not be
able to respond by recolonizing
unoccupied localities under favorable
conditions. A more detailed discussion
of threats to the tidewater goby can be
found in the final listing rule (59 FR
5494, March 7, 1994), and the final
Recovery Plan (Service 2005, pp. 16–
19).
We find that the components of the
PCE present within all the areas we are
proposing to designate as critical habitat
may require special management
considerations or protection due to
threats to the tidewater goby or its
habitat. Using current information
provided in the Recovery Plan (Service
2005, Appendix E) and other
information in our files, we have
identified the components of the PCE
that may require special management
considerations or protection from
known threats within each of the critical
habitat units (see Critical Habitat
Designation and Table 3 below for a
unit-by-unit description). Some of the
special management actions that may be
needed for essential features of
tidewater goby habitat are briefly
summarized below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(1) Implement measures to avoid,
minimize or mitigate direct and indirect
loss and adverse modification of
tidewater goby habitat due to dredging,
draining, and filling of lagoons and
estuaries. Additional management
actions should be taken to restore
historic locations and potential habitats
as opportunities become available to
eliminate, minimize, or mitigate the
effects of existing structures and past
activities that have destroyed or
degraded tidewater goby habitat.
(2) Measures should be developed and
implemented to minimize the adverse
effects due to channelization that can
eliminate crucial backwater habitats or
other flood refuges.
(3) Implement measures, such as best
management practices, for managing
excessive sedimentation in tidewater
goby habitat within current or enhanced
parameters. Measures should prevent
further increase in sedimentation in
tidewater goby habitat due to cattle
grazing, development, channel
modification, recreational activity, and
agricultural practices.
(4) Implement measures to prevent
further decrease in freshwater inflow,
water depth, and surface area within
tidewater goby habitat due to dams,
water diversions and groundwater
pumping.
(5) Implement measures to avoid
anthropogenic breaching of lagoons, for
example, use of pumping and other
water control structures to regulate
water levels, to provide conditions
during the summer and fall, when
reproduction is at its highest and
freshwater inflow is at its lowest.
(6) Implement measures to prevent
further degradation of water quality
resulting from agricultural runoff and
effluent, municipal run-off, golf course
runoff, sewage treatment effluent, cattle
grazing, development, oil spills, oil field
runoff, toxic waste, and gray water
dumping. Also, measures should be
implemented to prevent further
degradation of the water quality due to
dikes, tidal gates, and other impedances
to the natural freshwater/saltwater
interface that alter the salinity regime in
some of the tidewater goby habitats.
(7) Implement measures that prevent
further increases in the abundance and
distribution of nonnative species.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 1994. We
also are proposing to designate specific
areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing that were historically occupied,
but are presently unoccupied, because
such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
In proposing revised critical habitat
for the tidewater goby, we made
extensive use of the information in the
Recovery Plan (Service 2005), and
incorporated the recovery goals and
strategy identified in the Recovery Plan
in the development of our proposed
revised designation. We also reviewed
other relevant information, including
peer-reviewed journal articles,
unpublished reports and materials (e.g.,
survey results and expert opinions), the
final listing rule (59 FR 5494; February
4, 1994), the 2000 final critical habitat
rule (65 FR 69693; November 20, 2000),
the 2006 proposed revised critical
habitat rule (71 FR 68914; November 28,
2006), the 2008 final revised critical
habitat rule (73 FR 5920; January 31,
2008), the 5-year review for the
tidewater goby (Service 2007), and
regional databases and GIS coverages,
for example, California Natural
Diversity Database, and National
Wetlands Inventory maps. We analyzed
this information to determine historical
occupancy, occupancy at the time of
listing, and current occupancy, and to
develop criteria for identifying: (1)
Specific areas within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the tidewater goby and which may
require special management
considerations or protection, and (2)
criteria for specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that are essential for the
conservation of the tidewater goby.
The Recovery Plan focuses on
preserving the diversity of tidewater
goby habitats throughout the range of
the species, preserving the natural
processes of recolonization and
population exchange (metapopulation
dynamics) that enable recovery
following catastrophic events, and
preserving genetic diversity (Service
2005, p. 28). The conservation of the
environmental, morphological, and
genetic diversity across the range of the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
species is an important consideration in
determining specific areas on which are
found the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species and other specific areas that are
essential for the conservation of the
tidewater goby. For example, a
population’s ability to successfully
adapt to changing environmental
conditions is a function of the
population size, and genetic variation of
the individuals at a given location (Reed
and Frankham 2003, p. 233).
Local adaptations to different
environmental conditions and
morphological differences are likely
linked to genetic variations among
populations. These features may in turn
be best protected by: (1) Identifying
areas that represent the range of
environmental, genetic, and
morphological diversity; and (2)
maximizing within these areas the
protection of contiguous environmental
gradients across which selection and
migration can interact to maintain
population viability and (adaptive)
genetic diversity (Moritz 2002, p. 238).
The Recovery Plan subdivides the
geographical distribution of the
tidewater goby into 6 recovery units,
encompassing a total of 26 subunits
defined according to genetic
differentiation and geomorphology. We
considered the conservation of the
tidewater goby in each of the recovery
units and subunits, as well as the
species as a whole, in our analysis.
Based on the Recovery Plan, we
developed the following conservation
framework and criteria to identify the
specific circumstances under which the
presence of the components of the PCE
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the tidewater goby, and thus delineates
the specific areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat:
(1) Areas that allow for the
conservation of viable metapopulations
(as defined in the Background section
above) under varying environmental
conditions, for example, drought. These
areas include those that presumably
support source populations
(populations where local reproductive
success is greater than local mortality
(Meffe and Carroll 1994, p. 187)). For
the purposes of this designation, we
identified areas supporting source
populations as those that are currently
occupied and have been consistently
occupied for three or more consecutive
years based on survey data and
published reports. We believe these
source populations are more likely to be
capable of maintaining populations over
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
many years, and are therefore capable of
providing individuals to recruit into
surrounding subpopulations. We have
also included other populations within
each metapopulation in addition to
source populations in the event that the
source population is extirpated due to a
catastrophic event such as a major flood
or drought.
(2) Areas that provide connectivity
between metapopulations. These areas
are likely to act as ‘‘stepping stones’’
between more isolated populations, and
thereby contribute to metapopulation
persistence and genetic exchange. For
the purposes of this designation, we
identified locations that provide
connectivity as those within 6 mi (10
km) of another occupied location.
We have determined that the specific
areas within the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing are not
sufficient to meet the recovery goals for
the species because:
(1) The Recovery Plan states that, to
minimize the chance of local
extirpations resulting in extinction of a
broader metapopulation (see
Background section) and resultant loss
of its unique genetic traits, introduction
and reintroduction of the tidewater goby
into suitable habitat is necessary to
recover the species (Service 2005, p. 29);
(2) There has been considerable loss
and degradation of habitat throughout
the species’ range since the time of
listing;
(3) We anticipate a further loss of
habitat in the future due to sea-level rise
resulting from climate change; and
(4) The species needs habitat areas
that are arranged spatially in a way that
will maintain connectivity and allow
dispersal within and between units.
One example of the need to propose
additional sites that are outside the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing is where distances between
areas occupied at the time of listing may
make it difficult for tidewater goby to
disperse from one area to the next.
Another example is to help prevent the
extirpation of a metapopulation in
which only one or two occupied sites
remain. These areas that are outside the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing include locations that are
currently occupied and, in a few cases,
ones that were historically occupied. In
some unoccupied areas proposed for
introduction or reintroduction, habitat
would require some restoration, for
example, facilitation of a natural
breaching regime, exotic predator
management, or freshwater inflow
enhancement. For areas outside the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing, those meeting the criteria
below are proposed for designation in
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65005
this revised rule because they are
essential for the conservation of the
species:
(1) Areas of aquatic habitat in coastal
lagoons and estuaries with still-to-slow
moving water that allow for the
conservation of viable metapopulations
(as defined in the Background section
above) under varying environmental
conditions, for example, drought. Areas
that are currently occupied may include
those that presumably support source
populations (e.g., Malibu Lagoon).
(2) Areas that provide connectivity
between source populations or may
provide connectivity in the future.
These areas are likely to act as ‘‘stepping
stones’’ between more isolated
populations, and thereby contribute to
metapopulation persistence and genetic
exchange. For the purposes of this
designation, we identified locations that
provide connectivity as those within 6
mi (10 km) of another occupied
location.
(3) Additional areas that may be more
isolated but may represent unique
adaptations to local features (habitat
variability, hydrology, microclimate).
We did not propose to designate any
unoccupied areas that are highly
degraded or fragmented and not likely
restorable. Such areas provide little or
no long-term conservation value, and
are not essential for the conservation of
the species.
By applying these criteria to the 26
recovery subunits described in the
Recovery Plan, we have identified 45
critical habitat units within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that we
have determined contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the tidewater goby, and
20 critical habitat units outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that we
have determined are essential for the
conservation of the species. Please see
Table 2, below, for the occupancy status
of each of the 65 proposed critical
habitat units.
Mapping
After determining the lagoons and
estuaries necessary for the conservation
of the tidewater goby by applying
criteria outlined above, the boundaries
of each critical habitat unit were
mapped. Unit boundaries were based on
several factors, including species
occurrence data that demonstrated
where tidewater goby have been
observed, the presence of barriers and
stream gradients that limit tidewater
goby movements, and the presence and
extent of the essential physical or
biological features.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
65006
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The geographic extent of each critical
habitat unit was delineated, in part,
using existing digital data. To determine
the lateral boundaries of each critical
habitat unit, we most frequently relied
on the Pacific Institute global climate
change model and National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) maps that were
prepared by the Service in 2006. The
NWI maps are based on the Cowardin
classification system (Cowardin et al.
1979, pp. 1–103). The Service has
adopted this classification system as its
official standard to describe wetland
and deepwater habitats. Specifically, the
following wetland types based on
Cowardin (1979, p. 5) were used to
delineate unit boundaries: Lake,
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater,
Estuarine and Marine Wetland,
Freshwater Pond, Freshwater Emergent
Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Wetland, and Riverine. These wetland
types have, or are likely to have,
components of the PCEs at various times
throughout the year depending on the
season and environmental factors, such
as storm or drought events. In some
cases, we used existing anthropogenic
structures, such as concrete or riprap
channel linings that occur within
wetland habitat types, to delineate the
lateral boundaries of units. To a lesser
extent, we also used aerial imagery from
the National Agricultural Imagery
Program (NAIP) to delineate the lateral
boundaries of a critical habitat unit
where insufficient NWI data were
available.
The precise location of tidewater goby
habitat at a particular locality may vary
on a daily, seasonal, and annual basis;
the habitats occupied by tidewater goby
exist in a dynamic environment that
varies over time. For example, the size
and lateral extent of a coastal lagoon or
estuary varies with daily tide cycles.
Flood events may also change the
precise location where surface water
exists within a given lagoon, estuary,
backwater marsh, or freshwater
tributary. Therefore, it is appropriate to
delineate each critical habitat unit to
encompass the entire area that may be
occupied by tidewater goby on a daily,
seasonal, and annual basis. This was
accomplished by using the boundaries
delineated on the NWI maps to
determine the lateral extent of each unit.
The delineation of the farthest
upstream extent of a particular critical
habitat unit was determined using one
of four features that include: (1) The
average distance that tidewater goby are
known to move upstream from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
ocean (3.8 mi (6.1 km)), (2) the presence
of barriers, such as culverts that may
prevent tidewater goby from moving
upstream, (3) the presence of a vertical
drop, for example more than 4 to 8 in
(10 to 20 cm) high, or steep gradient that
precludes tidewater goby from
swimming upstream or can act as a
barrier that makes it less likely
tidewater goby will be able to swim
upstream (Swift et al. 1997, p. 20)), or
(4) limited surface water in the tributary
up-gradient from the lagoon or estuary.
Each of the above features describes a
barrier to upstream movement;
therefore, the upstream extent of a
particular unit was determined by
whichever barrier was identified first
through the mapping process regardless
of whether or not components of the
PCE were still present above it.
When determining revisions to
critical habitat boundaries for this
proposed rule, we made every effort to
avoid developed areas, such as lands
covered by buildings, pavement, and
other structures, because such lands
lack the physical or biological features
for the tidewater goby. The scale of the
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 revised critical habitat are
excluded by text in this proposed rule.
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 may affect the physical
or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation of
critical habitat lands that we have
determined are within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing and contain those physical or
biological features necessary to support
life-history processes essential to the
conservation of the species, and lands
outside of the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing that we
have determined are essential for the
conservation of tidewater goby.
Units within the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing are
proposed for designation based on one
or more components of the PCE being
present to support tidewater goby lifehistory processes. Some units contain
all of the identified elements of physical
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or biological features and support
multiple life-history processes. Some
units contain only some elements
necessary to support the tidewater goby,
but nevertheless provide the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
Summary of Changes From Previously
Designated Critical Habitat
On January 31, 2008, we designated
44 coastal stream segments in Del Norte,
Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin,
San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura,
and Los Angeles Counties, California,
totaling approximately 10,003 ac (4,053
ha) (73 FR 5920). We are proposing to
revise this designation to a total of
approximately 12,157 ac (4,920 ha)
consisting of 65 critical habitat units.
This is an increase of approximately
2,154 ac (867 ha) from the currently
designated critical habitat. As a result of
the additional units, some of the unit
names have changed. In this section we
present the differences between what
was designated in 2008 and what is
included in this proposed designation.
(1) Our analysis of new and updated
information received since the 2008
critical habitat designation (73 FR 5920)
resulted in the identification of areas
meeting the definition of critical habitat
that differ from the areas identified in
2008. We added and revised areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Based on our current knowledge of the
status and distribution of the species
and life history requirements, we
believe that including in this proposed
rule some areas that were not previously
identified as meeting the definition of
critical habitat better supports the
overall survival and conservation
objectives for the species.
(2) We added information related to
the genetics of the species rangewide
and new distribution data that have
become available to us following our
2008 designation (see Background
section above).
As a result of the above, we are
proposing to designate 12,157 ac (4,920
ha) as critical habitat in this revised rule
(Table 1). The lands proposed for
designation as critical habitat include
areas in Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo,
Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Diego Counties,
California.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65007
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—A COMPARISON OF THE AREAS (IN ACRES AND HECTARES) IDENTIFIED AS MEETING THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TIDEWATER GOBY IN THE 2008 FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND THIS 2011 PROPOSED
REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
Unit
Name
2008
Acres
2011
Hectares
Acres
Hectares
Del Norte County
DN–1 ...................................
DN–2 ...................................
Tillas Slough (Smith River) ............................................
Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa ...................................................
0
2,682
0
1,085
21
2,683
8
1,086
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
2,682
1,085
2,704
1,094
Humboldt County
HUM–1
HUM–2
HUM–3
HUM–4
................................
................................
................................
................................
Stone Lagoon .................................................................
Big Lagoon .....................................................................
Humboldt Bay .................................................................
Eel River .........................................................................
586
1,505
1,478
268
237
609
598
109
653
1,529
839
39
264
619
339
15
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
3,837
1,553
3,060
1,237
Mendocino County
MEN–1
MEN–2
MEN–3
MEN–4
................................
................................
................................
................................
Ten Mile River ................................................................
Virgin Creek ....................................................................
Pudding Creek ................................................................
Davis Lake and Manchester State Park Ponds .............
218
11
23
24
88
4
9
10
73
4
17
29
30
2
7
12
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
276
112
123
51
Sonoma County
SON–1 ................................
Salmon Creek .................................................................
100
41
108
44
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
100
41
108
44
Marin County
MAR–1
MAR–2
MAR–3
MAR–4
MAR–5
MAR–6
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
Estero Americano ...........................................................
Estero de San Antonio ...................................................
Walker Creek ..................................................................
Lagunitas (Papermill) Creek ...........................................
Bolinas Lagoon ...............................................................
Rodeo Lagoon ................................................................
295
178
0
849
0
40
120
72
0
344
0
16
465
285
118
998
1,114
40
188
115
48
405
451
16
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
1,362
551
3,020
1,223
San Mateo County
SM–1
SM–2
SM–3
SM–4
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
San Gregorio Creek .......................................................
Pomponio Creek .............................................................
Pescadero-Butano Creek ...............................................
Bean Hollow Creek (Arroyo de Los Frijoles) .................
39
0
218
10
16
0
88
4
45
7
245
10
18
3
99
4
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
267
108
307
124
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Santa Cruz County
SC–1
SC–2
SC–3
SC–4
SC–5
SC–6
SC–7
SC–8
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Waddell Creek ................................................................
Scott Creek .....................................................................
Laguna Creek .................................................................
Baldwin Creek ................................................................
Moore Creek ...................................................................
Corcoran Lagoon ............................................................
Aptos Creek ....................................................................
Pajaro River ....................................................................
0
0
26
17
0
32
3
176
0
0
11
7
0
12
1
71
75
74
26
27
15
28
9
215
30
30
11
11
6
11
4
87
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
254
103
469
190
155
0
63
0
167
466
68
189
Monterey County
MN–1 ..................................
MN–2 ..................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Bennett Slough ...............................................................
Salinas River ..................................................................
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65008
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—A COMPARISON OF THE AREAS (IN ACRES AND HECTARES) IDENTIFIED AS MEETING THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TIDEWATER GOBY IN THE 2008 FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND THIS 2011 PROPOSED
REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION—Continued
Unit
Name
2008
Acres
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
2011
Hectares
Acres
Hectares
155
63
633
257
San Luis Obispo County
SLO–1 .................................
SLO–2 .................................
SLO–3 .................................
SLO–4 .................................
SLO–5 .................................
SLO–6 .................................
SLO–7 .................................
SLO–8 .................................
SLO–9 .................................
SLO–10 ...............................
SLO–11 ...............................
SLO–12 ...............................
Arroyo de la Cruz ...........................................................
Arroyo del Corral ............................................................
Oak Knoll Creek (Arroyo Laguna) ..................................
Little Pico Creek .............................................................
San Simeon Creek .........................................................
Villa Creek ......................................................................
San Geronimo Creek .....................................................
Toro Creek .....................................................................
Los Osos Creek .............................................................
San Luis Obispo Creek ..................................................
Pismo Creek ...................................................................
Oso Flaco Lake ..............................................................
0
5
3
2
16
5
1
0
0
0
18
0
0
2
1
1
7
2
1
0
0
0
8
0
33
5
5
9
17
15
1
9
73
31
20
171
13
3
3
4
7
7
1
4
30
12
9
69
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
50
20
389
162
Santa Barbara County
SB–1 ...................................
SB–2 ...................................
SB–3 ...................................
SB–4 ...................................
SB–5 ...................................
SB–6 ...................................
SB–7 ...................................
SB–8 ...................................
SB–9 ...................................
SB–10 .................................
SB–11 .................................
SB–12 .................................
Santa Maria River ..........................................................
˜
Canada de las Agujas ....................................................
˜
Canada de Santa Anita ..................................................
˜
Canada de Alegria .........................................................
˜
Canada del Agua Caliente .............................................
Gaviota Creek ................................................................
Arroyo Hondo .................................................................
Winchester/Bell Canyon .................................................
Goleta Slough .................................................................
Arroyo Burro ...................................................................
Mission Creek-Laguna Channel .....................................
Arroyo Paredon ..............................................................
468
1
3
1
1
9
0
6
0
2
14
0
189
1
1
1
1
4
0
3
0
1
6
0
474
1
3
2
1
11
1
6
190
3
7
4
192
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
76
1
3
3
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
505
204
703
288
Ventura County
VEN–1
VEN–2
VEN–3
VEN–4
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
Ventura River .................................................................
Santa Clara River ...........................................................
J Street Drain-Ormond Lagoon ......................................
Big Sycamore Canyon ...................................................
51
350
45
0
20
142
18
0
50
322
121
1
21
130
49
1
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
446
180
495
201
Los Angeles County
LA–1
LA–2
LA–3
LA–4
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
Arroyo Sequit ..................................................................
Zuma Canyon .................................................................
Malibu Lagoon ................................................................
Topanga Creek ...............................................................
0
0
64
5
0
0
27
2
1
5
64
6
1
2
27
2
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
69
29
76
32
Orange County
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
OR–1 ...................................
Aliso Creek .....................................................................
0
0
14
5
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
0
0
14
5
San Diego
SAN–1 .................................
San Luis Rey River ........................................................
0
0
56
23
Totals ...........................
.........................................................................................
0
0
56
23
Grand Totals .........
.........................................................................................
10,003
4,053
12,157
4,920
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to
rounding.
Proposed Revised Critical Habitat
Designation
We are proposing 65 units as critical
habitat for the tidewater goby. The
critical habitat areas we describe below
65009
constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the tidewater goby. The 65
areas we propose as revised critical
habitat are listed in Table 2, which
shows the occupancy status of the units.
TABLE 2—OCCUPANCY OF TIDEWATER GOBY BY PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit
Name
Within the geographical area
occupied at time of listing?
DN–1 ............................
DN–2 ............................
HUM–1 .........................
HUM–2 .........................
HUM–3 .........................
HUM–4 .........................
MEN–1 ..........................
MEN–2 ..........................
MEN–3 ..........................
MEN–4 ..........................
SON–1 ..........................
MAR–1 ..........................
MAR–2 ..........................
MAR–3 ..........................
MAR–4 ..........................
MAR–5 ..........................
MAR–6 ..........................
SM–1 ............................
SM–2 ............................
SM–3 ............................
SM–4 ............................
SC–1 .............................
SC–2 .............................
SC–3 .............................
SC–4 .............................
SC–5 .............................
SC–6 .............................
SC–7 .............................
SC–8 .............................
MN–1 ............................
MN–2 ............................
SLO–1 ..........................
SLO–2 ..........................
SLO–3 ..........................
SLO–4 ..........................
SLO–5 ..........................
SLO–6 ..........................
SLO–7 ..........................
SLO–8 ..........................
SLO–9 ..........................
SLO–10 ........................
SLO–11 ........................
SLO–12 ........................
SB–1 .............................
SB–2 .............................
SB–3 .............................
SB–4 .............................
SB–5 .............................
SB–6 .............................
SB–7 .............................
SB–8 .............................
SB–9 .............................
SB–10 ...........................
SB–11 ...........................
SB–12 ...........................
VEN–1 ..........................
VEN–2 ..........................
VEN–3 ..........................
VEN–4 ..........................
LA–1 .............................
LA–2 .............................
LA–3 .............................
LA–4 .............................
OR–1 ............................
Tillas Slough (Smith River) ..........................................
Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa ................................................
Stone Lagoon ..............................................................
Big Lagoon ..................................................................
Humboldt Bay ..............................................................
Eel River ......................................................................
