Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover, 36727-36869 [2012-13886]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 118
June 19, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy
Plover; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36728
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–AX10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast
Population of the Western Snowy
Plover
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), designate
revised critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast distinct population segment (DPS)
(Pacific Coast WSP) of the western
snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus
nivosus, formerly C. alexandrinus
nivosus) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 24,527 acres (9,926
hectares) of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP in Washington,
Oregon, and California, fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. This revised final
designation constitutes an increase of
SUMMARY:
approximately 12,377 ac (5,009 ha) from
the 2005 designation of critical habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP. A taxonomic
name change has occurred and been
accepted for the snowy plover.
Throughout the remainder of this
document, we will use the currently
recognized name for the subspecies,
Charadrius nivosus nivosus, to which
the listed entity (Pacific Coast WSP)
belongs for references to the Pacific
Coast WSP.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
July 19, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, final
economic analysis, and maps of critical
habitat will be available on the Internet
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070, and at
https://www.fws.gov/arcata/. Comments
and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon
Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707–
822–7201; facsimile 707–822–8411.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Finley, Field Supervisor, or Jim
Watkins, Fish and Wildlife Biologist,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon
Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707–
822–7201; facsimile 707–822–8411.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This
is a final rule to revise the designation
of critical habitat for the threatened
Pacific Coast population of the western
snowy plover under the Act. Under the
Act, any species that is determined to be
endangered or threatened requires
designated critical habitat. We must
issue a rule to designate critical habitat.
In total, approximately 24,527 acres
(9,926 hectares) of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP in Washington,
Oregon, and California, fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat
designation.
We designated critical habitat for this
species in 1999 and again in 2005. As
part of a settlement agreement, we
agreed to reconsider the designations. A
proposed revised critical habitat was
published in the Federal Register on
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046). This
constitutes our final revised designation
for the Pacific Coast WSP.
We are making the following changes
to the critical habitat designation. See
Table 2 for details.
Current critical habitat designation
Revised designation
Factors affecting revised designation
Washington ....
2,526 acres (1,023 hectares) of Federal,
State, and Private lands.
Four units in Washington, totaling 6,077
acres (2,460 hectares).
Oregon ...........
2,147 acres (869 hectares) of Federal,
State, and Private lands.
9 units in Oregon, totaling 2,112 acres
(856 hectares).
California ........
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
State
7,477 acres (3,030 hectares) of Federal,
State, and Private lands.
47 units in California, totaling 16,337
acres (6,612 hectares).
We are excluding 425 acres (172 hectares) of Tribal lands from designation
based on partnerships.
We are excluding 3,106 acres (1,257
hectares) of lands from designation
based on partnerships with landowners.
We are excluding 266 acres (108 hectares) of lands from designation based
on partnerships with landowners.
The basis for our action. Under the
Endangered Species Act, any
endangered or threatened species must
have a designated critical habitat. We
are required to base the designation on
the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration economic and
other impacts. The Secretary can
exclude an area from critical habitat if
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, unless the
exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species.
We prepared an economic analysis.
To ensure that we consider the
economic impacts, we prepared a new
economic analysis of the proposed
revised designation. On January 17,
2012, we made available our revised
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
draft economic analysis (77 FR 2243).
We received public comments on the
draft economic analysis and revised it
based on input from the public. The
economic analysis did not identify any
areas with disproportionate costs
associated with the designation, and no
areas were excluded from the final
designation based on economic reasons.
We incorporated peer review. We
sought comments and information from
independent specialists to ensure that
our critical habitat designation was
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We had
invited these peer reviewers to comment
on our specific assumptions and
conclusions in the proposed revision of
the critical habitat designation.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Information we received from peer
review is incorporated in this final
revised designation.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final
rule only those topics directly relevant
to the development and designation of
revised critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP under the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). For more information on
the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of
the Pacific Coast WSP, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR
12864); the 12-month finding on a
petition to delist the Pacific Coast WSP
(71 FR 20607, April 21, 2006); and the
revised proposed critical habitat rule
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
published in the Federal Register on
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046).
Additional information on this species
can also be found in the Recovery Plan
for the Pacific Coast Population of the
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus) finalized on
August 13, 2007, which is available
from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section) (Service 2007).
Information on the associated draft
economic analysis for the revised
proposed critical habitat was published
in the Federal Register on January 17,
2012 (77 FR 2243). The nomenclature
for the listed entity has changed to the
‘‘Pacific Coast population of the western
snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus
nivosus),’’ but this change does not alter
the description or distribution of the
species.
Change in Taxonomic Nomenclature
In our January 17, 2012, Federal
Register publication (77 FR 2243),
which made available the draft
economic analysis on the March 22,
2011, revised proposed critical habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP, we proposed
a taxonomic and nomenclatural change
for the Pacific Coast WSP from
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus to C.
nivosus nivosus and for that change to
be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). Based on
information presented in that notice (see
the notice’s section entitled Taxonomic
and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) and
acceptance of the change by the
scientific community, we are amending
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to identify
the listed entity as the western snowy
plover (Pacific Coast population DPS)
(Charadrius nivosus nivosus), to update
the ‘‘Historic Range’’ column to clarify
that the historical range of the Pacific
Coast population DPS is California,
Oregon, Washington, and Mexico, and
to update the ‘‘Vertebrate population
where endangered or threatened’’
column to indicate that the DPS is
threatened in California, Oregon,
Washington, and Mexico (within 50
miles of Pacific coast).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
New Information on Species’
Description, Life History, Ecology,
Habitat, and Range
We did not receive any new
information pertaining to the
description, ecology, or habitat of the
Pacific Coast WSP following the 2011
revised proposed critical habitat rule (76
FR 16046; March 22, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include
consideration of ongoing and projected
changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’
and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the
mean and variability of different types
of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such
measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (IPCC
2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’
thus refers to a change in the mean or
variability of one or more measures of
climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer, whether the change is due to
natural variability, human activity, or
both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types
of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects
may be positive, neutral, or negative,
and they may change over time,
depending on the species and other
relevant considerations, such as the
effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat
fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14,
18–19). In our analyses, we use our
expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in
our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
Sea level rise and hydrological
changes associated with climate change
are having and will continue to have
significant effects on Pacific Coast WSP
and its habitat over the next several
decades. Sea level rise is a result of two
phenomena: Thermal expansion
(increased sea water temperatures) and
global ice melt (Cayan et al. 2006, p. 5).
Between 1897 and 2006, the observed
sea level rise has been approximately
0.08 inches (in) (2 millimeters (mm)) per
year, or a total of 8 in (20 centimeters
(cm)) over that period (Heberger et al.
2009, p. 6). Older estimates projected
that sea level rise along the California
coast would follow a similar rate and
reach 0.7–2 feet (ft) (0.2–0.6 meters (m))
by 2100 (IPCC 2007). Recent
observations and models (including the
models we used to evaluate Pacific
Coast WSP habitat) indicate that those
projections were conservative and
ignored some critical factors, such as
melting of the Greenland and Antarctica
ice sheets (Heberger et al. 2009, p. 6).
Heberger et al. (2009, p. 8) have updated
the sea level rise projections for
California to 3.3–4.6 ft (1.0–1.4 m) by
2100, while Vermeer and Rahmstorf
(2009, p. 21530) calculate the sea level
rise globally at 2.4–6.2 ft (0.57–1.9 m);
in both cases, recent estimates were
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36729
more than twice earlier projections.
Combined with California’s normal
dramatic tidal fluctuations and
coincidental storms, the severity of the
latter increasing with more frequent El
˜
Nino Southern Oscillations due to
increasing surface water temperature
(Cayan et al. 2006, p. 17), the effects of
sea level rise are expected to reach
farther inland than previously
anticipated (Cayan et al. 2006, pp. 48–
49; Cayan et al. 2009, p. 40). Similar
effects are expected to occur along the
Oregon and Washington coastlines
(Galbraith et al. 2002, pp. 173–183;
Huppert et al. 2009, pp. 285–309;
Ruggiero et al. 2010, 211–262).
For the Pacific Coast WSP and other
shorebird habitat, Galbraith et al. (2002,
pp. 173–183) in a study of sites in
Washington (Willapa Bay) and
California (Humboldt Bay and San
Francisco Bay) projected losses of
intertidal habitat could range between
20 and 70 percent of the existing
habitat. In addition, sea-level rise may
result in coastal areas to lose their
ability to continue to support the
current number of shorebirds. Areas
with steep topography (Northern
California to Washington State) or
seawalls (Southern California) with
limited beach habitat are expected to
have the most severe losses (Galbraith et
al. 2002, pp. 173–183). Additionally
sea-level rise would cause: (1)
Inundation of low-lying areas by high
tides; (2) flooding of coastal areas during
major storm events, especially near river
mouths; (3) acceleration of erosion of
coastal bluffs; and (4) a shift in beach
profiles, move the position of the mean
high water line landward (Huppert et al.
2009, p. 285).
In our development of this critical
habitat designation, we evaluated
numerous climate change models of
varying scope and scale. Due to the
wide range of the Pacific Coast WSP
(Washington to Mexico) we selected
models which reflected conditions
across the range for the Pacific Coast
WSP and those developed or accepted
by the Department of the Interior as a
basis for determining the extent of the
effects of climate change on coastal
habitat used by the Pacific Coast WSP.
Previous Federal Actions
The Pacific Coast WSP was listed as
a threatened species on March 5, 1993
(58 FR 12864). Critical habitat was
designated in 1999 (64 FR 68508;
December 7, 1999). That rule was
remanded and partially vacated by the
U. S. District Court for the District of
Oregon on July 2, 2003, in order to
conduct a new analysis of economic
impacts (Coos County Board of County
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36730
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Commissioners et al. v. Department of
the Interior et al., CV 02–6128, M.
Hogan). We published a revised rule
designating critical habitat on
September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56970).
A 5-year status review of the
population under section 4(c)(2) of the
Act was completed June 8, 2006, based
on the analysis conducted for the
section 4(b)(3)(B) status review for a 12month finding on a petition to delist the
Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR 20607; April
21, 2006). Because the Pacific Coast
WSP was listed prior to our 1996 policy
published in the Federal Register on
February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4721) regarding
recognition of distinct population
segments, in our 12-month finding, we
reviewed and confirmed our
determination that the Pacific Coast
WSP constituted a valid distinct
population segment.
On October 2, 2008, the Center for
Biological Diversity challenged our 2005
critical habitat designation (70 FR
56970; September 29, 2005) (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, et
al., No. C–08–4594 PJH (N.D.
California)). This litigation was resolved
through settlement, in which the
Service agreed to conduct a rulemaking
to consider potential revisions to the
designated critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP. On May 11, 2009, the U. S.
District Court for the Northern District
of California adopted the terms of the
settlement agreement and issued an
order requiring the Service to submit a
final revised critical habitat designation
to the Federal Register by June 5, 2012.
This rule complies with that court
order.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the 2011 proposed rule to
revise critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP during two comment
periods. The first comment period
requesting comments in association
with the publication of the proposed
revised rule (76 FR 16046) opened on
March 22, 2011, and closed May 23,
2011. Upon the availability of the draft
economic analysis (DEA) associated
with the revised proposed critical
habitat, a second comment period
covering both the revised proposed rule
and the DEA opened on January 17,
2012 (77 FR 2243) and closed on
February 16, 2012. During both public
comment periods, we contacted
appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, scientific organizations, and
other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal to
revise critical habitat for this species
and the associated DEA. During the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
comment periods, we requested that all
interested parties submit comments or
information related to the proposed
revisions to critical habitat, including
(but not limited to) the following: Unit
boundaries; species occurrence
information and distribution; land use
designations that may affect critical
habitat; potential economic effects of the
revised proposed designation; benefits
associated with critical habitat
designation; areas proposed for
designation and associated rationale for
the non-inclusion or considered
exclusion of these areas; and methods
used to designate critical habitat.
During the first comment period, we
received 149 comment letters directly
addressing the proposed revision of
critical habitat, as follows: 1 from a peer
reviewer, 5 from Federal agencies, 1
from a Native American Tribe, and 142
from public organizations or
individuals. During the second
comment period, we received nine
additional comments addressing the
revised proposed critical habitat
designation and the DEA. Of these latter
comments, none were from Federal
agencies, one was from a State agency,
and the remaining eight were from
public organizations or individuals. We
did not receive any additional
comments from Native American Tribes
during the second public comment
period. We reviewed all comments
received for substantive issues and new
information regarding the revised
designation of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. All substantive
comments are addressed in the
following summary and any changes
have been incorporated into this revised
final rule as appropriate.
The open period for requesting public
hearings on the revised proposed rule
ran from March 22, 2011, through May
6, 2011 (76 FR 16046). The second open
period for requesting public hearings
associated with the January 17, 2012 (77
FR 2243), Federal Register publication
ran from January 17, 2012, through
February 16, 2012. We did not receive
any requests for a public hearing during
the two open periods.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Policy for Peer
Review in Endangered Species Act
Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions
from three knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which it occurs,
and conservation biology principles.
One peer reviewer responded and
generally supported the revised
proposed designation, and provided
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions that we have
incorporated, as appropriate, to improve
this revised final critical habitat rule.
Other potential reviewers that were
contacted could not respond due to
prior commitments and timing of the
requested review relative to the Pacific
Coast WSP field season. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated
into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer
affirmed that the background
information, essentially the biology of
the Pacific Coast WSP, was well
represented. Additional information
was provided for the distribution of
Pacific Coast WSP in Oregon. The
reviewer suggested including sites in
northern Oregon not covered under the
State’s habitat conservation plan (HCP),
and that the sites should be considered
collectively, as plovers move between
them.
Our Response: We appreciate the
assessment of the revised proposed rule
by the peer reviewer. We have identified
all the areas we consider to have the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species or
other areas we have determined to be
essential for the conservation of the
species as based on our criteria for
designating critical habitat. Not all
occupied sites were proposed as critical
habitat. Some areas meeting the
definition of critical habitat have been
excluded from this revised final critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see Exclusions section for a
detailed discussion). Those sites that we
consider to have spatial significance to
one another were grouped as subunits of
a larger unit. The northern Oregon sites
referenced by the reviewer were not
included because of their relatively
limited use by Pacific Coast WSP at this
time and they were determined not to be
essential.
The HCP with the Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department (OPRD) is a
landscape-level conservation planning
effort. It was developed with the
assistance of a multi-partner steering
committee that reviewed the recovery
plan and objectives, historical plover
use, and existing habitat conditions, and
selected the most appropriate locations
for reestablishment of plover nesting
habitat. In addition, the HCP went
through extensive public review at both
the State and Federal levels, and
incorporated appropriate input from
those processes.
(2) Comment: The peer reviewer
agreed with the conservation benefit of
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
designating additional habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. Specifically, the
reviewer acknowledged that additional
habitat is needed for connectivity
between sites, and noted that the
revised proposed rule leaves a 75-mile
(mi) (121-kilometer (km)) gap between
units on the north and south coasts of
Oregon.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer
reviewer’s critical review. Connectivity
is not the only criterion used to select
sites. We refer readers to our Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section
in the revised proposed rule (76 FR
16046; March 22, 2011). Selected sites
must have regional importance, either
for breeding or wintering Pacific Coast
WSPs.
There are few additional suitable
locations between Oregon’s north and
south coasts to designate as critical
habitat. Sites were considered, but not
proposed, due to habitat and
development conditions that would
adversely impact plovers were they to
use the sites. Seventy-five miles is a
relatively small gap in the range given
that current gap between occupied
habitat in Oregon and Washington is
greater than 150 miles (241 km).
(3) Comment: The peer reviewer
acknowledged the importance of
addressing sea-level rise, but noted
uncertainty regarding our ability to
predict how Pacific Coast WSP will
respond. In addition, the reviewer noted
that we cannot adequately predict the
response of Pacific Coast WSP prey
sources to a rapidly changing beach
environment that is compromised by
years of beach stabilization and
invasive, nonnative plants.
Our Response: We agree that the
response of Pacific Coast WSPs and
their prey is difficult to predict (refer to
Climate Change section above). Our
models for sea-level rise are general in
nature as they must represent the entire
range of the Pacific Coast WSP in the
United States. Consequently, site- and
regionally-specific models are relevant
when assessing specific effects on
species and locations, but for the
purposes of this evaluation, landscapescale models were used to assist us in
establishing unit boundaries.
There is inherent uncertainty
associated with the parameters in the
model; however, assumptions were
selected that were generally
conservative to best protect the species.
Our assessment of sea-level rise in the
revised proposed rule only addresses
habitat, and does not attempt to address
prey response, plover use, and sitespecific shoreline armoring, as these are
conditions or parameters that cannot be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
adequately represented across the range
of the species.
Federal Agency Comments
Bureau of Land Management
(4) Comment: The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in Arcata,
California, noted that, as proposed, Unit
5 (Subunits A, B, and C) has expanded
to the west, encompassing the intertidal
zone. Yet the eastern boundary remains
the same as in prior critical habitat
designations. BLM commented that they
understand the rationale for the
westward expansion based on year-toyear changes to the beach environment
and improved mapping, because of
expected inundation resulting from sealevel rise. BLM noted that critical
habitat would be better served with an
expansion to the east.
Our Response: Unit 5 primarily
depicts mapping changes with
improved information from the 2005
designation. We did not extend the unit
to the east, as there is a dune crest that
would separate such an eastern
expansion from the ocean beach. Such
a barrier would likely discourage Pacific
Coast WSP use of the area, combined
with the paved road that reaches the
length of Humboldt Bay’s South Spit.
Similarly, there is a dirt road to the east
side of the dune crest in subunit CA 5B
that may also discourage Pacific Coast
WSP use of any eastern expansion area
there.
Department of the Army (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers)
(5) Comment: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) challenged the need
for critical habitat designation of the
intertidal zone, stating that Pacific Coast
WSPs generally forage on wrack
deposited at the maximum high water
mark, and roost well above this line and
are not found along the water’s edge.
Our Response: We agree that most
foraging by Pacific Coast WSP on
southern California beaches is
associated with wrack; however, Pacific
Coast WSP will use the intertidal areas.
Use of intertidal areas may be greater
where there is no offshore kelp beds to
form well-developed wrack, such as in
northern California, Oregon, and
Washington. However, Pacific Coast
WSPs have been documented foraging
within the beach intertidal zone, and
gathering food from both above and
below the sand surface (Page et al. 2009;
https://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/
species/154/articles/foodhabits).
In areas that do not have welldeveloped wrack, the intertidal zone
may play a greater importance in plover
foraging. Consequently, the intertidal
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36731
zone is essential to Pacific Coast WSP’s
conservation, thereby meeting the
standard for designation as critical
habitat when there is an association
with other features and primary
constituent elements.
(6) Comment: The USACE commented
that our approach to sea-level rise
should be modified. The highest, high
water boundary is recommended as a
starting reference point. In addition, the
USACE stated that the eastern boundary
should not be established in areas that
do not currently contain suitable habitat
as a means to address sea-level rise.
Our Response: The purpose of this
revised critical habitat designation is to
conserve the Pacific Coast WSP.
Establishing a western boundary is
difficult, but the ‘‘water’s edge’’ is a
boundary that is easily determined on
the ground. We agree with the USACE
that the water’s edge is difficult to map,
and will change with seasonal and daily
tides, storm events, beach configuration,
etc. Our maps and the inclusion of the
intertidal zone are an attempt to address
the water’s edge issue and include the
full range of habitat available to the
Pacific Coast WSP.
We expanded critical habitat to the
east from past designations to help
ensure there will be adequate potential
for habitat in the future as sea-level rise
occurs. Not all habitat to the east is
currently suitable, however, and we
include in this critical habitat
designation only those areas that we
consider likely to be suitable with
restoration. Not addressing the eastern
expansion and only considering
currently available habitat would limit
the conservation value of a critical
habitat designation as ‘‘coastal squeeze’’
occurs with a rise in sea level. Using
elevations on the beach and adjusting
them as sea-level rise occurs, as
suggested by the USACE, makes it
difficult for land and project managers
to determine critical habitat boundaries.
(7) Comment: The USACE questioned
the validity of the Pacific Coast WSP
listing as threatened. Specifically, the
agency provided an example of a snowy
plover banded in Utah appearing at a
coastal Orange County, California, site.
Our Response: First, we note that the
Service action at issue here does not
concern whether or not the Pacific Coast
WSP should be listed under the Act, but
whether the Service should revise
critical habitat for the species. Separate
from this action, the Service is currently
reviewing the listing status of the Pacific
Coast WSP (see 76 FR 30377; May 25,
2011). For further discussion of listing
issues, we direct the USACE to our 12month finding on a petition to delist the
Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR 20607; April
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36732
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
21, 2006), where detailed information
on the Pacific Coast WSP distinct
population segment listing is available.
The report cited by the USACE
documents a Utah-banded snowy plover
at an Orange County beach during the
nonbreeding season (project-related
observation period was from September
27, 2009, to October 29, 2009) (Ryan and
Hamilton 2009, unpublished report).
Our understanding is that the snowy
plover banding in Utah was done during
the end of the breeding season, on July
22, 2009 (F. Bidstrup, pers. comm.
2012). Few, if any, snowy plovers are
present in Utah during the nonbreeding
season (Paton 1995, p. 277). Interiornesting snowy plovers are migratory,
and are well documented overwintering
along the Pacific Coast (71 FR 20607;
April 21, 2006). Generally, interiornesting snowy plovers begin to appear
along the Pacific Coast in mid- to lateJuly. In the 12-month finding, we cite
instances of coastal-breeding snowy
plovers nesting at interior sites, but
acknowledge that this type of
occurrence is rare based on banding
records (71 FR 20607; April 21, 2006).
This interchange in breeders accounts
for the fact that there is little genetic
difference between interior and coastalbreeding snowy plovers (71 FR 20607;
April 21, 2006). Regardless, because the
Pacific Coast WSP is generally a nonmigratory population, and because it is
ecologically separated from interiornesting snowy plovers, it meets criteria
for listing under our distinct population
segment policy (71 FR 20607, April 21,
2006; 61 FR 4721, February 7, 1996) and
the Act.
(8) Comment: The USACE stated that
some of the areas proposed for
designation as critical habitat do not
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Either the units are heavily used by
recreational users, or are adjacent to
disturbed areas. The commenter
provided site-specific information
where they believe designation is
inappropriate due to beach nourishment
projects at some units.
Our Response: We have determined
based on our criteria for designating
critical habitat that all the areas
designated in this rule are essential
either to or for the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP and meet the
definition of critical habitat. However,
within each critical habitat unit there
may be some areas that do not contain
the physical or biological features and
therefore would not be considered
critical habitat. Due to mapping
constraints (e.g., the scale of the
unsuitable areas are too small to be
reflected on our maps), we did not
remove these areas from this final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
revised designation. The analysis of
effects of dredging and beach
nourishment on Pacific Coast WSPs and
their habitat is part of the section 7
consultation process under the Act.
Effects to designated critical habitat and
non-designated areas that are affected by
the Federal action will be assessed
under that process, as well as other
effects to Pacific Coast WSPs.
Disturbance by recreational users and
other sources will also be evaluated
through the section 7 process where
there is a Federal nexus. For areas
lacking a Federal nexus, the Service will
work with beach and land managers to
implement recovery actions that will
avoid or offset adverse effects of
disturbance. We consider disturbance to
be relative, as Pacific Coast WSPs
respond differently to disturbance
between sites.
(9) Comment: The USACE commented
that the maps were easier to follow in
the 2005 designation than those in the
2011 revised proposed rule because the
2005 maps provided more detail relative
to land marks, such as roads.
Our Response: We appreciate this
comment, and have made changes to the
maps in this final rule. Specifically, the
maps in this revised final rule have
more location detail, such as roads, than
we provided in the 2011 revised
proposed rule. In remote areas where
roads are scarce, we added
watercourses. We acknowledge that
watercourses are dynamic, and they can
change with time, but they do provide
some ability to locate unit boundaries
on the ground.
Department of the Navy
(10) Comment: The Department of the
Navy (Navy) commented that portions
of two of their installations, Naval
Support Area Monterey and Navy at
Naval Base Ventura County, Port
Hueneme, were included in the revised
proposed rule, and requested they be
exempted from critical habitat because
both installations have an integrated
natural resources management plan
(INRMP).
Our Response: An INRMP integrates
implementation of the military mission
of the installation with stewardship of
the natural resources found on the base.
A Service-approved INRMP is required
to exempt a facility from critical habitat
designation (refer to section of this rule
concerning military exemptions under
section 4(a)(3)). In 2001, the Navy
completed the INRMP for Naval Support
Area Monterey, which includes
approximately 8 ac (3 ha) in Unit CA 22,
Monterey to Moss Landing. Although
the 2001 INRMP was approved by the
Service, we determined that it did not
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
address management actions for western
snowy plovers and therefore does not
meet the requirements for exemption
from critical habitat. On March 30,
2012, we received an addendum to the
2001 INRMP; this addendum detailed
additional conservation measures the
Navy will implement for the Pacific
Coast WSP at Naval Support Area
Monterey. We have reviewed the
addendum and have concluded that the
conservation measures identified in the
addendum would provide a benefit to
the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat.
We approved and signed this addendum
on May 24, 2012. As a result we have
exempted the approximately 8 ac (3 ha)
from Unit CA 22 from the designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions section).
The Navy also identified that
approximately 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) at Naval
Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme,
was included in the revised proposed
rule. These lands were inadvertently
included as part of Unit CA 39 in the
revised proposed designation due to a
mapping error. The identified 0.08 ac
(0.03 ha) of Navy lands within Unit CA
39, Ormond Beach, have been removed
in this revised final designation because
they are unsuitable habitat and not
essential to the conservation of the
species.
National Park Service
(11) Comment: The National Park
Service noted that critical habitat units
for the Pacific Coast WSP were
proposed within several units of the
National Park system, including:
Channel Islands National Park; Golden
Gate National Recreation Area; Point
Reyes National Seashore; Redwood
National and State Parks; and Lewis and
Clark National Historic Park. The
National Park Service supports the
proposed revised designation, and
provided general information regarding
its management for Pacific Coast WSP at
its facilities.
Our Response: We appreciate the
National Park Service’s comments. No
response necessary.
U.S. Forest Service
(12) Comment: The U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), Siuslaw National
Forest, Oregon, provided information
regarding use and boundary
descriptions for Units OR 7, OR 8, and
OR 9.
Our Response: Lands covered under
the OPRD HCP are excluded in this
revised final rule. We note the USFS’s
comments; however, all units have
changed with the exception of OR 8A,
as a result of the exclusions. Federal
lands remain unaffected by the OPRD
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
HCP exclusions, and remain in this final
designation.
State Agency Comments
(13) Comment: The OPRD requested
that all lands under its HCP be
‘‘exempted’’ (meaning ‘‘excluded’’)
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, because
the OPRD HCP provides adequate
management protections, making
designation of critical habitat on those
lands covered by the HCP redundant.
Our Response: Comment noted. In
developing this final revised
designation, we have considered
OPRD’s comments regarding exclusion
of the HCP areas, and have conducted
the analysis required under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to consider such
exclusions (refer to the Exclusions
section). As a result of our analysis, we
have concluded that the benefits of
excluding the lands covered under the
OPRD HCP outweigh the benefits of
including those areas as critical habitat
and as a result the Secretary has used
his discretion to exclude these areas
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(14) Comment: The California
Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR) provided site information
throughout California and pointed out
errors in the unit descriptions. CDPR
believes some sites proposed for
designation are inappropriate, due to
disturbance, proximity to campgrounds,
recreational off-road vehicle use, and
presence of lifeguard facilities.
Regarding Oceano Dunes State
Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA),
CDPR acknowledged that the critical
habitat designation would have little
effect on day-to-day operations of
Oceano Dunes SVRA and would not
affect management activities for the
Pacific Coast WSP. However, CDPR also
stated that a critical habitat designation
would increase administrative costs and
implied that a critical habitat
designation would require restoration of
degraded habitat in Oceano Dunes
SVRA.
CDPR stated that designation of the
‘‘riding area’’ of Oceano Dunes SVRA as
critical habitat would be inappropriate
because the riding area is degraded,
used for recreation, and unoccupied by
the western snowy plover. CDPR
requested that the riding and camping
areas be excluded from the critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, because those areas (1) do
not contain the physical or biological
features essential for the western snowy
plover, and (2) are covered by a
management plan that provides
conservation value greater than what
would be provided by a critical habitat
designation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Our Response: The general comments
from CDPR on the unit description
errors were noted and incorporated into
this revised final rule.
We agree with CDPR that a critical
habitat designation should have little, if
any, effect on day-to-day operations at
Oceano Dunes SVRA and should not
affect management activities for the
Pacific Coast WSP unless a future
project in Oceano Dunes SVRA would
be authorized, funded, permitted, or
carried out by a Federal agency.
We agree that portions of Oceano
Dunes SVRA are degraded by recreation
activities; however, habitat degradation
does not preclude us from designating
an area as critical habitat if the area
contains physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species and otherwise meets the
definition of critical habitat. Also,
annual surveys by CDPR and other
groups have documented the species (in
relatively large numbers) using Oceano
Dunes SVRA in both breeding and
wintering seasons. The use of areas for
recreational activities does not preclude
the use of the area by the Pacific Coast
WSP. For example, the Silver Strand
State Beach area identified as critical
habitat (Unit CA 55B), as well as other
high recreational use areas, plays an
important role in Pacific Coast WSP
conservation. We have determined that
these areas are essential because they
provide adequate space for high-tide
roosting and foraging opportunities,
especially during low human-use
periods and during the winter. These
areas may provide an even greater
conservation value as habitat conditions
shift and adaptive management
strategies are implemented.
The DEA accompanying the proposed
critical habitat rule determined that
Oceano Dunes SVRA would incur some
increase in administrative cost as a
result of being included in critical
habitat. These costs would be associated
with coordination with a Federal agency
during consultation under section 7 of
the Act, additional analysis under
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), or critical habitat analysis in
the Oceano Dunes SVRA HCP. However,
the DEA did not identify any
disproportionate costs to the Oceano
Dunes SVRA likely to result from a
critical habitat designation.
The recovery plan for the Pacific
Coast WSP (Service 2007) states that,
because of the dynamic nature of
western snowy plover habitat, the
physical or biological features and
specific primary constituent elements
(PCEs) for the species may be seasonally
variable or lacking. Accordingly, one or
more PCEs may be absent during certain
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36733
seasons. That said, a critical habitat unit
is not required to contain all PCEs to
qualify for designation. The
implementing regulations for section 4
of the Act (50 CFR 424.12(d)) state that
when several habitats, each satisfying
the requirements for designation as
critical habitat, are located in proximity
to one another, an inclusive area may be
designated as critical habitat. Portions of
that inclusive area may not contain any
or all PCEs. The Oceano Dunes SVRA is
located within unit CA–31, and contains
at least one PCE (open landscapes) year
round, and may seasonally contain two
other PCEs (frequency of inundation
and organic debris). We have
determined that Oceano Dunes SVRA
plays an important role in conservation
of the western snowy plover. That role
may increase due to climate-related
changes, including sea-level rise. We
maintain that Oceano Dunes SVRA is
essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP.
Lastly, we recognize that the CDPR
intensively manages habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP at Oceano Dunes
SVRA. We also recognize the difficult
balance between the Oceano Dunes
SVRA use-mandate and conservation of
sensitive species. However, justification
of exclusion from critical habitat is not
solely based on conservation measures
provided by a management plan but on
how the benefits of exclusion from
critical habitat compare to the benefits
of inclusion. We recognize that the
CDPR at Oceano Dunes SVRA have been
implementing measures to conserve the
Pacific Coast WSP and conditions have
improved somewhat for the Pacific
Coast WSP in critical habitat unit CA–
31. We value our current partnership
with the CDPR in conserving sensitive
species and their habitats; however,
after considering the relevant impacts
being incurred by the Pacific Coast
WSP, we did not conclude that the
benefits of excluding Oceano Dunes
SVRA lands in unit CA–31 outweigh the
benefits of including those lands as
critical habitat. In addition, as
mentioned in the CDPR comment letter,
the CDPR is experiencing severe
funding limitations. Consequently, the
CDPR may not be able to guarantee that
the Oceano Dunes SVRA management
plan will be implemented in the future.
For these reasons, the Secretary is
declining to exercise his discretion to
exclude Oceano Dunes SVRA lands
from unit CA–31.
Public Comments
The majority of the public comments
we received were form letters regarding
Oceano Dunes SVRA. The 104 form
letters did not provide substantial
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36734
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
information, and were analogous to a
‘‘vote’’ not to designate critical habitat at
Oceano Dunes SVRA. For information
on our determination on critical habitat
for the Oceano Dunes SVRA, please see
Comment 14 above.
(15) Comment: Several commenters
proposed models other than the ones we
used relative to sea-level rise. We also
received comments challenging the
likelihood of sea-level rise. Some
commenters stated that sea-level rise
could not be attributed to human-caused
actions and that we should not be
managing for an impact (i.e., sea-level
rise) that might not occur. Others
commenters stated that there is no
‘‘global warming’’ occurring, and that
the Service is not considering the best
science available.
Our Response: The Service considers
climate change the single greatest
conservation challenge of the 21st
century, and as a result we have
developed a draft strategic plan to
address climate change (Service 2009,
pp. 1–32). We acknowledge climate
change is a complex issue, and there
may be some uncertainty over all the
causes and precise manifestations of
climate change (see Climate Change
section above). Given these
uncertainties, one objective of this
revised final rule is to identify and
protect those habitats that we determine
will provide resiliency for Pacific Coast
WSP in the face of the effects of climate
change on habitat. We will undoubtedly
have to adapt management approaches
as we learn more. We agree that Pacific
Coast WPS management actions should
stem the impacts of climate change
where opportunities to do so exist.
We evaluated the models proposed by
the commenters, and in some instances,
we acknowledge that these models have
more detail, often resulting from sitespecific information. However, that site
specificity could not be incorporated
into a model that would assess the
species’ habitat rangewide because there
is insufficient corresponding data from
all sites across the entire range of the
Pacific Coast WSP (i.e., from
Washington to the Mexican border in
California). Other models proposed by
commenters used different parameters
than the models we employed, and thus,
could not be used consistently. The
models we selected reflected conditions
across the range for the Pacific Coast
WSP. Because we anticipated that use of
models would be controversial, we
chose to use those developed or
accepted by the Department of the
Interior.
We intentionally did not address the
cause(s) for sea-level rise in our revised
proposed rule (76 FR 16046; March 22,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
2011), as it is subject to debate in many
forums outside this critical habitat
designation process. However, there are
ample data to support that sea-level rise
is occurring, and it will continue into
the future. The models we used provide
perspective on the extent and time at
which we can expect sea-level rise to
occur (refer to Climate Change section
above).
(16) Comment: Two commenters
questioned the need to list the Pacific
Coast WSP as threatened.
Our Response: As noted above in
response to Comment 7, this finding
does not address whether the Pacific
Coast WSP should be listed, but rather
concerns whether revisions should be
made to critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP. See 71 FR 20607 (April 21,
2006) for information on the listing of
the Pacific Coast WSP.
(17) Comment: Three commenters
believe that we underestimate the
impacts of predation, and overstate the
effects of human-caused disturbance.
Our Response: Predation is a leading
cause of Pacific Coast WSP adult, chick,
and egg mortality; however, the
significance of predation varies by site.
With the influx of common ravens to
Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo,
Monterey, and Santa Cruz Counties to
coastal habitat since the late 1990s,
predation pressure has increased in
some areas. Predator management, both
nonlethal and lethal, has been effective
at many sites. Predator management is
generally considered a recovery action,
outside the process for designating
critical habitat (Page et al. 2008, pp. 1–
11).
Regarding human disturbance and
effects to Pacific Coast WSP, there is a
relationship between human beach use
and predation. Disturbance associated
with human beach use can result in
Pacific Coast WSPs flushing from their
nest. When this occurs, the birds leave
tracks in the sand, and those foot tracks
can lead predators to the nest and result
in egg loss. Also, unmanaged or poorly
managed trash associated with a variety
of uses, including recreational use, can
also attract potential predators to beach
habitats. Gulls, ravens, and crows are
known Pacific Coast WSP predators and
are good examples of species that are
attracted to areas with improper trash
management practices. Outreach and
education focusing on these humanassociated concerns will assist in
reducing predator interaction with the
Pacific Coast WSP.
Pacific Coast WSPs can withstand
some disturbance. Their tolerance to
disturbance will vary by site (see our
response to Comment 18 below), and
may vary by the individual experience
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of a single bird. Disturbance can come
from both predators and human-caused
sources.
(18) Comment: Comments regarding
the primary constituent elements (PCEs)
were wide-ranging. Some commenters
stated that the ‘‘minimal disturbance’’
element limited the Service’s selection
of potential units, while other
commenters asserted that several units
should not be designated due to too
much disturbance. One commenter
suggested that ‘‘minimal disturbance’’ is
better considered under Special
Management Considerations.
Our Response: We generally consider
that there are three generalized threats,
or limiting factors, to conservation and
recovery of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Specifically, we consider limiting
factors to conservation to be: (1)
Predation; (2) habitat loss and
degradation; and (3) disturbance. These
three factors may vary in importance by
site, and their sequence here should not
indicate a priority or level of
importance.
For the Pacific Coast WSP, there are
natural and human-caused disturbances
that affect the species and its habitat.
Pacific Coast WSPs respond differently
to disturbance depending on the type of
disturbance, its frequency, and the
timing of the disturbance. By way of
example, breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
appear to be more sensitive to
disturbance than wintering plovers.
Pacific Coast WSPs are more likely to
flush from, or abandon, a nest during
the early incubation stages. They are
less likely to abandon a nest as eggs
approach hatching, presumably because
a significant time has been spent
incubating and defending the nest.
Human presence at isolated beaches on
Vandenberg Air Force Base, for
example, can result in Pacific Coast
WSPs flushing at a greater distance than
plovers at Oceano Dunes SVRA, where
they are subject to greater disturbance
and have the ability to ‘‘habituate.’’
Vandenberg and Oceano Dunes SVRA
are only approximately 30 mi (48 km)
apart. Consequently, disturbance is
‘‘relative’’ to site conditions. Minimal
disturbance is a PCE because it is a
component of a unit’s suitability and
should be considered in Pacific Coast
WSP conservation, and therefore, in
critical habitat designation. The amount,
timing, and extent of disturbance may
be best addressed as a special
management consideration. We
considered sites with a range of
disturbance, and each site designated is
regionally important.
(19) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service is constraining critical
habitat protection by using criteria not
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
consistent with the Act. Specifically,
use of criteria other than the PCEs limits
the Service’s ability to designate habitat.
Our Response: Stating our selection
criteria and methods is necessary for
public disclosure (refer to Methods Used
to Designate Critical Habitat and
Physical and Biological Features
sections). The selection criteria relate to
how we determine where the PCEs, or
elements of physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the Pacific coast WSP,
are on the landscape. Therefore, our
selection criteria define how we
determined ‘‘essential areas’’ for
designation of critical habitat.
(20) Comment: One commenter
suggested that we include habitat
buffers in our designation.
Our Response: The Act does not
provide for us to designate buffer
habitat. We are directed by section 4 of
the Act to designate only those specific
areas determined to be either essential
to or for the conservation of the species.
The areas identified as critical habitat
within units that are not occupied, and
may be unsuitable at the present, still
meet the definition of critical habitat as
they will play a role in Pacific Coast
WSP conservation as sea-level rise
occurs. These areas are not considered
buffers.
(21) Comment: One commenter raised
issues with the increase in unit size on
their lands from the 2005 designation.
Other landowners that are within
proposed critical habitat units, but have
property at some distance from the
water’s edge, questioned the need to
designate their properties as critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP.
Our Response: In many instances, the
units are wider in this rule than
designated in 2005, because we
anticipate sea-level rise and want to
ensure there remains adequate critical
habitat following inundation. It is
difficult to determine where the effects
of sea-level rise will be the most
significant, because we expect beach
morphology or habitat characteristics to
change. Inland expansion of unit
boundaries (generally eastward) beyond
those in the 2005 designation are
expected to offset potential adverse
effects of sea-level rise.
Our maps and unit descriptions
indicate a westward increase in unit
boundaries for this rule in many cases.
The inclusion of the intertidal zone is a
function of better mapping and the
updated National Agriculture Imagery
(NAIP) used for this rule, as well as our
desire to use the ‘‘water’s edge’’ as a
boundary. The intertidal zone plays an
important role in providing the physical
and biological features of most of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
designated units. As a consequence, the
intertidal zone is included in our
designation where appropriate. Having
the water’s edge as the westward, or
ocean-side boundary, gives a clear
demarcation of the unit boundary when
actually visiting the site.
Other expansions of unit boundaries
beyond those in the 2005 designation
occurred as a result of using new
information that better identifies the
physical or biological features essential
to Pacific Coast WSP. Thus, the new
unit boundaries were drawn using the
best scientific information available to
the Service.
(22) Comment: Two commenters
believe the Service violated both the Act
and Administrative Procedure Act by
failing to adequately detail the
difference in the revised proposed rule
over the 2005 designation.
Our Response: In the revised
proposed rule, we outlined our methods
and explained differences between the
prior September 2005 final rule and the
March 2011 revised proposed rule in the
Summary of Changes From Previously
Designated Critical Habitat section (76
FR 16054; March 22, 2011). We changed
the methods used to designate critical
habitat because of the need to address
sea-level rise and provide conservation
of the species and its habitat based on
the 2007 Recovery Plan for the species.
These changes resulted in the proposed
revision to designated critical habitat
and the proposed designation of
additional areas as critical habitat, and
in some cases, a proposed expansion in
the size of areas designated in 2005.
We also reviewed the areas excluded
from the 2005 final critical habitat
designation based upon section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. Our March 22, 2011, revised
proposal of critical habitat did not
include any proposed exclusions, but
we did request public comment as to
whether any specific areas being
proposed as revised critical habitat
should be excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on comments
received on the 2011 revised proposed
rule and our analysis conducted
pursuant to the Act, in this revised final
designation we have excluded several
areas (see Application of Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act and Exclusions sections
below). Because of these exclusions and
other modifications to various units, as
described elsewhere in this rule, the
areas included in this final revised
critical habitat designation differ from
those proposed in March 2011. The
methodology and process used to
calculate acreage was discussed in the
proposed revised rule (and herein), and
there has been no deviation from that
process.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36735
(23) Comment: Two commenters
believed the Service violated the
Administrative Procedure Act and the
Act by failing to provide adequate
notice of the extent of critical habitat.
Specifically, commenters believe the
maps provided in the revised proposed
rule were inadequate.
Our Response: The critical habitat
maps are coarse, compared to detailed
land ownership. However, the
Geographical Information System (GIS)
layers for the unit polygons were posted
on the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
Web site, and were available for
downloading during the public
comment periods. The availability of the
GIS data complies with both the
Administrative Procedure Act and the
Act. We notified landowners, informing
them that critical habitat was being
proposed for designation on lands in
coastal areas from Washington to
southern California. Because of the scale
of the revised proposed designation,
some individual landowners may have
been missed, but we made a good faith
effort to reach all those that could be
identified at the time of the proposal.
We also were available upon request to
go over maps as needed and were
directly contacted by several
landowners that sought clarification of
ownership during the open public
comment periods.
(24) Comment: Two commenters
stated that the Service failed to
adequately explain why retaining all
previously designated critical habitat is
essential.
Our Response: By court settlement,
the Service agreed to conduct a
rulemaking to consider potential
revisions to the 2005 critical habitat
designation. Our Methods and Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat
sections in the 2011 revised proposed
rule explain how we selected areas
essential to and for the conservation of
the species. The methods applied in
2011 were similar to those used in the
2004 proposed rule and 2005 final rule.
Each unit in this designation contains a
description explaining how it meets the
Act’s definition and our criteria for
designation as critical habitat.
Our revised final designation varies
from the 2005 rule. There are exclusions
and exemptions in this revised final rule
that were not in the previous rule (refer
to our sections on Summary of Changes
from the Revised Proposed Rule).
(25) Comment: Two commenters
suggested that the Service violated the
Act by proposing units that were not
occupied at the time of listing.
Our Response: Critical habitat is
defined under section 3 of the Act as (1)
the specific areas within the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36736
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it was listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (a)
essential to the conservation of the
species, and (b) which may require
special management considerations or
protection; and (2) the specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by a species at the time it was listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. Some units are designated
based on this second prong; these units,
such as WA 1, were not occupied at the
time of listing but have been determined
to be essential for the conservation of
the species.
In addition, some units included in
this designation may not be occupied
year-round. However, they are essential
for conservation because they constitute
important wintering sites where
breeding does not occur, or important
breeding sites. Unit CA 9 is an example
of a unit designated for its importance
as wintering site.
Unit OR 12 is designated because,
although it is unoccupied, it serves an
essential role in conservation by
connecting other units and thus
facilitating Pacific Coast WSP
movement from site to site depending
on habitat availability, allowing
additional foraging or wintering
opportunities. This site is expected to
play an important role as sea-level rise
inundates other sites. The site is
identified in the 2007 Recovery Plan as
a recovery site.
(26) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service violated the Information
(Data) Quality Act because the revised
proposed rule is not clear regarding the
science used to develop the rule.
Our Response: The revised proposed
rule, and this final revision to critical
habitat, are in fact clear in describing
the science used to develop the rule. In
our Background and Critical Habitat—
Methods Used to Designate Critical
Habitat sections, we discuss the types of
information used to develop the
designation, as well as the models,
mapping techniques, and other
materials used to develop the revised
proposed rule. We selected models and
data that could be consistently used
throughout the Pacific Coast WSP’s
range, and avoided site-specific models
and data that would be more difficult to
obtain.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated
that the public should be able to review
input from peer reviewers.
Our Response: Peer review is
conducted concurrently with the public
comment period. Peer reviewers are
provided the same information as the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
public; however, because of their
experience with the species or similar
species, they are asked to provide a
detailed review. Typically, their
response is provided by the closing date
of the public comment period; therefore,
there is no opportunity for the public to
comment on peer-review input. Peerreviewer input has been summarized in
this rule, but the full text is available
upon request at the Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
(28) Comment: Some commenters
provided Pacific Coast WSP use
information for sites that were not
proposed for designation. Specifically,
sites in Oregon and the Monterey Bay
region of California were referenced.
Commenters felt that the Service did not
fully consider all sites, stating that the
omitted sites provide connectivity and
thus value to critical habitat.
Our Response: We proposed sites that
have regional and rangewide
importance. Many sites in northern
California have comparatively little
Pacific Coast WSP use relative to sites
both to the north and to the south.
However, we are designating those sites
because of the large gap in breeding and
wintering Pacific Coast WSPs from
southern Sonoma County, California, to
New River in Oregon. The fluctuation in
the breeding population and the
connectivity value of the sites within a
large gap in the Pacific Coast WSP’s
range justifies their inclusion in
designation.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. 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 needed for
recovery of the species.
(29) Comment: A commenter in
Washington expressed concern that
beach nourishment at Shoalwater Bay
by the USACE would impact designated
critical habitat. Additional, detailed
information was provided by another
commenter during the second comment
period for the same unit, related to the
USACE’s beach nourishment project.
Our Response: These comments raise
issues related to section 7 of the Act,
which requires that Federal agencies
ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize species or adversely modify
or destroy designated critical habitat. If
the USACE engages in beach
nourishment projects at Shoalwater Bay,
such actions may require consultation
with the Service to determine the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
project’s effects on Pacific Coast WSP
and on designated critical habitat (refer
to Effects of Critical Habitat
Designation—Section 7 Consultation).
(30) Comment: Private landowners
from all three States raised concerns
that designation of critical habitat on
their property would prevent use of
their land and adjacent land. Several
believe the designation would increase
regulation and curtail development and
enjoyment. Some municipalities
expressed similar concerns.
Our Response: A critical habitat
designation may result in limitations to
land use only in association with land
use or management practices that
require a Federal permit, Federal
funding, or discretionary action by a
Federal agency (i.e., a Federal nexus). If
a project requires such Federal
involvement, then the action and its
effects to the Pacific Coast WSP and its
designated critical habitat would be
evaluated under section 7 of the Act
(refer to Effects of Critical Habitat
Designation—Section 7 Consultation).
Actions that do not have a Federal
nexus may continue, provided there is
no take of Pacific Coast WSPs. If take of
Pacific Coast WSPs is anticipated, an
individual may seek an incidental take
permit from the Service for the Pacific
Coast WSP on the lands where the
action is to occur. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect a nonFederal action.
(31) Comment: Two commenters
reported on the importance of certain
sites in Sonoma County, California,
specifically Salmon Creek Beach and
Doran Spit.
Our Response: We agree that the
Salmon Creek Beach and Doran Spit
sites are important to Pacific Coast WSP
conservation. However, their overall
importance relative to other sites within
Recovery Unit 4 (refer to the Recovery
Plan; Service 2007) is not as great.
Breeding is variable at both Salmon
Creek Beach and Doran Spit, as well as
at more northern sites (e.g., CA 8,
Manchester Beach). Monitoring of the
sites will continue, and the Service will
work with beach managers to
implement appropriate recovery actions
that will further conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP at these sites.
(32) Comment: Four commenters
questioned why critical habitat was not
proposed for Ocean Beach, Pacifica
State Beach, and Gazos Creek in San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties.
Commenters also expressed the
importance of Laguna Creek State Beach
and Seabright State Beach, noting their
collective importance.
Our Response: We agree that these
sites are important to Pacific Coast WSP
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
conservation. However, the potential of
these sites as breeding areas is lower
than that of the sites we designated for
breeding (see the Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section below)
(Service 2007, pp. B9–B12; Service
2011, p. 16053). Similarly the numbers
of wintering birds supported by the
suggested sites is lower than that of the
sites we designated for wintering alone,
and wintering needs are also met by
many of the sites designated for
breeding. The suggested areas also do
not strongly advance the goals of
increasing diverse habitat, maintaining
connectivity, or utilizing restored areas
for plover conservation. However,
monitoring of the suggested sites will
continue, and we will work with beach
managers to implement appropriate
recovery actions that will further
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP at
these sites.
(33) Comment: One commenter
‘‘petitioned’’ for exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for both
Oceano Dunes SVRA, and a 4-ac (2-ha)
area near Sand City, California.
Our Response: Although there is no
4(b)(2) petition process for exclusions of
areas from designation of critical
habitat, we have considered the
comment in terms of whether Oceano
Dunes SVRA and Sand City sites should
be excluded from this designation. The
commenter cited economic
considerations in support of exclusion;
these were addressed in the final
economic analysis (FEA) for the revised
proposed rule (refer to the Exclusions
section below). The FEA did not
identify any disproportionate costs
associated with designation of critical
habitat at either Oceano Dunes SVRA or
the Sand City sites (refer to our response
to Comment 14 above, and to
‘‘Exclusions based on Economic
Impacts’’ below), and consequently,
these sites were not considered for
economic exclusions. Moreover, in
order for lands to be excluded under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the benefits of
excluding the area must outweigh the
benefits of including those lands as
critical habitat. In this case, the benefits
of excluding the ‘‘petitioned’’ lands do
not outweigh the benefits of including
those lands (for instance section 7 and
10 obligations under the Act; increased
public awareness of Pacific Coast WSP
habitat, and potential indirect oversite
by State and local governments) in this
final revised designation.
(34) Comment: Three commenters
requested exclusions or partial
exclusions to Units CA 38, CA 39, and
CA 41 because they believe those areas
do not contain the PCEs due to
disturbance.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Our Response: Refer to our response
to Comment 8 above. Our response to
Comment 17 also addresses disturbance.
Comments on the Draft Economic
Analysis
Comments on Development
(35) Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that the designation
of critical habitat within the Sand City
coastal zone in Unit CA 22 will create
regulatory uncertainty with associated
costs for future development projects in
the area. Additionally, the California
Coastal Commission (CCC) may view
the designation of critical habitat as
‘‘overriding’’ the previously approved
Sand City local coastal plan (LCP),
which allows for the development of
two coastal resorts. If these projects do
not move forward, jobs and tax revenue
that would have been generated by the
developments would be lost.
Our Response: As stated in section
4.2.2 of the FEA, we acknowledge that
incremental indirect impacts resulting
from future litigation or increased
scrutiny from State agencies may
include denial of development permits
for the Sterling-McDonald and Security
National Guaranty (SNG) sites in Sand
City, Unit CA 22. Due to uncertainty
surrounding the likelihood and extent of
such indirect impacts, we are unable to
quantify any potential impacts.
Specifically, such a calculation requires
information about both the probability
that current development plans will be
affected and the magnitude of impacts,
neither of which can be determined at
this time, nor directly attributed to the
critical habitat designation. The
commenter provides estimates of total
revenues anticipated to be generated by
these projects; however, assuming total
loss of these revenues implies that such
an impact will occur with 100 percent
certainty. It is possible, based on recent
litigation concerning the site and limits
to the CCC’s authority to amend the
previously approved local coastal
program, development will move
forward as planned and not be affected
by the designation. Therefore, this
analysis does not attempt to quantify
these impacts, but notes that such
impacts are possible and, if they occur,
would be an incremental result of
critical habitat designation.
(36) Comment: One commenter
expressed concern that the SNG
development site in Sand City, CA (Unit
CA 22), is vulnerable to indirect
incremental impacts of the designation.
The commenter stated that if critical
habitat were designated in this
previously excluded area, the
development project would be subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36737
further administrative burden related to
review by the CCC. The commenter
expressed concern that critical habitat
may be used by the CCC or other
agencies as a further reason to deny a
coastal development permit or other
approval, resulting in increased
litigation and associated costs.
Our Response: The DEA and FEA
acknowledge the potential for increased
indirect impacts to SNG due to the
designation of critical habitat. The FEA
notes that such indirect impacts are
possible, and if they occur, may be an
incremental result of critical habitat
designation. However, as explained in
section 4.2.2 of the FEA, we do not
quantify these impacts due to
considerable uncertainty surrounding
the probability that the development
permits will be denied or that the
development will face legal action due
to the designation of critical habitat. To
this point, the commenter provides
documentation suggesting that denial of
a permit by CCC could be illegal in light
of recent court decisions. An
assumption that development will not
proceed at the site as planned is thus
highly speculative.
(37) Comment: One commenter
requested clarification of the meaning of
the phrase ‘‘land’s option value for
development,’’ as used in section 4.2.2,
paragraph 148, and in Exhibits ES–4
and 4–4, of the DEA.
Our Response: The FEA incorporates
clarifying language in section 4.2.2.
‘‘Option value’’ refers to the fact that
land values incorporate an expectation
of residential or commercial
development, in terms of likelihood and
timing, and the associated returns to the
landowner.
(38) Comment: In the context of the
indirect impacts to SNG development, a
commenter stated that it is not helpful
or meaningful to characterize economic
impacts as indirect because the term
may suggest that indirect impacts are of
lesser magnitude than direct impacts.
Our Response: As described in section
2.4.2 of the FEA, the designation of
critical habitat may, under certain
circumstances, affect actions that do not
have a Federal nexus and thus are not
subject to the provisions of section 7
under the Act. Indirect incremental
impacts are those unintended changes
in behavior that may occur outside of
the Act, through other Federal, State, or
local actions, and that may be caused by
the designation of critical habitat. The
FEA does not intend to diminish the
magnitude of such impacts by calling
them indirect. The FEA may not
quantify indirect impacts in some
instances due to the considerable
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36738
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
uncertainty surrounding their likelihood
and magnitude.
(39) Comment: One commenter
requested that the Service utilize the
estimate of economic impacts for Unit
CA 22 contained in the 2005 economic
analysis when making a decision to
exclude units from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Our Response: The 2005 economic
analysis was developed under a coextensive framework, which considered
and quantified both baseline costs, as
well as incremental impacts of the
designation. As described in sections
2.1 and 2.2 (as well as in Exhibit 2–1),
the 2011 DEA distinguishes the
incremental costs of designation from
baseline costs, whereas the 2005
economic analysis evaluated all Pacific
Coast WSP (baseline and incremental)
conservation costs collectively. That is,
the impacts estimated in the 2005
Economic Analysis captured costs of
Pacific Coast WSP conservation
regardless of whether they resulted
specifically from critical habitat
designation or from other Federal, State,
or local regulations. The 2011 DEA
instead characterizes all potential future
Pacific Coast WSP conservation as
either baseline (expected to occur even
without the designation of critical
habitat) or incremental (expected to
occur only if critical habitat is
designated). The FEA qualitatively
discusses baseline Pacific Coast WSP
conservation and quantifies the
incremental impacts.
The identification and estimation of
incremental impacts is consistent with
direction provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
Federal agencies for the estimation of
the costs and benefits of Federal
regulations (see OMB, Circular A–4,
2003). It is also consistent with several
recent court decisions, including Cape
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 344 F.
Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C.); Center for
Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d
1115 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Home Builders
Association of Northern California v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
denied, 179 L. Ed 2d 301, 2011 U.S.
Lexis 1392, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011);
and Arizona Cattle Growers v. Salazar,
606 F. 3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S.
Lexis 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011).
These decisions found that estimation of
incremental impacts stemming solely
from the designation is proper.
(40) Comment: One commenter
asserted that additional administrative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
burden and project modifications are
necessary under the Act for a USACE
beach nourishment project in subunit
WA 3B due to the Pacific Coast WSP’s
recent colonization of subunit WA 3B.
Our Response: The FEA includes the
estimated administrative cost of section
7 consultation related to this beach
nourishment project in subunit WA 3B.
As described in section 4.2.5 of the FEA,
due to the designation of critical habitat,
this project’s previous informal
consultation will need to be reinitiated
in 2012, to consider the adverse
modification standard. This project is
short-term and occurs in a critical
habitat unit occupied by the Pacific
Coast WSP, but could have permanent
impacts on critical habitat. The analysis
assumes that no project modifications
would be necessary to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat in
addition to what has already been
proposed to reduce impacts to the
Pacific Coast WSP. However, until the
section 7 analysis is complete, it
remains unknown if an adverse
modification determination will be the
resultant outcome.
(41) Comment: Although the revised
critical habitat does not overlap any
areas currently used for recreation in
subunit CA 55B (Coronado Beach), a
commenter expressed concern that the
designation of critical habitat could
impact future recreation activities in the
subunit. These activities included
lifeguarding activities, beach access, and
construction of a bike path and
pedestrian trail. The commenter also
expressed concern that a popular dog
beach north of the critical habitat
designation in subunit CA 55B could be
affected by critical habitat.
Our Response: If there is a Federal
nexus, the future construction of a bike
path and pedestrian trail could result in
section 7 consultation with the Service
if the project may affect Pacific Coast
WSPs or designated critical habitat.
Costs associated with this consultation
have been added to section 4.2.1 of the
FEA; however, these costs would be
incurred only if activities are subject to
a Federal nexus. Because subunit CA
55B is considered occupied by the
Pacific Coast WSP and these projects are
considered long-term activities, the
incremental impacts associated with
these projects are limited to the
administrative cost of addressing the
adverse modification standard during
consultation.
The lifeguard facilities and activities
are not part of a Federal action, and
therefore, would not involve an adverse
modification analysis for critical habitat
under section 7 of the Act. As the dog
beach to the north of subunit CA 55B is
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not part of this designation as critical
habitat, the FEA does not consider
impacts to activities occurring at this
beach.
Comments on Recreation
(42) Comment: A commenter stated
that if the open riding and camping area
of Oceano Dunes SVRA was to be
restored to support the PCEs identified
in the revised proposed critical habitat
rule, there would be substantial adverse
economic impacts. The commenter
asserted that restoration of PCEs in this
area would require eliminating camping
and off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding
opportunities in 563 ac (228 ha), or
approximately one third of the area
currently open to riding.
Our Response: Activities at Oceano
Dunes SVRA are not currently subject to
a Federal nexus. Because critical habitat
only applies to activities implemented
by a Federal agency or that require
Federal authorization or funding, we do
not expect the operations of the park to
change due to critical habitat
designation. As noted in section 4.2.1 of
the FEA and Exhibits ES–4 and 4–4,
indirect impacts to Oceano Dunes SVRA
are possible, but the analysis does not
quantify the impacts due to
considerable uncertainty surrounding
the probability that the CCC will alter its
current permit or Oceano Dunes SVRA
will face legal action due to the
designation of critical habitat. The FEA
notes, however, that such impacts are
possible, and if they were to occur, they
would be considered incremental
results of the designation.
(43) Comment: One commenter
asserted that the revised proposed
critical habitat rule fails to consider the
economic impacts of this rule on
operations and recreational
opportunities in Oceano Dunes SVRA.
The commenter expressed concerns that
the revised critical habitat designation
could result in significant delays to
crucial visitor-service efforts or resource
management efforts, including the
placement of new restrooms, restoration
of sensitive vegetation islands, and
regular maintenance of perimeter fence
to prevent trespass of vehicles into
closed areas or adjacent private
property. The commenter asserted that
the additional time necessary to
undertake section 7 consultation could
jeopardize projects, jeopardize project
funding, and result in significant loss of
recreational opportunities in Oceano
Dunes SVRA. Loss of recreational
opportunities would, in turn, result in
significant loss of income for local
businesses and the local economy. Two
commenters submitted an economic
analysis prepared for the California
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Department of Parks and Recreation, Off
Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation
Division, estimating the overall
economic contribution of Oceano Dunes
SVRA to be $171 million annually.
Our Response: Our analysis notes in
section 4.2.1 of the FEA and in Exhibits
ES–4 and 4–4 that reducing or
eliminating the area available for riding
at Oceano Dunes SVRA would result in
welfare losses and regional economic
impacts. Beach users would incur social
welfare losses due to forgone trips or a
diminished beach experience (for
example, due to crowding). In addition,
regional economic impacts arise due to
reductions in beach recreation-related
expenditures caused by fewer
recreation-related trips. The regional
economic impacts that could result from
reducing or eliminating the riding area
would represent some portion of the
$171 million annual economic impact of
Oceano Dunes SVRA estimated by the
commenter.
However, activities on Oceano Dunes
SVRA are not currently subject to a
Federal nexus. Therefore, the Service
does not expect the operations of the
park to change due to critical habitat
designation, nor does it expect
administrative impacts (or delays)
associated with undertaking section 7
consultation. As we note in section 4.2.1
of the FEA and in Exhibits ES–4 and 4–
4, indirect impacts to Oceano Dunes
SVRA are possible, but the analysis does
not quantify the impacts due to
considerable uncertainty surrounding
the probability that the CCC will alter its
current permit or that Oceano Dunes
SVRA will face legal action due to the
designation of critical habitat. In
addition, the area within Oceano Dunes
SVRA within Unit CA 31 is occupied by
both breeding and wintering Pacific
Coast WSP, and as a result any project
modifications that may take place
would be a result of having to avoid take
of the species and not because of the
designation of critical habitat and would
be considered baseline impacts of the
designation.
(44) Comment: A commenter
expressed concern that the designation
of critical habitat could impact beach
management activities, tourism, and, in
turn, tax revenues in the City of Santa
Barbara.
Our Response: Section 4.2.2 of the
FEA describes expected economic
impacts related to dredging and beach
nourishment projects in Unit CA 35,
Santa Barbara Beaches. This section
acknowledges the potential for
administrative impacts to semi-annual
beach management activities caused by
the designation of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. Beach nourishment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
projects in this unit are not likely to
incur incremental project modifications,
as they are short-term and temporary in
nature. As Unit CA 35 is occupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP, any project
modifications proposed in this unit
would be due to the presence of the
Pacific Coast WSP and are considered
baseline impacts of the designation.
Therefore, the designation of critical
habitat is not expected to impact beach
access, tourism, or tax revenues in the
City of Santa Barbara.
(45) Comment: One commenter
expressed concern that the designation
of critical habitat on Los Angeles
County beaches (CA 43, CA 44, CA
45A–D) could impact future recreational
activities and daily maintenance
operations, such as beach raking and
sanitizing sandy beaches, collecting
trash, cleaning restroom facilities, and
maintaining volleyball courts.
Our Response: Unless such
recreational and maintenance activities
are subject to a Federal nexus, as
defined under the section titled Effects
of Critical Habitat Designation, we do
not expect these activities to be affected
by designation of critical habitat on Los
Angeles County beaches.
Comments on Habitat Management
(46) Comment: One commenter
asserted that inclusion of proposed
units OR 1, OR 2, OR 3, OR 5, and OR
11 generates additional stress on the
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department (OPRD) when applying for
Federal grants to execute habitat
management projects for the plover by
creating a Federal nexus where one did
not previously exist. The commenter
asserted that this Federal nexus
needlessly belabors efforts to improve
habitat for the plover and forces OPRD
and the Service to expend additional
staff time addressing items that have
already been accounted for in the
habitat conservation plan (HCP) process.
Our Response: As stated in the
footnote to Exhibit 3–2 of the FEA, and
as delineated in Table 3 below, Units
OR 1, OR 2, OR 3, OR 4, OR 5, OR 6,
OR 12, and OR 13 are considered
unoccupied and consultation with the
Service would not occur absent critical
habitat designation. Unit OR 11 is
considered occupied by the Service and
therefore, if a Federal nexus exists,
consultation may be necessary to
address project impacts to the species as
well as critical habitat. In the
unoccupied units, costs of addressing
critical habitat effects during
consultation and all administrative costs
of consultation are considered
incremental impacts of the designation,
regardless of activity duration or the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36739
permanency of habitat impacts.
Following this methodology, the FEA
forecasts costs in Units OR 1 and OR 3
associated with future jetty repair as
incremental impacts of the designation.
For Units OR 2 and OR 5, we do not
foresee projects in these areas, and no
specific planned or ongoing projects
were identified by the commenter.
Therefore, the FEA does not quantify
additional impacts related to future
OPRD habitat management projects.
Note that most areas covered by
OPRD’s HCP have been excluded from
the revised final critical habitat
designation. Consequently, Federal
grants obtained by the State and other
entities to conduct habitat restoration or
other actions in the excluded areas will
not require a section 7 critical habitat
analysis, unless those activities are to
occur in areas not specifically excluded
(i.e., within designated critical habitat).
(47) Comment: One commenter stated
that proposed units CA 55E and CA 55G
are managed under the San Diego Bay
INRMP, a joint INRMP between the U.S.
Navy Southwest Division and the San
Diego Unified Port District (Port of San
Diego), prepared in the year 2000. The
commenter requested that these lands
be exempted from critical habitat,
similar to the exemption of military
lands in the proposed rule.
Our Response: As described under the
section titled Exemptions, 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. As a result to a
2004 amendment to the Act, section
4(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.’’ The
Department of Defense (DOD) lands we
identified as essential for the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP
within San Diego Bay have been
exempted under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the
Act. There are two INRMPs covering
Navy land in south San Diego County
(2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP and
2000 San Diego Bay INRMP). All
exemptions of Navy lands, including
those within San Diego Bay, were based
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36740
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
on the 2002 Naval Base Coronado
INRMP (see Exemptions section). The
Port of San Diego owns non-DOD lands
that are managed using the 2000 San
Diego Bay INRMP. Because we have a
well-established partnership with the
Port of San Diego for Pacific Coast WSP
conservation, in this final rule we have
excluded, under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, the critical habitat within the plan
area that is managed by the Port of San
Diego (Subunits CA 55E and CA 55G)
(see Exclusions section).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Summary of the 2005 Rule
On September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56970),
we designated approximately 12,150 ac
(4,922 ha) as critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. We included 32
units within Washington, Oregon, and
California. The unit breakdown by State
is as follows: Washington, 3 units (2,526
ac (1,023 ha)); Oregon, 5 units (2,147 ac
(869 ha)); and California, 24 units (7,477
ac (3,026 ha)). During our comparison of
the 2005 final critical habitat
designation and this revised final
designation, we discovered that the
acreage totals for some units or areas
were in error. The totals for areas for the
2005 rule identified within this rule are
the correct totals.
Summary of Changes From the Revised
Proposed Rule
On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), we
proposed to designate 28,261 ac (11,436
ha) of critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP in 68 units. On January 17,
2012 (77 FR 2243), we reopened the
comment period and made changes to
our March 22, 2011, revised proposed
rule. Specifically, we announced the
availability of the draft economic
analysis on our March 22, 2011, revised
proposed critical habitat rule (76 FR
16046); identified the taxonomic and
nomenclature change for the Pacific
Coast WSP; proposed to exempt
Vandenberg Air Force Base under
provisions in section 4(a)(3) of the Act
due to their newly approved INRMP;
and proposed changes to Unit CA 46:
Bolsa Chica State Beach and Bolsa Chica
Reserve. The most significant changes
between the March 22, 2011, and
January 17, 2012, revised proposed rule
and this revised final rule are outlined
in Table 2 below and include:
(1) In the document announcing the
availability of the DEA (77 FR 2243;
January 17, 2012), we stated we were
considering exempting the Department
of Defense (DOD) lands at Vandenberg
Air Force Base (AFB) within Units CA
32 and CA 33 from the designation of
critical habitat based on the April 14,
2011, approved INRMP, which contains
conservation measures that protect the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Pacific Coast WSP. We have determined
that the actions being implemented
through the Vandenberg AFB INRMP
provide a benefit to the Pacific Coast
WSP, and therefore, we are exempting
approximately 1,135 ac (459 ha) of DOD
land in Units CA 32 and CA 33 under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. For a complete
discussion of exemptions under section
4(a)(3) of the Act, see Exemptions
section below.
(2) During the public comment period
on the proposed rule, we received
information from the Navy that
approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of DOD lands
were included in the revised proposed
critical habitat within Unit CA 22 in
Monterey County, California. The Navy
submitted an amended INRMP for these
lands. We have reviewed the amended
INRMP and have determined that it
provides conservation benefits for the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. We
have exempted the 8 ac (3 ha) of DOD
lands from the designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act, see
Exemptions section below.
(3) We finalized our exclusion
analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of
habitat are excluded from the revised
final critical habitat designation based
on this analysis. This represents
approximately 16 percent of the habitat
that was proposed. See the Exclusions
section, below, for more information.
Approximately 425 ac (172 ha) of tribal
lands are excluded from subunit WA
3B, including all land under the
jurisdiction of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe.
Another 3,309 ac (1,339 ha) of critical
habitat is being excluded under the
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department Habitat Conservation Plan,
City of San Diego Subarea Plan (under
the Multi-Species Conservation Plan)
and the Carlsbad Habitat Management
Plan (under the Multi-species Habitat
Conservation Plan). An additional 63 ac
(25 ha) of Port of San Diego managed
lands within subunits CA 55E and CA
55G are being excluded based on a
management plan for the Pacific Coast
WSP and our partnership with the Port.
We determined that excluding these
lands would not result in extinction of
the Pacific Coast WSP, and that the
benefits of excluding these lands
outweigh the benefits of including them.
Consequently, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude
approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of
land in Washington, Oregon, and
California under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. For a complete discussion of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, see Exclusions section below.
(4) Based on comments received by
the USACE and the public, we revised
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Unit CA 46, Bolsa Chica State Beach
(subunit CA 46A), and Bolsa Chica
Reserve (subunits 46E and 46F). The
Unit was revised to include
approximately 471 ac (191 ha), a net
decrease of approximately 34 ac (14 ha)
from the proposal. As described in our
January 17, 2012, Federal Register
notice, the new areas identified better
reflect lands essential to the Pacific
Coast WSP (77 FR 2243).
(5) We received information from the
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
during development of this final rule
regarding habitat suitability to the
Pacific Coast WSP at the refuge, and the
extent of Federal jurisdiction. As a
result, we modified the unit boundaries
for WA 4A, Leadbetter Spit. In the
March 2011 proposed rule, WA 4A was
identified as having 2,463 ac (997 ha) of
habitat meeting criteria for designation
as critical habitat (76 FR 16046). Federal
jurisdiction goes to ordinary high tide
line. The acreage estimate under the
proposed rule was incorrect, and the
revised unit is approximately 125 ac (50
ha) smaller. In addition, the proposed
rule did not account for acreage that was
unlabeled in the parcel data, similar to
the situation described in point (6)
below (see Table 1). Within Subunit WA
4A, approximately 1,713 ac (693 ha) are
managed by Washington State and 987
ac (399 ha) are on Willapa National
Wildlife Refuge (Federal).