Ten Mile River .............................................................
Virgin Creek .................................................................
Pudding Creek .............................................................
Davis Lake and Manchester State Park Ponds ..........
Salmon Creek ..............................................................
Estero Americano ........................................................
Estero de San Antonio ................................................
Walker Creek ...............................................................
Lagunitas (Papermill) Creek ........................................
Bolinas Lagoon ............................................................
Rodeo Lagoon .............................................................
San Gregorio Creek ....................................................
Pomponio Creek ..........................................................
Pescadero-Butano Creek ............................................
Bean Hollow Creek (Arroyo de Los Frijoles) ..............
Waddell Creek .............................................................
Scott Creek ..................................................................
Laguna Creek ..............................................................
Baldwin Creek .............................................................
Moore Creek ................................................................
Corcoran Lagoon .........................................................
Aptos Creek .................................................................
Pajaro River .................................................................
Bennett Slough ............................................................
Salinas River ...............................................................
Arroyo de la Cruz ........................................................
Arroyo del Corral .........................................................
Oak Knoll Creek (Arroyo Laguna) ...............................
Little Pico Creek ..........................................................
San Simeon Creek ......................................................
Villa Creek ...................................................................
San Geronimo Creek ...................................................
Toro Creek ...................................................................
Los Osos Creek ...........................................................
San Luis Obispo Creek ...............................................
Pismo Creek ................................................................
Oso Flaco Lake ...........................................................
Santa Maria River ........................................................
˜
Canada de las Agujas .................................................
˜
Canada de Santa Anita ...............................................
˜
Canada de Alegria .......................................................
˜
Canada del Agua Caliente ..........................................
Gaviota Creek ..............................................................
Arroyo Hondo ..............................................................
Winchester/Bell Canyon ..............................................
Goleta Slough ..............................................................
Arroyo Burro ................................................................
Mission Creek-Laguna Channel ..................................
Arroyo Paredon ...........................................................
Ventura River ...............................................................
Santa Clara River ........................................................
J Street Drain-Ormond Lagoon ...................................
Big Sycamore Canyon .................................................
Arroyo Sequit ...............................................................
Zuma Canyon ..............................................................
Malibu Lagoon .............................................................
Topanga Creek ............................................................
Aliso Creek ..................................................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes. ........................................
Yes. ........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
Yes .........................................
No ..........................................
No ..........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Currently occupied?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
65010
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—OCCUPANCY OF TIDEWATER GOBY BY PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS—Continued
Unit
Name
Within the geographical area
occupied at time of listing?
SAN–1 ..........................
San Luis Rey River .....................................................
No ..........................................
Table 3 below provides the
approximate area, by unit and
landownership, proposed for revised
Currently occupied?
Yes.
designation of critical habitat for the
tidewater goby.
TABLE 3—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE TIDEWATER GOBY (IN ACRES AND HECTARES) AND KNOWN
THREATS THAT MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS OR PROTECTION OF THE ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES FOR UNITS WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OCCUPIED BY THE SPECIES AT THE
TIME OF LISTING
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit name
Federal
DN–1: Tillas Slough (Smith River) ...........
DN–2: Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa .................
HUM–1: Stone Lagoon ............................
HUM–2: Big Lagoon ................................
HUM–3: Humboldt Bay ............................
HUM–4: Eel River ....................................
MEN–1: Ten Mile River ...........................
MEN–2: Virgin Creek ...............................
MEN–3: Pudding Creek ...........................
MEN–4: Davis Lake and Manchester
State Park Ponds .................................
SON–1: Salmon Creek ............................
MAR–1: Estero Americano ......................
MAR–2: Estero De San Antonio ..............
MAR–3: Walker Creek .............................
MAR–4: Lagunitas (Papermill) Creek ......
MAR–5: Bolinas Lagoon ..........................
MAR–6: Rodeo Lagoon ...........................
SM–1: San Gregorio Creek .....................
SM–2: Pomponio Creek ...........................
SM–3: Pescadero-Butano Creek .............
SM–4: Bean Hollow Creek (Arroyo de
Los Frijoles) ..........................................
SC–1: Waddell Creek ..............................
SC–2: Scott Creek ...................................
SC–3: Laguna Creek ...............................
SC–4: Baldwin Creek ...............................
SC–5: Moore Creek .................................
SC–6: Corcoran Lagoon ..........................
SC–7: Aptos Creek ..................................
SC–8: Pajaro River ..................................
MN–1: Bennett Slough .............................
MN–2: Salinas River ................................
SLO–1: Arroyo de la Cruz .......................
SLO–2: Arroyo del Corral ........................
SLO–3: Oak Knoll Creek (Arroyo Laguna) ....................................................
SLO–4: Little Pico Creek .........................
SLO–5: San Simeon Creek .....................
SLO–6: Villa Creek ..................................
SLO–7: San Geronimo Creek ..................
SLO–8: Toro Creek ..................................
SLO–9: Los Osos Creek ..........................
SLO–10: San Luis Obispo Creek ............
SLO–11: Pismo Creek .............................
SLO–12: Oso Flaco Lake ........................
SB–1: Santa Maria River .........................
˜
SB–2: Canada de las Agujas ..................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
State
Local
Private
Total 1
Known threats
that may
require special
management
considerations
or protection
of the
essential
features 2
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
652(264)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
2,335(945)
653(264)
1,527(618)
61(24)
5(2)
17(7)
2(1)
10(4)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
45(18)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
21(8)
348(141)
0(0)
2(1)
81(33)
34(13)
56(23)
2(1)
6(2)
21(8)
2,683(1,086)
653(264)
1,529(619)
839(339)
39(15)
73(30)
4(2)
17(7)
2,3,5
1,4
4
4
1,3,4,5
N/A
4
1,4
1,4
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
318(129)
29(12)
40(16)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
29(12)
47(19)
0(0)
0(0)
9(4)
459(186)
0(0)
0(0)
33(13)
1(1)
241(97)
0(0)
14(6)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1,048(424)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
47(19)
465(188)
285(115)
109(44)
221(90)
37(15)
0(0)
12(5)
6(2)
4(2)
29(12)
108(44)
465(188)
285(115)
118(48)
998(405)
1,114(451)
40(16)
45(18)
7(3)
245(99)
4
1,2,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1,3
N/A
1,3,4
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
15(6)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
195(79)
0(0)
0(0)
3(1)
39(16)
66(27)
26(11)
27(11)
0(0)
1(1)
9(4)
158(64)
108(44)
33(13)
25(10)
4(2)
0(0)
0(0)
6(2)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
6(2)
0(0)
11(4)
5(2)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
7(3)
36(14)
2(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
21(8)
0(0)
46(19)
54(22)
237(96)
8(3)
1(1)
10(4)
75(30)
74(30)
26(11)
27(11)
15(6)
28(11)
9(4)
215(87)
167(68)
466(189)
34(13)
5(3)
1,2
3,4
N/A
2,4
2,4
2,4
1,4
1,3,4
1,3,4
1,2,3,4
N/A
N/A
1,5
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
4(2)
2(1)
17(7)
14(6)
1(1)
1(1)
62(25)
0(0)
14(6)
165(67)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
3(1)
1(1)
0(0)
42(17)
0(0)
1(1)
7(3)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
8(3)
10(4)
28(11)
5(2)
6(2)
432(174)
1(1)
5(3)
9(4)
17(7)
15(7)
1(1)
9(4)
73(30)
31(12)
20(9)
171(69)
474(192)
1(1)
1,3
5
2,4,5
1,2,4,5
5
2,3,4
N/A
1,2,3,4
1,3,4
N/A
1,2,4,5
1,4
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
65011
TABLE 3—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE TIDEWATER GOBY (IN ACRES AND HECTARES) AND KNOWN
THREATS THAT MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS OR PROTECTION OF THE ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL OR BIOLOGICAL FEATURES FOR UNITS WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OCCUPIED BY THE SPECIES AT THE
TIME OF LISTING—Continued
Unit name
Federal
State
Local
Private
Total 1
Known threats
that may
require special
management
considerations
or protection
of the
essential
features 2
˜
SB–3: Canada de Santa Anita ................
˜
SB–4: Canada de Alegria ........................
˜
SB–5: Canada del Agua Caliente ............
SB–6: Gaviota Creek ...............................
SB–7: Arroyo Hondo ................................
SB–8: Winchester/Bell Canyon ................
SB–9: Goleta Slough ...............................
SB–10: Arroyo Burro ................................
SB–11: Mission Creek-Laguna Channel
SB–12: Arroyo Paredon ...........................
VEN–1: Ventura River .............................
VEN–2: Santa Clara River .......................
VEN–3: J Street Drain-Ormond Lagoon ..
VEN–4: Big Sycamore Canyon ...............
LA–1: Arroyo Sequit .................................
LA–2: Zuma Canyon ................................
LA–3: Malibu Lagoon ...............................
LA–4: Topanga Creek ..............................
OR–1: Aliso Creek ...................................
SAN–1: San Luis Rey River ....................
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
10(4)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3(1)
1(1)
25(10)
199(80)
5(2)
1(1)
1(1)
0(0)
41(17)
4(1)
0(0)
3(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
164(66)
3(1)
4(2)
1(1)
16(7)
14(6)
49(20)
0(0)
0(0)
5(2)
1(1)
0(0)
8(3)
49(20)
3(1)
2(1)
1(1)
1(1)
1(1)
5(2)
26(10)
0(0)
0(0)
2(1)
9(4)
110(44)
67(27)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
22(9)
2(1)
6(2)
4(2)
3(1)
2(1)
1(1)
11(5)
1(1)
6(3)
190(76)
3(1)
7(3)
4(3)
50(20)
323(130)
121(49)
1(1)
1(1)
5(2)
64(27)
6(2)
14(5)
56(23)
4
1,2,4,5
1,4
1,3,4,5
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
1,3,4
N/A
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,3,4
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,2,3,4
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total1 ................................................
1,249(506)
6,501(2,636)
1,501(611)
2,906(1,177)
12,157(4,920)
........................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
1Area estimates in ac (ha) reflect the entire area within the proposed revised critical habitat unit boundaries. Area estimates are rounded to the
nearest whole integer that is equal to or greater than 1.
2 Codes of known threats that may require special management considerations or protection of the essential physical or biological features are
as follows:
1. Coastal development projects that result in the loss or alteration of coastal wetland habitat affecting the PCE 1a, 1b, or 1c.
2. Water diversions, alterations of water flows, and groundwater overdrafting upstream of coastal lagoons and estuaries that negatively impact
the species’ breeding and foraging activities and the PCE 1a, or 1b.
3. Channelization of habitats where the species occurs affecting the PCE 1a, 1b, or 1c.
4. Non-point and point source pollution or discharge of agricultural and sewage effluents that are likely to impact the species’ health or breeding and foraging activities and the PCE.
5. Cattle grazing that results in increased sedimentation of coastal lagoons and riparian habitats, removes vegetative cover, increases ambient
water temperatures, and eliminates plunge pools and undercut banks utilized by tidewater goby affecting the PCE. N/A—Not applicable because
location is outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing.
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for
tidewater goby, below. The first two or
three letters in the code for each
proposed revised critical habitat unit
description reflect the county where the
unit occurs: DN = Del Norte, HUM =
Humboldt, MEN = Mendocino, SON =
Sonoma, MAR = Marin, SM = San
Mateo, SC = Santa Cruz, MN =
Monterey, SLO = San Luis Obispo, SB
= Santa Barbara, VEN = Ventura, LA =
Los Angeles, OR = Orange, and SAN =
San Diego. In Tables 1–3 above, these
units are listed in sequential order from
north to south. For the purposes of this
document, the term ‘‘local ownership’’
refers to land owned or managed by a
city, county, or municipal government
entity.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
DN–1: Tillas Slough (21 ac (8 ha))
This unit is located in Del Norte
County, approximately 3.0 mi (4.8 km)
west of the community of Smith River.
The unit encompasses approximately 21
ac (8.0 ha), and consists entirely of
private lands. DN–1 is located 8.0 mi
(12.8 km) north of Lake Earl/Lake
Tolowa (DN–2), which is also the next
nearest extant population. DN–1 was
occupied at the time of listing. This unit
has the northernmost tidewater goby
population rangewide. DN–1 will
support the recovery of the tidewater
goby population along this portion of
the coast. This unit is important for
maintaining the tidewater goby
metapopulation in the region, and may
play an important role in dispersal
northwards and extending the range of
the tidewater goby. This could prove
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
critical if certain factors, such as climate
change, adversely impact the tidewater
goby habitat locally or to the south. A
culvert that serves as a grade control
structure, which mutes the tide cycle,
provides relatively stable water levels in
this unit (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65012
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
DN–2: Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa (2,683 ac
(1,086 ha))
This unit is located in Del Norte
County, approximately 3 mi (4.8 km)
north of the town of Crescent City. The
unit encompasses approximately 2,683
ac (1,086 ha), and consists of 2,335 ac
(945 ha) of State lands and 348 ac (140
ha) of private lands. This unit includes
two contiguous lagoons (Lake Tolowa
and Lake Earl), referred to collectively
as Lake Earl. DN–2 is located 8.0 mi
(12.8 km) south of (DN–1), which is also
the nearest extant population. DN–2 was
occupied at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region.
DN–2 is representative of extensive
coastal lagoons and bays north of Cape
Mendocino formed over uplifting
Holocene sediments on broad flat
coastal benches. These coastal benches
include an intricate network of estuaries
and other channels that are features
essential to the conservation of the
tidewater goby because they provide
refugia during seasonal floods and
breeding habitat through the full range
of drought cycles. The water level and
salinity within the lagoon varies
seasonally and annually in response to:
(a) Periods of high precipitation or
drought within its watershed; (b) the
timing, duration, and frequency of
breaching events; (c) the water level in
the lagoon at the time of breaching; and
(d) ocean tidal cycles during and
immediately following a breach. As a
result of natural and human-induced
environmental changes, maximum
water depth within Lake Earl/Lake
Tolowa varies during an annual cycle
from less than 5 ft (1.5 m) deep to more
than 10 ft (3 m) deep. The distribution
of tidewater goby and the PCE within
Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa changes in
response to these dynamic short-term
habitat conditions; over a multi-year
cycle, tidewater goby may persist and
breed anywhere within the lagoon.
On an intermittent basis, DN–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the
majority of the late spring, summer, and
fall that closes or partially closes the
lagoon or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions during those
times (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
HUM–1: Stone Lagoon (653 ac (264 ha))
This unit is located in Humboldt
County, approximately 11 mi (18 km)
north of the City of Trinidad. The unit
encompasses approximately 653 ac (264
ha), and consists entirely of State lands.
HUM–1 is located 3.1 mi (5.0 km) north
of Big Lagoon (HUM–2), which is also
the nearest extant population. HUM–1
was occupied at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. HUM–1 will also support the
recovery of tidewater goby populations
along this portion of the coast.
Of special concern is the threat to
Stone Lagoon from the potential for
accidental introduction of New Zealand
mud snails (NZMS; Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) from nearby Big Lagoon
(HUM–2) and Freshwater Lagoon (not
proposed as critical habitat), which are
currently infested with NZMS. NZMS
have spread throughout the western
United States since becoming
established in Idaho and Montana
approximately 25 years ago. Once in a
new habitat, NZMS typically have
explosive population growth. Their
large population numbers can
drastically alter natural ecosystems with
the NZMS competing with native
species. Recreational fishing and
boating occurs at Stone, Big, and
Freshwater Lagoons. Introduction of
NZMS to Stone Lagoon is likely to occur
through foot traffic and boat launching
from the two infested lagoons.
Additional threats include the
accidental introduction of other exotic
aquatic species from outside the local
area, including quagga mussels
(Dreissena rostriformis) and zebra
mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), which
may also drastically alter the natural
ecosystem of Stone Lagoon.
On an intermittent basis, HUM–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the
majority of the late spring, summer, and
fall that closes or partially closes the
lagoon or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species in this unit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats described
in Table 3. Please see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
HUM–2: Big Lagoon (1,529 ac (619 ha))
This unit is located in Humboldt
County, approximately 7 mi (11 km)
north of the City of Trinidad. The unit
encompasses approximately 1,529 ac
(619 ha), and consists of 1,527 ac (618
ha) of State lands and 2 ac (1 ha) of
private lands. HUM–2 is located 3.1 mi
(5.0 km) south of Stone Lagoon (HUM–
1), which is also the nearest extant
population. HUM–2 was occupied at the
time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. HUM–2
will also support the recovery of
tidewater goby populations along this
portion of the coast.
Mark and recapture surveys for
tidewater goby were conducted by
Humboldt State University in a large
cove near the State Park boat ramp in
Big Lagoon during the fall of 2008, 2009,
and 2010, to estimate the minimum
tidewater goby population for each year
(Kinziger, pers. comm. 2010). Results
indicate that, in 2008, the tidewater
goby population was approximately
21,000 individuals. In 2009, the
population was approximately 1.7 to 3.4
million individuals in the cove. In 2010,
the population was approximately
30,000 individuals in the same cove.
Based on the results of this research,
which estimated that the population
fluctuated between 21,000 and 1.7–3.4
million individuals, and the relatively
large size of the lagoon, Big Lagoon
likely has the largest and most robust
tidewater goby population in northern
California. The results of the study also
reflect how variable tidewater goby
population numbers can be from year to
year in a given location.
On an intermittent basis, HUM–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the
majority of the late spring, summer, and
fall that closes or partially closes the
lagoon or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions during those
times (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
HUM–3: Humboldt Bay (839 ac (339
ha))
This unit is located in Humboldt
County, within an approximate 8-mi
(13-km) radius to the north, south, and
east of the City of Eureka. The unit
encompasses approximately 839 ac (339
ha), and consists of 652 ac (264 ha) of
Federal lands, 61 ac (24 ha) of State
lands, 45 ac (18 ha) of local lands, and
81 ac (33 ha) of private lands. HUM–3
is located 18.4 mi (29.7 km) north of the
Eel River (HUM–4), which is also the
nearest extant population. HUM–3 was
occupied at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. HUM–3 will also support the
recovery of tidewater goby populations
along this portion of the coast. This
population may provide essential
demographic and genetic support to
HUM–4, especially after periods of
extreme floods, for example, after the
1964 ‘‘Christmas Flood’’, when the
population of tidewater goby at the Eel
River estuary may have been extirpated.
Humboldt Bay and its adjacent
marshes and estuaries are a complex
mixture of natural and human-made
aquatic features that have experienced
many decades of human-induced
changes. These changes include the
construction of levees, tidegates,
culverts, and other water control
structures, and extensive dredging of
sandbars. Surrounding the bay itself is
a generally broad bench historically
dominated by mudflats, tidal marshes,
estuarine channels, and brackish
marshes. Substantial portions of these
habitats were converted to agricultural,
urban, and industrial uses in recent
history, resulting in the loss of as much
as 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) of potentially
suitable tidewater goby habitat. This
critical habitat unit consists of a
complex of interconnected estuary
channels and human-made structures
along the eastern edge of Humboldt Bay,
which collectively mimic, on a much
reduced scale, habitats largely lost
through past management practices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Many of these channels and marshes are
themselves the result of changes to
historical habitats, and depend on
specific, yet generally undocumented,
management activities, such as dredging
or sandbar breaches, for their continued
function.
To address the dynamic variability of
these habitats resulting from seasonal
and inter-annual precipitation
differences, we have included both the
actual known locations where tidewater
goby have been documented, as well as
portions of those channels contiguous
to, upchannel or downchannel,
occupied habitat. We have not proposed
Humboldt Bay proper in critical habitat,
nor have we proposed major channels
substantially subject to daily tidal
fluctuations, as tidewater goby are not
known to breed there. Similarly, we
have not proposed channels that are
discontiguous with occupied habitat,
nor have we included intervening marsh
or agricultural lands that may
occasionally be flooded during severe
winter storm events.
Based on several recent surveys, we
have found that the precise locations of
tidewater goby use within the channel
complex during any particular year may
change in response to variations in
precipitation and channel hydrology.
We anticipate that the persistence of the
tidewater goby source population
within this unit may require protection
of lagoons and estuaries that are not
occupied every year, but collectively
support a source population through an
interconnected complex of channels and
shallow water habitats. That is, any of
the several known occupied locations
within a channel complex may be used
by tidewater goby during various years
in response to dynamic habitat
conditions during seasonal, annual, and
longer term climatic cycles, such as
drought. Recently, significant
restoration efforts directed primarily at
salmonid recovery have occurred, or are
anticipated to occur, within areas
proposed as critical habitat. The effects
of these salmonid restoration efforts to
tidewater goby are unknown, and will
likely vary with their design features
and location.
PCE 1c (a sandbar(s) across the mouth
of a lagoon or estuary) is not likely to
occur within this unit because a
navigable, dredged channel with a
permanent open connection to the
ocean is maintained on a regular basis.
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65013
the species in this unit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats described
in Table 3. Please see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
HUM–4: Eel River (39 ac (15 ha))
This unit is located in Humboldt
County, approximately 4.0 mi (6.5 ha)
northwest of the City of Ferndale. The
unit consists of two subunits, totaling 5
ac (2 ha) of State lands and 34 ac (13
ha) of private lands. Both subunits are
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing but
are now occupied. The Eel River estuary
is similar to Humboldt Bay (HUM–3) in
that tidewater goby populations have
been found in isolated populations in
severely and artificially fragmented
habitats, which are often found behind
tidegates, culverts, and other man-made
structures. In Humboldt Bay (HUM–3),
McCraney et al. (2010, p. 3315) found
that artificial fragmentation reduced
dispersal and gene flow in these
populations. The same may be true for
the Eel River estuary populations with
isolated populations that are genetically
distinct from each other. Therefore,
until additional information is available
regarding population genetics,
distribution, and other parameters, we
recommend that these two areas, the Eel
River North Area (Subunit–4a) and the
Eel River South Area (Subunit–4b), be
considered distinct from each other.
Artificially fragmented habitats in the
Eel River estuary may have genetically
isolated or weakened populations of
tidewater goby, as has been identified in
Humboldt Bay (HUM–3) (McCraney et
al. 2010, p. 3315). Current and proposed
estuarine restoration projects in the Eel
River estuary may improve dispersal of
tidewater goby, increase genetic
diversity, and aid in recovery of the
species in these locations as well.
Subunit–4a (Eel River North Area)
Subunit–4a encompasses
approximately 16 ac (6 ha), and consists
of 5 ac (2 ha) of State lands and 11 ac
(4 ha) of private lands. Subunit–4a is
located 18.4 mi (29.7 km) south of
Humboldt Bay (HUM–3), which is also
the nearest extant population. This
subunit is essential for the conservation
of the species because it possesses
ecological characteristics that are
important in maintaining the species’
ability to adapt to changing
environments, including the ability to
disperse into higher channels and marsh
habitat during severe flood events. The
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
65014
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Eel River delta includes a large,
complex estuary with a network of
diked and natural slough channels with
suitable tidewater goby habitat. The Eel
River delta contains many small
unsurveyed slough channels and other
backwater areas that provide suitable
habitat for tidewater goby, but it also
contains larger channels open to direct
tidal influence that do not provide
suitable habitat and are not included in
this subunit. This subunit consists of
backwater channels and immediately
adjacent marsh contiguous to the known
occupied habitat.
This unit is subject to infrequent, yet
severe, flooding from the nearby Eel
River proper. The major flood event of
1964 (‘‘Christmas Flood’’), and other
major floods during the past century,
may have severely altered habitat in
most channels, including those
currently occupied. Tidewater goby may
have survived the flood and resulting
loss of habitat in the refugia provided in
upper channels and swales.
Alternatively, the species may have
been extirpated at the Eel River delta
during those severe events, and become
reestablished through recolonization by
individuals from Humboldt Bay
populations (HUM–3). Of particular
importance, the Eel River location is at
the north end of one of the largest
natural geographic gaps in the tidewater
goby’s geographic range. The gap
extends to the Ten Mile River
(Mendocino County) to the south,
representing a coastline distance in
excess of 135 mi (217 km).
Although no tidewater goby surveys
are known to have occurred in the Eel
River estuary prior to listing, we
considered this area to be unoccupied
by the species until the Service
discovered a new population of
tidewater goby in the Eel River estuary
during surveys in 2004 (Goldsmith
2006b, p. 1). Although Subunit–4a was
not considered occupied at the time of
listing, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, Subunit–4a possesses
a sandbar across the mouth of the
lagoon or estuary during the majority of
the late spring, summer, and fall that
closes or partially closes the lagoon or
estuary, and thereby provides relatively
stable conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and
1b occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation.
Subunit–4b (Eel River South Area)
Subunit–4b encompasses
approximately 23 ac (9 ha), and consists
entirely of private lands. Subunit-4b is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
located 18.4 mi (29.7 km) south of
Humboldt Bay (HUM–3), which is also
the nearest extant population. This
subunit is essential for the conservation
of the species because it possesses
ecological characteristics that are
important in maintaining the species’
ability to adapt to changing
environments, including the ability to
disperse into higher channels and marsh
habitat during severe flood events. The
Southern Eel River delta includes a
large complex estuary with a network of
diked and natural slough channels, and
other backwater areas that provide
suitable habitat for tidewater goby. It
also contains larger channels open to
direct tidal influence that do not
provide suitable habitat and are not
included in this unit. This unit consists
of backwater channels and immediately
adjacent marsh contiguous to the known
occupied habitat.
This unit is subject to infrequent, yet
severe, flooding from the nearby Eel
River proper. The major flood event of
1964 (‘‘Christmas Flood’’), and other
major floods during the past century,
may have severely altered habitat in
most channels, including those
currently occupied. Tidewater goby may
have survived the flood and resulting
loss of habitat in the refugia provided in
upper channels and swales.
Alternatively, the species may have
been extirpated at the Eel River delta
during those severe events, and become
reestablished through recolonization by
individuals from Humboldt Bay
populations (HUM–3). Of particular
importance, the Eel River location is at
the north end of one of the largest
natural geographic gaps in the tidewater
goby’s geographic range. The gap
extends to the Ten Mile River
(Mendocino County) to the south,
representing a coastline distance in
excess of 135 mi (217 km).
Although no tidewater goby surveys
are known to have occurred in the Eel
River estuary prior to listing, we
considered this area to be unoccupied
by the species until the Service
discovered a new population of
tidewater goby in the Eel River estuary
during surveys in 2004 (Goldsmith
2006b, p. 1). Although Subunit-4b was
not considered occupied at the time of
listing, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, Subunit-4b possesses
a sandbar across the mouth of the
lagoon or estuary during the majority of
the late spring, summer, and fall that
closes or partially closes the lagoon or
estuary, and thereby provides relatively
stable conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and
1b occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation.
MEN–1: Ten Mile River (73 ac (30 ha))
This unit is located in Mendocino
County, approximately 9.0 mi (14.5 km)
north of the Town of Fort Bragg. The
unit encompasses approximately 73 ac
(30 ha), and consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of
State lands and 56 ac (23 ha) of private
lands. MEN–1 is located 5.6 mi (8.9 km)
north of the Virgin Creek (MEN–2),
which is also the nearest extant
population. MEN–1 was occupied by
tidewater goby at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. Furthermore, this unit is the
largest block of habitat along the coast
of Mendocino County, and is the first
location on the southern end of one of
the longest stretches of unsuitable
habitat in the species’ range (previously
described under HUM–4). Thus, this
unit is important to connect populations
within Mendocino County. South of Ten
Mile River, only three other small
isolated locations (MEN–2, 3, 4)
occupied by tidewater goby are known
to exist across the more than 100 miles
of rugged coastline between MEN–1 and
SON–1 in south coastal Sonoma County.
On an intermittent basis, MEN–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
MEN–2: Virgin Creek (4 ac (2 ha))
This unit is located in Mendocino
County, approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km)
north of the Town of Fort Bragg. The
unit encompasses approximately 4 ac (2
ha), and consists of 2 ac (1 ha) of State
lands and 2 ac (1 ha) of private lands.
MEN–2 is located 1.2 mi (2.0 km) north
of Pudding Creek (MEN–3), which is
also the nearest extant population.
MEN–2 was occupied by tidewater goby
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
at the time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. On an
intermittent basis, MEN–2 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
MEN–3: Pudding Creek (17 ac (7 ha))
This unit is located in Mendocino
County, approximately 2.5 mi (4.0 km)
north of the town of Fort Bragg. The unit
encompasses approximately 17 ac (7
ha), and consists of 10 ac (4 ha) of State
lands, 1 ac (1 ha) of local lands, and 6
ac (2 ha) of private lands. MEN–3 is
located 1.2 mi (2.0 km) south of Virgin
Creek (MEN–2), which is also the
nearest extant population. MEN–3 was
occupied by the tidewater goby at the
time of listing. This unit allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region. On an
intermittent basis, MEN–3 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
MEN–4: Davis Lake and Manchester
State Park Ponds (29 ac (12 ha))
This unit is located in Mendocino
County, approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 ha)
west of the community of Manchester.
The unit encompasses approximately 29
ac (12 ha), and consists entirely of State
lands. MEN–4 is located 32.4 mi (52.2
km) south of Pudding Creek (MEN–3),
which is also the nearest extant
population. MEN–4 was occupied by
tidewater goby at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. On an intermittent basis, MEN–
4 possesses a sandbar across the mouth
of the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SON–1: Salmon Creek (108 ac (44 ha))
This unit is located in Sonoma
County, approximately 7 mi (11.3 km)
south of the community of Jenner. The
unit encompasses approximately 108 ac
(44 ha), and consists of 47 ac (19 ha) of
State lands, 14 ac (6 ha) local lands, and
47 ac (19 ha) of private lands. SON–1 is
located 5.3 mi (8.5 km) north of the
Estero Americano unit (MAR–1), which
is also the nearest extant population.
SON–1 was occupied by tidewater goby
at the time of listing. The geological
feature known as Bodega Head separates
Salmon Creek and Estero Americano,
and could reduce the exchange of
tidewater goby between these two
locations. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. This
critical habitat unit provides habitat for
a tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). Maintaining this
unit will reduce the chance of losing the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65015
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, SON–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
MAR–1: Estero Americano (465 ac (188
ha))
This unit is located in Marin County,
approximately 3.5 mi (5.7 km) south of
Bodega Bay. The unit encompasses
approximately 465 ac (188 ha), and
consists entirely of private lands. MAR–
1 is located 2.2 mi (3.5 km) north of the
Estero de San Antonio (MAR–2), which
is also the nearest extant population.
MAR–1 was occupied by tidewater goby
at the time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region.
Maintaining this unit will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast. On an
intermittent basis, MAR–1 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65016
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
MAR–2: Estero de San Antonio (285 ac
(115 ha))
This unit is located in Marin County,
approximately 5.6 mi (9 km) south of
Bodega Bay. The unit encompasses
approximately 285 ac (115 ha), and
consists entirely of private lands. MAR–
2 is located 2.2 mi (3.5 km) south of the
Estero Americano (MAR–1), which is
also the nearest extant population.
MAR–2 was occupied by tidewater goby
at the time of listing. This critical
habitat unit supports a source
population of tidewater goby that likely
provides individuals that are recruited
into surrounding subpopulations. Given
the close proximity of the MAR–1 and
MAR–2 units and the dispersal
capabilities of tidewater goby, it is likely
that the two populations have
exchanged individuals in the past and
will continue to exchange individuals in
the future. Exchange between these
populations would bolster the
continued sustainable existence of the
two populations which will, together
with unit SON–1, provide for natural
colonization of available, but currently
unoccupied, estuaries within the region
south of the Russian River and north of
Point Reyes. This critical habitat unit
provides habitat for a tidewater goby
population that is important to the
conservation of one of the genetically
distinct recovery units as described in
the Recovery Plan (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1172). Maintaining this unit will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, MAR–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
MAR–3: Walker Creek (118 ac (48 ha))
This unit is located in Marin County,
approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) southwest
of the Town of Tomales. The unit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
encompasses approximately 118 ac (48
ha) and consists of 9 ac (4 ha) of State
lands and 109 ac (44 ha) of private
lands. MAR–3 is located 4.6 mi (7.4 km)
southeast of the Estero de San Antonio
unit (MAR–2), which is also the nearest
extant population. This unit is outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing and is not
known to be currently occupied.
However, tidewater goby were collected
at Walker Creek in 1897, but were not
found in sampling efforts conducted in
1996 or 1999 (Service 2005, p. C–8).
This unit is identified in the Recovery
Plan as a potential reintroduction site,
and could provide habitat for
maintaining the tidewater goby
metapopulation in the region. MAR–3 is
essential for the conservation of the
species because establishing a tidewater
goby population in this unit will
support the recovery of the tidewater
goby population along this portion of
the coast and help facilitate colonization
of currently unoccupied locations.
Although MAR–3 is not currently
occupied, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. However,
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
MAR–4: Lagunitas (Papermill) Creek
(998 ac (405 ha))
This unit is located in Marin County,
approximately 20.5 mi (33 km) south of
Bodega Bay. The unit encompasses
approximately 998 ac (405 ha), and
consists of 318 ac (129 ha) of Federal
lands, 459 ac (186 ha) of State lands,
and 221 ac (90 ha) of private lands.
MAR–4 is located 15.5 mi (25.0 km)
south of the Estero de San Antonio unit
(MAR–2), which is also the nearest
extant population. Records indicate
tidewater goby occurred at this location
historically. This unit is outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, but recent
surveys have confirmed that the unit is
currently occupied. This unit is
essential for the conservation of the
species because it is the only known
location of the tidewater goby to remain
within the greater Tomales Bay area.
Without this subpopulation, there
would be no source population within
dispersal distance of Tomales Bay to
maintain the metapopulation dynamics
of populations within the area. Thus, if
allowed to establish a robust
population, the unit could support an
important source population for future
colonization or introductions to other
habitats within Tomales Bay. Although
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MAR–4 was not considered occupied at
the time of listing, it does possess the
PCE that could support tidewater goby.
We do not have information that
confirms that PCE 1c (a sandbar(s)
across the mouth of the lagoon or
estuary) is present within this unit on at
least an intermittent basis. However,
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
MAR–5: Bolinas Lagoon (1,114 ac (451
ha))
This unit is located in Marin County,
approximately 0.5 mi (0.81 km) east of
the community of Bolinas. The unit
encompasses approximately 1,114 ac
(451 ha), and consists of 29 ac (12 ha)
of Federal Lands, 1,048 ac (424 ha) of
local lands, and 37 ac (15 ha) of private
lands. MAR–5 is located 9.4 mi (15.1
km) northwest of the Rodeo Lagoon unit
(MAR–6), which is also the nearest
extant population. This unit is outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, is not
known to be currently occupied, and
there are no historical tidewater goby
records for this location. However, this
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
to nearby occupied units and is
identified in the Recovery Plan as a
potential introduction site, and could
provide habitat for maintaining
tidewater goby metapopulations in the
region. If a tidewater goby population is
established in this unit, MAR–5 unit
will support the recovery of the
tidewater goby population along this
portion of the coast and help facilitate
colonization of currently unoccupied
locations. Although MAR–5 is not
currently occupied, it does possess the
PCE that could support tidewater goby.
We do not have information that
confirms that PCE 1c (a sandbar(s)
across the mouth of the lagoon or
estuary) is present within this unit on at
least an intermittent basis. However,
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
MAR–6: Rodeo Lagoon (40 ac (16 ha))
This unit is located in Marin County,
approximately 3.8 mi (6 km) north of
San Francisco. The unit encompasses
approximately 40 ac (16 ha), and
consists entirely of Federal lands. MAR–
6 is located 9.4 mi (15.1 km) south of
Bolinas Lagoon (MAR–5), and is
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, San Gregorio
Creek (SM–1), by 36 mi (58 km). MAR–
6 was occupied by tidewater goby at the
time of listing. MAR–6 is the only
known location where the tidewater
goby remains within the greater Bay
Area. This critical habitat unit provides
habitat for a tidewater goby population
that is important to the conservation of
one of the genetically distinct recovery
units as described in the Recovery Plan
(Dawson et al. 2001, p. 1172). It also
provides habitat for a population of
tidewater goby that could disperse to
other adjoining habitats. Maintaining
this unit will reduce the chance of
losing the tidewater goby along this
portion of the coast, and help conserve
genetic diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, MAR–6
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SM–1: San Gregorio Creek (45 ac (18
ha))
This unit is located in San Mateo
County, approximately 28 mi (45 km)
south of the San Francisco-San Mateo
County line. The unit encompasses
approximately 45 ac (18 ha), and
consists of 33 ac (13 ha) of State lands
and 12 ac (5 ha) of private lands. SM–
1 is located 1.5 mi (2.4 km) north of
Pomponio Creek (SM–2), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, PescaderoButano Creek (SM–3), by 3.8 mi (6.1
km). SM–1 was occupied by tidewater
goby at the time of listing. The tidewater
goby population in this unit is likely a
source population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. This
critical habitat unit provides habitat for
a tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). This unit is noted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
for high densities of tidewater goby
(Swenson 1993, p. 3).
On an intermittent basis, SM–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SM–2: Pomponio Creek (7 ac (3 ha))
This unit is located in San Mateo
County, approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km)
north of the community of Pescadero.
The unit encompasses approximately 7
ac (3 ha), and consists of 1 ac (1 ha) of
State lands and 6 ac (2 ha) of private
lands. SM–2 is located 1.5 mi (2.4 km)
south of the San Gregorio Creek unit
(SM–1), which is also the nearest extant
population. This unit is outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, is not
known to be currently occupied, and
there are no historical tidewater goby
records for this location. However, this
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
to nearby occupied units and is
identified in the Recovery Plan as a
potential introduction site, and could
provide habitat for maintaining the
tidewater goby metapopulation in the
region. If a tidewater goby population is
established in this unit, SM–2 unit will
support the recovery of the tidewater
goby population along this portion of
the coast, and will help facilitate
tidewater goby distribution between
populations and colonization of
currently unoccupied locations.
Although SM–2 is not currently
occupied, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby.
On an intermittent basis, SM–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65017
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation.
SM–3: Pescadero-Butano Creek (245 ac
(99 ha))
This unit is located in San Mateo
County, approximately 32.0 mi (51.0
km) south of the San Francisco-San
Mateo County line. This unit
encompasses approximately 245 ac (99
ha), and consists of 241 ac (97 ha) of
State lands and 4 ac (2 ha) of private
lands. SM–3 is located 2.2 mi (3.5 km)
south of Pomponio Creek (SM–2), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Bean Hollow
Creek (SM–4), by 3.0 mi (4.8 km). SM–
3 was occupied by tidewater goby at the
time of listing. This unit is unusual in
that some tidewater goby from this
location possess a parasite that appears
to occasionally affect their health. These
parasites, or the environmental factors
that increase the prevalence of the
parasites, may represent a threat to this
population not identified in Table 3.
This unit allows for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations, and thereby supports gene
flow and metapopulation dynamics in
this region.
On an intermittent basis, SM–3
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring and early fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SM–4: Bean Hollow Creek (Arroyo de
Los Frijoles) (10 ac (4 ha))
This unit is located in San Mateo
County, approximately 34.8 mi (56.0
km) south of the San Francisco-San
Mateo County line. The unit
encompasses approximately 10 ac (4
ha), and consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of State
lands and 7 ac (3 ha) private lands. SM–
4 is located approximately 3.0 mi (4.8
km) south of the Pescadero-Butano
Creek (SM–3), which is also the nearest
extant population. SM–4 was occupied
by tidewater goby at the time of listing.
Maintaining this unit, together with the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65018
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
two units to the north, will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this important coastal range and
allow for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations,
thereby supporting gene flow and
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
On an intermittent basis, SM–4
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–1: Waddell Creek (75 ac (30 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 18 mi (29 km)
northwest of the city of Santa Cruz. The
unit encompasses approximately 75 ac
(30 ha), and consists of 39 ac (16 ha) of
State lands and 36 ac (14 ha) of private
lands. SC–1 is located approximately
5.0 mi (8.0 km) north of the Scott Creek
(SC–2), which is also the nearest extant
population. This unit is at the northern
extent of this metapopulation as
described in the Recovery Plan.
Tidewater goby were present in low
numbers in 1996, and were absent
during surveys from 1997 to 2000
(Service 2005, p. C–12). Therefore, SC–
1 was occupied at the time of listing.
This unit is identified in the Recovery
Plan as a potential reintroduction site.
This unit will provide habitat for
tidewater goby dispersing from Scott
Creek either through natural means, or
by reintroduction, which may serve to
decrease the risk of extirpation of this
metapopulation through stochastic
events. If a tidewater goby population is
established in this unit, it would also
allow for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations, and
thereby supports gene flow and
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Lastly, this unit may offer habitat that is
superior to that in nearby occupied
locations (the potential viability of
tidewater goby in the unoccupied unit
may be higher). The original population
at this locality was considered
extirpated by Swift et al. (1989, p. 4).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
However, tidewater goby were
reintroduced in 1991 from Scott Creek
(Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 1448). Longterm sustainability of backwater habitat
may preclude the establishment of a
tidewater goby subpopulation; however,
the creation of suitable backwater
habitat would ensure a self-sustaining
subpopulation of tidewater goby at this
location. Although SC–1 is not currently
occupied, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby.
On an intermittent basis, SC–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–2: Scott Creek (74 ac (30 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 11.8 mi (19.0
km) northwest of the City of Santa Cruz.
The unit encompasses approximately 74
ac (30 ha), and consists of 66 ac (27 ha)
of State lands, 6 ac (2 ha) of local lands,
and 2 ac (1 ha) of private lands. SC–2
is located 5.0 mi (8.0 km) south of
Waddell Creek (SC–1), and is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the south, in Laguna Creek (SC–3), by
6.0 mi (9.6 km). SC–2 is outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, but was
subsequently found to be occupied. This
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
for the species, allows for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations from nearby units, supports
gene flow, and provides for
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Although SC–2 was not considered to be
occupied at the time of listing, it does
possess the PCE that support tidewater
goby. On an intermittent basis, SC–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation.
SC–3: Laguna Creek (26 ac (11 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 7.5 mi (12.0 km)
west of the City of Santa Cruz. The unit
encompasses approximately 26 ac (11
ha), and consists entirely of State lands.
SC–3 is located 6.0 mi (9.6 km) south of
Scott Creek (SC–2), the nearest extant
population to the north, and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Baldwin
Creek (SC–4), by 2.0 mi (3.2 km). SC–
3 was occupied by tidewater goby at the
time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. This
critical habitat unit provides habitat for
a tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). Together with
Baldwin Creek (SC–4) to the south, this
habitat unit helps conserve the genetic
diversity of the species.
On an intermittent basis, SC–3
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–4: Baldwin Creek (27 ac (11 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 6 mi (9.7 km)
west of the City of Santa Cruz. The unit
encompasses approximately 27 ac (11
ha), and consists entirely of State lands.
SC–4 is located 2.0 mi (3.2 km) south of
Laguna Creek (SC–3), and is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the south, Lombardi Creek (not
proposed as critical habitat), by 0.7 mi
(1.2 km). SC–4 was occupied by
tidewater goby at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. This critical habitat unit
provides habitat for a tidewater goby
population that is important to the
conservation of one of the genetically
distinct recovery units as described in
the Recovery Plan (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1172) and, together with Laguna
Creek (SC–3) to the north, helps
conserve genetic diversity within the
species.
On an intermittent basis, SC–4
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–5: Moore Creek (15 ac (6 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km)
west of the City of Santa Cruz. The unit
encompasses approximately 15 ac (6
ha), and consists of entirely of Federal
lands. SC–5 is located 4.0 mi (6.4) south
of Baldwin Creek. SC–5 is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the north, Younger Lagoon (not
proposed as critical habitat), by 0.5 mi
(0.8 km). SC–5 was occupied at the time
of listing. Maintaining this unit will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species. On an
intermittent basis, SC–5 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–6: Corcoran Lagoon (28 ac (11 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 3 mi (4.8 km)
east of the City of Santa Cruz. This unit
encompasses approximately 28 ac (11
ha), and consists of 1 ac (1 ha) of State
lands, 6 ac (2 ha) of local lands, and 21
ac (8 ha) of private lands. SC–6 is
located 4.0 mi (6.4 km) south of Moore
Creek (SC–5), and the unit is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the south, in Moran Lake (not proposed
as critical habitat), by 0.7 mi (1.1 km).
SC–6 was occupied by tidewater goby at
the time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. This
critical habitat unit provides habitat for
a tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). Maintaining this
unit will reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, SC–6
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–7: Aptos Creek (9 ac (4 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km)
southwest of the City of Aptos. The unit
encompasses approximately 9 ac (4 ha),
and consists entirely of State lands. SC–
7 is located 4.1 mi (6.6 km) east of
Corcoran Lagoon (SC–6), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the north, Moran Lake
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65019
(not proposed as critical habitat), by 4.2
mi (6.75 km). SC–7 was occupied by
tidewater goby at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population in this region,
and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. Maintaining this unit will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast. On an intermittent basis, SC–7
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SC–8: Pajaro River (215 ac (87 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Cruz
County, approximately 5 mi (8 km)
southwest of the City of Watsonville.