Similarly, Shoalwater Bay Tribe
Reservation lands included in Unit WA
3B, Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, were
miscalculated in the revised proposed
rule (76 FR 16046). Tribal lands have
been recalculated to be 425 ac (172 ha)
in this revised final rule, all of which
are excluded from designation under
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section).
(6) During finalization of our critical
habitat designation, we discovered
inconsistencies in the calculation of
some of the acreages for proposed units.
The inconsistencies resulted from
calculations based on parcel data (i.e.
ownership data), which do not contain
the intertidal zone and other lands
managed by the California State Lands
Commission (and the similar agency for
Washington). Consequently, those acres
were not included in the unit acreage
totals in the proposed revised rule.
Table 1 lists the affected units.
Maps in the proposed revised rule for
the affected units in Table 1 accurately
depict the intended unit boundaries,
including the unlabeled lands managed
by the California State Lands
Commission and the State of
Washington (76 FR 16046). In addition,
our methods discussion in this final
revision reflects our decision to use the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36741
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
water’s edge as the westward or oceanside unit boundary (refer to our Methods
Used to Designate Critical Habitat
section, and our response to Comment
4 in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section). This revised
final designation includes the intertidal
zone and other lands managed by state
land commission agencies. Therefore,
adequate notice has been provided
regarding our intent to designate critical
this revised final designation and
previous rules. However, these
differences in acreages are small, and
the data provided within this rule
remain representative of our
designation. Legal descriptions and GIS
data layers are available at https://
www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/
plover.html, or upon request to the
Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP to the
water’s edge.
(7) There were several discrepancies
between text and tables in the 2005 final
critical habitat rule for the Pacific Coast
WSP (70 FR 56970). The information
provided in this revised final rule is
compared to the tables in the 2005
revised rule (see Table 2 below in this
rule for comparison). Rounding error
remains an issue, and may result in a
difference in acreages between tables in
TABLE 1—UNITS WITH DISCREPANCIES FROM PARCEL DATA AND UNIT BOUNDARY. THE DIFFERENCE IN ACREAGE
(HECTARES) IS REFLECTED IN LANDS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
Total unit area
recalculated
ac (ha)
Proposed acres
ac (ha)
Unit name
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit .............................................................................................................................
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach ............................................................................................................................
CA 3A Stone Lagoon ................................................................................................................................
CA 3B Big Lagoon ....................................................................................................................................
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River .................................................................................................................
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit ..............................................................................................................
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and Beach ....................................................................................................
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars ......................................................................................................................
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach ........................................................................................................................
CA 8 Manchester Beach ...........................................................................................................................
2,463 (997)
144 (58)
52 (21)
212 (86)
194 (79)
419 (170)
259 (105)
1,139 (461)
1,176 (476)
482 (195)
2,700 (1,093)
233 (94)
55 (22)
268 (108)
337 (136)
572 (231)
464 (188)
1,349 (546)
1,218 (493)
505 (204)
* Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
TABLE 2—CHANGES BETWEEN THE SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, PACIFIC COAST WSP REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; THE MARCH 22, 2011, AND THE JANUARY 17, 2012, REVISED PROPOSED DESIGNATION; AND THIS REVISED
FINAL DESIGNATION
[Acreage values are approximate and may not total due to rounding]
2005 Designation of
revised critical habitat in
AC/HA
Critical habitat unit in this revised final rule
2011 and 2012 Revised
proposed revisions to the
critical habitat designation
in AC/HA
2012 Revised final critical
habitat designation in
AC/HA
AC
HA
Washington:
WA 1 Copalis Spit ..................................................
WA 2 Damon Point ................................................
WA 3A Midway Beach ...........................................
WA 3B Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit ........................
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit ..........................................
WA 4B Gunpowder Sands Island ..........................
....................
908
786
....................
832
....................
....................
368
318
....................
337
....................
407
673
697
1121
2463
904
165
272
282
454
997
366
407
673
697
696
2700
904
165
272
282
282
1093
366
Washington Totals .............................................
2526
1022
6265
2535
6077
2459
AC
AC
HA
Columbia River Spit ......................................
....................
....................
169
68
OR 2
Necanicum River Spit ...................................
....................
....................
211
85
OR 3
Nehalem River Spit ......................................
....................
....................
299
121
OR 4
Bayocean Spit ..............................................
207
84
367
149
OR 5
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Oregon:
OR 1
Netarts Spit ...................................................
....................
....................
541
219
6 Sand Lake South ..........................................
7 Sutton/Baker Beaches ..................................
8A Siltcoos Breach ..........................................
8B Siltcoos River Spit ......................................
8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit ....
8D North Umpqua River Spit ...........................
9 Tenmile Creek Spit .......................................
10 Coos Bay North Spit ...................................
....................
260
8
527
....................
....................
235
278
....................
105
3
213
....................
....................
95
113
200
372
15
241
716
236
244
308
81
151
6
97
290
95
99
125
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
HA
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
11
4
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
201
82
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
5
276
15
116
383
59
223
273
2
112
6
47
155
24
90
111
36742
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—CHANGES BETWEEN THE SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, PACIFIC COAST WSP REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; THE MARCH 22, 2011, AND THE JANUARY 17, 2012, REVISED PROPOSED DESIGNATION; AND THIS REVISED
FINAL DESIGNATION—Continued
[Acreage values are approximate and may not total due to rounding]
2005 Designation of
revised critical habitat in
AC/HA
Critical habitat unit in this revised final rule
AC
HA
2011 and 2012 Revised
proposed revisions to the
critical habitat designation
in AC/HA
AC
2012 Revised final critical
habitat designation in
AC/HA
AC
HA
HA
Bandon to New River .................................
632
256
1016
411
OR 12
Elk River Spit ..............................................
....................
....................
167
68
OR 13
Euchre Creek Spit ......................................
....................
....................
116
47
9
4
Oregon Totals ....................................................
California:
CA 1 Lake Earl .......................................................
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach .........................................
CA 3A Stone Lagoon .............................................
CA 3B Big Lagoon .................................................
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River ..............................
CA 4B Mad River Beach ........................................
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit ...........................
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and Beach .................
CA 5C Eel River South Spit and Beach ................
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars ...................................
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach .....................................
CA 8 Manchester Beach ........................................
CA 9 Dillon Beach ..................................................
CA 10A Point Reyes ..............................................
CA 10B Limantour ..................................................
CA 11 Napa-Sonoma .............................................
CA 12 Hayward ......................................................
CA 13A Eden Landing ...........................................
CA 13B Eden Landing ...........................................
CA 13C Eden Landing ...........................................
CA 14 Ravenswood ...............................................
CA 15 Warm Springs .............................................
CA 16 Half Moon Bay ............................................
CA 17 Waddell Creek Beach .................................
CA 18 Scott Creek Beach ......................................
CA 19 Wilder Creek Beach ....................................
CA 20 Jetty Road to Aptos ....................................
CA 21 Elkhorn Slough Mudflats .............................
CA 22 Monterey to Moss Landing .........................
2147
869
5218
2112
2112
855
57
....................
....................
280
155
377
375
283
402
1193
1048
341
....................
462
124
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
37
9
19
10
....................
281
....................
24
....................
....................
113
63
153
152
114
163
483
424
138
....................
187
50
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
15
4
8
4
....................
114
....................
74
144
52
212
194
456
419
259
339
1139
1176
482
39
460
156
618
1
237
171
609
89
168
36
25
23
15
399
281
967
30
58
21
86
79
185
170
105
137
461
476
195
16
186
63
250
0
96
69
246
36
68
15
10
9
6
161
114
391
74
233
55
268
337
452
572
464
336
1349
1218
505
39
460
156
618
1
237
171
609
89
168
36
25
23
15
399
281
959
30
94
22
108
136
183
231
188
136
546
493
204
16
186
63
250
0
96
69
246
36
68
15
10
9
6
161
114
388
....................
....................
....................
....................
CA 23 Point Sur Beach ..........................................
CA 24 San Carpoforo Creek ..................................
CA 25 Arroyo Laguna Creek ..................................
CA 26 San Simeon State Beach ...........................
CA 27 Villa Creek Beach .......................................
CA 28 Toro Creek ..................................................
CA 29 Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand State
Beach ....................................................................
CA 30 Morro Bay Beach ........................................
CA 31 Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes ......................
61
....................
....................
28
17
....................
25
....................
....................
11
7
....................
72
24
28
24
20
34
29
10
11
10
8
14
72
24
28
24
20
34
29
10
11
10
8
14
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
213
1076
1652
86
435
669
213
1076
1652
86
435
669
CA 32
Vandenberg North .......................................
....................
....................
711
288
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
CA 33
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
OR 11
Vandenberg South ......................................
....................
....................
424
172
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Devereaux Beach .......................................
Santa Barbara Beaches ..............................
Santa Rosa Island Beaches .......................
San Buenaventura Beach ...........................
Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River .......
Ormond Beach ............................................
36
....................
....................
....................
350
175
15
....................
....................
....................
142
71
52
65
586
70
672
320
21
26
237
28
272
130
87
35
34
35
36
37
38
39
CA 40, CA 41
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Mugu Lagoon ..................................
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Exempt under 4(a)(3)
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
541
219
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
8 ac (3 ha) exempt under
4(a)(3).
52
65
586
70
672
320
21
26
237
28
272
130
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
36743
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—CHANGES BETWEEN THE SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, PACIFIC COAST WSP REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; THE MARCH 22, 2011, AND THE JANUARY 17, 2012, REVISED PROPOSED DESIGNATION; AND THIS REVISED
FINAL DESIGNATION—Continued
[Acreage values are approximate and may not total due to rounding]
2005 Designation of
revised critical habitat in
AC/HA
Critical habitat unit in this revised final rule
2011 and 2012 Revised
proposed revisions to the
critical habitat designation
in AC/HA
2012 Revised final critical
habitat designation in
AC/HA
AC
HA
San Nicolas Island ......................................
....................
....................
43 Zuma Beach ................................................
44 Malibu Beach ..............................................
45A Santa Monica Beach ................................
45B Dockweiler North ......................................
45C Dockweiler South .....................................
45D Hermosa State Beach ..............................
46A Bolsa Chica State Beach .........................
46B Bolsa Chica Reserve ................................
46C Bolsa Chica Reserve ................................
46D Bolsa Chica Reserve ................................
46E Bolsa Chica Reserve ................................
46F Bolsa Chica Reserve ................................
47 Santa Ana River Mouth ..............................
48 Balboa Beach ..............................................
68
....................
25
43
24
10
4
....................
591
....................
....................
....................
13
....................
28
....................
10
17
10
4
2
....................
239
....................
....................
....................
5
....................
CA 49 San Onofre Beach-Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton ...................................................
49
20
CA 50A–C
Batiquitos Lagoon ................................
65
26
66
27
CA 51A–C
San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve
....................
....................
15
6
15
6
CA 52A
San Dieguito Lagoon ................................
....................
....................
4
2
4
2
CA 52B
San Dieguito Lagoon ................................
....................
....................
3
1
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 52C
San Dieguito Lagoon ................................
....................
....................
4
2
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 53
Los Penasquitos Lagoon ............................
24
10
32
13
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 54A
Fiesta Island .............................................
....................
....................
2
1
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 54B
Mariner’s Point ..........................................
....................
....................
7
3
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 54C
South Mission Beach ...............................
....................
....................
38
15
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 54D
San Diego River Channel ........................
....................
....................
51
21
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 55A
orth Island .............................................
44
18
CA 55B
Coronado Beach .......................................
....................
....................
CA 55C
Silver Strand Beach .................................
....................
....................
Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
CA 55D
Delta Beach ..............................................
....................
....................
Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and D Street Fill .............................................
CA 55F Silver Strand State Beach ........................
128
....................
52
....................
132
82
54
33
CA 55G
Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve ...................
....................
....................
10
4
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
CA 55H
Naval Radio Receiving Facility ................
....................
....................
66
27
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
CA 55I San Diego National Wildlife Refuge South
Bay Unit .................................................................
CA 55J Tijuana Estuary and Border Field State
Park .......................................................................
....................
....................
5
2
5
2
182
74
150
61
150
61
California Totals .................................................
7,477
3,026
16,896
6,838
16,337
6,612
CA 42
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AC
AC
HA
Exempt under 4(a)(3)
73
13
48
34
65
27
93
2
222
2
247
2
19
25
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
30
5
19
14
26
11
38
1
90
1
100
1
8
10
Exempt under 4(a)(3)
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
30
5
19
14
26
11
38
1
90
1
100
1
8
10
Excluded under 4(b)(2).
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
30
19JNR3
73
13
48
34
65
27
93
2
222
2
247
2
19
25
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
Exempt under 4(a)(3)
74
HA
74
30
79
82
32
33
36744
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—CHANGES BETWEEN THE SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, PACIFIC COAST WSP REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; THE MARCH 22, 2011, AND THE JANUARY 17, 2012, REVISED PROPOSED DESIGNATION; AND THIS REVISED
FINAL DESIGNATION—Continued
[Acreage values are approximate and may not total due to rounding]
2005 Designation of
revised critical habitat in
AC/HA
Critical habitat unit in this revised final rule
AC
Total * ..........................................................
12,150
HA
2011 and 2012 Revised
proposed revisions to the
critical habitat designation
in AC/HA
AC
4,917
HA
28,379
11,485
2012 Revised final critical
habitat designation in
AC/HA
AC
24,527
HA
9,926
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
* Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
In summary, this revised final critical
habitat designation includes
approximately 24,527 ac (9,926 ha) in
60 units, after excluding portions of
Units/subunits WA 3B, OR 1–7, OR 8A–
D, OR 9–13, CA 50A–C, CA 52B–C, CA
53, CA 54A–D, CA 55E, CA 55G, and CA
55I (approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha))
based on consideration of economic,
national security, and other relevant
impacts (see Exclusions). The areas
identified in this revised final rule
constitute revisions of areas excluded
and designated as critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP on September 29,
2005 (70 FR 56970), and proposed
revisions to that rule published on
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046) and
January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2243). This
revised final critical habitat designation
includes approximately 6,077 ac (2,460
ha) in 4 units within Washington,
approximately 2,112 ac (856 ha) in 9
units within Oregon, and 16,337 ac
(6,612 ha) in 47 units within California.
Table 2 above outlines the differences
between the 2005 final critical habitat
rule (70 FR 56970; September 29, 2005),
the 2011 and 2012 proposed revisions to
the critical habitat designation (76 FR
16046, March 22, 2011; 77 FR 2243,
January 17, 2012, respectively), and this
revised final critical habitat designation
for the Pacific Coast WSP. For more
information on the differences between
the 2005 critical habitat rule and the
2011 revised proposed critical habitat
rule and 2012 amendment, please see
the Summary of Changes From
Previously Designated Critical Habitat
section of the revised proposed critical
habitat rule published in the Federal
Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR
16046), and the Changes to Proposed
Revised Critical Habitat section of the
document published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2012 (77 FR
2243).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species
at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer necessary.
Such methods and procedures include,
but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources
management such as research, census,
law enforcement, habitat acquisition
and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in
the extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot otherwise be relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. In this final rule, we also
designate areas within the Pacific Coast
WSP’s historical range that may not
have been occupied at listing. We
designate those areas because we have
determined that those areas are essential
for the conservation of the species. For
both the occupied and unoccupied areas
(at the time of listing), critical habitat
designation identifies, 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). In identifying those
physical and biological features within
an area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent
elements (primary constituent elements
such as roost sites, nesting grounds,
seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary
constituent elements are the elements of
physical or biological features that,
when laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement to
provide for a species’ life-history
processes, are essential to the
conservation of the species.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, 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. For example, an area currently
occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be
essential to the conservation of the
species and may be included in the
critical habitat designation. 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.
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 are determining 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, other unpublished
materials, or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. 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 needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) the
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if
actions occurring in these areas may
affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of
this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to
Recovery Planning
Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, but are
outside the critical habitat designation,
will continue to be subject to
conservation actions we implement
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas
that support populations are also subject
to the regulatory protections afforded by
the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as
determined on the basis of the best
available scientific information at the
time of the agency action. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting
listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
HCPs, or other species conservation
planning efforts if new information
available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
In developing this revised final rule,
we considered the conservation
relationship between critical habitat and
recovery planning. Although recovery
plans formulate the recovery strategy for
a species, they are not regulatory
documents, and there are no specific
protections, prohibitions, or
requirements afforded a species based
solely on a recovery plan. Furthermore,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36745
although critical habitat designation can
contribute to the overall recovery
strategy for a species, it does not, by
itself, achieve recovery plan goals.
In Appendix C of the Recovery Plan
(Service 2007), the Service recommends
management actions that can be taken
by land managers to benefit the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Some actions should be implemented
with other measures to maximize the
recovery potential. Other recovery
actions need to be instituted when
conditions change; for example, when
there is increased predation, or the type
of predator changes. Monitoring and
intensive management may be required
at some sites.
We expect that there will be an
increased need for management (i.e.,
implementation of recovery actions) as
‘‘coastal squeeze’’ occurs with a rising
shift in sea level. A land manager’s
response will likely vary by site,
depending on the site needs at that time.
Additional planning may be required to
set priorities to the expected change in
habitat condition.
Much information has been collected
since the Pacific Coast WSP’s listing as
threatened in 1993. Those data that
define life history parameters need to be
regularly assessed to gain a better
understanding of Pacific Coast WSP
survivorship, response to predation and
disturbance, and response to changing
habitats. A revised population viability
analysis (Service 2007, Appendix D)
will assist biologists and land managers
to understand population movements,
and perhaps prioritize areas suitable for
intensive management. Cost-effective
management at a few, well-distributed
sites may assist with long-term Pacific
Coast WSP conservation, and allow for
the sharing of resources.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we used the best scientific data
available in determining areas that
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Data sources included research
published in peer-reviewed articles and
previous Service documents on the
species. Additionally, we utilized
regional Geographic Information System
(GIS) shape files for area calculations
and mapping (also refer to Methods
section in the 2011 revised proposed
rule published at 76 FR 16046).
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 historical range and
geographical area occupied by the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36746
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
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 essential for the
Pacific Coast WSP from studies of this
species’ habitat, ecology, and life history
as described in the Critical Habitat
section of the revised proposed rule to
designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on March 22, 2011
(76 FR 16046), and in the information
presented below. Additional
information can be found in the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR
12864), and the Recovery Plan for the
Pacific Coast Population of the Western
Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus) finalized on August 13, 2007
(Service 2007). We have determined that
the Pacific Coast WSP requires the
following physical or biological
features.
Habitats That Are Representative of the
Historical Geographical and Ecological
Distribution of the Species
The historical range of the Pacific
Coast WSP extends from Copalis Spit,
Washington, south along the Pacific
Coast of Oregon and California to Bahia
Magdelena, Baja California, Mexico. The
Pacific Coast WSP breeds primarily
above the high tide line on coastal
beaches, sand spits, dune-backed
beaches, sparsely vegetated dunes,
beaches at creek and river mouths, and
salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. Less
common nesting habitats include bluffbacked beaches, dredged material
disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt
ponds, and river bars. In winter, Pacific
Coast WSPs are found on many of the
beaches used for nesting as well as on
beaches where they do not nest,
including manmade salt ponds and on
estuarine sand and mud flats. Despite
the variation in the types of habitat
where the Pacific Coast WSP is found,
these habitats all share the same general
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
characteristics of typically being flat,
open areas with sandy or saline
substrates, with usually sparse or absent
vegetation or driftwood (Stenzel et al.
1981, p. 18; Service 2007).
In addition to the varying habitat
types identified above, individual
habitat characteristics also vary across
the Pacific Coast WSP’s range. For
example, beach habitats in the southern
part of its range are generally
characterized by large, flat, open spaces,
whereas beach habitats within the
northern part of the range (north of
Tomales Bay, CA) are smaller, more
widely distributed, and often associated
with stream mouths, bays, or estuaries.
These varying habitat types and
availability contribute to the Pacific
Coast WSP’s ability to maintain its use
of coastal areas for breeding and
wintering across its range and are
considered an essential physical or
biological feature for the species.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Pacific Coast WSPs require space for
foraging and establishment of nesting
territories. These areas vary widely in
size depending on habitat type, habitat
availability, life-history stage, and
activity. As stated in the Background
section of the revised proposed
designation (76 FR 16046; March 22,
2011), males establish nesting territories
that vary from about 0.25 to 2.5 ac (0.1
to 1.0 ha) at interior sites (Page et al.
1995, p. 10) and 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) in
coastal salt pan habitat, with beach
territories perhaps larger (Warriner et al.
1986, p. 18). Foraging activities also
occur in non-territorial areas up to 5 mi
(8 kilometers (km)) from the nesting
sites when not incubating. Essential
areas must therefore extend beyond
nesting territories to include space for
foraging during the nesting season and
space for overwintering, and to provide
for connectivity with other portions of
the Pacific Coast WSP’s range. Pacific
Coast WSPs may overwinter at locations
where there is no current breeding, but
where breeding may have occurred in
the past (e.g. Dillon Beach, CA–9).
These wintering areas provide
important areas for overwinter survival,
provide protections for historical
nesting areas, and allow for connectivity
between sites. These open areas also
allow plovers to fully utilize their
camouflage and running speed to avoid
predators and to catch prey. Based on
the information above, we identify areas
surrounding known breeding and
wintering areas containing space for
nesting territories, foraging activities,
and connectivity for dispersal and
nonbreeding or nesting use to be a
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
physical or biological feature needed by
this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Pacific Coast WSPs typically forage in
open areas by locating prey visually and
then running to seize it with their beaks
(Page et al. 1995, p. 12). They may also
probe in the sand for burrowing
invertebrates, or charge flying insects
that are resting on the ground, snapping
at them as they flush. Accordingly they
need open areas in which to forage, to
facilitate both prey location and capture.
Deposits of tide-cast wrack such as kelp
or driftwood tend to attract certain
invertebrates, and so provide important
foraging sites for plovers (Page et al.
1995, p. 12). Pacific Coast WSPs forage
both above and below high tide, but not
while those areas are underwater.
Foraging areas will therefore typically
be limited by water on their shoreward
side, and by dense vegetation or
development on their landward sides.
Therefore, we have identified open,
sandy areas which may contain tide-cast
wrack or other vegetative debris to
attract prey as a physical or biological
feature needed by this species.
Pacific Coast WSPs use sites of
freshwater for drinking where available,
but some historical nesting sites,
particularly in southern California, have
no obvious nearby freshwater sources.
Adults and chicks in those areas must
be assumed to obtain their necessary
water from the food they eat.
Accordingly we have not included
freshwater sites as a physical or
biological feature for the species.
Cover or Shelter
Pacific Coast WSPs occupy open
beach or similar areas for the majority
of their life functions. Such open areas
provide little cover or shelter from
predators, human disturbance, winds,
storms, and the extreme high tides
associated with weather events, and
these conditions cause many nest losses.
Pacific Coast WSPs and their eggs are
well camouflaged against light colored,
sandy or pebbly backgrounds (Page et
al. 1995, p. 12), so open areas with such
substrates actually constitute shelter for
purposes of nesting. Chicks may also
crouch near driftwood, dune plants and
piles of kelp to hide from predators
(Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 7). Plovers
readily scrape blown sand out of their
nests, but there is little they can do to
protect their nests against serious storms
or flooding other than to attempt to lay
a new clutch if the old one is lost (Page
et al. 1995, p. 8). No studies have
quantified the amount of vegetation
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
cover that would make an area
unsuitable for nesting or foraging, but
coastal nesting and foraging locations
typically have relatively well-defined
boundaries between open sandy
substrate favorable to Pacific Coast
WSPs and unfavorably dense vegetation
inland. Such bounds show up well in
aerial and satellite photographs, which
we used to map essential habitat
features. Therefore, based on the
information above, we have identified
areas with sandy or pebbly backgrounds
or other substrate which provide
camouflage for eggs, young, and nesting
adults and areas that contain driftwood,
dune plants, piles of kelp or other
materials which provide cover and
shelter to be physical or biological
features needed by this species.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
Pacific Coast WSPs nest in
depressions in open, relatively flat
areas, near to tidal waters but far enough
away to avoid being inundated by daily
tides. Typical substrate is sandy or
pebbly beaches, but plovers may also
lay their eggs in existing depressions on
harder ground such as salt pan,
cobblestones, or dredge tailings. As
stated earlier, Pacific Coast WSPs and
their eggs are well camouflaged against
light-colored, sandy or pebbly
backgrounds (Page et al. 1995, p. 12),
Where available, dune systems with
numerous flat areas and easy access to
the shore are particularly favored for
nesting. Plover nesting areas must
provide shelter from predators and
human disturbance, as discussed above.
Unfledged chicks forage with one or
both parents, using the same foraging
areas and behaviors as adults.
Undisturbed Areas
Disturbance of nesting or brooding
plovers by humans and domestic
animals can be a major factor affecting
nesting success. Pacific Coast WSPs
leave their nests when humans or pets
approach too closely. Dogs may also
deliberately chase plovers and
inadvertently trample nests, while
vehicles may directly crush adults,
chicks, or nests, separate chicks from
brooding adults, and interfere with
foraging and mating activities (Warriner
et al. 1986, p. 25; Service 1993, p.
12871; Ruhlen et al. 2003, p. 303).
Repeated flushing of incubating plovers
exposes the eggs to the weather and
depletes energy reserves needed by the
adult, which may result in reductions to
nesting success. Surveys at Vandenberg
Air Force Base, California, from 1994 to
1997, found the rate of nest loss on
southern beaches at the Base to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
consistently higher than on northern
beaches, where recreational use was
much lower (Persons and Applegate
1997, p. 8). Ruhlen et al. (2003, p. 303)
found that increased human activities
on Point Reyes beaches resulted in a
lower chick survival rate.
Pacific Coast WSP require relatively
undisturbed areas. However,
disturbance appears to be a relative
feature that varies between sites and
Pacific Coast WSPs seem to respond
differently to disturbance by site.
Consequently, one level of disturbance
at a particular site may not be
detrimental at another site. ‘‘Relatively
undisturbed’’ is therefore a site-specific
consideration. For example, incubating
Pacific Coast WSPs at Vandenberg Air
Force Base are easily disturbed because
there is little human-related activity and
noise due to the military mission of the
Air Force. At Oceano Dunes SVRA
about 30 miles to the south, Pacific
Coast WSPs appear to tolerate more
noise and activity. With intensive
management, the reproductive success
for Pacific Coast WSPs at Oceano Dunes
SVRA is fairly high, although it varies
from year to year.
Recent efforts in various areas along
the Pacific coast that have been
implemented to isolate nesting plovers
from recreational beach users through
the use of docents, symbolic fencing,
and public outreach have correlated
with higher nesting success in those
areas (Page, et al. 2003, p. 3). Therefore
we have identified undisturbed areas
that allow the species to conduct their
‘‘normal activities’’ to be a physical or
biological feature essential for the
species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the
Pacific Coast Western Snowy Plover
Pursuant to the Act and its
implementing regulations under 50 CFR
424.12, we are required to identify the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features’ primary
constituent elements. We consider
primary constituent elements to be the
elements of physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species. We are
designating critical habitat in areas
within the geographical areas that were
occupied by the species at the time of
listing that continue to be occupied
today, that contain the primary
constituent elements in the quantity and
spatial arrangement to support lifehistory functions essential for the
conservation of the species, and that
may require special management
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36747
considerations or protection. We are
also designating areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, but are
essential for the conservation of the
species. These sites are within the
historical range of the Pacific Coast
WSP, and were used by the species
prior to listing. See Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section below
for a discussion of the species’ historical
and current geographic range.
We believe conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP is dependent upon multiple
factors, including the conservation and
management of areas to maintain
‘‘normal’’ ecological functions, where
existing populations survive and
reproduce. We are designating areas of
critical habitat that provide some or all
of the elements of physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of
this species. Based on the best available
information, the primary constituent
elements (PCEs) essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP
are the following:
Sandy beaches, dune systems
immediately inland of an active beach
face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally
exposed gravel bars, artificial salt ponds
and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil
sites, with:
(1) Areas that are below heavily
vegetated areas or developed areas and
above the daily high tides;
(2) Shoreline habitat areas for feeding,
with no or very sparse vegetation, that
are between the annual low tide or lowwater flow and annual high tide or highwater flow, subject to inundation but
not constantly under water, that support
small invertebrates, such as crabs,
worms, flies, beetles, spiders, sand
hoppers, clams, and ostracods, that are
essential food sources;
(3) Surf- or water-deposited organic
debris, such as seaweed (including kelp
and eelgrass) or driftwood located on
open substrates that supports and
attracts small invertebrates described in
PCE 2 for food, and provides cover or
shelter from predators and weather, and
assists in avoidance of detection
(crypsis) for nests, chicks, and
incubating adults; and
(4) Minimal disturbance from the
presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or
human-attracted predators, which
provide relatively undisturbed areas for
individual and population growth and
for normal behavior.
The critical habitat identified in this
revised rule contains the primary
constituent elements in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement
essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP, and supports
multiple life processes for the species.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36748
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Portions of some critical habitat units
may be currently degraded; however,
these areas could be restored with
special management, thereby providing
suitable habitat to offset habitat loss
from anticipated sea-level rise resulting
from climate change. Additional areas
are proposed as critical habitat to allow
a recovering Pacific Coast WSP
population to occupy its former range,
and allow adjustment to changing
conditions (e.g. shifting sand dunes),
expected sea-level rise, and human
encroachment.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection.
All areas included in our revision of
critical habitat will require some level of
management to address the current and
future threats to the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Special management considerations or
protection may be required to minimize
habitat destruction, degradation, and
fragmentation associated with the
following threats, among others: water
diversions, stabilized dunes and
watercourses associated with urban
development, human recreational
activities, off-highway vehicle (OHV)
use, beach raking, pets, nonnative
vegetation, resource extraction, and
fishing.
Water diversions reduce the transport
of sediments, which contribute to
suitable nesting and foraging substrates.
Stabilized dunes and watercourses
associated with urban development alter
the dynamic processes of beach and
river systems, thereby reducing the open
nature of suitable habitat needed for
predator detection. Human recreational
activities disturb foraging or nesting
activities or may attract and provide
cover for approaching predators. The
use of OHVs has been documented to
crush plover nests and strike plover
adults. Beach raking or grooming can
remove wrack, reducing food resources
and cover, and contributing to beach
erosion. Pets (leashed and unleashed)
can cause incubating adults to leave the
nest and establish trails in the sand that
can lead predators to the nest.
Nonnative vegetation reduces visibility
that plovers need to detect predators,
and occupies otherwise suitable habitat.
Resource extraction can disturb
incubating, brooding, or foraging
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
plovers. Fishing can disturb Pacific
Coast WSPs and can attract predators by
the presence of fish offal and bait
(Lafferty 2001, p. 2222; Dugan 2003, p.
134; Schlacher et al. 2007, p. 557;
Service 2007, p. 33; Dugan and Hubbard
2010, p. 67).
For discussion of the threats to the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat, please
see the 12-month finding on the petition
to delist the Pacific Coast WPS (71 FR
20607, April 21, 2006), the final listing
rule (58 FR 12864, March 5, 1993) and
the final critical habitat rule (70 FR
56970, September 29, 2005). Please also
see the Revised Final Critical Habitat
Designation section below for a
discussion of the threats in each of the
proposed revised critical habitat units.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information
pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species. In accordance with the Act
and its implementing regulation at 50
CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether
designating additional areas—outside
those currently occupied as well as
those occupied at the time of listing—
are necessary to ensure the conservation
of the species. We are designating
critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing in 1993. We
also are designating specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing
because such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species, and are
within the Pacific Coast WSP’s
historical range. We have determined
that limiting the designation of critical
habitat to those areas that were
considered occupied at the time of
listing is no longer sufficient to conserve
the species because:
(1) There has been considerable loss
and degradation of habitat throughout
the species’ range since the time of
listing;
(2) We anticipate a further loss of
habitat in the future due to sea-level rise
resulting from climate change; and;
(3) The species needs habitat areas
that are arranged spatially in a way that
will maintain connectivity and allow
dispersal within and between units.
All areas designated as critical habitat
are within the historical range of the
species, which differs from the species’
geographic distribution (i.e., occupancy)
at the time of listing. We have identified
areas to include in this designation by
applying Criteria 1 through 6 below. In
an effort to update our 2005 final
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
designation of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP, we used the best
available information on occupancy and
habitat conditions of areas that were
analyzed in 2005 to determine whether
to add or remove areas from this
revision of critical habitat.
The amount and distribution of
critical habitat being designated will
allow populations of Pacific Coast WSP
to:
(1) Maintain their existing
distribution;
(2) Increase their distribution into
previously occupied areas (needed to
offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Move between areas depending on
resource and habitat availability
(response to changing nature of coastal
beach habitat) and support genetic
interchange;
(4) Increase the size of each
population to a level where the threats
of genetic, demographic, and normal
environmental uncertainties are
diminished; and
(5) Maintain their ability to withstand
local or unit level environmental
fluctuations or catastrophes.
We considered the following criteria
to select appropriate units for this
revised rule:
(1) Areas throughout the range of the
Pacific Coast WSP located to allow the
species to move and expand. The
dynamic nature of beach, dune, and
similar habitats necessitates that Pacific
Coast WSPs move to adjust for changes
in habitat availability, food sources, and
pressures on survivorship or
reproductive success (Colwell et al.
2009, p. 5). Designating units in
appropriate areas throughout the range
of the Pacific Coast WSP allows for
seasonal migration, year-to-year
movements, and expansion of the
Pacific Coast WSP to its historical
boundaries. We consider this necessary
to conserve the species because it assists
in counterbalancing catastrophes, such
as extreme climatic events, oil spills, or
disease that might depress regional
survival or productivity. Having units
across the species’ range helps maintain
a robust, well-distributed population
and enhances survival and productivity
of the Pacific Coast WSP as a whole,
facilitates interchange of genetic
material between units, and promotes
recolonization of any sites that
experience declines or local extirpations
due to low productivity or temporary
habitat loss. Within this designation we
focused on areas within the six recovery
units identified in the Recovery Plan
(Service 2007, Appendix A).
(2) Breeding areas. Areas identified in
the Recovery Plan (Service 2007) known
to support breeding Pacific Coast WSP
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
were selected. Selected sites include
historical breeding areas and areas
currently being used by breeding
plovers. These areas are essential to the
conservation of the species because they
contain the physical and biological
features necessary for Pacific Coast
WSPs to breed and produce offspring
and ensure that population increases are
distributed throughout the Pacific Coast
WSP’s range. By selecting breeding
areas across the Pacific Coast WSP’s
range we can assist in conserving the
species’ genetic and demographic
robustness and important life-history
stages for long-term sustainability of the
entire listed species. Some breeding
areas are occupied year-round and also
are used as wintering areas by a portion
of the population.
(3) Wintering areas. Major wintering
sites not already selected under
criterion 2 above were added. A ‘‘major’’
wintering site is defined as one that
supports more wintering birds than
average for the geographical region
based on current or historical numbers.
These areas are necessary to provide
sufficient habitat for the survival of
Pacific Coast WSPs during the
nonbreeding season as these areas allow
for dispersal of adults or juveniles to
nonbreeding sites and provide roosting
and foraging opportunities and shelter
during inclement weather.
(4) Unique habitat. Additional sites
were added that provide unique habitat,
or that are situated to facilitate
interchange between otherwise widely
separated units. This criterion is based
on standard conservation biology
principles. By protecting a variety of
habitats and facilitating interchange
between them, we increase the ability of
the species to adjust to various limiting
factors that affect the population, such
as predators, disease, major storms,
habitat loss and degradation, and rise in
sea level.
(5) Areas to maintain connectivity of
habitat. Some areas that may be
seasonally lacking in certain elements of
essential physical or biological features
and that contain marginal habitat were
included if they were contiguous with
areas containing one or more of those
elements and if they contribute to the
hydrologic and geologic processes
essential to the ecological function of
the system. These areas are essential to
the conservation of the species because
they maintain connectivity within
populations, allow for species
movement throughout the course of a
given year, and allow for population
expansion.
(6) Restoration areas. We have
selected some areas within occupied
units that, once restored, would be able
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
to support the Pacific Coast WSP. These
areas generally are upland habitats
adjacent to beach and other areas used
by the species containing introduced
vegetation, such as European beach
grass (Ammophila arenaria), that
currently limits use of the area by the
species. These areas would provide
habitat to off-set the anticipated loss and
degradation of habitat due to sea-level
rise expected from the effects of climate
change or due to development. These
areas previously contained and would
still contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species once
removal of the beachgrass and
restoration of the area has occurred.
Methods Used To Designate Critical
Habitat
In order to translate the criteria above
to the areas on the ground we used the
following methodology to identify the
boundaries of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP:
(1) We digitally mapped occurrence
data within the range of the Pacific
Coast WSP at the time and subsequent
to the time of listing in the form of
polygons and points using ArcMap 9.3.1
(ESRI 2009). An attempt was made to
consider site-specific survey data that
was both current and historical. Survey
information used in this designation
was compiled from several sources
during various timeframes as identified
in the Recovery Plan (Service 2007,
Appendix B).
(2) We utilized National Agriculture
Imagery Program (NAIP 2009) aerial
imagery with a 3.3-ft (1-m) resolution to
determine the lateral extent (width)
between the water and upland areas of
habitat. The western (seaward)
boundary of the coastal units is the
water’s edge based on NAIP imagery.
This boundary varies daily with each
changing tide, and will vary seasonally
with storm surges, and sand erosion and
deposition. Given the dynamic nature of
coastal beaches, riparian areas, and salt
pond management, we also delineated
the lateral extent to encompass the
entire area up to the lower edge of
permanent upland vegetation or to the
edge of a permanent barrier, such as a
bluff, levee, sea wall, human
development, etc. Using aerial imagery
(NAIP 2009), we also delineated the
northern and southern extents of the
units to include the beach areas
associated with the occurrence
information identified above.
When determining revised critical
habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed
areas, such as lands covered by
buildings, sea walls, pavement, and
other structures, because these areas
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36749
lack physical or biological features for
the Pacific Coast WSP. The scale of
maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this revised critical habitat are
considered excluded in this revised
rule. Therefore, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat unless the specific action
would affect the physical and biological
features in adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating critical habitat
units that we have determined were
occupied at the time of listing and
contain sufficient elements of physical
and biological features to support lifehistory processes essential for 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 the Pacific Coast WSP.
Units in this revised designation have
sufficient elements of physical or
biological features to support Pacific
Coast WSP life-history processes. Some
units contain all of the identified
elements of physical and biological
features and support multiple lifehistory processes. Some units contain
only some elements of the physical and
biological features necessary to support
the Pacific Coast WSP particular use of
that habitat.
(3) In determining the boundaries of
the OPRD HCP-covered lands that are
being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act from this revised final critical
habitat designation, we relied on Oregon
State statute for the definition of beach
and shoreline boundaries. HCP-covered
lands consist of the ‘‘Ocean Shore,’’ an
area defined by Oregon State statute as
the sandy areas of the Oregon coast
between the extreme low tide and the
actual or statutory vegetation line,
whichever is farther landward. HCPcovered lands do not include the
Federal lands within the ‘‘Ocean Shore’’
boundary. For these Federal lands that
are not excluded from this designation,
the designated lands extend landward
from the mean high tide. OPRD either
owns and leases lands on the ‘‘Ocean
Shore’’ as a State Park or State Natural
Area or manages the ‘‘Ocean Shore’’
under a statutory recreation easement
(Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 390.635
and 390.620; Oregon Administrative
Rule 736–020–0040(3)).
GIS data layers for the statute
vegetation line and mean high water
line were provided to the Service by the
State of Oregon. The statutory
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36750
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
vegetation line (ORS 390.770) was
established in 1969. This is a
jurisdictional line that determines the
regulatory authority of OPRD to regulate
development and recreation on the
beach. The statutory vegetation line
applies to all the land located along the
Pacific Ocean between the Columbia
River and the Oregon-California
boundary between extreme low tide and
the lines of vegetation as established
and described according to the Oregon
Coordinate System (ORS) 93.330.
Adjacent to Federal lands, the ‘‘Ocean
Shore’’ only extends to the mean high
water line (MHWL). MHWL is a tidal
datum, which is the computed average
of all the high water heights observed
over the National Tidal Datum Epoch.
For purposes of OPRD jurisdiction
where adjacent to Federal lands, ‘‘mean
high water’’ corresponds generally with
the ‘‘line of ordinary high water’’ as
defined in ORS 274.005(3). For mapping
critical habitat in Oregon, MHWL data
from south of Florence were collected in
the summer of 2008; data from north of
Florence were collected in the summer
of 2009.
Using the 2009 National Agriculture
Imagery Program data (NAIP) for
proposed revised western snowy plover
critical habitat, we incorporated the
MHWL into the critical habitat layer to
create separate polygons. These
polygons represent HCP-covered lands
adjacent to Federal lands and were
excluded from critical habitat.
Where the ‘‘Ocean Shore’’ overlaps
non-Federal lands, we incorporated the
statutory vegetation line into the critical
habitat layer to determine HCP-covered
lands. Based on aerial imagery, if the
actual vegetation line was farther
landward of the statutory vegetation
line, all land seaward of the actual
vegetation line was excluded from
critical habitat, as defined by Oregon
statute. All areas that were not
identified for exclusion remain as
designated critical habitat.
Revised Final Critical Habitat
Designation
We are designating approximately
6,077 ac (2,460 ha) in 4 units within
Washington, approximately 2,112 ac
(855 ha) in 9 units within Oregon, and
16,337 ac (6,612 ha) in 47 units within
California. The area identified as critical
habitat Units CA32, Vandenberg Air
Force Base North and CA33,
Vandenberg Air Force Base South
(combined total of approximately 1,134
ac (459 ha)), have been exempted from
this revised final designation in their
entirety under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the
Act (refer to the Exemptions section
below). These units had been previously
proposed for designation as they did not
have clear management protections for
Pacific Coast WSP until the April 14,
2011, approval of the base’s INRMP.
Additional areas have been excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
Exclusions section below). Table 3
identifies the areas known to be
occupied at the time of listing as well
as current occupancy status.
TABLE 3—OCCUPANCY OF PACIFIC COAST WSP BY DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit
Occupied
at time of
listing?
WA 1 Copalis Spit .............................................................................................................................................................
WA 2 Damon Point ...........................................................................................................................................................
WA 3A Midway Beach ......................................................................................................................................................
WA 3B Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit ...................................................................................................................................
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit .....................................................................................................................................................
WA 4B Gunpowder Sands Island .....................................................................................................................................
OR 2 Necanicum River Spit ..............................................................................................................................................
OR 4 Bayocean Spit .........................................................................................................................................................
OR 6 Sand Lake South .....................................................................................................................................................
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches .............................................................................................................................................
OR 8A Siltcoos Beach ......................................................................................................................................................
OR 8B Siltcoos River Spit .................................................................................................................................................
OR 8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit ...............................................................................................................
OR 8D North Umpqua River Spit ......................................................................................................................................
OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit ..................................................................................................................................................
OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit ..............................................................................................................................................
OR 11 Bandon to New River ............................................................................................................................................
OR 13 Euchre Creek Spit .................................................................................................................................................
CA 1 Lake Earl ..................................................................................................................................................................
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach ....................................................................................................................................................
CA 3A Stone Lagoon ........................................................................................................................................................
CA 3B Big Lagoon ............................................................................................................................................................
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River .........................................................................................................................................
CA 4B Mad River Beach ...................................................................................................................................................
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit Beach ...........................................................................................................................
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and Beach ............................................................................................................................
CA 5C Eel River South Spit and Beach ...........................................................................................................................
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars ..............................................................................................................................................
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach ................................................................................................................................................
CA 8 Manchester Beach ...................................................................................................................................................
CA 9 Dillon Beach .............................................................................................................................................................
CA 10A Point Reyes .........................................................................................................................................................
CA 10B Limantour .............................................................................................................................................................
CA 11 Napa-Sonoma Marshes .........................................................................................................................................
CA 12 Hayward .................................................................................................................................................................
CA 13A Eden Landing ......................................................................................................................................................
CA 13B Eden Landing ......................................................................................................................................................
CA 13C Eden Landing ......................................................................................................................................................
CA 14 Ravenswood ..........................................................................................................................................................
No ............
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Unknown ..
No ............
Yes ..........
No ............
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
No ............
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
No ............
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
No ............
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Currently
occupied?
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
36751
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—OCCUPANCY OF PACIFIC COAST WSP BY DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS—Continued
Occupied
at time of
listing?
Unit
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
15 Warm Springs ........................................................................................................................................................
16 Half Moon Bay .......................................................................................................................................................
17 Waddell Creek Beach ............................................................................................................................................
18 Scott Creek Beach .................................................................................................................................................
19 Wilder Creek Beach ...............................................................................................................................................
20 Jetty Road to Aptos ...............................................................................................................................................
21 Elkhorn Slough Mudflats ........................................................................................................................................
22 Monterey to Moss Landing ....................................................................................................................................
23 Point Sur Beach .....................................................................................................................................................
24 San Carpoforo Creek .............................................................................................................................................
25 Arroyo Laguna Creek .............................................................................................................................................
26 San Simeon State Beach ......................................................................................................................................
27 Villa Creek Beach ..................................................................................................................................................
28 Toro Creek .............................................................................................................................................................
29 Atascadero Beach/Morro Stand State Beach ........................................................................................................
30 Morro Bay Beach ...................................................................................................................................................
31 Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes .................................................................................................................................
34 Devereaux Beach ..................................................................................................................................................
35 Santa Barbara Beaches .........................................................................................................................................
36 Santa Rosa Island Beaches ..................................................................................................................................
37 San Buenaventura Beach ......................................................................................................................................
38 Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River ..................................................................................................................
39 Ormond Beach .......................................................................................................................................................
43 Zuma Beach ...........................................................................................................................................................
44 Malibu Beach .........................................................................................................................................................
45A Santa Monica Beach ...........................................................................................................................................
45B Dockweiler North .................................................................................................................................................
45C Dockweiler South ................................................................................................................................................
45D Hermosa State Beach .........................................................................................................................................
46A Bolsa Chica State Beach ....................................................................................................................................
46B Bolsa Chica Reserve ...........................................................................................................................................
46C Bolsa Chica Reserve ...........................................................................................................................................
46D Bolsa Chica Reserve ...........................................................................................................................................
46E Bolsa Chica Reserve ...........................................................................................................................................
46F Bolsa Chica Reserve ...........................................................................................................................................
47 Santa Ana River Mouth .........................................................................................................................................
48 Balboa Beach .........................................................................................................................................................
50(A–C) Batiquitos Lagoon .........................................................................................................................................
51(A–C) San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve ..........................................................................................................
52(A–C) San Dieguito Lagoon ....................................................................................................................................
53 Los Penasquitos Lagoon .......................................................................................................................................
54A Fiesta Island ........................................................................................................................................................
54B Mariner’s Point .....................................................................................................................................................
54C South Mission Beach ..........................................................................................................................................
54D San Diego River Channel ...................................................................................................................................
55B Coronado Beach ..................................................................................................................................................
55C Silver Strand Beach ............................................................................................................................................
55D Delta Beach .........................................................................................................................................................
55E Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and D Street Fill ...........................................................................
55F Silver Strand State Beach ...................................................................................................................................
55H Naval Radio Receiving Facility ...........................................................................................................................
55I San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, South Bay Unit ...........................................................................................
55J Tijuana Estuary and Border Field State Park ......................................................................................................
Table 4 outlines the areas included in
this revised final critical habitat
designation by land ownership. Units
designated as critical habitat are
discussed in detail below. The areas we
describe below constitute our current
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
Yes ..........
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 ..........
Yes ..........
Currently
occupied?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes
best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
TABLE 4—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP BY LAND OWNERSHIP
Proposed
acres
Critical habitat units
Proposed
hectares
WA 1
WA 2
Copalis Spit ...............................................................................
Damon Point .............................................................................
407
673
165
272
WA 3A
WA 3B
Midway Beach ........................................................................
Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit ** .................................................
697
1,121
282
454
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Land
ownership
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
State .............
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Designated
acres
Designated
hectares
407
648
25
697
505
165
262
10
282
204
36752
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP BY LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued
Proposed
acres
Proposed
hectares
Land
ownership
Gunpowder Sands Island .......................................................
904
366
Washington State Totals
OR 2
OR 4
Necanicum River Spit ...............................................................
Bayocean Spit ...........................................................................
211
367
85
149
OR 6 Sand Lake South ......................................................................
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches ..............................................................
OR 8A Siltcoos Breach .......................................................................
200
372
15
81
151
6
241
716
236
244
308
1,016
97
290
96
99
125
411
116
47
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
8B Siltcoos River Spit ..................................................................
8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit .................................
8D North Umpqua River Spit .......................................................
9 Tenmile Creek Spit ...................................................................
10 Coos Bay North Spit ...............................................................
11 Bandon to New River ..............................................................
OR 13
Euchre Creek Spit ...................................................................
Oregon State Totals
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
1 Lake Earl ...................................................................................
2 Gold Bluffs Beach * ....................................................................
3A Stone Lagoon * ........................................................................
3B Big Lagoon * ............................................................................
4A Clam Beach/Little River * ........................................................
74
144
52
212
194
30
58
21
86
79
CA 4B
Mad River Beach ....................................................................
456
185
CA 5A
Humboldt Bay South Spit * ......................................................
419
170
CA 5B
Eel River North Spit and Beach * ............................................
259
105
CA 5C
Eel River South Spit and Beach .............................................
339
137
CA 6
Eel River Gravel Bars * ..............................................................
1,139
461
CA 7
MacKerricher Beach * ................................................................
1,176
476
CA 8
Manchester Beach * ...................................................................
482
195
9 Dillon Beach ..............................................................................
10A Point Reyes ...........................................................................
10B Limantour ..............................................................................
11 Napa-Sonoma ..........................................................................
12 Hayward ...................................................................................
13A Eden Landing ........................................................................
39
460
156
618
1
237
16
186
63
250
0
96
CA 13B Eden Landing ........................................................................
CA 13C Eden Landing ........................................................................
171
609
69
246
CA
CA
CA
CA
89
168
36
25
36
68
15
10
23
9
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
14 Ravenswood ............................................................................
15 Warm Springs ..........................................................................
16 Half Moon Bay .........................................................................
17 Waddell Creek Beach ..............................................................
CA 18
Scott Creek Beach ..................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1,901
769
3,960
1,602
217
88
Other ............
Federal .........
Other ............
Other ............
Federal .........
Federal .........
State .............
Federal .........
Federal .........
Federal .........
Federal .........
Federal .........
Federal .........
Other ............
Other ............
11
199
2
5
276
7
8
116
383
59
223
273
459
82
9
4
81
1
2
112
3
3
47
155
24
90
110
186
33
4
1,995
807
8
3
Other ............
WA 4B
78
403
689
366
State .............
1,093
192
997
1,703
904
Federal .........
2,700
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
Federal .........
Other ............
Leadbetter Spit .......................................................................
Designated
hectares
State .............
WA 4A
Designated
acres
Federal .........
Critical habitat units
109
44
State .............
State .............
State .............
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
Other ............
Other ............
Federal .........
Federal .........
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
State .............
Other ............
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
73
233
55
268
222
115
148
304
20
542
10
457
7
172
164
304
1,045
1,144
74
68
425
12
39
460
156
618
1
228
8
171
602
7
89
168
36
19
6
15
8
30
94
22
108
90
47
60
123
8
219
4
185
3
70
66
123
463
463
30
28
172
5
16
186
63
250
0
92
3
69
244
3
36
68
15
8
2
6
3
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36753
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP BY LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued
Proposed
acres
Proposed
hectares
Land
ownership
Wilder Creek Beach ................................................................
15
6
CA 20
Jetty Road Aptos .....................................................................
399
161
CA 21
CA 22
Elkhorn Slough Mudflats .........................................................
Monterey to Moss Landing ......................................................
281
967
114
391
CA 23
Point Sur Beach ......................................................................
72
29
CA 24
San Carpoforo Creek ..............................................................
24
10
CA 25
Arroyo Laguna Creek ..............................................................
28
11
CA 26
CA 27
CA 28
San Simeon State Beach ........................................................
Villa Creek Beach ....................................................................
Toro Creek ...............................................................................
24
20
34
10
8
14
CA 29
Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand State Beach ........................
213
86
CA 30
Morro Bay Beach .....................................................................
1,076
435
CA 31
Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes ..................................................
1,652
669
CA 34
Devereaux Beach ....................................................................
52
21
CA 35
Santa Barbara Beaches ..........................................................
65
26
CA 36
CA 37
CA 38
Santa Rosa Island Beaches ....................................................
San Buenaventura Beach .......................................................
Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River ....................................
586
70
672
237
28
272
CA 39
Ormond Beach ........................................................................
320
130
CA 43
Zuma Beach ............................................................................
73
30
CA 44 Malibu Beach ...........................................................................
CA 45A Santa Monica Beach .............................................................
13
48
5
19
CA 45B Dockweiler North ...................................................................
CA 45C Dockweiler South ..................................................................
34
65
14
26
CA 45D
Hermosa State Beach ...........................................................
27
11
46A Bolsa Chica Beach ................................................................
46B Bolsa Chica Reserve ............................................................
46C Bolsa Chica Reserve ............................................................
46D Bolsa Chica Reserve ............................................................
46E Bolsa Chica Reserve ............................................................
46F Bolsa Chica Reserve .............................................................
47 Santa Ana River Mouth ...........................................................
93
2
222
2
247
2
19
38
1
90
1
100
1
8
CA 48 Balboa Beach ..........................................................................
CA 51A–C San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve ..............................
25
15
10
6
CA 52A San Dieguito Lagoon ............................................................
CA 55B Coronado Beach ...................................................................
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and D Street
Fill.
CA 55F Silver Strand State Beach .....................................................
4
74
132
2
30
54
82
33
CA 55I San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, South Bay Unit ............
CA 55J Tijuana Estuary and Border Field State Park .......................
5
150
2
61
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
California State Totals
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Designated
hectares
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Federal .........
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
Federal .........
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
State .............
State .............
State .............
State .............
State .............
State .............
State .............
Other ............
Other ............
State .............
Other ............
Other ............
State .............
Federal .........
14
1
369
30
281
415
285
259
38
34
4
18
2
18
10
24
20
11
23
64
149
948
129
242
552
858
43
9
30
35
586
70
459
213
159
161
1
72
13
29
19
34
54
11
8
19
93
2
222
2
247
2
18
1
25
11
4
4
74
79
6
0
149
12
114
168
115
105
15
14
2
7
1
7
4
10
8
4
9
26
60
383
52
98
223
347
17
4
12
14
237
28
186
86
65
65
0
29
5
12
8
14
22
5
3
8
38
1
90
1
100
1
7
0
10
4
2
2
30
32
Federal .........
State .............
Federal .........
Federal .........
Other ............
78
4
5
71
79
31
1
2
29
32
2,352
952
State .............
CA 19
Designated
acres
Federal .........
Critical habitat units
9,857
3,989
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36754
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP BY LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued
Proposed
acres
Proposed
hectares
Land
ownership
1,671
6,248
2,529
13,825
5,595
Other ............
4,454
1,802
Washington ..
6,078
2,460
Oregon .........
2,112
855
California ......
Grand Total ....................................................................................................................................
4,128
State .............
Totals Designated By State
Designated
hectares
Federal .........
Totals Designated By Ownership
Designated
acres
Other ............
Critical habitat units
16,337
6,612
......................
24,527
9,926
* Land ownership values differ from the revised proposed rule due to updated ownership data.
** Off-reservation lands (fee-owned) were not excluded and are included within the Other land ownership total.
Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
WA 1, Copalis Spit, 407 ac (165 ha)
therefore relatively undisturbed.
Although currently unoccupied, the
unit is considered essential for the
conservation of the species as it allows
for population expansion into the
northern extent of the Pacific Coast
WSP’s historical range from adjacent
occupied areas and has high-quality
habitat, including a long sandy beach
with limited disturbance with sparsely
vegetated dunes that extend to the river,
providing nesting and foraging
opportunities for the species.
Copalis Spit is located along the
central Washington coast,
approximately 20 mi (32 km) northwest
of the Community of Hoquiam in Grays
Harbor County. Copalis Spit is a 2-mi (3km) long sand spit bounded by the
Copalis River on the northern and
landward sides. The Copalis Beach
access road off State Route 109 and
State Park property line demark the
southern boundary. The unit is entirely
within Griffiths-Priday Ocean State Park
(Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission).
This unit is the northernmost unit in
the range of the species and historically
supported 6 to 12 nesting pairs of
Pacific Coast WSPs, but no nesting has
been documented since 1984 (Service
2007, p. 21). This unit was not occupied
at the time of listing and is not currently
occupied. The unit consists of a long
sandy beach with sparsely vegetated
dunes that extend to the river, providing
nesting and foraging opportunities, as
well as protection from the weather. The
northward shift of Connor Creek washed
out the beach access road at the
southern end, effectively closing the
area to motorized vehicles. Because of
its relatively remote location, the area
receives little human use and is
WA 2, Damon Point, 673 ac (272 ha)
This unit is located at the southern
end of the City of Ocean Shores in Grays
Harbor County and is a sandy spit that
extends into Grays Harbor. The unit
boundary begins at the Damon Point
parking area off Marine View Drive. The
western boundary generally follows the
property line for the Oyhut Wildlife
Area.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, and we consider this unit to be
currently occupied. Research in the
mid-1980s indicated that up to 20
Pacific Coast WSPs have used Damon
Point for nesting. However, use has
declined significantly at this site, with
only six adult birds documented using
the area during the breeding season in
2005. A historic shipwreck (S.S. Catala)
was exposed during winter storms in
2006, and the vessel was removed from
the spit due to oil spill and other
hazardous materials concerns over a
period of 17 months (State of
Washington, Department of Ecology
2007). The opportunity to view the
shipwreck and removal operation drew
media attention, and hundreds of
visitors visited the site on weekends.
Visitation of the area has dropped off
since the clean-up. Even though no
Brief descriptions of all units and
reasons why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP
are described below. The units are
grouped by State and listed in order
geographically north to south. For more
information about the areas excluded
from critical habitat designation, please
see the Exclusions section of this
revised final rule.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Washington
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
plover nesting has been documented at
Damon Point since 2006, we still
consider this unit occupied by the
species based on previous use of the
area, on the fluctuating use of areas in
general by the species as a response to
habitat and resource availability, and
because breeding surveys are not
extensive presence-absence surveys and
only provide information during the
breeding season. We have determined
that the unit contains the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species which may
require special management
considerations or protection. The unit
includes sandy beaches that are
relatively undisturbed by human or
tidal activity (nesting habitat), large
expanses of sparsely vegetated barren
terrain, and mudflats and sheltered bays
that provide ample foraging areas.
The majority (648 ac (262 ha)) of the
unit is administered by the State of
Washington (Department of Fish and
Wildlife and Department of Natural
Resources). There are over 7 mi (11 km)
of sandy beaches and shoreline at
Damon Point, and the shape of the spit
changes constantly with winter storms
and nearshore sand drift. In recent
years, some of the lower elevation areas
have been overwashed, and coastal
erosion may result in separation of the
spit from the mainland in the near
future. The western edge of the unit lies
adjacent to a municipal wastewater
treatment facility that is managed by the
City of Ocean Shores, with a few
undevelopable private parcels in the
tidelands near the parking area. Similar
to Copalis Spit, the access road has
washed out, and the area is currently
inaccessible to motorized vehicles.
The primary threats to Pacific Coast
WSPs that may require special
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
management at this time are recreational
use, including pedestrians and
unleashed pets; habitat loss from
European beach grass; and potential
reopening of the vehicle access road.
Special management in the form of
developing and enforcing regulations to
address the recreation issues may be
needed. Management to remove and
control beach grass will prevent further
spread of nonnative vegetation, thereby
maintaining and expanding the
elements of essential physical or
biological features identified above.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
WA 3A, Midway Beach, 697 ac (282 ha)
Located adjacent to the Community of
Grayland, this subunit extends from the
northern boundary of Grayland Beach
State Park, through South Beach State
Park to Cape Shoalwater at the southern
end in Pacific County. Midway Beach is
an expansive beach and is nearly 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) wide at the widest point. This
subunit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. This
subunit includes the following physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species: large areas
of sand dune habitat that is relatively
undisturbed, areas of sandy beach above
and below the high-tide line with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates, and close proximity
to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats
that provide cover or shelter from
predators, and are important for
foraging.
Beach accretion since 1998 has greatly
improved habitat conditions, resulting
in this beach becoming a primary
nesting area in the State. From 1998 to
2005, an average of 18 plovers nested
annually at Midway Beach, and from
2003 to 2006, between 23 and 28 Pacific
Coast WSPs nested at Midway Beach.
Primary threats at this subunit that
may require special management
include motorized vehicle use on the
beaches and human activity. The recent
closure of the Midway Beach Access
Road due to safety concerns, e.g.,
vehicles getting stuck in deep sand, has
reduced impacts in the nesting area, but
may not be permanent. Therefore, the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this
subunit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats associated
with human-related recreation and other
activities. Developing and enforcing
regulations to address the recreation
issues may be needed. Management to
remove and control beach grass will
prevent further spread of nonnative
vegetation, thereby maintaining and
expanding the elements of essential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
physical and biological features
identified above.
WA 3B, Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, 696
ac (282 ha)
The subunit is located in Pacific
County at Shoalwater Bay (also known
as Graveyard Spit). This beach is an
extension of Midway Beach, and
extends south into the entrance of
Willapa Bay. The western portion of this
subunit starts at a narrow strip of beach
adjacent to State Route 105 and extends
to the western edge of the Shoalwater
Bay Indian reservation. This portion of
the subunit is approximately 148 ac (60
ha) in size. The eastern portion of the
subunit starts at the eastern edge of the
Shoalwater Bay Indian reservation
boundary and continues in a
southwesterly direction to the
Community of Tokeland. This portion of
the subunit is approximately 548 ac
(222 ha) in size. The landward extent of
the unit is the edge of the bay, and the
seaward extent of the unit is the Pacific
Ocean’s water’s edge. In our March 2011
revised proposal, we proposed 1,121 ac
(454 ha) for this subunit; approximately
425 ac (172 ha) of the proposed subunit
that is part of the Shoalwater Bay Tribal
lands have been excluded from
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (refer to the Exclusions section
below).
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied. The
State Recovery Plan for the western
snowy plover (WDFW 1995) defines the
geographic area from Grayland Beach
State Park south to Toke Point as ‘‘South
Beach.’’ Based on documented sightings
and records of western snowy plover
use for the south beach geographic area
(WDFW 1995, Appendix C),
Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit was
occupied at the time of listing and is a
known or presumed historical nesting
area (WDFW 1995, Figure 2, p. 3).
Pacific Coast WSPs nested on the
Shoalwater Bay Indian reservation in
2006, 2007 and 2008, but no nesting has
been documented on the spit since
2008. Although fledging success is
relatively high at this location, plover
use of the Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit
area is sporadic.
The subunit includes the following
features essential to the conservation of
the species: large areas of sand dune
habitat that are relatively undisturbed;
areas of sandy beach above and below
the high-tide line with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates; and close proximity to
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats.
Special management that may be
required includes management of
human-related activities to reduce
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36755
disturbance to breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs, and maintenance of the physical
or biological features within the
subunit.
Based on interpretation of aerial
imagery, the Cape Shoalwater area has
experienced extensive erosion over the
past 15 years. A nearly 0.3 mi-wide (0.5
km-wide) by 1.5 mi-long (2.4 km-long)
section of the coastline, including roads
and residences, has been reclaimed by
the ocean, resulting in the accretion of
Midway Beach. The accretion of beach
improves elements of essential physical
or biological features. Because the
county ownership layer for this subunit
is ambiguous and all private property
parcels are under water, the layer could
not be used for precise acreage
calculations. However, the vast majority
of the unit is managed by the State of
Washington.
WA 4A, Leadbetter Spit, 2,700 ac (1,093
ha)
The Leadbetter Spit subunit is located
in Pacific County at the northern tip of
the Long Beach Peninsula, and consists
of a 26 mi-long (42 km-long) spit that
defines the west side of Willapa Bay and
extends down to the mouth of the
Columbia River. The subunit is located
just north of the community of Ocean
Park and includes Leadbetter Point State
Park (SP) and the Willapa NWR at the
northern end of the spit. The main
portion of this subunit is on the ocean
side, and includes the coastal beaches
from the tip of the peninsula, and the
habitat restoration area down to
Oysterville Road, approximately 1.8 mi
(3 km) south of Leadbetter Point SP. The
boundaries for this subunit have
changed from that proposed in our
March 2011 rule as a result of
information provided to us by Willapa
NWR staff and an acreage
miscalculation in the March 2011
proposed rule (76 FR 16046) (refer to the
Summary of Changes from the Revised
Proposed section above).
This subunit contains some areas that
are currently not suitable habitat (water
and vegetated areas) but may become
suitable with management actions, sealevel rise, and ongoing natural changes
and beach accretion on the spit.
Although the refuge manages areas
above the high tide line on the northern
portion of the spit, the ownership data
do not reflect where the State and
Federal jurisdictions lie. Thus, all
ownership acreages are approximate for
this unit. The subunit includes
approximately 8 mi (13 km) of coastal
beaches and sheltered bays.
Approximately 987 ac (399 ha) are on
lands that are managed by the Willapa
NWR, and the remaining 1,713 ac (693
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36756
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ha) are managed by the Washington
State Park and Recreation Department
and Department of Natural Resources.
Leadbetter Spit was occupied at the
time of listing, is currently occupied,
and is the largest subunit in
Washington. Approximately 25 to 30
Pacific Coast WSPs nest and overwinter
on the spit annually, with most of the
nesting occurring in the snowy plover
habitat restoration area within the
Willapa NWR. Between 10 and more
than 40 breeding adults were recorded
between 2005 and 2009 (WDFW 2009,
p. 12). A few pairs nest along the ocean
beaches and on State Park lands just
south of the Willapa NWR. The 2007
Recovery Plan lists a management goal
of 30 breeding adults for this subunit
(Service 2007, Appendix B).
The subunit includes the following
features essential to the conservation of
the species: Relatively undisturbed,
sandy beaches above and below the
high-tide line and sparsely vegetated
dunes for nesting; miles of coastal wrack
line supporting small invertebrates; and
close proximity to tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats and sheltered bays
for foraging. The combined dynamics of
weather and surf cause large quantities
of wood and shell material to
accumulate on the spit, providing prime
nesting habitat, hiding areas from
predators, foraging opportunities, and
shelter from inclement weather.
European beach grass threatens the
habitat quality of the subunit. Special
management that may be needed
includes restoration and maintenance of
degraded habitat to ensure the
reinfestation of nonnative vegetation
does not occur. Doing so will ensure
that elements of essential physical or
biological features within this subunit
remain intact. Primary threats that may
require special management include the
State’s management of the spring razor
clam season, which opens beaches to
motorized vehicle and provides access
into Pacific Coast WSP nesting areas
that normally receive limited human
use. The State Parks and Recreation
Commission has posted areas where
plovers nest, increased enforcement of
the wet sand driving regulations, and
conducted habitat restoration on State
Park lands.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
WA 4B, Gunpowder Sands Island, 904
ac (366 ha)
The subunit includes Gunpowder
Sands Island just off the northern tip of
the Long Beach Peninsula. The island
shifts location annually and only a
portion of the mapped area may be dry
sand at any given time. The island is
managed by the State of Washington.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Because the island is only accessible
by boat, breeding surveys for Pacific
Coast WSP at this location are sporadic.
It is unknown if this Gunpowder Sands
Island was occupied at the time the
Pacific Coast WSP was listed in 1993,
but two successful nests and one failed
nest were documented on the island in
1995 (WDFW heritage data). Although
nesting has not been recently confirmed
for this area, we consider this unit
essential for the conservation of the
species because it provides a safe
nesting, resting, and foraging area free of
human disturbance and connectivity
between two currently occupied areas.
We consider that it is important for the
species’ use, based on the proximity of
the site to the occupied nesting area on
Leadbetter Spit, and on fluctuating
habitat and resource availability.
Gunpowder Sands Island also has
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species:
Relatively undisturbed, sandy beaches
above and below the high-tide line;
sparsely vegetated dunes for nesting;
and coastal wrackline supporting small
invertebrates. The island is periodically
overwashed during winter storms,
resulting in dry sand and beach habitat
with little or no vegetation.
Oregon
OR 1, Columbia River Spit
Unit OR 1 has been excluded from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
OR 2, Necanicum River Spit, 11 ac (4
ha)
We proposed 211 (85 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 200 ac (81 ha) has
been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of
Clatsop County, adjacent to the City of
Gearhart, and less than 1 mi (2 km)
north of the City of Seaside. It is
bounded by the Necanicum River
estuary on the south, City of Gearhart to
the north and east, and Oregon Parks
and Recreation Department’s HCPcovered lands to the west. The mouth of
the river changes periodically. The
northern inland portion of the unit is
overgrown with European beach grass;
sea-level rise and overwashing of this
area during the winter months is
anticipated to result in vegetation
removal and the creation of additional
Pacific Coast WSP breeding habitat.
Eleven ac (4 ha) of privately owned land
landward of HCP-covered lands are
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
included in this revised designated
critical habitat because they are
essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP to address habitat
needs arising from anticipated sea-level
rise.
Necanicum River Spit was not
considered occupied at the time the
Pacific Coast WSP was listed in 1993.
Two breeding Pacific Coast WSPs were
documented in 2002 (Service
unpublished data). We consider the unit
is essential for the conservation of the
species as it is needed for use in
response to fluctuating habitat and
resource availability. It has the
capability of providing future
connectivity between occupied areas,
dispersal habitat between units, and
habitat for resting and foraging. This
unit may provide habitat to support
breeding plovers and facilitate
interchange between otherwise widely
separated units within Recovery Unit 1
(identified in the Recovery Plan, Service
2007) in Oregon and Washington.
Necanicum River Spit is a
characteristic dune-backed beach with
wide sand spits in close proximity to
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats.
The unit contains sparsely vegetated,
low-lying areas of sandy dune; open,
sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; and close
proximity to tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats, which are
considered essential for the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
OR 3, Nehalem River Spit
Unit OR 3 has been excluded from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
OR 4, Bayocean Spit, 201 ac (82 ha)
We proposed 367 ac (149 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 80 ac (32 ha) were
removed from proposed critical habitat
at the shoreline due to inundation, and
86 ac (35 ha) of proposed critical habitat
has been excluded under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see Exclusions section
below).
This unit is on the western coast of
Tillamook County, and about 9 mi (15
km) northwest of the City of Tillamook.
It is bounded by Tillamook Bay on the
east, the Tillamook Bay South Jetty to
the north, the northern boundary of
Bayocean Peninsula County Park 2.0 mi
(3.2 km) to the south, and HCP-covered
lands to the west. The unit is located
behind a relatively low foredune. Sealevel rise and overwashing of this area
during the winter months is anticipated
to result in vegetation removal and
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
creation of additional Pacific Coast WSP
breeding habitat. Two ac (1 ha) of
privately owned land and 199 ac (81 ha)
of federally owned land landward of the
HCP-covered lands are designated due
to anticipated sea-level rise.
Bayocean Spit was occupied at the
time of listing. Two Pacific Coast WSPs
were documented in 1993, and six
plovers in 1995, in this unit during the
breeding season (ODFW in litt. 1994,
Appendix, Table 2; ODFW unpublished
data). Prior to 2001, winter use of the
area by plovers was documented
consistently. Recent records indicate
use by wintering plovers in 2007 and
2008 (Service unpublished data). We
consider the unit to be needed by the
species for future use in response to
fluctuating habitat and resource
availability. It has the capability of
providing future connectivity between
occupied areas, dispersal habitat
between units, and habitat for resting
and foraging. This unit may provide
habitat to support breeding plovers and
facilitate interchange between otherwise
widely separated units within Recovery
Unit 1 (identified in the Recovery Plan,
Service 2007) in Oregon and
Washington.