The unit encompasses approximately
215 ac (87 ha), and consists of 158 ac
(64 ha) of State lands, 11 ac (4 ha) of
local lands, and 46 ac (19 ha) of private
lands. SC–8 is located 9.7 mi (15.6 km)
south of Aptos Creek (SC–7), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Bennett
Slough (MN–1), by 3.0 mi (4.7 km). SC–
8 was occupied by tidewater goby at the
time of listing. Maintaining this unit
will reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species. On an
intermittent basis, SC–8 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65020
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
MN–1: Bennett Slough (167 ac (68 ha))
This unit is located in Monterey
County, approximately 3.7 mi (6 km)
northwest of the Town of Castroville.
This unit encompasses approximately
167 ac (68 ha), and consists of 108 ac
(44 ha) of State lands, 5 ac (2 ha) of local
lands, and 54 ac (22 ha) of private lands.
MN–1 is located 4.1 mi (6.6 km) south
of the Pajaro River (SC–8), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, Moro Cojo
Slough (not proposed as critical habitat),
by 1.3 mi (2.1 km). MN–1 was occupied
by tidewater goby at the time of listing.
The tidewater goby population in this
unit is likely a source population for
this region, and is therefore important
for maintaining the metapopulation in
this region. This critical habitat unit
provides habitat for a tidewater goby
population that is important to the
conservation of one of the genetically
distinct recovery units as described in
the Recovery Plan (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1172), and maintaining it will reduce
the chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast, and help
conserve genetic diversity within the
species.
PCE 1c (a sandbar(s) across the mouth
of lagoon or estuary) is not likely to
occur within this unit because it has a
navigable, dredged channel with a
permanent open connection to the
ocean that is maintained on a regular
basis. However, PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
MN–2: Salinas River (466 ac (189 ha))
This unit is located in Monterey
County, approximately 7.5 mi (12 km)
north of the City of Seaside. The unit
encompasses approximately 466 ac (189
ha), and consists of 195 ac (79 ha) of
Federal lands, 33 ac (13 ha) of State
lands, 1 ac (1 ha) of local lands, and 237
ac (96 ha) of private lands. Unit MN–2
is located 4.0 mi (8.0 km) south of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Bennett Slough unit (MN–1). This unit
is outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing and is not known to be currently
occupied; however, this unit is essential
for the conservation of the species.
Tidewater goby were last collected here
in 1951, but were not present during
surveys in 1991, 1992, and 2004
(Service 2005, p. C–16). This unit is
identified in the Recovery Plan as a
potential reintroduction site. This unit
will provide habitat for tidewater goby
that disperse from Bennett Slough and
Moro Cojo Slough, either through
natural means or by reintroduction,
which may serve to decrease the risk of
extirpation of this metapopulation
through stochastic events. This unit will
also allow for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations, and
thereby support gene flow and
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Lastly, this unit is one of only three
locations in Monterey County that have
harbored tidewater goby and is one of
the two subpopulations in the
metapopulation as described in the
Recovery Plan. Therefore, this unit is
especially important for ensuring the
viability of the metapopulation.
Although MN–2 was not considered
to be occupied at the time of listing, it
does possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, MN–2 possesses a sandbar across
the mouth of the lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall
that closes or partially closes the lagoon
or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
SLO–1: Arroyo de la Cruz (33 ac (13 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 8.0 mi
(13.0 km) northwest of San Simeon. The
unit encompasses approximately 33 ac
(13 ha), and consists of 25 ac (10 ha) of
State lands and 8 ac (3 ha) of private
lands. SLO–1 is located approximately
2.0 mi (3.2 km) north of the Arroyo de
Corral unit (SLO–2), which is also the
nearest extant population. This unit is
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, is
not known to be currently occupied,
and there are no historical tidewater
goby records for this location. However,
this unit is essential for the conservation
of the species because it provides
habitat to nearby occupied units and is
identified in the Recovery Plan as a
potential introduction site, and could
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
provide habitat for maintaining the
tidewater goby metapopulation in the
region.
This unit will provide habitat for
tidewater goby that disperse from
Arroyo del Corral, either through
natural means or by reintroduction,
which may serve to decrease the risk of
extirpation of this metapopulation
through stochastic events. This unit will
also allow for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations, and
thereby supports gene flow and
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Lastly, this unit is the only other
location with suitable habitat within the
metapopulation that is currently
comprised of one subpopulation as
described in the Recovery Plan.
Therefore, this unit is especially
important for ensuring the viability of
the metapopulation because if the
subpopulation within the Arroyo de
Corral unit is extirpated, the entire
metapopulation would be lost. Although
SLO–1 is not currently occupied, it does
possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. SLO–1 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
SLO–2: Arroyo del Corral (5 ac (3 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 6 mi (9.7
km) northwest of San Simeon. The unit
encompasses approximately 5 ac (3 ha),
and consists entirely of 4 ac (2 ha) of
State lands and 1 ac (1 ha) of private
lands. SLO–2 is located 2 mi (3.2 km)
south of Arroyo de la Cruz (SLO–1), and
is separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, Oak Knoll
Creek (SLO–3), by 4.3 mi (6.9 km). SLO–
2 was occupied at the time of listing.
The tidewater goby population in this
unit is likely a source population for
this region, and is therefore important
for maintaining the metapopulation in
this region. This critical habitat unit
provides habitat for a tidewater goby
population that is important to the
conservation of one of the genetically
distinct recovery units as described in
the Recovery Plan (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1172). Maintaining this unit will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
On an intermittent basis, SLO–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–3: Oak Knoll Creek (Arroyo
Laguna) (5 ac (3 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 2 mi (3.2
km) northwest of San Simeon. The unit
encompasses approximately 5 ac (3 ha),
and consists of 4 ac (2 ha) of State lands
and 1 ac (1 ha) of private lands. SLO–
3 is located 4.3 mi (6.9 km) south of
Arroyo del Corral (SLO–2), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Arroyo de
Tortuga (not proposed as critical
habitat), by 0.5 mi (0.8 km). SLO–3 was
occupied at the time of listing. This unit
allows for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations, and
thereby supports gene flow and
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
On an intermittent basis, SLO–3
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–4: Little Pico Creek (9 ac (4 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 6.7 mi
(10.8 km) northwest of the Town of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Cambria. The unit encompasses
approximately 9 ac (4 ha), and consists
of 2 ac (1 ha) of State lands and 7 ac (3
ha) of private lands. SLO–4 is located
3.7 mi (5.9 km) south of Oak Knoll
Creek (SLO–3). The unit is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the north, in Broken Bridge Creek (not
proposed as critical habitat), by 1.4 mi
(2.2 km). SLO–4 was occupied at the
time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region.
Maintaining this unit will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast. On an
intermittent basis, SLO–4 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–5: San Simeon Creek (17 ac (7 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 3.3 mi
(5.3 km) northwest of the Town of
Cambria. The unit encompasses
approximately 17 ac (7 ha), and consists
entirely of State lands. SLO–5 is located
3.8 mi (6.1 km) south of Little Pico
Creek (SLO–4), and is separated from
the nearest extant population to the
south, in Santa Rosa Creek (not
proposed as critical habitat), by 2.6 mi
(4.2 km). SLO–5 was occupied at the
time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this unit, and is therefore
important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region.
Maintaining this unit will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast. On an
intermittent basis, SLO–5 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65021
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–6: Villa Creek (15 ac (7 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 9.6 mi
(15.4 km) southeast of Cambria. The
unit encompasses 15 ac (7 ha) and
consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of State lands
and 1 ac (1 ha) of private lands. SLO–
6 is located 12.3 mi (19.8 km) south of
San Simeon Creek (SLO–5), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in San
Geronimo Creek (SLO–7), by 2.3 mi (3.7
km). SLO–6 was occupied at the time of
listing. The tidewater goby population
in this unit is likely a source population
for this region, and is therefore
important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. This
critical habitat unit provides habitat for
a tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). Maintaining this
unit will reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, SLO–6
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65022
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
SLO–7: San Geronimo Creek (1 ac (1
ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 7.6 mi
(12.2 km) northwest of the Town of
Morro Bay, and approximately 1.4 mi
(2.5 km) west of the Town of Cayucos.
The unit encompasses approximately 1
ac (1 ha), and consists entirely of State
lands. SLO–7 is located 2.3 mi (3.7 km)
south of Villa Creek (SLO–6), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Cayucos
Creek (not proposed as critical habitat),
by 1.5 mi (2.4 km). SLO–7 was occupied
at the time of listing. The tidewater goby
population in this unit is likely a source
population for this region, and is
therefore important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region.
Maintaining this unit will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast.
On an intermittent basis, SLO–7
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SLO–8: Toro Creek (9 ac (4 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 2.3 mi
(3.7 km) south of the Town of Cayucos.
The unit encompasses approximately 9
ac (4 ha), and consists of 1 ac (1 ha) of
State lands and 8 ac (3 ha) of private
lands. SLO–8 is located 5 mi (8.0 km)
south of San Geronimo Creek (SLO–7),
and is separated from the nearest extant
population to the north, in Old Creek
(not proposed as critical habitat), by 1.8
mi (2.9 km). SLO–8 was occupied at the
time of listing. Maintaining this unit
will reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species. On an
intermittent basis, SLO–8 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–9: Los Osos Creek (73 ac (30 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, within the Town of
Baywood. The unit encompasses
approximately 73 ac (30 ha), and
consists of 62 ac (25 ha) of State lands,
1 ac (1 ha) of local lands, and 10 ac (4
ha) of private lands. The unit is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the north, in Toro Creek
(SLO–8), by 8.0 mi (12.8 km). Tidewater
goby were present during surveys in
2001 (Service 2005, p. C–21). Prior to
the observations in 2001, tidewater goby
had not been seen here since 1981
(Service 2005, p. C–21). Therefore,
SLO–9 is outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing but is currently occupied. This
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
to nearby occupied units and is
identified in the Recovery Plan as a
potential introduction site, and could
provide habitat for maintaining the
tidewater goby metapopulation in the
region. Maintaining this unit will also
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast. Although SLO–9 was not
considered to be occupied at the time of
listing, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. PCE 1c (a
sandbar(s) across the mouth of lagoon or
estuary) is not likely to occur within
this unit because it has a navigable
channel with an open connection to
Morro Bay, which is dredged on a
regular basis. However, PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation.
SLO–10: San Luis Obispo Creek (31 ac
(12 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, within the Town of
Avila Beach. The unit encompasses
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
approximately 31 ac (12 ha), and
consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of local lands, and
28 ac (11 ha) of private lands. The unit
is separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Pismo Creek
(SLO–11), by 7.0 mi (11.2 km). SLO–10
was occupied at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. This critical habitat unit
provides habitat for a tidewater goby
population that is important to the
conservation of one of the genetically
distinct recovery units as described in
the Recovery Plan (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1172). On an intermittent basis, SLO–
10 possesses a sandbar across the mouth
of the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–11: Pismo Creek (20 ac (9 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, within the Town of
Pismo Beach. The unit encompasses
approximately 20 ac (9 ha), and consists
of 14 ac (6 ha) of State lands, 1 ac (1 ha)
of local lands, and 5 ac (2 ha) of private
lands. SLO–11 is located 7 mi (11.2 km)
south of San Luis Obispo Creek (SLO–
10). The unit is separated from the
nearest extant population to the south,
in Arroyo Grande Creek (not proposed
as critical habitat), by 2.6 mi (4.2 km).
SLO–11 was occupied at the time of
listing. The tidewater goby population
in this unit is likely a source population
for this region, and is therefore
important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region.
Maintaining this unit will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast. On an
intermittent basis, SLO–11 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation. The physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SLO–12: Oso Flaco Lake (171 ac (69 ha))
This unit is located in San Luis
Obispo County, approximately 5 mi (8.0
km) northwest of the City of Santa
Maria. The unit encompasses
approximately 171 ac (69 ha), and
consists of 165 ac (67 ha) of State lands
and 6 acre (2 ha) of private lands. The
unit is separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, the Santa Maria
River (SB–1), by 4 mi (6.4 km). This unit
is outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, is not known to be currently
occupied, and there are no historical
tidewater goby records for this location.
However, this unit is essential for the
conservation of the species because it
provides habitat to nearby occupied
units and is identified in the Recovery
Plan as a potential introduction site, and
could provide habitat for maintaining
the tidewater goby metapopulation in
the region. This unit will provide
habitat for tidewater goby that disperse
from Arroyo Grande Creek and the
Santa Maria River, either through
natural means or by introduction, which
may serve to decrease the risk of
extirpation of this metapopulation
through stochastic events. This unit
would also allow for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations, and thereby supports gene
flow and metapopulation dynamics in
this region. Lastly, tidewater goby may
be precluded from this location due to
water quality impairments; however, the
California Regional Water Control Board
is currently working with the Service to
remedy these impairments. Although
SLO–12 is not currently occupied, it
does possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, SLO–12 possesses a sandbar
across the mouth of the lagoon or
estuary during the late spring, summer,
and fall that closes or partially closes
the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
SB–1: Santa Maria River (474 ac (192
ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 13 mi (21 km)
west of the City of Santa Maria. The unit
encompasses approximately 474 ac (192
ha), and consists of 42 ac (17 ha) of local
lands and 432 ac (175 ha) of private
lands. SB–1 is located 4 mi (6.4 km)
south of Oso Flaco Lake (SLO–12), and
is separated from the nearest extant
population to the south, in Shuman
Canyon (not proposed as critical habitat;
see Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the
Act—Vandenberg Air Force Base section
below), by 8.6 mi (13.9 km). SB–1 was
occupied at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. This critical habitat unit
provides habitat for a tidewater goby
population that is important to the
conservation of one of the genetically
distinct recovery units as described in
the Recovery Plan (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1172). Maintaining this unit will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, SB–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
˜
SB–2: Canada de las Agujas (1 ac (1 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 7.2 mi (11.6 km)
west of Gaviota. The unit encompasses
approximately 1 ac (1 ha), and consists
entirely of private lands. SB–2 is located
38.8 mi (62.5 km) south of the Santa
Maria River (SB–1), and is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the south, in Arroyo El Bulito (not
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65023
proposed as critical habitat), by 0.4 mi
(0.7 km). SB–2 was occupied at the time
of listing. This unit allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region. Furthermore,
we believe this unit, and units SB–3,
SB–4, SB–5, and SB–6, likely act as a
metapopulation as defined in the
Background section. These units are no
more than 2.0 mi (3.3 km) from each
other, which facilitates higher dispersal
rates between sites. Because these units
are of relatively small size in area (1 to
9 ac (1 to 4 ha)), they are more
susceptible to drying or shrinking due to
drought conditions, which increases the
likelihood of local extirpation. Lastly,
because these units are small, they are
likely to be dependent upon some
degree of periodic exchange of tidewater
goby between units for any one unit to
persist over time. Therefore, designation
of critical habitat at these five locations
is necessary for the conservation of the
tidewater goby along the Gaviota Coast
in Santa Barbara County.
On an intermittent basis, SB–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
˜
SB–3: Canada de Santa Anita (3 ac (1
ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 5.2 mi (8.4 km)
west of Gaviota. The unit encompasses
approximately 3 ac (1 ha), and consists
entirely of private lands. SB–3 is located
˜
2.0 mi (3.2 km) south of Canada de las
Agujas (SB–2), and is separated from the
nearest extant population to the north,
˜
in Canada del Agua (not proposed as
critical habitat), by 0.4 mi (0.7 km). SB–
3 was occupied at the time of listing.
This unit is important to the
conservation of the species because it
allows for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations, and
thereby supports gene flow and
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65024
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Furthermore, as described above in SB–
2, we believe this unit, and units SB–2,
SB–4, SB–5, and SB–6, likely act as a
metapopulation as defined in the
Background section, and that
designation of critical habitat at these
five locations is necessary for the
conservation of the tidewater goby along
the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara
County.
On an intermittent basis, SB–3
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
˜
SB–4: Canada de Alegria (2 ac (1 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 3.2 mi (5.1 km)
west of Gaviota. The unit encompasses
approximately 2 ac (1 ha), and consists
entirely of private lands. SB–1 is located
˜
2.0 mi (3.3 km) south of Canada de
Santa Anita (SB–3), and is separated
from the nearest extant population to
˜
the south, in Canada del Agua Caliente
(SB–5), by 1.1 mi (1.8 km). SB–4 was
occupied at the time of listing. This unit
is important to the conservation of the
species because it allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region. Furthermore, as
described above in SB–2, we believe
this unit, and units SB–2, SB–3, SB–5,
and SB–6, likely act as a
metapopulation as defined in the
Background section, and that
designation of critical habitat at these
five locations is necessary for the
conservation of the tidewater goby along
the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara
County.
On an intermittent basis, SB–4
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
˜
SB–5: Canada del Agua Caliente (1 ac
(1 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km)
west of Gaviota. This unit encompasses
approximately 1 ac (1 ha), and consists
entirely of private lands. SB–5 is located
˜
1.1 mi (1.8 km) south of Canada de
Alegria (SB–4), which is also the nearest
extant population. SB–5 was occupied
at the time of listing. This critical
habitat unit provides habitat for a
tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). This unit helps
conserve genetic diversity within the
species. This unit also allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region. Furthermore, as
described above in SB–2, we believe
this unit, and units SB–2, SB–3, SB–4,
and SB–6, likely act as a
metapopulation as defined in the
Background section, and that
designation of critical habitat at these
five locations is necessary for the
conservation of the tidewater goby along
the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara
County.
On an intermittent basis, SB–5
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SB–6: Gaviota Creek (11 ac (5 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km)
west of Gaviota. This unit encompasses
approximately 11 ac (5 ha), and consists
of 10 ac (4 ha) of State lands and 1 ac
(1 ha) of private lands. SB–6 is located
˜
1.5 mi (2.4 km) south of Canada del
Agua Caliente (SB–5), which is also the
nearest extant population. SB–6 was
occupied at the time of listing. This unit
is important to the conservation of the
species because maintaining it will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast. It also allows for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations, and thereby supports gene
flow and metapopulation dynamics in
this region. Furthermore, as described
above in SB–2, we believe this unit, and
units SB–2, SB–3, SB–4, and SB–5,
likely act as a metapopulation as
defined in the Background section, and
that designation of critical habitat at
these five locations is necessary for the
conservation of the tidewater goby along
the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara
County.
On an intermittent basis, SB–6
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SB–7: Arroyo Hondo (1 ac (1 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 5.0 mi (8.0 km)
east of Gaviota. This unit encompasses
approximately 1 ac (1 ha), and consists
entirely of private lands. SB–7 is located
5.0 mi (8.0 km) south of Gaviota Creek
(SB–6), and is separated from the
nearest extant population to the south,
in Arroyo Quemado (not proposed as
critical habitat), by 1.3 mi (2.0 km). This
unit is outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, but was subsequently found to
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
be occupied. This unit is essential for
the conservation of the species because
it provides habitat to nearby occupied
units and could provide habitat for
maintaining the tidewater goby
metapopulation in the region.
Maintaining this unit will reduce the
chance of losing the tidewater goby
along this portion of the coast, and help
conserve genetic diversity within the
species. Although SB–7 was not
considered to be occupied at the time of
listing, it does possess the PCE that
support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, SB–7 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SB–8: Winchester/Bell Canyon (6 ac
(3 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 2.2 mi (3.5 km)
west of the community of El Encanto
Heights. The unit encompasses
approximately 6 ac (3 ha), and consists
of 1 ac (1 ha) of local lands and 5 ac (2
ha) of private lands. SB–8 is located 6.0
mi (9.6 km) north of Goleta Slough (SB–
9), and is separated from the nearest
extant population to the north, Tecolote
Canyon (not proposed as critical
habitat), by 0.3 mi (0.4 km). SB–8 was
occupied at the time of listing. This unit
is important to the conservation of the
species because it allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region.
On an intermittent basis, SB–8
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SB–9: Goleta Slough (190 ac (76 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, within the City of Goleta. The
unit encompasses approximately 190 ac
(76 ha), and consists of 164 ac (66 ha)
of local lands and 26 ac (10 ha) of
private lands. SB–9 is located 6.0 mi
(9.6 km) south of Winchester/Bell
Canyon (SB–8), and is separated from
the nearest extant population to the
north, Devereux Slough (not proposed
as critical habitat), by 4.0 mi (6.4 km).
This unit is outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing, but is currently occupied.
This unit is essential for the
conservation of the species because it
provides habitat for the species, allows
for connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations from nearby units,
supports gene flow, and provides for
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Although SB–9 was not considered to be
occupied at the time of listing, it does
possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, SB–9 possesses a sandbar across
the mouth of the lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall
that closes or partially closes the lagoon
or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
SB–10: Arroyo Burro (3 ac (1 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, approximately 3.6 mi (5.8 km)
west of the City of Santa Barbara. The
unit encompasses approximately 3 ac (1
ha), and consists entirely of local lands.
SB–10 is located 4.0 mi (6.4 km) north
of Mission Creek-Laguna Channel (SB–
11), which is also the nearest extant
population. This unit is outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, but was
subsequently found to be occupied. This
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
for the species, allows for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations from nearby units, supports
gene flow, and provides for
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Although SB–10 was not considered to
be occupied at the time of listing, it does
possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, SB–10 possesses a sandbar across
the mouth of the lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65025
that closes or partially closes the lagoon
or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
SB–11: Mission Creek-Laguna Channel
(7 ac (3 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, within the City of Santa
Barbara. The unit encompasses
approximately 7 ac (3 ha), and consists
of 3 ac (1 ha) of State lands and 4 ac (2
ha) of local lands. SB–11 is located 4.0
mi (6.4 km) south of Arroyo Burro (SB–
10), and is separated from the nearest
extant population to the south, in
Sycamore Creek (not proposed as
critical habitat), by 1.0 mi (1.5 km). SB–
11 was occupied at the time of listing.
The tidewater goby population in this
unit is likely a source population for
this region, and is therefore important
for maintaining the metapopulation in
this region. Maintaining this unit will
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast.
On an intermittent basis, SB–11
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
SB–12: Arroyo Paredon (4 ac (3 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County, within the City of Santa
Barbara. The unit encompasses
approximately 4 ac (3 ha), and consists
of 1 ac (1 ha) of State lands, 1 ac (1 ha)
local lands, and 2 ac (1 ha) of private
lands. SB–12 is located 8.0 mi (12.8 km)
south of Mission Creek-Laguna Channel
(SB–11), and is separated from the
nearest extant population to the south,
in Carpinteria Creek (not proposed as
critical habitat), by 2.7 mi (4.3 km). This
unit is outside the geographical area
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65026
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, but was subsequently found to
be occupied. This unit is essential for
the conservation of the species because
it provides habitat for the species,
allows for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations from
nearby units, supports gene flow, and
provides for metapopulation dynamics
in this region. Although SB–12 was not
considered to be occupied at the time of
listing, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, SB–12 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
VEN–1: Ventura River (50 ac (21 ha))
This unit is located in Ventura
County, within the City of Ventura. The
unit encompasses approximately 50 ac
(21 ha), and consists of 25 ac (10 ha) of
State lands, 16 ac (7 ha) of local lands,
and 9 ac (4 ha) of private lands. VEN–
1 is located 4.3 mi (7.0 km) north of the
Santa Clara River (VEN–2), which is
also the nearest extant population.
VEN–1 was occupied at the time of
listing. The tidewater goby population
in this unit is likely a source population
for this region, and is therefore
important for maintaining the
metapopulation in this region. This
critical habitat unit provides habitat for
a tidewater goby population that is
important to the conservation of one of
the genetically distinct recovery units as
described in the Recovery Plan (Dawson
et al. 2001, p. 1172). Maintaining this
unit will reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast, and help conserve genetic
diversity within the species.
On an intermittent basis, VEN–1
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
VEN–2: Santa Clara River (323 ac
(130 ha))
This unit is located in Ventura
County, approximately 4 mi (6.4 km)
southeast of the City of Ventura. This
unit encompasses approximately 323 ac
(130 ha), and consists of 199 ac (80 ha)
of State lands, 14 ac (6 ha) of local
lands, and 110 ac (44 ha) of private
lands. VEN–2 is located 4.3 mi (7.0 km)
south of the Ventura River unit (VEN–
1), which is also the nearest extant
population. VEN–2 was occupied by
tidewater goby at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. VEN–2 unit will support the
recovery of the tidewater goby
population along this portion of the
coast. This unit is known to have tens
of thousands of tidewater goby during
certain times of the year (C. Dellith,
Service, pers. comm. 2010), and is
considered one of the largest tidewater
goby populations in southern California.
On an intermittent basis, VEN–2
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
VEN–3: J Street Drain-Ormond Lagoon
(121 ac (49 ha))
This unit is located in Ventura
County, approximately 1 mi (1.6 km)
east of Port Hueneme. This unit
encompasses approximately 121 ac (49
ha), and consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of State
lands, 49 ac (20 ha) of local lands, and
67 ac (27 ha) of private lands. VEN–3 is
located 4.3 mi (6.9 km) south of the
Santa Clara River (VEN–2), which is
also the nearest extant population.
VEN–3 was occupied at the time of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
listing. This unit allows for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations, and thereby supports gene
flow and metapopulation dynamics in
this region. On an intermittent basis,
VEN–3 possesses a sandbar across the
mouth of the lagoon or estuary during
the late spring, summer, and fall that
closes or partially closes the lagoon or
estuary, and thereby provides relatively
stable conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and
1b occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
VEN–4: Big Sycamore Canyon (1 ac
(1 ha))
This unit is located in Ventura
County, approximately 12.0 mi (19.3
km) northwest of the City of Malibu.
The unit encompasses approximately 1
ac (1 ha), and consists entirely of State
lands. VEN–4 is located 5.0 mi (8.0 km)
north of Arroyo Sequit (LA–1), and is
separated from the nearest extant
population to the north, in the Calleguas
Creek (not proposed as critical habitat),
by 5.0 mi (8.0 km). This unit is outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, but was
subsequently found to be occupied. This
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
for the species, allows for connectivity
between tidewater goby source
populations from nearby units, supports
gene flow, and provides for
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Although VEN–4 was not considered to
be occupied at the time of listing, it does
possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, VEN–4 possesses a sandbar across
the mouth of the lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall
that closes or partially closes the lagoon
or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
LA–1: Arroyo Sequit (1 ac (1 ha))
This unit is located in Los Angeles
County, approximately 7.5 mi (12.0 km)
northwest of the City of Malibu. The
unit encompasses approximately 1 ac (1
ha), and consists entirely of State lands.
LA–1 is located 5.0 mi (8 km) south of
Big Sycamore Canyon (VEN–4), which
is the nearest extant population. This
unit is outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, is not known to be currently
occupied, and there are no historical
tidewater goby records for this location.
However, this unit is essential for the
conservation of the species because it
provides habitat to nearby occupied
units and is identified in the Recovery
Plan as a potential introduction site, and
could provide habitat for maintaining
the tidewater goby metapopulation in
the region. This unit will provide
habitat for tidewater goby that disperse
from Big Sycamore Creek and the
Malibu Lagoon, either through natural
means or by reintroduction, which may
serve to decrease the risk of extirpation
of this metapopulation through
stochastic events. This unit would also
allow for connectivity between
tidewater goby source populations, and
thereby supports gene flow and
metapopulation dynamics in this region.
Although LA–1 is not currently
occupied, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, LA–1 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
LA–2: Zuma Canyon (5 ac (2 ha))
This unit is located in Los Angeles
County, approximately 7.5 mi (12.0 km)
northwest of the City of Malibu. The
unit encompasses approximately 5 ac (2
ha), and consists entirely of local lands
administered by Los Angeles County.
LA–2 is located 6.8 mi (11 km) south of
Arroyo Sequit (LA–1), and is separated
from the nearest extant population to
the south, in the Malibu Lagoon (LA–3),
by 10.0 mi (16.0 km). LA–2 is outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, is not
known to be currently occupied, and
there are no historical tidewater goby
records for this location. However, this
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
to nearby occupied units and is
identified in the Recovery Plan as a
potential introduction site, and could
provide habitat for maintaining the
tidewater goby metapopulation in the
region. This unit will provide habitat for
tidewater goby that disperse from Big
Sycamore Creek and the Malibu Lagoon,
either through natural means or by
introduction, which may serve to
decrease the risk of extirpation of this
metapopulation through stochastic
events. This unit would also allow for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region.
Although LA–2 is not currently
occupied, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, LA–2 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
LA–3: Malibu Lagoon (64 ac (27 ha))
This unit is located in Los Angeles
County, approximately 0.6 mi (1 km)
east of Malibu Beach. The unit
encompasses approximately 64 ac (27
ha), and consists of 41 ac (27 ha) of State
lands, 1 ac (1 ha) of local lands, and 22
ac (9 ha) of private lands. LA–3 is
located 6.0 mi (9.6 km) north of
Topanga Canyon (LA–4), which is also
the nearest extant population. LA–3 was
occupied at the time of listing. The
tidewater goby population in this unit is
likely a source population for this
region, and is therefore important for
maintaining the metapopulation in this
region. Maintaining this unit will also
reduce the chance of losing the
tidewater goby along this portion of the
coast. LA–3 supports one of the two
remaining extant populations of
tidewater goby within Los Angeles
County, and both areas supporting these
populations have been proposed as
critical habitat.
On an intermittent basis, LA–3
possesses a sandbar across the mouth of
the lagoon or estuary during the late
spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary,
and thereby provides relatively stable
conditions (PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b
occur throughout the unit, although
their precise location during any
particular time period may change in
response to seasonal fluctuations in
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65027
precipitation and tidal inundation. The
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats described in Table 3. Please see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to tidewater
goby habitat and potential management
considerations.
LA–4: Topanga Creek (6 ac (2 ha))
This unit is located in Los Angeles
County, approximately 5.5 mi (8.9 km)
northwest of the City of Santa Monica.
The unit encompasses approximately 6
ac (2 ha), and consists of 4 ac (1 ha) of
State lands and 2 ac (1 ha) of private
lands. LA–4 is located 6.0 mi (9.6 km)
south of Malibu Creek (LA–3), which is
also the nearest extant population. This
unit is outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, but is currently occupied.
Tidewater goby were first detected at
this locality in 2001 (Service 2005, p. C–
30). Tidewater goby in Topanga Canyon
are probably derived from fish that
dispersed from Malibu Creek. This unit
is essential for the conservation of the
species because it allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics in this region. This location is
one of the two remaining locations in
Los Angeles County known to be
occupied by tidewater goby.
Although LA–4 was not considered to
be occupied at the time of listing, it does
possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, LA–4 possesses a sandbar across
the mouth of the lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall
that closes or partially closes the lagoon
or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
OR–1: Aliso Creek (14 ac (5 ha))
This unit is located in Orange County,
within the City of Laguna Beach. The
unit encompasses approximately 14 ac
(6 ha), and consists of 8 ac (3 ha) of local
lands and 6 ac (2 ha) of private lands.
OR–1 is located 13.5 mi (21.7 km) north
of the San Mateo Creek (not proposed as
critical habitat, see Application of
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act—Marine Corps
Base Camp Pendleton section below),
which supports the nearest extant
population. This unit is outside the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65028
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and is not
known to be currently occupied. OR–1
was last known to be occupied in 1978
(Service 2005, p. C–31). However, this
unit is essential for the conservation of
the species because it would allow for
connectivity and dispersal between
tidewater goby source populations. This
unit is identified in the Recovery Plan
as a potential reintroduction site. If
tidewater goby become established at
this location, this unit’s primary
functions would be to ensure necessary
metapopulation dynamics of tidewater
goby and contribute to maintaining the
genetic diversity of the genetically
unique South Coast Recovery Unit. OR–
1 will support the recovery of the
tidewater goby populations by serving
as an area suitable for reintroduction of
tidewater goby near the northern extent
of the South Coast Recovery Unit, and
is likely important for maintaining the
tidewater goby metapopulation in the
region. The reason for the extirpation of
the historical population at this site is
unknown.
Although OR–1 is not currently
occupied, it does possess the PCE that
could support tidewater goby. On an
intermittent basis, OR–1 possesses a
sandbar across the mouth of the lagoon
or estuary during the late spring,
summer, and fall that closes or partially
closes the lagoon or estuary, and thereby
provides relatively stable conditions
(PCE 1c). PCE 1a and 1b occur
throughout the unit, although their
precise location during any particular
time period may change in response to
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation
and tidal inundation.
South Coast Recovery Unit. SAN–1 will
support the recovery of the tidewater
goby population along this portion of
the coast and may help facilitate
colonization of currently unoccupied
locations to the south identified in the
Recovery Plan for the species. This unit
will function as one of the southern
extents of the metapopulation complex
that is essential for the conservation of
the species. Unit SAN–1 was identified
in the Recovery Plan as a potential
reintroduction site. Prior to 2010,
tidewater goby were last detected in this
unit in 1958 (K. Lafferty, University of
California Santa Barbara, pers. comm.
2010). They have since re-colonized this
area, presumably from one of the
occupied areas on MCB Camp
Pendleton following a storm event. This
unit now represents the southernmost
occupied area of the species’
distribution, and is important for
maintaining the tidewater goby
metapopulation in the region.
Although SAN–1 was not considered
to be occupied at the time of listing, it
does possess the PCE that could support
tidewater goby. On an intermittent
basis, SAN–1 possesses a sandbar across
the mouth of the lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall
that closes or partially closes the lagoon
or estuary, and thereby provides
relatively stable conditions (PCE 1c).
PCE 1a and 1b occur throughout the
unit, although their precise location
during any particular time period may
change in response to seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation and tidal
inundation.
SAN–1: San Luis Rey River (56 ac
(23 ha))
This unit is located in San Diego
County, within the City of Oceanside.
The unit encompasses approximately 56
ac (23 ha), and consists of 3 ac (1 ha)
of State lands, 49 ac (20 ha) of local
lands, and 4 ac (2 ha) of private lands.
SAN–1 is located approximately 2.5 mi
(4.0 km) south of the Santa Margarita
River (not proposed as critical habitat;
see Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the
Act—Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton section below), which
supports the nearest known extant
population. This unit is outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing but is
currently occupied. This unit is
essential for the conservation of the
species because it allows for
connectivity between tidewater goby
source populations, and thereby
supports gene flow and metapopulation
dynamics of the genetically unique
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or
adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d
1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245
F. 3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we
do not rely on this regulatory definition
when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory
provisions of the Act, we determine
destruction or adverse modification on
the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat
would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species.
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. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction;
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
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 we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for tidewater
goby. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history
needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for the tidewater
goby. These activities include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Actions such as channelization
and water diversion that reduce the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
amount of space available for individual
and population growth and normal
behavior, and reduce or eliminate sites
for breeding, reproduction, and rearing
(or development) of offspring.
(2) Actions that substantially alter the
natural hydrologic regime upstream of
the designated critical habitat units.
These activities could include, but are
not limited to, ground water pumping or
surface water diversion activities,
construction of impoundments or flood
control structures, or the release of
water in excess of levels that historically
occurred. Such activities could result in
an atypical reduction or excess amount
of water present in the aquatic habitats
that tidewater goby occupy, and alter
the salinity conditions that support this
species.
(3) Actions that substantially alter the
channel morphology of the designated
critical habitat units or the areas upgradient from these units. Such
activities may include, but are not
limited to, channelization projects, road
and bridge projects, removal of
substrates, destruction and alteration of
riparian vegetation, reduction of
available floodplain, and removal of
gravel or floodplain terrace materials.
Such activities could increase water
velocities and flush large numbers of
tidewater goby into the ocean,
especially during flood events.
(4) Actions that result in the discharge
of agricultural and sewage effluents, or
chemical or biological pollutants, into
the aquatic habitats where tidewater
goby occur. Such activities have the
ability to degrade the water quality
where tidewater goby live, introduce
toxic substances that can poison
individual fish, adversely affect fish
immune systems, and decrease the
amount of oxygen in aquatic habitats
where the species occurs.
(5) Actions that cause atypical levels
of sedimentation in coastal wetland
habitats or remove vegetative cover that
stabilizes stream banks. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to,
grazing or mining activities, road
construction projects, off-road vehicle
use, and other watershed and floodplain
disturbance activities. Such activities
have the potential to alter the amount
and composition of the substrate in the
habitats where tidewater goby occur,
and thereby affect the species’ ability to
construct breeding burrows.
(6) Actions that result in the artificial
breaching of lagoon habitats. Such
activities can reduce the amount of
space available for individual and
population growth; strand and desiccate
tidewater goby adults, fry, or eggs; and
increase the risk of predation by native
or non-native predators as tidewater
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65029
goby become concentrated and exposed
as water levels drop.
(7) Actions that create barriers that
prevent tidewater goby from accessing
areas they would normally be able to
access. These activities, which may
include, but are not limited to, water
diversions, road crossings, and sills, can
reduce the amount of space available for
individual and population growth, and
reduce the number and extent of sites
for breeding, reproduction, and rearing
(or development) of offspring.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate 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 integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65030
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the proposed
revised critical habitat designation for
tidewater goby to determine if they are
exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approved INRMPs
VAFB and MCB Camp Pendleton have
approved INRMPs. The U.S. Air Force
and Marine Corps (on VAFB and MCB
Camp Pendleton, respectively)
committed to working closely with us
and California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) (as well as CDPR) with
regards to lands leased by MCB Camp
Pendleton to continually refine the
existing INRMPs as part of the Sikes
Act’s INRMP review process. Based on
our review of the INRMPs for these
military installations, and in accordance
with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we
have determined that the lands within
these installations identified as meeting
the definition of critical habitat are
subject to the INRMPs, and that
conservation efforts identified in these
INRMPs will provide a benefit to the
tidewater goby (see the following
sections that detail this determination
for each installation). Therefore, lands
within these installations are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 727 ac (294 ha)
of habitat on Vandenberg Air Force
Base, and approximately 989 ac (400 ha)
of habitat on MCB Camp Pendleton, in
this proposed revised critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Table 4 below provides approximate
areas (ac, ha) of lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat, but are
exempt from designation under section
4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
TABLE 4—EXEMPTIONS FROM PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE TIDEWATER GOBY UNDER SECTION
4(a)(3) OF THE ACT
Areas Meeting the
Definition of Critical
Habitat in Acres
(Hectares)
Specific area
Areas Exempted in
Acres
(Hectares)
Shuman Canyon ......................................................................................................................
San Antonio Creek ..................................................................................................................
Santa Ynez River .....................................................................................................................
˜
Canada Honda .........................................................................................................................
Jalama Creek ...........................................................................................................................
San Mateo Creek .....................................................................................................................
San Onofre Creek ....................................................................................................................
Las Flores/Las Pulgas Creek ..................................................................................................
Hidden Lagoon ........................................................................................................................
Aliso Canyon ............................................................................................................................
French Lagoon .........................................................................................................................
Cockleburr Canyon ..................................................................................................................
Santa Margarita River ..............................................................................................................
16 (7)
63 (25)
638 (258)
4 (2)
6 (2)
73 (30)
20 (8)
36 (14)
39 (16)
65 (26)
60 (24)
74 (30)
789 (319)
16 (7)
63 (25)
638 (258)
4 (2)
6 (2)
73 (30)
20 (8)
36 (14)
39 (16)
65 (26)
60 (24)
74 (30)
789 (319)
Totals ................................................................................................................................
1,833 (761)
1,833 (761)
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Vandenberg Air Force Base
VAFB is headquarters for the 30th
Space Wing, the Air Force’s Space
Command unit that operates VAFB and
the Western Test Range/Pacific Missile
Range. VAFB operates as an aerospace
center supporting west coast launch
activities for the Air Force, Department
of Defense, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and commercial
contractors. The three primary
operational missions of VAFB are to
launch, place, and track satellites in
near-polar orbit; to test and evaluate the
intercontinental ballistic missile
systems; and to support aircraft
operations in the western range. VAFB
lies on the south-central California
coast, approximately 275 mi (442 km)
south of San Francisco, 140 mi (225 km)
northwest of Los Angeles, and 55 mi (88
km) northwest of Santa Barbara. The
99,100 ac (40,104 ha) base extends along
approximately 42 mi (67 km) of Santa
Barbara County coast, and varies in
width from 5 to 15 mi (8 to 24 km).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
The VAFB INRMP was prepared to
provide strategic direction to ecosystem
and natural resources management on
VAFB. The long-term goal of the INRMP
is to integrate all management activities
in a manner that sustains, promotes, and
restores the health and integrity of
VAFB ecosystems using an adaptive
management approach. The INRMP was
designed to: (1) Summarize existing
management plans and natural
resources literature pertaining to VAFB;
(2) identify and analyze management
goals in existing plans; (3) integrate the
management goals and objectives of
individual plans; (4) support base
compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements; (5) support the integration
of natural resource stewardship with the
Air Force mission; and (6) provide
direction for monitoring strategies.
VAFB completed an INRMP in 2011,
which benefits tidewater goby by: (1)
Avoiding tidewater goby and their
habitat, whenever possible, in project
planning; (2) scheduling activities that
may affect tidewater goby outside of the
peak breeding period (March to July); (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
coordinating with VAFB water quality
staff to prevent degradation and
contamination of aquatic habitats; and
(4) prohibiting the introduction of
nonnative fishes into streams on-base
(VAFB 2011, Tab D, p. 15). Furthermore,
VAFB’s environmental staff reviews
projects and enforces existing
regulations and orders that, through
their implementation, avoid and
minimize impacts to natural resources,
including tidewater goby and their
habitat. In addition, VAFB’s INRMP
protects aquatic habitats for the
tidewater goby by excluding cattle from
wetlands and riparian areas through the
installation and maintenance of fencing.
Habitat features essential to the
conservation of the tidewater goby exist
on VAFB, and activities occurring on
VAFB are currently being conducted in
a manner that minimizes impacts to
tidewater goby habitat. This military
installation has an approved INRMP
that provides a benefit to the tidewater
goby, and VAFB has committed to work
closely with the Service and the CDFG
to continually refine their existing
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
INRMP as part of the Sikes Act’s INRMP
review process. Therefore, based on the
above considerations, and in accordance
with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we
have determined that conservation
efforts identified in the 2011 INRMP for
VAFB provide a benefit to the tidewater
goby and its habitat. This includes
habitat located in the following areas:
Shuman Canyon, San Antonio Creek,
˜
Santa Ynez River, Canada Honda, and
Jalama Creek. Therefore, lands subject to
the INRMP for VAFB, which includes
the lands leased from the Department of
Defense by other parties, are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, and we are
not including approximately 727 ac (294
ha) of habitat in this proposed revised
critical habitat designation because of
this exemption.
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
MCB Camp Pendleton is the Marine
Corps’ premier amphibious training
installation, and its only west coast
amphibious assault training center. The
installation has been conducting air,
sea, and ground assault training since
World War II. MCB Camp Pendleton
occupies over 125,000 ac (50,586 ha) of
coastal southern California in the
northwest corner of San Diego County.
Aside from nearly 10,000 ac (4,047 ha)
that are developed, most of the
installation consists of undeveloped
land used for training. MCB Camp
Pendleton is situated between two major
metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, 82 mi
(132 km) to the north, and San Diego,
38 mi (61 km) to the south. Nearby
communities include Oceanside to the
south, Fallbrook to the east, and San
Clemente to the northwest. Aside from
a portion of the installation’s border that
is shared with the San Mateo
Wilderness Area and the Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station, the surrounding
land use is urban development, rural
residential development, and
agricultural farming and ranching. The
largest single leaseholder on the
installation is California State Parks,
which includes a 50-year real estate
lease granted on September 1, 1971, for
2,000 ac (809 ha) that encompass San
Onofre State Beach.
The MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP is
a planning document that guides the
management and conservation of
natural resources under the
installation’s control. The INRMP was
prepared to assist installation staff and
users in their efforts to conserve and
rehabilitate natural resources consistent
with the use of MCB Camp Pendleton to
train Marines and set the agenda for
managing natural resources on MCB
Camp Pendleton. MCB Camp Pendleton
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
completed its INRMP in 2001, followed
by a revised and updated version in
2007 to address conservation and
management recommendations within
the scope of the installation’s military
mission, including conservation
measures for tidewater goby (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix F,
Section F.22, pp. F–78–F–85).
Additionally, according to the 2007
INRMP, California State Parks is
required to conduct its natural resources
management consistent with the
philosophies and objectives of the
revised 2007 INRMP (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Chapter 2, p. 31).