Bayocean Spit is a characteristic
dune-backed beach in close proximity to
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats.
The unit contains the following features
essential to the conservation of the
species: Sparsely vegetated, low-lying
areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas
that are relatively undisturbed by
humans; sandy beach above the mean
high water line that supports small
invertebrates; and close proximity to
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this unit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans and
pets in important foraging and nesting
areas; and predators.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
OR 5, Netarts Spit
Unit OR 5 has been excluded from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
OR 6, Sand Lake South, 5 ac (2 ha)
We proposed 200 ac (81 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 195 ac (79 ha) has
been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the southwestern coast
of Tillamook County, about 4.5 mi (7
km) north of Pacific City. It is bounded
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
by Sand Lake estuary to the north and
east, the northern limit of development
in the town of Tierra Del Mar to the
south, and HCP-covered lands to the
west. The mouth of the lake changes
periodically. The unit is a small upland
portion of the spit. Sea-level rise and
overwashing of this area during the
winter months is anticipated to result in
vegetation removal and the creation of
additional Pacific Coast WSP breeding
habitat. Five ac (2 ha) of privately
owned land landward of HCP-covered
lands are included in this revised
designated critical habitat because they
are essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP to address habitat
needs arising from anticipated sea-level
rise.
Sand Lake South was not considered
occupied at the time the Pacific Coast
WSP was listed in 1993. However, four
snowy plovers were observed during the
breeding season at Sand Lake in 1986
(ODFW, in litt. 1994, Appendix, Table
2). Although nesting has not been
recently confirmed for this area, Sand
Lake South is an historical breeding site
within the species’ range. The unit has
the capability of providing connectivity
between occupied areas, dispersal
habitat between units, and habitat for
resting and foraging. This unit is needed
to provide habitat to support breeding
plovers and facilitate interchange
between otherwise widely separated
units within Recovery Unit 1 (identified
in the Recovery Plan, Service 2007) in
Oregon and Washington.
Sand Lake South is a characteristic
dune-backed beach with wide sand spits
in close proximity to tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats. The unit contains
sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of
sandy dune; open, sandy areas that are
relatively undisturbed by humans; and
close proximity to tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats, which are
considered essential for the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
OR 7, Sutton/Baker Beaches, 276 ac (112
ha)
We proposed 372 (151 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 96 ac (39 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of
Lane County, about 5 mi (8 km) north
of the City of Florence. It is located 2.25
mi south of Heceta Head and bounded
by Sutton Creek to the south, lands
administered by the Siuslaw National
Forest to the east, and HCP-covered
lands to the west The unit consists of
276 ac (112 ha) of Federal lands,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36757
managed by the U.S. Forest Service’s
(USFS) Siuslaw National Forest.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. The
most recently documented Pacific Coast
WSPs for this unit includes four
breeding plovers in 2007 (Lauten et al.
2007, p. 5). We have determined that the
unit contains the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species which may
require special management
considerations or protection. This unit
provides habitat to support breeding
plovers and facilitates interchange
between otherwise widely separated
units under intensive management. It
extends behind a relatively low
foredune in several places into areas
overgrown with beach grass. Sea-level
rise and overwashing of these areas
during the winter months is anticipated
to result in vegetation removal and the
creation of additional plover breeding
habitat.
The unit is characteristic of a dunebacked beach and wide sand spits with
overwash areas and contains an
interdune flat created through habitat
restoration. It includes the following
features essential to the conservation of
the species: Sparsely vegetated, lowlying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy
areas that are relatively undisturbed by
humans; and sandy beach above the
mean high water line that supports
small invertebrates.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this unit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans, pets,
and horses in important foraging and
nesting areas; and predators.
OR 8A, Siltcoos Breach, 15 ac (6 ha)
This subunit is on the southwestern
coast of Lane County, about 7 mi (11
km) southwest of the City of Florence.
It is an important wintering area that
includes a large opening in the foredune
1.2 mi (2 km) north of the Siltcoos
River. The southern boundary is located
0.6 mi (1 km) north of the Siltcoos
River, with the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area (NRA) to the east and
the Pacific Ocean to the west. The
subunit consists of 7 federally owned ac
(3 ha) managed by the USFS as the
Oregon Dunes NRA in the Siuslaw
National Forest and 8 ac (3 ha) on the
‘‘Ocean Shore,’’ managed by OPRD.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied with
recently documented wintering Pacific
Coast WSPs in 2005, 2006, 2007, and
2010 (Service unpublished data). As
many as 59 Pacific Coast WSP were
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36758
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
documented during the winter of 2005
(C. Burns, pers. comm. 2006), and 26,
36, and 24 Pacific Coast WSP in 2006,
2007 and 2010, respectively (Service
unpublished data).
The subunit is characteristic of a
dune-backed beach. It includes the
following features essential to the
conservation of the species: Sparsely
vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy dune
and sandy beach above the mean high
water line that supports small
invertebrates.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this subunit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass on the available wintering habitat
and disturbance from humans, pets, and
vehicles in important roosting and
foraging areas.
OR 8B, Siltcoos River Spit, 116 ac (47
ha)
We proposed 241 (97 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 125 ac (51 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This subunit is located in Lane and
Douglas Counties, about 7 mi (11 km)
southwest of the City of Florence. It
includes the sand spits to the north and
south of the Siltcoos River and is
bounded by the Waxmyrtle Trail and
campground to the east, and HCPcovered lands to the west. It consists of
116 federally owned ac (47 ha) managed
by the USFS as the Oregon Dunes NRA
in the Siuslaw National Forest.
Siltcoos River Spit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Most recently documented
Pacific Coast WSPs for this subunit
include 26 breeding adults in 2011
(Lauten et al. 2011, p. 25).
The subunit is characteristic of a
dune-backed beach and sand spit in
close proximity to a tidally influenced
river mouth. The subunit contains the
following features essential to the
conservation of the species: sparsely
vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy
dune; open, sandy areas that are
relatively undisturbed by humans;
sandy beach above the mean high water
line that supports small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally
influenced freshwater areas.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this subunit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans and
pets in important foraging and nesting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
areas; vehicle trespass into closed areas;
and predators.
OR 8C, Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch
Creek Spit, 383 ac (155 ha)
We proposed 716 (290 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 333 ac (135 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This subunit is in Douglas County,
about 9 mi (15 km) southwest of the City
of Florence. The southern boundary of
the unit is about 5.3 mi (9 km)
northwest of the City of Reedsport. It is
bounded by the subunit 8B to the north,
a street legal vehicle area to the south,
Oregon Dunes NRA to the east, and
HCP-covered lands to the west. It
consists of 383 federally owned ac (155
ha) managed by the USFS as the Oregon
Dunes NRA in the Siuslaw National
Forest.
Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek
Spit was occupied at the time of listing
and is currently occupied. Documented
Pacific Coast WSPs for this subunit
include 71 breeding plovers in 2011
(Lauten et al. 2011, p. 25).
The subunit is characteristic of a
dune-backed beach and sand spit in
close proximity to a tidally influenced
river mouth and contains interdune flats
created through habitat restoration. The
subunit contains the following features
essential to the conservation of the
species: Wide sand spits or overwashes
and sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas
of sandy dune; open, sandy areas that
are relatively undisturbed by humans;
sandy beach above the mean high water
line that supports small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally
influenced freshwater areas.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this subunit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans in
important foraging and nesting areas;
and predators.
OR 8D, North Umpqua River Spit, 59 ac
(24 ha)
We proposed 236 (95 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 177 ac (71 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This subunit is on the western coast
of Douglas County, about 4 mi (5 km)
west of the City of Reedsport. It is
bounded by the Umpqua River North
Jetty to the south, Oregon Dunes NRA
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
land to the north and east, and HCPcovered lands to the west. Subunit 8D
consists of 59 ac (24 ha) of Federal land
managed by the USFS for the Oregon
Dunes NRA in the Siuslaw National
Forest.
This subunit was not occupied at the
time of listing. Nesting Pacific Coast
WSPs were last documented at North
Umpqua River Spit in the 1980s (ODFW
unpublished data). The subunit is
located between currently occupied
areas and provides habitat for adult
dispersal between units. Although
nesting and wintering has not been
recently confirmed for this area, we
consider the unit is needed by the
species for use in response to
fluctuating habitat and resource
availability.
The subunit is characteristic of a
dune-backed beach in close proximity to
tidally influenced freshwater areas. The
subunit includes sparsely vegetated,
low-lying areas of sandy dune; open,
sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; sandy beach
above the mean high water line that
supports small invertebrates; and close
proximity to tidally influenced
freshwater areas, which are considered
essential for the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP.
OR 9, Tenmile Creek Spit, 223 ac (90 ha)
We proposed 244 ac (99 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 21 ac (8 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the northwestern coast
of Coos County, about 11 mi (18 km)
southwest of the City of Reedsport. It
includes the sand spits and beaches to
the north and south of the Tenmile
River. This unit is on the northwestern
coast of Coos County, about 11 mi (18
km) southwest of the City of Reedsport,
with Winchester Bay 6.5 mi (10.5 km)
to the north, Coos Bay North Jetty 15.5
mi (25 km) to the south, the City of
Lakeside 2.5 mi (4 km) to the east, and
HCP-covered lands to the west.
Tenmile Creek Spit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Documented Pacific Coast
WSPs for this unit include 25 breeding
adults in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p.
25). Unit OR 9 consists of 223 ac (90 ha)
of Federal land managed as the Oregon
Dunes NRA by the USFS.
The unit is characteristic of a dunebacked beach and sand spit in close
proximity to a tidally influenced river
mouth. It includes the following
features essential to the conservation of
the species: Sparsely vegetated, low-
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy
areas that are relatively undisturbed by
humans; sandy beach above the mean
high water line that supports small
invertebrates; and close proximity to
tidally influenced freshwater areas.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this unit
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans in
important foraging and nesting areas;
vehicle trespass into closed areas; and
predators.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
OR 10, Coos Bay North Spit, 273 ac (111
ha)
We proposed 308 (125 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 35 ac (14 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of
Coos County, about 3 mi (5 km) west of
the City of Coos Bay. It is bounded
Oregon Dunes NRA 3 mi (4.8 km) to the
north, Coos Bay North Jetty to the south,
Coos Bay to the east, and HCP-covered
lands to the west.
Coos Bay North Spit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Documented Pacific Coast
WSPs for this unit include 59 breeding
plovers in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p.
25). The unit consists of 273 ac (111 ha)
of Federal land under the jurisdiction of
the USACE, but primarily managed by
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).
The unit is characteristic of a dunebacked beach in close proximity to
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats
and containing interior interdune flats
created through dredge material
disposal or through habitat restoration.
It includes the following features
essential to the conservation of the
species: Expansive, sparsely vegetated
interdune flats; open, sandy areas that
are relatively undisturbed by humans;
areas of sandy beach above the mean
high water line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally
influenced estuarine mud flats.
Primary threats to essential physical
and biological features that may require
special management in this unit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans, pets,
and horses in important foraging and
nesting areas; vehicle trespass into
closed areas; and predators.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
OR 11, Bandon to New River, 541 ac
(219 ha)
We proposed 1,016 ac (411 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, Bandon State
Natural Area (227 ac, 92 ha), which is
owned and managed by OPRD, and 249
ac (101 ha) of private land have been
excluded from critical habitat
designation for this unit under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section
below).
The remaining lands of this unit are
on the southwestern coast of Coos
County, about 3 mi (5 km) south of the
City of Bandon. The unit consists of
multiple land ownerships bounded by
the southern boundary of Bandon State
Natural Area to the north, the New River
to the east, north of the Floras Creek
outlet to the south, and HCP-covered
lands to the west. The unit encompasses
all of New River Spit and extends
behind a relatively low foredune north
of Floras Creek. Sea-level rise and
overwashing of these areas during the
winter months is anticipated to result in
vegetation removal and the creation of
additional Pacific Coast WSP breeding
habitat.
New River was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied.
Documented Pacific Coast WSPs for this
unit include 20 breeding plovers in
2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p. 25; Lauten
2012 pers. comm.). The BLM is the
unit’s primary land manager. Unit OR
11 consists of 459 ac (186 ha) of Federal
land with 82 ac (33 ha) of private land.
The unit is characteristic of a dunebacked beach and barrier spit, and
contains interdune flats created through
habitat restoration. It includes the
following features essential to the
conservation of the species: Wide sand
spits or overwashes and sparsely
vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy
dune; open, sandy areas that are
relatively undisturbed by humans; areas
of sandy beach above the mean high
water line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally
influenced freshwater areas.
Primary threats that may require
special management in this unit are
degradation of the sand dune system
due to encroachment of European beach
grass; disturbance from humans and
pets in important foraging and nesting
areas; vehicle trespass into closed areas;
and predators.
OR 12, Elk River Spit
Unit OR 12 has been excluded from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36759
OR 13, Euchre Creek Spit, 9 ac (4 ha)
We proposed 116 (47 ha) for
designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In this final revision, 107 ac (43 ha) of
proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of
Curry County, approximately 10 mi (6
km) north of the City of Gold Beach. It
located to the north and south of the
Euchre Creek and is bounded by HCPcovered lands to the west. The unit
consists of 9 ac (4 ha) of private land.
The unit extends into low-elevation
areas on the north and south side of
Euchre Creek. Sea-level rise and
overwashing of these areas during the
winter months is anticipated to result in
vegetation removal and the creation of
additional Pacific Coast WSP breeding
habitat.
Although Euchre Creek Spit was not
considered occupied at the time the
Pacific Coast WSP was listed in 1993,
this beach is a historical nesting site.
The most recently documented Pacific
Coast WSP in the area was one
wintering plover in 1989 (ODFW in litt.
1994, Appendix, Table 3). Although
nesting and wintering have not been
recently confirmed for this area, we
consider the unit is needed by the
species for use in response to
fluctuating habitat and resource
availability. We consider the unit to be
essential for the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP as it has the
capability of providing connectivity
between occupied areas, dispersal
habitat between units, and habitat for
resting and foraging. This unit may
provide habitat to support breeding
Pacific Coast WSP and would facilitate
interchange between otherwise widely
separated units within Recovery Unit 1
(identified in the Recovery Plan, Service
2007) in Oregon and Washington.
Euchre Creek Spit is characteristic of
a dune-backed beach and sand spit in
close proximity to a tidally influenced
river mouth. The unit includes sparsely
vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy
dune; open, sandy areas that are
relatively undisturbed by humans; and
close proximity to tidally influenced
freshwater areas, which are essential for
the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP.
California
CA 1, Lake Earl, 74 ac (30 ha)
This unit is located directly west of
the Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa lagoon
system in Del Norte County about 4 mi
(7 km) north of Crescent City. The Lake
Earl Lagoon spit is approximately 3 mi
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36760
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(5 km) in length, encompasses
approximately 74 ac (30 ha), and lies
approximately 2 mi (3 km) north of
Point Saint George and the McNamara
Airfield.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. This
unit is a historical breeding site (Yocom
and Harris 1975, p. 30), and has
harbored a small population of
wintering Pacific Coast WSP in recent
years (Service unpublished data). This
unit is capable of supporting 10
breeding adults with adaptive
management (Service 2007, Appendix
B). All 74 ac (24 ha) are managed by the
State under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), and California Department of
Parks and Recreation (CDPR).
Essential physical or biological
features of the unit for Pacific Coast
WSP conservation include sandy
beaches above and below the mean
high-tide line, wind-blown sand in dune
systems immediately inland of the
active beach face, and the wash over
area at the lagoon mouth.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from: Degradation of the sand dune
system due to encroachment of
European beach grass; destruction of
habitat and loss of wintering and
nesting Pacific Coast WSPs from OHV
use; and destruction of habitat from
annual mechanical breaching (as
authorized by the USACE) of the spit
between the Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa
Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean.
CA 2, Gold Bluffs Beach, 233 ac (94 ha)
This unit is located in Humboldt
County about 5 mi (6 km) north of the
Town of Orick within Prairie Creek
State Park (north of Gold Bluffs Beach
campground), and is managed
cooperatively with Redwood National
Park, collectively known as Redwood
National and State Parks (RNSP). This
unit was occupied at the time of listing,
is currently occupied, and incorporates
the primary use area of a pair of Pacific
Coast WSPs that nested in Prairie Creek
State Park during the summer of 2005,
and is commonly used by wintering
Pacific Coast WSPs.
Although not considered a main
breeding location, unit CA 2 provides a
fairly undisturbed location for breeding
Pacific Coast WSP that lose nests to
predation or other causes at various nest
sites, and could offset habitat loss as
sea-level rise prevents nesting at sites
currently being used by plovers. One
chick was fledged from the unit during
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
2004. Up to five Pacific Coast WSPs
were observed within the unit in March
2007. The unit’s primary value is as a
wintering site (Service 2007, Appendix
B). The site is often used as wintering
habitat on an irregular basis (Service
unpublished data). RNSP are actively
managing the area for Pacific Coast
WSP.
The northeast portion of the unit is
currently vegetated with European
beach grass and is, therefore, currently
unsuitable for nesting. However, with
restoration, that portion of the unit
would be considered suitable nesting
habitat. We include that portion of the
unit to help offset the anticipated effects
of sea-level rise over time. RNSP have
restored beach habitat by removing
nonnative vegetation on other portions
of Gold Bluffs Beach. We anticipate
similar restoration within the unit to
occur sometime in the future.
The unit contains the following
features essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP: Low lying sandy
dunes; open, sandy areas that are
relatively undisturbed by humans; and
sandy beach above and below the hightide line that supports small
invertebrates. Most visitor use in the
area is in Fern Canyon, which is to the
east of the unit and outside of suitable
Pacific Coast WSP habitat. Visitation is
light relative to other State and National
Parks within the Pacific Coast WSP’s
range. Limited vehicle use of the beach
is allowed for commercial and tribal
fishing, and park administrative use.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human-related use from recreation
and OHV use associated with
commercial fishing, and European
beach grass.
CA 3A, Stone Lagoon, 55 ac (22 ha)
This subunit is approximately 0.9 mi
(1.5 km) in length, and is located on the
Stone Lagoon spit. Stone Lagoon
borders the subunit on the east, and the
Pacific Ocean makes up the subunit’s
western edge. Subunit CA 3A is located
in Humboldt County, approximately 3
mi (5 km) south of the Town of Orick.
The subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied.
Nesting has recently occurred within
the subunit. In 2009, a single nest
hatched three chicks, all of which
fledged (Colwell, et al. 2009, p. 9). The
Recovery Plan (Service 2007) estimates
that up to 16 Pacific Coast WSPs can be
supported within Unit CA 3; however,
all are attributed to subunit CA 3B.
Recent data indicate that the population
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
management potential for subunit CA
3A is underestimated by the Recovery
Plan (Service 2007, Appendix B), as it
does contribute towards the species’
reproductive success in northern
California (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9;
Service unpublished data).
The subunit contains the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP: Low-lying sandy dunes; open,
sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; and sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line that supports small invertebrates.
Special management may be needed to
control nonnative vegetation and
enforce existing regulations to ensure
the suitability of the subunit. With time,
we anticipate that the entire subunit
will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 3B, Big Lagoon, 268 ac (108 ha)
This subunit consists of a large sand
spit that divides the Pacific Ocean from
Big Lagoon. The northern extent of Big
Lagoon Spit is located in Humboldt
County and is approximately 6 mi (10
km) south of the Town of Orick. This
subunit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. Big
Lagoon Spit is historical nesting habitat
(Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 9), and
currently maintains a winter population
of fewer than 10 Pacific Coast WSPs
(Service unpublished data). Recent
nesting occurred within the subunit
during 2005, in which a single nest
hatched and fledged three chicks. We
estimate the subunit can support 16
breeding adults (Service 2007,
Appendix B). The subunit is located on
the Big Lagoon Spit, which is
approximately 4 mi (7 km) in length.
Most of the subunit is managed by the
CDPR. Approximately 0.6 ac (0.3 ha) are
managed by Humboldt County.
Essential physical or biological
features of the subunit that contribute
towards the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP include: Low-lying sandy
dunes and open, sandy areas that are
relatively undisturbed by humans; and
sandy beach above and below the hightide line that supports small
invertebrates.
CDPR has conducted habitat
restoration at this unit through the
hand-removal of nonnative vegetation.
The primary threat to wintering and
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs that may
require special management is
disturbance from humans and pets from
walking through winter flocks and
potential nesting areas.
Other threats requiring management
include control of nonnative vegetation
and enforcement of existing human-use
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the subunit. With time, we
anticipate that the entire subunit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 4A, Clam Beach/Little River, 337 ac
(136 ha)
The subunit is located in Humboldt
County immediately west and north of
the Town of McKinleyville. The Clam
Beach/Little River subunit’s northern
boundary is directly across from the
south abutment of the U.S. Highway 101
Bridge that crosses the Little River. The
southern subunit boundary is aligned
with the north end of the southernmost,
paved Clam Beach parking area. The
length of the subunit is approximately 2
mi (3 km). Approximately 222 ac (90 ha)
are State owned.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied.
During 2003, the subunit supported a
breeding population of approximately
12 Pacific Coast WSPs, and a winter
population of up to 55 plovers (Service
unpublished data). This subunit is one
of four primary nesting locations within
northern California. Based on the
Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix
B), we expect the subunit to be capable
of supporting six pairs of breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs.
Essential physical or biological
features of the subunit that contribute
towards the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP include large areas of sandy
dunes, areas of sandy beach above and
below the high-tide line, and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Special management is needed to
control nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations. With time, we anticipate
that the lower portions of this subunit
will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 4B, Mad River Beach, 452 ac (183
ha)
The subunit is located in Humboldt
County immediately west of the Town
of McKinleyville. This subunit was
largely swept clean of European beach
grass when the Mad River temporarily
shifted north in the 1980s and 1990s.
The Mad River Beach subunit is
approximately 3 mi (5 km) long, and
ranges from the U.S. Highway 101 Vista
Point below the Arcata-Eureka Airport
in the north, to School Road in the
south. Approximately 161 ac (65 ha) are
owned and managed by Humboldt
County, and 143 ac (58 ha) are privately
owned. The remaining 148 ac (60 ha)
are managed by the State, and consist of
the intertidal zone. Upon recalculation
of ownership data, we discovered that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
the overall subunit area is
approximately 4 ac (2 ha) smaller than
proposed.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied. We
expect it to eventually support 12
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs with
proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). The current breeding
population is believed to be less than
five Pacific Coast WSPs, although
plovers from this subunit readily
intermix with plovers in CA 4A and
elsewhere (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9;
Service unpublished data). Occasional
winter use by Pacific Coast WSPs has
been intermittently documented, with
most wintering within the adjacent
critical habitat subunit to the north
(Service unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological
features of the subunit that contribute
towards the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP include large areas of sandy
dunes, areas of sandy beach above and
below the high-tide line, and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the subunit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
subunit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
Potential threats to nests, chicks, and
both wintering and breeding adult
Pacific Coast WSPs that may require
special management are: nonnative
vegetation, OHV use, and disturbance
caused by equestrians (i.e., people
riding horses) and humans with
accompanying pets.
CA 5A, Humboldt Bay South Spit
Beach, 572 ac (231 ha)
This subunit is located in Humboldt
County adjacent to Humboldt Bay, less
than 1 mi west of the City of Eureka,
with the southern boundary being Table
Bluff. Approximately 542 ac (219 ha) of
the unit are owned by the CDFG and
State Lands Commission, but are
managed by BLM; 10 ac (4 ha) are
owned and managed by Humboldt
County; and 20 ac (8 ha) are owned by
the USACE. The subunit is 5 mi (8 km)
in total length.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied. The
Pacific Coast WSP wintering population
within the subunit is estimated at fewer
than 15 individuals. Three nests, from
four breeders, were attempted within
the subunit in 2003 (Service
unpublished data). This subunit is
capable of supporting 30 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs (Service 2007,
Appendix B). The BLM has conducted
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36761
habitat restoration within the subunit,
in consultation with us.
The following physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP can be found
within the unit: Large areas of sandy
dunes, areas of sandy beach above and
below the high-tide line, and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, OHV use,
and disturbance from equestrians and
humans with pets.
CA 5B, Eel River North Spit and Beach,
464 ac (188 ha)
This subunit is located in Humboldt
County about 4 mi (7 km) east of the
Town of Loleta and stretches from Table
Bluff on the north to the mouth of the
Eel River in the south. The subunit is
estimated to be 3.9 mi (7 km) long, and
is managed by the State, except for 7 ac
(3 ha) of private land.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied with
a wintering population of Pacific Coast
WSPs estimated at fewer than 20
(Service unpublished data). As many as
11 breeders have been observed during
breeding season window surveys, with
a breeding population estimated at less
than 15 (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9). We
expect this subunit to eventually
support 20 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
with proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B).
Essential physical or biological
features of the subunit include: Large
areas of sandy, sparsely vegetated dunes
for reproduction and normal behavior,
and areas of sandy beach above and
below the high-tide line supporting
small invertebrates for foraging. Surfcast organic debris is an important
component of the habitat in this
subunit, providing shelter from the
wind both for nesting Pacific Coast
WSPs and for invertebrate prey species.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the subunit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
subunit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36762
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, predators,
OHVs, and disturbance from equestrians
and humans with pets.
CA 5C, Eel River South Spit and Beach,
336 ac (136 ha)
This subunit, located in Humboldt
County, encompasses the beach segment
from the mouth of the Eel River, south
to Centerville Road, approximately 4 mi
(7 km) west of the City of Ferndale. The
subunit is 5 mi (8 km) long; 160 ac (65
ha) are private, with 4 ac (2 ha) managed
by Humboldt County. Approximately
172 ac (70 ha) are managed by the State.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing, is currently occupied, and
capable of supporting 20 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs. A single nest was
found during the 2004 breeding season
(Colwell et al. 2004, p. 7). The winter
population is estimated at fewer than 80
plovers, many of which breed on the Eel
River gravel bars (CA 5) (Service
unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological
features of the subunit include: Large
areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line, and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain for foraging. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
subunit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this subunit will
be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, predators,
OHVs, and disturbance from equestrians
and humans with pets.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 6, Eel River Gravel Bars; 1,349 ac
(546 ha)
This unit, located in Humboldt
County, is largely inundated during
winter months due to high flows in the
Eel River. The unit is 6.4 mi (8 km) from
the City of Fernbridge, and includes
gravel bars between Fernbridge and the
confluence of the Van Duzen River. The
Eel River is contained by levees in this
section, and consists of gravel bars and
wooded islands. The unit contains a
total of 1,349 ac (546 ha), of which 176
ac (71 ha) are owned and managed by
Humboldt County, 304 ac (123 ha) are
under the jurisdiction of the California
State Lands Commission, and 869 ac
(352 ha) are privately-owned.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and
capable of supporting 40 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs. Surveys have
documented 22 breeding birds in this
unit; however, those numbers have
dropped off in recent years (Colwell et
al. 2009, p. 9; Service unpublished
data).
Essential physical or biological
features of this unit include bare, open
gravel bars comprised of both sand and
cobble, which support reproduction and
foraging. This unit harbors the most
important breeding habitat in California
north of San Francisco Bay, and has the
highest fledging success rate of any area
from Mendocino County to the Oregon
border.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from predators, OHVs, disturbance from
gravel mining, and humans with pets.
Gravel mining is managed through a
Clean Water Act permit issued by the
USACE.
CA 7, MacKerricher Beach, 1,218 ac
(493 ha)
This unit is approximately 3.5 mi (5.6
km) long. The unit is just south of the
Ten Mile River, and approximately 4 mi
(6 km) north of the City of Fort Bragg
located in Mendocino County. The State
manages approximately 1,144 ac (463
ha), and 74 ac (30 ha) are privately
owned. CDPR has been conducting
removal of European beach grass to
improve habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP and other sensitive dune species
within the unit.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is
capable of supporting 20 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs (Service 2007,
Appendix B). The current breeding
population is estimated at fewer than 10
(Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9). The winter
population of plovers is fewer than 45
(Service unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological
features of the unit include: large areas
of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line, and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain. Control of nonnative vegetation
and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, predators,
and disturbance from equestrians and
humans with pets.
CA 8, Manchester Beach, 505 ac (204
ha)
The Manchester Beach unit is
approximately 3.5 mi (6 km) long and
located in Mendocino County about 1
mi (2 km) west of the Town of
Manchester. The State manages 425 ac
(172 ha) of the unit, 68 ac (28 ha) are
federally managed, and the remaining
12 ac (5 ha) are privately owned. This
unit is occupied and provides an
important wintering site for Pacific
Coast WSPs in the region (Service 2007,
Appendix B). In 2003, a pair of Pacific
Coast WSPs nested within the unit, and
successfully hatched two chicks.
However, those chicks did not survive
(Colwell et al. 2004, p. 7). The current
wintering population is estimated at
fewer than 20 (Service unpublished
data).
Although occupancy at the time of
listing has not been confirmed, we
consider this unit essential for the
conservation of the species based on the
fluctuating use of areas by the species as
a response to habitat and resource
availability. The unit is located adjacent
to currently occupied areas and
provides dispersal habitat between
units. This unit provides habitat to
support breeding Pacific Coast WSPs,
will facilitate interchange between
otherwise widely separated units, and
helps provide habitat within a Recovery
Unit identified in the Recovery Plan
(Service 2007).
The unit contains large areas of sandy
dunes, areas of sandy beach above and
below the high-tide line, and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain,
which are essential for the conservation
of the Pacific Coast WSP.
CA 9, Dillon Beach, 39 ac (16 ha)
This unit is located at the mouth of
Tomales Bay, in Marin County, just
south of the Town of Dillon Beach. It
stretches for about 0.7 mi (1 km) north
from Sand Point. The unit was occupied
at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and is an important wintering
area for the species. Seventy-five
wintering Pacific Coast WSPs were
counted at this location during the
January 2007 winter window survey
(Service 2007, p. 4). The unit does not
extend as far north as did the unit
proposed for Dillon Beach in 2004 (69
FR 75607, December 17, 2004), because
subsequent site visits and discussions
with local Pacific Coast WSP surveyors
have established that Pacific Coast
WSPs only rarely used the area north of
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
the unit we are designating in this rule.
The unit is entirely on private land.
Essential physical or biological
features provided by the unit include
surf cast debris supporting small
invertebrates for foraging, and large
stretches of relatively undisturbed,
sparsely vegetated, sandy beach, both
above and below high-tide line, for
foraging and potentially for nesting.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, predators,
and disturbance by humans and their
pets. Control of nonnative vegetation
and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
CA 10A, Point Reyes, 460 ac (186 ha)
This subunit is located in Marin
County to the west of the
unincorporated Community of Inverness
and occupies most of the west-facing
beach between Point Reyes and Tomales
Point. It is located entirely within the
Point Reyes National Seashore, and
consists primarily of dune-backed
beaches. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing, is currently occupied,
supports both nesting and wintering
Pacific Coast WSPs, and has the
potential to support 50 breeding birds
with proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B).
The Point Reyes unit includes the
following PCEs essential to Pacific Coast
WSP conservation: sparsely vegetated
sandy beach above and below high-tide
for nesting and foraging, wind-blown
sand dunes for nesting and predator
avoidance, and tide-cast debris
attracting small invertebrates for
foraging. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the subunit.
With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this subunit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, disturbance
by humans and pets, and predators
(particularly corvids).
CA 10B, Limantour, 156 ac (63 ha)
Limantour is a roughly 2.25-mi (4-km)
sand spit at the north end of Drake’s Bay
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
located in Marin County to the west of
the unincorporated Community of
Olema. The subunit includes the end of
the spit, and narrows to include only
the south-facing beach towards the base
of the spit. It is completely within the
Point Reyes National Seashore. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing,
is currently occupied, and can support
both nesting and wintering Pacific Coast
WSPs, although nesting has not been
documented since 2000 (Stenzel in litt.
2004, p. 3; Service 2009, p. 3). Ninetyeight wintering plovers were counted at
the site during the January 2007
window survey (Service 2007, p. 4). The
subunit is expected to contribute
significantly to plover conservation in
the region by providing habitat capable
of supporting 10 nesting birds (Service
2007, Appendix B).
PCEs at the subunit include sparsely
vegetated beach sand, above and below
high-tide for nesting and foraging, and
tide-cast debris supporting small
invertebrates. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the subunit.
With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this subunit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, disturbance
by humans and pets, and nest predators
such as crows and ravens.
CA 11, Napa-Sonoma Marshes, 618 ac
(250 ha)
This unit encompasses salt
evaporation ponds 7 and 7A, in the
Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area,
owned by the CDFG. It is situated in
Napa County, about 2.3 mi (4 km) west
of the Napa County Airport, and about
1.5 mi (2.4 km) south of Las Amigas
Road. The unit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied.
Twelve Pacific Coast WSPs were
identified at the location in the summer
2009, during window surveys (Service
2009, p. 2). This is the only location in
the northern portion of the San
Francisco Bay known to support nesting
Pacific Coast WSPs.
Essential physical or biological
features provided by the unit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily
high-tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for
nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36763
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, flooding,
and nest predators such as great egrets
(Casmerodius albus) and common
ravens (Corvus corax) (Robinson-Nilsen
et al. 2009, p. 14). Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
CA 12, Hayward, 1 ac (0 ha)
This unit comprises Island 5 at the
Hayward Regional Shoreline Park,
located to the west of the City of
Hayward in Alameda County. The area
is managed by the East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD) as a nesting area
for shorebirds—primarily least terns
(Sterna antillarum browni), but also
Pacific Coast WSPs (Riensche 2007, p.
1). The unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. Three
Pacific Coast WSPs chicks from one nest
successfully fledged from the unit in
2008 (Riensche 2008, p. 2; Robinson et
al. 2008, pp. 19, 34), but since then
seven plover nesting attempts in the
area have failed, primarily due to
predation (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009,
pp. 16, 32; Robinson-Nilsen 2010, pers.
comm.). The most commonly observed
avian predators at the site have been
California gulls (Larus californicus),
although the only actual depredation
observed was by a killdeer (Charadrius
vociferus) (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009,
pp. 14, 16). Essential physical or
biological features provided by the unit
include sparsely vegetated areas above
daily high-tides, such as salt pans,
artificial salt ponds, and adjoining
levees, for nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from predation, salt pond management,
and non-native vegetation. The EBRPD
is implementing a predator management
program utilizing numerous volunteers
as well as staff from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
Wildlife Services program (Riensche
2008, p. 2) to reduce predation at this
site.
CA 13A, Eden Landing: 237 ac (96 ha)
This subunit encompasses salt ponds
E11, E15B, and E16B, just south of
highway 92 and the San Mateo Bridge
and west of Union City in Alameda
County. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing, is currently occupied,
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36764
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and supported a total of 30 Pacific Coast
WSP nests in 2009, 15 of which hatched
(Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 32).
Approximately 228 ac (92 ha) are State
owned. Approximately 8 ac (3 ha) are
privately owned. Essential features
provided by the subunit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily
high tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for
nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from flooding and avian nest predators
such as California gulls (RobinsonNilsen et al. 2009, p. 13).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 13B, Eden Landing, 171 ac (69 ha)
This subunit is located west of Union
City in Alameda County and
encompasses salt pond E14, just south
of Eden Creek. This subunit was
occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, supported nine
Pacific Coast WSP nests in 2009, three
of which hatched young (RobinsonNilsen et al. 2009, p. 32). The subunit
does not include salt ponds E12 and E13
(just north of E14), because those are
being converted to high salinity ponds
for birds such as eared grebes (Podiceps
nigricollis) and phalaropes (Phalaropus
spp.) that forage well on such habitat
(Strong 2010a, p. 1). The entire subunit
is State owned. Essential features
provided by the subunit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily
high-tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds and adjoining levees, for
nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from flooding and avian nest predators
such as California gulls (RobinsonNilsen et al. 2009, p. 13).
CA 13C, Eden Landing, 609 ac (246 ha)
This subunit encompasses salt ponds
E6A and E6B, and is located just north
of Old Alameda Creek and west of
Union City in Alameda County. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing,
is currently occupied, and supported a
total of two Pacific Coast WSP nests in
2009, both of which hatched young
(Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 32). The
subunit does not include a panhandleshaped area of potential habitat just
north of pond E6A because it is being
converted to tidal marsh as part of a
restoration project started before the
South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project
(Strong 2010b, p. 7; Strong 2010c, p. 1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Essential physical or biological features
provided by the subunit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily
high-tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for
nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from flooding and avian nest predators
such as California gulls (RobinsonNilsen et al. 2009, p. 13).
CA 14, Ravenswood, 89 ac (36 ha)
This unit consists of the southwestern
portion of salt pond SF2 located east of
the City of East Palo Alto in San Mateo
County near the western approach to the
Dumbarton Bridge. Pond SF2 is
undergoing renovations intended to
provide ponded areas, islands, and salt
pan for several species of shorebirds,
including Pacific Coast WSPs (South
Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project 2010,
p. 3). The Ravenswood unit is drawn to
encompass the salt pan area (Strong
2010b, pp. 3, 4). This unit was occupied
at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. In 2009, pond SF2 supported
23 Pacific Coast WSPs nests, 17 of
which hatched young (Robinson-Nilsen
et al. 2009, p. 32). The entire unit is
privately owned. Essential physical or
biological features provided by the unit
include sparsely vegetated areas above
daily high-tides, such as salt pans,
artificial salt ponds and adjoining
levees, for nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from flooding and avian nest predators
such as California gulls (RobinsonNilsen et al. 2009, p. 13).
CA 15, Warm Springs, 168 ac (68 ha)
This unit encompasses the
northeastern portion of salt evaporation
ponds A22 and A23 in the Warm
Springs area of the South San Francisco
Bay near Foster City in San Mateo
County. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing and is currently
occupied. Fourteen breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs were identified at these
ponds during the 2009 summer window
surveys (Service unpublished data).
Additionally, Robinson-Nilsen et al.
(2009, p. 32) found a total of 21 Pacific
Coast WSPs nests at the ponds in 2009,
11 of which successfully hatched young.
The southwestern portions of the ponds
are excluded in keeping with tidal
marsh restoration plans envisioned
under the draft Tidal Marsh Recovery
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Plan (Service 2009, p. 266). The entire
unit is federally owned.
Essential physical or biological
features provided by the unit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily
high-tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for
nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from flooding and avian nest predators
such as California gulls (RobinsonNilsen et al. 2009, p. 13).
CA 16, Half Moon Bay, 36 ac (15 ha)
This unit is located next to the City
of Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County
and stretches for about 1.25 mi (2 km)
along Half Moon Bay State Beach, and
is entirely within CDPR land. The
essential features of this unit include
sandy beach above and below the hightide line for nesting and foraging, and
surf-cast debris to attract small
invertebrates. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Small numbers of breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs have been found at
the location in the past five surveys
(Service 2009, p. 3). The unit also
supports a sizeable winter flock,
consisting of 50 Pacific Coast WSPs in
2007 (Service 2007, p. 4). We expect the
unit to eventually support 10 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs in the unit under
proper management (Service 2007).
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, disturbance
by humans and pets, and nest predators.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
CA 17, Waddell Creek Beach, 25 ac (10
ha)
This unit includes the mouth of
Waddell Creek and is located about 20
mi (32 km) north of the City of Santa
Cruz in Santa Cruz County. It extends
about 0.6 mi (1 km) north along the
coast from a point about 0.4 mi (0.6 km)
south of the creek mouth to a point
about 0.2 mi (1 km) north of the creek
mouth. Unit CA 17 encompasses
approximately 19 ac (8 ha) of State land
and 6 ac (2 ha) of private land. This unit
was occupied at the time of listing, and
the unit has historically (prior to 2004)
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
been an important breeding and
wintering site, supporting up to 11
breeding and up to 50 wintering Pacific
Coast WSPs (Service unpublished data).
Although Pacific Coast WSPs have not
been documented in recent years, we
consider this unit presently occupied
based on the fluctuating use of areas by
the species as a response to habitat and
resource availability. The unit is located
between currently occupied areas and
provides dispersal habitat between
units. This unit provides habitat to
support breeding plovers, will facilitate
interchange between otherwise widely
separated units, and helps provide
habitat within Recovery Unit 4
(identified in the Recovery Plan, Service
2007) along the central California Coast.
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species:
Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation and human
disturbance. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
CA 18, Scott Creek Beach, 23 ac (9 ha)
This unit includes the mouths of Scott
and Molino Creeks and is located about
13 mi (21 km) north of the City of Santa
Cruz in Santa Cruz County. It extends
about 0.7 mi (1 km) north along the
coast from the southern end of the
sandy beach, 0.3 mi (0.5 km) south of
Molino Creek, to a point about 0.1 mi
(0.2 km) north of Scott Creek. Unit CA
18 encompasses approximately 15 ac (6
ha) of State land and 8 ac (3 ha) of local
jurisdictional land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied, and recent surveys
have found up to 4 breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs, while historical surveys
(prior to 2004) have found up to 12
breeding plovers occupying the area
(Service unpublished data). Unit CA 18
is an important wintering area, with up
to 129 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in
a single season (Service unpublished
data).
This unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
with proper management, and in
conjunction with the other two
relatively small units designated in
Santa Cruz County (CA 17 and 19), it
can attract additional breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs and thereby facilitate
interchange between the larger units at
Half Moon Bay (CA 16).
The unit includes the following
habitat physical or biological features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and predators. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 19, Wilder Creek Beach, 15 ac (6 ha)
This unit is located at the mouth of
Wilder Creek and is about 1 mi (1.6 km)
west of the city of Santa Cruz, in Santa
Cruz County. It extends about 0.25 mi
(0.40 km) along the coast encompassing
the sandy beach at the mouth of Wilder
Creek. The unit is situated on Stateowned (14 ac (6 ha)) and private (1 ac
(0.4 ha)) land. This unit was occupied
at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Although nesting in this area
has been uncommon in recent years, it
has historically been an important
snowy plover nesting area, with up to
16 birds nesting each year (Service
2007, Appendix B) and is also an
important Pacific Coast WSP wintering
area, with up to 52 birds each winter
(Service 2007, Appendix B). Unit CA 19
is capable of supporting 16 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs under proper
management (Service 2007, Appendix
B).
This unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because,
with proper management, and in
conjunction with the other two
relatively small units in Santa Cruz
County (CA 17 and 18), it can attract
additional breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
and thereby facilitate interchange
between the larger units at Half Moon
Bay (CA 16) and Jetty Road to Aptos (CA
20). The unit includes the following
features essential to the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high tide line with occasional surf-cast
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36765
wrack supporting small invertebrates
(for nesting and foraging) and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for
foraging and predator avoidance).
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, OHV use,
pets, and predators. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 20, Jetty Road to Aptos, 399 ac (161
ha)
This unit is located about 5 mi (8 km)
west of the City of Watsonville and
includes Sunset State Beach located in
Santa Cruz County and Zmudowski
State Beach and Moss Landing State
Beach, both located in Monterey
County. The mouth of the Pajaro River
is located near the center of the subunit,
and is designated as a Natural Preserve
within Zmudowski State Beach. Elkhorn
Slough is at the south end of the
subunit. It extends about 8 mi (13 km)
along the coast from Elkhorn Slough to
Zils Road. Approximately 369 ac (149
ha) are State owned. The remaining 30
ac (12 ha) are privately owned. This unit
was occupied at the time of listing; is
currently occupied; is an important
breeding area, with as many as 105
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs each year;
and is also an important wintering area,
with up to 250 plovers each winter
(Service unpublished data).
The unit includes the following
habitat physical or biological features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, horses, OHV
use, pets, predators, and habitat changes
resulting from exotic vegetation. Control
of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36766
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
CA 21, Elkhorn Slough Mudflats, 281 ac
(114 ha)
This unit is located about 3.5 mi (6
km) north of the City of Castroville
along the north side of Elkhorn Slough
east of Highway 1 located in Monterey
County. This unit is 1.5 mi (2 km) long,
extending about 1 mi (2 km) along the
north shore of Elkhorn Slough east of
Highway 1 and about 0.5 mi (1 km)
north from Elkhorn Slough to Bennett
Slough. The unit is situated entirely on
State-owned land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and is an important
breeding area, with as many as 41
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs each year,
and is also an important wintering area,
with up to 137 plovers each winter
(Service unpublished data). This unit is
capable of supporting 80 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs under proper
management (Service 2007, Appendix
B).
The unit includes the following
habitat physical or biological features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and mud
flat and salt pan habitat with generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, development,
horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and
habitat changes resulting from exotic
vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 22, Monterey to Moss Landing, 959
ac (388 ha)
This unit includes the beaches along
the southern half of Monterey Bay from
the City of Monterey at the south end of
the unit to Moss Landing and the mouth
of Elkhorn Slough at the north end of
the unit in Monterey County. The
mouth of the Salinas River is a Natural
Preserve under State Parks, and is
located near the center of the unit. Both
the Salinas River and Marina Dunes
Natural Preserves are within the unit.
The unit extends about 15 mi (24 km)
north along the coast from Monterey to
Moss Landing. Unit CA 22 includes
approximately 285 ac (115 ha) of State
lands, 36 ac (14 ha) of local lands, and
415 ac (168 ha) of Federal land. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
remainder is privately owned. This unit
was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and is an important
breeding area, with as many as 162
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs each year,
and is also an important wintering area,
with up to 363 plovers each winter
(Service unpublished data).
The unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates and generally barren
to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, development,
horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and
habitat changes resulting from exotic
vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
CA 23, Point Sur Beach, 72 ac (29 ha)
This unit is about 17 mi (27 km) south
of the City of Monterey and immediately
north of Point Sur State Historic Park
(SHP) in Monterey County. It extends
about 0.7 mi (1 km) north along the
coast from Point Sur SHP, and includes
the Point Sur Dunes Natural Preserve.
This unit encompasses approximately
38 ac (15 ha) of State land and 34 ac (14
ha) of private land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and has supported
up to 13 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
each year (Service unpublished data).
This unit is capable of supporting 20
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under
proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). Unit CA 23 is an
important wintering area, historically
supporting up to 65 plovers each winter
(Service unpublished data).
The unit includes the following
habitat physical or biological features
essential to the species: Wind-blown
sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above
and below the high-tide line with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates, and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance and habitat
changes resulting from exotic
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
CA 24, San Carpoforo Creek, 24 ac (10
ha)
This unit is located approximately 20
mi (32 km) north of the Town of
Cambria and 2.5 mi (4 km) south of the
San Luis Obispo/Monterey County
boundary in San Luis Obispo County. It
extends approximately 0.57 mi (1 km)
along the coast. This unit contains
approximately 4 ac (2 ha) of land owned
by the USFS, 18 ac (7 ha) owned by the
CDPR, and 2 ac (1 ha) of private land.
The unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and has
supported as many as nine breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs; however, breeding
does not occur here every year (Service
unpublished data). This unit is capable
of supporting 10 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs under proper management
(Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit
consistently supports 40 to 50 wintering
plovers (Service unpublished data). San
Carpoforo Creek is approximately 53 mi
(84 km) south of the closest unit to the
north (CA 23, Point Sur), and
approximately 11 mi (18 km) north of
the closest unit to the south (CA 25,
Arroyo Laguna Creek). Therefore, this
unit may facilitate interchange between
widely separated habitats.
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, pets, and
dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 25, Arroyo Laguna Creek, 28 ac (11
ha)
This unit is located 11 mi (8 km)
south of San Carpoforo Creek and 10 mi
(16 km) north of the Town of Cambria
in San Luis Obispo County. It extends
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
approximately 0.9 mi (2 km) along the
coast from a rocky headland 0.2 mi (0.3
km) south of Adobe Creek to 0.2 mi (0.3
km) north of Oak Knoll Creek. This unit
encompasses approximately 18 ac (7 ha)
of land owned by the CDPR and 10 ac
(4 ha) of private land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. Arroyo Laguna
Creek has historically (prior to 2000)
been an important site, supporting as
many as 6 breeding and 91 wintering
Pacific Coast WSPs; however, neither
breeding nor wintering occurs here
every year (Service unpublished data).
This unit is capable of supporting six
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under
proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). This unit is roughly
equidistant between CA 24 (San
Carpoforo Creek) and CA 26 (San
Simeon State Beach) and may facilitate
interchange between widely separated
habitats.
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
(for nesting and foraging) and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, pets, and
dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 26, San Simeon State Beach, 24 ac
(10 ha)
This unit is located about 2 mi (3 km)
north of the Town of Cambria in San
Luis Obispo County. It extends about
0.9 mi (2 km) along the coast from a
point opposite the intersection of
Highway 1 and Moonstone Beach Drive
to the northwestern corner of San
Simeon State Beach. Unit CA 26 is
owned by the CDPR. The unit was
occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. San Simeon State
Beach has supported as many as seven
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs; however,
breeding does not occur here every year
(Service unpublished data). This unit is
an important wintering area with up to
143 plovers recorded in a single season
over the last 7 years (Service
unpublished data).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, pets, and
dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 27, Villa Creek Beach, 20 ac (8 ha)
This unit is located about 3.5 mi (6
km) northwest of the Community of
Cayucos in San Luis Obispo County. It
extends 0.3 mi (0.5 km) northwest along
the beach from an unnamed headland
1.4 mi (2 km) north of Point Cayucos to
an unnamed headland northwest of
Villa Creek. This unit is owned by the
CDPR. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing, is currently occupied,
and is an important breeding and
wintering site. This unit has supported
as many as 33 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs in a single season (Service
unpublished data). Wintering numbers
vary widely from year to year, with 10
to 112 plovers recorded over the last 7
seasons (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates and generally barren
to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, horses, and predators.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
CA 28, Toro Creek, 34 ac (14 ha)
This unit is located about 3 mi (5 km)
north of the City of Morro Bay in San
Luis Obispo County, extending from 0.4
mi (1 km) north of Toro Creek Road to
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36767
0.5 mi (1 km) south of Toro Creek Road
(total length: 0.9 mi (1 km)). This unit
was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and was historically
(prior to 2000) an important breeding
area, having supported as many as 16
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs (Service
unpublished data). Breeding has not
occurred at this unit in the last 5
seasons; however, the unit is capable of
supporting 25 breeding plovers under
proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). This unit is an important
wintering area with up to 121 Pacific
Coast WSPs recorded in a single season
(Service unpublished data). The unit
encompasses approximately 11 ac (4 ha)
of State land and 23 ac (9 ha) of private
land.
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates and generally barren
to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, and predators.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
CA 29, Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand
State Beach, 213 ac (86 ha)
This unit is located at Morro Strand
State Beach just north of the City of
Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County.
It extends about 2.25 mi (4 km) north
along the beach from the parking area
northeast of Morro Rock to an unnamed
rocky outcrop opposite the end of Yerba
Buena Street at the north end of the City
of Morro Bay. This unit encompasses
approximately 64 ac (26 ha) of State
land, 51 ac (21 ha) of local jurisdictional
land, and 98 ac (40 ha) of private land.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area, having
supported as many as 24 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs in a single season
(Service unpublished data). The unit is
capable of supporting 40 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs under proper
management (Service 2007, Appendix
B). This unit is also an important
wintering area, with up to 249 plovers
being recorded during a single season
over the last 7 years (Service
unpublished data).
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36768
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the species: areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates and generally barren
to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, and predators.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 30, Morro Bay Beach, 1,076 ac (435
ha)
This unit is located at Montana de
Oro State Park south of Morro Rock and
adjacent to the City of Morro Bay in San
Luis Obispo County. It extends 5.5 mi
(9 km) north along the beach from a
rocky outcrop about 350 ft (105 m) north
of Hazard Canyon to the northern tip of
the sand spit. This unit encompasses
approximately 948 ac (383 ha) of State
land, 69 ac (28 ha) of local jurisdictional
land, and 60 ac (24 ha) of private land.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area, supporting as
many as 205 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs in a single season (Service
unpublished data). Morro Bay Beach is
also an important wintering area,
supporting up to 104 plovers during a
single over the last seven seasons
(Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes,
areas of sandy beach above and below
the high-tide line with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, horses, pets,
predators, and dune-stabilizing
vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
CA 31, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes,
1,652 ac (669 ha)
CA 32, Vandenberg North, CA 33,
Vandenberg South
This unit is located south of the City
of Grover Beach and west of the Town
of Oceano and extends from San Luis
Obispo County into northern Santa
Barbara County west of the City of
Guadalupe. The unit has approximately
242 ac (98 ha) of Federal land, 552 ac
(223 ha) of State land, 377 ac (152 ha)
of local jurisdictional land, and 481 ac
(195 ha) of private land. This unit
extends about 12 mi (19 km) along the
beach from a point about 0.4 mi (1 km)
north of Mussel Point to a point on the
north side of Arroyo Grande Creek at the
south end of Strand Way in the Town
of Oceano. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and is an important breeding
area, having supported as many as 162
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs in a single
season (Service unpublished data). This
unit is capable of supporting 350
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under
proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). Pismo Beach/Nipomo
Dunes is an important wintering area,
having supported up to 287 Pacific
Coast WSPs during a single season over
the last 7 years (Service unpublished
data). The unit includes portions of
Pismo State Beach and Oceano Dunes
SVRA, owned and managed by the
CDPR; the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes
National Wildlife Refuge, owned and
managed by the Service; the Guadalupe
Oil Field, owned and managed by the
Chevron Corporation; and Rancho
Guadalupe County Park, owned and
managed by the County of Santa
Barbara.
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes,
areas of sandy beach above and below
the high-tide line with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, OHVs, horses, pets, and
predators. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to
ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated
with sea-level rise associated with
climate change.
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act,
we have exempted units CA 32 (711 ac
(288 ha)), and CA33 (424 ac (172ha)),
from critical habitat designation (see
Exemptions section below).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CA 34, Devereaux Beach, 52 ac (21 ha)
This unit is located on the University
of California’s Coal Oil Point Natural
Reserve, about 7 mi (11 km) west along
the coast from the City of Santa Barbara
in Santa Barbara County. The unit
extends about 1.8 mi (3 km) north along
the coast from the western boundary of
Isla Vista County Park to a point along
the beach opposite the end of Santa
Barbara Shores Drive. This unit consists
of 43 ac (17 ha) of State land and 9 ac
(4 ha) of local jurisdictional land. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing,
is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area with as many as
39 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
recorded in a single season (Service
unpublished data). This unit is also an
important wintering area with up to 360
Pacific Coast WSPs recorded during a
single season over the last 7 years
(Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, and predators.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated with sea-level
rise associated with climate change.
CA 35, Santa Barbara Beaches, 65 ac (26
ha)
This unit is located within the City of
Santa Barbara in Santa Barbara County.
It extends about 1.8 mi (3 km) along the
coast from the Andree Clark Bird Refuge
intersection with the Pacific Ocean to
the Santa Barbara Harbor. This unit
encompasses approximately 30 ac (12
ha) of State land, 35 ac (14 ha) of City
of Santa Barbara lands, and 0.3 ac (0.1
ha) of private land. The unit was
occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. The unit is an
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
important wintering area with up to 111
Pacific Coast WSPs recorded during a
single season over the last 7 years
(Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, and pets.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated by sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 36, Santa Rosa Island Beaches, 586
ac (237 ha)
This unit is located on Santa Rosa
Island about 31 mi (50 km) southwest of
the City of Santa Barbara in Santa
Barbara County. This unit is comprised
of 11 different beaches (subunits CA
36A through CA 36K) around the island.
This unit encompasses approximately
586 ac (237 ha) of Channel Islands
National Park land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and is an important
breeding area with as many as 37
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in
a single season (Service unpublished
data). This unit is capable of supporting
130 breeding plovers under proper
management (Service 2007, Appendix
B). This is also an important wintering
area with up to 242 plovers recorded
during a single season over the last 7
years (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, and direct
disturbance from expanding marine
mammal populations. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated by sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 37, San Buenaventura Beach, 70 ac
(28 ha)
This unit is located within the City of
Ventura in Ventura County. It extends
about 2 mi (3 km) north along the coast
from rock groin, immediately north of
Marina Park to the Ventura Pier. San
Buenaventura State Beach is a unit that
is owned by the CDPR. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. It is an important
wintering area with up to 72 Pacific
Coast WSPs recorded during a single
season over the last 7 years (Service
unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and pets. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated by sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 38, Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara
River, 672 ac (272 ha)
This unit is located near the City of
Oxnard in Ventura County. It extends
about 6 mi (10 km) north along the coast
from the north jetty of Channel Islands
Harbor to a point about 0.5 mi (1 km)
north of the Santa Clara River mouth.
This unit encompasses approximately
213 ac (86 ha) of private land and 459
ac (186 ha) of State land within McGrath
and Mandalay State Beaches. This unit
was occupied at the time of listing and
is currently occupied. It is an important
breeding area with as many as 70
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in
a single season (Service unpublished
data). This unit is also an important
wintering area with up to 129 plovers
recorded during a single season over the
last 7 years (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species:
Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36769
line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human disturbance, development,
pets, and dune-stabilizing vegetation.
Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated by sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 39, Ormond Beach, 320 ac (130 ha)
This unit is located near the cities of
Port Hueneme and Oxnard in Ventura
County. It extends about 3 mi (5 km)
northwest along the coast from Arnold
Road and the boundary of Naval Base
Ventura County, Point Mugu (NBVC,
Point Mugu) to the south jetty of Port
Hueneme. This unit encompasses
approximately 161 ac (65 ha) of private
land and 159 ac (65 ha) of State land.
This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area with as many as
33 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
recorded in a single season (Service
unpublished data). This unit is capable
of supporting 50 breeding plovers under
proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). This unit is also an
important wintering area with up to 117
plovers recorded during a single season
over the last 7 years (Service
unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species:
Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy
beach above and below the high-tide
line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and pets. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated by sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36770
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
CA 40, Mugu Lagoon North; CA 41,
Mugu Lagoon South; CA 42, San Nicolas
Island
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act,
we have exempted units CA 40, CA 41,
and CA42 from critical habitat
designation (see Exemptions section
below).
CA 43, Zuma Beach, 73 ac (30 ha)
This unit is located about 8 mi (13
km) west of the City of Malibu in Los
Angeles County. It extends about 3 mi
(5 km) north along the coast from the
north side of Point Dume to the base of
Trancas Canyon. This unit encompasses
approximately 72 ac (29 ha) of Los
Angeles County lands, and 1 ac (0.5 ha)
of State land. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently
occupied. It is an important wintering
area with up to 213 Pacific Coast WSPs
recorded during a single season over the
last 7 years (Service unpublished data;
Ryan et al. 2010, p. 19).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species: Areas
of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast
wrack supporting small invertebrates
and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, horses, and
pets. Control of nonnative vegetation
and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated by sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 44, Malibu Beach, 13 ac (5 ha)
This unit is located within the City of
Malibu in Los Angeles County. It
extends about 0.5 mi (1 km) north along
the coast from approximately 300 ft (94
m) north of the Malibu Pier to Malibu
Point. Approximately 9 ac (4 ha) are
within Malibu Lagoon State Beach. The
ownership of the remaining 4 ac (1 ha)
are not known; however, the State likely
has jurisdiction over these lands. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing
and is currently occupied. It is an
important wintering area with up to 67
Pacific Coast WSPs recorded during a
single season over the last 7 years
(Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following
physical or biological features for the
conservation of the species: Areas of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
sandy beach above and below the hightide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and
generally barren to sparsely vegetated
terrain.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and pets. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are
needed to ensure the suitability of the
unit. With time, we anticipate that the
lower portions of this unit will be
inundated by sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 45A, Santa Monica Beach, 48 ac (19
ha)
This subunit is located between the
cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles
in Los Angeles County. It stretches
roughly 1 mi (2 km) from Montana
Avenue to the mouth of Santa Monica
Canyon. This subunit consists of 29 ac
(12 ha) of State owned land, and 19 ac
(8 ha) are owned by the City of Santa
Monica. This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and annually supports a
significant wintering flock of Pacific
Coast WSPs (an average wintering flock
of 36 from 2003 to 2010 (Service
unpublished data)) in a location with
high-quality breeding habitat. This
location also facilitates interchange
between wintering locations.
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance,
pets, and beach raking.
CA 45B, Dockweiler North, 34 ac (14 ha)
This subunit is located south of
Ballona Creek and west of the El
Segundo Dunes, and immediately west
of the Los Angeles International Airport,
in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County. It stretches roughly 0.5 mi (0.8
km) centered at Sandpiper Street. This
subunit is owned by the State of
California. This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently
occupied. In conjunction with Subunits
CA 45C and CA 45D, the subunit
annually supports a significant
wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSPs in
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a location with high quality breeding
habitat (Page in litt. 2004) and facilitates
interchange between wintering
locations.
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance,
pets, and beach raking.
CA 45C, Dockweiler South, 65 ac (26 ha)
This subunit is located immediately
west of the Hyperion Wastewater
Treatment Plant between the cities of
Los Angeles and El Segundo in Los
Angeles County. It stretches
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) along Vista
del Mar from West Imperial Highway
extending past East Grand Avenue. This
subunit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of State
land and 11 ac (5 ha) of privately owned
land. This subunit was occupied at the
time of listing and is currently
occupied. In conjunction with Subunits
CA 45B and CA 45D, it annually
supports a significant wintering flock of
Pacific Coast WSPs in a location with
high-quality breeding habitat (Page in
litt. 2004) and facilitates interchange
between wintering locations.
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance,
pets, and beach raking.
CA 45D, Hermosa State Beach, 27 ac (11
ha)
This subunit is located immediately
west of the City of Hermosa Beach in
Los Angeles County. This subunit
stretches roughly 0.5 mi (1 km) from
Eleventh Street to First Street. This
subunit consists of 8 ac (3 ha) State land
and 19 ac (8 ha) are privately owned.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied. The
unit supported an average wintering
flock of 25 Pacific Coast WSPs from
2003 to 2010 (Service unpublished
data). In conjunction with subunits CA
45B and CA 45C, this subunit annually
supports a large and significant
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSP
and facilitates interchange between
wintering locations.
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance,
pets, and beach raking.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 46A, Bolsa Chica State Beach, 93 ac
(38 ha)
This subunit is located west of the
Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of
Huntington Beach, Orange County. It
stretches roughly 2.4 mi (3.9 km) from
north of the lagoon mouth channel (into
Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) to just
south of the Sunset Beach area near
Warner Avenue. This subunit consists
of 93 ac (38 ha) owned by the State of
California. This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and supported an average
wintering flock of 27 Pacific Coast WSPs
from 2003 through 2010 (Service
unpublished data). The subunit
annually supports a significant
wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSPs in
a location with high-quality breeding
habitat.
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
recreational disturbance and beach
raking.
CA 46 (Subunits B–F), Bolsa Chica
Reserve, 475 ac (192 ha)
These subunits are located east of the
Pacific Coast Highway, in Orange
County. They consist of 475 ac (192 ha),
all of which are owned by the State of
California. Bolsa Chica Reserve contains
significant nesting areas (which we are
labeling as individual subunits B, C, D,
E, and F). This location supported 47
breeding adult Pacific Coast WSP in
2009 (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 8).
These subunits were occupied at the
time of listing, are currently occupied,
and annually support one of the largest
breeding populations of Pacific Coast
WSP in the region. The Recovery Plan
for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
location contributes to the conservation
goal for the region by providing a
management potential of 70 breeding
birds (Service 2007, Appendix B). This
location also supported an average
wintering flock of 14 Pacific Coast WSP
from 2003 through 2010 (Service
unpublished data). This reserve is an
active oil field that underwent
significant reconstruction and
restoration between 2004 and 2006,
including the addition of three new nest
sites and a new ocean inlet that allows
the water level to rise and fall
resembling the irregular semi-diurnal
tidal range of southern California’s
ocean waters (Knapp and Peterson 2009,
p. 1).
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats
supporting small invertebrates, and
seasonally dry ponds that provide
nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific
Coast WSP. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species in these subunits may
require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats from vegetation encroachment in
nesting and foraging areas and predation
of chicks and eggs.
CA 47, Santa Ana River Mouth, 19 ac
(8 ha)
This unit is located north of the Santa
Ana River mouth, immediately west of
the City of Huntington Beach in Orange
County. This unit consists of 19 ac (8
ha), of which 18 ac (7 ha) are owned by
the State of California, and 1 ac (0.4 ha)
is privately owned. This unit was not
occupied at the time of listing. However,
we consider this unit essential for the
conservation of the species based on the
fluctuating use of areas by the species as
a response to habitat and resource
availability. The unit is located adjacent
to currently occupied areas and
provides dispersal habitat between
units. This unit provides habitat to
support breeding plovers, and will
facilitate interchange between otherwise
widely separated units, and helps
provide habitat within the Recovery
Unit identified in the Recovery Plan
(Service 2007).
This location contains habitat such as
a wide sandy beach with surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats
that provide nesting and foraging habitat
for Pacific Coast WSPs. Primary threats
in this unit are those associated with
recreational disturbance and beach
raking.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36771
CA 48, Balboa Beach, 25 ac (10 ha)
This unit is located on the Balboa
Peninsula, immediately west of the City
of Newport Beach in Orange County.
This unit stretches roughly 0.3 mi (0.5
km) from A Street south to G Street,
including a total of 25 ac (10 ha), all of
which are owned by the City of Newport
Beach. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing, is currently occupied,
and supported two breeding adult
Pacific Coast WSPs in 2009 (P. Knapp,
pers. comm. 2010) and three breeding
adult Pacific Coast WSPs in 2010 (T.
Ryan, in litt. 2010). It also supported an
average wintering flock of 35 Pacific
Coast WSPs from 2003 through 2010
(Service unpublished data).
This location contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance,
predation of chicks and eggs, and beach
raking.
CA 49, San Onofre Beach-Marine Corps
Base Camp Pendleton
Unit CA 49 has been exempted from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions section below).
CA 50 (Subunits A–C), Batiquitos
Lagoon
Unit CA 50 (66 ac (27 ha)) has been
excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 51 (Subunits A–C), San Elijo Lagoon
Ecological Reserve, 15 ac (6 ha)
These subunits are located between
the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas
in San Diego County. These subunits
were occupied at the time of listing and
are currently occupied. They consist of
15 ac (6 ha), of which 11 ac (4 ha) are
owned by the State of California, and 4
ac (2 ha) are privately owned. San Elijo
Lagoon includes three nest sites (which
we are labeling as individual Subunits
CA 51A, CA 51B, and CA 51C). The San
Elijo Lagoon Restoration Working Group
is planning to restore habitat at the San
Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which
may include nest sites for nesting sea
birds and shorebirds, including Pacific
Coast WSP and California least tern.
Restoration and enhancement of coastal
dune habitat at this site is ongoing, and
the Service is currently participating in
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36772
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
a cooperative agreement with the San
Elijo Lagoon Conservancy to create
suitable nesting areas for Pacific Coast
WSPs, California least terns, and other
shorebirds in the southwest corner of
the West Basin of the lagoon. The
Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP
states that this location contributes
significantly to the conservation goal for
the region by providing a management
potential of 20 breeding birds (Service
2007, Appendix B). This unit may
facilitate interchange between wintering
locations (see Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat section above).
These subunits contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
sandy beaches and tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats with tide-cast
organic debris supporting small
invertebrates. Restoration of degraded
habitat within these subunits will
improve the habitat.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance,
vegetation encroachment in the
intertidal zone, and predation of chicks
and eggs.
CA 52A, San Dieguito Lagoon, 4 ac
(2 ha)
Subunit CA 52A is located at the west
end of San Dieguito River Park within
the city of Del Mar in San Diego County.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing, is currently occupied, and
consists of 4 ac (1 ha), all of which are
privately owned.
This subunit is a nest site that was
created for nesting seabirds and
shorebirds including Pacific Coast WSP
and California least tern. This subunit
also facilitates interchange between
wintering locations. The Recovery Plan
for the Pacific Coast WSP states that San
Dieguito Lagoon contributes
significantly to the conservation goal for
the region by providing a management
potential of 20 breeding birds (Service
2007, Appendix B). Additionally,
restoration of this site occurred in 2009,
improving areas used by breeding and
wintering shorebirds. Use of one nesting
site by a pair of plovers was reported in
2010 (Foster, pers. comm. 2010b).
Additional improvements to the nest
sites are expected in the future.
This subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
wide sandy beaches and tidally
influenced estuarine mud flats with
tide-cast organic debris supporting
small invertebrates.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
human recreational disturbance,
vegetation encroachment in the
intertidal zone, and predation of chicks
and eggs.
CA 52 (Subunits B–C), San Dieguito
Lagoon
Subunits CA 52B (3 ac (1 ha)) and CA
52C (4 ac (2 ha)) have been excluded
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
CA 53, Los Penasquitos Lagoon
Unit CA 53 (32 ac (13 ha)) has been
excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 54A, Fiesta Island
Subunit CA 54A (2 ac (1 ha)) has been
excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 54B, Mariner’s Point
Subunit CA 54B (7 ac (3 ha)) has been
excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 54C, South Mission Beach
Subunit CA 54C (38 ac (15 ha)) has
been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 54D, San Diego River Channel
Subunit CA 54D (51 ac (21 ha)) has
been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 55A, Naval Air Station North Island
Subunit CA 55A has been exempted
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions section below).
CA 55B, Coronado Beach, 74 ac (30 ha)
This subunit is located immediately
west of the City of Coronado in San
Diego County. This subunit stretches
roughly 0.6 mi (0.96 km) from the
boundary with Naval Air Station North
Island (NASNI) to the south end of the
natural sand dunes at Coronado City
Beach. This subunit includes a total of
74 ac (30 ha) owned by the State of
California. This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and is adjacent to the sizable
Pacific Coast WSP population at NASNI,
which contained an average wintering
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
flock of 69 Pacific Coast WSPs from
2003 to 2010 (Service unpublished
data). Additionally, biologists recorded
17 breeding adults at NASNI during
2009 surveys (Service unpublished
data). The Recovery Plan for the Pacific
Coast WSP states that this location (in
conjunction with adjacent military
lands) contributes significantly to the
conservation goal for the region by
providing a management potential of 20
breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix
B). This unit also facilitates interchange
between wintering locations.
This subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, as well as wind-blown
sand in dune systems immediately
inland of the active beach face.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
from human recreational disturbance
and beach raking.
CA 55C, Silver Strand Beach and CA
55D, Delta Beach
Subunits CA 55C and CA 55D have
been exempted from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act (see Exemptions below).
CA 55E, Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge and D Street Fill, 79 ac
(32 ha)
Lands owned and managed by the
Port of San Diego under the San Diego
Bay Natural Resources Plan within
subunit CA 55E (53 ac (21 ha)) have
been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
Federal lands (79 ac (32 ha)) within the
subunit that are owned and managed by
the Service (Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge) are not excluded from
critical habitat.
This subunit is located on the east
side of San Diego Bay in the City of
Chula Vista in San Diego County. This
subunit consists of approximately 79 ac
(32 ha) of which all are owned by the
Service. This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and supported nesting Pacific
Coast WSPs in 2000 (R. Patton, pers.
comm. 2010), and two adult Pacific
Coast WSPs in 2009 (Service
unpublished data). The Recovery Plan
for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this
location contributes significantly to the
conservation goal for the region by
providing a management potential of 25
breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
B). Additionally, this subunit annually
supports a large and significant
wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSPs
and facilitates interchange between
wintering locations.
This subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
sandy beaches above and below mean
high-tide line and tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats that provide nesting
and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast
WSPs.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
vegetation encroachment in the
intertidal zone, and predation of chicks
and eggs.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
CA 55F, Silver Strand State Beach, 82 ac
(33 ha)
This subunit is located immediately
north of the City of Imperial Beach, in
the City of Coronado in San Diego
County. This subunit consists of 82 ac
(33 ha), of which approximately 78 ac
(31 ha) are owned by the State of
California, and the ownership of 4 ac (1
ha) are unknown, but may also be under
the State’s jurisdiction. This subunit
was occupied at the time of listing and
is currently occupied. The subunit
stretches roughly 1.5 mi (2.4 km) west
of Silver Strand Boulevard, and is
centered roughly at Coronado Cays Park.