Tidewater goby receives
programmatic protection from training
and other installation activities within
the estuarine component of its habitat,
as outlined and required in both the
Estuarine and Beach Ecosystem
Conservation Plan and the Riparian
Ecosystem Conservation Plan (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendices B
and C, respectively). Management and
protection measures that benefit
tidewater goby identified in Appendix B
of the INRMP include, but are not
limited to, the following: (1)
Maintaining connectivity of beach and
estuarine ecosystems with riparian and
upland ecosystems; (2) promoting
natural hydrological processes to
maintain estuarine water quality and
quantity; (3) maximizing the probability
of tidewater goby metapopulation
existence within the lagoon complex
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix
B, pp. B5–B7). Management and
protection measures that benefit
tidewater goby identified in Appendix C
of the INRMP include, but are not
limited to, the following: (1) Eliminating
nonnative invasive species (such as
Arundo donax (giant reed)) on the
installation and off the installation in
partnership with upstream landowners
to enhance ecosystem value; (2)
providing viable riparian corridors and
promoting connectivity of native
riparian habitats; (3) providing for
unimpeded hydrologic and sedimentary
floodplain dynamics to support the
maintenance and enhancement of biota;
(4) maintaining natural floodplain
processes and extent of these areas by
avoiding and minimizing further
permanent loss of floodplain habitats;
(5) maintaining to the maximum extent
possible natural flood regimes; (6)
maintaining to the extent practicable
stream and river flows needed to
support riparian habitat; (7) monitoring
and maintaining groundwater levels and
basin withdrawals to avoid loss and
degradation of habitat quality; (8)
restoring areas to their original
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65031
condition after disturbance, such as
following project construction or fire
damage; and (9) promoting increased
tidewater goby populations in
watersheds through perpetuation of
natural ecosystem processes and
programmatic instruction application
for avoidance and minimization of
impacts (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007,
Appendix C, pp. C5–C8).
Current environmental regulations
and restrictions apply to all threatened
and endangered species on the
installation (including tidewater goby)
and are provided to all users of ranges
and training areas to guide activities and
protect the species and its habitat. First,
specific conservation measures are
applied to tidewater goby and its habitat
that include: (1) Controlling nonnative
animal species (such as bullfrogs) and
nonnative plant species (such as
Arundo donax and Rorippa spp.
(watercress)); and (2) restricting
military-related traffic use within
riparian areas to existing roads, trails,
and crossings. Second, MCB Camp
Pendleton’s environmental security staff
review projects and enforce existing
regulations and orders that, through
their implementation, avoid and
minimize impacts to natural resources,
including tidewater goby and its habitat.
Third, MCB Camp Pendleton provides
training to personnel on environmental
awareness for sensitive resources on the
base, including tidewater goby and its
habitat. As a result of these regulations
and restrictions, activities occurring on
MCB Camp Pendleton are currently
conducted in a manner that minimizes
impacts to tidewater goby habitat.
MCB Camp Pendleton’s INRMP also
benefits tidewater goby through ongoing
monitoring and research efforts. The
installation conducts monitoring of
tidewater goby populations at least once
every 3 years, and also conducts
monitoring to determine impacts of
relocation of effluent infiltration ponds
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix
B, p. B8). Data are provided to all
necessary personnel through MCB Camp
Pendleton’s GIS database on sensitive
resources and in their published
resource atlas. Additionally, MCB Camp
Pendleton collaborated with the U.S.
Geological Survey’s Biological
Resources Division to develop and
implement a rigorous science-based
monitoring protocol for tidewater goby
populations throughout the installation,
including monitoring water quality
variables at all historically occupied
sites regardless of current occupation
status (Lafferty 2010, pp. 10–11).
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65032
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
determined that conservation efforts
identified in the 2007 INRMP for MCB
Camp Pendleton provide a benefit to
tidewater goby and its habitat. This
includes habitat located in the following
areas: San Mateo Creek, San Onofre
Creek, Las Flores/Las Pulgas Creek,
Hidden Lagoon, Aliso Canyon, French
Lagoon, Cockleburr Canyon, and Santa
Margarita River (names of areas follow
those used in the Recovery Plan (Service
2005, pp. B21–22)). Therefore, lands
subject to the INRMP for MCB Camp
Pendleton, which includes the lands
leased from the Department of Defense
by other parties, are exempt from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, and we are
not including approximately 989 ac (400
ha) of habitat in this proposed revised
critical habitat designation because of
this exemption.
Exclusions
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
may exclude an area from designated
critical habitat based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security,
or any other relevant impacts. In
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
must identify the benefits of including
the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we are preparing an analysis of
the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related
factors.
On January 9, 2008, a final analysis of
the potential economic effects of the
November 26, 2006, proposed revised
designation (71 FR 68914) was
completed, taking into consideration
public comments and any new
information. The economic analysis
considered the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the
conservation of the tidewater goby,
including costs associated with sections
4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including
those attributable to the designation of
critical habitat. It further considered the
economic effects of protective measures
taken as a result of other Federal, State,
and local laws that aid habitat
conservation for the tidewater goby in
areas containing features essential to the
conservation of the species. The
analysis considered both economic
efficiency and distributional effects. In
the case of habitat conservation,
efficiency effects generally reflect the
‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated with the
commitment of resources to comply
with habitat protection measures (such
as lost economic opportunities
associated with restrictions on land
use).
The September 25, 2007, Federal
Register notice (72 FR 54411) provided
a detailed economics section for the
areas proposed as critical habitat for the
tidewater goby. The analysis estimated
post-designation costs associated with
conservation efforts for the tidewater
goby to be approximately $25 million
(undiscounted) over the next 20 years
(2007 to 2026) as a result of the
proposed revised designation of critical
habitat. Discounted future costs were
estimated to be approximately $22
million ($1.5 million annualized) at a 3
percent discount rate or approximately
$20 million ($1.8 million annualized) at
a 7 percent discount rate.
Appendix B of the final economic
analysis estimated the potential
incremental impacts of critical habitat
designation for the tidewater goby. It
did so by attempting to isolate those
direct and indirect impacts that are
expected to be triggered specifically by
the critical habitat designation. The
incremental conservation efforts and
associated impacts included in
Appendix B would not be expected to
occur absent the designation of critical
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habitat for the tidewater goby. Total
present value potential incremental
impacts were estimated to be $206,000
discounted at 3 percent. All other
impacts quantified in the final economic
analysis were considered baseline
impacts, and were not expected to be
affected by the critical habitat
designation.
We will announce the availability of
the revised draft economic analysis for
this proposal as soon as it is completed,
at which time we will seek public
review and comment. At that time,
copies of the draft economic analysis
will be available for downloading from
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov, or by contacting
the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section). During the
development of a final designation, we
will consider economic impacts, public
comments, and other new information,
and areas that may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the
lands within the proposed designation
of critical habitat for tidewater goby are
not owned or managed by the
Department of Defense, and, therefore,
we anticipate no impact on national
security. Consequently, the Secretary is
not currently considering exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designation based on impacts on
national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether the landowners have developed
any HCPs or other management plans
for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans for
tidewater goby, and the proposed
revised designation does not include
any tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this
proposed critical habitat designation.
Accordingly, the Secretary is not
currently considering exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designation based on other
relevant impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will
invite these peer reviewers to comment
during this public comment period on
our specific assumptions and
conclusions in this proposed
designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during this
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in the
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant and has
not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(2) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an
agency must 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
(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 RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
We will prepare a new economic
analysis for this proposed revised
critical habitat designation for the
tidewater goby. At this time, we lack the
available economic information
necessary to provide an adequate factual
basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding
until completion of the draft economic
analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act and Executive Order 12866.
This draft economic analysis will
provide the required factual basis for the
RFA finding. Upon completion, we will
announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation in the Federal Register and
reopen the public comment period for
the proposed designation. We will
include with this announcement, as
appropriate, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis or a certification that
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities accompanied
by the factual basis for that
determination.
An analysis of the economic impacts
of the 2006 proposed revised critical
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65033
habitat designation was made available
to the public on September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54411), and finalized in the final
rule to designate critical habitat
published in the Federal Register on
January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5920). In our
economic analysis of that designation
(73 FR 5920, p. 5951), we evaluated
small business entities in five
categories: Water management, grazing,
transportation, natural resource
management, and oil and gas pipeline
construction and maintenance. Based on
the results of the analysis, incremental
impacts are associated with additional
administrative costs of section 7
consultations in water management,
transportation, natural resource
management, and oil and gas pipeline
construction and maintenance. No
additional project modification costs
were expected to result from the
designation. All impacts quantified in
our economic analysis, other than the
incremental portion of administrative
costs, were forecasted to occur
regardless of critical habitat designation
for the tidewater goby. Additional
administrative costs resulting from this
designation were expected to be borne
by various public agencies, including
the Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, California State departments,
and various California city and county
governments; however, none of these
qualified as small entities. Del Norte
County, which was the only county
containing proposed critical habitat that
qualified as a small entity, was not
expected to bear any incremental
impacts of tidewater goby conservation
from the critical habitat designation.
Therefore, this analysis did not
anticipate any impacts to small entities.
However, the economic analysis
prepared for the 2008 critical habitat
designation does not accurately reflect
the full range of potential economic
impacts that may result from this
proposed revision to tidewater goby
critical habitat.
We have concluded that deferring the
RFA finding until completion of the
draft economic analysis is necessary to
meet the purposes and requirements of
the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in
this manner will ensure that we make a
sufficiently informed determination
based on adequate economic
information and provide the necessary
opportunity for public comment.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65034
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
when undertaking certain actions. Based
on an analysis conducted for the
previous designation of critical habitat
and extrapolated to this designation,
along with a further analysis of the
additional areas included in this
revision, we have determined that this
proposed rule to revise critical habitat
for the tidewater goby 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. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our
economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.), we make the following findings:
(1) 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, or
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; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
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 nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
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.
(2) Based in part on an analysis
conducted for the previous designation
of critical habitat and extrapolated to
this designation, we do not expect this
rule to significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Small governments
will be affected only to the extent that
any programs having Federal funds,
permits, or other authorized activities
must ensure that their actions will not
adversely affect the critical habitat.
Therefore, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. However, as we
conduct our economic analysis for the
revised rule, we will further evaluate
this issue and revise this assessment if
appropriate.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights’’), this
rule is not anticipated to have
significant takings implications. As
discussed above, the designation of
critical habitat affects only Federal
actions. Although private parties that
receive Federal funding, or assistance,
or 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. Due to current public
knowledge of the species protections
both within and outside of the proposed
areas, we do not anticipate that property
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
values would be affected by the critical
habitat designation. However, we have
not yet completed the economic
analysis for this proposed rule. Once the
economic analysis is available, we will
review and revise this preliminary
assessment as warranted, and prepare a
Takings Implication Assessment.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule
does not have significant Federalism
effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of
the 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.
The designation of critical habitat in
areas currently occupied by the
tidewater goby may impose nominal
additional regulatory restrictions to
those currently in place and, therefore,
may have little incremental impact on
State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have
some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species are
more clearly defined, the elements of
the features of the habitat necessary to
the conservation of the species are
specifically identified, and the areas
that are otherwise essential for the
conservation of the species are also
identified. This information does not
alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur.
However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that 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.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
system and that it 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
elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the tidewater goby within the
designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
species.
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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). 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.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) 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 position was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
65035
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
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.
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 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the 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. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no tribal
lands that meet the definition of critical
habitat. Therefore, we are not proposing
to designate critical habitat for the
tidewater goby on tribal lands.
§ 17.95
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://www.
regulations.gov and upon request from
the Ventura Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package
are the staff members of the Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. In § 17.95(e), revise the entry for
‘‘Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi)’’ under ‘‘FISHES’’ to read as
follows:
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
(e) Fishes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino,
Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange,
and San Diego Counties, California, on
the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent element of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of tidewater goby consists
of persistent, shallow (in the range of
approximately 0.3 to 6.6 ft (0.1 to 2 m)),
still-to-slow-moving lagoons, estuaries,
and coastal streams ranging in salinity
from 0.5 ppt to 12 ppt, which provide
adequate space for normal behavior and
individual and population growth, that
contain:
(i) Substrates (e.g., sand, silt, mud)
suitable for the construction of burrows
for reproduction;
(ii) Submerged and emergent aquatic
vegetation, such as Potamogeton
pectinatus, Ruppia maritima, Typha
latifolia,and Scirpus spp., that provides
protection from predators and high flow
events; or
(iii) Presence of a sandbar(s) across
the mouth of a lagoon or estuary during
the late spring, summer, and fall that
closes or partially closes the lagoon or
estuary, thereby providing relatively
stable water levels and salinity.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas), and the land on which
they are located, existing within the
legal boundaries on the effective date of
this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
for most units using National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) data (both published
data available over the Internet and inpublication provisional data). Where
NWI data was lacking, unit boundaries
were digitized directly on imagery from
the Department of Agriculture’s
National Aerial Imagery Program data
(NAIP) acquired in 2005. NAIP and NWI
data were projected to Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM), zones 10
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
65036
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and 11, on the North American Datum
of 1983.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi) in Northern California,
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.000
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
newberryi) in Southern California,
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.001
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(6) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
65037
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(7) Unit DN–1: Tillas Slough, Del
Norte County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit DN–1: Tillas Slough, Del Norte
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit DN–1: Tillas
Slough, Del Norte County, California, is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
depicted on the map in paragraph (8)(ii)
of this entry.
(8) Unit DN–2: Lake Earl/Lake
Tolowa, Del Norte County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit DN–2: Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa, Del
Norte County, California]
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit DN–1: Tillas
Slough and Unit DN–2: Lake Earl/Lake
Tolowa, Del Norte County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.002
65038
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(ii) Note: Map of Unit HUM–1: Stone
Lagoon, Humboldt County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(10)(ii) of this entry.
(10) Unit HUM–2: Big Lagoon,
Humboldt County, California.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit HUM–2: Big Lagoon, Humboldt
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit HUM–1: Stone
Lagoon and Unit HUM–2: Big Lagoon,
Humboldt County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.003
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(9) Unit HUM–1: Stone Lagoon,
Humboldt County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit HUM–1: Stone Lagoon, Humboldt
County, California]
65039
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(11) Unit HUM–3: Humboldt Bay,
Humboldt County, California.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit HUM–3: Humboldt Bay, Humboldt
County, California]
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit HUM–3:
Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.004
65040
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit HUM–4: Eel River, Humboldt
County, California]
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit HUM–4: Eel
River, Humboldt County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.005
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(12) Unit HUM–4: Eel River,
Humboldt County, California.
65041
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(13) Unit MEN–1: Ten Mile River,
Mendocino County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MEN–1: Ten Mile River,
Mendocino County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MEN–1: Ten
Mile River, Mendocino County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (15)(ii) of this entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(14) Unit MEN–2: Virgin Creek,
Mendocino County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MEN–2: Virgin Creek, Mendocino
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MEN–2: Virgin
Creek, Mendocino County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(15)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(15) Unit MEN–3: Pudding Creek,
Mendocino County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MEN–3: Pudding Creek,
Mendocino County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MEN–1: Ten
Mile River, Unit MEN–2: Virgin Creek,
and Unit MEN–3: Pudding Creek,
Mendocino County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.006
65042
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MEN–4: Davis Lake/Manchester
State Park Ponds, Mendocino County,
California]
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MEN–4: Davis
Lake/Manchester State Park Ponds,
Mendocino County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.007
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(16) Unit MEN–4: Davis Lake/
Manchester State Park Ponds,
Mendocino County, California.
65043
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(17) Unit SON–1: Salmon Creek,
Sonoma County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SON–1: Salmon Creek, Sonoma
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SON–1: Salmon
Creek, Sonoma County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(21)(ii) of this entry.
(18) Unit MAR–1: Estero Americano,
Marin County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MAR–1: Estero Americano, Marin
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MAR–1: Estero
Americano, Marin County, California, is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
depicted on the map in paragraph
(21)(ii) of this entry.
(19) Unit MAR–2: Estero De San
Antonio, Marin County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MAR–2: Estero De San Antonio,
Marin County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MAR–2: Estero
De San Antonio, Marin County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (21)(ii) of this entry.
(20) Unit MAR–3: Walker Creek,
Marin County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MAR–3: Walker Creek, Marin
County, California]
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MAR–3: Walker
Creek, Marin County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(21)(ii) of this entry.
(21) Unit MAR–4: Lagunitas
(Papermill) Creek, Marin County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MAR–4: Lagunitas (Papermill)
Creek, Marin County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SON–1: Salmon
Creek, Sonoma County, California, Unit
MAR–1: Estero Americano, Unit MAR–
2: Estero De San Antonio, Unit MAR–3:
Walker Creek, and Unit MAR–4:
Lagunitas Creek, Marin County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.008
65044
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
depicted on the map in paragraph
(23)(ii) of this entry.
(23) Unit MAR–6: Rodeo Lagoon,
Marin County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MAR–6: Rodeo Lagoon, Marin
County, California]
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MAR–5: Bolinas
Lagoon, and Unit MAR–6: Rodeo
Lagoon, Marin County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.009
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(22) Unit MAR–5: Bolinas Lagoon,
Marin County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MAR–5: Bolinas Lagoon, Marin
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MAR–5: Bolinas
Lagoon, Marin County, California, is
65045
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(24) Unit SM–1: San Gregorio Creek,
San Mateo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SM–1: San Gregorio Creek, San
Mateo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SM–1: San
Gregorio Creek, San Mateo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (27)(ii) of this entry.
(25) Unit SM–2: Pomponio Creek, San
Mateo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SM–1: Pomponio Creek, San Mateo
County, California]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SM–2:
Pomponio Creek, San Mateo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (27)(ii) of this entry.
(26) Unit SM–3: Pescadero—Butano
Creek, San Mateo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SM–3: Pescadero—Butano Creek,
San Mateo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SM–3:
Pescadero—Butano Creek, San Mateo
County, California, is depicted on the
map in paragraph (27)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(27) Unit SM–4: Bean Hollow Creek,
San Mateo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SM–4: Bean Hollow Creek, San
Mateo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SM–1: San
Gregorio Creek, Unit SM–2: Pomponio
Creek, Unit SM–3: Pescadero–Butano
Creek, and Unit SM–4: Bean Hollow
Creek, San Mateo County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.010
65046
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–2: Scott
Creek, Santa Cruz County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(31)(ii) of this entry.
(30) Unit SC–3: Laguna Creek, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–3: Laguna Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–3: Laguna
Creek, Santa Cruz County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(31)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(31) Unit SC–4: Baldwin Creek, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–4: Baldwin Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–1: Waddell
Creek, Unit SC–2: Scott Creek, Unit SC–
3: Laguna Creek, and Unit SC–4:
Baldwin Creek, Santa Cruz County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.011
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(28) Unit SC–1: Waddell Creek, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–1: Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–1: Waddell
Creek, Santa Cruz County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(31)(ii) of this entry.
(29) Unit SC–2: Scott Creek, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–2: Scott Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California]
65047
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(32) Unit SC–5: Moore Creek, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–5: Moore Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–5: Moore
Creek, Santa Cruz County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(34)(ii) of this entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(33) Unit SC–6: Corcoran Lagoon,
Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–6: Corcoran Lagoon, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–6: Corcoran
Lagoon, Santa Cruz County, California,
is depicted on the map in paragraph
(34)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(34) Unit SC–7: Aptos Creek, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–7: Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–5: Moore
Creek, Unit SC–6: Corcoran Lagoon, and
Unit SC–7: Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.012
65048
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(36) Unit MN–1: Bennett Slough,
Monterey County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MN–1: Bennett Slough, Monterey
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MN–1: Bennett
Slough, Monterey County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(37)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(37) Unit MN–2: Salinas River,
Monterey County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit MN–2: Salinas River, Monterey
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–8: Pajaro
River, Santa Cruz County, California
and Unit MN–1: Bennett Slough, and
Unit MN–2: Salinas River, Monterey
County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.013
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(35) Unit SC–8: Pajaro River, Santa
Cruz County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SC–8: Pajaro River, Santa Cruz
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SC–8: Pajaro
River, Santa Cruz County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(37)(ii) of this entry.
65049
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(38) Unit SLO–1: Arroyo de la Cruz,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–1: Arroyo de la Cruz, San
Luis Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–1: Arroyo
de la Cruz, San Luis Obispo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (42)(ii) of this entry.
(39) Unit SLO–2: Arroyo del Corral,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–2: Arroyo del Corral, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–2: Arroyo
del Corral, San Luis Obispo County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (42)(ii) of this entry.
(40) Unit SLO–3: Oak Knoll Creek,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–3: Oak Knoll Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–3: Oak
Knoll Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (42)(ii) of this entry.
(41) Unit SLO–4: Little Pico Creek,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–4: Little Pico Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–4: Little
Pico Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (42)(ii) of this entry.
(42) Unit SLO–5: San Simeon Creek,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–5: San Simeon Creek, San
Luis Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–1: Arroyo
de la Cruz, Unit SLO–2: Arroyo del
Corral, Unit SLO–3: Oak Knoll Creek,
Unit SLO–4: Little Pico Creek, and Unit
SLO–5: San Simeon Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.014
65050
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–7: San Geronimo Creek, San
Luis Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–7: San
Geronimo Creek, San Luis Obispo
County, California, is depicted on the
map in paragraph (46)(ii) of this entry.
(45) Unit SLO–8: Toro Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–8: Toro Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–8: Toro
Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (46)(ii) of this entry.
(46) Unit SLO–9: Los Osos Creek, San
Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–9: Los Osos Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–6: Villa
Creek, Unit SLO–7: San Geronimo
Creek, Unit SLO–8: Toro Creek, and
Unit SLO–9: Los Osos Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.015
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(43) Unit SLO–6: Villa Creek, San
Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–6: Villa Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–6: Villa
Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (46)(ii) of this entry.
(44) Unit SLO–7: San Geronimo
Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California.
65051
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(47) Unit SLO–10: San Luis Obispo
Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–10: San Luis Obispo Creek,
San Luis Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–10: San
Luis Obispo Creek, San Luis Obispo
County, California, is depicted on the
map in paragraph (50)(ii) of this entry.
(48) Unit SLO–11: Pismo Creek, San
Luis Obispo County, California.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–11: Pismo Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–11: Pismo
Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (50)(ii) of this entry.
(49) Unit SLO–12: Oso Flaco Lake,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SLO–12: Oso Flaco Lake, San Luis
Obispo County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–12: Oso
Flaco Lake, San Luis Obispo County,
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (50)(ii) of this entry.
(50) Unit SB–1: Santa Maria River,
Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–1: Santa Maria River, Santa
Barbara County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO–10: San
Luis Obispo Creek, Unit SLO–11: Pismo
Creek, Unit SLO–12: Oso Flaco Lake in
San Luis Obispo County, and Unit SB–
1: Santa Maria River, in Santa Barbara
County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.016
65052
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
˜
Unit SB–4: Canada de Alegria, Santa
Barbara County, California]
˜
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–4: Canada
de Alegria, Santa Barbara County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (56)(ii) of this entry.
˜
(54) Unit SB–5: Canada del Agua
Caliente, Santa Barbara County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
˜
Unit SB–5: Canada del Agua Caliente,
Santa Barbara County, California]
˜
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–5: Canada
del Agua Caliente, Santa Barbara
County, California, is depicted on the
map in paragraph (56)(ii) of this entry.