This subunit, in conjunction with
adjacent lands at Naval Amphibious
Base Coronado, supported at least 10
breeding adults in 2009 (Service
unpublished data) and 8 breeding adults
in 2010 (Ryan, in litt. 2010). The
Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP
states that this location contributes
significantly to the conservation goal for
the region by providing a management
potential of 65 breeding birds (Service
2007, Appendix B). This subunit
contained an average wintering flock of
13 Pacific Coast WSPs from 2003 to
2010 (Service unpublished data). This
subunit also facilitates interchange
between wintering locations.
This subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, as well as wind-blown
sand in dune systems immediately
inland of the active beach face.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species may require special
management considerations or
protection to address the main threats
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
from human recreational disturbance
and predation of chicks and eggs.
CA 55G, Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve
Subunit CA 55G (10 ac (4 ha)) has
been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 55H, Naval Radio Receiving Facility
Subunit CA 55H has been exempted
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions section below).
CA 55I, San Diego National Wildlife
Refuge, South Bay Unit, 5 ac (2 ha)
This subunit is located at the
southernmost end of San Diego Bay in
a location that is operated by Western
Salt Works as salt evaporation ponds.
This subunit is immediately north of the
City of Imperial Beach, in the City of
San Diego in San Diego County. This
subunit consists of 5 ac (2 ha), all of
which are owned by the Service. This
subunit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and
supported at least three breeding adults
in 2009 (Collins, in litt. 2010), and seven
breeding adults in 2010 (Ryan, in litt.
2010). The Recovery Plan for the Pacific
Coast WSP states that this location
contributes significantly to the
conservation goal for the region by
providing a management potential of 30
breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix
B).
The subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including
sparsely vegetated areas on artificial salt
flats and adjoining dikes, as well as
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats
with tide-cast organic debris supporting
small invertebrates for foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from egg
and chick predation.
CA 55J, Tijuana Estuary and Border
Field State Park, 150 ac (61 ha)
This subunit is located in the City of
Imperial Beach in San Diego County.
This subunit stretches roughly 2 mi (3.2
km) from the end of Seacoast Drive to
the United States/Mexico border,
extending across both the Tijuana
Slough National Wildlife Refuge and
Border Field State Park. This subunit
consists of 150 ac (61 ha), of which 71
ac (29 ha) are owned by the Service and
79 ac (32 ha) are owned by the State of
California. This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and supported at least 10
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36773
adult breeding Pacific Coast WSPs in
2009 (B. Collins, in litt. 2010), and 19
breeding adults in 2010 (Ryan, in litt.
2010). This location also supported an
average wintering flock of 54 Pacific
Coast WSPs from 2003 to 2010 (Service
unpublished data). The Recovery Plan
for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this
location contributes significantly to the
conservation goal for the region by
providing a management potential of 40
breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix
B).
This subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, including a
wide sandy beach with occasional
surfcast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, as well as tidally
influenced estuarine mud flats with
tide-cast organic debris supporting
small invertebrates for foraging.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
human recreational disturbance and
predation of chicks and eggs.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
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 Appeal 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. 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
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36774
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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) of the
Act 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,
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 and
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP. As discussed above, the role
of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs of the species and to
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 consultation for the Pacific Coast
WSP. These activities include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Actions and management efforts
affecting Pacific Coast WSP on Federal
lands, such as refuges, national
seashores, parks, and wildlife reserves.
Such activities may include clearing
and raking of tidal debris (seaweed,
driftwood) from beaches, causing a loss
in cover and forage; high levels of
visitor use, which can disturb and
disrupt normal behavior; restoration
efforts, which can temporarily affect
Pacific Coast WSP’s use of an area; and
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
utility corridors that require
maintenance, which can lead to
disturbance of Pacific Coast WSPs;
(2) Dredging and dredge spoil
placement that permanently removes
the physical or biological features to the
extent that Pacific Coast WSPs are
affected for the foreseeable future;
(3) Construction and maintenance of
roads, walkways, marinas, access
points, bridges, culverts, and other
structures that interfere with Pacific
Coast WSP nesting, breeding, or foraging
or that result in increases in predation;
(4) Storm water and wastewater
discharge from communities, which
could impact invertebrate abundance,
on which Pacific Coast WSPs rely for
food; and
(5) Flood control actions that change
the physical or biological features to the
extent that the habitat no longer
contributes to the conservation of the
species.
Note that the scale of these activities
is a crucial factor in determining
whether, in any instance, they would
directly or indirectly alter critical
habitat to the extent that the value of the
critical habitat would be appreciably
diminished in providing for the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP.
We consider all of the revised final
critical habitat units and subunits to
contain features essential to or for the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
To ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of
the Pacific Coast WSP, Federal agencies
already consult with us on activities in
areas currently occupied by the Pacific
Coast WSP, or in unoccupied areas if
the species may be affected by their
actions.
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;
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(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.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with federally
listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the critical
habitat designation for the Pacific Coast
WSP to determine if units covered by
these INRMPs are exempt under section
4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas
are Department of Defense lands with
completed, Service-approved INRMPs
within the revised critical habitat
designation.
Approved Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Naval Support Activity Monterey, CA
22, 8 ac (3 ha)
The Department of the Navy, Naval
Support Activity (NSA) Monterey
provides primary support to the Naval
Postgraduate School, Fleet Numerical
Meteorology and Oceanography Center,
Navy Research Lab and more than 15
additional tenant commands. Naval
Support Activity Monterey supports
over 160 buildings which are located on
more than 626 ac (253 ha) of DOD lands.
The Naval Postgraduate School is the
largest producer of advanced graduate
degrees for DOD and graduates
thousands every year from all services
and from over 50 countries. The Fleet
Numerical Meteorology and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:36 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Oceanography Center provides the
highest quality, most relevant, and
timely worldwide Meteorology and
Oceanography support to U.S. and
coalition forces from their Operations
Center in Monterey, California. The
Navy Research Lab conducts scientific
and weather modeling as well as
atmospheric and aerosol studies.
The NSA Monterey INRMP is a
planning document that guides the
management and conservation of
natural resources under the
installation’s control. The INRMP was
prepared to ensure that natural
resources are managed in support of the
NSA Monterey’s military command
mission and that all activities are
consistent with Federal stewardship
requirements. The NSA Monterey
INRMP was completed in 2001. An
addendum to the 2001 INRMP,
addressing conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP, was submitted to the
Service in March 2012 and was
approved and signed by the Service in
May 2012. The INRMP is NSA
Monterey’s adaptive plan for managing
natural resources to support and be
consistent with the military mission,
while protecting and enhancing the
biological integrity of lands under its
use. Naval Support Activity Monterey is
committed to an ecosystem management
approach for its natural resources
program by integrating all components
of natural resource management into a
comprehensive and coordinated effort.
An integrated approach to ecosystem
management will help protect the
biological diversity found at NSA
Monterey.
The INRMP identifies the goal of
contributing to the recovery of the
Pacific Coast WSP through development
of cooperative, ecosystem managementbased strategies. The INRMP identifies
the following management and
protective measures to achieve this goal:
(1) Protect and maintain natural
coastal processes that perpetuate highquality breeding habitat including
measures such as:
(2) Ensure beach areas are clean of
litter and contaminants;
(3) Improve signage mandating dogs
be leashed at all times;
(4) Develop and maintain a feral
animal predator management program;
(5) Minimize activities which can
affect invertebrate populations that
shorebirds forage on,such as routine
removal of tidal wrack;
(6) Discourage human foot traffic from
suitable nesting areas with fencing and
educational signage;
(7) Eliminate incompatible military
operations on beach during nesting
season;
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36775
(8) Actively communicate
management strategies to local
community;
(9) Enhance remnant dune areas as
potential nest sites;
(10) Identify opportunities to use
suitable dredge or other materials for
expansion of beachareas to create
improved nesting substrate;
(11) Maintain native plant coverage
on dunes and control invasive weeds on
dunes and beach;
(12) Conduct monitoring in support of
management objective;
(13) Meet with stakeholders annually
to oversee implementation and
prioritize projects;
(14) Monitor Pacific Coast WSP
population at least annually; and
(15) Regularly monitor dune and
beach area and identify conflicts for
immediate actions and long-term
projects.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the 2001 INRMP and the 2012
Addendum to the INRMP for NSA
Monterey and that the conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP have and
will provide a benefit to the Pacific
Coast WSP and features essential to its
conservation, and will benefit Pacific
Coast WSPs occurring in habitats within
or adjacent to NSA Monterey. Therefore,
lands within this installation
(approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of of Unit CA
22) are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. We are not including
approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP in this revised
final critical habitat designation because
of this exemption.
Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 32 and
CA 33, 1,135 ac (460 ha)
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
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36776
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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).
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 western snowy plover
by: (1) Implementing restrictions on
recreational beach access during the
nesting season, which are evaluated
each year for their effectiveness in
protecting snowy plovers; (2)
prohibiting recreational off-road vehicle
activity on western snowy plover
beaches at any time except when
essential to support the VAFB mission
or in an emergency; (3) training VAFB
personnel to operate ATVs to avoid
impacts to western snowy plovers and
their habitat; (4) using horse and foot
patrols when possible on base beaches;
(5) enforcing leash laws throughout
VAFB year-round; (6) prohibiting all
pets on western snowy plover nesting
beaches between March 1 and
September 30 each year; (7)
implementing a predator management
plan that includes ecologically sound
approaches to reducing predation of
western snowy plover nests and chicks;
(8) cleaning base beaches between
October 1 and February 28 each year
under the ‘‘Adopt-a-Beach Program’’
and implementing program-specific
monitoring of western snowy plovers, to
determine impacts from launches and
other Air Force activities; (9) restricting
aircraft overflight to a minimum of 500foot altitude above western snowy
plover nesting beaches; and (10)
establishing flight patterns to minimize
aircraft presence over these beaches
(VAFB 2011, Tab D, p. 18–20).
Furthermore, VAFB’s environmental
staff reviews projects and enforces
existing regulations and orders that,
through their implementation, avoid
and minimize impacts to natural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
resources, including the western snowy
plover and its habitat.
Habitat features essential to the
conservation of the western snowy
plover exist on VAFB, and activities
occurring on VAFB are currently being
conducted in a manner that minimizes
impacts to western snowy plover
habitat. This military installation has a
Secretarial-approved INRMP that
provides a benefit to the western snowy
plover, and VAFB has committed to
work closely with the Service and the
CDFG to continually refine their
existing INRMP as part of the Sikes
Act’s INRMP review process. 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 western snowy plover and its
habitat. This includes habitat located on
Vandenberg North (CA 32) and South
(CA 33) beaches. 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 1,135 ac (460 ha) of
habitat in this revised critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu,
CA 40 and CA 41, 208 ac (84 ha)
The Department of the Navy, Naval
Base Ventura County, manages two
facilities in Ventura County, California:
Point Mugu and San Nicolas Island.
Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu
(NBVC, Point Mugu) was established in
1949 as the Naval Air Weapons Station
to support a new U.S. Naval Air Missile
Test Center, which provided material
and service support, including military
personnel administration, air traffic
control, and flight line functions. The
NBVC, Point Mugu occupies
approximately 4,490 ac (1,817 ha) of
land on the coast of southern California,
Ventura County. Currently, the
installation is used for target drone
launches, aircraft operations, and beach
missile launch operations, and is
responsible for maintenance of the roads
and perimeter fence, utilities
maintenance, pest management,
recreation, and natural resource
management.
The NBVC, Point Mugu INRMP is a
planning document that guides the
management and conservation of
natural resources under the
installation’s control. The INRMP was
prepared to ensure that natural
resources are managed in support of the
Naval Base Ventura County’s military
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
command mission and that all activities
are consistent with Federal stewardship
requirements. The NBVC, Point Mugu
INRMP was completed in 2002, and
renewed and approved by the Service in
2008. The INRMP is Naval Base Ventura
County’s adaptive plan for managing
natural resources to support and be
consistent with the military mission,
while protecting and enhancing the
biological integrity of lands under its
use (U.S. Navy 2002, p. ES–3). Naval
Base Ventura County is committed to an
ecosystem management approach for its
natural resources program by integrating
all components of natural resource
management into a comprehensive and
coordinated effort. An integrated
approach to ecosystem management will
help protect the biological diversity
found at NBVC, Point Mugu.
The INRMP identifies the following
management and protective measure
goals for the Pacific Coast WSP:
(1) Monitor and manage breeding
habitat of Pacific Coast WSPs;
(2) Monitor and manage wintering
and migration areas to maximize Pacific
Coast WSP population survival;
(3) Develop mechanisms for long-term
management and protection of Pacific
Coast WSPs and their breeding and
wintering habitat;
(4) Undertake scientific investigations
that facilitate recovery efforts;
(5) Undertake public information and
education programs for Pacific Coast
WSPs;
(6) Continue measures in place for
Pacific Coast WSP protection, including
beach closures;
(7) Protect and maintain natural
coastal processes that perpetuate highquality breeding habitat;
(8) Keep Pacific Coast WSP
management areas closed to all pets,
leashed or not, with the exception of
NBVC security dogs on official duty
(e.g., apprehending a suspect);
(9) Monitor habitat to maintain the
nesting substrates necessary for Pacific
Coast WSP breeding success;
(10) Identify factors that limit the
quality of wintering and breeding
habitat;
(11) Clean and restore the eastern arm
of Mugu Lagoon to sandy beach;
(12) Improve methods of monitoring
Pacific Coast WSPs, such as color
banding; and
(13) Develop and implement public
information and education programs on
Pacific Coast WSPs and recovery efforts
at the proposed Mugu Lagoon Visitor
Education Center.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
subject to the 2008 INRMP for NBVC,
Point Mugu and that the conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP have and
will provide a benefit to the Pacific
Coast WSP and features essential to its
conservation, and will benefit Pacific
Coast WSPs occurring in habitats within
or adjacent to NBVC, Point Mugu.
Therefore, lands within this installation
(Units CA 40 and CA 41) are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 208 ac (84 ha)
of habitat in this revised final critical
habitat designation because of this
exemption.
Department of the Navy, Naval Base
Ventura County, San Nicolas Island (CA
42), 321 ac (130 ha)
San Nicolas Island is under the
jurisdiction of Department of the Navy,
Naval Base Ventura County. The 14,230ac (5,759-ha) San Nicolas Island is
located approximately 65 mi (105 km)
south of NBVC, Point Mugu. Naval
facilities on San Nicolas Island include
a 10,000-ft (3,048-m) concrete and
asphalt runway, radar tracking
instrumentation, electro-optical devices,
telemetry, communications equipment,
and missile and target launch areas, as
well as personnel support. Currently,
the island is used as the management
launch platform for short- and mediumrange missile testing, and an observation
facility for missile testing. Primarily,
San Nicolas Island’s mission is to
support the primary research, design,
development, testing, and evaluation of
air weapons and associated aircraft
systems into anti-surface and anti-air
warfare aircraft.
The San Nicolas Island INRMP (U.S.
Navy 2005, pp. 1–129) is a planning
document that guides the management
and conservation of natural resources
under the Navy Base Ventura County’s
control. The INRMP was prepared to
ensure that natural resources are
managed in support of the Naval Base
Ventura County’s military command
mission and that all activities are
consistent with Federal stewardship
requirements. The San Nicolas Island
INRMP was completed and approved by
the Service in 2003, and renewed in
2005. The San Nicolas Island INRMP is
Naval Base Ventura County’s adaptive
plan for managing natural resources to
support and be consistent with the
military mission, while protecting and
enhancing the biological integrity of
lands under its use (U.S. Navy 2005, p.
5). Naval Base Ventura County is
committed to an ecosystem management
approach for its natural resources
program by integrating all components
of natural resource management into a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
comprehensive and coordinated effort.
An integrated approach to ecosystem
management will help protect the
biological diversity found at San Nicolas
Island.
The San Nicolas Island INRMP
identifies the following management
and protective measure goals for the
Pacific Coast WSP:
(1) Monitor Pacific Coast WSPs’ nests
during missile launches, barge landings,
and other activities that may disturb
nesting behaviors;
(2) Close Pacific Coast WSP nesting
areas to recreational activity during the
breeding season (March through
September);
(3) Monitor the effects of Navy
activities on Pacific Coast WSPs by
conducting island-wide Pacific Coast
WSP censuses twice annually, once
during the breeding season and once
during the winter season;
(4) Educate island personnel
regarding protected species regulations
and responsibilities;
(5) Maintain signs around breeding
sites to alert personnel of closures;
(6) Conduct site-specific Pacific Coast
WSP surveys in potential or known
breeding habitat prior to disturbance
activities;
(7) Remove unnecessary structures in
Pacific Coast WSP nesting areas and
attach avian excluders to essential
structures, if feasible;
(8) Conduct amphibious training
exercises on beaches not harboring
nesting Pacific Coast WSPs;
(9) Continue to implement a feral cat
control/removal program;
(10) Develop and maintain a computer
database for storing information on
locations of nesting sites, incidental
sightings and size and results of surveys
for resource management purposes;
(11) Continue to participate with
recovery planning and other efforts to
help establish stable Pacific Coast WSP
populations; and
(12) Support research to explore the
effects of increasing pinniped (seal, sea
lion) populations on nesting success of
Pacific Coast WSPs.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the 2005 INRMP for San
Nicolas Island and that the conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP have and
will provide a benefit to the Pacific
Coast WSP and features essential to its
conservation, and will benefit Pacific
Coast WSPs occurring in habitats within
or adjacent to NBVC, San Nicolas
Island. Therefore, lands within this
installation (Unit CA 42) are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36777
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 321 ac (130 ha)
of habitat in this revised final critical
habitat designation because of this
exemption.
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp
Pendleton (CA 49), 441 ac (179 ha)
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp
Pendleton is the Marine Corps’ premier
amphibious training installation and it
is the 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 is
developed, most of the installation is
largely undeveloped land that is used
for training. MCB Camp Pendleton is
situated between two major
metropolitan areas: The City of Los
Angeles that is 82 mi (132 km) to the
north, and the City of San Diego that is
38 mi (61 km) to the south. MCB Camp
Pendleton is located north of the City of
Oceanside, southeast of the City of San
Clemente, and adjacent to the western
side of the unincorporated community
of Fallbrook, San Diego County,
California. Aside from a portion of the
installation’s border that is shared with
the Cleveland National Forest’s San
Mateo Wilderness Area and Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station, surrounding
land use includes urban development,
rural residential development, and
farming and ranching. The largest single
leaseholder on the installation is CDPR,
which possesses a 50-year real estate
lease granted on September 1, 1971, for
2,000 ac (809 ha) that encompasses 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. Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton 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
Pacific Coast WSP (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Appendix F, Section
F.23, pp. F85–F89). The Service
provided concurrence in 2001 and 2007
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36778
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
for the respective INRMPs.
Additionally, CDPR is required to
conduct its natural resources
management consistent with the
philosophies and supportive of the
objectives in the revised 2007 INRMP
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Chapter 2,
p. 31).
The Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat
are provided protection and
management by the Estuarine and Beach
Conservation Plan (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, pp. B–1—
B–20), which was addressed through the
section 7 consultation process with a
biological opinion issued by the Service
on October 30, 1995 (Service 1995,
Biological Opinion 1–6–95–F02), and is
now implemented under the 2007
INRMP. Base-wide protection measures
for avoidance and minimization of
impacts to Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat, especially during the breeding
season, are provided in both the
conservation plan and Base Order
P3500.1M. The base-wide protection
measures for Pacific Coast WSP include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Minimize reduction or loss of
upland buffers surrounding coastal
wetlands;
(2) Restore the dune system in the
vicinity of the Santa Margarita Estuary
following the guidance developed by
The Nature Conservancy;
(3) Maintain integrity of listed
species’ habitat; and
(4) Promote growth of current
population of Pacific Coast WSPs (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, pp.
B5–B7).
Annual management and protection
measures for Pacific Coast WSPs
identified in Appendix F of the INRMP
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Installation of sign postings
describing the sensitive nature of the
breeding area/season;
(2) Installation of permanent/
temporary fencing that directs military
training away from sensitive nesting and
foraging areas;
(3) Beach habitat enhancement
(nonnative vegetation control and sand
mobilization);
(4) Ant control (ants can cause
incubating adults to abandon a nest, and
can contribute towards chick mortality);
and
(5) Focused predator control (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix F, p.
F89).
Current environmental training
regulations and restrictions are provided
to all military personnel to maintain
compliance with the terms of the
INRMP. Training regulations guide
activities to protect endangered and
threatened species on the installation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
including Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat. Specific conservation measures,
outlined in the Instructions for Military
Training Activities section of the
Estuarine and Beach Conservation Plan,
are applied to Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, p.
B–13). These include:
(1) Military activities are kept to a
minimum within the Santa Margarita
Management Zone (i.e., the area on the
base where the majority of nesting sites
occur) and any nesting site outside the
traditionally fenced nesting areas during
the breeding/nesting season (1 March–
31 August) for the Pacific Coast WSP. A
buffer distance of 984 ft (300 m) away
from fenced or posted nesting areas
must be adhered to for all activities
involving smoke, pyrotechnics, loud
noises, blowing sand, and large
groupings of personnel (14 or more).
Aircraft are not authorized to land
within 984 ft (300 m) of fenced nesting
areas on Blue Beach or White Beach and
are required to maintain an altitude of
300 ft (91 m) Above Ground Level (AGL)
or more above nesting areas.
(2) Recreational activities within the
Santa Margarita Management Zone and
posted nest locations during the
breeding season are to be kept to a
minimum, and camping at Cocklebur
Canyon Beach is prohibited.
(3) Foot traffic within the Santa
Margarita Management Zone is
prohibited within 150 ft (46 m) of
posted nesting areas during the breeding
season.
(4) A 300-ft (91-m) buffer from posted
nesting areas is required for surf
fishermen, and no live baitfish or
amphibians are allowed for fishing
activities.
Additionally, MCB Camp Pendleton
Environmental Security staff review
projects and enforce existing regulations
and orders that, through their
implementation under National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements, avoid
and minimize impacts to natural
resources, including the Pacific Coast
WSP and its habitat. MCB Camp
Pendleton also provides training to
personnel on environmental awareness
for sensitive resources on the base,
including the Pacific Coast WSP 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 Pacific Coast WSPs and their
habitat.
MCB Camp Pendleton’s INRMP also
benefits Pacific Coast WSP through
ongoing monitoring and research efforts.
To assess the effectiveness of MCB
Camp Pendleton’s Estuarine and Beach
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Conservation Plan, biennial monitoring
is conducted to determine number of
pairs, hatching success, and
reproductive success (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, p. B12).
Annual monitoring of nests is
conducted to track Pacific Coast WSP
population trends (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Appendix F, p. F89).
Data are provided to all necessary
personnel through MCB Camp
Pendleton’s GIS database on sensitive
resources and MCB Camp Pendleton’s
published resource atlas. Moreover,
CDPR is required to conduct its natural
resources management consistent with
the philosophies and supportive of the
objectives of the INRMP (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, p. 2–30).
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the MCB Camp Pendleton
INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the 2007 INRMP do and
will continue to provide a benefit to
Pacific Coast WSP and features essential
to its conservation, and will benefit
Pacific Coast WSPs occurring in habitats
within or adjacent to MCB Camp
Pendleton. This includes habitat located
in the following areas: San Onofre
Beach, Aliso/French Creek Mouth, and
Santa Margarita River Estuary (names of
areas follow those used in the draft
recovery plan (Service 2001, Appendix
B, p. B–16)). Therefore, lands within
this installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)
of the Act. We are not including
approximately 441 ac (179 ha) of habitat
in this revised final critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Naval Base Coronado, Naval Air Station
(CA 55A, CA 55C, CA 55D, and CA
55H), 734 ac (297 ha)
Naval Base Coronado includes eight
military facilities in San Diego County,
California. Three of these facilities
(Naval Air Station North Island (CA
55A); Naval Amphibious Base Coronado
(CA 55C, and CA 55D); and Naval Radio
Receiving Facility (CA 55H)) include
beach habitat that supports Pacific Coast
WSPs. For planning and description
purposes regarding these beaches and
the military training that occurs here,
the U.S. Navy describes these areas as:
(1) Naval Air Station North Island
(NAS North Island),
(2) Naval Amphibious Base Coronado
or Silver Strand Training Complex—
North (SSTC–North), and
(3) Naval Radio Receiving Facility or
Silver Strand Training Complex—South
(SSTC–South).
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
NAS North Island is located north of
the City of Coronado and encompasses
2,803 ac (1134 ha), of which
approximately 95 ac (39 ha) is southern
foredune/beach habitat. SSTC–North is
located south of the City of Coronado
and encompasses roughly 1,000 ac (405
ha), of which approximately 257 ac (104
ha) are beach-front habitat leased from
CDPR for amphibious military training
activities. SSTC–North, including the
San Diego Bay-front beach referred to as
Delta Beach, supports approximately
278 ac (113 ha) of southern foredune/
beach habitat. SSTC–South is located
north of the City of Imperial Beach, and
encompasses 450 ac (182 ha), of which
approximately 78 ac (32 ha) is southern
foredune/beach habitat.
The U.S. Navy completed an INRMP
in 2002 to provide a viable framework
for the management of natural resources
on lands controlled by for Naval Base
Coronado. This INRMP was approved
by the Service. The U.S. Navy continues
to implement the completed 2002
INRMP as a revision is being drafted.
The INRMP identifies conservation and
management recommendations within
the scope of the installation’s military
mission, including conservation
measures for Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat (Naval Base Coronado 2002,
Section 3, pp. 81–83). The management
strategy outlines actions that would
contribute to the recovery of Pacific
Coast WSP through development of
cooperative, ecosystem managementbased strategies (Naval Base Coronado
2002, Section 4, pp. 56–58).
The INRMP revision will reflect the
management changes driven by the U.S.
Navy’s need for additional beach
training. The U.S. Navy will continue to
implement the 2002 INRMP, subject to
modified management strategies
identified in the 2010 Silver Strand
Training Area Biological Opinion (BO),
until completion of a revised INRMP.
The revised INRMP will include the
management strategy identified in the
2010 Silver Strand Training BO. The
2002 INRMP identifies conservation and
management recommendations within
the scope of the installation’s military
mission, including conservation
measures for Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat (Naval Base Coronado 2002,
Section 3, pp. 81–83). The management
strategy outlines actions that would
contribute to the recovery of Pacific
Coast WSP through development of
cooperative, ecosystem managementbased strategies (Naval Base Coronado
2002, Section 4, pp. 56–58).
Management actions that will benefit
the Pacific Coast WSP to be
implemented by the Navy on the U.S.
Navy’s Silver Strand Training Complex
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Operations, Naval Base, Coronado, in
accordance with the 2002 INRMP as
modified by the 2010 SSTC BO
(08B0503–09F0517) include:
(1) Minimize the potential for take of
nests and chicks at SSTC–N and SSTC–
S Beaches during the breeding season;
(2) Monitor training activities to
ascertain the impact on Pacific Coast
WSP distribution and report any
observed incidental take to the Service
annually;
(3) Modify the beach to create
hummocks to deter plovers from nesting
in intensively used beach lanes;
(4) Schedule efforts to avoid beach
lanes with higher nest numbers;
(5) Study the effects of military
working dogs on plovers to develop
additional conservation measures, if
necessary;
(6) Require that dogs be on leashes;
(7) Annual nest site preparation;
(8) Mark and avoid up to 22 nests at
SSTC–S, SSTC–N Beaches, plus any
additional nests that exceed 22 that are
initiated in beach lanes Orange 1 and
Orange 2;
(9) Protect nesting and foraging areas
at NAS North Island, SSTC–North,
SSTC–South, and Delta Beach from
predation by supporting consistent and
effective predator management;
(10) Enhance and disallow mowing of
remnant dune areas as potential nest
sites in areas that can be protected from
human disturbance and predators
during nesting season;
(11) Conduct monitoring throughout
Naval Base Coronado and establish a
consistent approach to monitoring
nesting attempts and hatching success
to determine the success of predator
management activities, and limit
predator-prey interactions by fencing
unless it conflicts with U.S. Navy
training;
(12) Identify opportunities to use
dredge material that has high sand
content for expansion and rehabilitation
of beach areas at NAS North Island and
Delta Beach to create improved nesting
substrate;
(13) Minimize activities that can affect
invertebrate populations necessary for
Pacific Coast WSP foraging by
prohibiting beach raking on Naval Base
Coronado beaches, with the exception of
the area immediately in front of the
Navy Lodge at NAS North Island and
Camp Surf at SSTC–South;
(14) If any relocation of nest/eggs is
necessary as a protective measure, each
nest/egg will be relocated the shortest
distance possible into suitable habitat
by Service-approved monitors to
increase the chance of nest success;
(15) Identify conflicts for immediate
action and response;
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36779
(16) Public outreach to military
residents of adjacent housing;
(17) Post signs to eliminate human
trespassers during nesting season and
possibly for nest avoidance as well; and
(18) Work with the Service and others
to develop a regional approach to
managing and conserving the habitat
needed to sustain Pacific Coast WSP.
The 2010 SSTC BO (08B0503–
09F0517, p. 128) also specifies that if
new information reveals that the
increased training is affecting Pacific
Coast WSP in a manner inconsistent
with the conclusion of the Biological
Opinion, then reinitiation of
consultation may be warranted. If
monitoring indicates that the western
snowy plover numbers within the area
of increased military training decline
below the 5-year average, as determined
by maximum active nest numbers—
average of 18 plover pairs at SSTC
(range of 11 to 22); 10 plover pairs at
NASNI (range of 7 to 14); and 8 plover
pairs at SSSB (range of 5 to 9)—
reinitiation of consultation may be
warranted. If snowy plover use of SSTC
beaches declines, Service and U.S. Navy
biologists will evaluate alternative
explanations for any observed decline
(such as, continuation of low
productivity associated with predation)
and the need for additional conservation
measures. This cooperative relationship
allows the Service to work closely with
the U.S. Navy for the continued
implementation of beneficial measures
to Pacific Coast WSP, while minimizing
impacts associated with the increased
training activities that are required for
military readiness.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the Naval Base Coronado
INRMP and that the conservation efforts
identified in the existing Serviceapproved INRMP will provide a benefit
to Pacific Coast WSP features essential
to its conservation and will benefit
Pacific Coast WSPs occurring in habitats
within and adjacent to NAS North
Island, SSTC–North, and SSTC–South.
We also anticipate that the draft revised
INRMP will provide a similar if not
greater benefits to Pacific Coast WSPs,
but will reopen this designation as
necessary to evaluate the conservation
efforts in Naval Base Coronado’s final
revised INRMP. Therefore, lands within
this installation (Units CA 55A, CA 55C,
CA 55D, and CA 55H) are exempt under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 734 ac (297 ha)
of habitat in this revised final critical
habitat designation because of this
exemption.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36780
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Table 5 below provides approximate
land areas (ac, ha) that meet the
definition of critical habitat but are
exempt from designation under section
4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
TABLE 5—EXEMPTIONS FROM DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT
Unit
CA
CA
CA
CA
22
32
33
40
...........
...........
...........
...........
CA 41 ...........
CA 42 ...........
CA 49 ...........
CA 55A .........
CA 55C .........
CA 55D .........
CA 55H .........
Total ......
Naval Support Area Monterey .............................
Vandenberg Air Force Base North ......................
Vandenberg Air Force Base South .....................
Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, Mugu
Lagoon North.
Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, Mugu
Lagoon South.
Naval Base Ventura County, San Nicolas Island
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton ......
Naval Base Coronado, Naval Air Station North
Island.
Naval Base Coronado Silver Strand Beach ........
Naval Base Coronado Delta Beach ....................
Naval Base Coronado Naval Radio Receiving
Facility.
4(a)(3)(B)
4(a)(3)(B)
4(a)(3)(B)
4(a)(3)(B)
..............................................................................
Exclusions
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
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 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 decision not 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.
In considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate 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
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Areas meeting the
definition of critical
habitat in ac
(ha)
Basis for
exemption
Specific area
......................
......................
......................
......................
8 ac (3 ha) ....................
711 ac (288 ha) ............
423 ac (171 ha) ............
136 ac (55 ha) ..............
8 ac (3 ha).
711 ac (288 ha).
423 ac (171 ha).
136 ac (55 ha).
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
72 ac (29 ha) ................
72 ac (29 ha).
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
321 ac (130 ha) ............
441 ac (179 ha) ............
142 ac (57 ha) ..............
321 ac (130 ha).
441 ac (179 ha).
142 ac (57 ha).
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
4(a)(3)(B) ......................
436 ac (176 ha) ............
90 ac (36 ha) ................
66 ac (27 ha) ................
436 ac (176 ha).
90 ac (36 ha).
66 ac (27 ha).
.......................................
.......................................
2,846 ac (1,151 ha).
When identifying the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider the
additional regulatory benefits that area
would receive from the protection from
adverse modification or destruction as a
result of actions with a Federal nexus,
the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the
listed species, and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When considering the benefits of
exclusion, we consider, among other
things, whether exclusion of a specific
area is likely to result in conservation;
the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships; or
implementation of a management plan
that provides equal to or more
conservation that a critical habitat
designation would provide.
In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP,
the benefits of critical habitat include
public awareness of the Pacific Coast
WSP’s presence and the importance of
habitat protection, and in cases where a
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat
protection for the Pacific Coast WSP due
to the protection from adverse
modification or destruction of critical
habitat.
When we evaluate the existence of a
conservation or management plan when
considering the benefits of exclusion,
we consider a variety of factors,
including but not limited to, whether
the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential
physical or biological features; whether
there is a reasonable expectation that
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Areas
exempted in
ac (ha)
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the conservation management strategies
and actions contained in a management
plan will be implemented into the
future; whether the conservation
strategies in the plan are likely to be
effective; and whether the plan contains
a monitoring program or adaptive
management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and
can be adapted in the future in response
to new information.
After evaluating the benefits of
inclusion and the benefits of exclusion,
we carefully weigh the two sides to
evaluate whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion.
If our analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether
exclusion would result in extinction. If
exclusion of an area from critical habitat
will result in extinction, we will not
exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by
entities seeking exclusion, as well as
any additional public comments
received and information in our files,
we evaluated whether certain lands in
the revised proposed critical habitat
were appropriate for exclusion from this
revised final designation pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We
considered the areas discussed below
for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, and present our detailed
analysis below. For those areas in which
the Secretary has exercised his
discretion to exclude, we conclude that:
(1) Their value for conservation will
be preserved in the near future by
existing protective actions, or
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36781
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(2) The benefits of excluding the
particular area outweigh the benefits of
their inclusion, based on the ‘‘other
relevant factor’’ provisions of section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
We are excluding a total of
approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of
land from critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP. Table 6 below provides
approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands in
each State by unit that meet the
definition of critical habitat but are
being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act from the final critical habitat
rule. Maps showing excluded areas are
available upon request by contacting the
Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see the
ADDRESSES section).
TABLE 6—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT
Area excluded
under section
4(b)(2) of the act
Unit/subunit
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department HCP
UNIT ................................................................................................................................................................................................
OR 1 Columbia River Spit ............................................................................................................................................................
OR 2 Necanicum River Spit .........................................................................................................................................................
OR 3 Nehalem River Spit .............................................................................................................................................................
OR 4 Bayocean Spit .....................................................................................................................................................................
OR 5 Netarts Spit .........................................................................................................................................................................
OR 6 Sand Lake South ................................................................................................................................................................
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches ........................................................................................................................................................
OR 8B Siltcoos River Spit ............................................................................................................................................................
OR 8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit ...........................................................................................................................
OR 8D North Umpqua River Spit .................................................................................................................................................
OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit .............................................................................................................................................................
OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit .........................................................................................................................................................
OR 11 Bandon to New River .......................................................................................................................................................
OR 12 Elk River Spit ....................................................................................................................................................................
OR 13 Euchre Creek Spit ...............................................................................................................................................................
Subtotal for OPRD HCP Lands ...............................................................................................................................................
ac (ha).
169 (68).
200 (81).
299 (121).
166 (67).
541 (219).
195 (79).
96 (39).
125 (51).
333 (135).
177 (71).
21 (8).
35 (14).
475 (192).
167 (68).
107 (43).
3,106 (1,257).
Southern California Multi-Species HCPs and Other Management Plans
UNIT ................................................................................................................................................................................................
CA 50A Batiquitos Lagoon ...........................................................................................................................................................
CA 50B Batiquitos Lagoon ...........................................................................................................................................................
CA 50C Batiquitos Lagoon ...........................................................................................................................................................
CA 52B San Dieguito Lagoon ......................................................................................................................................................
CA 52C San Dieguito Lagoon ......................................................................................................................................................
CA 53 Los Penasquitos Lagoon ..................................................................................................................................................
CA 54A Fiesta Island ...................................................................................................................................................................
CA 54B Mariner’s Point ................................................................................................................................................................
CA 54C South Mission Beach ......................................................................................................................................................
CA 54D San Diego River Channel ...............................................................................................................................................
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and D Street Fill ......................................................................................
CA G55 Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve ..........................................................................................................................................
Subtotal for all Southern CA Plans .........................................................................................................................................
Subtotal for all HCP Lands in OR and CA ..............................................................................................................................
ac (ha).
24 (10).
23 (9).
19 (8).
3 (1).
4 (2).
32 (13).
2 (1).
7 (3).
38 (15).
51 (21).
53 (21).
10 (4).
266 (108).
3,372 (1,365).
Tribal Lands
Shoalwater Bay Tribe
UNIT ................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shoalwater Bay tribal lands within WA3B Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit ..........................................................................................
Subtotal for Tribal Lands .........................................................................................................................................................
Total Area Excluded Under 4(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................................
ac (ha).
425 (172).
425 ac (172 ha).
3,797 (1,537).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
impacts, we prepared a draft economic
analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation and related factors
(Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc)
2011, pp. 1–130). The draft analysis,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
dated September 15, 2011, was made
available for public review and
comment from January 17, 2012,
through February 16, 2012 (77 FR 2243).
Following the close of the comment
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36782
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
period, a final analysis (dated March 23,
2012) of the potential economic effects
of the designation was developed taking
into consideration the public comments
and any new information (IEc 2012, pp.
1–131).
The intent of the final economic
analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential
conservation efforts for the Pacific Coast
WSP; some of these costs will likely be
incurred regardless of whether we
designate critical habitat (baseline). The
economic impact of the final critical
habitat designation is analyzed by
comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’
The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place
for the species (e.g., under the Federal
listing and other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline,
therefore, represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts are those
not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental
costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and
beyond the baseline costs; these are the
costs we consider in the final
designation of critical habitat. The
analysis looks retrospectively at
baseline impacts incurred since the
species was listed, and forecasts both
baseline and incremental impacts likely
to occur with the designation of critical
habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential
economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of
any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government
agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost
economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial
development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on
water management and transportation
projects, Federal lands, small entities,
and the energy industry. Decision
makers use this information to assess
whether the effects of the designation
might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA
looks retrospectively at costs that have
been incurred since 1993 (year of the
species’ listing) (58 FR 12864; March 5,
1993), and considers those costs that
may occur in the 20 years following the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
designation of critical habitat, which
was determined to be the appropriate
period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for
most activities to forecast activity levels
for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
The FEA quantifies economic impacts of
the Pacific Coast WSP conservation
efforts associated with the following
categories of activity: (1) Recreation;
(2) commercial and residential
development; (3) gravel mining; (4)
military activities; and (5) habitat and
species management.
Nearly 86 percent of the critical
habitat is not expected to experience
any incremental impacts. In some of
these units, the critical habitat area is
subject to existing HCPs or land
management plans that incorporate
plover conservation. For other units, no
future land use threats (e.g.,
development or transportation projects)
are forecast to occur (IEc 2012, p. 4–1).
In the DEA, the major cost was
associated with military operations at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, which was
proposed for designation as Units CA 32
and 33 in our March 2011 proposed
revised designation. Vandenberg Air
Force Base subsequently completed a
Secretarial-approved INRMP and has
been exempted from this final revised
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act (see Exemptions section).
The FEA estimates total potential
incremental economic impacts in areas
proposed as revised critical habitat over
the next 20 years (2012 to 2032) to be
$266,000, annualized at $25,100 using a
7 percent discount rate. These totals
include the potential incremental
impacts associated with inclusion of
Vandenberg Air Force Base and, as a
result of its exemption from this final
designation, the total potential
incremental impacts may be less. These
costs represent additional
administrative effort as part of future
consultations under section 7 of the Act.
We do not expect that the designation
will result in additional conservation
efforts for the plover due to the nature
of the known projects. Exhibit 4–2
provides the estimated incremental
impacts by activity (IEc 2012, p. 4–6).
Development activities have the highest
incremental impact at $50,000, followed
by habitat and species management at
$16,700, and mining at $10,500.
Development
The FEA estimates the largest impacts
of the proposed revised critical habitat
rule would result from real estate
development. The FEA has identified
two commercial resort developments
that may be affected by the designation
of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
WSP. The total incremental impacts
within Unit CA 22 are estimated to be
$17,100 ($1,610 annualized) at a 7
percent discount rate and include the
administrative cost of addressing
adverse modification during
consultation as well as any additional
conservation efforts necessary to avoid
adverse modification (IEc 2012, pp. 4–
4, 4–12—4–14). These costs are
assuming that a Federal nexus would be
identified for the proposed project;
currently, however, there is no federal
nexus and thus consultation under
section 7 is not required. Indirect costs
(i.e., lost potential income to local
business and construction jobs) may
also be associated with this unit and the
project proponents have estimated these
impacts to be approximately $30 million
annually to the local economy if the
projects are not allowed to proceed due
to litigation or other permit proceedings
not connected with this critical habitat
designation (IEc 2012, p. 4–14). These
estimates could not be verified by our
economic analysis. Both development
sites are located at the southerly end of
Unit CA 22 in Sand City, California. The
first development site, commonly
known as the ‘‘Sterling/McDonald’’ site,
is jointly owned by a private developer
and the Sand City Redevelopment
Agency. The project proponents are
presently in the process of developing
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
under CEQA. Project proponents expect
the EIR to be completed in 6 months.
The second site on the Sand City
coastline is the Security National
Guaranty (SNG) development site
(formerly known as the Lonestar site).
Similar to the Sterling McDonald site,
the SNG site is planned for a mixed-use
visitor-serving resort. The hotel-condo
resort will include up to 341 units.
Pursuant to CEQA, the resort has
undergone a full EIR along with an
addendum update and peer review.
These development projects do not
have a Federal nexus and thus
consultation with the Service under
section 7 of the Act is not required. Due
to the lack of a Federal nexus, no direct
impacts of critical habitat designation
are expected; however, indirect impacts
(i.e. lost potential income to local
business and construction jobs) are
possible in the event that other
permitting processes or litigation
unrelated to this designation affect
project approvals (IEc 2012, pp. 4–12–
4–13). SNG has prepared a detailed
habitat protection plan (HPP) that
evaluates and mitigates potential
impacts to any presence of sensitive
biological resources, including the
Pacific Coast WSP. Conservation
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
measures contained within the HPP
related to the plover include: Fencing
and signage around construction; Pacific
Coast WSP surveys prior to, during, and
after construction; erection of exclosures
and signage if any nesting Pacific Coast
WSPs are discovered; predator
management; permanent conservation
easement for Pacific Coast WSP habitat
on the property; and quarterly and
annual reporting to the Service (IEc
2012, p. 4–13).
One additional development project
was identified in subunit CA 55B by the
City of Coronado. The City of Coronado
has developed a conceptual plan for a
Class 1 bike path and pedestrian trail for
the Central Beach area in subunit CA
55B. If this plan moves forward,
consultation with the Service would
occur if there is a Federal nexus. The
total incremental impacts within this
unit are estimated to be $4,670 ($441
annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate
and include the administrative cost of
addressing adverse modification during
consultation as well as any additional
conservation efforts necessary to avoid
adverse modification (IEc 2012, pp. 4–
5, 4–14).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Recreation
The majority of incremental costs
associated with recreation are at the
Oceano Dunes State Vehicular
Recreation Area (SVRA). Oceano Dunes
SVRA is one of several Off-Highway
Vehicle (OHV) areas administered by
the CDPR and encompasses roughly
3,590 ac (1,453 ha) in San Luis Obispo
County; approximately 1,500 ac (607 ha)
are designated for camping and OHV
use. Portions of Oceano Dunes SVRA
are located within Unit CA 31. While
there is no federal nexus for activities at
Oceano Dunes SVRA, CDPR is working
with the Service to develop a habitat
conservation plan in connection with
obtaining an incidental take permit. An
intra-Service consultation under section
7 would be required for issuance of the
permit. Consequently, the direct
incremental impacts identified are a
result of section 7 administrative costs
and are estimated to be approximately
$9,580 ($904 annualized, at a 7 percent
discount rate); however, additional
indirect costs may also be associated
with this unit (IEc 2012, pp. 4–4, 4–10—
4–12).
Mining
Gravel mining has occurred within
Unit CA 6 and within the Eel River
basin for decades and has been
regulated under a variety of programs,
including under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and the Rivers and
Harbors Act, which are administered by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
the USACE. Currently, six gravel
extractors operate in Unit CA 6 under a
countywide permit issued by the
USACE. A biological opinion has been
issued for the gravel mining operations,
and the USACE is required to re-initiate
consultation to renew the Letter of
Permission during the life of the permit.
The USACE must consult with the
Service again in 2014, 2019, 2024, and
2029. The direct incremental impacts
identified are a result of section 7
administrative costs and are estimated
to be approximately $10,500 ($995
annualized, at a 7 percent discount rate)
(IEc 2012, pp. 4–3, 4–18—4–19).
Habitat and Species Management
We have consulted on many habitat
and species management projects
throughout the range of the Pacific Coast
WSP. The FEA has identified four
habitat and species management
activities that would require
consultation under section 7 of the Act.
The projects include: (1) A habitat
restoration project in subunit WA 3B;
(2) the draft Fort Ord Dunes HCP; (3) the
Santa Barbara County Parks Department
draft HCP for Rancho Guadalupe Dunes
County Park in Unit CA 31; and (4) the
draft HCP for Oceano Dunes SVRA for
the CDPR. Individual costs for each unit
are summarized in Exhibit 4–1 (IEc
2012, pp. 4–3—4–6). The total estimated
costs associated with these projects are
$16,700 ($1,580 annualized, at a 7
percent discount rate) (IEc 2012, pp. 4–
21—4–23).
Because the FEA did not identify any
disproportionate, or unreasonable costs
that are likely to result from the
designation of revised final critical
habitat, the Secretary did not consider
exercising his discretion to exclude any
areas from this designation of critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP based
on economic impacts. A copy of the
FEA with supporting documents may be
obtained by contacting the Arcata Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or
by downloading from the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
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 (DOD) where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have exempted from the
designation of critical habitat those DOD
lands with completed INRMPs
determined to provide a benefit to the
Pacific Coast WSP. We have also
determined that the remaining lands
within the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the species are not
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36783
owned or managed by the Department of
Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security.
In comments received from the Navy
on our 2011 revised proposed rule, we
were notified that approximately 8 ac (3
ha) associated with a Navy school
(Naval Support Area Monterey) along
the Monterey Bay coast was identified
within the revised proposed critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. These
DOD lands have been exempted from
the revised final designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions).
The Navy also identified that
approximately 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) at Naval
Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme,
was included in the revised proposed
rule. These lands were inadvertently
included as part of Unit CA 39 in the
revised proposed designation due to a
mapping error. The identified 0.08 ac
(0.03 ha) of Navy lands within Unit CA
39, Ormond Beach, have been removed
in this revised final designation because
they are unsuitable habitat and not
essential to the conservation of the
species.
No other DOD lands have been
identified within the revised final
designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising his discretion
to exclude any areas from this revised
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 to 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-to
government relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
Land and Resource Management Plans,
Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
We consider a current land
management or conservation plan
(HCPs, as well as other types) to provide
adequate management or protection for
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat if it
meets the following criteria:
(1) The plan is complete and provides
the same or better level of protection
from adverse modification or
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36784
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
destruction than that provided through
a consultation under section 7 of the
Act;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation
that the conservation management
strategies and actions will be
implemented for the foreseeable future
and effective, based on past practices,
written guidance, or regulations; and
(3) The plan provides adaptive
management and conservation strategies
and measures consistent with currently
accepted principles of conservation
biology.
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act
authorizes us to issue to non-Federal
entities a permit for the incidental take
of endangered and threatened species.
This permit allows a non-Federal
landowner to proceed with an activity
that is legal in all other respects, but
that results in the incidental taking of a
listed species (i.e., take that is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, the carrying
out of an otherwise lawful activity). The
Act specifies that an application for an
incidental take permit must be
accompanied by a habitat conservation
plan, and specifies the content of such
a plan. The purpose of HCPs is to
describe and ensure that the effects of
the permitted action on covered species
are adequately minimized and
mitigated, and that the action does not
appreciably reduce the survival and
recovery of the species. In our
assessment of HCPs associated with this
final rulemaking, the analysis required
for these types of exclusions involves
careful consideration of the benefits of
designation versus the benefits of
exclusion. The benefits of designation
typically arise from additional section 7
protections, as well as enhanced public
awareness once specific areas are
identified as critical habitat. The
benefits of exclusion generally relate to
relieving regulatory burdens on existing
conservation partners, maintaining good
working relationships with them, and
encouraging the development of new
partnerships.
Some HCP permittees have expressed
the view that critical habitat designation
on lands covered by an HCP devalues
the conservation efforts of the plan’s
proponents, and could undermine the
partnerships fostered through the
development and implementation of the
plans. They believe critical habitat
designation on HCP lands would
discourage development of additional
HCPs and other conservation plans in
the future. Where an existing HCP
provides for protection for a species and
its essential habitat within the plan area,
or where the existence of a Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
nexus for future activities is uncertain,
the benefits of preserving existing
partnerships by excluding the covered
lands from critical habitat are most
significant. Excluding lands owned by
or under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of an HCP, under these
circumstances, promotes positive
working relationships and eliminates
impacts to existing and future
partnerships while encouraging
development of additional HCPs for
other species.
Large-scale HCPs take many years to
develop and foster an ecosystem-based
approach to habitat conservation
planning, by addressing conservation
issues through a coordinated approach.
If local jurisdictions were to require
landowners to obtain incidental take
permits (ITP) individually prior to the
issuance of a building permit under
section 10 of the Act, this would result
in uncoordinated, patchy conservation
that would be less likely to achieve
listed species recovery. We actively
work to foster partnerships with local
jurisdictions and encourage
development of regional HCPs that
afford proactive, landscape-level
conservation for multiple species,
including voluntary protections for
covered species.
The proposed rule to revise
designated habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011) did
not specifically identify any HCP,
management plan, or conservation
partnership that the Service was
proposing at that time for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The
Service did indicate that it was seeking
input from the public as to whether the
Secretary should exclude HCP areas or
other such areas under management that
benefits the Pacific Coast WSP from the
final revised designation, and
mentioned that there were areas in the
revised proposed designation that were
included in management plans or other
large-scale HCPs, such as the Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department
(OPRD) Habitat Conservation Plan. The
Service also sought input on exclusions
of Tribal Lands from the final revised
designation. In developing the revised
final critical habitat and weighing the
benefits of exclusion versus inclusion,
we have analyzed these areas that are
managed under a HCP, similar
management plan, or conservation
partnership and have determined that
several units or portions of units that
were included in the revised proposed
designation are managed consistent
with the intent of the exclusion
language. We discuss each of these areas
below.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department Habitat Conservation Plan
The OPRD HCP was permitted under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act in 2011,
and covers about 230 mi (370 km) of
sandy shore within the range of the
Pacific Coast WSP in Oregon. The
associated incidental take permit (ITP)
authorizes incidental take of the Pacific
Coast WSP caused by public use and
recreation management activities,
natural resources management
activities, and beach management
activities along the coast of Oregon for
a period of 25 years (Service 2011).
The HCP-covered lands consist of the
‘‘Ocean Shore,’’ an area defined by
Oregon State statute as the sandy areas
of the Oregon coast between the extreme
low tide and the actual of statutory
vegetation line, whichever is farther
landward. HCP-covered lands do not
include the Federal lands within the
‘‘Ocean Shore’’ boundary. In the areas
adjacent to Federal lands, the covered
lands extend from the extreme low tide
to the mean high tide. Covered lands are
either owned and leased by OPRD as a
State Park or Natural Area or managed
under a statutory recreation easement
within the Ocean Shore (Oregon
Revised Statute 390.635 and 390.620;
Oregon Administrative Rule 736–020–
0040(3)). Federal lands are not covered
by the HCP and were, therefore, not
considered for exclusion.
Conservation measures to be
implemented on the covered lands will
be focused on 16 management areas that
were identified to have the greatest
potential to provide Pacific Coast WSP
habitat when considered in the context
of recreational use of the Ocean Shore,
historical Pacific Coast WSP use, and
the biological requirements of the
species.
The OPRD either owns or leases five
of these management areas, which are
identified as ‘‘Snowy Plover
Management Areas’’ (SPMAs): (1)
Columbia River South Jetty; (2)
Necanicum Spit; (3) Nehalem Spit; (4)
Bandon; and (5) Netarts Spit. The
remaining 11 potential management
areas are identified as ‘‘Recreation
Management Areas’’ (RMAs) and are
adjacent to upland areas owned by other
landowners but are located within the
area defined as Ocean Shore. Together,
the 16 management areas span
approximately 48 mi (77 km) of the 230
mi (370 km) of sandy Ocean Shore in
Oregon.
The conservation measures (Table 7)
include: (1) Implementation of Pacific
Coast WSP management activities on
OPRD-owned or -leased SPMAs; (2)
implementation of recreational use
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
restrictions at SPMAs and RMAs owned
by other landowners; and (3)
36785
implementation of beach management
activities on the Ocean Shore.
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PACIFIC COAST WSP CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE OREGON PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT HCP
Area specific management objectives
Conservation benefit to Pacific Coast
WSP
Restrict activities near nesting habitat during the breeding season (March 15 through September 15)
Restore and maintain plover nesting habitat ...........................................................................................
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and
foraging areas.
Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and
foraging areas.
Protect individuals, eggs, and young.
Ensure effectiveness of plover conservation measures in HCP.
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect wintering, nesting, and foraging
plovers.
Protect, restore, or enhance breeding,
wintering, and foraging areas.
Restore, maintain, and manage currently unoccupied sites for plover nesting ......................................
Manage predators within plover nesting areas ........................................................................................
Monitor breeding and nonbreeding population ........................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Conduct public outreach and education about plovers and their habitat ................................................
Provide law enforcement of HCP rules and regulations ..........................................................................
If wintering plovers are impacted by covered activities or climate change is impacting plovers within
the covered lands, modify the HCP to respond to changed circumstances.
Ensure site-specific management actions are prioritized and completed through individual site management plans.
Under the OPRD HCP, site
management plans are required by the
HCP for each area managed for Pacific
Coast WSPs. Site management plans
include management prescriptions
specific to individual management areas
and describe how the conservation
measures required by the HCP (i.e.,
recreation management, habitat
restoration and maintenance, predator
management, monitoring, enforcement,
and public outreach and education) will
be completed at each managed area. Site
management plans also outline the
extent of seasonal recreational use
restrictions for each area and are
approved by the Service, and are
reviewed every 5 years to ensure the
provisions are providing conservation
benefits and meeting the intent of the
HCP.
The Bandon State Natural Area (SNA)
is managed as the Bandon SPMA. OPRD
has completed a draft site management
plan, which has been submitted to the
Service for review and approval. This
site management plan further describes
how the conservation measures,
required in the HCP, will be completed
at Bandon SPMA. Active management
of the Bandon SPMA, per this site
management plan, will begin in 2013. In
the interim, OPRD continues to manage
plovers at the site by restricting
recreational access, providing public
education, law enforcement, and habitat
restoration and management. The site
management plan will specify the longterm implementation of the OPRD HCP
provisions at Bandon SPMA.
In addition to the occupied Bandon
SPMA, as many as four areas currently
unoccupied by the Pacific Coast WSP
have been identified as SPMAs and
targeted for management of potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
nesting populations of the Pacific Coast
WSP over the term of the 25-year ITP.
Three SPMAs will initially be managed
by OPRD for nesting populations of
Pacific Coast WSP: (1) Columbia River
South Jetty; (2) Necanicum Spit; and (3)
Nehalem Spit.
By 2013, OPRD will prepare site
management plans that describe how
restoration and management measures
required by the HCP are implemented at
these three unoccupied SPMAs. Active
management will begin the nesting
season after site plans have been
approved by the Service, starting in
2014. One additional SPMA, Netarts
Spit, could also be managed if (1) the
Columbia River South Jetty, Necanicum
Spit, or the Nehalem Spit SPMA
becomes occupied; and (2) one of the
RMAs is not already under active,
Service-approved management for the
Pacific Coast WSP. Under these
circumstances, OPRD will commit to
managing Netarts Spit for nesting
populations of the Pacific Coast WSP to
ensure that a minimum of three
unoccupied SPMAs are being actively
managed at any given time over the term
of the 25-year ITP.
As discussed above, RMAs extend
from the extreme low tide line to the
mean high tide line on Federal lands,
and from the mean low tide line to the
statutory or actual vegetation line,
whichever is most landward, on all
other lands. Under the HCP, the OPRD
will implement recreational use
restrictions at up to 11 RMAs, which
include; Bayocean Spit, South Sand
Lake Spit, Sutton/Baker Beach, Siltcoos
Estuary/Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch
Estuary, Tahkenitch South, Umpqua
River North Jetty, Tenmile, Coos Bay
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
North Spit, New River, Elk River, and
Euchre Creek.
If a RMA or the area immediately
inland of a RMA becomes occupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP, but a site
management plan does not exist, the
OPRD will automatically implement
recreational use restrictions on HCPcovered lands between March 15 and
September 15 of each year. These
restrictions will remain in place until an
agreement is reached between the
Service and the landowner on
conservation, any recommended
conservation actions or a site
management plan is developed by
OPRD. The OPRD will also be notified
of any changes that may modify the
application of recreational use
restrictions to a more focused area,
based on the conservation needs of the
plovers at the site, as outlined in the
HCP. The provisions to implement
restrictions on the covered lands allow
OPRD to protect plovers within covered
lands regardless of the management on
the adjacent areas. In addition, a
memorandum of understanding has
been completed and signed by all
involved State and Federal agencies,
ensuring consistent management of
plovers across jurisdictional boundaries
according to the provisions of the HCP.
In the event that a Service-approved
site management plan has been
developed, the OPRD will implement
recreational use restrictions in
cooperation with the landowner as
directed by the site management plan. If
an RMA and the areas immediately
inland of the RMA are unoccupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP, the OPRD will
only implement recreational use
restrictions at the request of the
landowner and after consultation with
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36786
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the Service and collaboration with the
OPRD. The OPRD will also work with
county and private landowners adjacent
to RMAs to provide supervision,
enforcement, and signage on their lands,
because such restrictions (ropes, signs,
enforcement) cannot be implemented by
a private landowner on the Ocean Shore
without OPRD approval.
If a Pacific Coast WSP should nest on
HCP-covered lands outside an occupied
or unoccupied SPMA or RMA, the
OPRD will install fencing around the
individual nest in coordination with the
landowner, and will consider installing
a nest enclosure after consultation with
the Service. Specifically, the OPRD will
install a 164-foot (50-m radius) roped
buffer around the nest that allows access
along the wet sand, and will determine,
through coordination with the Service,
if use of an exclosure to protect the nest
from predation is appropriate. The
OPRD will also work with the Service
and the landowner to install signage, as
appropriate, to indicate the presence of
nesting Pacific Coast WSPs.
The terms of the OPRD HCP and
associated ITP only addressed impacts
to Pacific Coast WSPs during the
breeding season. The HCP concluded
that the impacts of covered activities
did not rise to the level of take for
wintering Pacific Coast WSPs.
Therefore, OPRD did not request
coverage by the ITP for activities that
occur outside the breeding season, nor
did the OPRD HCP include provisions
for wintering habitat management or
protection. However, the provisions for
habitat management of nesting areas
within the covered lands should
provide conservation value for
wintering habitat within the
conservation area by providing
protections during the nonbreeding
season to foraging, roosting, and winter
use areas. In addition, OPRD included a
provision that would require
amendment of the HCP, if covered
activities were determined to adversely
impact wintering Pacific Coast WSPs,
based on annual monitoring.
The OPRD HCP has provisions for
adaptive management to address
uncertainties in achieving conservation
objectives for Pacific Coast WSP habitat,
including uncertainties that may be
associated with climate change. The
adaptive management strategy helps to
ensure management will continue to be
consistent with agreed-upon Pacific
Coast WSP conservation objectives.
Climate change and associated sea-level
rise were considered ‘‘changed
circumstances’’ that may require
additional conservation measures of
OPRD. In the event that sea-level rise
results in loss of Pacific Coast WSP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
nesting habitat over the term of the HCP,
OPRD and the Service will determine
appropriate conservation measures
necessary to respond to the changed
circumstance.
Benefits of Inclusion—Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department HCP
The primary effect of designating any
particular area as critical habitat is the
requirement for Federal agencies to
consult with us under section 7 of the
Act to ensure actions they carry out,
authorize, or fund do not destroy or
adversely modify designated critical
habitat. This would provide an
additional benefit beyond that provided
under the jeopardy standard which
obligates Federal agencies to consult
under section 7 of the Act with us on
actions that may affect a federally listed
species to ensure such actions do not
jeopardize the species’ continued
existence. If a federally listed species
does not occupy an area where a
proposed action may occur, Federal
agencies are not obligated to consult
with us to ensure actions do not
jeopardize the species’ existence.
However, the designation of critical
habitat in such unoccupied areas
provides an additional layer of
regulatory review that would require
Federal agencies to consult with us to
ensure that critical habitat is not
adversely modified. Therefore, there
may be an additional regulatory benefit
to designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas that we have
determined to be essential.
In evaluating project effects on critical
habitat, the Service must be satisfied
that the PCEs and, therefore, the
essential features of the critical habitat
likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the
conservation of the affected species
would be appreciably reduced. If critical
habitat were designated in areas of
unoccupied habitat or currently
occupied areas subsequently become
unoccupied, different outcomes or
requirements are also likely because
effects to unoccupied areas of critical
habitat are not likely to trigger the need
for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also
result in ancillary conservation benefits
to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering
additional review and conservation
through other Federal laws. The Federal
laws most likely to afford protection to
designated Pacific Coast WSP habitat
are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16
U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), and the Rivers and
Harbors Act (RHA; 33 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.). Projects requiring a review under
the CWA, CZMA, and RHA that are
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
located within critical habitat or are
likely to affect critical habitat would
create a Federal nexus and trigger
section 7 consultation under the Act.
Examples of potential projects that may
trigger consultation as a result of CWA,
CZMA, and RHA include beach
restoration (such as, beach
replenishment or removal of nonnative
plants) and channel dredging.
Another important benefit of
including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can
serve to educate landowners and the
public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and may
help focus conservation efforts on areas
of high conservation value for certain
species. Any information about the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat that
reaches a wide audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion—Oregon Parks
and Recreation Department HCP
The benefits of excluding from
designated critical habitat the
approximately 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) of
lands owned and managed by the
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department are significant and include
the measures summarized in Table 7
above.
We have created close partnerships
with the OPRD and several other
stakeholders through the development
of the OPRD HCP, which incorporates
protections and management objectives
for the Pacific Coast WSP and the
habitat upon which it depends for
breeding, sheltering, and foraging
activities. The conservation strategy
identified in the OPRD HCP, along with
our close coordination with OPRD,
addresses the identified threats to
Pacific Coast WSP and the geographical
areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in the areas
identified in Table 6. The management
objectives identified within this
conservation strategy seek to achieve
conservation goals for Pacific Coast
WSPs and their habitat, and thus can be
of greater conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific actions. Thus,
the OPRD HCP provides a greater
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP than
would designating critical habitat.
Therefore, the relative benefits of
designation of critical habitat on these
lands are diminished and limited.
Conservation measures that provide a
benefit to Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat have been implemented in the
areas owned and managed by the OPRD.
These measures will continue to be
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
implemented as the OPRD and the
Service finalize site-specific
management plans on covered lands.
Such measures include protection of
nesting and foraging areas, predator
management at nest sites, and trash
clean-up at occupied sites.
Excluding the approximately 3,106 ac
(1,257 ha) owned and managed by the
OPRD from the critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance
the working relationship between the
Service and the OPRD. The willingness
of the OPRD to work with the Service
on innovative ways to manage federally
listed species will continue to reinforce
those conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute
significantly toward achieving recovery
of Pacific Coast WSP. We consider this
voluntary partnership in conservation
vital to our understanding of the status
of species on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery
actions such as habitat protection and
restoration, and beneficial management
actions for species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the
exclusion of approximately 3,106 ac
(1,257 ha) of land owned and managed
by the OPRD from our designation of
critical habitat. The benefits of
including these lands in the designation
are small because the regulatory,
educational, and ancillary benefits that
would result from critical habitat
designation are almost entirely
redundant with the regulatory,
educational, and ancillary benefits
already afforded through the OPRD HCP
and under State and Federal law.
The OPRD HCP provides for
significant conservation and
management of the geographical areas
that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP and help achieve
recovery of this species through the
objectives as described in Table 7.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help preserve the
partnerships we have developed with
the OPRD, other stakeholders, and
project proponents through the
development and ongoing
implementation of the OPRD HCP.
These partnerships are focused on
conservation of multiple species,
including Pacific Coast WSP, and secure
conservation benefits for the species
that will lead to recovery, as described
above, beyond those that could be
required under a critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, these
partnerships aid in fostering future
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
partnerships for the benefit of listed
species.
We also conclude that the educational
benefits of designating critical habitat
on lands owned and managed by the
OPRD would be negligible because there
have been numerous opportunities for
public education and outreach related to
Pacific Coast WSP over the 10-year
development of the HCP. In addition,
the HCP includes public education and
related tasks to conserve plovers on the
entire Oregon coast. Western snowy
plovers are State-listed throughout
Oregon, and as a result, they receive a
high degree of conservation oversight
and management within the State. The
OPRD HCP has gone through the State’s
public review and input process, and
again through the Federal public review
and input process under NEPA. These
processes have provided extensive
opportunities to educate the public and
landowners about the location of
plovers and plover habitat, and efforts to
conserve the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
Pacific Coast WSP.
Pacific Coast WSP currently occupies
areas that are owned and managed by
the OPRD and covered by its HCP (refer
to Table 3). Because one of the primary
threats to the Pacific Coast WSP is
habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
will, in evaluating effects to the plovers,
evaluate the effects of the action on the
conservation or functionality of the
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated for these lands; a similar
analysis would be performed to conduct
the adverse modification analysis (IEc
2011, p. D–3). Consultation will
continue to occur in areas outside the
covered lands that remain critical
habitat, but not on the excluded areas.
However, the HCP has provisions for
protecting and restoring plover habitat
on occupied and unoccupied lands that
far exceed the conservation afforded by
section 7 consultation. These measures
will not only prevent the degradation of
essential features of plover habitat, but
they will improve and maintain these
features over time.
We have determined that the
management actions provided through
implementation of the OPRD HCP, in
conjunction with our partnership with
the OPRD, provide a greater benefit to
Pacific Coast WSP than would critical
habitat designation. Furthermore, we
have determined that the additional
regulatory benefits of designating
critical habitat in the occupied areas
afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process, are minimal
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36787
because of limited Federal nexus and
conservation measures which
specifically benefit Pacific Coast WSP
and its habitat are in place to address
unoccupied areas. We also conclude
that the educational and ancillary
benefits of designating the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific WSP would
be minimal, because the HCP process
has already provided considerable
public education and ancillary benefits.
Therefore, in consideration of the
factors discussed above in the Benefits
of Exclusion section, including the
relevant impact to current and future
partnerships, we have determined that
the significant benefits of exclusion of
lands covered by the OPRD HCP
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species—Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department HCP
We have determined that the
exclusion of 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) from the
designation of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP of lands owned and
managed by the OPRD, as identified in
the OPRD HCP will not result in
extinction of the species because current
conservation efforts under the plan
adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For projects
affecting plovers in occupied areas, the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with protection provided
by OPRD HCP, would provide
assurances that this species will not go
extinct as a result of excluding these
lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the units or subunits that are within the
OPRD HCP boundary (refer to Table 6),
totaling 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) of land.
Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP)—City of San Diego Subarea
Plan
The MSCP is a comprehensive habitat
conservation planning program that
encompasses 582,243 ac (235,626 ha)
within 12 jurisdictions of southwestern
San Diego County, California (County of
San Diego 1998). The MSCP identifies
the conservation needs of 85 federally
listed and sensitive species, including
the Pacific Coast WSP, and serves as the
basis for development of subarea plans
by each jurisdiction in support of
section 10(a)(1)(B) permits. The MSCP
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36788
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
identifies where mitigation activities
should be focused, such that upon full
implementation of the subarea plans
approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of
the MSCP plan area will be preserved
and managed for covered species
(County of San Diego 1998, pp. 2–1,
4–2—4–4).
Conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP
is addressed in the MSCP and in the
City of San Diego Subarea Plan. The
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the City of
San Diego Subarea Plan was issued on
July 18, 1997 (Service 1997). The City of
San Diego Subarea Plan identifies areas
where mitigation activities should be
focused to assemble preserve areas in
the Multi-Habitat Planning Area
(MHPA); additional preserve areas
within the MSCP (i.e., outside the City
of San Diego Subarea Plan jurisdiction)
include Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas
(PAMA).
When completed at the end of the 50year permit term, the public sector
(Federal, State, and local government,
and the general public) will have
contributed 108,750 ac (44,010 ha) (63
percent) to the preserve areas, of which
81,750 ac (33,083 ha) (48 percent) was
existing public land when the MSCP
was established, and 27,000 ac (10,927
ha) (16 percent) will have been
acquired. At completion, the private
sector will have contributed 63,170 ac
(25,564 ha) (37 percent) to the preserve
areas as part of the development
process, either through avoidance of
impacts or as compensatory mitigation
for impacts to biological resources
outside the preserve. Currently, and in
the future, Federal and State
governments, local jurisdictions and
special districts, and managers of
privately owned land will manage and
monitor their land in the preserve
within the MHPA for species and
habitat protection (County of San Diego
1998, pp. 2–1, 4–2—4–4).
The MSCP requires the City of San
Diego to develop framework and sitespecific management plans, subject to
the review and approval of the Service
and CDFG, to guide the management of
all preserve land under City control.
Currently, the framework plan for the
City of San Diego is in place. The City
of San Diego has not yet completed sitespecific management plans for some
lands containing Pacific Coast WSP,
including some lands we are excluding
from critical habitat designation (CA
52B–C and CA 53). However, the City of
San Diego has completed the Mission
Bay Natural Resources Management
Plan, which addresses Pacific Coast
WSP within Mission Bay (CA 54A–D).
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
exclude from critical habitat, all
proposed subunits within the City of
San Diego Subarea Plan boundaries,
including a portion of proposed
subunits within San Dieguito Lagoon
(CA 52B–C), all of the proposed unit at
Los Penasquitos Lagoon (CA 53), and all
proposed subunits within Mission Bay
(CA 54A–D). This area encompasses
approximately 137 ac (55 ha) of land.
We did not exclude one subunit within
the San Dieguito Lagoon (CA 52A) as
this area is not within the boundaries of
the City of San Diego Subarea Plan. All
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that occur
on non-Federal lands covered by the
City of San Diego Subarea Plan under
the MSCP are excluded from the final
critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion—City of San Diego
Subarea Plan under the MSCP
The primary effect of designating any
particular area as critical habitat is the
requirement for Federal agencies to
consult with us under section 7 of the
Act to ensure actions they carry out,
authorize, or fund do not destroy or
adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Absent critical habitat
designation in occupied areas, Federal
agencies remain obligated under section
7 of the Act to consult with us on
actions that may affect a federally listed
species to ensure such actions do not
jeopardize the species’ continued
existence. If a federally listed species
does not occupy an area where a
proposed action may occur, Federal
agencies are not obligated to consult
with us to ensure actions do not
jeopardize the species’ existence.
However, the designation of critical
habitat in such unoccupied areas
provides an additional layer of
regulatory review that would require
Federal agencies to consult with us to
ensure that critical habitat is not
adversely modified. Therefore, there
may be an additional regulatory benefit
to designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas that we have
determined to be essential, such as
Fiesta Island (CA 54A).
In evaluating project effects on critical
habitat, the Service must be satisfied
that the PCEs and, therefore, the
essential features of the critical habitat
likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the
conservation of the affected species
would be appreciably reduced. If critical
habitat were designated in areas of
unoccupied habitat or currently
occupied areas subsequently become
unoccupied, different outcomes or
requirements are also likely because
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
effects to unoccupied areas of critical
habitat are not likely to trigger the need
for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also
result in ancillary conservation benefits
to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering
additional review and conservation
through other Federal laws. The Federal
laws most likely to afford protection to
designated Pacific Coast WSP habitat
are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the
Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Projects
requiring a review under the CWA,
CZMA, and RHA that are located within
critical habitat or are likely to affect
critical habitat would create a Federal
nexus and trigger section 7 consultation
under the Act. Examples of potential
projects that may trigger consultation as
a result of CWA, CZMA, and RHA
include beach restoration (such as,
beach replenishment or removal of
nonnative plants) and channel dredging.
Thus, review of Federal actions affecting
designated critical habitat units would
consider the importance of this habitat
to the species and the protections
required for the species and its habitat.
Another important benefit of
including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can
serve to educate landowners and the
public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and may
help focus conservation efforts on areas
of high conservation value for certain
species. Any information about the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat that
reaches a wide audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion—City of San Diego
Subarea Plan Under the MSCP
The benefits of excluding from
designated critical habitat the
approximately 137 ac (55 ha) of land
within the boundaries of the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan are significant and
include: (1) That the conservation
management objectives for Pacific Coast
WSP and its habitat identified in the
City of San Diego Subarea Plan,
described in Table 8 below, would
continue to be implemented into the
future; (2) continued and strengthened
effective working relationships with all
MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to
promote the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP and its habitat; (3) continued
meaningful collaboration and
cooperation in working toward
recovering this species, including
conservation benefits that might not
otherwise occur; (4) encouragement of
other jurisdictions with completed
subarea plans under the MSCP to amend
their plans to cover and benefit the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat; (5)
encouragement of other coastal
jurisdictions within the range of Pacific
Coast WSP to complete HCPs or subarea
plans under the MSCP that cover or are
adjacent to Pacific Coast WSP habitat
(including the cities of Coronado and
Imperial Beach); and (6) encouragement
of additional HCP and other
conservation plan development in the
36789
future on other private lands that
include the Pacific Coast WSP and other
federally listed species.
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PACIFIC COAST WSP CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA
PLAN UNDER THE MSCP
Area specific management objectives
Conservation benefit to Pacific Coast
WSP
Protect nesting sites from human disturbance during the reproductive season .....................................
Implement specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects .............................................
Protect breeding areas.
Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and
foraging areas.
Protect individuals and nests.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Ensure that incidental take (during the breeding season) associated with maintenance or removal of
levees or dikes is not authorized except as specifically approved by wildlife agencies.
Ensure the conservation of: 99 percent of saltpan habitat; 90–95 percent of remaining beach habitat
outside of intensively used beaches; and 93 percent of potential habitat.
We have created close partnerships
with the City of San Diego and several
other stakeholders through the
development of the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan, which incorporate
protections and management objectives
(described in Table 8 above) for the
Pacific Coast WSP and the habitat upon
which it depends for breeding,
sheltering, and foraging activities. The
conservation strategy identified in the
subarea plan, along with our close
coordination with the city and other
stakeholders, addresses the identified
threats to Pacific Coast WSP and the
geographical areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to its conservation. The conservation
gains to the Pacific Coast WSP
identified within the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan are more beneficial than
designation of critical habitat because
inclusion in critical habitat does not
require beneficial management actions.
Thus, the City of San Diego Subarea
Plan provides a greater benefit to the
Pacific Coast WSP than would
designation of critical habitat. Our
partnership with the City of San Diego
helps ensure implementation of the
protections and management actions
identified within the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan. Therefore, the relative
benefits of designation of critical habitat
on these lands are diminished and
limited.
Excluding lands within the MSCP
from the critical habitat designation will
sustain and enhance the working
relationship between the Service and
the City of San Diego. The willingness
of the City to work with the Service on
innovative ways to manage federally
listed species will continue to reinforce
those conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute
significantly toward achieving recovery
of Pacific Coast WSP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
By excluding the approximately 137
ac (55 ha) of land within the boundaries
of the City of San Diego Subarea Plan
from critical habitat designation, we are
encouraging new partnerships with
other landowners and jurisdictions to
protect the Pacific Coast WSP and other
listed species. Our ongoing partnerships
with the City of San Diego, the larger
regional MSCP participants, and the
landscape-level multiple species
conservation planning efforts they
promote, are essential to achieve longterm conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP. We consider this voluntary
partnership in conservation vital to our
understanding of the status of species
on non-Federal lands and necessary for
us to implement recovery actions such
as habitat protection and restoration,
and beneficial management actions for
species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—City of San Diego
Subarea Plan Under the MSCP
We have reviewed and evaluated the
exclusion of approximately 137 ac (55
ha) of land within the boundaries of the
City of San Diego Subarea Plan. The
benefits of including these lands in the
designation are small because the
regulatory, educational, and ancillary
benefits that would result from critical
habitat designation are almost entirely
redundant with the regulatory,
educational, and ancillary benefits
already afforded through the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan and under State and
Federal laws. The City of San Diego
Subarea Plan provides for significant
conservation and management of the
geographical areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP and help achieve recovery of this
species through the objectives as
described in Table 8.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Protect nesting, wintering, and foraging
areas.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help preserve the
partnerships we have developed with
local jurisdictions and project
proponents through the development
and ongoing implementation of the
MSCP and the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan. These partnerships are
focused on conservation of multiple
species, including Pacific Coast WSP,
and secure conservation benefits for the
species that will lead to recovery, as
described above, beyond those that
could be required under a critical
habitat designation. Furthermore, these
partnerships aid in fostering future
partnerships for the benefit of listed
species, the majority of which do not
occur on Federal lands and thus are less
likely to result in a section 7
consultation.
We also conclude that the educational
benefits of designating critical habitat
within the City of San Diego Subarea
Plan boundaries would be negligible
because there have been several
opportunities for public education and
outreach related to Pacific Coast WSP.
The framework for the regional MSCP
was developed over a 7-year period; the
City of San Diego Subarea plan has been
in place since 1997. Implementation of
the subarea plan is formally reviewed
yearly through publicly available annual
reports and a public meeting, providing
extensive opportunity to educate the
public and landowners about the
location of, and efforts to conserve, the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of Pacific Coast
WSP.
Within the City of San Diego Subarea
Plan boundaries, Pacific Coast WSP
currently occupies all but one subunit
(CA 54A). Any project with a Federal
nexus will require consultation under
section 7 of the Act in those subunits
occupied by Pacific Coast WSPs.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36790
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Furthermore, because one of the
primary threats to the Pacific Coast WSP
is habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process required under
section 7 of the Act for a project with
a Federal nexus will, in evaluating
effects to the plovers, most likely
evaluate the effects of the action on the
conservation or functionality of
occupied habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP and thus the jeopardy analysis
would be similar to that performed to
conduct the adverse modification
analysis (IEc 2011, p. D–3). Therefore,
there would be minimal additional
benefit of designating critical habitat
within the boundaries of the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan. The management
objectives identified within this
conservation strategy seek to achieve
conservation goals for Pacific Coast
WSPs and their habitat, and thus can be
of greater conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific actions,
particularly in the unoccupied subunit
CA 54A. The City of San Diego Subarea
Plan would ensure the conservation of
99 percent of saltpan habitat; 90–95
percent of remaining beach habitat
outside of intensively used beaches; and
93 percent of potential habitat. We have
determined that the additional
regulatory benefits of designating
critical habitat in the occupied areas
afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process are minimal
because of limited Federal nexus, and
because of conservation measures in
place which specifically benefit Pacific
Coast WSP and its habitat. These
conservation measures also provide for
conservation of Pacific Coast WSP
habitat in unoccupied areas. The City of
San Diego Subarea Plan will also
manage saltpan habitat within the
MSCP used by Pacific Coast WSP for
breeding and the City will implement
measures to protect nesting sites from
human disturbance during the
reproductive season, control predators,
and protect against detrimental edge
effects (Service 1997, p. 110–111).
We have determined that the
additional regulatory benefits of
designating occupied areas as Pacific
Coast WSP critical habitat, such as
protection afforded through the section
7(a)(2) consultation process, are
minimal. Furthermore, the conservation
objectives identified by the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan, in conjunction with
our partnership with the City of San
Diego will provide a greater benefit to
the species than critical habitat
designation, especially in areas that are
not currently occupied because the
specific measures identified above in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
the plan that benefit the plover and its
habitat will be implemented regardless
of the species presence. We also
conclude that the educational and
ancillary benefits of designating critical
habitat for Pacific WSP within the City
of San Diego Subareas Plan boundaries
would be negligible because of the
partnership established between the
Service and the City of San Diego, the
management objectives identified in the
City of San Diego Subarea Plan, the
educational outreach that has occurred
as part of the subarea planning process,
and the independent regulatory
protection already provided under the
subarea plan. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, as
summarized in the Benefits of Exclusion
section above, we determined the
significant benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species—City of San Diego
Subarea Plan Under the MSCP
We determine that the exclusion of
137 ac (55 ha) of land from the
designation of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP within the
boundaries of the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan will not result in
extinction of the species because current
conservation efforts under the subarea
plan adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. In our 1997
Biological Opinion, the Service
determined that implementation of the
City of San Diego Subarea Plan is not
likely to result in jeopardy to Pacific
Coast WSP (Service 1997, p. 111).
Therefore, based on the benefits
described above, we have determined
that this exclusion would not result in
the extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP.
Based on the above discussion, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to
exclude from this final critical habitat
designation a portion of proposed
subunits within San Dieguito Lagoon
(CA 52B–C), all of the proposed unit at
Los Penasquitos Lagoon (CA 53), and all
proposed subunits within Mission Bay
(CA 54A–D) addressed by the City of
San Diego Subarea Plan under the
MSCP, totaling 137 ac (55 ha) of land.
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
(MHCP)—Carlsbad Habitat Management
Plan (Carlsbad HMP)
The MHCP is a comprehensive habitat
conservation planning program that
encompasses 111,908 ac (45,279 ha)
within seven jurisdictions in
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
northwestern San Diego County,
California, including the cities of
Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido,
Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach,
and Vista. The MHCP was designed to
create, manage, and monitor an
ecosystem preserve. The MHCP is a
subregional plan that identifies the
conservation needs of 77 federally listed
and sensitive species, including Pacific
Coast WSP, and serves as the basis for
development of subarea plans by each
jurisdiction in support of section
10(a)(1)(B) permits. The subregional
MHCP identifies where mitigation
activities should be focused, such that
upon full implementation of the subarea
plans over 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) of the
MHCP plan area will be preserved and
managed for covered species (AMEC
Earth and Environmental, Inc. (AMEC)
and Conservation Biology Institute (CBI)
2003, p. E–16). The MHCP is also a
subregional plan under the State of
California’s Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP) program and
was developed in cooperation with
CDFG. The MHCP preserve system is
intended to protect viable occurrences
of native plant and animal species and
their habitats in perpetuity, while
accommodating continued economic
development and quality of life for
residents of northern San Diego County.
Conservation of Pacific Coast WSP is
addressed in the subregional plan and
in the Carlsbad HMP. The section
10(a)(1)(B) permit for the City of
Carlsbad HMP was issued on November
9, 2004 (Service 2004a). The Carlsbad
HMP identifies areas where mitigation
activities should be focused to assemble
preserve areas within the Focused
Planning Areas (FPAs). The FPAs are
comprised of ‘‘hard line’’ preserves,
indicating that lands will be conserved
and managed for biological resources,
and ‘‘soft line’’ planning areas, within
which preserve areas will ultimately be
delineated and managed based on
further data and planning (AMEC and
CBI 2003, p. ES–6). Those areas of the
MHCP preserve that are already
conserved, as well as those designated
for inclusion in the preserve under the
plan, are referred to as the ‘‘preserve
area’’ in this revised final critical habitat
designation. Conservation within the
FPAs will be achieved by the
implementing measures documented in
each city’s subarea plan, including land
use regulation, minimization of impacts,
mitigation, and acquisition of parcels
from willing sellers (AMEC and CBI
2003, p. ES–6).
The Carlsbad HMP was approved by
the Service on October 15, 2004.
Approximately 24,570 ac (9,943 ha) of
land are within the Carlsbad HMP
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
planning area, with about 8,800 ac
(3,561 ha) remaining as natural habitat
for species covered under the plan. Of
this remaining habitat, the Carlsbad
HMP proposes to establish a preserve
system covering approximately 6,786 ac
(2,746 ha). The MHCP requires the City
of Carlsbad to develop area-specific
management directives to address
species and habitat needs for the
preserve areas, including lands that
support Pacific Coast WSP, and its
habitat, and requires the City of
Carlsbad to describe specific policies
that will be implemented for the MHCP,
subject to the review and approval of
the Service and CDFG, to guide the
City’s preserve system. The City of
Carlsbad has not yet completed areaspecific management directives for some
lands that support Pacific Coast WSP
and its habitat. However, the MSCP,
which has been approved and permitted
by the Service and CDFG. provides an
overarching conservation benefit for the
Pacific Coast WSP, and the Carlsbad
HMP includes numerous conservation
measures to benefit the Pacific Coast
WSP and its habitat and will be
implemented regardless of any area
specific plan (see Table 9). Furthermore,
the City has demonstrated their
commitment to implementation of the
HMP since its approval in 2004, and we
are confident their commitment will
continue into the future as they
establish the preserve system and the
directives that will govern management
of the preserve lands. Therefore, the
lands identified as critical habitat
subunit CA 50A–C which are addressed
within the Carlsbad HMP are being
excluded from this revised critical
habitat designation. Currently, and in
the future, Federal and State
governments, local jurisdictions and
special districts, and managers of
privately owned land will manage and
monitor their land in the preserve
within the FPA for species and habitat
protection (AMEC and CBI 2003,
p. E–24).
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion to
exclude from critical habitat, all
proposed subunits within Batiquitos
Lagoon (CA 50A–C) that are addressed
by the Carlsbad HMP under the
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
(MHCP). This area encompasses
approximately 66 ac (27 ha) of land. All
geographical areas containing the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species that
occur on non-Federal lands covered by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
the Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP are
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation.
Benefits of Inclusion—Carlsbad HMP
Under the MHCP
The primary effect of designating any
particular area as critical habitat is the
requirement for Federal agencies to
consult with us under section 7 of the
Act to ensure actions they carry out,
authorize or fund do not destroy or
adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Absent critical habitat
designation in occupied areas, Federal
agencies remain obligated under section
7 of the Act to consult with us on
actions that may affect a federally listed
species to ensure such actions do not
jeopardize the species’ continued
existence. If a federally listed species
does not occupy an area where a
proposed action may occur, Federal
agencies are not obligated to consult
with us to ensure actions do not
jeopardize the species’ existence.
However, the designation of critical
habitat in such unoccupied areas
provides an additional layer of
regulatory review that would require
Federal agencies to consult with us to
ensure that critical habitat is not
adversely modified. Therefore, there
may be an additional regulatory benefit
to designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas that we have
determined to be essential.
In evaluating project effects on critical
habitat, the Service must be satisfied
that the PCEs and, therefore, the
essential features of the critical habitat
likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the
conservation of the affected species
would be appreciably reduced. If critical
habitat were designated in areas of
unoccupied habitat or currently
occupied areas subsequently become
unoccupied, different outcomes or
requirements are also likely because
effects to unoccupied areas of critical
habitat are not likely to trigger the need
for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also
result in ancillary conservation benefits
to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering
additional review and conservation
through other Federal laws. The Federal
laws most likely to afford protection to
designated Pacific Coast WSP habitat
are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the
Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Projects
requiring a review under the CWA,
CZMA, and RHA that are located within
critical habitat or are likely to affect
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36791
critical habitat would create a Federal
nexus and trigger section 7 consultation
under the Act. Examples of potential
projects that may trigger consultation as
a result of CWA, CZMA, and RHA
include beach restoration (such as
replenishment or removal of nonnative
plants) and channel dredging. Thus,
review of Federal actions affecting
designated critical habitat units would
consider the importance of this habitat
to the species and the protections
required for the species and its habitat.
Another important benefit of
including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can
serve to educate landowners and the
public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and may
help focus conservation efforts on areas
of high conservation value for certain
species. Any information about the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat that
reaches a wide audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion—Carlsbad HMP
Under the MHCP
The benefits of excluding from
designated critical habitat the
approximately 66 ac (27 ha) of land
within the boundaries of the Carlsbad
HMP are significant and include: (1) An
assurance that the conservation
management objectives for Pacific Coast
WSP and its habitat contained in the
Carlsbad HMP, as described in Table 9
below, will be implemented into the
future; (2) continued and strengthened
effective working relationships with all
MHCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to
promote the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP and its habitat; (3) continued
meaningful collaboration and
cooperation in working toward
recovering this species, including
conservation benefits that might not
otherwise occur; (4) encouragement of
other jurisdictions with completed
subarea plans under the MHCP to
amend their plans to cover and benefit
the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat;
(5) encouragement of other coastal
jurisdictions within the range of Pacific
Coast WSP to complete HCPs or subarea
plans under the MHCP that cover or are
adjacent to Pacific Coast WSP habitat
(including the cities of Encinitas,
Oceanside, and Solana Beach); and (6)
encouragement of additional HCP and
other conservation plan development in
the future on other private lands that
include the Pacific Coast WSP and other
federally listed species.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36792
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF PACIFIC COAST WSP CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE CARLSBAD HMP
Area specific management objectives
Conservation benefit to Pacific Coast
WSP
Conserve saltmarsh and estuarine habitats at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons
consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s wetland policy.
Assure no net loss of saltmarsh and estuarine habitats within the City of Carlsbad ..............................
Protect nesting, wintering, and foraging
areas.
Protect, restore, or enhance foraging
areas.
Protect individuals.
Conserve all major populations within the City of Carlsbad, i.e., at Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons.
Assure no direct impacts to nesting areas ..............................................................................................
Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects; control nonnative plants; maintain hydrology and
water quality; protect habitats from physical disturbances; and control predators.
Restore and enhance habitat in preserved areas, where possible .........................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Restrict activities near nesting habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through August 31) ...........
Implement access control measures for areas where populations are present during the nonbreeding
season, if warranted.
We have created close partnerships
with the City of Carlsbad and several
other stakeholders through the
development of the Carlsbad HMP,
which incorporates protections and
management objectives (described in
Table 9 above) for the Pacific Coast WSP
and the habitat upon which it depends
for breeding, sheltering, and foraging
activities. The conservation strategy
identified in the Carlsbad HMP, along
with our close coordination with each
city and other stakeholders, addresses
the identified threats to Pacific Coast
WSP and the geographical areas that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to its conservation.
The conservation gains to the Pacific
Coast WSP identified within the
Carlsbad HMP are more beneficial than
designation of critical habitat because
critical habitat designation does not
require beneficial management actions.
Thus, the Carlsbad HMP provides a
greater benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP
than would designating critical habitat.
Our partnership with the City of
Carlsbad helps ensure implementation
of the protections and management
actions identified within the Carlsbad
HMP. Therefore, the relative benefits of
designation of these lands are
diminished and limited.
By excluding the approximately 66 ac
(27 ha) of land within the boundaries of
the Carlsbad HMP from critical habitat
designation, we are encouraging new
partnerships with other landowners and
jurisdictions to protect the Pacific Coast
WSP and other listed species. Our
ongoing partnerships with the City of
Carlsbad, the larger regional MHCP
participants, and the landscape-level
multiple species conservation planning
efforts they promote, are essential to
achieve long-term conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP. We consider this
voluntary partnership in conservation
vital to our understanding of the status
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
of species on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery
actions, such as habitat protection and
restoration, and beneficial management
actions for species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—Carlsbad HMP
Under the MHCP
The benefits of including these lands
in the designation are small because the
regulatory, educational, and ancillary
benefits that would result from critical
habitat designation are almost entirely
redundant with the regulatory,
educational, and ancillary benefits
already afforded through the Carlsbad
HMP and under State and Federal law.
The Carlsbad HMP provides for
significant conservation and
management of the geographical areas
that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP and help achieve
recovery of this species through the
objectives as described in Table 9.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help preserve the
partnerships we have developed with
local jurisdictions and project
proponents through the development
and ongoing implementation of the
MHCP and Carlsbad HMP. These
partnerships are focused on
conservation of multiple species,
including Pacific Coast WSP, and secure
conservation benefits for the species
that will lead to recovery, as described
above, beyond those that could be
required under a critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, these
partnerships aid in fostering future
partnerships for the benefit of listed
species, the majority of which do not
occur on federal lands and thus are less
likely to result in a section 7
consultation.
We also conclude that the educational
benefits of designating critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Protect nests.
Protect, restore, or enhance breeding,
wintering, and foraging areas.
Protect, restore, or enhance breeding,
wintering, and foraging areas.
Protect individuals and nests.
Protect individuals.
within the boundaries of the Carlsbad
HMP would be negligible because there
have been several opportunities for
public education and outreach related to
Pacific Coast WSP. The framework for
the regional MHCP was developed over
a 12-year period; the Carlsbad HMP has
been in place since 2004.
Implementation of the subarea plan is
formally reviewed yearly through
publicly available annual reports and a
public meeting, providing extensive
opportunity to educate the public and
landowners about the location of, and
efforts to conserve, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Pacific Coast WSP.
Within the Carlsbad HMP boundaries,
any project with a Federal nexus will
require consultation under section 7 of
the Act because Pacific Coast WSP
currently occupies all proposed
subunits within the plan boundaries.
Furthermore, because one of the
primary threats to the Pacific Coast WSP
is habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process required under
section 7 of the Act for a project with
a Federal nexus will, when analyzing
effects to plovers, most likely evaluate
the effects of the action on the
conservation or functionality of
occupied habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP and thus the jeopardy analysis
would be similar to that performed to
conduct the adverse modification
analysis (IEc 2011, p. D–3). Therefore,
there would be minimal additional
benefit of designating critical habitat
within the boundaries of the Carlsbad
HMP.
We have determined that the
additional regulatory benefits of
designating critical habitat for Pacific
Coast WSP within the boundaries of the
Carlsbad HMP, such as protection
afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process, are minimal. We
also conclude that the educational and
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ancillary benefits of designating critical
habitat for Pacific WSP within the
boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP would
be negligible because of the partnership
established between the Service and the
City of Carlsbad, the management
objectives identified in the Carlsbad
HMP, and the independent regulatory
protection already provided under the
Carlsbad HMP. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, as
summarized in the Benefits of Exclusion
section above, we determine that the
significant benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species—Carlsbad HMP Under
the MHCP
We determine that the exclusion of 66
ac (27 ha) of land from the designation
of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP within the boundaries of the
Carlsbad HMP will not result in
extinction of the species because current
conservation efforts under the Carlsbad
HMP adequately protect the
geographical areas containing the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. In our
2004 Biological Opinion, the Service
determined that the MHCP subregional
and the City’s subarea plans are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence or recovery of the Pacific
Coast WSP (Service 2004, pp. 148–149).
No direct impacts are expected from the
MHCP subregional plan or the City’s
subarea plan due to 100 percent
conservation of the coastal lagoons and
because the MHCP will not allow any
take of individuals or nests of Pacific
Coast WSP. Therefore, we have
determined that this exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the Pacific
Coast WSP. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation all proposed
subunits within Batiquitos Lagoon (CA
50A–C) that are addressed by the
Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP, totaling
66 ac (27 ha) of land.
Other Management Plans
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan
In a collaborative strategy, the Port of
San Diego and the U.S. Department of
the Navy, Southwest Division prepared
an INRMP for the San Diego Bay in
September of 2000 (San Diego Bay
INRMP) (U.S. Navy and San Diego
Unified Port District 2000, p. xxi). The
lands within the boundaries of the San
Diego Bay INRMP that were proposed as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
revised critical habitat include
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge and D Street Fill (CA 55E) and
Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve (CA 55G).
These lands are owned and managed by
the Port of San Diego. As described
above under the section titled
Exemptions, all lands in the San Diego
Bay that are owned or managed by the
U.S. Department of the Navy are
exempted from critical habitat as a
result of benefits provided to Pacific
Coast WSP based on a separate and
distinct INRMP (Naval Base Coronado
INRMP).
Because subunits CA 55E and CA 55G
are not owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, but rather are
owned and managed by the Port of San
Diego, it is inappropriate to exempt the
Port of San Diego lands from the critical
habitat designation under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. However, after
reviewing comments from the Port of
San Diego concerning these subunits
during both comment periods,
conducting an analysis of the benefits of
inclusion compared with the benefits of
exclusion, and determining that
exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species, we are
excluding these Port of San Diego lands
(CA 55E and CA 55G) under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. We, hereafter, refer to
the Port of San Diego management plan
for the Port lands incorporated into the
San Diego Bay INRMP as the San Diego
Bay Natural Resources Plan.
The intent of the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan is to provide for
stewardship of natural resources while
supporting the ability of the Port of San
Diego to achieve their mission within
San Diego Bay. The plan is part of a
larger strategy to assist the users of the
San Diego Bay to make better, more
cost-effective decisions about the
development, conservation, restoration,
and management of San Diego Bay. This
strategy takes an ecosystem approach to
management, whereby San Diego Bay is
viewed as an ecosystem as opposed to
a collection of individual species, sites,
or projects, and management is
addressed across ownership and
jurisdictional boundaries. In
conjunction with the San Diego Bay
INRMP, the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan was developed through
the cooperative effort of 13
governmental and nongovernmental
organizations representing the primary
working group known as the Technical
Oversight Committee (TOC). The
Service, a member of the TOC,
participated in the development of the
plan and is a signatory to the
overarching San Diego Bay INRMP,
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36793
which includes the Port of San Diego’s
lands.
The footprint of the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan encompasses
both uplands adjacent to the bay and all
tidelands bayward of the historical
mean high tide. Historical tideland areas
owned or controlled by the Port of San
Diego include 5,483 ac (2,219 ha) of
nearly 15,000 ac (6,070 ha) of land and
water within San Diego Bay, which
collectively supports over 1,100
documented marine and terrestrial
species (U.S. Navy and Port of San
Diego 2011, p. 1–12), including Pacific
Coast WSP.
In conjunction with the San Diego
Bay INRMP, the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan is currently being
revised (U.S. Navy, Southwest Division
and Port of San Diego 2011). The
Service is providing input during the
development of this revision. The
revised version includes many of the
same objectives and strategies as the
current version, although it expands
coverage on water quality, sediment
quality, sustainable development, and
other topics. The revision also outlines
additional benefits for Pacific Coast
WSP. In February of 2012, a draft was
released for public comment, and the
Port of San Diego had a public meeting
to allow members of the public to
provide input. Both the San Diego Bay
INRMP and the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan continue to be
implemented while being updated and
revised.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion to
exclude from critical habitat a portion of
proposed subunits within San Diego
Bay, which includes the non-Federal
lands portion of the Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge and D Street
Fill subunit (CA 55E) and the Chula
Vista Wildlife Reserve subunit (CA 55G)
addressed by the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan. This area encompasses
approximately 63 ac (25 ha) of nonFederal land. A 79-ac (32-ha) portion of
subunit CA 55E (Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge and D Street
Fill) is Federal land that is a part of the
greater San Diego Bay National Wildlife
Refuge Complex and is not excluded
from critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion—San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan
The primary effect of designating any
particular area as critical habitat is the
requirement for Federal agencies to
consult with us under section 7 of the
Act to ensure actions they carry out,
authorize, or fund do not destroy or
adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Absent critical habitat
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36794
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
designation in occupied areas, Federal
agencies remain obligated under section
7 of the Act to consult with us on
actions that may affect a federally listed
species to ensure such actions do not
jeopardize the species’ continued
existence. If a federally listed species
does not occupy an area where a
proposed action may occur, Federal
agencies are not obligated to consult
with us to ensure actions do not
jeopardize the species’ existence.
However, the designation of critical
habitat in such unoccupied areas
provides an additional layer of
regulatory review that would require
Federal agencies to consult with us to
ensure that critical habitat is not
adversely modified. Therefore, there
may be an additional regulatory benefit
to designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas that we have
determined to be essential, such as
Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve (CA 55G).
As stated above, the principal benefit
of any designated critical habitat is that
Federal activities will require section 7
consultations to ensure that adequate
protection is provided to avoid adverse
modification or destruction of critical
habitat. This would provide an
additional benefit beyond that provided
under the jeopardy standard. In
evaluating project effects on critical
habitat, the Service must be satisfied
that the PCEs and, therefore, the
essential features of the critical habitat
likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the
conservation of the affected species
would be appreciably reduced. If critical
habitat were designated in areas of
unoccupied habitat or currently
occupied areas subsequently become
unoccupied, different outcomes or
requirements are also likely because
effects to unoccupied areas of critical
habitat are not likely to trigger the need
for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also
result in ancillary conservation benefits
to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering
additional review and conservation
through other Federal laws. The Federal
laws most likely to afford protection to
designated Pacific Coast WSP habitat
are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the
Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Projects
requiring a review under the CWA,
CZMA, and RHA that are located within
critical habitat or are likely to affect
critical habitat would create a Federal
nexus and trigger section 7 consultation
under the Act. Examples of potential
projects that may trigger consultation as
a result of CWA, CZMA, and RHA
include beach restoration (such as,
beach replenishment or removal of
nonnative plants) and channel dredging.
Thus, review of Federal actions affecting
designated critical habitat units would
consider the importance of this habitat
to the species and the protections
required for the species and its habitat.
Another important benefit of
including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can
serve to educate landowners and the
public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and may
help focus conservation efforts on areas
of high conservation value for certain
species. Any information about the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat that
reaches a wide audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion—San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan
The benefits of excluding from
designated critical habitat the
approximately 63 ac (25 ha) of lands
owned and managed by the Port of San
Diego within the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan are significant and
include: (1) An expectation that the
management objectives contained
within the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan, as described in Table 10
below, will be implemented into the
future; (2) continued and strengthened
effective working relationships with the
Port of San Diego and other jurisdictions
and stakeholders in the San Diego Bay
to promote the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat; (3)
continued meaningful collaboration and
cooperation in working toward
recovering this species, including
conservation benefits that might not
otherwise occur; (4) encouragement of
other coastal jurisdictions within the
range of Pacific Coast WSP to complete
management plans that provide a
benefit to Pacific Coast WSP or its
habitat; and (5) encouragement of future
management plan development on
private lands that include the Pacific
Coast WSP and other federally listed
species.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF PACIFIC COAST WSP CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO BAY NATURAL
RESOURCES PLAN.
Conservation Benefit to Pacific Coast
WSP
Area specific management objectives
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Support consistent and effective predator management at nest sites ....................................................
Protect unvegetated areas or remnant dune sites above the high tide line which are potential nesting
sites.
Reduce human use during nesting season, particularly in the upper dunes; enforce dog leashing;
and post signs.
Clean up trash, which attracts predators. ................................................................................................
Prohibit beach raking which can affect invertebrate populations upon which the plover depends ........
Enhance remnant dune areas as potential nest sites in areas that can be protected from human disturbance and predators during nesting season.
Remove ice plant (e.g., Carpobrotus sp.) and other nonnatives from remnant dunes ...........................
Support broader beaches with gentler slopes to support plover nesting ................................................
Conduct research and monitoring in support of the management objective (i.e., study the plover’s
preference for higher mudflat, so that function may be protected or enhanced).
We have created close partnerships
with the Port of San Diego and several
other stakeholders through the
development of the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan, which
incorporates protections and
management objectives (described above
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
in Table 10) for the Pacific Coast WSP
and the habitat upon which it depends
for breeding, sheltering, and foraging
activities. The conservation strategy
identified in the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan, along with our close
coordination with Port of San Diego,
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Protect foraging areas.
Restore habitat for nesting adults.
Restore habitat for nesting adults.
Restore habitat for nesting adults.
Restore habitat for nesting adults.
addresses the identified threats to
Pacific Coast WSP and the geographical
areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to its
conservation on subunits CA 55E and
CA 55G. The management objectives
identified within this conservation
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
strategy are more beneficial than
designation of critical habitat on lands
owned and managed by the Port of San
Diego because critical habitat
designation does not require beneficial
management actions. Thus, the Port of
San Diego Natural Resources Plan
provides a greater benefit to the Pacific
Coast WSP than would designating
critical habitat. Therefore, the relative
benefits of designation of critical habitat
on these lands are diminished and
limited.
Conservation measures that provide a
benefit to Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat have been implemented in both
subunits (CA 55E and CA 55G) owned
and managed by the Port of San Diego
since 2000. These measures will
continue to be implemented as the Port
of San Diego finalizes the revised plan
(expected in late 2012). Such measures
include protection of nesting and
foraging areas, predator management at
nest sites, prohibition of beach raking,
and trash clean-up at occupied sites
(described in Table 10 above) (U.S.
Navy and San Diego Unified Port
District 2000, p. 4–109; Maher, pers.
comm. 2012).
Excluding the approximately 63 ac
(25 ha) owned and managed by the Port
of San Diego from the critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance
the working relationship between the
Service and the Port of San Diego. The
willingness of the Port of San Diego to
work with the Service on innovative
ways to manage federally listed species
will continue to reinforce those
conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute
significantly toward achieving recovery
of Pacific Coast WSP. We consider this
voluntary partnership in conservation
vital to our understanding of the status
of species on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery
actions such as habitat protection and
restoration, and beneficial management
actions for species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan
The benefits of including these lands
in the designation are small because the
regulatory, educational, and ancillary
benefits that would result from critical
habitat designation are almost entirely
redundant with the regulatory,
educational, and ancillary benefits
already afforded through the San Diego
Bay Natural Resources Plan and under
State and Federal law.
The San Diego Bay Natural Resources
Plan provides for significant
conservation and management of the
geographical areas that contain the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP and help achieve recovery of this
species through the objectives as
described in Table 10. Exclusion of
these lands from critical habitat will
help preserve the partnerships we have
developed with the Port of San Diego
and project proponents through the
development and ongoing
implementation of the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan. These
partnerships are focused on
conservation of multiple species,
including Pacific Coast WSP, and secure
conservation benefits for the species
that will lead to recovery, as described
above, beyond those that could be
required under a critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, these
partnerships aid in fostering future
partnerships for the benefit of listed
species, the majority of which do not
occur on federal lands and thus are less
likely to result in a section 7
consultation.
We also conclude that the educational
benefits of designating critical habitat
on lands owned and managed by the
Port of San Diego would be negligible
because there have been several
opportunities for public education and
outreach related to Pacific Coast WSP.
As part of the larger San Diego Bay
INRMP, the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan has been in place since
2000. Additionally, as part of the larger
San Diego Bay INRMP, implementation
of the revised San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan will be formally
reviewed yearly through publicly
available annual reports and a public
meeting, again providing extensive
opportunity to educate the public and
landowners about the location of, and
efforts to conserve, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Pacific Coast WSP.
Members of the TOC, and specifically
the Port of San Diego, are aware of the
value of these lands to the conservation
of Pacific Coast WSP, and conservation
measures are already in place to protect
Pacific Coast WSP habitat.
Pacific Coast WSP currently occupies
one subunit (CA 55E) that is owned and
managed by the Port of San Diego with
the Port of San Diego Natural Resources
Plan. Because one of the primary threats
to the Pacific Coast WSP is habitat loss
and degradation, the consultation
process under section 7 of the Act for a
project with a Federal nexus will, in
analyzing effects to the plovers, most
likely evaluate the effects of the action
on the conservation or functionality of
the habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP; a
similar analysis would be performed to
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36795
conduct the adverse modification
analysis (IEc 2011, p. D–3).
We have determined that the
management actions provided through
implementation of the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan, in conjunction
with our partnership with the Port of
San Diego, provide a greater benefit to
Pacific Coast WSP than would critical
habitat designation in the unoccupied
subunit (CA 55G). As outlined in Table
10, the San Diego Bay Natural Resources
Plan outlines numerous measures which
benefit the Pacific Coast WSP including
measures in currently unoccupied areas
such as in subunit CA 55G. These
measures include restoration of
marginal habitat or areas currently not
being used by the plover. Furthermore,
we determine that the additional
regulatory benefits of designating
critical habitat in the occupied subunit
(CA 55E), such as protection afforded
through the section 7(a)(2) consultation
process, are minimal. We also conclude
that the educational and ancillary
benefits of designating the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific WSP
provided by the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan would be negligible
because of the partnership established
between the Service and the Port of San
Diego and the management objectives
identified in the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, as
summarized in the Benefits of Exclusion
section above, we determined the
significant benefits of exclusion
outweigh the minor benefits of critical
habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species—San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan
We determined that the exclusion of
63 ac (25 ha) from the designation of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP
of lands owned and managed by the
Port of San Diego, as identified in the
San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan
will not result in extinction of the
species because current conservation
efforts under the plan adequately
protect the geographical areas
containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. For projects affecting
plovers in occupied areas, the jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled
with protection provided by the San
Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan,
provide assurances that this species will
not go extinct as a result of excluding
these lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36796
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation a portion of
proposed subunits within San Diego
Bay (Sweetwater Marsh NWR and D
Street Fill (CA 55E) and Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve (CA 55G)) that are
addressed by the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan, totaling 63 ac (25 ha) of
land. We also anticipate that the
expected revisions to the existing San
Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan will
provide an even greater conservation
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat due to our close working
relationship with the Port of San Diego.
Tribal Lands—Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive
Order 13175; and the relevant provision
of the Departmental Manual of the
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2),
we coordinate with federally-recognized
Tribes on a government-to-government
basis. Further, Secretarial Order 3206,
‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act’’ (1997)
states that (1) critical habitat shall not be
designated in areas that may impact
tribal trust resources, may impact
tribally-owned fee lands, or are used to
exercise tribal rights unless it is
determined essential to conserve a listed
species; and (2) in designating critical
habitat, the Service shall evaluate and
document the extent to which the
conservation needs of the listed species
can be achieved by limiting the
designation to other lands.
Habitat on tribal lands was
determined to be essential to the
conservation of Pacific Coast WSP due
to its location within the matrix of
habitat available for Pacific Coast WSP.
Because Pacific Coast WSPs move
between coastal sites based on site
condition and season, connectivity
among and within habitats is essential
for long-term persistence and recovery
of the Pacific Coast WSP. Beach and
intertidal habitat on or adjacent to tribal
lands were determined to be important
to maintain nesting, foraging, and
roosting habitat, and to maintain
connectivity between breeding and
wintering habitats. The longstanding
and distinctive relationship between
Federal and tribal governments is
defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and
agreements, which differentiate tribal
governments from the other entities that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
deal with, or are affected by, the Federal
government.
This relationship has given rise to a
special Federal trust responsibility
involving the legal responsibilities and
obligations of the United States toward
Indian Tribes and the application of
fiduciary standards of due care with
respect to Indian lands, tribal trust
resources, and the exercise of tribal
rights. Accordingly, we are obligated to
consult with Tribes based on their
unique relationship with the Federal
government. In addition, we evaluate
Tribes’ past and ongoing efforts for
species conservation and the benefits of
including or excluding tribal lands in
the designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
We contacted all tribes potentially
affected by the revised proposed
designation and met with the
Shoalwater Bay Tribe to discuss their
ongoing and future management
strategies for Pacific Coast WSP. We
subsequently received a letter from the
Shoalwater Bay Tribe describing
ongoing tribal management,
conservation efforts, and tribal
coordination with the USACE. In their
letter to us, the Shoalwater Bay Tribe
stated that they do not participate in
nontribal habitat designation processes
(i.e., process to designate critical habitat
under the Act). The Tribe requested a
section 4(b)(2) exclusion under the Act.
We determined approximately 425 ac
(172 ha) of lands owned by, or under the
jurisdiction of, the Tribe contained
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP,
and therefore meet the definition of
critical habitat under the Act. These
tribal lands are located in subunit WA
3B. In making our final decision with
regard to the designation of critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP on
these tribal lands, we considered several
factors, including Secretarial Order
3206, Executive Order 13175, the
President’s memorandum on
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951; April 29,
1994), conservation measures in place
on these lands that may benefit the
Pacific Coast WSP, economic impacts to
tribes, our relationship with tribes, and
impacts to current and future
partnerships with the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe and other tribes we
coordinate with on endangered and
threatened species issues. Under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude
approximately 425 ac (172 ha) of tribal
land from this revised final critical
habitat designation. As described in our
analysis below, this conclusion was
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reached after considering the relevant
impacts of specifying these areas as
critical habitat.
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
(Tribe) is a Federally-recognized tribe
with a relatively small (approximately
one square mile) reservation in Pacific
County, Washington. Lands within the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation
boundary include upland forested
terrestrial habitats, a small residential
and commercial area, and coastal
marine habitats. Critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP was proposed in the
portion of the reservation with coastal
beaches as part of unit WA 3B. Through
our ongoing coordination with the
Tribe, we have established a partnership
that has benefitted natural resource
management on tribal lands. For our
4(b)(2) balancing analysis, we
considered our partnership with the
Tribe and, therefore, analyzed the
benefits of including and excluding
those lands under the sovereign control
of the Tribe that met the definition of
critical habitat.
Existing tribal regulations, including
the 2001 Tribal Environmental Codes
that protect the saltmarsh and sand spit
as natural areas, will ensure any land
use actions, including those funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal
agencies, are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
all lands considered for exclusion. The
Tribe coordinates with the Service on
all actions that have the potential to
affect habitat for listed species on the
reservation, including the Pacific Coast
WSP. In 2003, the Service completed a
Planning Aid Letter, and in 2006, we
wrote a Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report for the USACE (Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe is the project sponsor)
on the proposed Shoalwater Coastal
Erosion Project, which entails beach
nourishment along the sand spit used by
the Pacific Coast WSP. We completed a
section 7 consultation for this project in
2007. The Service coordinated with the
Tribe and USACE on the project design.
We are actively working with these
partners in implementation of the
project to avoid or minimize impacts to
current Pacific Coast WSP nesting
habitat. Since surveys were conducted
and nesting was confirmed in 2006, the
Tribe has played an active role in
surveying for and protecting habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP. In an email,
dated June 9, 2011, to the Service, the
USACE indicated that they were in the
process of developing a Snowy Plover
Management Plan as part of the beach
nourishment and coastal erosion
project. In an August 31, 2011, letter to
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
the Service, the Tribe confirmed that
they will continue to use their existing
regulatory structure to ‘‘provide habitat
protection for the Pacific Coast WSP’’
and ‘‘keep trespassers off those areas
considered most important to the
species,’’ and references the USACE’s
intent to ‘‘develop a Pacific Coast WSP
habitat protection plan as part of the
erosion control project.’’ The Tribe and
Service are coordinating with the
USACE on drafting the habitat
protection plan and implementation of
the project, which is scheduled to start
in late summer 2012 (pending surveys
for the Pacific Coast WSP). We are also
coordinating with the Tribe and the
USACE on the planting/vegetation
management plan. We are currently
working on a memorandum of
understanding with the Tribe regarding
plover protection. Any potential
impacts to the Pacific Coast WSP from
future proposed activities on the tribal
lands will be addressed through a
section 7 consultation using the
jeopardy standard, and such activities
would also be subject to the take
prohibitions in section 9 of the Act.
Benefits of Inclusion—Shoalwater Bay
Tribe
The main benefit of any designated
critical habitat is that Federal activities
will require section 7 consultations to
ensure that adequate protection is
provided to avoid adverse modification
or destruction of critical habitat. This
would provide an additional benefit
beyond that provided under the
jeopardy standard. In evaluating project
effects on critical habitat, the Service
must be satisfied that the PCEs and,
therefore, the essential features of the
critical habitat likely will not be altered
or destroyed by proposed activities to
the extent that the conservation of the
affected species would be appreciably
reduced. If critical habitat were
designated in areas of unoccupied
habitat or currently occupied areas
subsequently become unoccupied,
different outcomes or requirements are
also likely because effects to
unoccupied areas of critical habitat are
not likely to trigger the need for a
jeopardy analysis.
In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001),
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated
that the identification of habitat
essential to the conservation of the
species can provide informational
benefits to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations,
and Federal agencies. The court also
noted that critical habitat designation
may focus and heighten public
awareness of the plight of listed species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
and their habitats. Designation of
critical habitat may contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by
delineating areas of high conservation
value for the Pacific Coast WSP.
The primary benefit of including an
area in a critical habitat designation is
the requirement for Federal agencies to
ensure actions they fund, authorize, or
carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
any designated critical habitat, the
regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act under which consultation is
completed. Federal agencies must also
consult with us on actions that may
affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
such species. The analysis of effects of
a proposed project on critical habitat is
separate and different from that of the
effects of a proposed project on the
species itself. The jeopardy analysis
evaluates the action’s impact to survival
and recovery of the species, while the
destruction or adverse modification
analysis evaluates the action’s effects to
the designated habitat’s contribution to
conservation. Therefore, the difference
in outcomes of these two analyses
represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and
different regulatory requirements. Thus,
critical habitat designations may
provide greater benefits to the recovery
of a species than listing alone would do.
However, for some species, and in some
locations, the outcome of these analyses
will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the
species.
Public education is often cited as
another possible benefit of including
lands in critical habitat as it may help
focus conservation efforts on areas of
high value for certain species.
Partnership efforts with the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe to conserve the Pacific
Coast WSP and other coastal species of
concern have resulted in heightened
awareness about the species.
The designation of critical habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP may strengthen or
reinforce some Federal laws, such as
NEPA or Clean Water Act. These laws
analyze the potential for projects to
significantly affect the environment.
Critical habitat may signal the presence
of sensitive habitat that could otherwise
be missed in the review process for
these other environmental law.
Benefits of Exclusion—Shoalwater Bay
Tribe
Under Secretarial Order 3206,
American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36797
Endangered Species Act, we recognize
that we must carry out our
responsibilities under the Act in a
manner that harmonizes the Federal
trust responsibility to tribes and tribal
sovereignty while striving to ensure that
tribes do not bear a disproportionate
burden for the conservation of listed
species, so as to avoid or minimize the
potential for conflict and confrontation.
In accordance with the Presidential
memorandums of April 29, 1994, and
November 9, 2009, to the maximum
extent possible, tribes are the
appropriate governmental entities to
manage their lands and tribal trust
resources, and we are responsible for
strengthening government-togovernment relationships with tribes.
Federal regulation through critical
habitat designation may affect the tribal
working relationships we now have and
which we are strengthening throughout
the United States. Maintaining positive
working relationships with tribes is key
to implementing natural resource
programs of mutual interest, including
habitat conservation planning efforts. In
light of the above-mentioned orders and
for a variety of other reasons described
in their comment letters and
communications, critical habitat
designation is typically viewed by tribes
as an unwarranted and unwanted
intrusion into tribal self-governance.
In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP
proposed critical habitat, the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe submitted a letter and
email (August 31, 2011) requesting to be
excluded from the critical habitat
designation. In their letter, they stated
that the Tribe ‘‘continues to demonstrate
its desire to protect threatened and/or
endangered species through its
management and stewardship
capabilities’’ without ‘‘externally
defined designated critical habitat
designations.’’ The Tribe stated that
they wish to make ‘‘their own
determinations regarding the
Reservation and tribal trust resources’’
and ‘‘are pleased that the Tribe has been
able to provide for the Pacific Coast
WSP and steps are being taken to
continue that effort in the most effective
way possible’’ (letter prepared by Gary
Burns, Environmental Program Director
and signed by the Tribal Council
Chairperson). These communications
clearly indicate that designation of tribal
lands as critical habitat for Pacific Coast
WSP would impact future conservation
partnership opportunities with the
Tribe. Therefore, a critical habitat
designation could potentially damage
our relationship with the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe. The commitment by
the Tribe to restore habitat for this
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36798
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
native plant and efforts to control
invasive species such as smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)
supports their commitment to protect
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and
strengthens the ongoing partnership
with the Service. In their comments to
the Service on the proposed rule, the
Tribe indicated they would use their
existing regulations to protect the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat.
Significant benefits would be realized
by forgoing designation of critical
habitat on lands managed by the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. These
benefits include:
(1) Continuing and strengthening of
our effective relationship with the Tribe
to promote conservation of Pacific Coast
WSP and its habitat; and
(2) Allowing continued meaningful
collaboration and cooperation in
working toward recovering this species,
including conservation actions that
might not otherwise occur.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
coordinates regularly with the
Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife on annual surveys for the
Pacific Coast WSP and is partnering
with the Service (Willapa National
Wildlife Refuge and Ecological Services)
to control nonnative/invasive species
and restore habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP and other coastal species on the
outer beach. Service coordination
includes attending meetings with tribal
representatives to discuss ongoing
projects, management plans, and other
issues as that arise.
Because the Tribe is the entity that
enforces protective regulations on tribal
land, and we have a working
relationship with them, exclusion of
these lands will yield a significant
partnership benefit. We will continue to
work cooperatively with the Tribe on
efforts to conserve the Pacific Coast
WSP. Therefore, excluding these lands
from critical habitat provides the
significant benefit of maintaining and
strengthening our existing conservation
partnerships and the potential of
fostering new tribal partnerships.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits
of Inclusion—Shoalwater Bay Tribe
Based on the above considerations
and consistent with the direction
provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
the Service has determined that the
benefits of excluding the above tribal
lands outweigh the benefits of including
them as critical habitat. This conclusion
is based on the following factors. The
tribal lands considered for exclusion are
currently occupied by Pacific Coast
WSPs and will be subject to the
consultation requirements of the Act in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
the future. Although a jeopardy and
adverse modification analysis must
satisfy two different standards, because
any modifications to proposed actions
resulting from a section 7 consultation
to minimize or avoid impacts to the
Pacific Coast WSP will be habitat-based,
it is likely that measures implemented
to minimize impacts to the critical
habitat will also minimize impacts to
the Pacific Coast WSP. Therefore, in the
case of the Pacific Coast WSP, the
benefits of critical habitat designation
are very similar to the benefits of listing,
and in some respects would be
indistinguishable from the benefits of
listing. Few additional benefits are
provided by including these tribal lands
in this critical habitat designation
beyond what will be achieved through
the implementation of the existing tribal
management or conservation plans. In
addition, we expect that the benefit of
informing the public of the importance
of this area to Pacific Coast WSP
conservation would be low. Inclusion of
tribal lands will not significantly
improve habitat protections for Pacific
Coast WSP beyond what is already
provided for in the Tribe’s own
protective policies and practices,
discussed above.
Given the cooperative relationship
between the Shoalwater Bay Indian
Tribe and the Service, and all of the
conservation benefits taken together, the
additional regulatory and educational
benefits of including the tribal lands as
critical habitat are relatively small. The
designation of critical habitat can serve
to educate the public regarding the
potential conservation value of an area,
but this goal is already being
accomplished through the identification
of these areas in the tribal management
planning, development of tribal Fish
and Wildlife Codes, and through their
outreach efforts.
Because of the ongoing relationship
between the Service and the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe through a variety of
forums, we find the benefits of these
coordination efforts to be greater than
the benefits of applying the Act’s
section 7 consultations for critical
habitat to Federal activities on tribal
lands. Based upon our consultations
with the Tribes, designation of tribal
lands as critical habitat would adversely
impact our working relationship and the
benefits resulting from this relationship.
In contrast, although the benefits of
encouraging tribal participation in
resource management planning may be
indirect, enthusiastic tribal participation
and an atmosphere of cooperation are
crucial to the long-term effectiveness of
implementing successful endangered
species conservation programs. Also, we
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have concluded that the Tribe’s
voluntary conservation efforts will
provide tangible conservation benefits
that will reduce the likelihood of
extinction and increase the likelihood
for Pacific Coast WSP recovery.
Therefore, we assign great weight to
these benefits of exclusion. To the
extent that there are regulatory benefits
of including tribal lands in critical
habitat, there would be associated costs
that could be avoided by excluding the
area from designation. As we expect the
regulatory benefits to be low, we
likewise give weight to avoidance of
those associated costs, as well as the
additional transaction costs related to
section 7 compliance.
We reviewed and evaluated the
benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion of Shoalwater Bay Indian
tribal lands as critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. Past, present, and
future coordination with the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe has provided and will
continue to provide Pacific Coast WSP
habitat conservation needs on tribal
lands, such that there would be no
additional benefit from designation of
critical habitat. Further, because any
potential impacts to the Pacific Coast
WSP from future projects will be
addressed through a section 7
consultation with us under the jeopardy
standard, critical habitat designation on
the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation
would largely be redundant with the
combined benefits of listing and existing
tribal regulations and management.
Therefore, the benefits of designating
critical habitat on tribal lands are not
significant.
On the other hand, the benefits of
excluding the Shoalwater Bay Indian
Reservation from critical habitat are
significant. Exclusion of these lands
from critical habitat will help preserve
and strengthen the conservation
partnership we have developed with the
Tribe and will foster future partnerships
and development of management plans;
inclusion, however, would negatively
impact our relationships with the Tribe
and other tribes. We are committed to
working with the Shoalwater Bay Indian
Tribe to further the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP and other endangered
and threatened species on the
reservation. The Tribe will continue to
use their existing regulatory structure to
protect Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat. The Tribe continues to provide
for indirect conservation of Pacific Coast
WSP habitat by implementing
conservation measures for other coastal
species that use some of the same
habitat. Therefore, in consideration of
the relevant impact to our partnership
and our government-to-government
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
relationship with the Shoalwater Indian
Bay Tribe, and the ongoing conservation
management practices of the Tribe and
our current and future conservation
partnerships with them, we determined
the significant benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion in the
critical habitat designation.
In summary, we find that excluding
the Shoalwater Bay Indian tribal lands
from this revised final critical habitat
will preserve our partnership and may
foster future habitat management and
species conservation plans with the
Tribe and with other tribes now and in
the future. These partnership benefits
are significant and outweigh the
additional regulatory benefits of
including these lands in final critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. As a
result, the regulatory benefits of critical
habitat designation on tribal land would
largely be redundant with the combined
benefits of listing and existing tribal
regulations.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species—Shoalwater Bay Tribe
We determined that the exclusion of
425 ac (172 ha) of tribal lands from the
designation of Pacific Coast WSP critical
habitat will not result in extinction of
the species. The jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act and routine
implementation of conservation
measures through the section 7 process
due to Pacific Coast WSP occupancy
and protection provided by under Title
23 of the Tribal Environmental
Ordinances provide assurances that this
species will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. Therefore, based on
the above discussion the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude
approximately 425 ac (172 ha) of tribal
lands managed by the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe from this final critical
habitat designation.
Required Determinations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The OIRA has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
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 an
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
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.
In this final rule, we are certifying that
the revised critical habitat designation
for the Pacific Coast WSP will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our
rationale.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations, such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small
businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns
with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than
100 employees, retail and service
businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy
construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36799
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this rule, as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if the rule could
significantly affect a substantial number
of small entities, we consider the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., development industry, recreation,
mining). We apply the ‘‘substantial
number’’ test individually to each
industry to determine if certification is
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does
not explicitly define ‘‘substantial
number’’ or ‘‘significant economic
impact.’’ Consequently, to assess
whether a ‘‘substantial number’’ of
small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely
to be impacted in an area. In some
circumstances, especially with critical
habitat designations of limited extent,
we may aggregate across all industries
and consider whether the total number
of small entities affected is substantial.
In estimating the number of small
entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have
any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only
affects activities authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have
any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat
designation. In areas where the species
is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may
affect the Pacific Coast WSP. Federal
agencies also must consult with us if
their activities may affect critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat,
therefore, could result in an additional
economic impact on small entities due
to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal
activities (see Application of the
‘‘Adverse Modification Standard’’
section).
In our final economic analysis of the
critical habitat designation, we
evaluated the potential economic effects
on small business entities resulting from
conservation actions related to the
listing of the Pacific Coast WSP and the
designation of critical habitat. The
analysis is based on the estimated
impacts associated with the rulemaking
as described in Chapters 1 through 5
and Appendix A of the analysis and
evaluates the potential for economic
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
36800
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
impacts related to: (1) Recreation; (2)
commercial and residential
development; (3) gravel mining; (4)
military activities; and (5) habitat and
species management (IEc 2012).
In the FEA of the revised proposed
critical habitat, we evaluate the
potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from
implementation of conservation actions
related to the proposed revisions to
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP. The FEA is based on the estimated
incremental impacts associated with the
proposed rulemaking as described in
Chapter 4. The FEA evaluates the
potential for direct economic impacts
related to activity categories identified
above as well as for indirect impacts
related to CEQA, uncertainty, and delay.
The FEA concludes that the incremental
impacts resulting from this rulemaking
that may be borne by small businesses
will be associated only with recreation.
Incremental impacts are either not
expected for the other types of activities
considered or, if expected, will not be
borne by small entities.
As discussed in Appendix A of the
FEA, Exhibit A–1 describes the nonFederal entities that may be affected by
critical habitat designation and assesses
whether they are considered small
entities under the RFA. The State of
California (CDPR), Santa Barbara
County, Monterey County, Santa Cruz
County, and City of Coronado will
participate in the future consultations
with the Service. Of these entities, only
the City of Coronado meets the RFA’s
definition of a small governmental
jurisdiction. Third-party administrative
costs for the City of Coronado are
expected to be $818 in 2012, assuming
a 7 percent discount rate. This impact
represents less than 0.01 percent of the
City’s annual revenues of $40.3 million.
In addition, the FEA has identified the
potential for critical habitat to possibly
indirectly influence future litigation or
State review of environmental permits
within Oceano Dunes SVRA (Unit CA
31) and the two development projects in
Sand City (Unit CA 22). Critical habitat
may indirectly serve as a lever for future
litigation aimed at reducing or
eliminating OHV-recreation on the
beach. Such action would indirectly
affect recreators and businesses in the
local community.
In summary, we considered whether
this designation will result in a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
Based on the above reasoning and
currently available information, we
concluded that this rule would not
result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
entities. Therefore, we are certifying that
the designation of critical habitat for
Pacific Coast WSP will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required.
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
when undertaking certain actions. OMB
has provided guidance for
implementing this Executive Order that
outlines nine outcomes that may
constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’
when compared to not taking the
regulatory action under consideration.
The economic analysis finds that
none of these criteria are relevant to this
analysis. Thus, based on information in
the economic analysis, energy-related
impacts associated with Pacific Coast
WSP conservation activities within
critical habitat are not expected. As
such, the designation of critical habitat
is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), 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
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
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) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it will not
produce a Federal mandate of $100
million or greater in any year; that is, it
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The FEA concludes incremental
impacts may occur due to project
modifications that may need to be made
for real estate development; however,
these are not expected to significantly
affect small governments. The City of
Coronado has been identified as the
only small government affected by the
designation, and the total estimated cost
associated with the designation is $818
in 2012, assuming a 7 percent discount
rate. This impact represents less than
0.01 percent of the City’s annual
revenues of $40.3 million.
Consequently, we do not believe that
this revised final critical habitat
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
designation will significantly or
uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(‘‘Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating revised critical habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP in a takings
implications assessment. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Although
private parties that receive Federal
funding, 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. The FEA has identified
that all the incremental costs are
entirely administrative in nature. No
incremental project modifications are
anticipated to result from section 7
consultations with the majority of
consultation costs being incurred by the
Service and other Federal action
agencies. Of the approximately 76
anticipated consultations over the 20year period of analysis, only nine will
involve third parties. The takings
implications assessment concludes that
this revised designation of critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP does
not pose significant takings implications
for lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), this rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A
federalism impact summary statement is
not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this
revised final critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies
in California, Oregon, and Washington.
We did receive comments from State
Park managers in both Oregon and
California. The ORPD requested that
lands under their approved HCP be
excluded from designation. The CDPR
commented that portions of Oceano
Dunes SVRA should be excluded from
designation; however, that park unit
does not have an approved HCP or other
management plan. The designation may
have some benefit to these governments
in that the areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
to the conservation of the species are
more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary
to the conservation of the species are
specifically 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
system and that it meets the applicable
standards as set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating revised critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This revised final rule uses
standard property descriptions in the
preamble’s critical habitat unit
descriptions and identifies the elements
of physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
36801
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of
Appeals of the United States for the
Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as
defined by 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 assertion was upheld by
the Court of Appeals of the United
States for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1042
(1996)).
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), E.O. 13175,
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.
In the proposed revisions to critical
habitat published in the Federal
Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR
16046), we proposed to designate 1,121
ac in subunit WA 3B Shoalwater/
Graveyard Spit, of which we claimed
approximately 336 ac (136 ha) to be
within the Shoalwater Bay Tribal lands.
After further review and additional
information provided by the Shoalwater
Bay Tribe, we have identified
approximately 425 ac (172 ha) belonging
to the Tribe and meeting the definition
of critical habitat. We worked directly
with the Tribe to determine economic
and other burdens expected to result
from critical habitat designation on
tribal lands, and as a result of
information exchanged, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude all
Shoalwater Bay Tribal lands meeting the
definition of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP from this final
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
36802
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
revised designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act—Tribal Lands
section above).
Office and Pacific Southwest Regional
Office.
References Cited
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
A complete list of all references cited
is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are
staff of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife
*
Plover, western
snowy (Pacific
Coast population
DPS).
*
*
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
(b) Birds.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius
nivosus nivosus)—Pacific Coast
Population
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for: Washington—Grays Harbor and
Pacific Counties; Oregon—Clatsop,
Tillamook, Lane, Douglas, Coos, and
Curry Counties; and California—Del
Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Marin,
Napa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange,
and San Diego Counties, on the maps
below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast
population of the western snowy plover
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
*
*
(h) * * *
Fmt 4701
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
493
*
Sfmt 4700
*
When listed
*
*
Frm 00076
*
Status
are sandy beaches, dune systems
immediately inland of an active beach
face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally
exposed gravel bars, artificial salt ponds
and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil
sites, with:
(i) Areas that are below heavily
vegetated areas or developed areas and
above the daily high tides;
(ii) Shoreline habitat areas for feeding,
with no or very sparse vegetation, that
are between the annual low tide or lowwater flow and annual high tide or highwater flow, subject to inundation but
not constantly under water, that support
small invertebrates, such as crabs,
worms, flies, beetles, spiders, sand
hoppers, clams, and ostracods, that are
essential food sources;
(iii) Surf- or water-deposited organic
debris, such as seaweed (including kelp
and eelgrass) or driftwood located on
open substrates that supports and
attracts small invertebrates described in
paragraph (ii) of this entry for food, and
provides cover or shelter from predators
and weather, and assists in avoidance of
detection (crypsis) for nests, chicks, and
incubating adults; and
PO 00000
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
Pacific Coast popuT
lation DPS—
U.S.A. (CA, OR,
WA), Mexico (within 50 miles of Pacific coast).
*
3. Amend § 17.95(b) by revising the
entry for ‘‘Western Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)—
Pacific Coast Population’’ to read as
follows:
*
*
*
Pacific Coast population DPS—
U.S.A. (CA, OR,
WA), Mexico.
■
§ 17.95
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
*
*
Charadrius nivosus
nivosus.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the
entry for ‘‘Plover, western snowy’’
under BIRDS to read as follows:
■
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
Scientific name
*
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.
Regulation Promulgation
Historic range
*
BIRDS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Species
Common name
PART 17—[AMENDED]
*
Special
rules
*
*
17.95(b)
NA
*
(iv) Minimal disturbance from the
presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or
human-attracted predators which
provide relatively undisturbed areas for
individual and population growth and
for normal behavior.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
roads, paved areas, boat ramps, and
other developed areas) and the land on
which such structures are directly
located and existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
on a base of USGS digital ortho-photo
quarter-quadrangles, and critical habitat
units were then mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10N
and 11N coordinates.
(5) The coordinates for these maps are
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070, at https://
www.fws.gov/arcata/, or at the Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon
Road, Arcata, CA 95521.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in
Washington follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.000</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(6) Index map of critical habitat units
for the Pacific Coast western snowy
36803
36804
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.001</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(7) Unit WA 1: Copalis Spit, Grays
Harbor County, Washington. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36805
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.002</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(8) Unit WA 2: Damon Point, Grays
Harbor County, Washington. Map
follows:
36806
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Subunit WA 3A: Midway Beach,
Pacific County, Washington. Map of
Subunits WA 3A and WA 3B follows.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Washington. Map of Subunits WA 3A
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and WA 3B is provided at paragraph (8)
of this entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.003</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(10) Subunit WA 3B: Shoalwater/
Graveyard Spit, Pacific County,
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36807
(11) Subunit WA 4A: Leadbetter Spit,
Pacific County, Washington. Map of
Subunits WA 4A and WA 4B follows.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Washington. Map of Subunits WA 4A
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and WA 4B is provided at paragraph
(11) of this entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.004</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(12) Subunit WA 4B: Gunpowder
Sands Island, Pacific County,
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(13) Index map of critical habitat units
for the Pacific Coast western snowy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in
Oregon follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.005</GPH>
36808
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36809
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.006</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(14) Unit OR 2: Necanicum River Spit,
Clatsop County, Oregon. Map follows:
36810
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.007</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(15) Unit OR 4: Bayocean Spit,
Tillamook County, Oregon. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36811
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.008</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(16) Unit OR 6: Sand Lake South,
Tillamook County, Oregon. Map
follows:
36812
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.009</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(17) Unit OR 7: Sutton/Baker Beaches,
Lane County, Oregon. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36813
(18) Subunit OR 8A: Siltcoos Breach,
Lane County, Oregon. Map of Subunits
OR 8A, OR 8B, and OR 8C follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Oregon. Map of Subunits OR 8A, OR 8B,
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and OR 8C is provided at paragraph (18)
of this entry.
(20) Subunit OR 8C: Dunes Overlook
Tahkenitch Creek Spit, Douglas County,
Oregon. Map of Subunits OR 8A, OR 8B,
and OR 8C is provided at paragraph (18)
of this entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.010</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(19) Subunit OR 8B: Siltcoos River
Spit, Douglas and Lane Counties,
36814
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.011</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(21) Subunit OR 8D: North Umpqua
River Spit, Douglas County, Oregon.
Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36815
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.012</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(22) Unit OR 9: Tenmile Creek Spit,
Coos County, Oregon. Map follows:
36816
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.013</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(23) Unit OR 10: Coos Bay North Spit,
Coos County, Oregon. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36817
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.014</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(24) Unit OR 11: Bandon to New
River, Coos and Curry Counties, Oregon.
Map follows:
36818
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.015</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(25) Unit OR 13: Euchre Creek Spit,
Curry County, Oregon. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in
Northern California follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.016</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(26) Index map of critical habitat units
for the Pacific Coast western snowy
36819
36820
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.017</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(27) Unit CA 1: Lake Earl, Del Norte
County, California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36821
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.018</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(28) Unit CA 2: Gold Bluffs Beach,
Humboldt County, California. Map
follows:
36822
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(29) Subunit CA 3A: Stone Lagoon,
Humboldt County, California. Map of
Subunits CA 3A and CA 3B follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Subunits CA 3A and CA 3B is provided
at paragraph 29 of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.019</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(30) Subunit CA 3B: Big Lagoon,
Humboldt County, California. Map of
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Subunits CA 4A and CA 4B is provided
at paragraph 31 of this entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.020</GPH>
California. Map of Subunits CA 4A and
CA 4B follows:
(32) Subunit CA 4B: Mad River Beach,
Humboldt County, California. Map of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(31) Subunit CA 4A: Clam Beach/
Little River, Humboldt County,
36823
36824
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
California. Map of Subunit CA 5A and
CA 5B follows:
California. Map of Subunits CA 5A and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CA 5B is provided at paragraph 33 of
this entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.021</GPH>
(34) Subunit CA 5B: Eel River North
Spit and Beach, Humboldt County,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(33) Subunit CA 5A: Humboldt Bay
South Spit, Humboldt County,
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36825
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.022</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(35) Subunit CA 5C: Eel River South
Spit and Beach, Humboldt County,
California. Map follows:
36826
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.023</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(36) Unit CA 6: Eel River Gravel Bars,
Humboldt County, California. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36827
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.024</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(37) Unit CA 7: MacKerricher Beach,
Mendocino County, California. Map
follows:
36828
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.025</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(38) Unit CA 8: Manchester Beach,
Mendocino County, California. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36829
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.026</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(39) Unit CA 9: Dillon Beach, Marin
County, California. Map follows:
36830
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(40) Subunit CA 10A: Point Reyes,
Marin County, California. Map of
Subunits CA 10A and CA 10B follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Subunits CA 10A and CA 10B is
provided at paragraph 40 of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.027</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(41) Subunit CA 10B: Limantour,
Marin County, California. Map of
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36831
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.028</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(42) Unit CA 11: Napa-Sonoma, Napa
County, California. Map follows:
36832
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.029</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(43) Unit CA 12: Hayward, Alameda
County, California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Subunits CA 13A, CA 13B, and CA 13C
follows:
is provided at paragraph 44 of this
entry.
(46) Subunit CA 13C: Eden Landing,
Alameda County, California. Map of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Subunits CA 13A, CA 13B, and CA 13C
is provided at paragraph 44 of this
entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.030</GPH>
(45) Subunit CA 13B: Eden Landing,
Alameda County, California. Map of
Subunits CA 13A, CA 13B, and CA 13C
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(44) Subunit CA 13A: Eden Landing,
Alameda County, California. Map of
36833
36834
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.031</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(47) Unit CA 14: Ravenswood, San
Mateo County, California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36835
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.032</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(48) Unit CA 15: Warm Springs,
Alameda County, California. Map
follows:
36836
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.033</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(49) Unit CA 16: Half Moon Bay, San
Mateo County, California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36837
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.034</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(50) Unit CA 17: Waddell Creek
Beach, Santa Cruz County, California.
Map follows:
36838
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.035</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(51) Unit CA 18: Scott Creek Beach,
Santa Cruz County, California. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36839
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.036</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(52) Unit CA 19: Wilder Creek Beach,
Santa Cruz County, California. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(53) Index map of critical habitat units
for the Pacific Coast western snowy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in
Southern California follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.037</GPH>
36840
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Map of Units CA 20 and CA 21 is
provided at paragraph 54.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.038</GPH>
California. Map of Units CA 20 and CA
21 follows:
(55) Unit CA 21: Elkhorn Slough
Mudflats, Monterey County, California.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(54) Unit CA 20: Jetty Road to Aptos,
Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties,
36841
36842
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.039</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(56) Unit CA 22: Monterey to Moss
Landing, Monterey County, California.
Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36843
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.040</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(57) Unit CA 23: Point Sur Beach,
Monterey County, California. Map
follows:
36844
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.041</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(58) Unit CA 24: San Carpoforo Creek,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36845
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.042</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(59) Unit CA 25: Arroyo Laguna
Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
36846
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.043</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(60) Unit CA 26: San Simeon State
Beach, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36847
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.044</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(61) Unit CA 27: Villa Creek Beach,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
Map follows:
36848
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(62) Unit CA 28: Toro Creek, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Map of Units
CA 28 and CA 29 follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Obispo County, California. Map of Units
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CA 28 and CA 29 is provided at
paragraph 62 of this entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.045</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(63) Unit CA 29: Atascadero Beach/
Morro Strand State Beach: San Luis
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36849
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.046</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(64) Unit CA 30: Morro Bay Beach,
San Luis Obispo County, California.
Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(65) Unit CA 31: Pismo Beach/
Nipomo Dunes, San Luis Obispo and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Santa Barbara Counties, California. Map
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.047</GPH>
36850
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36851
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.048</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(66) Unit CA 34: Devereaux Beach,
Santa Barbara County, California. Map
follows:
36852
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.049</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(67) Unit CA 35: Santa Barbara
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K follows:
(69) Subunit CA 36B: Santa Rosa
Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(70) Unit CA 36C: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(71) Unit CA 36D: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(72) Unit CA 36E: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(73) Unit CA 36F: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(74) Unit CA 36G: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(75) Unit CA 36H: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(76) Unit CA 36I: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(77) Unit CA 36J: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.050</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(68) Subunit CA 36A: Santa Rosa
Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
36853
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
(78) Unit CA 36K: Santa Rosa Island
Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa
Rosa Island Beaches, including Subunits
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at
paragraph 68 of this entry.
(79) Unit CA 37: San Buenaventura
Beach, Ventura County, California. Map
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.051</GPH>
36854
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36855
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.052</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(80) Unit CA 38: Mandalay Beach to
Santa Clara River, Ventura County,
California. Map follows:
36856
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.053</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(81) Unit CA 39: Ormond Beach,
Ventura County, California. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36857
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.054</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(82) Unit CA 43: Zuma Beach, Los
Angeles County, California. Map
follows:
36858
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.055</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(83) Unit CA 44: Malibu Beach, Los
Angeles County, California. Map
follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36859
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.056</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(84) Subunit CA 45A: Santa Monica
Beach, Los Angeles County, California.
Map follows:
36860
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Map of Subunits CA 45B and CA 45C
follows:
Map of Subunits CA 45B and CA 45C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is provided at paragraph 85 of this
entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.057</GPH>
(86) Subunit CA 45C: Dockweiler
South, Los Angeles County, California.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(85) Subunit CA 45B: Dockweiler
North, Los Angeles County, California.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36861
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.058</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(87) Subunit CA 45D: Hermosa State
Beach, Los Angeles County, California.
Map follows:
36862
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA
46F follows:
46F is provided at paragraph 88 of this
entry.
(91) Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica
Reserve, Orange County, California.
Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA
46F is provided at paragraph 88 of this
entry.
(92) Subunit CA 46E: Bolsa Chica
Reserve, Orange County, California.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA
46F is provided at paragraph 88 of this
entry.
(93) Subunit CA 46F: Bolsa Chica
Reserve, Orange County, California.
Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA
46F is provided at paragraph 88 of this
entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.059</GPH>
(89) Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa Chica
Reserve, Orange County, California.
Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA
46F is provided at paragraph 88 of this
entry.
(90) Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa Chica
Reserve, Orange County, California.
Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(88) Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica
State Beach, Orange County, California.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36863
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.060</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(94) Unit CA 47: Santa Ana River
Mouth, Orange County, California. Map
follows:
36864
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.061</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(95) Unit CA 48: Balboa Beach,
Orange County, California. Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
County, California. Map of Subunits CA
51A, CA 51B, and CA 51C follows:
51B, and CA 51C is provided at
paragraph 96 of this entry.
(98) Subunit CA 51C: San Elijo
Ecological Reserve, San Diego County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
California. Map of Subunits CA 51A, CA
51B, and CA 51C is provided at
paragraph 96 of this entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.062</GPH>
(97) Subunit CA 51B: San Elijo
Ecological Reserve, San Diego County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 51A, CA
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(96) Subunit CA 51A: San Elijo
Lagoon Ecological Reserve, San Diego
36865
36866
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.063</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(99) Subunit CA 52A: San Dieguito
Lagoon, San Diego County, California.
Map follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36867
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.064</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(100) Subunit CA 55B: Coronado
Beach, San Diego County, California.
Map follows:
36868
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Subunits CA 55E, CA 55F, and CA 55I
follows:
(103) Subunit CA 55I: San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge—South Bay
Unit, San Diego County, California. Map
of Subunits CA 55E, CA 55F, and CA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55I is provided at paragraph 101 of this
entry.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.065</GPH>
(102) Subunit CA 55F: Silver Strand
State Beach, San Diego County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 55E, CA
55F, and CA 55I is provided at
paragraph 101 of this entry.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(101) Subunit CA 55E: Sweetwater
Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, San
Diego County, California. Map of
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
36869
(104) Subunit CA 55J: Tijuana Estuary
and Border Field State Park, San Diego
County, California. Map follows:
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2012–13886 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:08 Jun 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN12.066</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36727-36869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13886]
[[Page 36727]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 118
June 19, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy
Plover; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36728]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the
Western Snowy Plover
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
revised critical habitat for the Pacific Coast distinct population
segment (DPS) (Pacific Coast WSP) of the western snowy plover
(Charadrius nivosus nivosus, formerly C. alexandrinus nivosus) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 24,527 acres (9,926 hectares) of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP in Washington, Oregon, and California, fall within
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This revised final
designation constitutes an increase of approximately 12,377 ac (5,009
ha) from the 2005 designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP. A taxonomic name change has occurred and been accepted for the
snowy plover. Throughout the remainder of this document, we will use
the currently recognized name for the subspecies, Charadrius nivosus
nivosus, to which the listed entity (Pacific Coast WSP) belongs for
references to the Pacific Coast WSP.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on July 19, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, final economic analysis, and maps of
critical habitat will be available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070, and at https://www.fws.gov/arcata/. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707-822-7201;
facsimile 707-822-8411.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Finley, Field Supervisor, or Jim
Watkins, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521;
telephone 707-822-7201; facsimile 707-822-8411. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to revise the
designation of critical habitat for the threatened Pacific Coast
population of the western snowy plover under the Act. Under the Act,
any species that is determined to be endangered or threatened requires
designated critical habitat. We must issue a rule to designate critical
habitat. In total, approximately 24,527 acres (9,926 hectares) of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP in Washington, Oregon, and
California, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation.
We designated critical habitat for this species in 1999 and again
in 2005. As part of a settlement agreement, we agreed to reconsider the
designations. A proposed revised critical habitat was published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046). This constitutes our
final revised designation for the Pacific Coast WSP.
We are making the following changes to the critical habitat
designation. See Table 2 for details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current critical Factors affecting
State habitat designation Revised designation revised designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington........................... 2,526 acres (1,023 Four units in We are excluding 425
hectares) of Federal, Washington, totaling acres (172 hectares)
State, and Private 6,077 acres (2,460 of Tribal lands from
lands. hectares). designation based on
partnerships.
Oregon............................... 2,147 acres (869 9 units in Oregon, We are excluding 3,106
hectares) of Federal, totaling 2,112 acres acres (1,257 hectares)
State, and Private (856 hectares). of lands from
lands. designation based on
partnerships with
landowners.
California........................... 7,477 acres (3,030 47 units in California, We are excluding 266
hectares) of Federal, totaling 16,337 acres acres (108 hectares)
State, and Private (6,612 hectares). of lands from
lands. designation based on
partnerships with
landowners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, any
endangered or threatened species must have a designated critical
habitat. We are required to base the designation on the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration economic and other
impacts. The Secretary can exclude an area from critical habitat if the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
We prepared an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider the
economic impacts, we prepared a new economic analysis of the proposed
revised designation. On January 17, 2012, we made available our revised
draft economic analysis (77 FR 2243). We received public comments on
the draft economic analysis and revised it based on input from the
public. The economic analysis did not identify any areas with
disproportionate costs associated with the designation, and no areas
were excluded from the final designation based on economic reasons.
We incorporated peer review. We sought comments and information
from independent specialists to ensure that our critical habitat
designation was based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We had invited these peer reviewers to comment on our
specific assumptions and conclusions in the proposed revision of the
critical habitat designation. Information we received from peer review
is incorporated in this final revised designation.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the development and designation of revised
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP under the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). For more information on the taxonomy, biology, and
ecology of the Pacific Coast WSP, refer to the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864); the
12-month finding on a petition to delist the Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR
20607, April 21, 2006); and the revised proposed critical habitat rule
[[Page 36729]]
published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046).
Additional information on this species can also be found in the
Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy
Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) finalized on August 13, 2007,
which is available from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section) (Service 2007). Information on the associated draft
economic analysis for the revised proposed critical habitat was
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2243). The
nomenclature for the listed entity has changed to the ``Pacific Coast
population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus),''
but this change does not alter the description or distribution of the
species.
Change in Taxonomic Nomenclature
In our January 17, 2012, Federal Register publication (77 FR 2243),
which made available the draft economic analysis on the March 22, 2011,
revised proposed critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP, we
proposed a taxonomic and nomenclatural change for the Pacific Coast WSP
from Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus to C. nivosus nivosus and for that
change to be published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Based
on information presented in that notice (see the notice's section
entitled Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus) and acceptance of the change by the scientific
community, we are amending the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to identify the listed entity as the
western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population DPS) (Charadrius nivosus
nivosus), to update the ``Historic Range'' column to clarify that the
historical range of the Pacific Coast population DPS is California,
Oregon, Washington, and Mexico, and to update the ``Vertebrate
population where endangered or threatened'' column to indicate that the
DPS is threatened in California, Oregon, Washington, and Mexico (within
50 miles of Pacific coast).
New Information on Species' Description, Life History, Ecology,
Habitat, and Range
We did not receive any new information pertaining to the
description, ecology, or habitat of the Pacific Coast WSP following the
2011 revised proposed critical habitat rule (76 FR 16046; March 22,
2011).
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers
to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of
climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due
to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and
they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
Sea level rise and hydrological changes associated with climate
change are having and will continue to have significant effects on
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat over the next several decades. Sea
level rise is a result of two phenomena: Thermal expansion (increased
sea water temperatures) and global ice melt (Cayan et al. 2006, p. 5).
Between 1897 and 2006, the observed sea level rise has been
approximately 0.08 inches (in) (2 millimeters (mm)) per year, or a
total of 8 in (20 centimeters (cm)) over that period (Heberger et al.
2009, p. 6). Older estimates projected that sea level rise along the
California coast would follow a similar rate and reach 0.7-2 feet (ft)
(0.2-0.6 meters (m)) by 2100 (IPCC 2007). Recent observations and
models (including the models we used to evaluate Pacific Coast WSP
habitat) indicate that those projections were conservative and ignored
some critical factors, such as melting of the Greenland and Antarctica
ice sheets (Heberger et al. 2009, p. 6). Heberger et al. (2009, p. 8)
have updated the sea level rise projections for California to 3.3-4.6
ft (1.0-1.4 m) by 2100, while Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009, p. 21530)
calculate the sea level rise globally at 2.4-6.2 ft (0.57-1.9 m); in
both cases, recent estimates were more than twice earlier projections.
Combined with California's normal dramatic tidal fluctuations and
coincidental storms, the severity of the latter increasing with more
frequent El Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillations due to increasing surface
water temperature (Cayan et al. 2006, p. 17), the effects of sea level
rise are expected to reach farther inland than previously anticipated
(Cayan et al. 2006, pp. 48-49; Cayan et al. 2009, p. 40). Similar
effects are expected to occur along the Oregon and Washington
coastlines (Galbraith et al. 2002, pp. 173-183; Huppert et al. 2009,
pp. 285-309; Ruggiero et al. 2010, 211-262).
For the Pacific Coast WSP and other shorebird habitat, Galbraith et
al. (2002, pp. 173-183) in a study of sites in Washington (Willapa Bay)
and California (Humboldt Bay and San Francisco Bay) projected losses of
intertidal habitat could range between 20 and 70 percent of the
existing habitat. In addition, sea-level rise may result in coastal
areas to lose their ability to continue to support the current number
of shorebirds. Areas with steep topography (Northern California to
Washington State) or seawalls (Southern California) with limited beach
habitat are expected to have the most severe losses (Galbraith et al.
2002, pp. 173-183). Additionally sea-level rise would cause: (1)
Inundation of low-lying areas by high tides; (2) flooding of coastal
areas during major storm events, especially near river mouths; (3)
acceleration of erosion of coastal bluffs; and (4) a shift in beach
profiles, move the position of the mean high water line landward
(Huppert et al. 2009, p. 285).
In our development of this critical habitat designation, we
evaluated numerous climate change models of varying scope and scale.
Due to the wide range of the Pacific Coast WSP (Washington to Mexico)
we selected models which reflected conditions across the range for the
Pacific Coast WSP and those developed or accepted by the Department of
the Interior as a basis for determining the extent of the effects of
climate change on coastal habitat used by the Pacific Coast WSP.
Previous Federal Actions
The Pacific Coast WSP was listed as a threatened species on March
5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). Critical habitat was designated in 1999 (64 FR
68508; December 7, 1999). That rule was remanded and partially vacated
by the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 2, 2003,
in order to conduct a new analysis of economic impacts (Coos County
Board of County
[[Page 36730]]
Commissioners et al. v. Department of the Interior et al., CV 02-6128,
M. Hogan). We published a revised rule designating critical habitat on
September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56970).
A 5-year status review of the population under section 4(c)(2) of
the Act was completed June 8, 2006, based on the analysis conducted for
the section 4(b)(3)(B) status review for a 12-month finding on a
petition to delist the Pacific Coast WSP (71 FR 20607; April 21, 2006).
Because the Pacific Coast WSP was listed prior to our 1996 policy
published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4721)
regarding recognition of distinct population segments, in our 12-month
finding, we reviewed and confirmed our determination that the Pacific
Coast WSP constituted a valid distinct population segment.
On October 2, 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged
our 2005 critical habitat designation (70 FR 56970; September 29, 2005)
(Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, et al., No. C-08-4594
PJH (N.D. California)). This litigation was resolved through
settlement, in which the Service agreed to conduct a rulemaking to
consider potential revisions to the designated critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. On May 11, 2009, the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of California adopted the terms of the settlement
agreement and issued an order requiring the Service to submit a final
revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register by June 5,
2012. This rule complies with that court order.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the 2011 proposed
rule to revise critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP during two
comment periods. The first comment period requesting comments in
association with the publication of the proposed revised rule (76 FR
16046) opened on March 22, 2011, and closed May 23, 2011. Upon the
availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) associated with the
revised proposed critical habitat, a second comment period covering
both the revised proposed rule and the DEA opened on January 17, 2012
(77 FR 2243) and closed on February 16, 2012. During both public
comment periods, we contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposal to revise critical habitat for
this species and the associated DEA. During the comment periods, we
requested that all interested parties submit comments or information
related to the proposed revisions to critical habitat, including (but
not limited to) the following: Unit boundaries; species occurrence
information and distribution; land use designations that may affect
critical habitat; potential economic effects of the revised proposed
designation; benefits associated with critical habitat designation;
areas proposed for designation and associated rationale for the non-
inclusion or considered exclusion of these areas; and methods used to
designate critical habitat.
During the first comment period, we received 149 comment letters
directly addressing the proposed revision of critical habitat, as
follows: 1 from a peer reviewer, 5 from Federal agencies, 1 from a
Native American Tribe, and 142 from public organizations or
individuals. During the second comment period, we received nine
additional comments addressing the revised proposed critical habitat
designation and the DEA. Of these latter comments, none were from
Federal agencies, one was from a State agency, and the remaining eight
were from public organizations or individuals. We did not receive any
additional comments from Native American Tribes during the second
public comment period. We reviewed all comments received for
substantive issues and new information regarding the revised
designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. All
substantive comments are addressed in the following summary and any
changes have been incorporated into this revised final rule as
appropriate.
The open period for requesting public hearings on the revised
proposed rule ran from March 22, 2011, through May 6, 2011 (76 FR
16046). The second open period for requesting public hearings
associated with the January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2243), Federal Register
publication ran from January 17, 2012, through February 16, 2012. We
did not receive any requests for a public hearing during the two open
periods.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species
Act Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited
expert opinions from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific
expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic
region in which it occurs, and conservation biology principles. One
peer reviewer responded and generally supported the revised proposed
designation, and provided additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions that we have incorporated, as appropriate, to improve this
revised final critical habitat rule. Other potential reviewers that
were contacted could not respond due to prior commitments and timing of
the requested review relative to the Pacific Coast WSP field season.
Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer affirmed that the background
information, essentially the biology of the Pacific Coast WSP, was well
represented. Additional information was provided for the distribution
of Pacific Coast WSP in Oregon. The reviewer suggested including sites
in northern Oregon not covered under the State's habitat conservation
plan (HCP), and that the sites should be considered collectively, as
plovers move between them.
Our Response: We appreciate the assessment of the revised proposed
rule by the peer reviewer. We have identified all the areas we consider
to have the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species or other areas we have determined to be
essential for the conservation of the species as based on our criteria
for designating critical habitat. Not all occupied sites were proposed
as critical habitat. Some areas meeting the definition of critical
habitat have been excluded from this revised final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section
for a detailed discussion). Those sites that we consider to have
spatial significance to one another were grouped as subunits of a
larger unit. The northern Oregon sites referenced by the reviewer were
not included because of their relatively limited use by Pacific Coast
WSP at this time and they were determined not to be essential.
The HCP with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) is a
landscape-level conservation planning effort. It was developed with the
assistance of a multi-partner steering committee that reviewed the
recovery plan and objectives, historical plover use, and existing
habitat conditions, and selected the most appropriate locations for
reestablishment of plover nesting habitat. In addition, the HCP went
through extensive public review at both the State and Federal levels,
and incorporated appropriate input from those processes.
(2) Comment: The peer reviewer agreed with the conservation benefit
of
[[Page 36731]]
designating additional habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. Specifically,
the reviewer acknowledged that additional habitat is needed for
connectivity between sites, and noted that the revised proposed rule
leaves a 75-mile (mi) (121-kilometer (km)) gap between units on the
north and south coasts of Oregon.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's critical review.
Connectivity is not the only criterion used to select sites. We refer
readers to our Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section in
the revised proposed rule (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011). Selected sites
must have regional importance, either for breeding or wintering Pacific
Coast WSPs.
There are few additional suitable locations between Oregon's north
and south coasts to designate as critical habitat. Sites were
considered, but not proposed, due to habitat and development conditions
that would adversely impact plovers were they to use the sites.
Seventy-five miles is a relatively small gap in the range given that
current gap between occupied habitat in Oregon and Washington is
greater than 150 miles (241 km).
(3) Comment: The peer reviewer acknowledged the importance of
addressing sea-level rise, but noted uncertainty regarding our ability
to predict how Pacific Coast WSP will respond. In addition, the
reviewer noted that we cannot adequately predict the response of
Pacific Coast WSP prey sources to a rapidly changing beach environment
that is compromised by years of beach stabilization and invasive,
nonnative plants.
Our Response: We agree that the response of Pacific Coast WSPs and
their prey is difficult to predict (refer to Climate Change section
above). Our models for sea-level rise are general in nature as they
must represent the entire range of the Pacific Coast WSP in the United
States. Consequently, site- and regionally-specific models are relevant
when assessing specific effects on species and locations, but for the
purposes of this evaluation, landscape-scale models were used to assist
us in establishing unit boundaries.
There is inherent uncertainty associated with the parameters in the
model; however, assumptions were selected that were generally
conservative to best protect the species. Our assessment of sea-level
rise in the revised proposed rule only addresses habitat, and does not
attempt to address prey response, plover use, and site-specific
shoreline armoring, as these are conditions or parameters that cannot
be adequately represented across the range of the species.
Federal Agency Comments
Bureau of Land Management
(4) Comment: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Arcata,
California, noted that, as proposed, Unit 5 (Subunits A, B, and C) has
expanded to the west, encompassing the intertidal zone. Yet the eastern
boundary remains the same as in prior critical habitat designations.
BLM commented that they understand the rationale for the westward
expansion based on year-to-year changes to the beach environment and
improved mapping, because of expected inundation resulting from sea-
level rise. BLM noted that critical habitat would be better served with
an expansion to the east.
Our Response: Unit 5 primarily depicts mapping changes with
improved information from the 2005 designation. We did not extend the
unit to the east, as there is a dune crest that would separate such an
eastern expansion from the ocean beach. Such a barrier would likely
discourage Pacific Coast WSP use of the area, combined with the paved
road that reaches the length of Humboldt Bay's South Spit. Similarly,
there is a dirt road to the east side of the dune crest in subunit CA
5B that may also discourage Pacific Coast WSP use of any eastern
expansion area there.
Department of the Army (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
(5) Comment: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) challenged
the need for critical habitat designation of the intertidal zone,
stating that Pacific Coast WSPs generally forage on wrack deposited at
the maximum high water mark, and roost well above this line and are not
found along the water's edge.
Our Response: We agree that most foraging by Pacific Coast WSP on
southern California beaches is associated with wrack; however, Pacific
Coast WSP will use the intertidal areas. Use of intertidal areas may be
greater where there is no offshore kelp beds to form well-developed
wrack, such as in northern California, Oregon, and Washington. However,
Pacific Coast WSPs have been documented foraging within the beach
intertidal zone, and gathering food from both above and below the sand
surface (Page et al. 2009; https://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/154/articles/foodhabits).
In areas that do not have well-developed wrack, the intertidal zone
may play a greater importance in plover foraging. Consequently, the
intertidal zone is essential to Pacific Coast WSP's conservation,
thereby meeting the standard for designation as critical habitat when
there is an association with other features and primary constituent
elements.
(6) Comment: The USACE commented that our approach to sea-level
rise should be modified. The highest, high water boundary is
recommended as a starting reference point. In addition, the USACE
stated that the eastern boundary should not be established in areas
that do not currently contain suitable habitat as a means to address
sea-level rise.
Our Response: The purpose of this revised critical habitat
designation is to conserve the Pacific Coast WSP. Establishing a
western boundary is difficult, but the ``water's edge'' is a boundary
that is easily determined on the ground. We agree with the USACE that
the water's edge is difficult to map, and will change with seasonal and
daily tides, storm events, beach configuration, etc. Our maps and the
inclusion of the intertidal zone are an attempt to address the water's
edge issue and include the full range of habitat available to the
Pacific Coast WSP.
We expanded critical habitat to the east from past designations to
help ensure there will be adequate potential for habitat in the future
as sea-level rise occurs. Not all habitat to the east is currently
suitable, however, and we include in this critical habitat designation
only those areas that we consider likely to be suitable with
restoration. Not addressing the eastern expansion and only considering
currently available habitat would limit the conservation value of a
critical habitat designation as ``coastal squeeze'' occurs with a rise
in sea level. Using elevations on the beach and adjusting them as sea-
level rise occurs, as suggested by the USACE, makes it difficult for
land and project managers to determine critical habitat boundaries.
(7) Comment: The USACE questioned the validity of the Pacific Coast
WSP listing as threatened. Specifically, the agency provided an example
of a snowy plover banded in Utah appearing at a coastal Orange County,
California, site.
Our Response: First, we note that the Service action at issue here
does not concern whether or not the Pacific Coast WSP should be listed
under the Act, but whether the Service should revise critical habitat
for the species. Separate from this action, the Service is currently
reviewing the listing status of the Pacific Coast WSP (see 76 FR 30377;
May 25, 2011). For further discussion of listing issues, we direct the
USACE to our 12-month finding on a petition to delist the Pacific Coast
WSP (71 FR 20607; April
[[Page 36732]]
21, 2006), where detailed information on the Pacific Coast WSP distinct
population segment listing is available.
The report cited by the USACE documents a Utah-banded snowy plover
at an Orange County beach during the nonbreeding season (project-
related observation period was from September 27, 2009, to October 29,
2009) (Ryan and Hamilton 2009, unpublished report). Our understanding
is that the snowy plover banding in Utah was done during the end of the
breeding season, on July 22, 2009 (F. Bidstrup, pers. comm. 2012). Few,
if any, snowy plovers are present in Utah during the nonbreeding season
(Paton 1995, p. 277). Interior-nesting snowy plovers are migratory, and
are well documented overwintering along the Pacific Coast (71 FR 20607;
April 21, 2006). Generally, interior-nesting snowy plovers begin to
appear along the Pacific Coast in mid- to late-July. In the 12-month
finding, we cite instances of coastal-breeding snowy plovers nesting at
interior sites, but acknowledge that this type of occurrence is rare
based on banding records (71 FR 20607; April 21, 2006). This
interchange in breeders accounts for the fact that there is little
genetic difference between interior and coastal- breeding snowy plovers
(71 FR 20607; April 21, 2006). Regardless, because the Pacific Coast
WSP is generally a non-migratory population, and because it is
ecologically separated from interior-nesting snowy plovers, it meets
criteria for listing under our distinct population segment policy (71
FR 20607, April 21, 2006; 61 FR 4721, February 7, 1996) and the Act.
(8) Comment: The USACE stated that some of the areas proposed for
designation as critical habitat do not meet the definition of critical
habitat. Either the units are heavily used by recreational users, or
are adjacent to disturbed areas. The commenter provided site-specific
information where they believe designation is inappropriate due to
beach nourishment projects at some units.
Our Response: We have determined based on our criteria for
designating critical habitat that all the areas designated in this rule
are essential either to or for the conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP and meet the definition of critical habitat. However, within each
critical habitat unit there may be some areas that do not contain the
physical or biological features and therefore would not be considered
critical habitat. Due to mapping constraints (e.g., the scale of the
unsuitable areas are too small to be reflected on our maps), we did not
remove these areas from this final revised designation. The analysis of
effects of dredging and beach nourishment on Pacific Coast WSPs and
their habitat is part of the section 7 consultation process under the
Act. Effects to designated critical habitat and non-designated areas
that are affected by the Federal action will be assessed under that
process, as well as other effects to Pacific Coast WSPs.
Disturbance by recreational users and other sources will also be
evaluated through the section 7 process where there is a Federal nexus.
For areas lacking a Federal nexus, the Service will work with beach and
land managers to implement recovery actions that will avoid or offset
adverse effects of disturbance. We consider disturbance to be relative,
as Pacific Coast WSPs respond differently to disturbance between sites.
(9) Comment: The USACE commented that the maps were easier to
follow in the 2005 designation than those in the 2011 revised proposed
rule because the 2005 maps provided more detail relative to land marks,
such as roads.
Our Response: We appreciate this comment, and have made changes to
the maps in this final rule. Specifically, the maps in this revised
final rule have more location detail, such as roads, than we provided
in the 2011 revised proposed rule. In remote areas where roads are
scarce, we added watercourses. We acknowledge that watercourses are
dynamic, and they can change with time, but they do provide some
ability to locate unit boundaries on the ground.
Department of the Navy
(10) Comment: The Department of the Navy (Navy) commented that
portions of two of their installations, Naval Support Area Monterey and
Navy at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, were included in the
revised proposed rule, and requested they be exempted from critical
habitat because both installations have an integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP).
Our Response: An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. A Service-approved INRMP is required to exempt a
facility from critical habitat designation (refer to section of this
rule concerning military exemptions under section 4(a)(3)). In 2001,
the Navy completed the INRMP for Naval Support Area Monterey, which
includes approximately 8 ac (3 ha) in Unit CA 22, Monterey to Moss
Landing. Although the 2001 INRMP was approved by the Service, we
determined that it did not address management actions for western snowy
plovers and therefore does not meet the requirements for exemption from
critical habitat. On March 30, 2012, we received an addendum to the
2001 INRMP; this addendum detailed additional conservation measures the
Navy will implement for the Pacific Coast WSP at Naval Support Area
Monterey. We have reviewed the addendum and have concluded that the
conservation measures identified in the addendum would provide a
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. We approved and
signed this addendum on May 24, 2012. As a result we have exempted the
approximately 8 ac (3 ha) from Unit CA 22 from the designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions section).
The Navy also identified that approximately 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) at
Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, was included in the revised
proposed rule. These lands were inadvertently included as part of Unit
CA 39 in the revised proposed designation due to a mapping error. The
identified 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) of Navy lands within Unit CA 39, Ormond
Beach, have been removed in this revised final designation because they
are unsuitable habitat and not essential to the conservation of the
species.
National Park Service
(11) Comment: The National Park Service noted that critical habitat
units for the Pacific Coast WSP were proposed within several units of
the National Park system, including: Channel Islands National Park;
Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Point Reyes National Seashore;
Redwood National and State Parks; and Lewis and Clark National Historic
Park. The National Park Service supports the proposed revised
designation, and provided general information regarding its management
for Pacific Coast WSP at its facilities.
Our Response: We appreciate the National Park Service's comments.
No response necessary.
U.S. Forest Service
(12) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Siuslaw National
Forest, Oregon, provided information regarding use and boundary
descriptions for Units OR 7, OR 8, and OR 9.
Our Response: Lands covered under the OPRD HCP are excluded in this
revised final rule. We note the USFS's comments; however, all units
have changed with the exception of OR 8A, as a result of the
exclusions. Federal lands remain unaffected by the OPRD
[[Page 36733]]
HCP exclusions, and remain in this final designation.
State Agency Comments
(13) Comment: The OPRD requested that all lands under its HCP be
``exempted'' (meaning ``excluded'') under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
because the OPRD HCP provides adequate management protections, making
designation of critical habitat on those lands covered by the HCP
redundant.
Our Response: Comment noted. In developing this final revised
designation, we have considered OPRD's comments regarding exclusion of
the HCP areas, and have conducted the analysis required under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to consider such exclusions (refer to the Exclusions
section). As a result of our analysis, we have concluded that the
benefits of excluding the lands covered under the OPRD HCP outweigh the
benefits of including those areas as critical habitat and as a result
the Secretary has used his discretion to exclude these areas under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(14) Comment: The California Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR) provided site information throughout California and pointed out
errors in the unit descriptions. CDPR believes some sites proposed for
designation are inappropriate, due to disturbance, proximity to
campgrounds, recreational off-road vehicle use, and presence of
lifeguard facilities.
Regarding Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA), CDPR
acknowledged that the critical habitat designation would have little
effect on day-to-day operations of Oceano Dunes SVRA and would not
affect management activities for the Pacific Coast WSP. However, CDPR
also stated that a critical habitat designation would increase
administrative costs and implied that a critical habitat designation
would require restoration of degraded habitat in Oceano Dunes SVRA.
CDPR stated that designation of the ``riding area'' of Oceano Dunes
SVRA as critical habitat would be inappropriate because the riding area
is degraded, used for recreation, and unoccupied by the western snowy
plover. CDPR requested that the riding and camping areas be excluded
from the critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
because those areas (1) do not contain the physical or biological
features essential for the western snowy plover, and (2) are covered by
a management plan that provides conservation value greater than what
would be provided by a critical habitat designation.
Our Response: The general comments from CDPR on the unit
description errors were noted and incorporated into this revised final
rule.
We agree with CDPR that a critical habitat designation should have
little, if any, effect on day-to-day operations at Oceano Dunes SVRA
and should not affect management activities for the Pacific Coast WSP
unless a future project in Oceano Dunes SVRA would be authorized,
funded, permitted, or carried out by a Federal agency.
We agree that portions of Oceano Dunes SVRA are degraded by
recreation activities; however, habitat degradation does not preclude
us from designating an area as critical habitat if the area contains
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and otherwise meets the definition of critical habitat. Also,
annual surveys by CDPR and other groups have documented the species (in
relatively large numbers) using Oceano Dunes SVRA in both breeding and
wintering seasons. The use of areas for recreational activities does
not preclude the use of the area by the Pacific Coast WSP. For example,
the Silver Strand State Beach area identified as critical habitat (Unit
CA 55B), as well as other high recreational use areas, plays an
important role in Pacific Coast WSP conservation. We have determined
that these areas are essential because they provide adequate space for
high-tide roosting and foraging opportunities, especially during low
human-use periods and during the winter. These areas may provide an
even greater conservation value as habitat conditions shift and
adaptive management strategies are implemented.
The DEA accompanying the proposed critical habitat rule determined
that Oceano Dunes SVRA would incur some increase in administrative cost
as a result of being included in critical habitat. These costs would be
associated with coordination with a Federal agency during consultation
under section 7 of the Act, additional analysis under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or critical habitat analysis in the
Oceano Dunes SVRA HCP. However, the DEA did not identify any
disproportionate costs to the Oceano Dunes SVRA likely to result from a
critical habitat designation.
The recovery plan for the Pacific Coast WSP (Service 2007) states
that, because of the dynamic nature of western snowy plover habitat,
the physical or biological features and specific primary constituent
elements (PCEs) for the species may be seasonally variable or lacking.
Accordingly, one or more PCEs may be absent during certain seasons.
That said, a critical habitat unit is not required to contain all PCEs
to qualify for designation. The implementing regulations for section 4
of the Act (50 CFR 424.12(d)) state that when several habitats, each
satisfying the requirements for designation as critical habitat, are
located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be
designated as critical habitat. Portions of that inclusive area may not
contain any or all PCEs. The Oceano Dunes SVRA is located within unit
CA-31, and contains at least one PCE (open landscapes) year round, and
may seasonally contain two other PCEs (frequency of inundation and
organic debris). We have determined that Oceano Dunes SVRA plays an
important role in conservation of the western snowy plover. That role
may increase due to climate-related changes, including sea-level rise.
We maintain that Oceano Dunes SVRA is essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP.
Lastly, we recognize that the CDPR intensively manages habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP at Oceano Dunes SVRA. We also recognize the
difficult balance between the Oceano Dunes SVRA use-mandate and
conservation of sensitive species. However, justification of exclusion
from critical habitat is not solely based on conservation measures
provided by a management plan but on how the benefits of exclusion from
critical habitat compare to the benefits of inclusion. We recognize
that the CDPR at Oceano Dunes SVRA have been implementing measures to
conserve the Pacific Coast WSP and conditions have improved somewhat
for the Pacific Coast WSP in critical habitat unit CA-31. We value our
current partnership with the CDPR in conserving sensitive species and
their habitats; however, after considering the relevant impacts being
incurred by the Pacific Coast WSP, we did not conclude that the
benefits of excluding Oceano Dunes SVRA lands in unit CA-31 outweigh
the benefits of including those lands as critical habitat. In addition,
as mentioned in the CDPR comment letter, the CDPR is experiencing
severe funding limitations. Consequently, the CDPR may not be able to
guarantee that the Oceano Dunes SVRA management plan will be
implemented in the future. For these reasons, the Secretary is
declining to exercise his discretion to exclude Oceano Dunes SVRA lands
from unit CA-31.
Public Comments
The majority of the public comments we received were form letters
regarding Oceano Dunes SVRA. The 104 form letters did not provide
substantial
[[Page 36734]]
information, and were analogous to a ``vote'' not to designate critical
habitat at Oceano Dunes SVRA. For information on our determination on
critical habitat for the Oceano Dunes SVRA, please see Comment 14
above.
(15) Comment: Several commenters proposed models other than the
ones we used relative to sea-level rise. We also received comments
challenging the likelihood of sea-level rise. Some commenters stated
that sea-level rise could not be attributed to human-caused actions and
that we should not be managing for an impact (i.e., sea-level rise)
that might not occur. Others commenters stated that there is no
``global warming'' occurring, and that the Service is not considering
the best science available.
Our Response: The Service considers climate change the single
greatest conservation challenge of the 21st century, and as a result we
have developed a draft strategic plan to address climate change
(Service 2009, pp. 1-32). We acknowledge climate change is a complex
issue, and there may be some uncertainty over all the causes and
precise manifestations of climate change (see Climate Change section
above). Given these uncertainties, one objective of this revised final
rule is to identify and protect those habitats that we determine will
provide resiliency for Pacific Coast WSP in the face of the effects of
climate change on habitat. We will undoubtedly have to adapt management
approaches as we learn more. We agree that Pacific Coast WPS management
actions should stem the impacts of climate change where opportunities
to do so exist.
We evaluated the models proposed by the commenters, and in some
instances, we acknowledge that these models have more detail, often
resulting from site-specific information. However, that site
specificity could not be incorporated into a model that would assess
the species' habitat rangewide because there is insufficient
corresponding data from all sites across the entire range of the
Pacific Coast WSP (i.e., from Washington to the Mexican border in
California). Other models proposed by commenters used different
parameters than the models we employed, and thus, could not be used
consistently. The models we selected reflected conditions across the
range for the Pacific Coast WSP. Because we anticipated that use of
models would be controversial, we chose to use those developed or
accepted by the Department of the Interior.
We intentionally did not address the cause(s) for sea-level rise in
our revised proposed rule (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011), as it is
subject to debate in many forums outside this critical habitat
designation process. However, there are ample data to support that sea-
level rise is occurring, and it will continue into the future. The
models we used provide perspective on the extent and time at which we
can expect sea-level rise to occur (refer to Climate Change section
above).
(16) Comment: Two commenters questioned the need to list the
Pacific Coast WSP as threatened.
Our Response: As noted above in response to Comment 7, this finding
does not address whether the Pacific Coast WSP should be listed, but
rather concerns whether revisions should be made to critical habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP. See 71 FR 20607 (April 21, 2006) for
information on the listing of the Pacific Coast WSP.
(17) Comment: Three commenters believe that we underestimate the
impacts of predation, and overstate the effects of human-caused
disturbance.
Our Response: Predation is a leading cause of Pacific Coast WSP
adult, chick, and egg mortality; however, the significance of predation
varies by site. With the influx of common ravens to Santa Barbara, San
Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Santa Cruz Counties to coastal habitat since
the late 1990s, predation pressure has increased in some areas.
Predator management, both nonlethal and lethal, has been effective at
many sites. Predator management is generally considered a recovery
action, outside the process for designating critical habitat (Page et
al. 2008, pp. 1-11).
Regarding human disturbance and effects to Pacific Coast WSP, there
is a relationship between human beach use and predation. Disturbance
associated with human beach use can result in Pacific Coast WSPs
flushing from their nest. When this occurs, the birds leave tracks in
the sand, and those foot tracks can lead predators to the nest and
result in egg loss. Also, unmanaged or poorly managed trash associated
with a variety of uses, including recreational use, can also attract
potential predators to beach habitats. Gulls, ravens, and crows are
known Pacific Coast WSP predators and are good examples of species that
are attracted to areas with improper trash management practices.
Outreach and education focusing on these human-associated concerns will
assist in reducing predator interaction with the Pacific Coast WSP.
Pacific Coast WSPs can withstand some disturbance. Their tolerance
to disturbance will vary by site (see our response to Comment 18
below), and may vary by the individual experience of a single bird.
Disturbance can come from both predators and human-caused sources.
(18) Comment: Comments regarding the primary constituent elements
(PCEs) were wide-ranging. Some commenters stated that the ``minimal
disturbance'' element limited the Service's selection of potential
units, while other commenters asserted that several units should not be
designated due to too much disturbance. One commenter suggested that
``minimal disturbance'' is better considered under Special Management
Considerations.
Our Response: We generally consider that there are three
generalized threats, or limiting factors, to conservation and recovery
of the Pacific Coast WSP. Specifically, we consider limiting factors to
conservation to be: (1) Predation; (2) habitat loss and degradation;
and (3) disturbance. These three factors may vary in importance by
site, and their sequence here should not indicate a priority or level
of importance.
For the Pacific Coast WSP, there are natural and human-caused
disturbances that affect the species and its habitat. Pacific Coast
WSPs respond differently to disturbance depending on the type of
disturbance, its frequency, and the timing of the disturbance. By way
of example, breeding Pacific Coast WSPs appear to be more sensitive to
disturbance than wintering plovers. Pacific Coast WSPs are more likely
to flush from, or abandon, a nest during the early incubation stages.
They are less likely to abandon a nest as eggs approach hatching,
presumably because a significant time has been spent incubating and
defending the nest. Human presence at isolated beaches on Vandenberg
Air Force Base, for example, can result in Pacific Coast WSPs flushing
at a greater distance than plovers at Oceano Dunes SVRA, where they are
subject to greater disturbance and have the ability to ``habituate.''
Vandenberg and Oceano Dunes SVRA are only approximately 30 mi (48 km)
apart. Consequently, disturbance is ``relative'' to site conditions.
Minimal disturbance is a PCE because it is a component of a unit's
suitability and should be considered in Pacific Coast WSP conservation,
and therefore, in critical habitat designation. The amount, timing, and
extent of disturbance may be best addressed as a special management
consideration. We considered sites with a range of disturbance, and
each site designated is regionally important.
(19) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service is constraining
critical habitat protection by using criteria not
[[Page 36735]]
consistent with the Act. Specifically, use of criteria other than the
PCEs limits the Service's ability to designate habitat.
Our Response: Stating our selection criteria and methods is
necessary for public disclosure (refer to Methods Used to Designate
Critical Habitat and Physical and Biological Features sections). The
selection criteria relate to how we determine where the PCEs, or
elements of physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the Pacific coast WSP, are on the landscape. Therefore,
our selection criteria define how we determined ``essential areas'' for
designation of critical habitat.
(20) Comment: One commenter suggested that we include habitat
buffers in our designation.
Our Response: The Act does not provide for us to designate buffer
habitat. We are directed by section 4 of the Act to designate only
those specific areas determined to be either essential to or for the
conservation of the species. The areas identified as critical habitat
within units that are not occupied, and may be unsuitable at the
present, still meet the definition of critical habitat as they will
play a role in Pacific Coast WSP conservation as sea-level rise occurs.
These areas are not considered buffers.
(21) Comment: One commenter raised issues with the increase in unit
size on their lands from the 2005 designation. Other landowners that
are within proposed critical habitat units, but have property at some
distance from the water's edge, questioned the need to designate their
properties as critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP.
Our Response: In many instances, the units are wider in this rule
than designated in 2005, because we anticipate sea-level rise and want
to ensure there remains adequate critical habitat following inundation.
It is difficult to determine where the effects of sea-level rise will
be the most significant, because we expect beach morphology or habitat
characteristics to change. Inland expansion of unit boundaries
(generally eastward) beyond those in the 2005 designation are expected
to offset potential adverse effects of sea-level rise.
Our maps and unit descriptions indicate a westward increase in unit
boundaries for this rule in many cases. The inclusion of the intertidal
zone is a function of better mapping and the updated National
Agriculture Imagery (NAIP) used for this rule, as well as our desire to
use the ``water's edge'' as a boundary. The intertidal zone plays an
important role in providing the physical and biological features of
most of the designated units. As a consequence, the intertidal zone is
included in our designation where appropriate. Having the water's edge
as the westward, or ocean-side boundary, gives a clear demarcation of
the unit boundary when actually visiting the site.
Other expansions of unit boundaries beyond those in the 2005
designation occurred as a result of using new information that better
identifies the physical or biological features essential to Pacific
Coast WSP. Thus, the new unit boundaries were drawn using the best
scientific information available to the Service.
(22) Comment: Two commenters believe the Service violated both the
Act and Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adequately detail
the difference in the revised proposed rule over the 2005 designation.
Our Response: In the revised proposed rule, we outlined our methods
and explained differences between the prior September 2005 final rule
and the March 2011 revised proposed rule in the Summary of Changes From
Previously Designated Critical Habitat section (76 FR 16054; March 22,
2011). We changed the methods used to designate critical habitat
because of the need to address sea-level rise and provide conservation
of the species and its habitat based on the 2007 Recovery Plan for the
species. These changes resulted in the proposed revision to designated
critical habitat and the proposed designation of additional areas as
critical habitat, and in some cases, a proposed expansion in the size
of areas designated in 2005.
We also reviewed the areas excluded from the 2005 final critical
habitat designation based upon section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Our March
22, 2011, revised proposal of critical habitat did not include any
proposed exclusions, but we did request public comment as to whether
any specific areas being proposed as revised critical habitat should be
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on comments received
on the 2011 revised proposed rule and our analysis conducted pursuant
to the Act, in this revised final designation we have excluded several
areas (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Exclusions
sections below). Because of these exclusions and other modifications to
various units, as described elsewhere in this rule, the areas included
in this final revised critical habitat designation differ from those
proposed in March 2011. The methodology and process used to calculate
acreage was discussed in the proposed revised rule (and herein), and
there has been no deviation from that process.
(23) Comment: Two commenters believed the Service violated the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Act by failing to provide adequate
notice of the extent of critical habitat. Specifically, commenters
believe the maps provided in the revised proposed rule were inadequate.
Our Response: The critical habitat maps are coarse, compared to
detailed land ownership. However, the Geographical Information System
(GIS) layers for the unit polygons were posted on the Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office Web site, and were available for downloading during the
public comment periods. The availability of the GIS data complies with
both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Act. We notified
landowners, informing them that critical habitat was being proposed for
designation on lands in coastal areas from Washington to southern
California. Because of the scale of the revised proposed designation,
some individual landowners may have been missed, but we made a good
faith effort to reach all those that could be identified at the time of
the proposal. We also were available upon request to go over maps as
needed and were directly contacted by several landowners that sought
clarification of ownership during the open public comment periods.
(24) Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service failed to
adequately explain why retaining all previously designated critical
habitat is essential.
Our Response: By court settlement, the Service agreed to conduct a
rulemaking to consider potential revisions to the 2005 critical habitat
designation. Our Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
sections in the 2011 revised proposed rule explain how we selected
areas essential to and for the conservation of the species. The methods
applied in 2011 were similar to those used in the 2004 proposed rule
and 2005 final rule. Each unit in this designation contains a
description explaining how it meets the Act's definition and our
criteria for designation as critical habitat.
Our revised final designation varies from the 2005 rule. There are
exclusions and exemptions in this revised final rule that were not in
the previous rule (refer to our sections on Summary of Changes from the
Revised Proposed Rule).
(25) Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Service violated
the Act by proposing units that were not occupied at the time of
listing.
Our Response: Critical habitat is defined under section 3 of the
Act as (1) the specific areas within the
[[Page 36736]]
geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it was listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species,
and (b) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (2) the specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species at the time it was listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Some
units are designated based on this second prong; these units, such as
WA 1, were not occupied at the time of listing but have been determined
to be essential for the conservation of the species.
In addition, some units included in this designation may not be
occupied year-round. However, they are essential for conservation
because they constitute important wintering sites where breeding does
not occur, or important breeding sites. Unit CA 9 is an example of a
unit designated for its importance as wintering site.
Unit OR 12 is designated because, although it is unoccupied, it
serves an essential role in conservation by connecting other units and
thus facilitating Pacific Coast WSP movement from site to site
depending on habitat availability, allowing additional foraging or
wintering opportunities. This site is expected to play an important
role as sea-level rise inundates other sites. The site is identified in
the 2007 Recovery Plan as a recovery site.
(26) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service violated the
Information (Data) Quality Act because the revised proposed rule is not
clear regarding the science used to develop the rule.
Our Response: The revised proposed rule, and this final revision to
critical habitat, are in fact clear in describing the science used to
develop the rule. In our Background and Critical Habitat--Methods Used
to Designate Critical Habitat sections, we discuss the types of
information used to develop the designation, as well as the models,
mapping techniques, and other materials used to develop the revised
proposed rule. We selected models and data that could be consistently
used throughout the Pacific Coast WSP's range, and avoided site-
specific models and data that would be more difficult to obtain.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated that the public should be able
to review input from peer reviewers.
Our Response: Peer review is conducted concurrently with the public
comment period. Peer reviewers are provided the same information as the
public; however, because of their experience with the species or
similar species, they are asked to provide a detailed review.
Typically, their response is provided by the closing date of the public
comment period; therefore, there is no opportunity for the public to
comment on peer-review input. Peer-reviewer input has been summarized
in this rule, but the full text is available upon request at the Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
(28) Comment: Some commenters provided Pacific Coast WSP use
information for sites that were not proposed for designation.
Specifically, sites in Oregon and the Monterey Bay region of California
were referenced. Commenters felt that the Service did not fully
consider all sites, stating that the omitted sites provide connectivity
and thus value to critical habitat.
Our Response: We proposed sites that have regional and rangewide
importance. Many sites in northern California have comparatively little
Pacific Coast WSP use relative to sites both to the north and to the
south. However, we are designating those sites because of the large gap
in breeding and wintering Pacific Coast WSPs from southern Sonoma
County, California, to New River in Oregon. The fluctuation in the
breeding population and the connectivity value of the sites within a
large gap in the Pacific Coast WSP's range justifies their inclusion in
designation.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. 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 needed
for recovery of the species.
(29) Comment: A commenter in Washington expressed concern that
beach nourishment at Shoalwater Bay by the USACE would impact
designated critical habitat. Additional, detailed information was
provided by another commenter during the second comment period for the
same unit, related to the USACE's beach nourishment project.
Our Response: These comments raise issues related to section 7 of
the Act, which requires that Federal agencies ensure that their actions
do not jeopardize species or adversely modify or destroy designated
critical habitat. If the USACE engages in beach nourishment projects at
Shoalwater Bay, such actions may require consultation with the Service
to determine the project's effects on Pacific Coast WSP and on
designated critical habitat (refer to Effects of Critical Habitat
Designation--Section 7 Consultation).
(30) Comment: Private landowners from all three States raised
concerns that designation of critical habitat on their property would
prevent use of their land and adjacent land. Several believe the
designation would increase regulation and curtail development and
enjoyment. Some municipalities expressed similar concerns.
Our Response: A critical habitat designation may result in
limitations to land use only in association with land use or management
practices that require a Federal permit, Federal funding, or
discretionary action by a Federal agency (i.e., a Federal nexus). If a
project requires such Federal involvement, then the action and its
effects to the Pacific Coast WSP and its designated critical habitat
would be evaluated under section 7 of the Act (refer to Effects of
Critical Habitat Designation--Section 7 Consultation). Actions that do
not have a Federal nexus may continue, provided there is no take of
Pacific Coast WSPs. If take of Pacific Coast WSPs is anticipated, an
individual may seek an incidental take permit from the Service for the
Pacific Coast WSP on the lands where the action is to occur. The
designation of critical habitat does not affect a non-Federal action.
(31) Comment: Two commenters reported on the importance of certain
sites in Sonoma County, California, specifically Salmon Creek Beach and
Doran Spit.
Our Response: We agree that the Salmon Creek Beach and Doran Spit
sites are important to Pacific Coast WSP conservation. However, their
overall importance relative to other sites within Recovery Unit 4
(refer to the Recovery Plan; Service 2007) is not as great. Breeding is
variable at both Salmon Creek Beach and Doran Spit, as well as at more
northern sites (e.g., CA 8, Manchester Beach). Monitoring of the sites
will continue, and the Service will work with beach managers to
implement appropriate recovery actions that will further conservation
of the Pacific Coast WSP at these sites.
(32) Comment: Four commenters questioned why critical habitat was
not proposed for Ocean Beach, Pacifica State Beach, and Gazos Creek in
San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Commenters also expressed the
importance of Laguna Creek State Beach and Seabright State Beach,
noting their collective importance.
Our Response: We agree that these sites are important to Pacific
Coast WSP
[[Page 36737]]
conservation. However, the potential of these sites as breeding areas
is lower than that of the sites we designated for breeding (see the
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below) (Service
2007, pp. B9-B12; Service 2011, p. 16053). Similarly the numbers of
wintering birds supported by the suggested sites is lower than that of
the sites we designated for wintering alone, and wintering needs are
also met by many of the sites designated for breeding. The suggested
areas also do not strongly advance the goals of increasing diverse
habitat, maintaining connectivity, or utilizing restored areas for
plover conservation. However, monitoring of the suggested sites will
continue, and we will work with beach managers to implement appropriate
recovery actions that will further conservation of the Pacific Coast
WSP at these sites.
(33) Comment: One commenter ``petitioned'' for exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for both Oceano Dunes SVRA, and a 4-ac (2-
ha) area near Sand City, California.
Our Response: Although there is no 4(b)(2) petition process for
exclusions of areas from designation of critical habitat, we have
considered the comment in terms of whether Oceano Dunes SVRA and Sand
City sites should be excluded from this designation. The commenter
cited economic considerations in support of exclusion; these were
addressed in the final economic analysis (FEA) for the revised proposed
rule (refer to the Exclusions section below). The FEA did not identify
any disproportionate costs associated with designation of critical
habitat at either Oceano Dunes SVRA or the Sand City sites (refer to
our response to Comment 14 above, and to ``Exclusions based on Economic
Impacts'' below), and consequently, these sites were not considered for
economic exclusions. Moreover, in order for lands to be excluded under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the benefits of excluding the area must
outweigh the benefits of including those lands as critical habitat. In
this case, the benefits of excluding the ``petitioned'' lands do not
outweigh the benefits of including those lands (for instance section 7
and 10 obligations under the Act; increased public awareness of Pacific
Coast WSP habitat, and potential indirect oversite by State and local
governments) in this final revised designation.
(34) Comment: Three commenters requested exclusions or partial
exclusions to Units CA 38, CA 39, and CA 41 because they believe those
areas do not contain the PCEs due to disturbance.
Our Response: Refer to our response to Comment 8 above. Our
response to Comment 17 also addresses disturbance.
Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis
Comments on Development
(35) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the
designation of critical habitat within the Sand City coastal zone in
Unit CA 22 will create regulatory uncertainty with associated costs for
future development projects in the area. Additionally, the California
Coastal Commission (CCC) may view the designation of critical habitat
as ``overriding'' the previously approved Sand City local coastal plan
(LCP), which allows for the development of two coastal resorts. If
these projects do not move forward, jobs and tax revenue that would
have been generated by the developments would be lost.
Our Response: As stated in section 4.2.2 of the FEA, we acknowledge
that incremental indirect impacts resulting from future litigation or
increased scrutiny from State agencies may include denial of
development permits for the Sterling-McDonald and Security National
Guaranty (SNG) sites in Sand City, Unit CA 22. Due to uncertainty
surrounding the likelihood and extent of such indirect impacts, we are
unable to quantify any potential impacts. Specifically, such a
calculation requires information about both the probability that
current development plans will be affected and the magnitude of
impacts, neither of which can be determined at this time, nor directly
attributed to the critical habitat designation. The commenter provides
estimates of total revenues anticipated to be generated by these
projects; however, assuming total loss of these revenues implies that
such an impact will occur with 100 percent certainty. It is possible,
based on recent litigation concerning the site and limits to the CCC's
authority to amend the previously approved local coastal program,
development will move forward as planned and not be affected by the
designation. Therefore, this analysis does not attempt to quantify
these impacts, but notes that such impacts are possible and, if they
occur, would be an incremental result of critical habitat designation.
(36) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the SNG
development site in Sand City, CA (Unit CA 22), is vulnerable to
indirect incremental impacts of the designation. The commenter stated
that if critical habitat were designated in this previously excluded
area, the development project would be subject to further
administrative burden related to review by the CCC. The commenter
expressed concern that critical habitat may be used by the CCC or other
agencies as a further reason to deny a coastal development permit or
other approval, resulting in increased litigation and associated costs.
Our Response: The DEA and FEA acknowledge the potential for
increased indirect impacts to SNG due to the designation of critical
habitat. The FEA notes that such indirect impacts are possible, and if
they occur, may be an incremental result of critical habitat
designation. However, as explained in section 4.2.2 of the FEA, we do
not quantify these impacts due to considerable uncertainty surrounding
the probability that the development permits will be denied or that the
development will face legal action due to the designation of critical
habitat. To this point, the commenter provides documentation suggesting
that denial of a permit by CCC could be illegal in light of recent
court decisions. An assumption that development will not proceed at the
site as planned is thus highly speculative.
(37) Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the meaning
of the phrase ``land's option value for development,'' as used in
section 4.2.2, paragraph 148, and in Exhibits ES-4 and 4-4, of the DEA.
Our Response: The FEA incorporates clarifying language in section
4.2.2. ``Option value'' refers to the fact that land values incorporate
an expectation of residential or commercial development, in terms of
likelihood and timing, and the associated returns to the landowner.
(38) Comment: In the context of the indirect impacts to SNG
development, a commenter stated that it is not helpful or meaningful to
characterize economic impacts as indirect because the term may suggest
that indirect impacts are of lesser magnitude than direct impacts.
Our Response: As described in section 2.4.2 of the FEA, the
designation of critical habitat may, under certain circumstances,
affect actions that do not have a Federal nexus and thus are not
subject to the provisions of section 7 under the Act. Indirect
incremental impacts are those unintended changes in behavior that may
occur outside of the Act, through other Federal, State, or local
actions, and that may be caused by the designation of critical habitat.
The FEA does not intend to diminish the magnitude of such impacts by
calling them indirect. The FEA may not quantify indirect impacts in
some instances due to the considerable
[[Page 36738]]
uncertainty surrounding their likelihood and magnitude.
(39) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service utilize the
estimate of economic impacts for Unit CA 22 contained in the 2005
economic analysis when making a decision to exclude units from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Our Response: The 2005 economic analysis was developed under a co-
extensive framework, which considered and quantified both baseline
costs, as well as incremental impacts of the designation. As described
in sections 2.1 and 2.2 (as well as in Exhibit 2-1), the 2011 DEA
distinguishes the incremental costs of designation from baseline costs,
whereas the 2005 economic analysis evaluated all Pacific Coast WSP
(baseline and incremental) conservation costs collectively. That is,
the impacts estimated in the 2005 Economic Analysis captured costs of
Pacific Coast WSP conservation regardless of whether they resulted
specifically from critical habitat designation or from other Federal,
State, or local regulations. The 2011 DEA instead characterizes all
potential future Pacific Coast WSP conservation as either baseline
(expected to occur even without the designation of critical habitat) or
incremental (expected to occur only if critical habitat is designated).
The FEA qualitatively discusses baseline Pacific Coast WSP conservation
and quantifies the incremental impacts.
The identification and estimation of incremental impacts is
consistent with direction provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies for the estimation of the costs and
benefits of Federal regulations (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). It is
also consistent with several recent court decisions, including Cape
Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C.); Center for Biological Diversity
v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal.
2006); Home Builders Association of Northern California v. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
denied, 179 L. Ed 2d 301, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1392, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475
(2011); and Arizona Cattle Growers v. Salazar, 606 F. 3d 1160 (9th Cir.
2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1362, 79
U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011). These decisions found that estimation of
incremental impacts stemming solely from the designation is proper.
(40) Comment: One commenter asserted that additional administrative
burden and project modifications are necessary under the Act for a
USACE beach nourishment project in subunit WA 3B due to the Pacific
Coast WSP's recent colonization of subunit WA 3B.
Our Response: The FEA includes the estimated administrative cost of
section 7 consultation related to this beach nourishment project in
subunit WA 3B. As described in section 4.2.5 of the FEA, due to the
designation of critical habitat, this project's previous informal
consultation will need to be reinitiated in 2012, to consider the
adverse modification standard. This project is short-term and occurs in
a critical habitat unit occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP, but could
have permanent impacts on critical habitat. The analysis assumes that
no project modifications would be necessary to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat in addition to what has already been
proposed to reduce impacts to the Pacific Coast WSP. However, until the
section 7 analysis is complete, it remains unknown if an adverse
modification determination will be the resultant outcome.
(41) Comment: Although the revised critical habitat does not
overlap any areas currently used for recreation in subunit CA 55B
(Coronado Beach), a commenter expressed concern that the designation of
critical habitat could impact future recreation activities in the
subunit. These activities included lifeguarding activities, beach
access, and construction of a bike path and pedestrian trail. The
commenter also expressed concern that a popular dog beach north of the
critical habitat designation in subunit CA 55B could be affected by
critical habitat.
Our Response: If there is a Federal nexus, the future construction
of a bike path and pedestrian trail could result in section 7
consultation with the Service if the project may affect Pacific Coast
WSPs or designated critical habitat. Costs associated with this
consultation have been added to section 4.2.1 of the FEA; however,
these costs would be incurred only if activities are subject to a
Federal nexus. Because subunit CA 55B is considered occupied by the
Pacific Coast WSP and these projects are considered long-term
activities, the incremental impacts associated with these projects are
limited to the administrative cost of addressing the adverse
modification standard during consultation.
The lifeguard facilities and activities are not part of a Federal
action, and therefore, would not involve an adverse modification
analysis for critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. As the dog
beach to the north of subunit CA 55B is not part of this designation as
critical habitat, the FEA does not consider impacts to activities
occurring at this beach.
Comments on Recreation
(42) Comment: A commenter stated that if the open riding and
camping area of Oceano Dunes SVRA was to be restored to support the
PCEs identified in the revised proposed critical habitat rule, there
would be substantial adverse economic impacts. The commenter asserted
that restoration of PCEs in this area would require eliminating camping
and off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding opportunities in 563 ac (228 ha),
or approximately one third of the area currently open to riding.
Our Response: Activities at Oceano Dunes SVRA are not currently
subject to a Federal nexus. Because critical habitat only applies to
activities implemented by a Federal agency or that require Federal
authorization or funding, we do not expect the operations of the park
to change due to critical habitat designation. As noted in section
4.2.1 of the FEA and Exhibits ES-4 and 4-4, indirect impacts to Oceano
Dunes SVRA are possible, but the analysis does not quantify the impacts
due to considerable uncertainty surrounding the probability that the
CCC will alter its current permit or Oceano Dunes SVRA will face legal
action due to the designation of critical habitat. The FEA notes,
however, that such impacts are possible, and if they were to occur,
they would be considered incremental results of the designation.
(43) Comment: One commenter asserted that the revised proposed
critical habitat rule fails to consider the economic impacts of this
rule on operations and recreational opportunities in Oceano Dunes SVRA.
The commenter expressed concerns that the revised critical habitat
designation could result in significant delays to crucial visitor-
service efforts or resource management efforts, including the placement
of new restrooms, restoration of sensitive vegetation islands, and
regular maintenance of perimeter fence to prevent trespass of vehicles
into closed areas or adjacent private property. The commenter asserted
that the additional time necessary to undertake section 7 consultation
could jeopardize projects, jeopardize project funding, and result in
significant loss of recreational opportunities in Oceano Dunes SVRA.
Loss of recreational opportunities would, in turn, result in
significant loss of income for local businesses and the local economy.
Two commenters submitted an economic analysis prepared for the
California
[[Page 36739]]
Department of Parks and Recreation, Off Highway Motor Vehicle
Recreation Division, estimating the overall economic contribution of
Oceano Dunes SVRA to be $171 million annually.
Our Response: Our analysis notes in section 4.2.1 of the FEA and in
Exhibits ES-4 and 4-4 that reducing or eliminating the area available
for riding at Oceano Dunes SVRA would result in welfare losses and
regional economic impacts. Beach users would incur social welfare
losses due to forgone trips or a diminished beach experience (for
example, due to crowding). In addition, regional economic impacts arise
due to reductions in beach recreation-related expenditures caused by
fewer recreation-related trips. The regional economic impacts that
could result from reducing or eliminating the riding area would
represent some portion of the $171 million annual economic impact of
Oceano Dunes SVRA estimated by the commenter.
However, activities on Oceano Dunes SVRA are not currently subject
to a Federal nexus. Therefore, the Service does not expect the
operations of the park to change due to critical habitat designation,
nor does it expect administrative impacts (or delays) associated with
undertaking section 7 consultation. As we note in section 4.2.1 of the
FEA and in Exhibits ES-4 and 4-4, indirect impacts to Oceano Dunes SVRA
are possible, but the analysis does not quantify the impacts due to
considerable uncertainty surrounding the probability that the CCC will
alter its current permit or that Oceano Dunes SVRA will face legal
action due to the designation of critical habitat. In addition, the
area within Oceano Dunes SVRA within Unit CA 31 is occupied by both
breeding and wintering Pacific Coast WSP, and as a result any project
modifications that may take place would be a result of having to avoid
take of the species and not because of the designation of critical
habitat and would be considered baseline impacts of the designation.
(44) Comment: A commenter expressed concern that the designation of
critical habitat could impact beach management activities, tourism,
and, in turn, tax revenues in the City of Santa Barbara.
Our Response: Section 4.2.2 of the FEA describes expected economic
impacts related to dredging and beach nourishment projects in Unit CA
35, Santa Barbara Beaches. This section acknowledges the potential for
administrative impacts to semi-annual beach management activities
caused by the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP. Beach nourishment projects in this unit are not likely to incur
incremental project modifications, as they are short-term and temporary
in nature. As Unit CA 35 is occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP, any
project modifications proposed in this unit would be due to the
presence of the Pacific Coast WSP and are considered baseline impacts
of the designation. Therefore, the designation of critical habitat is
not expected to impact beach access, tourism, or tax revenues in the
City of Santa Barbara.
(45) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the designation
of critical habitat on Los Angeles County beaches (CA 43, CA 44, CA
45A-D) could impact future recreational activities and daily
maintenance operations, such as beach raking and sanitizing sandy
beaches, collecting trash, cleaning restroom facilities, and
maintaining volleyball courts.
Our Response: Unless such recreational and maintenance activities
are subject to a Federal nexus, as defined under the section titled
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation, we do not expect these
activities to be affected by designation of critical habitat on Los
Angeles County beaches.
Comments on Habitat Management
(46) Comment: One commenter asserted that inclusion of proposed
units OR 1, OR 2, OR 3, OR 5, and OR 11 generates additional stress on
the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) when applying for
Federal grants to execute habitat management projects for the plover by
creating a Federal nexus where one did not previously exist. The
commenter asserted that this Federal nexus needlessly belabors efforts
to improve habitat for the plover and forces OPRD and the Service to
expend additional staff time addressing items that have already been
accounted for in the habitat conservation plan (HCP) process.
Our Response: As stated in the footnote to Exhibit 3-2 of the FEA,
and as delineated in Table 3 below, Units OR 1, OR 2, OR 3, OR 4, OR 5,
OR 6, OR 12, and OR 13 are considered unoccupied and consultation with
the Service would not occur absent critical habitat designation. Unit
OR 11 is considered occupied by the Service and therefore, if a Federal
nexus exists, consultation may be necessary to address project impacts
to the species as well as critical habitat. In the unoccupied units,
costs of addressing critical habitat effects during consultation and
all administrative costs of consultation are considered incremental
impacts of the designation, regardless of activity duration or the
permanency of habitat impacts. Following this methodology, the FEA
forecasts costs in Units OR 1 and OR 3 associated with future jetty
repair as incremental impacts of the designation. For Units OR 2 and OR
5, we do not foresee projects in these areas, and no specific planned
or ongoing projects were identified by the commenter. Therefore, the
FEA does not quantify additional impacts related to future OPRD habitat
management projects.
Note that most areas covered by OPRD's HCP have been excluded from
the revised final critical habitat designation. Consequently, Federal
grants obtained by the State and other entities to conduct habitat
restoration or other actions in the excluded areas will not require a
section 7 critical habitat analysis, unless those activities are to
occur in areas not specifically excluded (i.e., within designated
critical habitat).
(47) Comment: One commenter stated that proposed units CA 55E and
CA 55G are managed under the San Diego Bay INRMP, a joint INRMP between
the U.S. Navy Southwest Division and the San Diego Unified Port
District (Port of San Diego), prepared in the year 2000. The commenter
requested that these lands be exempted from critical habitat, similar
to the exemption of military lands in the proposed rule.
Our Response: As described under the section titled Exemptions, 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. As a result to a 2004 amendment to the Act, section 4(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.'' The Department of
Defense (DOD) lands we identified as essential for the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP within San Diego Bay have been exempted under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. There are two INRMPs covering Navy land
in south San Diego County (2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP and 2000 San
Diego Bay INRMP). All exemptions of Navy lands, including those within
San Diego Bay, were based
[[Page 36740]]
on the 2002 Naval Base Coronado INRMP (see Exemptions section). The
Port of San Diego owns non-DOD lands that are managed using the 2000
San Diego Bay INRMP. Because we have a well-established partnership
with the Port of San Diego for Pacific Coast WSP conservation, in this
final rule we have excluded, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
critical habitat within the plan area that is managed by the Port of
San Diego (Subunits CA 55E and CA 55G) (see Exclusions section).
Summary of the 2005 Rule
On September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56970), we designated approximately
12,150 ac (4,922 ha) as critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. We
included 32 units within Washington, Oregon, and California. The unit
breakdown by State is as follows: Washington, 3 units (2,526 ac (1,023
ha)); Oregon, 5 units (2,147 ac (869 ha)); and California, 24 units
(7,477 ac (3,026 ha)). During our comparison of the 2005 final critical
habitat designation and this revised final designation, we discovered
that the acreage totals for some units or areas were in error. The
totals for areas for the 2005 rule identified within this rule are the
correct totals.
Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule
On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), we proposed to designate 28,261 ac
(11,436 ha) of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP in 68 units.
On January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2243), we reopened the comment period and
made changes to our March 22, 2011, revised proposed rule.
Specifically, we announced the availability of the draft economic
analysis on our March 22, 2011, revised proposed critical habitat rule
(76 FR 16046); identified the taxonomic and nomenclature change for the
Pacific Coast WSP; proposed to exempt Vandenberg Air Force Base under
provisions in section 4(a)(3) of the Act due to their newly approved
INRMP; and proposed changes to Unit CA 46: Bolsa Chica State Beach and
Bolsa Chica Reserve. The most significant changes between the March 22,
2011, and January 17, 2012, revised proposed rule and this revised
final rule are outlined in Table 2 below and include:
(1) In the document announcing the availability of the DEA (77 FR
2243; January 17, 2012), we stated we were considering exempting the
Department of Defense (DOD) lands at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB)
within Units CA 32 and CA 33 from the designation of critical habitat
based on the April 14, 2011, approved INRMP, which contains
conservation measures that protect the Pacific Coast WSP. We have
determined that the actions being implemented through the Vandenberg
AFB INRMP provide a benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP, and therefore, we
are exempting approximately 1,135 ac (459 ha) of DOD land in Units CA
32 and CA 33 under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. For a complete
discussion of exemptions under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, see
Exemptions section below.
(2) During the public comment period on the proposed rule, we
received information from the Navy that approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of
DOD lands were included in the revised proposed critical habitat within
Unit CA 22 in Monterey County, California. The Navy submitted an
amended INRMP for these lands. We have reviewed the amended INRMP and
have determined that it provides conservation benefits for the Pacific
Coast WSP and its habitat. We have exempted the 8 ac (3 ha) of DOD
lands from the designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, see
Exemptions section below.
(3) We finalized our exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. Approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of habitat are excluded from
the revised final critical habitat designation based on this analysis.
This represents approximately 16 percent of the habitat that was
proposed. See the Exclusions section, below, for more information.
Approximately 425 ac (172 ha) of tribal lands are excluded from subunit
WA 3B, including all land under the jurisdiction of the Shoalwater Bay
Tribe. Another 3,309 ac (1,339 ha) of critical habitat is being
excluded under the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Habitat
Conservation Plan, City of San Diego Subarea Plan (under the Multi-
Species Conservation Plan) and the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
(under the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan). An additional 63
ac (25 ha) of Port of San Diego managed lands within subunits CA 55E
and CA 55G are being excluded based on a management plan for the
Pacific Coast WSP and our partnership with the Port. We determined that
excluding these lands would not result in extinction of the Pacific
Coast WSP, and that the benefits of excluding these lands outweigh the
benefits of including them. Consequently, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion to exclude approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of land in
Washington, Oregon, and California under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
For a complete discussion of exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, see Exclusions section below.
(4) Based on comments received by the USACE and the public, we
revised Unit CA 46, Bolsa Chica State Beach (subunit CA 46A), and Bolsa
Chica Reserve (subunits 46E and 46F). The Unit was revised to include
approximately 471 ac (191 ha), a net decrease of approximately 34 ac
(14 ha) from the proposal. As described in our January 17, 2012,
Federal Register notice, the new areas identified better reflect lands
essential to the Pacific Coast WSP (77 FR 2243).
(5) We received information from the Willapa National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) during development of this final rule regarding habitat
suitability to the Pacific Coast WSP at the refuge, and the extent of
Federal jurisdiction. As a result, we modified the unit boundaries for
WA 4A, Leadbetter Spit. In the March 2011 proposed rule, WA 4A was
identified as having 2,463 ac (997 ha) of habitat meeting criteria for
designation as critical habitat (76 FR 16046). Federal jurisdiction
goes to ordinary high tide line. The acreage estimate under the
proposed rule was incorrect, and the revised unit is approximately 125
ac (50 ha) smaller. In addition, the proposed rule did not account for
acreage that was unlabeled in the parcel data, similar to the situation
described in point (6) below (see Table 1). Within Subunit WA 4A,
approximately 1,713 ac (693 ha) are managed by Washington State and 987
ac (399 ha) are on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Federal).
Similarly, Shoalwater Bay Tribe Reservation lands included in Unit
WA 3B, Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, were miscalculated in the revised
proposed rule (76 FR 16046). Tribal lands have been recalculated to be
425 ac (172 ha) in this revised final rule, all of which are excluded
from designation under 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section).
(6) During finalization of our critical habitat designation, we
discovered inconsistencies in the calculation of some of the acreages
for proposed units. The inconsistencies resulted from calculations
based on parcel data (i.e. ownership data), which do not contain the
intertidal zone and other lands managed by the California State Lands
Commission (and the similar agency for Washington). Consequently, those
acres were not included in the unit acreage totals in the proposed
revised rule. Table 1 lists the affected units.