(55) Unit SB–6: Gaviota Creek, Santa
Barbara County, California.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–6: Gaviota Creek, Santa Barbara
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–6: Gaviota
Creek, Santa Barbara County, California,
is depicted on the map in paragraph
(56)(ii) of this entry.
(56) Unit SB–7: Arroyo Hondo, Santa
Barbara County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–7: Arroyo Hondo, Santa
Barbara County, California]
˜
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–2: Canada
˜
de las Agujas, Unit SB–3: Canada de
˜
Santa Anita, Unit SB–4: Canada de
˜
Alegria, Unit SB–5: Canada del Agua
Caliente, Unit SB–6: Gaviota Creek, and
Unit SB–7: Arroyo Hondo, Santa
Barbara County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.017
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
˜
(51) Unit SB–2: Canada de las Agujas,
Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
˜
Unit SB–2: Canada de las Agujas, Santa
Barbara County, California]
˜
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–2: Canada
de las Agujas, Santa Barbara County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (56)(ii) of this entry.
˜
(52) Unit SB–3: Canada de Santa
Anita, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
˜
Unit SB–3: Canada de Santa Anita,
Santa Barbara County, California]
˜
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–3: Canada
de Santa Anita, Santa Barbara County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (56)(ii) of this entry.
˜
(53) Unit SB–4: Canada de Alegria,
Santa Barbara County, California.
65053
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(57) Unit SB–8: Winchester/Bell
Canyon, Santa Barbara County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–8: Winchester/Bell Canyon,
Santa Barbara County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–8:
Winchester/Bell Canyon, Santa Barbara
County, California, is depicted on the
map in paragraph (59)(ii) of this entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(58) Unit SB–9: Goleta Slough, Santa
Barbara County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–9: Goleta Slough, Santa Barbara
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–9: Goleta
Slough, Santa Barbara County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (59)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(59) Unit SB–10: Arroyo Burro, Santa
Barbara County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–10: Arroyo Burro, Santa
Barbara County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–8:
Winchester/Bell Canyon, Unit SB–9:
Goleta Slough, and Unit SB–10: Arroyo
Burro, Santa Barbara County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.018
65054
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–11: Mission
Creek—Laguna Channel, Santa Barbara
County, California, is depicted on the
map in paragraph (61)(ii) of this entry.
(61) Unit SB–12: Arroyo Paredon,
Santa Barbara County, California.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–12: Arroyo Paredon, Santa
Barbara County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SB–11: Mission
Creek—Laguna Channel, and Unit SB–
12: Arroyo Paredon, Santa Barbara
County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.019
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(60) Unit SB–11: Mission Creek—
Laguna Channel, Santa Barbara County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SB–11: Mission Creek—Laguna
Channel, Santa Barbara County,
California]
65055
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(62) Unit VEN–1: Ventura River,
Ventura County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit VEN–1: Ventura River, Ventura
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit VEN–1: Ventura
River, Ventura County, California, is
depicted on the map in paragraph
(64)(ii) of this entry.
(63) Unit VEN–2: Santa Clara River,
Ventura County, California.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit VEN–2: Santa Clara River, Ventura
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit VEN–2: Santa
Clara River, Ventura County, California,
is depicted on the map in paragraph
(64)(ii) of this entry.
(64) Unit VEN–3: J Street Drain—
Ormond Lagoon, Ventura County,
California.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit VEN–3: J Street Drain–Ormond
Lagoon, Ventura County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit VEN–1: Ventura
River, Unit VEN–2: Santa Clara River,
and Unit VEN–3: J Street Drain—
Ormond Lagoon, Ventura County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.020
65056
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(66) Unit LA–1: Arroyo Sequit, Los
Angeles County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit LA–1: Arroyo Sequit, Los Angeles
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit LA–1: Arroyo
Sequit, Los Angeles County, California,
is depicted on the map in paragraph
(67)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(67) Unit LA–2: Zuma Canyon, Los
Angeles County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit LA–2: Zuma Canyon, Los Angeles
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit VEN–4: Big
Sycamore Canyon, in Ventura County,
and Unit LA–1: Arroyo Sequit, and Unit
LA–2: Zuma Canyon, Los Angeles
County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.021
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(65) Unit VEN–4: Big Sycamore
Canyon, Ventura County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit VEN–4: Big Sycamore Canyon,
Ventura County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit VEN–4: Big
Sycamore Canyon, Ventura County,
California, is depicted on the map in
paragraph (67)(ii) of this entry.
65057
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(68) Unit LA–3: Malibu Lagoon, Los
Angeles County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit LA–3: Malibu Lagoon, Los Angeles
County, California]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(ii) Note: Map of Unit LA–3: Malibu
Lagoon, Los Angeles County, California,
is depicted on the map in paragraph
(69)(ii) of this entry.
(69) Unit LA–4: Topanga Creek, Los
Angeles County, California.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit LA–4: Topanga Creek, Los Angeles
County, California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit LA–3: Malibu
Lagoon, and Unit LA–4: Topanga Creek,
Los Angeles County, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.022
65058
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit OR–1: Aliso Creek, Orange County,
California]
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR–1: Aliso
Creek, Orange County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.023
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(70) Unit OR–1: Aliso Creek, Orange
County, California.
65059
65060
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit SAN–1: San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California]
*
Dated: October 4, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
*
*
*
*
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SAN–1: San
Luis Rey River, San Diego County,
California, follows:
[FR Doc. 2011–26301 Filed 10–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\19OCP2.SGM
19OCP2
EP19OC11.024
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(71) Unit SAN–1: San Luis Rey River,
San Diego County, California.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64996-65060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26301]
[[Page 64995]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 202
October 19, 2011
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised
Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64996]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AX39
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Revised Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise critical habitat for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
In total, approximately 12,157 acres (4,920 hectares) are being
proposed for designation as critical habitat. The proposed revised
critical habitat is located in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma,
Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,
Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 19, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at one of the addresses shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section by December 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, and
information about the proposed designation in Santa Cruz, Monterey, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, contact
Diane K. Noda, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,
CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958.
For information about the proposed designation in Del Norte,
Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties, contact Nancy Finley, Field
Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata,
CA 95521 (telephone 707-822-7201; facsimile 707-822-8411).
For information about the proposed designation in Sonoma, Marin,
and San Mateo Counties, contact Susan Moore, Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone 916-
414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6712).
For information about the proposed designation in Orange and San
Diego Counties, contact Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Service Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad,
CA 92011 (telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901).
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 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 other concerned government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed revised rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``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 may not be
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of tidewater goby habitat;
(b) Which areas that are within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing (or are currently occupied) contain features
essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the
designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed for the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in areas we are proposing, including
managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that should be included in the designation because they are
essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the tidewater goby, the features essential to its
conservation and the areas proposed as critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, environmental,
cultural, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be
included in the final designation; in particular, any impacts on small
entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit
these impacts.
(6) Any information on potential threats to habitat and the
feasibility of reintroduction or introduction of the tidewater goby to:
Walker Creek, Bolinas Lagoon, Pomponio Creek, Waddell Creek, Salinas
River, Arroyo del Cruz, Oso Flaco Lake, Arroyo Sequit, Zuma Creek,
Aliso Creek, or any other areas identified for reintroduction or
introduction in the recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Service
2005), and the reasons why we should or should not designate these or
other unoccupied areas as critical habitat for the tidewater goby.
(7) Specifically with reference to those State Park lands under the
jurisdiction of the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR) that are proposed for designation, information on any areas
covered by conservation or management plans that we should consider for
exclusion from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8) Any additional proposed critical habitat areas covered by
conservation or management plans that we should consider for exclusion
from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We specifically
request any information on any operative or draft habitat conservation
plans for the tidewater goby that have been prepared under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or any other management or other conservation
plan or agreement that benefits the tidewater goby or its primary
constituent elements.
(9) Any information concerning tribal lands or trust resources that
may be
[[Page 64997]]
impacted by this proposed revision to critical habitat.
(10) Whether our exemption under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act of
Department of Defense land at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in Santa
Barbara County, and Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton in San Diego
County, is or is not appropriate, and why.
(11) 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.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section. We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed 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, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby in this
proposed rule. This proposed rule incorporates new information on
tidewater goby genetics and distribution that was not available when we
completed our 2008 final critical habitat designation (73 FR 5920;
January 31, 2008). A summary of topics that are relevant to this
proposed critical habitat designation is provided below. For more
information on tidewater goby taxonomy, biology, and ecology, please
refer to: the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on
February 4, 1994 (59 FR 5494); the first and second rules proposing
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August 3, 1999
(64 FR 42250) and November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68914), respectively; and
the subsequent final critical habitat designations published in the
Federal Register on November 20, 2000 (65 FR 69693) and January 31,
2008 (73 FR 5920). Additionally, more species information can be found
in the Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Recovery Plan) (Service
2005), and in the Tidewater Goby 5-year review (Service 2007).
Species Description and Genetic/Morphological Characteristics
The tidewater goby is a small, elongate, grey-brown fish rarely
exceeding 2 inches (in) (5 centimeters (cm)) in length. This species
possesses large pectoral fins, with the pelvic or ventral fins joined
to each other beginning below the chest and belly and from below the
gill cover back to just anterior of the anus. Male tidewater goby are
nearly transparent with a mottled brown upper surface. Female tidewater
goby develop darker colors, often black, on the body and dorsal and
anal fins. Tidewater goby are short-lived species; the lifespan of most
individuals appears to be about 1 year (Irwin and Soltz 1984, p. 26;
Swift et al. 1989, p. 4; M. Hellmair, pers. comm. 2010).
Various genetic markers demonstrate that pronounced differences
exist in the genetic structure of the tidewater goby, and that
tidewater goby populations in some locations are genetically distinct.
A study of mitochondrial DNA and cytochrome b (molecular material used
in genetic studies) sequences from tidewater goby that were collected
at 31 locations throughout the species' geographic range has identified
six major phylogeographic units (Dawson et al. 2001, p. 1171). These
six regional units are the basis for the recovery units in the Recovery
Plan (Service 2005), and include the following areas: (1) Tillas Slough
(Smith River) in Del Norte County to Lagoon Creek in Mendocino County
(North Coast (NC) Unit); (2) Salmon Creek in Sonoma County to Bennett's
Slough in Monterey County (Greater Bay (GB) Unit); (3) Arroyo del Oso
to Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County (Central Coast (CC) Unit); (4)
San Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo County to Rincon Creek in
Santa Barbara County (Conception (CO) Unit); (5) Ventura River in
Ventura County to Topanga Creek in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles-
Ventura (LV) Unit); and (6) San Pedro Harbor in Los Angeles County to
Los Pe[ntilde]asquitos Lagoon in San Diego County (South Coast (SC)
Unit).
A more recent study to gather genetic distribution data for the
tidewater goby used a panel of novel microsatellite loci (repeating
sequences of DNA) assessed in a first-order (unbound strands of DNA)
survey across its range (Earl et al. 2010, p. 104). More specifically,
Earl et al. (2010, p. 103) described 19 taxon-specific microsatellite
loci, and assessed genetic variation across the tidewater goby's range
relative to genetic subdivision. The study concluded: (1) Populations
of tidewater goby in northern San Diego County form a highly divergent
clade (a genetically related group) with reduced genetic variation that
appears to merit status as a separate species; (2) populations along
the mid-coast of California are subdivided into regional groups, which
are more similar to each other than different, contrary to conclusions
from previous mitochondrial sequence-based studies (Dawson et al. 2001,
p. 1176); and (3) that tidewater goby dispersal during the Pleistocene/
Holocene sea-level rise (approximately 7,000 years ago), followed by
increased isolation during the Holocene, formed a star phylogeny
(recent population formed from a common ancestor) with geographic
separation in the northernmost populations and some local
differentiation (Earl et al. 2010, p. 103). Genetic diversity among
populations within a species may be important to long-term persistence
because it represents the raw material for adapting to differing local
conditions and environmental stochasticity (Frankham 2005, p. 754).
The conclusion that the North Coast populations of the tidewater
goby formed as a result of a single recent episode of colonization of
newly formed habitats is supported by McCraney and Kinziger (2009, p.
30). They compared genetic variation of 13 naturally and artificially
fragmented populations of the tidewater goby in northern California,
including eight Humboldt Bay populations and five coastal lagoon
populations, and reached similar conclusions to Earl et al. (2010, p.
113). McCraney et al. (2010, p. 3325) also concluded that natural and
artificial habitat fragmentation caused marked divergence among the
tidewater goby in the North Coast populations. Their study showed that
Humboldt Bay populations, due to isolation by man-made barriers,
exhibited very high levels of genetic differentiation between
populations, extremely low levels of genetic diversity within
populations, and no migration among populations. They concluded that
this pattern makes the Humboldt Bay populations of tidewater goby
vulnerable to extirpation (McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 37). In
contrast, the study found that while coastal lagoon populations also
exhibited very high levels of genetic differentiation between
populations, these populations displayed substantial
[[Page 64998]]
levels of genetic diversity within populations indicating occasional
migration among lagoons (McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 32).
Populations in all coastal lagoons, with the exception of Lake Earl in
Del Norte County, appear to be stable and genetically healthy (McCraney
and Kinziger 2009, p. iii). The Lake Earl population exhibited reduced
levels of genetic diversity in comparison to similar coastal lagoon
populations (McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 34). The reduced genetic
diversity detected within Lake Earl is likely due to repeated
population bottlenecks (reduced genetic diversity due to reduced
population size) resulting from regular artificial breaching of the
lagoon mouth (McCraney and Kinziger 2009, p. 34).
The conclusions from these studies are:
(1) The tidewater goby exhibits considerable genetic diversity
across its range.
(2) The species can be divided into six phylogeographic units based
upon genetic similarities and differences.
(3) The tidewater goby to the south of the gap between Los Angeles
and Orange Counties is probably a distinct species from populations to
the north based on its divergent genetic makeup.
(4) Natural and anthropogenic barriers have contributed to genetic
differentiation among populations.
(5) Although genetic differences occur between populations north of
Los Angeles County, they are not as divergent as those populations
found south of Los Angeles County.
Metapopulation Dynamics
Local populations of tidewater goby are best characterized as
metapopulations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1448). A metapopulation is
defined as a population made up of a group of subpopulations
interconnected through patterns of gene flow, extinction, and
recolonization, and at least somewhat geographically isolated from
other populations (Meffe and Carrol 1994, p. 189). Local tidewater goby
populations are frequently isolated from other local populations by
extensive areas of unsuitable habitat. They occupy coastal lagoons and
estuaries that in most cases are separated by the open ocean. Very few
tidewater goby have ever been captured in the marine environment (Swift
et al. 1989, p. 7), which suggests that this species rarely occurs in
the open ocean. Studies of the tidewater goby suggest that some
populations persist on a consistent basis, while other populations
appear to experience intermittent extirpations (local extinctions)
(Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1452). These extirpations may result from
one or a series of factors, such as the drying up of some small streams
during prolonged droughts (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1451). Some of the
areas where the tidewater goby has been extirpated apparently have been
recolonized by nearby (within 6 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km)))
populations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 1451). These recolonization
events suggest that tidewater goby populations exhibit a metapopulation
dynamic where some populations survive or remain viable by continually
exchanging individuals and recolonizations after occasional
extirpations (Doak and Mills 1994, p. 619).
Lafferty et al. (1999b, p. 618) monitored the post-flood
persistence of several tidewater goby populations in Santa Barbara and
Los Angeles Counties after the heavy winter floods of 1995. All of the
monitored populations persisted after the floods, and no significant
changes in population sizes were noted (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 621).
However, tidewater goby apparently colonized Ca[ntilde]ada Honda in
Santa Barbara County after one flood event (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p.
621). This suggests that flooding may sometimes have a positive effect
by contributing to recolonization of habitats where a tidewater goby
population has become extirpated.
The largest wetland habitats where the tidewater goby has been
known to occur are not necessarily the most secure, as evidenced by the
fact that the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County and the San
Francisco Bay have lost their populations of tidewater goby. Today, the
most stable locations with the largest tidewater goby populations
consist of lagoons and estuaries of intermediate sizes (5 to 125 ac (2
to 50 ha)) that have remained relatively unaffected by human activities
(Service 2005, p. 12). Many of the locations where tidewater goby are
consistently present are likely to be ``source'' populations, which
probably provide the colonists for locations where tidewater goby are
intermittently extirpated.
Historical records and survey results for several areas occupied by
tidewater goby are available (Swift et al. 1989, pp. 18-19; Swift et
al. 1994, pp. 8-16). These documents suggest that the persistence of
tidewater goby populations is related to habitat size, configuration,
location, and proximity to human development. In general, the most
stable and persistent tidewater goby populations occur in lagoons and
estuaries that are more than 2.47 ac (1 ha) in size, and that have
remained relatively unaffected by human activities (Lafferty et al.
1999a, pp. 1450-1453). We note, however, that some systems that are
affected or altered by human activities also have relatively large and
stable populations, for example, Humboldt Bay in Humboldt County, Pismo
Creek in San Luis Obispo County, Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara
County, and the Santa Clara River in Ventura County. Also, some
habitats less than 2.47 ac (1 ha) in size have tidewater goby
populations that persist on a regular basis, such as Ca[ntilde]ada del
Agua Caliente in Santa Barbara County (Swift et al. 1997, p. 3). The
best available information suggests that the lagoons and estuaries with
persistent tidewater goby populations are likely the source of core
populations that provide individuals that colonize adjacent smaller
locations with intermittent populations (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p.
1452).
Distribution
The known geographic range of the tidewater goby is limited to the
coast of California (Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989,
p. 12). The species historically occurred from locations 3 mi (5 km)
south of the California-Oregon border (Tillas Slough in Del Norte
County) to 44 mi (71 km) north of the United States-Mexico border (Agua
Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County). The available documentation
(e.g., Eschmeyer et al. 1983, p. 262; Swift et al. 1989, p. 12)
suggests that the northernmost extent of the current geographic range
has not changed over time. Tidewater goby historically occurred in Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, but do not currently. The species' southernmost known
currently occupied locality is the San Luis Rey River, 5 mi (8 km)
north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Although the northernmost and
southernmost extent of the tidewater goby's range has not changed, its
overall distribution has become patchy and fragmented along the coast.
The tidewater goby appears to be naturally absent from several long
(50 to 135 mi (80 to 217 km)) stretches of coastline lacking lagoons or
estuaries, where steep topography or swift currents may prevent the
tidewater goby from dispersing between adjacent locations (Swift et al.
1989, p. 13; Earl et al. 2010, p. 104). One such gap occurs between the
Eel River in Humboldt County and the Ten Mile River in Mendocino
County. A second gap exists between Davis Lake in Mendocino County and
Salmon Creek in Sonoma County. Another large natural gap
[[Page 64999]]
occurs between the Salinas River in Monterey County and Arroyo del Oso
in San Luis Obispo County. Habitat loss and other anthropogenic-related
factors have resulted in the tidewater goby's absence from several
locations where it historically occurred; their recent disappearance
from some of these locations has created additional gaps in the
species' geographic distribution (Capelli 1997, p. 7). Such locations
include San Francisco Bay in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, and
Redwood Creek and Freshwater Lagoon in Humboldt County.
Swift et al. (1989, p. 13) reported that, as of 1984, tidewater
goby occurred or had been known to occur at 87 locations, including
those at the extreme northern and southern end of the species'
historical geographic range. An assessment of the species' distribution
in 1993, using records that were limited to the area between the
Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County and the United States-Mexico
border, found the tidewater goby occurring at four additional sites
since 1984 (Swift et al. 1993, p. 129). Other locations have been
identified since 1993, and to date the tidewater goby has been
documented at 135 locations within its historical range. Of these 135
locations, 23 (17 percent) are no longer occupied by the tidewater
goby. Therefore, 112 locations are currently occupied (Service 2005, p.
6).
Habitat
The lagoons, estuaries, backwater marshes, and freshwater
tributaries that tidewater goby occupy are dynamic environments subject
to considerable fluctuations on a seasonal and annual basis. Typically,
a sandbar forms in the late spring as flow into a lagoon declines
enough to allow the ocean surf to build up sand at the mouth of the
lagoon. Winter rains and increased stream flows may bring in
considerable sediment and dramatically affect the bottom profile and
substrate composition of a lagoon or estuary. Fine mud and clay either
move through the lagoon or estuary, or settle out in the backwater
marshes, while heavier sand is left behind. High flows associated with
winter rains can scour out the lagoon bottom to a lower level,
especially after breaching the mouth sandbar, with sand building up
again after flows decline. These dynamic processes result in wetland
habitats that, over time, move both up or down coast, and inland or
coastward.
The horizontal extent of the lentic (pond-like) wetland habitat
associated with a particular tidewater goby locality varies, and is
affected in part, by local precipitation patterns and topography. In
coastal areas where the topography is steep and precipitation
relatively low, such as areas adjacent to the Santa Ynez Mountains in
Santa Barbara County, the habitats occupied by tidewater goby may be a
few acres in size, only extend a few hundred feet inland from the
ocean, with backwater marshes small or absent. In other coastal
settings where topography is less steep and precipitation is more
abundant, surface streams are larger, coastal lagoons or estuaries may
be hundreds of acres in size and extend many miles inland, and may
include extensive backwater marshes (Lake Earl in Del Norte County and
Ten Mile River in Mendocino County). Some locations occupied by the
tidewater goby, for example, Bennett's Slough in Monterey County,
receive water from upstream areas on a year-round basis. Such locations
tend to possess wetland habitats that are larger and can extend inland
for several miles. Other occupied locations do not possess stream
channels or tributaries that provide a considerable amount of water
throughout the summer or fall months. Such locations, such as Little
Pico Creek in San Luis Obispo County, tend to possess wetland habitats
that extend only a short distance inland.
Reproduction
The tidewater goby has been observed to spawn in every month of the
year except December (Swenson 1999, p. 107). Reproduction tends to peak
in late April or May to July, and can continue into November depending
on seasonal temperature and rainfall. Swenson (1995, p. 31) has
documented the spawning activities of adult fish or the presence of egg
clutches at water temperatures between 48 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit (F)
(9 and 25 degrees Celsius (C)). Spawning tidewater goby have been
observed in water salinities between 2 and 27 parts per thousand (ppt)
(Swenson 1999, p. 31).
Threats
The final listing rule for the tidewater goby published in 1994 (59
FR 5494; February 4, 1994) and the 5-year review (Service 2007) states
that this species is threatened, or potentially threatened, by: (1)
Coastal development projects that result in the loss or alteration of
coastal wetland habitat; (2) water diversions and alterations of water
flows upstream of coastal lagoons and estuaries that negatively impact
the species' breeding and foraging activities; (3) groundwater
overdrafting; (4) channelization of the rivers where the species
occurs; (5) discharge of agricultural and sewage effluents; (6) cattle
grazing and feral pig activity that results in increased sedimentation
of coastal lagoons and riparian habitats, removal of vegetative cover,
increased ambient water temperatures, and elimination of plunge pools
and undercut banks utilized by the tidewater goby; (7) introduced
species that prey on the tidewater goby (e.g., bass (Micropterus spp.)
and crayfish (Cambaris spp.)); (8) inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; (9) drought conditions that result in the deterioration of
coastal and riparian habitats; and (10) competition with introduced
species, such as the yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus) and
chameleon goby (Tridentiger trigonocephalus).
Previous Federal Actions
On April 15, 2009, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California challenging a portion of the January 31, 2008, final rule
that designated 44 critical habitat units in Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, California (73 FR 5920, January 31, 2008). In a consent
decree dated December 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court: (1) Stated
that the 44 critical habitat units should remain in effect, (2) stated
that the final rule designating critical habitat was remanded in its
entirety for reconsideration, and (3) directed the Service to
promulgate a revised critical habitat rule that considers the entire
geographic range of the tidewater goby and any currently unoccupied
tidewater goby habitat. The consent decree requires that the Service
submit proposed and final revised rules to the Federal Register no
later than October 7, 2011, and November 27, 2012, respectively. For
additional information on previous Federal actions please refer to the
1994 listing rule (59 FR 5494; February 4, 1994), and previous critical
habitat designation (73 FR 5920; January 31, 2008).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
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
[[Page 65000]]
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific 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.
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
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to 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, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
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 designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or 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 obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner 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 the physical or 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 or 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 (PCEs))
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 or biological features that provide for a species'
life-history processes and 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 outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing may, however, be essential for 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, expert opinion, or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species (or habitats) may naturally shift
within an area, or from one area to another, over time. Climate change
will be a particular challenge for biodiversity because the addition of
stressors associated with climate change to current stressors may push
species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy and Hannah 2005, pp.
325-326). The synergistic implications of climate change and habitat
fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change for
biodiversity (Lovejoy and Hannah 2005, p. 4), because species may not
be able to migrate with shifting habitats. Current climate change
predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere generally
indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events,
and increased summer continental drying, although predictions vary for
any given specific location (Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al.
2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 11; Cayan et al. 2009, p. xi). Climate
change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms
and droughts (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p.
1015; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504).
Furthermore, these predictions also point to a future of warmer
oceans and melting glaciers and icecaps, all of which are expected to
raise mean sea levels, leading to the inundation and displacement of
many estuaries and lagoons. A rise in sea level will most dramatically
affect those estuaries that have been confined by surrounding
development that prohibits their boundaries from naturally shifting in
response to inundation. Projections for sea-level rise by the year 2100
vary from 0.59 to 6.2 ft (0.18 to 1.9 m) (Raper and Braithwaite 2006,
p. 311, IPCC 2007, p. 11; Rahmstorf 2007, p. 368; Herberger et al.
2009, p. 8; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009, p. 21530). Paleoclimatic data
suggest that the rate of future melting of the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets and related sea level rise could be faster than currently
projected (Overpeck et al. 2006, p. 1747). Park et al. (1989, pp. 1-52)
projected that of the salt marshes along the coast of the contiguous
United
[[Page 65001]]
States, 30 percent would be lost with a 1.6-ft (0.5-m) sea level rise,
46 percent with a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise, 52 percent with a 6.6-ft
(2-m) sea level rise, and 65 percent with a 9.8-ft (3-m) sea level
rise.
We cannot project directly to California the percentage of salt
marsh habitat that would be lost based upon the estimates of Park et
al. (1989, p. 1-52), who focused on the east coast and Gulf coast of
the United States; however, we can anticipate that with a projected sea
level rise of up to almost 6.6 ft (2 m), much of the marshlands and
estuaries in the state will be lost by 2100. In addition to the
inundation and displacement of estuaries/lagoons, there would be shifts
in the quality of the habitats in affected coastal regions. Prior to
being inundated, coastal watersheds would become saline due to
saltwater intrusion into the surface and groundwater. However,
predictions of climatic conditions for smaller sub-regions, such as
California, remain less certain. The full effects of these changes on
aquatic organisms, such as the tidewater goby, are not well known.
Thus, the information currently available on the effects of global
climate change is not sufficiently precise to determine what additional
areas, if any, may be appropriate to include in the revised critical
habitat for this species to address the effects of climate change.
Additionally, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later 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 be
required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the tidewater goby, 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 ensure that 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 result in take of 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 new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or 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 or 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, or 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 or biological features required for
tidewater goby from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life
history as described below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on February 4,
1994 (59 FR 5494), the Tidewater Goby 5-Year Review (Service 2007), and
the Recovery Plan (Service 2005). Based on our current knowledge of the
life history, biology, ecology, and the habitat requirements of the
species, we have determined that the tidewater goby requires the
following physical or biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Saline Aquatic Habitat
The tidewater goby occurs in lagoons, estuaries, and backwater
marshes that are adjacent to the Pacific Ocean (Wang 1982, p. 14; Irwin
and Soltz 1984, p. 27; Swift et al. 1989, p. 1; Swenson 1993, p. 3;
Moyle 2002, p. 431). The tidewater goby is most commonly found in
waters with relatively low salinities (less than 10 to 12 parts per
thousand (ppt)) (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7). This species can, however,
tolerate a wide range of salinities, and is frequently found in coastal
habitats with higher salinity levels (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7;
Worcester 1992, p. 106; Swift et al. 1997, pp. 15-22); it has been
collected in salinities as high as 42 ppt by Swift et al. (1989, p. 7)
and at 63 ppt in McDaniel Slough, Arcata Bay, Humboldt County (G.
Goldsmith pers. comm. 2011). The species' tolerance of high salinities
likely enables it to withstand some exposure to the marine environment,
allowing it to recolonize nearby lagoons and estuaries following flood
events. However, tidewater goby have only rarely been captured in the
marine environment (Swift et al. 1989, p. 7), and they appear to enter
the ocean only when flushed out of lagoons, estuaries, and river mouths
by storm events or human-caused breaches of sand bars.
Freshwater Habitat
The tidewater goby also occurs in freshwater streams up-gradient
and tributary to brackish habitats; the salinity of these freshwater
streams is typically less than 0.5 ppt. The available documentation
demonstrates that, in some areas, tidewater goby can occur 1.6 to 7.3
mi (2.6 to 11.7 km) upstream from the ocean environment (Irwin and
Soltz 1984, p. 27; Swift et al. 1997, p. 20; Chamberlain and Goldsmith
2006, p. 1). Within a 2-hour period, hundreds of tidewater goby have
been observed to move upstream of a fixed location into areas in the
Santa Ynez River 3.2 mi (5.1 km) from the ocean in Santa Barbara County
(Swift et al. 1997, p. 20). The fact that this many individuals were
observed to move through an area suggests that freshwater tributaries
in some riverine systems provide important habitat for individual and
population growth.
We have reviewed a variety of documents to determine how far
tidewater goby have been detected upstream from the ocean. Chamberlain
and Goldsmith (2006, p. 1) found tidewater goby 1.6 to 2.0 mi (2.6 to
3.3 km) upstream from the ocean in the Ten Mile River in Mendocino
County, Swift et al. (1997, p. 18) found tidewater goby 4.6 mi (7.3 km)
upstream from the ocean in the San Antonio River in Santa Barbara
County, Swift et al. (1997, p. 20) found tidewater goby at various
distances from 3.9 to 7.3 mi (6.2 to 11.7 km) upstream from the ocean
in the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, and Holland (1992, p.
9) found tidewater goby 3 mi (5 km) upstream from the ocean in the
Santa Margarita River in San Diego County. Collectively, these data
suggest the average distance tidewater goby have been detected
[[Page 65002]]
upstream from the ocean in medium to large rivers is approximately 3.8
mi (6.1 km). Other than a high stream gradient, the reasons for the
variation in upstream movement between one locality and another have
not been determined; salinity could be an important factor. Upstream
salinity levels may vary with time of year, tidal cycles, storm events,
and topography. However, Swift et al. (1997, p. 26) indicate that
stream gradient and lack of barriers (e.g., beaver dams, sills) are
more important factors than salinity to upstream dispersal.
Sandbars
Many of the locations occupied by the tidewater goby closely
correspond to stream drainages. Under natural conditions these stream
drainages and the marine environment collectively act to produce
sandbars that form a barrier between the ocean and the lagoon, estuary,
backwater marsh, and freshwater stream system (Habel and Armstrong
1977, p. 39). These sandbars tend to be present during the late spring,
summer, and fall seasons. The presence of a sandbar can create a lower
salinity level (5 to 10 ppt) in the area inshore from the sandbar
(Carpelan 1967, p. 324) than would otherwise exist if there were no
sandbar. The tidewater goby is more commonly associated with these
lower salinity levels than with the salinity levels that occur in the
ocean or an estuary without a sandbar (about 35 ppt). The formation of
a sandbar also creates more habitat for aquatic organisms because water
becomes ponded behind the sandbar. Artificial breaching of a sandbar
tends to result in a rapid decrease in water levels, and increases the
likelihood that adult tidewater goby, their nests, and their fry could
become stranded and die, or become concentrated and subject to greater
levels of predation pressure by birds or other predators.
In Humboldt Bay and the Eel River estuary in Humboldt County, a
large amount of salt and brackish marsh habitat was eliminated through
the construction of levees and drainage channels. As a result, several
of the locations occupied by tidewater goby do not contain natural
sandbars between the ocean and habitat where the species is present.
Instead, manmade water control structures such as tidegates and
culverts, exist between tidal waters and the locations where tidewater
goby occur. These tidegates have been in place for decades, and in some
cases they provide habitat conditions similar to those created by the
presence of a seasonal sandbar. In fact, most of the occupied tidewater
goby habitat in the Humboldt Bay-Eel River estuaries are above
tidegates.
Therefore, lagoons and estuaries with relatively low salinities for
suitable breeding conditions, upstream freshwater habitat for refuge,
and sandbars, which creates larger areas of suitable habitat with lower
salinities, are essential to the conservation of the species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Diet
The tidewater goby feeds mainly on macroinvertebrates such as mysid
shrimp, gammarid amphipods, ostracods, and aquatic insects such as
chironomid midge larvae (Irwin and Soltz 1984, pp. 21-23; Swift et al.
1989, p. 6; Swenson 1995, p. 87). The diets of adult and juvenile
tidewater goby tend to include the same relative abundance of different
invertebrate species (Swenson and McCray 1996, p. 962).
Water Depth, Velocity, and Temperature
The tidewater goby is most commonly collected in water less than 6
feet (ft) (2 meters (m)) deep (Wang 1982, pp. 4-5; Worchester 1992, p.
53). However, tidewater goby were recently collected in Big Lagoon in
Humboldt County during the breeding season at a water depth of 15 ft
(4.6 m) (Goldsmith 2006a, p. 1). Whether use of these deeper waters is
confined to this locality or is more widespread will require additional
sampling at various depths and locations. The tidewater goby tends to
avoid currents and concentrate in slack-water areas; this suggests they
are less likely to occur in areas with a steep gradient or
microhabitats with a substantial current. At Pescadero Creek in San
Mateo County, tidewater goby were absent from portions of the flowing
creek that had a surface velocity of 0.15 m per second (0.49 ft per
second), and were instead more densely concentrated in nearby eddies
with lower water velocities (Swenson 1993, p. 3).
Backwater marshes, including lateral sloughs, are likely to be
important to the tidewater goby for multiple reasons. Flood waters with
increased water velocities can have a negative effect on the tidewater
goby (Irwin and Soltz 1984, p. 27), and backwater marshes may provide
important refuges that reduce the likelihood that tidewater goby will
be flushed out of the lagoons or estuaries and into the marine
environment during heavy winter floods (Lafferty et al. 1999a, p. 619).
Evidence that increased flows can eliminate tidewater goby from a
locality is suggested by the extirpation of tidewater goby from Waddell
Creek in Santa Cruz County following a flood event in the winter of
1972-73 (Nelson as cited in Swift 1990, p. 2); this creek had been
channelized and no longer afforded protection from high flows during
flood events. Likewise, the channelization and elimination of habitat
lateral to the main stream channel upstream of San Onofre Lagoon in San
Diego County probably led to the flushing and extirpation of tidewater
goby from this locality during a storm in 1993 (Swift et al. 1994, pp.
22-23). The importance of backwater marshes is also highlighted by the
fact that tidewater goby in these habitats can achieve a greater size
than in adjacent lagoons and creeks (Swenson 1993, pp. 6-7).
Therefore, lagoons and estuaries with a variety of aquatic
macroinvertebrates providing food for tidewater goby as well as
backwater marshes, including lateral sloughs, which are used as refuge
during storm events and sandbar breaches, are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Cover or Shelter
A variety of native and nonnative fish species and fish-eating bird
species, such as egrets (Egretta spp.) and herons (e.g., great blue
herons (Ardea herodias)), prey on tidewater goby. A species' ability to
persist when it is subject to predation pressure frequently depends on
the presence of escape cover or shelter, heterogeneous features that
provide a greater level of structure to make it more likely to avoid
predation (Crowder and Cooper 1982, p. 1802; Gilinsky 1984, p. 455). At
locations where the tidewater goby occurs, submerged and emergent
aquatic vegetation can create habitat heterogeneity and structure to
provide a greater degree of cover from predators than would exist
without it. Stable lagoons often possess dense aquatic vegetation,
including sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) or widgeon grass
(e.g., Ruppia maritima and R. cirrhosa). At some locations, juvenile
tidewater goby are more prevalent in areas with at least some
submergent vegetation compared to areas with little or no vegetation
(Wang 1984, p. 16; Swenson 1994, p. 6; Trihey & Associates, Inc. 1996,
p. 11). The presence of submerged or emergent vegetation appears to
reduce the likelihood that tidewater goby will be preyed upon. Aquatic
vegetation also may provide some degree of shelter or refuge during
flash flood events (Lafferty et al. 1999b, p. 621) by lowering water
velocity compared to unvegetated areas. Such refuges would
[[Page 65003]]
be especially important to fish species, such as tidewater goby, that
are not strong swimmers. Therefore, lagoons and estuaries with
submerged and emerged vegetation, which provide protection from
predators and provide refuge during flood events, are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The eggs of the tidewater goby are laid in burrows excavated by
male fish. Burrows most commonly occur in areas with relatively
unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand (Swift et al. 1989, p. 8), and in
silt or mud (Wang 1982, p. 6). Swenson (1995, p. 148) demonstrated that
tidewater goby prefer a sandy substrate in the laboratory. Male
tidewater goby remain in the burrow to guard the eggs attached to the
burrow ceiling and walls, and care for the embryos for approximately 9
to 11 days until they hatch. They rarely, if ever, emerge from the
burrow to feed (Swift et al. 1989, p. 4). The tidewater goby larvae
occupy the water column after the eggs hatch (Wang 1982, p. 15), then
move to the bottom substrate as they mature. Worcester (1992, pp. 77-
79) found that larval tidewater goby in Pico Creek Lagoon in San Luis
Obispo County tended to use the deeper portion of the lagoon at a depth
of 29 in (73 cm), which is considerably deeper than the depth level of
17 in (42 cm) where they were not detected. Therefore, lagoons and
estuaries with relatively unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand, and silt
or mud, which provide for breeding, are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
The majority of lagoons, estuaries, and coastal streams that
currently support the tidewater goby have experienced some level of
disturbance. These range in size from approximately 31.5 square feet (3
m\2\) of surface area to about 2,000 acres (ac) (800 hectares (ha)).
Most lagoons and estuaries that support tidewater goby range from about
1.25 to 12.5 ac (0.5 to 5 ha). Surveys of tidewater goby locations and
historic records indicate that size, configuration, location, and
access by humans are all factors in the persistence of populations of
this species (Swift et al. 1989, p. 15; Swift et al. 1994, pp. 26-27).
Lagoons and estuaries smaller than about 5 ac (2 ha) generally exhibit
patterns of extirpation or population reduction and subsequent
recolonization to very low levels. Many of the records for smaller
locations, less than about 1 ac (0.4 ha), include one or a few large
individuals with no evidence of reproduction. These small locations are
also often within a mile or so of another locality from which
recolonization could occur following catastrophic events, such as
drought or artificial breaching of the lagoon.
The largest locations are not necessarily the most secure, such as
the San Francisco Bay or the Santa Margarita River, which have lost
their populations of tidewater goby. However, an exception is Lake
Tolowa, Del Norte County, which is several thousand acres in size and
has had a continuous presence of tidewater goby. The most stable or
largest populations today are in locations of intermediate sizes, which
range from 5 to 125 ac (2 to 50 ha). In many cases, the tidewater goby
populations in these intermediate sized locations likely serve as
source populations for the smaller ephemeral sites (Lafferty et al.
1999b, p. 1452). Therefore, lagoons and estuaries that range in size
from small to large are important for maintaining the metapopulation
dynamics and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Primary Constituent Elements for Tidewater Goby
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of tidewater goby in areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent
elements to be the elements of the physical or biological features that
provide for a species' life-history processes and, under the
appropriate circumstances, are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
element (and its components) specific to tidewater goby are:
(1) Persistent, shallow (in the range of approximately 0.3 to 6.6
ft (0.1 to 2 m)), still-to-slow-moving, lagoons, estuaries, and coastal
streams ranging in salinity from 0.5 ppt to about 12 ppt, which
provides adequate space for normal behavior and individual and
population growth that contain:
(a) Substrates (e.g., sand, silt, mud) suitable for the
construction of burrows for reproduction;
(b) Submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, such as Potamogeton
pectinatus, Ruppia maritima, Typha latifolia, and Scirpus spp., that
provides protection from predators and high flow events; or
(c) Presence of a sandbar(s) across the mouth of a lagoon or
estuary during the late spring, summer, and fall that closes or
partially closes the lagoon or estuary, thereby providing relatively
stable water levels and salinity.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. Special management considerations or protection may be
necessary to eliminate or reduce the magnitude of threats that affect
the tidewater goby. Threats identified in the final listing rule for
the tidewater goby include: (1) Coastal development projects that
result in the loss or alteration of coastal wetland habitat; (2) water
diversions and alterations of water flows upstream of coastal lagoons
and estuaries that negatively impact the species' breeding and foraging
habitat and activities; (3) groundwater overdrafting that results in
reduction of flows and negatively impacts the species' breeding and
foraging habitat and activities; (4) channelization of habitats where
the species occurs that removes or reduces quality of habitat; (5)
discharge of agricultural and sewage effluents; (6) cattle grazing and
feral pig activity that result in increased sedimentation of coastal
lagoons and riparian habitats, remove vegetative cover, increase
ambient water temperatures, and eliminate plunge pools and collapsed
undercut banks utilized by the tidewater goby; (7) introduced species
that prey on the tidewater goby (e.g., bass, crayfish); (8) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; (9) drought conditions
that result in the deterioration of coastal and riparian habitats; and
(10) competition with introduced species, such as the yellowfin goby
and chameleon goby.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we have combined the
``water diversions and alterations of water flows upstream of coastal
lagoons and estuaries that negatively impact the species' breeding and
foraging activities'' threats category with ``drought conditions'' and
``groundwater overdrafting,'' along with the addition of
[[Page 65004]]
artificial breaching of sandbars, into one threat category, i.e.,
``water diversions, alterations of water flows, artificial sandbar
breaching, and groundwater overdrafting that negatively impact the
species' breeding and foraging activities.'' Similarly, we have
combined the two threat categories of ``introduced species that prey on
the tidewater goby (e.g., bass, crayfish)'' and ``competition with
introduced species such as the yellowfin goby and chameleon goby'' into
one category, i.e., ``introduced species that prey on, or compete with,
the tidewater goby (e.g., yellowfin goby, bass, and crayfish).'' Where
special management may be necessary, regulatory mechanisms may need to
be added or amended by local, State, or Federal governmental entities
if sufficient management is not achievable through voluntary
mechanisms.
The tidewater goby exhibits a pattern of occupancy and extirpation
throughout its range. The species requires refugia under drought
conditions and places to recolonize under wetter conditions; otherwise,
the tidewater goby would be relegated to existing only within those few
lagoons and estuaries large enough to support it during periods of
drought. If the suitable localities that are occupied during periods of
normal precipitation cease to function as tidewater goby habitat due to
modification or destruction while the localities are unoccupied, the
metapopulation dynamics may be disrupted and the species may not be
able to respond by recolonizing unoccupied localities under favorable
conditions. A more detailed discussion of threats to the tidewater goby
can be found in the final listing rule (59 FR 5494, March 7, 1994), and
the final Recovery Plan (Service 2005, pp. 16-19).
We find that the components of the PCE present within all the areas
we are proposing to designate as critical habitat may require special
management considerations or protection due to threats to the tidewater
goby or its habitat. Using current information provided in the Recovery
Plan (Service 2005, Appendix E) and other information in our files, we
have identified the components of the PCE that may require special
management considerations or protection from known threats within each
of the critical habitat units (see Critical Habitat Designation and
Table 3 below for a unit-by-unit description). Some of the special
management actions that may be needed for essential features of
tidewater goby habitat are briefly summarized below.
(1) Implement measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate direct and
indirect loss and adverse modification of tidewater goby habitat due to
dredging, draining, and filling of lagoons and estuaries. Additional
management actions should be taken to restore historic locations and
potential habitats as opportunities become available to eliminate,
minimize, or mitigate the effects of existing structures and past
activities that have destroyed or degraded tidewater goby habitat.
(2) Measures should be developed and implemented to minimize the
adverse effects due to channelization that can eliminate crucial
backwater habitats or other flood refuges.
(3) Implement measures, such as best management practices, for
managing excessive sedimentation in tidewater goby habitat within
current or enhanced parameters. Measures should prevent further
increase in sedimentation in tidewater goby habitat due to cattle
grazing, development, channel modification, recreational activity, and
agricultural practices.
(4) Implement measures to prevent further decrease in freshwater
inflow, water depth, and surface area within tidewater goby habitat due
to dams, water diversions and groundwater pumping.
(5) Implement measures to avoid anthropogenic breaching of lagoons,
for example, use of pumping and other water control structures to
regulate water levels, to provide conditions during the summer and
fall, when reproduction is at its highest and freshwater inflow is at
its lowest.
(6) Implement measures to prevent further degradation of water
quality resulting from agricultural runoff and effluent, municipal run-
off, golf course runoff, sewage treatment effluent, cattle grazing,
development, oil spills, oil field runoff, toxic waste, and gray water
dumping. Also, measures should be implemented to prevent further
degradation of the water quality due to dikes, tidal gates, and other
impedances to the natural freshwater/saltwater interface that alter the
salinity regime