Maps in the proposed revised rule for the affected units in Table 1
accurately depict the intended unit boundaries, including the unlabeled
lands managed by the California State Lands Commission and the State of
Washington (76 FR 16046). In addition, our methods discussion in this
final revision reflects our decision to use the
[[Page 36741]]
water's edge as the westward or ocean-side unit boundary (refer to our
Methods Used to Designate Critical Habitat section, and our response to
Comment 4 in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section). This
revised final designation includes the intertidal zone and other lands
managed by state land commission agencies. Therefore, adequate notice
has been provided regarding our intent to designate critical habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP to the water's edge.
(7) There were several discrepancies between text and tables in the
2005 final critical habitat rule for the Pacific Coast WSP (70 FR
56970). The information provided in this revised final rule is compared
to the tables in the 2005 revised rule (see Table 2 below in this rule
for comparison). Rounding error remains an issue, and may result in a
difference in acreages between tables in this revised final designation
and previous rules. However, these differences in acreages are small,
and the data provided within this rule remain representative of our
designation. Legal descriptions and GIS data layers are available at
https://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/plover.html, or upon request to
the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT above).
Table 1--Units With Discrepancies From Parcel Data and Unit Boundary.
The Difference in Acreage (Hectares) Is Reflected in Lands Under the
Jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total unit area
Unit name Proposed acres ac recalculated ac
(ha) (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit............. 2,463 (997) 2,700 (1,093)
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach............ 144 (58) 233 (94)
CA 3A Stone Lagoon................ 52 (21) 55 (22)
CA 3B Big Lagoon.................. 212 (86) 268 (108)
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River..... 194 (79) 337 (136)
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit..... 419 (170) 572 (231)
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and 259 (105) 464 (188)
Beach............................
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars........ 1,139 (461) 1,349 (546)
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach........... 1,176 (476) 1,218 (493)
CA 8 Manchester Beach............. 482 (195) 505 (204)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
Table 2--Changes Between the September 29, 2005, Pacific Coast WSP Revised Critical Habitat Designation; the
March 22, 2011, and the January 17, 2012, Revised Proposed Designation; and This Revised Final Designation
[Acreage values are approximate and may not total due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Designation of 2011 and 2012 Revised 2012 Revised final
revised critical habitat proposed revisions to critical habitat
Critical habitat unit in this in AC/HA the critical habitat designation in AC/HA
revised final rule -------------------------- designation in AC/HA -------------------------
--------------------------
AC HA AC HA AC HA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington:
WA 1 Copalis Spit............. ........... ........... 407 165 407 165
WA 2 Damon Point.............. 908 368 673 272 673 272
WA 3A Midway Beach............ 786 318 697 282 697 282
WA 3B Shoalwater/Graveyard ........... ........... 1121 454 696 282
Spit.........................
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit......... 832 337 2463 997 2700 1093
WA 4B Gunpowder Sands Island.. ........... ........... 904 366 904 366
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Totals......... 2526 1022 6265 2535 6077 2459
-------------------------
Oregon:
OR 1 Columbia River Spit...... ........... ........... 169 68 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
OR 2 Necanicum River Spit..... ........... ........... 211 85 11 4
-------------------------
OR 3 Nehalem River Spit....... ........... ........... 299 121 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
OR 4 Bayocean Spit............ 207 84 367 149 201 82
-------------------------
OR 5 Netarts Spit............. ........... ........... 541 219 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
OR 6 Sand Lake South.......... ........... ........... 200 81 5 2
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches..... 260 105 372 151 276 112
OR 8A Siltcoos Breach......... 8 3 15 6 15 6
OR 8B Siltcoos River Spit..... 527 213 241 97 116 47
OR 8C Dunes Overlook/ ........... ........... 716 290 383 155
Tahkenitch Creek Spit........
OR 8D North Umpqua River Spit. ........... ........... 236 95 59 24
OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit....... 235 95 244 99 223 90
OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit..... 278 113 308 125 273 111
[[Page 36742]]
OR 11 Bandon to New River..... 632 256 1016 411 541 219
-------------------------
OR 12 Elk River Spit.......... ........... ........... 167 68 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
OR 13 Euchre Creek Spit....... ........... ........... 116 47 9 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Totals............. 2147 869 5218 2112 2112 855
California:
CA 1 Lake Earl................ 57 24 74 30 74 30
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach........ ........... ........... 144 58 233 94
CA 3A Stone Lagoon............ ........... ........... 52 21 55 22
CA 3B Big Lagoon.............. 280 113 212 86 268 108
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River. 155 63 194 79 337 136
CA 4B Mad River Beach......... 377 153 456 185 452 183
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit. 375 152 419 170 572 231
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and 283 114 259 105 464 188
Beach........................
CA 5C Eel River South Spit and 402 163 339 137 336 136
Beach........................
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars.... 1193 483 1139 461 1349 546
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach....... 1048 424 1176 476 1218 493
CA 8 Manchester Beach......... 341 138 482 195 505 204
CA 9 Dillon Beach............. ........... ........... 39 16 39 16
CA 10A Point Reyes............ 462 187 460 186 460 186
CA 10B Limantour.............. 124 50 156 63 156 63
CA 11 Napa-Sonoma............. ........... ........... 618 250 618 250
CA 12 Hayward................. ........... ........... 1 0 1 0
CA 13A Eden Landing........... ........... ........... 237 96 237 96
CA 13B Eden Landing........... ........... ........... 171 69 171 69
CA 13C Eden Landing........... ........... ........... 609 246 609 246
CA 14 Ravenswood.............. ........... ........... 89 36 89 36
CA 15 Warm Springs............ ........... ........... 168 68 168 68
CA 16 Half Moon Bay........... 37 15 36 15 36 15
CA 17 Waddell Creek Beach..... 9 4 25 10 25 10
CA 18 Scott Creek Beach....... 19 8 23 9 23 9
CA 19 Wilder Creek Beach...... 10 4 15 6 15 6
CA 20 Jetty Road to Aptos..... ........... ........... 399 161 399 161
CA 21 Elkhorn Slough Mudflats. 281 114 281 114 281 114
CA 22 Monterey to Moss Landing ........... ........... 967 391 959 388
-------------------------
........... ........... ........... ........... 8 ac (3 ha) exempt under
4(a)(3).
-------------------------
CA 23 Point Sur Beach......... 61 25 72 29 72 29
CA 24 San Carpoforo Creek..... ........... ........... 24 10 24 10
CA 25 Arroyo Laguna Creek..... ........... ........... 28 11 28 11
CA 26 San Simeon State Beach.. 28 11 24 10 24 10
CA 27 Villa Creek Beach....... 17 7 20 8 20 8
CA 28 Toro Creek.............. ........... ........... 34 14 34 14
CA 29 Atascadero Beach/Morro ........... ........... 213 86 213 86
Strand State Beach...........
CA 30 Morro Bay Beach......... ........... ........... 1076 435 1076 435
CA 31 Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes ........... ........... 1652 669 1652 669
-------------------------
CA 32 Vandenberg North........ ........... ........... 711 288 Exempt under 4(a)(3).
-------------------------
CA 33 Vandenberg South........ ........... ........... 424 172 Exempt under 4(a)(3).
-------------------------
CA 34 Devereaux Beach......... 36 15 52 21 52 21
CA 35 Santa Barbara Beaches... ........... ........... 65 26 65 26
CA 36 Santa Rosa Island ........... ........... 586 237 586 237
Beaches......................
CA 37 San Buenaventura Beach.. ........... ........... 70 28 70 28
CA 38 Mandalay Beach to Santa 350 142 672 272 672 272
Clara River..................
CA 39 Ormond Beach............ 175 71 320 130 320 130
---------------------------------------------------
CA 40, CA 41 Mugu Lagoon...... 87 35 Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36743]]
CA 42 San Nicolas Island...... ........... ........... Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------
CA 43 Zuma Beach.............. 68 28 73 30 73 30
CA 44 Malibu Beach............ ........... ........... 13 5 13 5
CA 45A Santa Monica Beach..... 25 10 48 19 48 19
CA 45B Dockweiler North....... 43 17 34 14 34 14
CA 45C Dockweiler South....... 24 10 65 26 65 26
CA 45D Hermosa State Beach.... 10 4 27 11 27 11
CA 46A Bolsa Chica State Beach 4 2 93 38 93 38
CA 46B Bolsa Chica Reserve.... ........... ........... 2 1 2 1
CA 46C Bolsa Chica Reserve.... 591 239 222 90 222 90
CA 46D Bolsa Chica Reserve.... ........... ........... 2 1 2 1
CA 46E Bolsa Chica Reserve.... ........... ........... 247 100 247 100
CA 46F Bolsa Chica Reserve.... ........... ........... 2 1 2 1
CA 47 Santa Ana River Mouth... 13 5 19 8 19 8
CA 48 Balboa Beach............ ........... ........... 25 10 25 10
---------------------------------------------------
CA 49 San Onofre Beach-Marine 49 20 Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Corps Base Camp Pendleton....
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------
CA 50A-C Batiquitos Lagoon.... 65 26 66 27 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 51A-C San Elijo Lagoon ........... ........... 15 6 15 6
Ecological Reserve...........
-------------------------
CA 52A San Dieguito Lagoon.... ........... ........... 4 2 4 2
-------------------------
CA 52B San Dieguito Lagoon.... ........... ........... 3 1 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 52C San Dieguito Lagoon.... ........... ........... 4 2 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 53 Los Penasquitos Lagoon.. 24 10 32 13 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 54A Fiesta Island.......... ........... ........... 2 1 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 54B Mariner's Point........ ........... ........... 7 3 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 54C South Mission Beach.... ........... ........... 38 15 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
-------------------------
CA 54D San Diego River Channel ........... ........... 51 21 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------
CA 55A orth Island............ 44 18 Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------
CA 55B Coronado Beach......... ........... ........... 74 30 74 30
---------------------------------------------------
CA 55C Silver Strand Beach.... ........... ........... Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------
CA 55D Delta Beach............ ........... ........... Exempt under 4(a)(3)
Exempt under 4(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh 128 52 132 54 79 32
National Wildlife Refuge and
D Street Fill................
CA 55F Silver Strand State ........... ........... 82 33 82 33
Beach........................
-------------------------
CA 55G Chula Vista Wildlife ........... ........... 10 4 Excluded under 4(b)(2).
Reserve......................
-------------------------
CA 55H Naval Radio Receiving ........... ........... 66 27 Exempt under 4(a)(3).
Facility.....................
-------------------------
CA 55I San Diego National ........... ........... 5 2 5 2
Wildlife Refuge South Bay
Unit.........................
CA 55J Tijuana Estuary and 182 74 150 61 150 61
Border Field State Park......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Totals......... 7,477 3,026 16,896 6,838 16,337 6,612
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36744]]
Total *............... 12,150 4,917 28,379 11,485 24,527 9,926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
In summary, this revised final critical habitat designation
includes approximately 24,527 ac (9,926 ha) in 60 units, after
excluding portions of Units/subunits WA 3B, OR 1-7, OR 8A-D, OR 9-13,
CA 50A-C, CA 52B-C, CA 53, CA 54A-D, CA 55E, CA 55G, and CA 55I
(approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha)) based on consideration of economic,
national security, and other relevant impacts (see Exclusions). The
areas identified in this revised final rule constitute revisions of
areas excluded and designated as critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56970), and proposed revisions to that
rule published on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046) and January 17, 2012 (77
FR 2243). This revised final critical habitat designation includes
approximately 6,077 ac (2,460 ha) in 4 units within Washington,
approximately 2,112 ac (856 ha) in 9 units within Oregon, and 16,337 ac
(6,612 ha) in 47 units within California. Table 2 above outlines the
differences between the 2005 final critical habitat rule (70 FR 56970;
September 29, 2005), the 2011 and 2012 proposed revisions to the
critical habitat designation (76 FR 16046, March 22, 2011; 77 FR 2243,
January 17, 2012, respectively), and this revised final critical
habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP. For more information on
the differences between the 2005 critical habitat rule and the 2011
revised proposed critical habitat rule and 2012 amendment, please see
the Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat
section of the revised proposed critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), and the Changes to
Proposed Revised Critical Habitat section of the document published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2243).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the 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.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. In this final rule, we also
designate areas within the Pacific Coast WSP's historical range that
may not have been occupied at listing. We designate those areas because
we have determined that those areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. For both the occupied and unoccupied areas (at the time
of listing), critical habitat designation identifies, 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). In
identifying those physical and biological features within an area, we
focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements
(primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds,
seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential
to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are
the elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in
the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a
species' life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of
the species.
[[Page 36745]]
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
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. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. 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.
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 are determining 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, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. 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 needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Planning
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
In developing this revised final rule, we considered the
conservation relationship between critical habitat and recovery
planning. Although recovery plans formulate the recovery strategy for a
species, they are not regulatory documents, and there are no specific
protections, prohibitions, or requirements afforded a species based
solely on a recovery plan. Furthermore, although critical habitat
designation can contribute to the overall recovery strategy for a
species, it does not, by itself, achieve recovery plan goals.
In Appendix C of the Recovery Plan (Service 2007), the Service
recommends management actions that can be taken by land managers to
benefit the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. Some actions should
be implemented with other measures to maximize the recovery potential.
Other recovery actions need to be instituted when conditions change;
for example, when there is increased predation, or the type of predator
changes. Monitoring and intensive management may be required at some
sites.
We expect that there will be an increased need for management
(i.e., implementation of recovery actions) as ``coastal squeeze''
occurs with a rising shift in sea level. A land manager's response will
likely vary by site, depending on the site needs at that time.
Additional planning may be required to set priorities to the expected
change in habitat condition.
Much information has been collected since the Pacific Coast WSP's
listing as threatened in 1993. Those data that define life history
parameters need to be regularly assessed to gain a better understanding
of Pacific Coast WSP survivorship, response to predation and
disturbance, and response to changing habitats. A revised population
viability analysis (Service 2007, Appendix D) will assist biologists
and land managers to understand population movements, and perhaps
prioritize areas suitable for intensive management. Cost-effective
management at a few, well-distributed sites may assist with long-term
Pacific Coast WSP conservation, and allow for the sharing of resources.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the
features essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. Data
sources included research published in peer-reviewed articles and
previous Service documents on the species. Additionally, we utilized
regional Geographic Information System (GIS) shape files for area
calculations and mapping (also refer to Methods section in the 2011
revised proposed rule published at 76 FR 16046).
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
historical range and geographical area occupied by the
[[Page 36746]]
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 essential
for the Pacific Coast WSP from studies of this species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section
of the revised proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), and in the
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on March 5, 1993
(58 FR 12864), and the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population
of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) finalized
on August 13, 2007 (Service 2007). We have determined that the Pacific
Coast WSP requires the following physical or biological features.
Habitats That Are Representative of the Historical Geographical and
Ecological Distribution of the Species
The historical range of the Pacific Coast WSP extends from Copalis
Spit, Washington, south along the Pacific Coast of Oregon and
California to Bahia Magdelena, Baja California, Mexico. The Pacific
Coast WSP breeds primarily above the high tide line on coastal beaches,
sand spits, dune-backed beaches, sparsely vegetated dunes, beaches at
creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. Less
common nesting habitats include bluff-backed beaches, dredged material
disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, and river bars. In
winter, Pacific Coast WSPs are found on many of the beaches used for
nesting as well as on beaches where they do not nest, including manmade
salt ponds and on estuarine sand and mud flats. Despite the variation
in the types of habitat where the Pacific Coast WSP is found, these
habitats all share the same general characteristics of typically being
flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates, with usually sparse
or absent vegetation or driftwood (Stenzel et al. 1981, p. 18; Service
2007).
In addition to the varying habitat types identified above,
individual habitat characteristics also vary across the Pacific Coast
WSP's range. For example, beach habitats in the southern part of its
range are generally characterized by large, flat, open spaces, whereas
beach habitats within the northern part of the range (north of Tomales
Bay, CA) are smaller, more widely distributed, and often associated
with stream mouths, bays, or estuaries. These varying habitat types and
availability contribute to the Pacific Coast WSP's ability to maintain
its use of coastal areas for breeding and wintering across its range
and are considered an essential physical or biological feature for the
species.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Pacific Coast WSPs require space for foraging and establishment of
nesting territories. These areas vary widely in size depending on
habitat type, habitat availability, life-history stage, and activity.
As stated in the Background section of the revised proposed designation
(76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011), males establish nesting territories that
vary from about 0.25 to 2.5 ac (0.1 to 1.0 ha) at interior sites (Page
et al. 1995, p. 10) and 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) in coastal salt pan habitat,
with beach territories perhaps larger (Warriner et al. 1986, p. 18).
Foraging activities also occur in non-territorial areas up to 5 mi (8
kilometers (km)) from the nesting sites when not incubating. Essential
areas must therefore extend beyond nesting territories to include space
for foraging during the nesting season and space for overwintering, and
to provide for connectivity with other portions of the Pacific Coast
WSP's range. Pacific Coast WSPs may overwinter at locations where there
is no current breeding, but where breeding may have occurred in the
past (e.g. Dillon Beach, CA-9). These wintering areas provide important
areas for overwinter survival, provide protections for historical
nesting areas, and allow for connectivity between sites. These open
areas also allow plovers to fully utilize their camouflage and running
speed to avoid predators and to catch prey. Based on the information
above, we identify areas surrounding known breeding and wintering areas
containing space for nesting territories, foraging activities, and
connectivity for dispersal and nonbreeding or nesting use to be a
physical or biological feature needed by this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Pacific Coast WSPs typically forage in open areas by locating prey
visually and then running to seize it with their beaks (Page et al.
1995, p. 12). They may also probe in the sand for burrowing
invertebrates, or charge flying insects that are resting on the ground,
snapping at them as they flush. Accordingly they need open areas in
which to forage, to facilitate both prey location and capture. Deposits
of tide-cast wrack such as kelp or driftwood tend to attract certain
invertebrates, and so provide important foraging sites for plovers
(Page et al. 1995, p. 12). Pacific Coast WSPs forage both above and
below high tide, but not while those areas are underwater. Foraging
areas will therefore typically be limited by water on their shoreward
side, and by dense vegetation or development on their landward sides.
Therefore, we have identified open, sandy areas which may contain tide-
cast wrack or other vegetative debris to attract prey as a physical or
biological feature needed by this species.
Pacific Coast WSPs use sites of freshwater for drinking where
available, but some historical nesting sites, particularly in southern
California, have no obvious nearby freshwater sources. Adults and
chicks in those areas must be assumed to obtain their necessary water
from the food they eat. Accordingly we have not included freshwater
sites as a physical or biological feature for the species.
Cover or Shelter
Pacific Coast WSPs occupy open beach or similar areas for the
majority of their life functions. Such open areas provide little cover
or shelter from predators, human disturbance, winds, storms, and the
extreme high tides associated with weather events, and these conditions
cause many nest losses. Pacific Coast WSPs and their eggs are well
camouflaged against light colored, sandy or pebbly backgrounds (Page et
al. 1995, p. 12), so open areas with such substrates actually
constitute shelter for purposes of nesting. Chicks may also crouch near
driftwood, dune plants and piles of kelp to hide from predators (Page
and Stenzel 1981, p. 7). Plovers readily scrape blown sand out of their
nests, but there is little they can do to protect their nests against
serious storms or flooding other than to attempt to lay a new clutch if
the old one is lost (Page et al. 1995, p. 8). No studies have
quantified the amount of vegetation
[[Page 36747]]
cover that would make an area unsuitable for nesting or foraging, but
coastal nesting and foraging locations typically have relatively well-
defined boundaries between open sandy substrate favorable to Pacific
Coast WSPs and unfavorably dense vegetation inland. Such bounds show up
well in aerial and satellite photographs, which we used to map
essential habitat features. Therefore, based on the information above,
we have identified areas with sandy or pebbly backgrounds or other
substrate which provide camouflage for eggs, young, and nesting adults
and areas that contain driftwood, dune plants, piles of kelp or other
materials which provide cover and shelter to be physical or biological
features needed by this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Pacific Coast WSPs nest in depressions in open, relatively flat
areas, near to tidal waters but far enough away to avoid being
inundated by daily tides. Typical substrate is sandy or pebbly beaches,
but plovers may also lay their eggs in existing depressions on harder
ground such as salt pan, cobblestones, or dredge tailings. As stated
earlier, Pacific Coast WSPs and their eggs are well camouflaged against
light-colored, sandy or pebbly backgrounds (Page et al. 1995, p. 12),
Where available, dune systems with numerous flat areas and easy access
to the shore are particularly favored for nesting. Plover nesting areas
must provide shelter from predators and human disturbance, as discussed
above. Unfledged chicks forage with one or both parents, using the same
foraging areas and behaviors as adults.
Undisturbed Areas
Disturbance of nesting or brooding plovers by humans and domestic
animals can be a major factor affecting nesting success. Pacific Coast
WSPs leave their nests when humans or pets approach too closely. Dogs
may also deliberately chase plovers and inadvertently trample nests,
while vehicles may directly crush adults, chicks, or nests, separate
chicks from brooding adults, and interfere with foraging and mating
activities (Warriner et al. 1986, p. 25; Service 1993, p. 12871; Ruhlen
et al. 2003, p. 303). Repeated flushing of incubating plovers exposes
the eggs to the weather and depletes energy reserves needed by the
adult, which may result in reductions to nesting success. Surveys at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, from 1994 to 1997, found the
rate of nest loss on southern beaches at the Base to be consistently
higher than on northern beaches, where recreational use was much lower
(Persons and Applegate 1997, p. 8). Ruhlen et al. (2003, p. 303) found
that increased human activities on Point Reyes beaches resulted in a
lower chick survival rate.
Pacific Coast WSP require relatively undisturbed areas. However,
disturbance appears to be a relative feature that varies between sites
and Pacific Coast WSPs seem to respond differently to disturbance by
site. Consequently, one level of disturbance at a particular site may
not be detrimental at another site. ``Relatively undisturbed'' is
therefore a site-specific consideration. For example, incubating
Pacific Coast WSPs at Vandenberg Air Force Base are easily disturbed
because there is little human-related activity and noise due to the
military mission of the Air Force. At Oceano Dunes SVRA about 30 miles
to the south, Pacific Coast WSPs appear to tolerate more noise and
activity. With intensive management, the reproductive success for
Pacific Coast WSPs at Oceano Dunes SVRA is fairly high, although it
varies from year to year.
Recent efforts in various areas along the Pacific coast that have
been implemented to isolate nesting plovers from recreational beach
users through the use of docents, symbolic fencing, and public outreach
have correlated with higher nesting success in those areas (Page, et
al. 2003, p. 3). Therefore we have identified undisturbed areas that
allow the species to conduct their ``normal activities'' to be a
physical or biological feature essential for the species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Pacific Coast Western Snowy Plover
Pursuant to the Act and its implementing regulations under 50 CFR
424.12, we are required to identify the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP in areas
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary
constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be
the elements of physical or biological features that provide for a
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species. We are designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical areas that were occupied by the species at the time of
listing that continue to be occupied today, that contain the primary
constituent elements in the quantity and spatial arrangement to support
life-history functions essential for the conservation of the species,
and that may require special management considerations or protection.
We are also designating areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing, but are essential for the
conservation of the species. These sites are within the historical
range of the Pacific Coast WSP, and were used by the species prior to
listing. See Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below
for a discussion of the species' historical and current geographic
range.
We believe conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP is dependent upon
multiple factors, including the conservation and management of areas to
maintain ``normal'' ecological functions, where existing populations
survive and reproduce. We are designating areas of critical habitat
that provide some or all of the elements of physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of this species. Based on the
best available information, the primary constituent elements (PCEs)
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP are the
following:
Sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach
face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, artificial
salt ponds and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites, with:
(1) Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas
and above the daily high tides;
(2) Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse
vegetation, that are between the annual low tide or low-water flow and
annual high tide or high-water flow, subject to inundation but not
constantly under water, that support small invertebrates, such as
crabs, worms, flies, beetles, spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and
ostracods, that are essential food sources;
(3) Surf- or water-deposited organic debris, such as seaweed
(including kelp and eelgrass) or driftwood located on open substrates
that supports and attracts small invertebrates described in PCE 2 for
food, and provides cover or shelter from predators and weather, and
assists in avoidance of detection (crypsis) for nests, chicks, and
incubating adults; and
(4) Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets,
vehicles, or human-attracted predators, which provide relatively
undisturbed areas for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior.
The critical habitat identified in this revised rule contains the
primary constituent elements in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP, and
supports multiple life processes for the species.
[[Page 36748]]
Portions of some critical habitat units may be currently degraded;
however, these areas could be restored with special management, thereby
providing suitable habitat to offset habitat loss from anticipated sea-
level rise resulting from climate change. Additional areas are proposed
as critical habitat to allow a recovering Pacific Coast WSP population
to occupy its former range, and allow adjustment to changing conditions
(e.g. shifting sand dunes), expected sea-level rise, and human
encroachment.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
All areas included in our revision of critical habitat will require
some level of management to address the current and future threats to
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP. Special management considerations or protection
may be required to minimize habitat destruction, degradation, and
fragmentation associated with the following threats, among others:
water diversions, stabilized dunes and watercourses associated with
urban development, human recreational activities, off-highway vehicle
(OHV) use, beach raking, pets, nonnative vegetation, resource
extraction, and fishing.
Water diversions reduce the transport of sediments, which
contribute to suitable nesting and foraging substrates. Stabilized
dunes and watercourses associated with urban development alter the
dynamic processes of beach and river systems, thereby reducing the open
nature of suitable habitat needed for predator detection. Human
recreational activities disturb foraging or nesting activities or may
attract and provide cover for approaching predators. The use of OHVs
has been documented to crush plover nests and strike plover adults.
Beach raking or grooming can remove wrack, reducing food resources and
cover, and contributing to beach erosion. Pets (leashed and unleashed)
can cause incubating adults to leave the nest and establish trails in
the sand that can lead predators to the nest. Nonnative vegetation
reduces visibility that plovers need to detect predators, and occupies
otherwise suitable habitat. Resource extraction can disturb incubating,
brooding, or foraging plovers. Fishing can disturb Pacific Coast WSPs
and can attract predators by the presence of fish offal and bait
(Lafferty 2001, p. 2222; Dugan 2003, p. 134; Schlacher et al. 2007, p.
557; Service 2007, p. 33; Dugan and Hubbard 2010, p. 67).
For discussion of the threats to the Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat, please see the 12-month finding on the petition to delist the
Pacific Coast WPS (71 FR 20607, April 21, 2006), the final listing rule
(58 FR 12864, March 5, 1993) and the final critical habitat rule (70 FR
56970, September 29, 2005). Please also see the Revised Final Critical
Habitat Designation section below for a discussion of the threats in
each of the proposed revised critical habitat units.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at
50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We
are designating critical habitat in areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing in 1993. We also are
designating specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing because such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species, and are within the Pacific Coast WSP's
historical range. We have determined that limiting the designation of
critical habitat to those areas that were considered occupied at the
time of listing is no longer sufficient to conserve the species
because:
(1) There has been considerable loss and degradation of habitat
throughout the species' range since the time of listing;
(2) We anticipate a further loss of habitat in the future due to
sea-level rise resulting from climate change; and;
(3) The species needs habitat areas that are arranged spatially in
a way that will maintain connectivity and allow dispersal within and
between units.
All areas designated as critical habitat are within the historical
range of the species, which differs from the species' geographic
distribution (i.e., occupancy) at the time of listing. We have
identified areas to include in this designation by applying Criteria 1
through 6 below. In an effort to update our 2005 final designation of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP, we used the best available
information on occupancy and habitat conditions of areas that were
analyzed in 2005 to determine whether to add or remove areas from this
revision of critical habitat.
The amount and distribution of critical habitat being designated
will allow populations of Pacific Coast WSP to:
(1) Maintain their existing distribution;
(2) Increase their distribution into previously occupied areas
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Move between areas depending on resource and habitat
availability (response to changing nature of coastal beach habitat) and
support genetic interchange;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties
are diminished; and
(5) Maintain their ability to withstand local or unit level
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
We considered the following criteria to select appropriate units
for this revised rule:
(1) Areas throughout the range of the Pacific Coast WSP located to
allow the species to move and expand. The dynamic nature of beach,
dune, and similar habitats necessitates that Pacific Coast WSPs move to
adjust for changes in habitat availability, food sources, and pressures
on survivorship or reproductive success (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 5).
Designating units in appropriate areas throughout the range of the
Pacific Coast WSP allows for seasonal migration, year-to-year
movements, and expansion of the Pacific Coast WSP to its historical
boundaries. We consider this necessary to conserve the species because
it assists in counterbalancing catastrophes, such as extreme climatic
events, oil spills, or disease that might depress regional survival or
productivity. Having units across the species' range helps maintain a
robust, well-distributed population and enhances survival and
productivity of the Pacific Coast WSP as a whole, facilitates
interchange of genetic material between units, and promotes
recolonization of any sites that experience declines or local
extirpations due to low productivity or temporary habitat loss. Within
this designation we focused on areas within the six recovery units
identified in the Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix A).
(2) Breeding areas. Areas identified in the Recovery Plan (Service
2007) known to support breeding Pacific Coast WSP
[[Page 36749]]
were selected. Selected sites include historical breeding areas and
areas currently being used by breeding plovers. These areas are
essential to the conservation of the species because they contain the
physical and biological features necessary for Pacific Coast WSPs to
breed and produce offspring and ensure that population increases are
distributed throughout the Pacific Coast WSP's range. By selecting
breeding areas across the Pacific Coast WSP's range we can assist in
conserving the species' genetic and demographic robustness and
important life-history stages for long-term sustainability of the
entire listed species. Some breeding areas are occupied year-round and
also are used as wintering areas by a portion of the population.
(3) Wintering areas. Major wintering sites not already selected
under criterion 2 above were added. A ``major'' wintering site is
defined as one that supports more wintering birds than average for the
geographical region based on current or historical numbers. These areas
are necessary to provide sufficient habitat for the survival of Pacific
Coast WSPs during the nonbreeding season as these areas allow for
dispersal of adults or juveniles to nonbreeding sites and provide
roosting and foraging opportunities and shelter during inclement
weather.
(4) Unique habitat. Additional sites were added that provide unique
habitat, or that are situated to facilitate interchange between
otherwise widely separated units. This criterion is based on standard
conservation biology principles. By protecting a variety of habitats
and facilitating interchange between them, we increase the ability of
the species to adjust to various limiting factors that affect the
population, such as predators, disease, major storms, habitat loss and
degradation, and rise in sea level.
(5) Areas to maintain connectivity of habitat. Some areas that may
be seasonally lacking in certain elements of essential physical or
biological features and that contain marginal habitat were included if
they were contiguous with areas containing one or more of those
elements and if they contribute to the hydrologic and geologic
processes essential to the ecological function of the system. These
areas are essential to the conservation of the species because they
maintain connectivity within populations, allow for species movement
throughout the course of a given year, and allow for population
expansion.
(6) Restoration areas. We have selected some areas within occupied
units that, once restored, would be able to support the Pacific Coast
WSP. These areas generally are upland habitats adjacent to beach and
other areas used by the species containing introduced vegetation, such
as European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria), that currently limits use
of the area by the species. These areas would provide habitat to off-
set the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat due to sea-level
rise expected from the effects of climate change or due to development.
These areas previously contained and would still contain the features
essential to the conservation of the species once removal of the
beachgrass and restoration of the area has occurred.
Methods Used To Designate Critical Habitat
In order to translate the criteria above to the areas on the ground
we used the following methodology to identify the boundaries of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP:
(1) We digitally mapped occurrence data within the range of the
Pacific Coast WSP at the time and subsequent to the time of listing in
the form of polygons and points using ArcMap 9.3.1 (ESRI 2009). An
attempt was made to consider site-specific survey data that was both
current and historical. Survey information used in this designation was
compiled from several sources during various timeframes as identified
in the Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix B).
(2) We utilized National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP 2009)
aerial imagery with a 3.3-ft (1-m) resolution to determine the lateral
extent (width) between the water and upland areas of habitat. The
western (seaward) boundary of the coastal units is the water's edge
based on NAIP imagery. This boundary varies daily with each changing
tide, and will vary seasonally with storm surges, and sand erosion and
deposition. Given the dynamic nature of coastal beaches, riparian
areas, and salt pond management, we also delineated the lateral extent
to encompass the entire area up to the lower edge of permanent upland
vegetation or to the edge of a permanent barrier, such as a bluff,
levee, sea wall, human development, etc. Using aerial imagery (NAIP
2009), we also delineated the northern and southern extents of the
units to include the beach areas associated with the occurrence
information identified above.
When determining revised critical habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered by
buildings, sea walls, pavement, and other structures, because these
areas lack physical or biological features for the Pacific Coast WSP.
The scale of maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this revised critical habitat
are considered excluded in this revised rule. Therefore, a Federal
action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat unless the specific action would
affect the physical and biological features in adjacent critical
habitat.
We are designating critical habitat units that we have determined
were occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient elements of
physical and biological features to support life-history processes
essential for 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 the Pacific Coast WSP.
Units in this revised designation have sufficient elements of
physical or biological features to support Pacific Coast WSP life-
history processes. Some units contain all of the identified elements of
physical and biological features and support multiple life-history
processes. Some units contain only some elements of the physical and
biological features necessary to support the Pacific Coast WSP
particular use of that habitat.
(3) In determining the boundaries of the OPRD HCP-covered lands
that are being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from this
revised final critical habitat designation, we relied on Oregon State
statute for the definition of beach and shoreline boundaries. HCP-
covered lands consist of the ``Ocean Shore,'' an area defined by Oregon
State statute as the sandy areas of the Oregon coast between the
extreme low tide and the actual or statutory vegetation line, whichever
is farther landward. HCP-covered lands do not include the Federal lands
within the ``Ocean Shore'' boundary. For these Federal lands that are
not excluded from this designation, the designated lands extend
landward from the mean high tide. OPRD either owns and leases lands on
the ``Ocean Shore'' as a State Park or State Natural Area or manages
the ``Ocean Shore'' under a statutory recreation easement (Oregon
Revised Statute (ORS) 390.635 and 390.620; Oregon Administrative Rule
736-020-0040(3)).
GIS data layers for the statute vegetation line and mean high water
line were provided to the Service by the State of Oregon. The statutory
[[Page 36750]]
vegetation line (ORS 390.770) was established in 1969. This is a
jurisdictional line that determines the regulatory authority of OPRD to
regulate development and recreation on the beach. The statutory
vegetation line applies to all the land located along the Pacific Ocean
between the Columbia River and the Oregon-California boundary between
extreme low tide and the lines of vegetation as established and
described according to the Oregon Coordinate System (ORS) 93.330.
Adjacent to Federal lands, the ``Ocean Shore'' only extends to the
mean high water line (MHWL). MHWL is a tidal datum, which is the
computed average of all the high water heights observed over the
National Tidal Datum Epoch. For purposes of OPRD jurisdiction where
adjacent to Federal lands, ``mean high water'' corresponds generally
with the ``line of ordinary high water'' as defined in ORS 274.005(3).
For mapping critical habitat in Oregon, MHWL data from south of
Florence were collected in the summer of 2008; data from north of
Florence were collected in the summer of 2009.
Using the 2009 National Agriculture Imagery Program data (NAIP) for
proposed revised western snowy plover critical habitat, we incorporated
the MHWL into the critical habitat layer to create separate polygons.
These polygons represent HCP-covered lands adjacent to Federal lands
and were excluded from critical habitat.
Where the ``Ocean Shore'' overlaps non-Federal lands, we
incorporated the statutory vegetation line into the critical habitat
layer to determine HCP-covered lands. Based on aerial imagery, if the
actual vegetation line was farther landward of the statutory vegetation
line, all land seaward of the actual vegetation line was excluded from
critical habitat, as defined by Oregon statute. All areas that were not
identified for exclusion remain as designated critical habitat.
Revised Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 6,077 ac (2,460 ha) in 4 units
within Washington, approximately 2,112 ac (855 ha) in 9 units within
Oregon, and 16,337 ac (6,612 ha) in 47 units within California. The
area identified as critical habitat Units CA32, Vandenberg Air Force
Base North and CA33, Vandenberg Air Force Base South (combined total of
approximately 1,134 ac (459 ha)), have been exempted from this revised
final designation in their entirety under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act
(refer to the Exemptions section below). These units had been
previously proposed for designation as they did not have clear
management protections for Pacific Coast WSP until the April 14, 2011,
approval of the base's INRMP. Additional areas have been excluded under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below). Table 3
identifies the areas known to be occupied at the time of listing as
well as current occupancy status.
Table 3--Occupancy of Pacific Coast WSP by Designated Critical Habitat
Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at time Currently
Unit of listing? occupied?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA 1 Copalis Spit................ No................ No.
WA 2 Damon Point................. Yes............... Yes.
WA 3A Midway Beach............... Yes............... Yes.
WA 3B Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit.. Yes............... Yes.
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit............ Yes............... Yes.
WA 4B Gunpowder Sands Island..... Unknown........... No.
OR 2 Necanicum River Spit........ No................ No.
OR 4 Bayocean Spit............... Yes............... No.
OR 6 Sand Lake South............. No................ No.
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches........ Yes............... Yes.
OR 8A Siltcoos Beach............. Yes............... Yes.
OR 8B Siltcoos River Spit........ Yes............... Yes.
OR 8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Yes............... Yes.
Creek Spit.
OR 8D North Umpqua River Spit.... No................ No.
OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit.......... Yes............... Yes.
OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit........ Yes............... Yes.
OR 11 Bandon to New River........ Yes............... Yes.
OR 13 Euchre Creek Spit.......... No................ No.
CA 1 Lake Earl................... Yes............... Yes.
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach........... Yes............... Yes.
CA 3A Stone Lagoon............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 3B Big Lagoon................. Yes............... Yes.
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River.... Yes............... Yes.
CA 4B Mad River Beach............ Yes............... Yes.
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit Yes............... Yes.
Beach.
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and Yes............... Yes.
Beach.
CA 5C Eel River South Spit and Yes............... Yes.
Beach.
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach.......... Yes............... Yes.
CA 8 Manchester Beach............ No................ Yes.
CA 9 Dillon Beach................ Yes............... Yes.
CA 10A Point Reyes............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 10B Limantour................. Yes............... Yes.
CA 11 Napa-Sonoma Marshes........ Yes............... Yes.
CA 12 Hayward.................... Yes............... Yes.
CA 13A Eden Landing.............. Yes............... Yes.
CA 13B Eden Landing.............. Yes............... Yes.
CA 13C Eden Landing.............. Yes............... Yes.
CA 14 Ravenswood................. Yes............... Yes.
[[Page 36751]]
CA 15 Warm Springs............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 16 Half Moon Bay.............. Yes............... Yes.
CA 17 Waddell Creek Beach........ Yes............... Yes.
CA 18 Scott Creek Beach.......... Yes............... Yes.
CA 19 Wilder Creek Beach......... Yes............... Yes.
CA 20 Jetty Road to Aptos........ Yes............... Yes.
CA 21 Elkhorn Slough Mudflats.... Yes............... Yes.
CA 22 Monterey to Moss Landing... Yes............... Yes.
CA 23 Point Sur Beach............ Yes............... Yes.
CA 24 San Carpoforo Creek........ Yes............... Yes.
CA 25 Arroyo Laguna Creek........ Yes............... Yes.
CA 26 San Simeon State Beach..... Yes............... Yes.
CA 27 Villa Creek Beach.......... Yes............... Yes.
CA 28 Toro Creek................. Yes............... Yes.
CA 29 Atascadero Beach/Morro Yes............... Yes.
Stand State Beach.
CA 30 Morro Bay Beach............ Yes............... Yes.
CA 31 Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes... Yes............... Yes.
CA 34 Devereaux Beach............ Yes............... Yes.
CA 35 Santa Barbara Beaches...... Yes............... Yes.
CA 36 Santa Rosa Island Beaches.. Yes............... Yes.
CA 37 San Buenaventura Beach..... Yes............... Yes.
CA 38 Mandalay Beach to Santa Yes............... Yes.
Clara River.
CA 39 Ormond Beach............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 43 Zuma Beach................. Yes............... Yes.
CA 44 Malibu Beach............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 45A Santa Monica Beach........ Yes............... Yes.
CA 45B Dockweiler North.......... Yes............... Yes.
CA 45C Dockweiler South.......... Yes............... Yes.
CA 45D Hermosa State Beach....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 46A Bolsa Chica State Beach... Yes............... Yes.
CA 46B Bolsa Chica Reserve....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 46C Bolsa Chica Reserve....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 46D Bolsa Chica Reserve....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 46E Bolsa Chica Reserve....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 46F Bolsa Chica Reserve....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 47 Santa Ana River Mouth...... No................ No.
CA 48 Balboa Beach............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 50(A-C) Batiquitos Lagoon..... Yes............... Yes.
CA 51(A-C) San Elijo Lagoon Yes............... Yes.
Ecological Reserve.
CA 52(A-C) San Dieguito Lagoon... Yes............... Yes.
CA 53 Los Penasquitos Lagoon..... Yes............... Yes.
CA 54A Fiesta Island............. Yes............... No.
CA 54B Mariner's Point........... Yes............... Yes.
CA 54C South Mission Beach....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 54D San Diego River Channel... Yes............... Yes.
CA 55B Coronado Beach............ Yes............... Yes.
CA 55C Silver Strand Beach....... Yes............... Yes.
CA 55D Delta Beach............... Yes............... Yes.
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh National Yes............... Yes.
Wildlife Refuge and D Street
Fill.
CA 55F Silver Strand State Beach. Yes............... Yes.
CA 55H Naval Radio Receiving Yes............... Yes.
Facility.
CA 55I San Diego National Yes............... Yes.
Wildlife Refuge, South Bay Unit.
CA 55J Tijuana Estuary and Border Yes............... Yes
Field State Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 outlines the areas included in this revised final critical
habitat designation by land ownership. Units designated as critical
habitat are discussed in detail below. The areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP.
Table 4--Critical Habitat Units for the Pacific Coast WSP by Land Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Proposed Designated Designated
Critical habitat units acres hectares Land ownership acres hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA 1 Copalis Spit.................. 407 165 State.................. 407 165
WA 2 Damon Point................... 673 272 State.................. 648 262
Other.................. 25 10
WA 3A Midway Beach................. 697 282 State.................. 697 282
WA 3B Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit **. 1,121 454 State.................. 505 204
[[Page 36752]]
Other.................. 192 78
WA 4A Leadbetter Spit.............. 2,700 1,093 Federal................ 997 403
State.................. 1,703 689
WA 4B Gunpowder Sands Island....... 904 366 Federal................ 904 366
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Totals Federal................ 1,901 769
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
State.................. 3,960 1,602
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other.................. 217 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR 2 Necanicum River Spit.......... 211 85 Other.................. 11 4
OR 4 Bayocean Spit................. 367 149 Federal................ 199 81
Other.................. 2 1
OR 6 Sand Lake South............... 200 81 Other.................. 5 2
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches.......... 372 151 Federal................ 276 112
OR 8A Siltcoos Breach.............. 15 6 Federal................ 7 3
State.................. 8 3
OR 8B Siltcoos River Spit.......... 241 97 Federal................ 116 47
OR 8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch 716 290 Federal................ 383 155
Creek Spit.
OR 8D North Umpqua River Spit...... 236 96 Federal................ 59 24
OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit............ 244 99 Federal................ 223 90
OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit.......... 308 125 Federal................ 273 110
OR 11 Bandon to New River.......... 1,016 411 Federal................ 459 186
Other.................. 82 33
OR 13 Euchre Creek Spit............ 116 47 Other.................. 9 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon State Totals Federal................ 1,995 807
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
State.................. 8 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other.................. 109 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA 1 Lake Earl..................... 74 30 State.................. 73 30
CA 2 Gold Bluffs Beach *........... 144 58 State.................. 233 94
CA 3A Stone Lagoon *............... 52 21 State.................. 55 22
CA 3B Big Lagoon *................. 212 86 State.................. 268 108
CA 4A Clam Beach/Little River *.... 194 79 State.................. 222 90
Other.................. 115 47
CA 4B Mad River Beach.............. 456 185 State.................. 148 60
Other.................. 304 123
CA 5A Humboldt Bay South Spit *.... 419 170 Federal................ 20 8
State.................. 542 219
Other.................. 10 4
CA 5B Eel River North Spit and 259 105 State.................. 457 185
Beach *.
Other.................. 7 3
CA 5C Eel River South Spit and 339 137 State.................. 172 70
Beach.
Other.................. 164 66
CA 6 Eel River Gravel Bars *....... 1,139 461 State.................. 304 123
Other.................. 1,045 463
CA 7 MacKerricher Beach *.......... 1,176 476 State.................. 1,144 463
Other.................. 74 30
CA 8 Manchester Beach *............ 482 195 Federal................ 68 28
State.................. 425 172
Other.................. 12 5
CA 9 Dillon Beach.................. 39 16 Other.................. 39 16
CA 10A Point Reyes................. 460 186 Federal................ 460 186
CA 10B Limantour................... 156 63 Federal................ 156 63
CA 11 Napa-Sonoma.................. 618 250 State.................. 618 250
CA 12 Hayward...................... 1 0 Other.................. 1 0
CA 13A Eden Landing................ 237 96 State.................. 228 92
Other.................. 8 3
CA 13B Eden Landing................ 171 69 State.................. 171 69
CA 13C Eden Landing................ 609 246 State.................. 602 244
Other.................. 7 3
CA 14 Ravenswood................... 89 36 Other.................. 89 36
CA 15 Warm Springs................. 168 68 Federal................ 168 68
CA 16 Half Moon Bay................ 36 15 State.................. 36 15
CA 17 Waddell Creek Beach.......... 25 10 State.................. 19 8
Other.................. 6 2
CA 18 Scott Creek Beach............ 23 9 State.................. 15 6
Other.................. 8 3
[[Page 36753]]
CA 19 Wilder Creek Beach........... 15 6 State.................. 14 6
Other.................. 1 0
CA 20 Jetty Road Aptos............. 399 161 State.................. 369 149
Other.................. 30 12
CA 21 Elkhorn Slough Mudflats...... 281 114 State.................. 281 114
CA 22 Monterey to Moss Landing..... 967 391 Federal................ 415 168
State.................. 285 115
Other.................. 259 105
CA 23 Point Sur Beach.............. 72 29 State.................. 38 15
Other.................. 34 14
CA 24 San Carpoforo Creek.......... 24 10 Federal................ 4 2
State.................. 18 7
Other.................. 2 1
CA 25 Arroyo Laguna Creek.......... 28 11 State.................. 18 7
Other.................. 10 4
CA 26 San Simeon State Beach....... 24 10 State.................. 24 10
CA 27 Villa Creek Beach............ 20 8 State.................. 20 8
CA 28 Toro Creek................... 34 14 State.................. 11 4
Other.................. 23 9
CA 29 Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand 213 86 State.................. 64 26
State Beach.
Other.................. 149 60
CA 30 Morro Bay Beach.............. 1,076 435 State.................. 948 383
Other.................. 129 52
CA 31 Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes..... 1,652 669 Federal................ 242 98
State.................. 552 223
Other.................. 858 347
CA 34 Devereaux Beach.............. 52 21 State.................. 43 17
Other.................. 9 4
CA 35 Santa Barbara Beaches........ 65 26 State.................. 30 12
Other.................. 35 14
CA 36 Santa Rosa Island Beaches.... 586 237 Federal................ 586 237
CA 37 San Buenaventura Beach....... 70 28 State.................. 70 28
CA 38 Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara 672 272 State.................. 459 186
River.
Other.................. 213 86
CA 39 Ormond Beach................. 320 130 State.................. 159 65
Other.................. 161 65
CA 43 Zuma Beach................... 73 30 State.................. 1 0
Other.................. 72 29
CA 44 Malibu Beach................. 13 5 State.................. 13 5
CA 45A Santa Monica Beach.......... 48 19 State.................. 29 12
Other.................. 19 8
CA 45B Dockweiler North............ 34 14 State.................. 34 14
CA 45C Dockweiler South............ 65 26 State.................. 54 22
Other.................. 11 5
CA 45D Hermosa State Beach......... 27 11 State.................. 8 3
Other.................. 19 8
CA 46A Bolsa Chica Beach........... 93 38 State.................. 93 38
CA 46B Bolsa Chica Reserve......... 2 1 State.................. 2 1
CA 46C Bolsa Chica Reserve......... 222 90 State.................. 222 90
CA 46D Bolsa Chica Reserve......... 2 1 State.................. 2 1
CA 46E Bolsa Chica Reserve......... 247 100 State.................. 247 100
CA 46F Bolsa Chica Reserve......... 2 1 State.................. 2 1
CA 47 Santa Ana River Mouth........ 19 8 State.................. 18 7
Other.................. 1 0
CA 48 Balboa Beach................. 25 10 Other.................. 25 10
CA 51A-C San Elijo Lagoon 15 6 State.................. 11 4
Ecological Reserve.
Other.................. 4 2
CA 52A San Dieguito Lagoon......... 4 2 Other.................. 4 2
CA 55B Coronado Beach.............. 74 30 State.................. 74 30
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh National 132 54 Federal................ 79 32
Wildlife Refuge and D Street Fill.
CA 55F Silver Strand State Beach... 82 33 Federal................ 78 31
State.................. 4 1
CA 55I San Diego National Wildlife 5 2 Federal................ 5 2
Refuge, South Bay Unit.
CA 55J Tijuana Estuary and Border 150 61 Federal................ 71 29
Field State Park.
Other.................. 79 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California State Totals Federal................ 2,352 952
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
State.................. 9,857 3,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36754]]
Other.................. 4,128 1,671
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Designated By Ownership Federal................ 6,248 2,529
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
State.................. 13,825 5,595
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other.................. 4,454 1,802
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals Designated By State Washington............. 6,078 2,460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon................. 2,112 855
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............. 16,337 6,612
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.............................................. ....................... 24,527 9,926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Land ownership values differ from the revised proposed rule due to updated ownership data.
** Off-reservation lands (fee-owned) were not excluded and are included within the Other land ownership total.
Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
Brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP are described
below. The units are grouped by State and listed in order
geographically north to south. For more information about the areas
excluded from critical habitat designation, please see the Exclusions
section of this revised final rule.
Washington
WA 1, Copalis Spit, 407 ac (165 ha)
Copalis Spit is located along the central Washington coast,
approximately 20 mi (32 km) northwest of the Community of Hoquiam in
Grays Harbor County. Copalis Spit is a 2-mi (3-km) long sand spit
bounded by the Copalis River on the northern and landward sides. The
Copalis Beach access road off State Route 109 and State Park property
line demark the southern boundary. The unit is entirely within
Griffiths-Priday Ocean State Park (Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission).
This unit is the northernmost unit in the range of the species and
historically supported 6 to 12 nesting pairs of Pacific Coast WSPs, but
no nesting has been documented since 1984 (Service 2007, p. 21). This
unit was not occupied at the time of listing and is not currently
occupied. The unit consists of a long sandy beach with sparsely
vegetated dunes that extend to the river, providing nesting and
foraging opportunities, as well as protection from the weather. The
northward shift of Connor Creek washed out the beach access road at the
southern end, effectively closing the area to motorized vehicles.
Because of its relatively remote location, the area receives little
human use and is therefore relatively undisturbed. Although currently
unoccupied, the unit is considered essential for the conservation of
the species as it allows for population expansion into the northern
extent of the Pacific Coast WSP's historical range from adjacent
occupied areas and has high-quality habitat, including a long sandy
beach with limited disturbance with sparsely vegetated dunes that
extend to the river, providing nesting and foraging opportunities for
the species.
WA 2, Damon Point, 673 ac (272 ha)
This unit is located at the southern end of the City of Ocean
Shores in Grays Harbor County and is a sandy spit that extends into
Grays Harbor. The unit boundary begins at the Damon Point parking area
off Marine View Drive. The western boundary generally follows the
property line for the Oyhut Wildlife Area.
This unit was occupied at the time of listing, and we consider this
unit to be currently occupied. Research in the mid-1980s indicated that
up to 20 Pacific Coast WSPs have used Damon Point for nesting. However,
use has declined significantly at this site, with only six adult birds
documented using the area during the breeding season in 2005. A
historic shipwreck (S.S. Catala) was exposed during winter storms in
2006, and the vessel was removed from the spit due to oil spill and
other hazardous materials concerns over a period of 17 months (State of
Washington, Department of Ecology 2007). The opportunity to view the
shipwreck and removal operation drew media attention, and hundreds of
visitors visited the site on weekends. Visitation of the area has
dropped off since the clean-up. Even though no plover nesting has been
documented at Damon Point since 2006, we still consider this unit
occupied by the species based on previous use of the area, on the
fluctuating use of areas in general by the species as a response to
habitat and resource availability, and because breeding surveys are not
extensive presence-absence surveys and only provide information during
the breeding season. We have determined that the unit contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species which may require special management considerations or
protection. The unit includes sandy beaches that are relatively
undisturbed by human or tidal activity (nesting habitat), large
expanses of sparsely vegetated barren terrain, and mudflats and
sheltered bays that provide ample foraging areas.
The majority (648 ac (262 ha)) of the unit is administered by the
State of Washington (Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of
Natural Resources). There are over 7 mi (11 km) of sandy beaches and
shoreline at Damon Point, and the shape of the spit changes constantly
with winter storms and nearshore sand drift. In recent years, some of
the lower elevation areas have been overwashed, and coastal erosion may
result in separation of the spit from the mainland in the near future.
The western edge of the unit lies adjacent to a municipal wastewater
treatment facility that is managed by the City of Ocean Shores, with a
few undevelopable private parcels in the tidelands near the parking
area. Similar to Copalis Spit, the access road has washed out, and the
area is currently inaccessible to motorized vehicles.
The primary threats to Pacific Coast WSPs that may require special
[[Page 36755]]
management at this time are recreational use, including pedestrians and
unleashed pets; habitat loss from European beach grass; and potential
reopening of the vehicle access road. Special management in the form of
developing and enforcing regulations to address the recreation issues
may be needed. Management to remove and control beach grass will
prevent further spread of nonnative vegetation, thereby maintaining and
expanding the elements of essential physical or biological features
identified above.
WA 3A, Midway Beach, 697 ac (282 ha)
Located adjacent to the Community of Grayland, this subunit extends
from the northern boundary of Grayland Beach State Park, through South
Beach State Park to Cape Shoalwater at the southern end in Pacific
County. Midway Beach is an expansive beach and is nearly 0.5 mi (0.8
km) wide at the widest point. This subunit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. This subunit includes the following
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species: large areas of sand dune habitat that is relatively
undisturbed, areas of sandy beach above and below the high-tide line
with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and
close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats that provide
cover or shelter from predators, and are important for foraging.
Beach accretion since 1998 has greatly improved habitat conditions,
resulting in this beach becoming a primary nesting area in the State.
From 1998 to 2005, an average of 18 plovers nested annually at Midway
Beach, and from 2003 to 2006, between 23 and 28 Pacific Coast WSPs
nested at Midway Beach.
Primary threats at this subunit that may require special management
include motorized vehicle use on the beaches and human activity. The
recent closure of the Midway Beach Access Road due to safety concerns,
e.g., vehicles getting stuck in deep sand, has reduced impacts in the
nesting area, but may not be permanent. Therefore, the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats associated with human-related recreation
and other activities. Developing and enforcing regulations to address
the recreation issues may be needed. Management to remove and control
beach grass will prevent further spread of nonnative vegetation,
thereby maintaining and expanding the elements of essential physical
and biological features identified above.
WA 3B, Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, 696 ac (282 ha)
The subunit is located in Pacific County at Shoalwater Bay (also
known as Graveyard Spit). This beach is an extension of Midway Beach,
and extends south into the entrance of Willapa Bay. The western portion
of this subunit starts at a narrow strip of beach adjacent to State
Route 105 and extends to the western edge of the Shoalwater Bay Indian
reservation. This portion of the subunit is approximately 148 ac (60
ha) in size. The eastern portion of the subunit starts at the eastern
edge of the Shoalwater Bay Indian reservation boundary and continues in
a southwesterly direction to the Community of Tokeland. This portion of
the subunit is approximately 548 ac (222 ha) in size. The landward
extent of the unit is the edge of the bay, and the seaward extent of
the unit is the Pacific Ocean's water's edge. In our March 2011 revised
proposal, we proposed 1,121 ac (454 ha) for this subunit; approximately
425 ac (172 ha) of the proposed subunit that is part of the Shoalwater
Bay Tribal lands have been excluded from designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (refer to the Exclusions section below).
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. The State Recovery Plan for the western snowy plover (WDFW
1995) defines the geographic area from Grayland Beach State Park south
to Toke Point as ``South Beach.'' Based on documented sightings and
records of western snowy plover use for the south beach geographic area
(WDFW 1995, Appendix C), Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit was occupied at the
time of listing and is a known or presumed historical nesting area
(WDFW 1995, Figure 2, p. 3). Pacific Coast WSPs nested on the
Shoalwater Bay Indian reservation in 2006, 2007 and 2008, but no
nesting has been documented on the spit since 2008. Although fledging
success is relatively high at this location, plover use of the
Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit area is sporadic.
The subunit includes the following features essential to the
conservation of the species: large areas of sand dune habitat that are
relatively undisturbed; areas of sandy beach above and below the high-
tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates; and close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud
flats. Special management that may be required includes management of
human-related activities to reduce disturbance to breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs, and maintenance of the physical or biological features
within the subunit.
Based on interpretation of aerial imagery, the Cape Shoalwater area
has experienced extensive erosion over the past 15 years. A nearly 0.3
mi-wide (0.5 km-wide) by 1.5 mi-long (2.4 km-long) section of the
coastline, including roads and residences, has been reclaimed by the
ocean, resulting in the accretion of Midway Beach. The accretion of
beach improves elements of essential physical or biological features.
Because the county ownership layer for this subunit is ambiguous and
all private property parcels are under water, the layer could not be
used for precise acreage calculations. However, the vast majority of
the unit is managed by the State of Washington.
WA 4A, Leadbetter Spit, 2,700 ac (1,093 ha)
The Leadbetter Spit subunit is located in Pacific County at the
northern tip of the Long Beach Peninsula, and consists of a 26 mi-long
(42 km-long) spit that defines the west side of Willapa Bay and extends
down to the mouth of the Columbia River. The subunit is located just
north of the community of Ocean Park and includes Leadbetter Point
State Park (SP) and the Willapa NWR at the northern end of the spit.
The main portion of this subunit is on the ocean side, and includes the
coastal beaches from the tip of the peninsula, and the habitat
restoration area down to Oysterville Road, approximately 1.8 mi (3 km)
south of Leadbetter Point SP. The boundaries for this subunit have
changed from that proposed in our March 2011 rule as a result of
information provided to us by Willapa NWR staff and an acreage
miscalculation in the March 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 16046) (refer to
the Summary of Changes from the Revised Proposed section above).
This subunit contains some areas that are currently not suitable
habitat (water and vegetated areas) but may become suitable with
management actions, sea-level rise, and ongoing natural changes and
beach accretion on the spit. Although the refuge manages areas above
the high tide line on the northern portion of the spit, the ownership
data do not reflect where the State and Federal jurisdictions lie.
Thus, all ownership acreages are approximate for this unit. The subunit
includes approximately 8 mi (13 km) of coastal beaches and sheltered
bays. Approximately 987 ac (399 ha) are on lands that are managed by
the Willapa NWR, and the remaining 1,713 ac (693
[[Page 36756]]
ha) are managed by the Washington State Park and Recreation Department
and Department of Natural Resources.
Leadbetter Spit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and is the largest subunit in Washington. Approximately 25 to
30 Pacific Coast WSPs nest and overwinter on the spit annually, with
most of the nesting occurring in the snowy plover habitat restoration
area within the Willapa NWR. Between 10 and more than 40 breeding
adults were recorded between 2005 and 2009 (WDFW 2009, p. 12). A few
pairs nest along the ocean beaches and on State Park lands just south
of the Willapa NWR. The 2007 Recovery Plan lists a management goal of
30 breeding adults for this subunit (Service 2007, Appendix B).
The subunit includes the following features essential to the
conservation of the species: Relatively undisturbed, sandy beaches
above and below the high-tide line and sparsely vegetated dunes for
nesting; miles of coastal wrack line supporting small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats and
sheltered bays for foraging. The combined dynamics of weather and surf
cause large quantities of wood and shell material to accumulate on the
spit, providing prime nesting habitat, hiding areas from predators,
foraging opportunities, and shelter from inclement weather.
European beach grass threatens the habitat quality of the subunit.
Special management that may be needed includes restoration and
maintenance of degraded habitat to ensure the reinfestation of
nonnative vegetation does not occur. Doing so will ensure that elements
of essential physical or biological features within this subunit remain
intact. Primary threats that may require special management include the
State's management of the spring razor clam season, which opens beaches
to motorized vehicle and provides access into Pacific Coast WSP nesting
areas that normally receive limited human use. The State Parks and
Recreation Commission has posted areas where plovers nest, increased
enforcement of the wet sand driving regulations, and conducted habitat
restoration on State Park lands.
WA 4B, Gunpowder Sands Island, 904 ac (366 ha)
The subunit includes Gunpowder Sands Island just off the northern
tip of the Long Beach Peninsula. The island shifts location annually
and only a portion of the mapped area may be dry sand at any given
time. The island is managed by the State of Washington.
Because the island is only accessible by boat, breeding surveys for
Pacific Coast WSP at this location are sporadic. It is unknown if this
Gunpowder Sands Island was occupied at the time the Pacific Coast WSP
was listed in 1993, but two successful nests and one failed nest were
documented on the island in 1995 (WDFW heritage data). Although nesting
has not been recently confirmed for this area, we consider this unit
essential for the conservation of the species because it provides a
safe nesting, resting, and foraging area free of human disturbance and
connectivity between two currently occupied areas. We consider that it
is important for the species' use, based on the proximity of the site
to the occupied nesting area on Leadbetter Spit, and on fluctuating
habitat and resource availability.
Gunpowder Sands Island also has physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Relatively undisturbed,
sandy beaches above and below the high-tide line; sparsely vegetated
dunes for nesting; and coastal wrackline supporting small
invertebrates. The island is periodically overwashed during winter
storms, resulting in dry sand and beach habitat with little or no
vegetation.
Oregon
OR 1, Columbia River Spit
Unit OR 1 has been excluded from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
OR 2, Necanicum River Spit, 11 ac (4 ha)
We proposed 211 (85 ha) for designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final revision, 200
ac (81 ha) has been excluded from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of Clatsop County, adjacent to
the City of Gearhart, and less than 1 mi (2 km) north of the City of
Seaside. It is bounded by the Necanicum River estuary on the south,
City of Gearhart to the north and east, and Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department's HCP-covered lands to the west. The mouth of the river
changes periodically. The northern inland portion of the unit is
overgrown with European beach grass; sea-level rise and overwashing of
this area during the winter months is anticipated to result in
vegetation removal and the creation of additional Pacific Coast WSP
breeding habitat. Eleven ac (4 ha) of privately owned land landward of
HCP-covered lands are included in this revised designated critical
habitat because they are essential to the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP to address habitat needs arising from anticipated sea-level
rise.
Necanicum River Spit was not considered occupied at the time the
Pacific Coast WSP was listed in 1993. Two breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
were documented in 2002 (Service unpublished data). We consider the
unit is essential for the conservation of the species as it is needed
for use in response to fluctuating habitat and resource availability.
It has the capability of providing future connectivity between occupied
areas, dispersal habitat between units, and habitat for resting and
foraging. This unit may provide habitat to support breeding plovers and
facilitate interchange between otherwise widely separated units within
Recovery Unit 1 (identified in the Recovery Plan, Service 2007) in
Oregon and Washington.
Necanicum River Spit is a characteristic dune-backed beach with
wide sand spits in close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud
flats. The unit contains sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy
dune; open, sandy areas that are relatively undisturbed by humans; and
close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats, which are
considered essential for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
OR 3, Nehalem River Spit
Unit OR 3 has been excluded from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
OR 4, Bayocean Spit, 201 ac (82 ha)
We proposed 367 ac (149 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, 80 ac (32 ha) were removed from proposed critical habitat at
the shoreline due to inundation, and 86 ac (35 ha) of proposed critical
habitat has been excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of Tillamook County, and about 9
mi (15 km) northwest of the City of Tillamook. It is bounded by
Tillamook Bay on the east, the Tillamook Bay South Jetty to the north,
the northern boundary of Bayocean Peninsula County Park 2.0 mi (3.2 km)
to the south, and HCP-covered lands to the west. The unit is located
behind a relatively low foredune. Sea-level rise and overwashing of
this area during the winter months is anticipated to result in
vegetation removal and
[[Page 36757]]
creation of additional Pacific Coast WSP breeding habitat. Two ac (1
ha) of privately owned land and 199 ac (81 ha) of federally owned land
landward of the HCP-covered lands are designated due to anticipated
sea-level rise.
Bayocean Spit was occupied at the time of listing. Two Pacific
Coast WSPs were documented in 1993, and six plovers in 1995, in this
unit during the breeding season (ODFW in litt. 1994, Appendix, Table 2;
ODFW unpublished data). Prior to 2001, winter use of the area by
plovers was documented consistently. Recent records indicate use by
wintering plovers in 2007 and 2008 (Service unpublished data). We
consider the unit to be needed by the species for future use in
response to fluctuating habitat and resource availability. It has the
capability of providing future connectivity between occupied areas,
dispersal habitat between units, and habitat for resting and foraging.
This unit may provide habitat to support breeding plovers and
facilitate interchange between otherwise widely separated units within
Recovery Unit 1 (identified in the Recovery Plan, Service 2007) in
Oregon and Washington.
Bayocean Spit is a characteristic dune-backed beach in close
proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats. The unit contains
the following features essential to the conservation of the species:
Sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas
that are relatively undisturbed by humans; sandy beach above the mean
high water line that supports small invertebrates; and close proximity
to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this unit are degradation of the sand
dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass; disturbance
from humans and pets in important foraging and nesting areas; and
predators.
OR 5, Netarts Spit
Unit OR 5 has been excluded from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
OR 6, Sand Lake South, 5 ac (2 ha)
We proposed 200 ac (81 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, 195 ac (79 ha) has been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section
below).
This unit is on the southwestern coast of Tillamook County, about
4.5 mi (7 km) north of Pacific City. It is bounded by Sand Lake estuary
to the north and east, the northern limit of development in the town of
Tierra Del Mar to the south, and HCP-covered lands to the west. The
mouth of the lake changes periodically. The unit is a small upland
portion of the spit. Sea-level rise and overwashing of this area during
the winter months is anticipated to result in vegetation removal and
the creation of additional Pacific Coast WSP breeding habitat. Five ac
(2 ha) of privately owned land landward of HCP-covered lands are
included in this revised designated critical habitat because they are
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP to address
habitat needs arising from anticipated sea-level rise.
Sand Lake South was not considered occupied at the time the Pacific
Coast WSP was listed in 1993. However, four snowy plovers were observed
during the breeding season at Sand Lake in 1986 (ODFW, in litt. 1994,
Appendix, Table 2). Although nesting has not been recently confirmed
for this area, Sand Lake South is an historical breeding site within
the species' range. The unit has the capability of providing
connectivity between occupied areas, dispersal habitat between units,
and habitat for resting and foraging. This unit is needed to provide
habitat to support breeding plovers and facilitate interchange between
otherwise widely separated units within Recovery Unit 1 (identified in
the Recovery Plan, Service 2007) in Oregon and Washington.
Sand Lake South is a characteristic dune-backed beach with wide
sand spits in close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud
flats. The unit contains sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy
dune; open, sandy areas that are relatively undisturbed by humans; and
close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats, which are
considered essential for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
OR 7, Sutton/Baker Beaches, 276 ac (112 ha)
We proposed 372 (151 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, 96 ac (39 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of Lane County, about 5 mi (8 km)
north of the City of Florence. It is located 2.25 mi south of Heceta
Head and bounded by Sutton Creek to the south, lands administered by
the Siuslaw National Forest to the east, and HCP-covered lands to the
west The unit consists of 276 ac (112 ha) of Federal lands, managed by
the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) Siuslaw National Forest.
This unit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. The most recently documented Pacific Coast WSPs for this unit
includes four breeding plovers in 2007 (Lauten et al. 2007, p. 5). We
have determined that the unit contains the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species which may require
special management considerations or protection. This unit provides
habitat to support breeding plovers and facilitates interchange between
otherwise widely separated units under intensive management. It extends
behind a relatively low foredune in several places into areas overgrown
with beach grass. Sea-level rise and overwashing of these areas during
the winter months is anticipated to result in vegetation removal and
the creation of additional plover breeding habitat.
The unit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and wide sand
spits with overwash areas and contains an interdune flat created
through habitat restoration. It includes the following features
essential to the conservation of the species: Sparsely vegetated, low-
lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; and sandy beach above the mean high water line
that supports small invertebrates.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this unit are degradation of the sand
dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass; disturbance
from humans, pets, and horses in important foraging and nesting areas;
and predators.
OR 8A, Siltcoos Breach, 15 ac (6 ha)
This subunit is on the southwestern coast of Lane County, about 7
mi (11 km) southwest of the City of Florence. It is an important
wintering area that includes a large opening in the foredune 1.2 mi (2
km) north of the Siltcoos River. The southern boundary is located 0.6
mi (1 km) north of the Siltcoos River, with the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area (NRA) to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west.
The subunit consists of 7 federally owned ac (3 ha) managed by the USFS
as the Oregon Dunes NRA in the Siuslaw National Forest and 8 ac (3 ha)
on the ``Ocean Shore,'' managed by OPRD.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied with recently documented wintering Pacific Coast WSPs in 2005,
2006, 2007, and 2010 (Service unpublished data). As many as 59 Pacific
Coast WSP were
[[Page 36758]]
documented during the winter of 2005 (C. Burns, pers. comm. 2006), and
26, 36, and 24 Pacific Coast WSP in 2006, 2007 and 2010, respectively
(Service unpublished data).
The subunit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach. It includes
the following features essential to the conservation of the species:
Sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy dune and sandy beach above
the mean high water line that supports small invertebrates.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this subunit are degradation of the
sand dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass on the
available wintering habitat and disturbance from humans, pets, and
vehicles in important roosting and foraging areas.
OR 8B, Siltcoos River Spit, 116 ac (47 ha)
We proposed 241 (97 ha) for designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final revision, 125
ac (51 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This subunit is located in Lane and Douglas Counties, about 7 mi
(11 km) southwest of the City of Florence. It includes the sand spits
to the north and south of the Siltcoos River and is bounded by the
Waxmyrtle Trail and campground to the east, and HCP-covered lands to
the west. It consists of 116 federally owned ac (47 ha) managed by the
USFS as the Oregon Dunes NRA in the Siuslaw National Forest.
Siltcoos River Spit was occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. Most recently documented Pacific Coast WSPs for
this subunit include 26 breeding adults in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p.
25).
The subunit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and sand spit
in close proximity to a tidally influenced river mouth. The subunit
contains the following features essential to the conservation of the
species: sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy
areas that are relatively undisturbed by humans; sandy beach above the
mean high water line that supports small invertebrates; and close
proximity to tidally influenced freshwater areas.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this subunit are degradation of the
sand dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass;
disturbance from humans and pets in important foraging and nesting
areas; vehicle trespass into closed areas; and predators.
OR 8C, Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit, 383 ac (155 ha)
We proposed 716 (290 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, 333 ac (135 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section
below).
This subunit is in Douglas County, about 9 mi (15 km) southwest of
the City of Florence. The southern boundary of the unit is about 5.3 mi
(9 km) northwest of the City of Reedsport. It is bounded by the subunit
8B to the north, a street legal vehicle area to the south, Oregon Dunes
NRA to the east, and HCP-covered lands to the west. It consists of 383
federally owned ac (155 ha) managed by the USFS as the Oregon Dunes NRA
in the Siuslaw National Forest.
Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. Documented Pacific Coast WSPs for
this subunit include 71 breeding plovers in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011,
p. 25).
The subunit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and sand spit
in close proximity to a tidally influenced river mouth and contains
interdune flats created through habitat restoration. The subunit
contains the following features essential to the conservation of the
species: Wide sand spits or overwashes and sparsely vegetated, low-
lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; sandy beach above the mean high water line that
supports small invertebrates; and close proximity to tidally influenced
freshwater areas.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this subunit are degradation of the
sand dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass;
disturbance from humans in important foraging and nesting areas; and
predators.
OR 8D, North Umpqua River Spit, 59 ac (24 ha)
We proposed 236 (95 ha) for designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final revision, 177
ac (71 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This subunit is on the western coast of Douglas County, about 4 mi
(5 km) west of the City of Reedsport. It is bounded by the Umpqua River
North Jetty to the south, Oregon Dunes NRA land to the north and east,
and HCP-covered lands to the west. Subunit 8D consists of 59 ac (24 ha)
of Federal land managed by the USFS for the Oregon Dunes NRA in the
Siuslaw National Forest.
This subunit was not occupied at the time of listing. Nesting
Pacific Coast WSPs were last documented at North Umpqua River Spit in
the 1980s (ODFW unpublished data). The subunit is located between
currently occupied areas and provides habitat for adult dispersal
between units. Although nesting and wintering has not been recently
confirmed for this area, we consider the unit is needed by the species
for use in response to fluctuating habitat and resource availability.
The subunit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach in close
proximity to tidally influenced freshwater areas. The subunit includes
sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas
that are relatively undisturbed by humans; sandy beach above the mean
high water line that supports small invertebrates; and close proximity
to tidally influenced freshwater areas, which are considered essential
for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
OR 9, Tenmile Creek Spit, 223 ac (90 ha)
We proposed 244 ac (99 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, 21 ac (8 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the northwestern coast of Coos County, about 11 mi
(18 km) southwest of the City of Reedsport. It includes the sand spits
and beaches to the north and south of the Tenmile River. This unit is
on the northwestern coast of Coos County, about 11 mi (18 km) southwest
of the City of Reedsport, with Winchester Bay 6.5 mi (10.5 km) to the
north, Coos Bay North Jetty 15.5 mi (25 km) to the south, the City of
Lakeside 2.5 mi (4 km) to the east, and HCP-covered lands to the west.
Tenmile Creek Spit was occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. Documented Pacific Coast WSPs for this unit include
25 breeding adults in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p. 25). Unit OR 9
consists of 223 ac (90 ha) of Federal land managed as the Oregon Dunes
NRA by the USFS.
The unit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and sand spit in
close proximity to a tidally influenced river mouth. It includes the
following features essential to the conservation of the species:
Sparsely vegetated, low-
[[Page 36759]]
lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; sandy beach above the mean high water line that
supports small invertebrates; and close proximity to tidally influenced
freshwater areas.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this unit degradation of the sand
dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass; disturbance
from humans in important foraging and nesting areas; vehicle trespass
into closed areas; and predators.
OR 10, Coos Bay North Spit, 273 ac (111 ha)
We proposed 308 (125 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, 35 ac (14 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of Coos County, about 3 mi (5 km)
west of the City of Coos Bay. It is bounded Oregon Dunes NRA 3 mi (4.8
km) to the north, Coos Bay North Jetty to the south, Coos Bay to the
east, and HCP-covered lands to the west.
Coos Bay North Spit was occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. Documented Pacific Coast WSPs for this unit include
59 breeding plovers in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p. 25). The unit
consists of 273 ac (111 ha) of Federal land under the jurisdiction of
the USACE, but primarily managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).
The unit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach in close
proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats and containing
interior interdune flats created through dredge material disposal or
through habitat restoration. It includes the following features
essential to the conservation of the species: Expansive, sparsely
vegetated interdune flats; open, sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; areas of sandy beach above the mean high water
line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally influenced estuarine mud flats.
Primary threats to essential physical and biological features that
may require special management in this unit are degradation of the sand
dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass; disturbance
from humans, pets, and horses in important foraging and nesting areas;
vehicle trespass into closed areas; and predators.
OR 11, Bandon to New River, 541 ac (219 ha)
We proposed 1,016 ac (411 ha) for designation in this unit in our
revised proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final
revision, Bandon State Natural Area (227 ac, 92 ha), which is owned and
managed by OPRD, and 249 ac (101 ha) of private land have been excluded
from critical habitat designation for this unit under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
The remaining lands of this unit are on the southwestern coast of
Coos County, about 3 mi (5 km) south of the City of Bandon. The unit
consists of multiple land ownerships bounded by the southern boundary
of Bandon State Natural Area to the north, the New River to the east,
north of the Floras Creek outlet to the south, and HCP-covered lands to
the west. The unit encompasses all of New River Spit and extends behind
a relatively low foredune north of Floras Creek. Sea-level rise and
overwashing of these areas during the winter months is anticipated to
result in vegetation removal and the creation of additional Pacific
Coast WSP breeding habitat.
New River was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Documented Pacific Coast WSPs for this unit include 20
breeding plovers in 2011 (Lauten et al. 2011, p. 25; Lauten 2012 pers.
comm.). The BLM is the unit's primary land manager. Unit OR 11 consists
of 459 ac (186 ha) of Federal land with 82 ac (33 ha) of private land.
The unit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and barrier spit,
and contains interdune flats created through habitat restoration. It
includes the following features essential to the conservation of the
species: Wide sand spits or overwashes and sparsely vegetated, low-
lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; areas of sandy beach above the mean high water
line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates;
and close proximity to tidally influenced freshwater areas.
Primary threats that may require special management in this unit
are degradation of the sand dune system due to encroachment of European
beach grass; disturbance from humans and pets in important foraging and
nesting areas; vehicle trespass into closed areas; and predators.
OR 12, Elk River Spit
Unit OR 12 has been excluded from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
OR 13, Euchre Creek Spit, 9 ac (4 ha)
We proposed 116 (47 ha) for designation in this unit in our revised
proposed designation of critical habitat. In this final revision, 107
ac (43 ha) of proposed critical habitat has been excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below).
This unit is on the western coast of Curry County, approximately 10
mi (6 km) north of the City of Gold Beach. It located to the north and
south of the Euchre Creek and is bounded by HCP-covered lands to the
west. The unit consists of 9 ac (4 ha) of private land. The unit
extends into low-elevation areas on the north and south side of Euchre
Creek. Sea-level rise and overwashing of these areas during the winter
months is anticipated to result in vegetation removal and the creation
of additional Pacific Coast WSP breeding habitat.
Although Euchre Creek Spit was not considered occupied at the time
the Pacific Coast WSP was listed in 1993, this beach is a historical
nesting site. The most recently documented Pacific Coast WSP in the
area was one wintering plover in 1989 (ODFW in litt. 1994, Appendix,
Table 3). Although nesting and wintering have not been recently
confirmed for this area, we consider the unit is needed by the species
for use in response to fluctuating habitat and resource availability.
We consider the unit to be essential for the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP as it has the capability of providing connectivity
between occupied areas, dispersal habitat between units, and habitat
for resting and foraging. This unit may provide habitat to support
breeding Pacific Coast WSP and would facilitate interchange between
otherwise widely separated units within Recovery Unit 1 (identified in
the Recovery Plan, Service 2007) in Oregon and Washington.
Euchre Creek Spit is characteristic of a dune-backed beach and sand
spit in close proximity to a tidally influenced river mouth. The unit
includes sparsely vegetated, low-lying areas of sandy dune; open, sandy
areas that are relatively undisturbed by humans; and close proximity to
tidally influenced freshwater areas, which are essential for the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP.
California
CA 1, Lake Earl, 74 ac (30 ha)
This unit is located directly west of the Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa
lagoon system in Del Norte County about 4 mi (7 km) north of Crescent
City. The Lake Earl Lagoon spit is approximately 3 mi
[[Page 36760]]
(5 km) in length, encompasses approximately 74 ac (30 ha), and lies
approximately 2 mi (3 km) north of Point Saint George and the McNamara
Airfield.
This unit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. This unit is a historical breeding site (Yocom and Harris
1975, p. 30), and has harbored a small population of wintering Pacific
Coast WSP in recent years (Service unpublished data). This unit is
capable of supporting 10 breeding adults with adaptive management
(Service 2007, Appendix B). All 74 ac (24 ha) are managed by the State
under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), and California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR).
Essential physical or biological features of the unit for Pacific
Coast WSP conservation include sandy beaches above and below the mean
high-tide line, wind-blown sand in dune systems immediately inland of
the active beach face, and the wash over area at the lagoon mouth.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from: Degradation of the sand
dune system due to encroachment of European beach grass; destruction of
habitat and loss of wintering and nesting Pacific Coast WSPs from OHV
use; and destruction of habitat from annual mechanical breaching (as
authorized by the USACE) of the spit between the Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa
Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean.
CA 2, Gold Bluffs Beach, 233 ac (94 ha)
This unit is located in Humboldt County about 5 mi (6 km) north of
the Town of Orick within Prairie Creek State Park (north of Gold Bluffs
Beach campground), and is managed cooperatively with Redwood National
Park, collectively known as Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP).
This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied,
and incorporates the primary use area of a pair of Pacific Coast WSPs
that nested in Prairie Creek State Park during the summer of 2005, and
is commonly used by wintering Pacific Coast WSPs.
Although not considered a main breeding location, unit CA 2
provides a fairly undisturbed location for breeding Pacific Coast WSP
that lose nests to predation or other causes at various nest sites, and
could offset habitat loss as sea-level rise prevents nesting at sites
currently being used by plovers. One chick was fledged from the unit
during 2004. Up to five Pacific Coast WSPs were observed within the
unit in March 2007. The unit's primary value is as a wintering site
(Service 2007, Appendix B). The site is often used as wintering habitat
on an irregular basis (Service unpublished data). RNSP are actively
managing the area for Pacific Coast WSP.
The northeast portion of the unit is currently vegetated with
European beach grass and is, therefore, currently unsuitable for
nesting. However, with restoration, that portion of the unit would be
considered suitable nesting habitat. We include that portion of the
unit to help offset the anticipated effects of sea-level rise over
time. RNSP have restored beach habitat by removing nonnative vegetation
on other portions of Gold Bluffs Beach. We anticipate similar
restoration within the unit to occur sometime in the future.
The unit contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP: Low lying sandy dunes; open,
sandy areas that are relatively undisturbed by humans; and sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line that supports small invertebrates.
Most visitor use in the area is in Fern Canyon, which is to the east of
the unit and outside of suitable Pacific Coast WSP habitat. Visitation
is light relative to other State and National Parks within the Pacific
Coast WSP's range. Limited vehicle use of the beach is allowed for
commercial and tribal fishing, and park administrative use.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human-related use from
recreation and OHV use associated with commercial fishing, and European
beach grass.
CA 3A, Stone Lagoon, 55 ac (22 ha)
This subunit is approximately 0.9 mi (1.5 km) in length, and is
located on the Stone Lagoon spit. Stone Lagoon borders the subunit on
the east, and the Pacific Ocean makes up the subunit's western edge.
Subunit CA 3A is located in Humboldt County, approximately 3 mi (5 km)
south of the Town of Orick.
The subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. Nesting has recently occurred within the subunit. In 2009, a
single nest hatched three chicks, all of which fledged (Colwell, et al.
2009, p. 9). The Recovery Plan (Service 2007) estimates that up to 16
Pacific Coast WSPs can be supported within Unit CA 3; however, all are
attributed to subunit CA 3B. Recent data indicate that the population
management potential for subunit CA 3A is underestimated by the
Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix B), as it does contribute towards
the species' reproductive success in northern California (Colwell et
al. 2009, p. 9; Service unpublished data).
The subunit contains the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP: Low-lying sandy
dunes; open, sandy areas that are relatively undisturbed by humans; and
sandy beach above and below the high-tide line that supports small
invertebrates. Special management may be needed to control nonnative
vegetation and enforce existing regulations to ensure the suitability
of the subunit. With time, we anticipate that the entire subunit will
be inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 3B, Big Lagoon, 268 ac (108 ha)
This subunit consists of a large sand spit that divides the Pacific
Ocean from Big Lagoon. The northern extent of Big Lagoon Spit is
located in Humboldt County and is approximately 6 mi (10 km) south of
the Town of Orick. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and
is currently occupied. Big Lagoon Spit is historical nesting habitat
(Page and Stenzel 1981, p. 9), and currently maintains a winter
population of fewer than 10 Pacific Coast WSPs (Service unpublished
data). Recent nesting occurred within the subunit during 2005, in which
a single nest hatched and fledged three chicks. We estimate the subunit
can support 16 breeding adults (Service 2007, Appendix B). The subunit
is located on the Big Lagoon Spit, which is approximately 4 mi (7 km)
in length. Most of the subunit is managed by the CDPR. Approximately
0.6 ac (0.3 ha) are managed by Humboldt County.
Essential physical or biological features of the subunit that
contribute towards the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP include:
Low-lying sandy dunes and open, sandy areas that are relatively
undisturbed by humans; and sandy beach above and below the high-tide
line that supports small invertebrates.
CDPR has conducted habitat restoration at this unit through the
hand-removal of nonnative vegetation. The primary threat to wintering
and breeding Pacific Coast WSPs that may require special management is
disturbance from humans and pets from walking through winter flocks and
potential nesting areas.
Other threats requiring management include control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use
[[Page 36761]]
regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of the subunit. With
time, we anticipate that the entire subunit will be inundated with sea-
level rise associated with climate change.
CA 4A, Clam Beach/Little River, 337 ac (136 ha)
The subunit is located in Humboldt County immediately west and
north of the Town of McKinleyville. The Clam Beach/Little River
subunit's northern boundary is directly across from the south abutment
of the U.S. Highway 101 Bridge that crosses the Little River. The
southern subunit boundary is aligned with the north end of the
southernmost, paved Clam Beach parking area. The length of the subunit
is approximately 2 mi (3 km). Approximately 222 ac (90 ha) are State
owned.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. During 2003, the subunit supported a breeding population of
approximately 12 Pacific Coast WSPs, and a winter population of up to
55 plovers (Service unpublished data). This subunit is one of four
primary nesting locations within northern California. Based on the
Recovery Plan (Service 2007, Appendix B), we expect the subunit to be
capable of supporting six pairs of breeding Pacific Coast WSPs.
Essential physical or biological features of the subunit that
contribute towards the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP include
large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Special management is needed to control nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations. With time, we anticipate
that the lower portions of this subunit will be inundated with sea-
level rise associated with climate change.
CA 4B, Mad River Beach, 452 ac (183 ha)
The subunit is located in Humboldt County immediately west of the
Town of McKinleyville. This subunit was largely swept clean of European
beach grass when the Mad River temporarily shifted north in the 1980s
and 1990s. The Mad River Beach subunit is approximately 3 mi (5 km)
long, and ranges from the U.S. Highway 101 Vista Point below the
Arcata-Eureka Airport in the north, to School Road in the south.
Approximately 161 ac (65 ha) are owned and managed by Humboldt County,
and 143 ac (58 ha) are privately owned. The remaining 148 ac (60 ha)
are managed by the State, and consist of the intertidal zone. Upon
recalculation of ownership data, we discovered that the overall subunit
area is approximately 4 ac (2 ha) smaller than proposed.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. We expect it to eventually support 12 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs with proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B). The current
breeding population is believed to be less than five Pacific Coast
WSPs, although plovers from this subunit readily intermix with plovers
in CA 4A and elsewhere (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9; Service unpublished
data). Occasional winter use by Pacific Coast WSPs has been
intermittently documented, with most wintering within the adjacent
critical habitat subunit to the north (Service unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological features of the subunit that
contribute towards the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP include
large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of the subunit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this subunit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate change.
Potential threats to nests, chicks, and both wintering and breeding
adult Pacific Coast WSPs that may require special management are:
nonnative vegetation, OHV use, and disturbance caused by equestrians
(i.e., people riding horses) and humans with accompanying pets.
CA 5A, Humboldt Bay South Spit Beach, 572 ac (231 ha)
This subunit is located in Humboldt County adjacent to Humboldt
Bay, less than 1 mi west of the City of Eureka, with the southern
boundary being Table Bluff. Approximately 542 ac (219 ha) of the unit
are owned by the CDFG and State Lands Commission, but are managed by
BLM; 10 ac (4 ha) are owned and managed by Humboldt County; and 20 ac
(8 ha) are owned by the USACE. The subunit is 5 mi (8 km) in total
length.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. The Pacific Coast WSP wintering population within the subunit
is estimated at fewer than 15 individuals. Three nests, from four
breeders, were attempted within the subunit in 2003 (Service
unpublished data). This subunit is capable of supporting 30 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs (Service 2007, Appendix B). The BLM has conducted
habitat restoration within the subunit, in consultation with us.
The following physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP can be found within the unit:
Large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, OHV
use, and disturbance from equestrians and humans with pets.
CA 5B, Eel River North Spit and Beach, 464 ac (188 ha)
This subunit is located in Humboldt County about 4 mi (7 km) east
of the Town of Loleta and stretches from Table Bluff on the north to
the mouth of the Eel River in the south. The subunit is estimated to be
3.9 mi (7 km) long, and is managed by the State, except for 7 ac (3 ha)
of private land.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied with a wintering population of Pacific Coast WSPs estimated at
fewer than 20 (Service unpublished data). As many as 11 breeders have
been observed during breeding season window surveys, with a breeding
population estimated at less than 15 (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9). We
expect this subunit to eventually support 20 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs with proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B).
Essential physical or biological features of the subunit include:
Large areas of sandy, sparsely vegetated dunes for reproduction and
normal behavior, and areas of sandy beach above and below the high-tide
line supporting small invertebrates for foraging. Surf-cast organic
debris is an important component of the habitat in this subunit,
providing shelter from the wind both for nesting Pacific Coast WSPs and
for invertebrate prey species. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the subunit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this subunit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the
[[Page 36762]]
species may require special management considerations or protection to
address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, predators, OHVs,
and disturbance from equestrians and humans with pets.
CA 5C, Eel River South Spit and Beach, 336 ac (136 ha)
This subunit, located in Humboldt County, encompasses the beach
segment from the mouth of the Eel River, south to Centerville Road,
approximately 4 mi (7 km) west of the City of Ferndale. The subunit is
5 mi (8 km) long; 160 ac (65 ha) are private, with 4 ac (2 ha) managed
by Humboldt County. Approximately 172 ac (70 ha) are managed by the
State.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and capable of supporting 20 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs. A
single nest was found during the 2004 breeding season (Colwell et al.
2004, p. 7). The winter population is estimated at fewer than 80
plovers, many of which breed on the Eel River gravel bars (CA 5)
(Service unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological features of the subunit include:
Large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain for
foraging. Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing
human-use regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of the
subunit. With time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this
subunit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate
change.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
predators, OHVs, and disturbance from equestrians and humans with pets.
CA 6, Eel River Gravel Bars; 1,349 ac (546 ha)
This unit, located in Humboldt County, is largely inundated during
winter months due to high flows in the Eel River. The unit is 6.4 mi (8
km) from the City of Fernbridge, and includes gravel bars between
Fernbridge and the confluence of the Van Duzen River. The Eel River is
contained by levees in this section, and consists of gravel bars and
wooded islands. The unit contains a total of 1,349 ac (546 ha), of
which 176 ac (71 ha) are owned and managed by Humboldt County, 304 ac
(123 ha) are under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands
Commission, and 869 ac (352 ha) are privately-owned.
This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and capable of supporting 40 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs.
Surveys have documented 22 breeding birds in this unit; however, those
numbers have dropped off in recent years (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9;
Service unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological features of this unit include
bare, open gravel bars comprised of both sand and cobble, which support
reproduction and foraging. This unit harbors the most important
breeding habitat in California north of San Francisco Bay, and has the
highest fledging success rate of any area from Mendocino County to the
Oregon border.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from predators, OHVs,
disturbance from gravel mining, and humans with pets. Gravel mining is
managed through a Clean Water Act permit issued by the USACE.
CA 7, MacKerricher Beach, 1,218 ac (493 ha)
This unit is approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) long. The unit is just
south of the Ten Mile River, and approximately 4 mi (6 km) north of the
City of Fort Bragg located in Mendocino County. The State manages
approximately 1,144 ac (463 ha), and 74 ac (30 ha) are privately owned.
CDPR has been conducting removal of European beach grass to improve
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and other sensitive dune species
within the unit.
This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and is capable of supporting 20 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
(Service 2007, Appendix B). The current breeding population is
estimated at fewer than 10 (Colwell et al. 2009, p. 9). The winter
population of plovers is fewer than 45 (Service unpublished data).
Essential physical or biological features of the unit include:
large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
predators, and disturbance from equestrians and humans with pets.
CA 8, Manchester Beach, 505 ac (204 ha)
The Manchester Beach unit is approximately 3.5 mi (6 km) long and
located in Mendocino County about 1 mi (2 km) west of the Town of
Manchester. The State manages 425 ac (172 ha) of the unit, 68 ac (28
ha) are federally managed, and the remaining 12 ac (5 ha) are privately
owned. This unit is occupied and provides an important wintering site
for Pacific Coast WSPs in the region (Service 2007, Appendix B). In
2003, a pair of Pacific Coast WSPs nested within the unit, and
successfully hatched two chicks. However, those chicks did not survive
(Colwell et al. 2004, p. 7). The current wintering population is
estimated at fewer than 20 (Service unpublished data).
Although occupancy at the time of listing has not been confirmed,
we consider this unit essential for the conservation of the species
based on the fluctuating use of areas by the species as a response to
habitat and resource availability. The unit is located adjacent to
currently occupied areas and provides dispersal habitat between units.
This unit provides habitat to support breeding Pacific Coast WSPs, will
facilitate interchange between otherwise widely separated units, and
helps provide habitat within a Recovery Unit identified in the Recovery
Plan (Service 2007).
The unit contains large areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line, and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain, which are essential for the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP.
CA 9, Dillon Beach, 39 ac (16 ha)
This unit is located at the mouth of Tomales Bay, in Marin County,
just south of the Town of Dillon Beach. It stretches for about 0.7 mi
(1 km) north from Sand Point. The unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is an important wintering area for
the species. Seventy-five wintering Pacific Coast WSPs were counted at
this location during the January 2007 winter window survey (Service
2007, p. 4). The unit does not extend as far north as did the unit
proposed for Dillon Beach in 2004 (69 FR 75607, December 17, 2004),
because subsequent site visits and discussions with local Pacific Coast
WSP surveyors have established that Pacific Coast WSPs only rarely used
the area north of
[[Page 36763]]
the unit we are designating in this rule. The unit is entirely on
private land.
Essential physical or biological features provided by the unit
include surf cast debris supporting small invertebrates for foraging,
and large stretches of relatively undisturbed, sparsely vegetated,
sandy beach, both above and below high-tide line, for foraging and
potentially for nesting.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
predators, and disturbance by humans and their pets. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations
are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with
sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 10A, Point Reyes, 460 ac (186 ha)
This subunit is located in Marin County to the west of the
unincorporated Community of Inverness and occupies most of the west-
facing beach between Point Reyes and Tomales Point. It is located
entirely within the Point Reyes National Seashore, and consists
primarily of dune-backed beaches. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, supports both nesting and wintering
Pacific Coast WSPs, and has the potential to support 50 breeding birds
with proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B).
The Point Reyes unit includes the following PCEs essential to
Pacific Coast WSP conservation: sparsely vegetated sandy beach above
and below high-tide for nesting and foraging, wind-blown sand dunes for
nesting and predator avoidance, and tide-cast debris attracting small
invertebrates for foraging. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the subunit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this subunit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
disturbance by humans and pets, and predators (particularly corvids).
CA 10B, Limantour, 156 ac (63 ha)
Limantour is a roughly 2.25-mi (4-km) sand spit at the north end of
Drake's Bay located in Marin County to the west of the unincorporated
Community of Olema. The subunit includes the end of the spit, and
narrows to include only the south-facing beach towards the base of the
spit. It is completely within the Point Reyes National Seashore. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and
can support both nesting and wintering Pacific Coast WSPs, although
nesting has not been documented since 2000 (Stenzel in litt. 2004, p.
3; Service 2009, p. 3). Ninety-eight wintering plovers were counted at
the site during the January 2007 window survey (Service 2007, p. 4).
The subunit is expected to contribute significantly to plover
conservation in the region by providing habitat capable of supporting
10 nesting birds (Service 2007, Appendix B).
PCEs at the subunit include sparsely vegetated beach sand, above
and below high-tide for nesting and foraging, and tide-cast debris
supporting small invertebrates. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the subunit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this subunit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
disturbance by humans and pets, and nest predators such as crows and
ravens.
CA 11, Napa-Sonoma Marshes, 618 ac (250 ha)
This unit encompasses salt evaporation ponds 7 and 7A, in the Napa-
Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area, owned by the CDFG. It is situated in Napa
County, about 2.3 mi (4 km) west of the Napa County Airport, and about
1.5 mi (2.4 km) south of Las Amigas Road. The unit was occupied at the
time of listing and is currently occupied. Twelve Pacific Coast WSPs
were identified at the location in the summer 2009, during window
surveys (Service 2009, p. 2). This is the only location in the northern
portion of the San Francisco Bay known to support nesting Pacific Coast
WSPs.
Essential physical or biological features provided by the unit
include sparsely vegetated areas above daily high-tides, such as salt
pans, artificial salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for nesting and
foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
flooding, and nest predators such as great egrets (Casmerodius albus)
and common ravens (Corvus corax) (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 14).
Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use
regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With
time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be
inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 12, Hayward, 1 ac (0 ha)
This unit comprises Island 5 at the Hayward Regional Shoreline
Park, located to the west of the City of Hayward in Alameda County. The
area is managed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) as a
nesting area for shorebirds--primarily least terns (Sterna antillarum
browni), but also Pacific Coast WSPs (Riensche 2007, p. 1). The unit
was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. Three
Pacific Coast WSPs chicks from one nest successfully fledged from the
unit in 2008 (Riensche 2008, p. 2; Robinson et al. 2008, pp. 19, 34),
but since then seven plover nesting attempts in the area have failed,
primarily due to predation (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, pp. 16, 32;
Robinson-Nilsen 2010, pers. comm.). The most commonly observed avian
predators at the site have been California gulls (Larus californicus),
although the only actual depredation observed was by a killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus) (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, pp. 14, 16).
Essential physical or biological features provided by the unit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily high-tides, such as salt pans,
artificial salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from predation, salt pond
management, and non-native vegetation. The EBRPD is implementing a
predator management program utilizing numerous volunteers as well as
staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Wildlife
Services program (Riensche 2008, p. 2) to reduce predation at this
site.
CA 13A, Eden Landing: 237 ac (96 ha)
This subunit encompasses salt ponds E11, E15B, and E16B, just south
of highway 92 and the San Mateo Bridge and west of Union City in
Alameda County. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied,
[[Page 36764]]
and supported a total of 30 Pacific Coast WSP nests in 2009, 15 of
which hatched (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 32). Approximately 228
ac (92 ha) are State owned. Approximately 8 ac (3 ha) are privately
owned. Essential features provided by the subunit include sparsely
vegetated areas above daily high tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from flooding and avian nest
predators such as California gulls (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p.
13).
CA 13B, Eden Landing, 171 ac (69 ha)
This subunit is located west of Union City in Alameda County and
encompasses salt pond E14, just south of Eden Creek. This subunit was
occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, supported nine
Pacific Coast WSP nests in 2009, three of which hatched young
(Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 32). The subunit does not include salt
ponds E12 and E13 (just north of E14), because those are being
converted to high salinity ponds for birds such as eared grebes
(Podiceps nigricollis) and phalaropes (Phalaropus spp.) that forage
well on such habitat (Strong 2010a, p. 1). The entire subunit is State
owned. Essential features provided by the subunit include sparsely
vegetated areas above daily high-tides, such as salt pans, artificial
salt ponds and adjoining levees, for nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from flooding and avian nest
predators such as California gulls (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p.
13).
CA 13C, Eden Landing, 609 ac (246 ha)
This subunit encompasses salt ponds E6A and E6B, and is located
just north of Old Alameda Creek and west of Union City in Alameda
County. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and supported a total of two Pacific Coast WSP nests in 2009,
both of which hatched young (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 32). The
subunit does not include a panhandle-shaped area of potential habitat
just north of pond E6A because it is being converted to tidal marsh as
part of a restoration project started before the South Bay Salt Pond
Restoration Project (Strong 2010b, p. 7; Strong 2010c, p. 1). Essential
physical or biological features provided by the subunit include
sparsely vegetated areas above daily high-tides, such as salt pans,
artificial salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for nesting and foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from flooding and avian nest
predators such as California gulls (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p.
13).
CA 14, Ravenswood, 89 ac (36 ha)
This unit consists of the southwestern portion of salt pond SF2
located east of the City of East Palo Alto in San Mateo County near the
western approach to the Dumbarton Bridge. Pond SF2 is undergoing
renovations intended to provide ponded areas, islands, and salt pan for
several species of shorebirds, including Pacific Coast WSPs (South Bay
Salt Pond Restoration Project 2010, p. 3). The Ravenswood unit is drawn
to encompass the salt pan area (Strong 2010b, pp. 3, 4). This unit was
occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. In 2009,
pond SF2 supported 23 Pacific Coast WSPs nests, 17 of which hatched
young (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p. 32). The entire unit is
privately owned. Essential physical or biological features provided by
the unit include sparsely vegetated areas above daily high-tides, such
as salt pans, artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees, for nesting
and foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from flooding and avian nest
predators such as California gulls (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p.
13).
CA 15, Warm Springs, 168 ac (68 ha)
This unit encompasses the northeastern portion of salt evaporation
ponds A22 and A23 in the Warm Springs area of the South San Francisco
Bay near Foster City in San Mateo County. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing and is currently occupied. Fourteen breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs were identified at these ponds during the 2009 summer window
surveys (Service unpublished data). Additionally, Robinson-Nilsen et
al. (2009, p. 32) found a total of 21 Pacific Coast WSPs nests at the
ponds in 2009, 11 of which successfully hatched young. The southwestern
portions of the ponds are excluded in keeping with tidal marsh
restoration plans envisioned under the draft Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan
(Service 2009, p. 266). The entire unit is federally owned.
Essential physical or biological features provided by the unit
include sparsely vegetated areas above daily high-tides, such as salt
pans, artificial salt ponds, and adjoining levees, for nesting and
foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from flooding and avian nest
predators such as California gulls (Robinson-Nilsen et al. 2009, p.
13).
CA 16, Half Moon Bay, 36 ac (15 ha)
This unit is located next to the City of Half Moon Bay in San Mateo
County and stretches for about 1.25 mi (2 km) along Half Moon Bay State
Beach, and is entirely within CDPR land. The essential features of this
unit include sandy beach above and below the high-tide line for nesting
and foraging, and surf-cast debris to attract small invertebrates. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied.
Small numbers of breeding Pacific Coast WSPs have been found at the
location in the past five surveys (Service 2009, p. 3). The unit also
supports a sizeable winter flock, consisting of 50 Pacific Coast WSPs
in 2007 (Service 2007, p. 4). We expect the unit to eventually support
10 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs in the unit under proper management
(Service 2007).
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation,
disturbance by humans and pets, and nest predators. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations
are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with
sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 17, Waddell Creek Beach, 25 ac (10 ha)
This unit includes the mouth of Waddell Creek and is located about
20 mi (32 km) north of the City of Santa Cruz in Santa Cruz County. It
extends about 0.6 mi (1 km) north along the coast from a point about
0.4 mi (0.6 km) south of the creek mouth to a point about 0.2 mi (1 km)
north of the creek mouth. Unit CA 17 encompasses approximately 19 ac (8
ha) of State land and 6 ac (2 ha) of private land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing, and the unit has historically (prior
to 2004)
[[Page 36765]]
been an important breeding and wintering site, supporting up to 11
breeding and up to 50 wintering Pacific Coast WSPs (Service unpublished
data). Although Pacific Coast WSPs have not been documented in recent
years, we consider this unit presently occupied based on the
fluctuating use of areas by the species as a response to habitat and
resource availability. The unit is located between currently occupied
areas and provides dispersal habitat between units. This unit provides
habitat to support breeding plovers, will facilitate interchange
between otherwise widely separated units, and helps provide habitat
within Recovery Unit 4 (identified in the Recovery Plan, Service 2007)
along the central California Coast.
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Wind-blown sand dunes,
areas of sandy beach above and below the high-tide line with occasional
surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation and
human disturbance. Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement of
existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the suitability of
the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this unit
will be inundated with sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 18, Scott Creek Beach, 23 ac (9 ha)
This unit includes the mouths of Scott and Molino Creeks and is
located about 13 mi (21 km) north of the City of Santa Cruz in Santa
Cruz County. It extends about 0.7 mi (1 km) north along the coast from
the southern end of the sandy beach, 0.3 mi (0.5 km) south of Molino
Creek, to a point about 0.1 mi (0.2 km) north of Scott Creek. Unit CA
18 encompasses approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of State land and 8 ac (3 ha)
of local jurisdictional land. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied, and recent surveys have found up to
4 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs, while historical surveys (prior to 2004)
have found up to 12 breeding plovers occupying the area (Service
unpublished data). Unit CA 18 is an important wintering area, with up
to 129 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in a single season (Service
unpublished data).
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because,
with proper management, and in conjunction with the other two
relatively small units designated in Santa Cruz County (CA 17 and 19),
it can attract additional breeding Pacific Coast WSPs and thereby
facilitate interchange between the larger units at Half Moon Bay (CA
16).
The unit includes the following habitat physical or biological
features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below
the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and predators. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 19, Wilder Creek Beach, 15 ac (6 ha)
This unit is located at the mouth of Wilder Creek and is about 1 mi
(1.6 km) west of the city of Santa Cruz, in Santa Cruz County. It
extends about 0.25 mi (0.40 km) along the coast encompassing the sandy
beach at the mouth of Wilder Creek. The unit is situated on State-owned
(14 ac (6 ha)) and private (1 ac (0.4 ha)) land. This unit was occupied
at the time of listing and is currently occupied. Although nesting in
this area has been uncommon in recent years, it has historically been
an important snowy plover nesting area, with up to 16 birds nesting
each year (Service 2007, Appendix B) and is also an important Pacific
Coast WSP wintering area, with up to 52 birds each winter (Service
2007, Appendix B). Unit CA 19 is capable of supporting 16 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs under proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B).
This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because,
with proper management, and in conjunction with the other two
relatively small units in Santa Cruz County (CA 17 and 18), it can
attract additional breeding Pacific Coast WSPs and thereby facilitate
interchange between the larger units at Half Moon Bay (CA 16) and Jetty
Road to Aptos (CA 20). The unit includes the following features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below the high
tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging and predator avoidance).
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, OHV use, pets, and predators. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations
are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with
sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 20, Jetty Road to Aptos, 399 ac (161 ha)
This unit is located about 5 mi (8 km) west of the City of
Watsonville and includes Sunset State Beach located in Santa Cruz
County and Zmudowski State Beach and Moss Landing State Beach, both
located in Monterey County. The mouth of the Pajaro River is located
near the center of the subunit, and is designated as a Natural Preserve
within Zmudowski State Beach. Elkhorn Slough is at the south end of the
subunit. It extends about 8 mi (13 km) along the coast from Elkhorn
Slough to Zils Road. Approximately 369 ac (149 ha) are State owned. The
remaining 30 ac (12 ha) are privately owned. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing; is currently occupied; is an important breeding
area, with as many as 105 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs each year; and is
also an important wintering area, with up to 250 plovers each winter
(Service unpublished data).
The unit includes the following habitat physical or biological
features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below
the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and habitat
changes resulting from exotic vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed
to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
[[Page 36766]]
CA 21, Elkhorn Slough Mudflats, 281 ac (114 ha)
This unit is located about 3.5 mi (6 km) north of the City of
Castroville along the north side of Elkhorn Slough east of Highway 1
located in Monterey County. This unit is 1.5 mi (2 km) long, extending
about 1 mi (2 km) along the north shore of Elkhorn Slough east of
Highway 1 and about 0.5 mi (1 km) north from Elkhorn Slough to Bennett
Slough. The unit is situated entirely on State-owned land. This unit
was occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area, with as many as 41 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs
each year, and is also an important wintering area, with up to 137
plovers each winter (Service unpublished data). This unit is capable of
supporting 80 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under proper management
(Service 2007, Appendix B).
The unit includes the following habitat physical or biological
features essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below
the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates, and mud flat and salt pan habitat with generally barren
to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance,
development, horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and habitat changes
resulting from exotic vegetation. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 22, Monterey to Moss Landing, 959 ac (388 ha)
This unit includes the beaches along the southern half of Monterey
Bay from the City of Monterey at the south end of the unit to Moss
Landing and the mouth of Elkhorn Slough at the north end of the unit in
Monterey County. The mouth of the Salinas River is a Natural Preserve
under State Parks, and is located near the center of the unit. Both the
Salinas River and Marina Dunes Natural Preserves are within the unit.
The unit extends about 15 mi (24 km) north along the coast from
Monterey to Moss Landing. Unit CA 22 includes approximately 285 ac (115
ha) of State lands, 36 ac (14 ha) of local lands, and 415 ac (168 ha)
of Federal land. The remainder is privately owned. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area, with as many as 162 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs each year, and is also an important wintering area, with up to 363
plovers each winter (Service unpublished data).
The unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance,
development, horses, OHV use, pets, predators, and habitat changes
resulting from exotic vegetation. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 23, Point Sur Beach, 72 ac (29 ha)
This unit is about 17 mi (27 km) south of the City of Monterey and
immediately north of Point Sur State Historic Park (SHP) in Monterey
County. It extends about 0.7 mi (1 km) north along the coast from Point
Sur SHP, and includes the Point Sur Dunes Natural Preserve. This unit
encompasses approximately 38 ac (15 ha) of State land and 34 ac (14 ha)
of private land. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and has supported up to 13 breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs each year (Service unpublished data). This unit is capable of
supporting 20 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under proper management
(Service 2007, Appendix B). Unit CA 23 is an important wintering area,
historically supporting up to 65 plovers each winter (Service
unpublished data).
The unit includes the following habitat physical or biological
features essential to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of
sandy beach above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-
cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance and
habitat changes resulting from exotic vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed
to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 24, San Carpoforo Creek, 24 ac (10 ha)
This unit is located approximately 20 mi (32 km) north of the Town
of Cambria and 2.5 mi (4 km) south of the San Luis Obispo/Monterey
County boundary in San Luis Obispo County. It extends approximately
0.57 mi (1 km) along the coast. This unit contains approximately 4 ac
(2 ha) of land owned by the USFS, 18 ac (7 ha) owned by the CDPR, and 2
ac (1 ha) of private land. The unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and has supported as many as nine
breeding Pacific Coast WSPs; however, breeding does not occur here
every year (Service unpublished data). This unit is capable of
supporting 10 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under proper management
(Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit consistently supports 40 to 50
wintering plovers (Service unpublished data). San Carpoforo Creek is
approximately 53 mi (84 km) south of the closest unit to the north (CA
23, Point Sur), and approximately 11 mi (18 km) north of the closest
unit to the south (CA 25, Arroyo Laguna Creek). Therefore, this unit
may facilitate interchange between widely separated habitats.
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance, pets,
and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 25, Arroyo Laguna Creek, 28 ac (11 ha)
This unit is located 11 mi (8 km) south of San Carpoforo Creek and
10 mi (16 km) north of the Town of Cambria in San Luis Obispo County.
It extends
[[Page 36767]]
approximately 0.9 mi (2 km) along the coast from a rocky headland 0.2
mi (0.3 km) south of Adobe Creek to 0.2 mi (0.3 km) north of Oak Knoll
Creek. This unit encompasses approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of land owned
by the CDPR and 10 ac (4 ha) of private land. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing and is currently occupied. Arroyo Laguna Creek has
historically (prior to 2000) been an important site, supporting as many
as 6 breeding and 91 wintering Pacific Coast WSPs; however, neither
breeding nor wintering occurs here every year (Service unpublished
data). This unit is capable of supporting six breeding Pacific Coast
WSPs under proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit is
roughly equidistant between CA 24 (San Carpoforo Creek) and CA 26 (San
Simeon State Beach) and may facilitate interchange between widely
separated habitats.
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) and generally
barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance, pets,
and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 26, San Simeon State Beach, 24 ac (10 ha)
This unit is located about 2 mi (3 km) north of the Town of Cambria
in San Luis Obispo County. It extends about 0.9 mi (2 km) along the
coast from a point opposite the intersection of Highway 1 and Moonstone
Beach Drive to the northwestern corner of San Simeon State Beach. Unit
CA 26 is owned by the CDPR. The unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. San Simeon State Beach has supported
as many as seven breeding Pacific Coast WSPs; however, breeding does
not occur here every year (Service unpublished data). This unit is an
important wintering area with up to 143 plovers recorded in a single
season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance, pets,
and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 27, Villa Creek Beach, 20 ac (8 ha)
This unit is located about 3.5 mi (6 km) northwest of the Community
of Cayucos in San Luis Obispo County. It extends 0.3 mi (0.5 km)
northwest along the beach from an unnamed headland 1.4 mi (2 km) north
of Point Cayucos to an unnamed headland northwest of Villa Creek. This
unit is owned by the CDPR. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is an important breeding and
wintering site. This unit has supported as many as 33 breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs in a single season (Service unpublished data). Wintering
numbers vary widely from year to year, with 10 to 112 plovers recorded
over the last 7 seasons (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, horses, and predators. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed
to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 28, Toro Creek, 34 ac (14 ha)
This unit is located about 3 mi (5 km) north of the City of Morro
Bay in San Luis Obispo County, extending from 0.4 mi (1 km) north of
Toro Creek Road to 0.5 mi (1 km) south of Toro Creek Road (total
length: 0.9 mi (1 km)). This unit was occupied at the time of listing,
is currently occupied, and was historically (prior to 2000) an
important breeding area, having supported as many as 16 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs (Service unpublished data). Breeding has not
occurred at this unit in the last 5 seasons; however, the unit is
capable of supporting 25 breeding plovers under proper management
(Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit is an important wintering area
with up to 121 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in a single season (Service
unpublished data). The unit encompasses approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of
State land and 23 ac (9 ha) of private land.
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the species: Areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, and predators. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 29, Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand State Beach, 213 ac (86 ha)
This unit is located at Morro Strand State Beach just north of the
City of Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County. It extends about 2.25 mi
(4 km) north along the beach from the parking area northeast of Morro
Rock to an unnamed rocky outcrop opposite the end of Yerba Buena Street
at the north end of the City of Morro Bay. This unit encompasses
approximately 64 ac (26 ha) of State land, 51 ac (21 ha) of local
jurisdictional land, and 98 ac (40 ha) of private land. This unit was
occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and is an
important breeding area, having supported as many as 24 breeding
Pacific Coast WSPs in a single season (Service unpublished data). The
unit is capable of supporting 40 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under
proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit is also an
important wintering area, with up to 249 plovers being recorded during
a single season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data).
[[Page 36768]]
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the species: areas of sandy beach above and below the
high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small
invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, and predators. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 30, Morro Bay Beach, 1,076 ac (435 ha)
This unit is located at Montana de Oro State Park south of Morro
Rock and adjacent to the City of Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County.
It extends 5.5 mi (9 km) north along the beach from a rocky outcrop
about 350 ft (105 m) north of Hazard Canyon to the northern tip of the
sand spit. This unit encompasses approximately 948 ac (383 ha) of State
land, 69 ac (28 ha) of local jurisdictional land, and 60 ac (24 ha) of
private land. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and is an important breeding area, supporting as
many as 205 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs in a single season (Service
unpublished data). Morro Bay Beach is also an important wintering area,
supporting up to 104 plovers during a single over the last seven
seasons (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance, horses,
pets, predators, and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed
to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 31, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, 1,652 ac (669 ha)
This unit is located south of the City of Grover Beach and west of
the Town of Oceano and extends from San Luis Obispo County into
northern Santa Barbara County west of the City of Guadalupe. The unit
has approximately 242 ac (98 ha) of Federal land, 552 ac (223 ha) of
State land, 377 ac (152 ha) of local jurisdictional land, and 481 ac
(195 ha) of private land. This unit extends about 12 mi (19 km) along
the beach from a point about 0.4 mi (1 km) north of Mussel Point to a
point on the north side of Arroyo Grande Creek at the south end of
Strand Way in the Town of Oceano. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and is an important breeding area,
having supported as many as 162 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs in a single
season (Service unpublished data). This unit is capable of supporting
350 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs under proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes is an important wintering area,
having supported up to 287 Pacific Coast WSPs during a single season
over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data). The unit includes
portions of Pismo State Beach and Oceano Dunes SVRA, owned and managed
by the CDPR; the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge, owned
and managed by the Service; the Guadalupe Oil Field, owned and managed
by the Chevron Corporation; and Rancho Guadalupe County Park, owned and
managed by the County of Santa Barbara.
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates, and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, OHVs, horses, pets, and predators. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed
to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 32, Vandenberg North, CA 33, Vandenberg South
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we have exempted units CA
32 (711 ac (288 ha)), and CA33 (424 ac (172ha)), from critical habitat
designation (see Exemptions section below).
CA 34, Devereaux Beach, 52 ac (21 ha)
This unit is located on the University of California's Coal Oil
Point Natural Reserve, about 7 mi (11 km) west along the coast from the
City of Santa Barbara in Santa Barbara County. The unit extends about
1.8 mi (3 km) north along the coast from the western boundary of Isla
Vista County Park to a point along the beach opposite the end of Santa
Barbara Shores Drive. This unit consists of 43 ac (17 ha) of State land
and 9 ac (4 ha) of local jurisdictional land. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently occupied, and is an important
breeding area with as many as 39 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs recorded
in a single season (Service unpublished data). This unit is also an
important wintering area with up to 360 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded
during a single season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished
data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, pets, and predators. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated with sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 35, Santa Barbara Beaches, 65 ac (26 ha)
This unit is located within the City of Santa Barbara in Santa
Barbara County. It extends about 1.8 mi (3 km) along the coast from the
Andree Clark Bird Refuge intersection with the Pacific Ocean to the
Santa Barbara Harbor. This unit encompasses approximately 30 ac (12 ha)
of State land, 35 ac (14 ha) of City of Santa Barbara lands, and 0.3 ac
(0.1 ha) of private land. The unit was occupied at the time of listing
and is currently occupied. The unit is an
[[Page 36769]]
important wintering area with up to 111 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded
during a single season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished
data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, and pets. Control of nonnative vegetation and
enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the
suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower
portions of this unit will be inundated by sea-level rise associated
with climate change.
CA 36, Santa Rosa Island Beaches, 586 ac (237 ha)
This unit is located on Santa Rosa Island about 31 mi (50 km)
southwest of the City of Santa Barbara in Santa Barbara County. This
unit is comprised of 11 different beaches (subunits CA 36A through CA
36K) around the island. This unit encompasses approximately 586 ac (237
ha) of Channel Islands National Park land. This unit was occupied at
the time of listing, is currently occupied, and is an important
breeding area with as many as 37 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs recorded
in a single season (Service unpublished data). This unit is capable of
supporting 130 breeding plovers under proper management (Service 2007,
Appendix B). This is also an important wintering area with up to 242
plovers recorded during a single season over the last 7 years (Service
unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, and
direct disturbance from expanding marine mammal populations. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations
are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be inundated by
sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 37, San Buenaventura Beach, 70 ac (28 ha)
This unit is located within the City of Ventura in Ventura County.
It extends about 2 mi (3 km) north along the coast from rock groin,
immediately north of Marina Park to the Ventura Pier. San Buenaventura
State Beach is a unit that is owned by the CDPR. This unit was occupied
at the time of listing and is currently occupied. It is an important
wintering area with up to 72 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded during a
single season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and pets. Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the suitability
of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated by sea-level rise associated with climate
change.
CA 38, Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River, 672 ac (272 ha)
This unit is located near the City of Oxnard in Ventura County. It
extends about 6 mi (10 km) north along the coast from the north jetty
of Channel Islands Harbor to a point about 0.5 mi (1 km) north of the
Santa Clara River mouth. This unit encompasses approximately 213 ac (86
ha) of private land and 459 ac (186 ha) of State land within McGrath
and Mandalay State Beaches. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. It is an important breeding area
with as many as 70 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in a single
season (Service unpublished data). This unit is also an important
wintering area with up to 129 plovers recorded during a single season
over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Wind-blown sand dunes,
areas of sandy beach above and below the high-tide line with occasional
surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human disturbance,
development, pets, and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Control of
nonnative vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations
are needed to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we
anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be inundated by
sea-level rise associated with climate change.
CA 39, Ormond Beach, 320 ac (130 ha)
This unit is located near the cities of Port Hueneme and Oxnard in
Ventura County. It extends about 3 mi (5 km) northwest along the coast
from Arnold Road and the boundary of Naval Base Ventura County, Point
Mugu (NBVC, Point Mugu) to the south jetty of Port Hueneme. This unit
encompasses approximately 161 ac (65 ha) of private land and 159 ac (65
ha) of State land. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and is an important breeding area with as many as
33 breeding Pacific Coast WSPs recorded in a single season (Service
unpublished data). This unit is capable of supporting 50 breeding
plovers under proper management (Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit
is also an important wintering area with up to 117 plovers recorded
during a single season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished
data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Wind-blown sand dunes,
areas of sandy beach above and below the high-tide line with occasional
surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and generally barren to
sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and pets. Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the suitability
of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated by sea-level rise associated with climate
change.
[[Page 36770]]
CA 40, Mugu Lagoon North; CA 41, Mugu Lagoon South; CA 42, San Nicolas
Island
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we have exempted units CA
40, CA 41, and CA42 from critical habitat designation (see Exemptions
section below).
CA 43, Zuma Beach, 73 ac (30 ha)
This unit is located about 8 mi (13 km) west of the City of Malibu
in Los Angeles County. It extends about 3 mi (5 km) north along the
coast from the north side of Point Dume to the base of Trancas Canyon.
This unit encompasses approximately 72 ac (29 ha) of Los Angeles County
lands, and 1 ac (0.5 ha) of State land. This unit was occupied at the
time of listing and is currently occupied. It is an important wintering
area with up to 213 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded during a single season
over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data; Ryan et al. 2010, p.
19).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach
above and below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack
supporting small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely
vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, development, horses, and pets. Control of nonnative
vegetation and enforcement of existing human-use regulations are needed
to ensure the suitability of the unit. With time, we anticipate that
the lower portions of this unit will be inundated by sea-level rise
associated with climate change.
CA 44, Malibu Beach, 13 ac (5 ha)
This unit is located within the City of Malibu in Los Angeles
County. It extends about 0.5 mi (1 km) north along the coast from
approximately 300 ft (94 m) north of the Malibu Pier to Malibu Point.
Approximately 9 ac (4 ha) are within Malibu Lagoon State Beach. The
ownership of the remaining 4 ac (1 ha) are not known; however, the
State likely has jurisdiction over these lands. This unit was occupied
at the time of listing and is currently occupied. It is an important
wintering area with up to 67 Pacific Coast WSPs recorded during a
single season over the last 7 years (Service unpublished data).
This unit includes the following physical or biological features
for the conservation of the species: Areas of sandy beach above and
below the high-tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting
small invertebrates and generally barren to sparsely vegetated terrain.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from nonnative vegetation, human
disturbance, and pets. Control of nonnative vegetation and enforcement
of existing human-use regulations are needed to ensure the suitability
of the unit. With time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this
unit will be inundated by sea-level rise associated with climate
change.
CA 45A, Santa Monica Beach, 48 ac (19 ha)
This subunit is located between the cities of Santa Monica and Los
Angeles in Los Angeles County. It stretches roughly 1 mi (2 km) from
Montana Avenue to the mouth of Santa Monica Canyon. This subunit
consists of 29 ac (12 ha) of State owned land, and 19 ac (8 ha) are
owned by the City of Santa Monica. This subunit was occupied at the
time of listing, is currently occupied, and annually supports a
significant wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSPs (an average wintering
flock of 36 from 2003 to 2010 (Service unpublished data)) in a location
with high-quality breeding habitat. This location also facilitates
interchange between wintering locations.
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy
beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance, pets, and beach raking.
CA 45B, Dockweiler North, 34 ac (14 ha)
This subunit is located south of Ballona Creek and west of the El
Segundo Dunes, and immediately west of the Los Angeles International
Airport, in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County. It stretches
roughly 0.5 mi (0.8 km) centered at Sandpiper Street. This subunit is
owned by the State of California. This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied. In conjunction with Subunits CA
45C and CA 45D, the subunit annually supports a significant wintering
flock of Pacific Coast WSPs in a location with high quality breeding
habitat (Page in litt. 2004) and facilitates interchange between
wintering locations.
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy
beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance, pets, and beach raking.
CA 45C, Dockweiler South, 65 ac (26 ha)
This subunit is located immediately west of the Hyperion Wastewater
Treatment Plant between the cities of Los Angeles and El Segundo in Los
Angeles County. It stretches approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) along Vista
del Mar from West Imperial Highway extending past East Grand Avenue.
This subunit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of State land and 11 ac (5 ha)
of privately owned land. This subunit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied. In conjunction with Subunits CA 45B
and CA 45D, it annually supports a significant wintering flock of
Pacific Coast WSPs in a location with high-quality breeding habitat
(Page in litt. 2004) and facilitates interchange between wintering
locations.
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy
beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance, pets, and beach raking.
CA 45D, Hermosa State Beach, 27 ac (11 ha)
This subunit is located immediately west of the City of Hermosa
Beach in Los Angeles County. This subunit stretches roughly 0.5 mi (1
km) from Eleventh Street to First Street. This subunit consists of 8 ac
(3 ha) State land and 19 ac (8 ha) are privately owned. This subunit
was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The unit
supported an average wintering flock of 25 Pacific Coast WSPs from 2003
to 2010 (Service unpublished data). In conjunction with subunits CA 45B
and CA 45C, this subunit annually supports a large and significant
[[Page 36771]]
wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSP and facilitates interchange
between wintering locations.
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy
beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance, pets, and beach raking.
CA 46A, Bolsa Chica State Beach, 93 ac (38 ha)
This subunit is located west of the Pacific Coast Highway, in the
City of Huntington Beach, Orange County. It stretches roughly 2.4 mi
(3.9 km) from north of the lagoon mouth channel (into Bolsa Chica
Ecological Reserve) to just south of the Sunset Beach area near Warner
Avenue. This subunit consists of 93 ac (38 ha) owned by the State of
California. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and supported an average wintering flock of 27
Pacific Coast WSPs from 2003 through 2010 (Service unpublished data).
The subunit annually supports a significant wintering flock of Pacific
Coast WSPs in a location with high-quality breeding habitat.
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy
beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from recreational
disturbance and beach raking.
CA 46 (Subunits B-F), Bolsa Chica Reserve, 475 ac (192 ha)
These subunits are located east of the Pacific Coast Highway, in
Orange County. They consist of 475 ac (192 ha), all of which are owned
by the State of California. Bolsa Chica Reserve contains significant
nesting areas (which we are labeling as individual subunits B, C, D, E,
and F). This location supported 47 breeding adult Pacific Coast WSP in
2009 (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 8). These subunits were occupied at
the time of listing, are currently occupied, and annually support one
of the largest breeding populations of Pacific Coast WSP in the region.
The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this location
contributes to the conservation goal for the region by providing a
management potential of 70 breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix B).
This location also supported an average wintering flock of 14 Pacific
Coast WSP from 2003 through 2010 (Service unpublished data). This
reserve is an active oil field that underwent significant
reconstruction and restoration between 2004 and 2006, including the
addition of three new nest sites and a new ocean inlet that allows the
water level to rise and fall resembling the irregular semi-diurnal
tidal range of southern California's ocean waters (Knapp and Peterson
2009, p. 1).
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including tidally
influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and
seasonally dry ponds that provide nesting and foraging habitat for
Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in these subunits may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from
vegetation encroachment in nesting and foraging areas and predation of
chicks and eggs.
CA 47, Santa Ana River Mouth, 19 ac (8 ha)
This unit is located north of the Santa Ana River mouth,
immediately west of the City of Huntington Beach in Orange County. This
unit consists of 19 ac (8 ha), of which 18 ac (7 ha) are owned by the
State of California, and 1 ac (0.4 ha) is privately owned. This unit
was not occupied at the time of listing. However, we consider this unit
essential for the conservation of the species based on the fluctuating
use of areas by the species as a response to habitat and resource
availability. The unit is located adjacent to currently occupied areas
and provides dispersal habitat between units. This unit provides
habitat to support breeding plovers, and will facilitate interchange
between otherwise widely separated units, and helps provide habitat
within the Recovery Unit identified in the Recovery Plan (Service
2007).
This location contains habitat such as a wide sandy beach with
surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and tidally influenced
estuarine mud flats that provide nesting and foraging habitat for
Pacific Coast WSPs. Primary threats in this unit are those associated
with recreational disturbance and beach raking.
CA 48, Balboa Beach, 25 ac (10 ha)
This unit is located on the Balboa Peninsula, immediately west of
the City of Newport Beach in Orange County. This unit stretches roughly
0.3 mi (0.5 km) from A Street south to G Street, including a total of
25 ac (10 ha), all of which are owned by the City of Newport Beach.
This unit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied,
and supported two breeding adult Pacific Coast WSPs in 2009 (P. Knapp,
pers. comm. 2010) and three breeding adult Pacific Coast WSPs in 2010
(T. Ryan, in litt. 2010). It also supported an average wintering flock
of 35 Pacific Coast WSPs from 2003 through 2010 (Service unpublished
data).
This location contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy
beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance, predation of chicks and eggs, and beach raking.
CA 49, San Onofre Beach-Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
Unit CA 49 has been exempted from critical habitat designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions section below).
CA 50 (Subunits A-C), Batiquitos Lagoon
Unit CA 50 (66 ac (27 ha)) has been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section
below).
CA 51 (Subunits A-C), San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, 15 ac (6 ha)
These subunits are located between the cities of Solana Beach and
Encinitas in San Diego County. These subunits were occupied at the time
of listing and are currently occupied. They consist of 15 ac (6 ha), of
which 11 ac (4 ha) are owned by the State of California, and 4 ac (2
ha) are privately owned. San Elijo Lagoon includes three nest sites
(which we are labeling as individual Subunits CA 51A, CA 51B, and CA
51C). The San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Working Group is planning to
restore habitat at the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which may
include nest sites for nesting sea birds and shorebirds, including
Pacific Coast WSP and California least tern. Restoration and
enhancement of coastal dune habitat at this site is ongoing, and the
Service is currently participating in
[[Page 36772]]
a cooperative agreement with the San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy to create
suitable nesting areas for Pacific Coast WSPs, California least terns,
and other shorebirds in the southwest corner of the West Basin of the
lagoon. The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this
location contributes significantly to the conservation goal for the
region by providing a management potential of 20 breeding birds
(Service 2007, Appendix B). This unit may facilitate interchange
between wintering locations (see Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat section above).
These subunits contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, including sandy beaches
and tidally influenced estuarine mud flats with tide-cast organic
debris supporting small invertebrates. Restoration of degraded habitat
within these subunits will improve the habitat.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance, vegetation encroachment in the intertidal zone, and
predation of chicks and eggs.
CA 52A, San Dieguito Lagoon, 4 ac (2 ha)
Subunit CA 52A is located at the west end of San Dieguito River
Park within the city of Del Mar in San Diego County. This subunit was
occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and consists of
4 ac (1 ha), all of which are privately owned.
This subunit is a nest site that was created for nesting seabirds
and shorebirds including Pacific Coast WSP and California least tern.
This subunit also facilitates interchange between wintering locations.
The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP states that San Dieguito
Lagoon contributes significantly to the conservation goal for the
region by providing a management potential of 20 breeding birds
(Service 2007, Appendix B). Additionally, restoration of this site
occurred in 2009, improving areas used by breeding and wintering
shorebirds. Use of one nesting site by a pair of plovers was reported
in 2010 (Foster, pers. comm. 2010b). Additional improvements to the
nest sites are expected in the future.
This subunit contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, including wide sandy beaches and
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats with tide-cast organic debris
supporting small invertebrates.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from human recreational
disturbance, vegetation encroachment in the intertidal zone, and
predation of chicks and eggs.
CA 52 (Subunits B-C), San Dieguito Lagoon
Subunits CA 52B (3 ac (1 ha)) and CA 52C (4 ac (2 ha)) have been
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section below).
CA 53, Los Penasquitos Lagoon
Unit CA 53 (32 ac (13 ha)) has been excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section
below).
CA 54A, Fiesta Island
Subunit CA 54A (2 ac (1 ha)) has been excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
CA 54B, Mariner's Point
Subunit CA 54B (7 ac (3 ha)) has been excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
CA 54C, South Mission Beach
Subunit CA 54C (38 ac (15 ha)) has been excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
CA 54D, San Diego River Channel
Subunit CA 54D (51 ac (21 ha)) has been excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
CA 55A, Naval Air Station North Island
Subunit CA 55A has been exempted from critical habitat designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions section below).
CA 55B, Coronado Beach, 74 ac (30 ha)
This subunit is located immediately west of the City of Coronado in
San Diego County. This subunit stretches roughly 0.6 mi (0.96 km) from
the boundary with Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) to the south
end of the natural sand dunes at Coronado City Beach. This subunit
includes a total of 74 ac (30 ha) owned by the State of California.
This subunit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and is adjacent to the sizable Pacific Coast WSP population
at NASNI, which contained an average wintering flock of 69 Pacific
Coast WSPs from 2003 to 2010 (Service unpublished data). Additionally,
biologists recorded 17 breeding adults at NASNI during 2009 surveys
(Service unpublished data). The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP
states that this location (in conjunction with adjacent military lands)
contributes significantly to the conservation goal for the region by
providing a management potential of 20 breeding birds (Service 2007,
Appendix B). This unit also facilitates interchange between wintering
locations.
This subunit contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy beach with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, as well as
wind-blown sand in dune systems immediately inland of the active beach
face.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance and beach raking.
CA 55C, Silver Strand Beach and CA 55D, Delta Beach
Subunits CA 55C and CA 55D have been exempted from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions below).
CA 55E, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and D Street Fill, 79
ac (32 ha)
Lands owned and managed by the Port of San Diego under the San
Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan within subunit CA 55E (53 ac (21 ha))
have been excluded from critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions section below). Federal lands (79 ac
(32 ha)) within the subunit that are owned and managed by the Service
(Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge) are not excluded from
critical habitat.
This subunit is located on the east side of San Diego Bay in the
City of Chula Vista in San Diego County. This subunit consists of
approximately 79 ac (32 ha) of which all are owned by the Service. This
subunit was occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and
supported nesting Pacific Coast WSPs in 2000 (R. Patton, pers. comm.
2010), and two adult Pacific Coast WSPs in 2009 (Service unpublished
data). The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this
location contributes significantly to the conservation goal for the
region by providing a management potential of 25 breeding birds
(Service 2007, Appendix
[[Page 36773]]
B). Additionally, this subunit annually supports a large and
significant wintering flock of Pacific Coast WSPs and facilitates
interchange between wintering locations.
This subunit contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, including sandy beaches above and
below mean high-tide line and tidally influenced estuarine mud flats
that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSPs.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation
encroachment in the intertidal zone, and predation of chicks and eggs.
CA 55F, Silver Strand State Beach, 82 ac (33 ha)
This subunit is located immediately north of the City of Imperial
Beach, in the City of Coronado in San Diego County. This subunit
consists of 82 ac (33 ha), of which approximately 78 ac (31 ha) are
owned by the State of California, and the ownership of 4 ac (1 ha) are
unknown, but may also be under the State's jurisdiction. This subunit
was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The
subunit stretches roughly 1.5 mi (2.4 km) west of Silver Strand
Boulevard, and is centered roughly at Coronado Cays Park. This subunit,
in conjunction with adjacent lands at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado,
supported at least 10 breeding adults in 2009 (Service unpublished
data) and 8 breeding adults in 2010 (Ryan, in litt. 2010). The Recovery
Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this location contributes
significantly to the conservation goal for the region by providing a
management potential of 65 breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix B).
This subunit contained an average wintering flock of 13 Pacific Coast
WSPs from 2003 to 2010 (Service unpublished data). This subunit also
facilitates interchange between wintering locations.
This subunit contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy beach with
occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, as well as
wind-blown sand in dune systems immediately inland of the active beach
face.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address the main threats from human recreational
disturbance and predation of chicks and eggs.
CA 55G, Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve
Subunit CA 55G (10 ac (4 ha)) has been excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
section below).
CA 55H, Naval Radio Receiving Facility
Subunit CA 55H has been exempted from critical habitat designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions section below).
CA 55I, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, South Bay Unit, 5 ac (2 ha)
This subunit is located at the southernmost end of San Diego Bay in
a location that is operated by Western Salt Works as salt evaporation
ponds. This subunit is immediately north of the City of Imperial Beach,
in the City of San Diego in San Diego County. This subunit consists of
5 ac (2 ha), all of which are owned by the Service. This subunit was
occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and supported
at least three breeding adults in 2009 (Collins, in litt. 2010), and
seven breeding adults in 2010 (Ryan, in litt. 2010). The Recovery Plan
for the Pacific Coast WSP states that this location contributes
significantly to the conservation goal for the region by providing a
management potential of 30 breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix B).
The subunit contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, including sparsely vegetated areas
on artificial salt flats and adjoining dikes, as well as tidally
influenced estuarine mud flats with tide-cast organic debris supporting
small invertebrates for foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from egg and chick
predation.
CA 55J, Tijuana Estuary and Border Field State Park, 150 ac (61 ha)
This subunit is located in the City of Imperial Beach in San Diego
County. This subunit stretches roughly 2 mi (3.2 km) from the end of
Seacoast Drive to the United States/Mexico border, extending across
both the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge and Border Field State
Park. This subunit consists of 150 ac (61 ha), of which 71 ac (29 ha)
are owned by the Service and 79 ac (32 ha) are owned by the State of
California. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and supported at least 10 adult breeding Pacific
Coast WSPs in 2009 (B. Collins, in litt. 2010), and 19 breeding adults
in 2010 (Ryan, in litt. 2010). This location also supported an average
wintering flock of 54 Pacific Coast WSPs from 2003 to 2010 (Service
unpublished data). The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP states
that this location contributes significantly to the conservation goal
for the region by providing a management potential of 40 breeding birds
(Service 2007, Appendix B).
This subunit contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy beach with
occasional surfcast wrack supporting small invertebrates, as well as
tidally influenced estuarine mud flats with tide-cast organic debris
supporting small invertebrates for foraging.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from human recreational
disturbance and predation of chicks and eggs.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
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 Appeal 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. 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
[[Page 36774]]
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) of the Act 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,
(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 and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. As
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and to 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 consultation
for the Pacific Coast WSP. These activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions and management efforts affecting Pacific Coast WSP on
Federal lands, such as refuges, national seashores, parks, and wildlife
reserves. Such activities may include clearing and raking of tidal
debris (seaweed, driftwood) from beaches, causing a loss in cover and
forage; high levels of visitor use, which can disturb and disrupt
normal behavior; restoration efforts, which can temporarily affect
Pacific Coast WSP's use of an area; and utility corridors that require
maintenance, which can lead to disturbance of Pacific Coast WSPs;
(2) Dredging and dredge spoil placement that permanently removes
the physical or biological features to the extent that Pacific Coast
WSPs are affected for the foreseeable future;
(3) Construction and maintenance of roads, walkways, marinas,
access points, bridges, culverts, and other structures that interfere
with Pacific Coast WSP nesting, breeding, or foraging or that result in
increases in predation;
(4) Storm water and wastewater discharge from communities, which
could impact invertebrate abundance, on which Pacific Coast WSPs rely
for food; and
(5) Flood control actions that change the physical or biological
features to the extent that the habitat no longer contributes to the
conservation of the species.
Note that the scale of these activities is a crucial factor in
determining whether, in any instance, they would directly or indirectly
alter critical habitat to the extent that the value of the critical
habitat would be appreciably diminished in providing for the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the Pacific
Coast WSP.
We consider all of the revised final critical habitat units and
subunits to contain features essential to or for the conservation of
the Pacific Coast WSP. To ensure that their actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of the Pacific Coast WSP, Federal agencies
already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP, or in unoccupied areas if the species may be
affected by their actions.
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;
[[Page 36775]]
(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.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with federally listed species. We analyzed
INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of
the critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP to determine
if units covered by these INRMPs are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act. The following areas are Department of Defense lands with
completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the revised critical habitat
designation.
Approved Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
Naval Support Activity Monterey, CA 22, 8 ac (3 ha)
The Department of the Navy, Naval Support Activity (NSA) Monterey
provides primary support to the Naval Postgraduate School, Fleet
Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center, Navy Research Lab and
more than 15 additional tenant commands. Naval Support Activity
Monterey supports over 160 buildings which are located on more than 626
ac (253 ha) of DOD lands. The Naval Postgraduate School is the largest
producer of advanced graduate degrees for DOD and graduates thousands
every year from all services and from over 50 countries. The Fleet
Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center provides the highest
quality, most relevant, and timely worldwide Meteorology and
Oceanography support to U.S. and coalition forces from their Operations
Center in Monterey, California. The Navy Research Lab conducts
scientific and weather modeling as well as atmospheric and aerosol
studies.
The NSA Monterey INRMP is a planning document that guides the
management and conservation of natural resources under the
installation's control. The INRMP was prepared to ensure that natural
resources are managed in support of the NSA Monterey's military command
mission and that all activities are consistent with Federal stewardship
requirements. The NSA Monterey INRMP was completed in 2001. An addendum
to the 2001 INRMP, addressing conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP,
was submitted to the Service in March 2012 and was approved and signed
by the Service in May 2012. The INRMP is NSA Monterey's adaptive plan
for managing natural resources to support and be consistent with the
military mission, while protecting and enhancing the biological
integrity of lands under its use. Naval Support Activity Monterey is
committed to an ecosystem management approach for its natural resources
program by integrating all components of natural resource management
into a comprehensive and coordinated effort. An integrated approach to
ecosystem management will help protect the biological diversity found
at NSA Monterey.
The INRMP identifies the goal of contributing to the recovery of
the Pacific Coast WSP through development of cooperative, ecosystem
management-based strategies. The INRMP identifies the following
management and protective measures to achieve this goal:
(1) Protect and maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate
high-quality breeding habitat including measures such as:
(2) Ensure beach areas are clean of litter and contaminants;
(3) Improve signage mandating dogs be leashed at all times;
(4) Develop and maintain a feral animal predator management
program;
(5) Minimize activities which can affect invertebrate populations
that shorebirds forage on,such as routine removal of tidal wrack;
(6) Discourage human foot traffic from suitable nesting areas with
fencing and educational signage;
(7) Eliminate incompatible military operations on beach during
nesting season;
(8) Actively communicate management strategies to local community;
(9) Enhance remnant dune areas as potential nest sites;
(10) Identify opportunities to use suitable dredge or other
materials for expansion of beachareas to create improved nesting
substrate;
(11) Maintain native plant coverage on dunes and control invasive
weeds on dunes and beach;
(12) Conduct monitoring in support of management objective;
(13) Meet with stakeholders annually to oversee implementation and
prioritize projects;
(14) Monitor Pacific Coast WSP population at least annually; and
(15) Regularly monitor dune and beach area and identify conflicts
for immediate actions and long-term projects.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the 2001 INRMP and the 2012 Addendum to the INRMP for
NSA Monterey and that the conservation efforts identified in the INRMP
have and will provide a benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP and features
essential to its conservation, and will benefit Pacific Coast WSPs
occurring in habitats within or adjacent to NSA Monterey. Therefore,
lands within this installation (approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of of Unit CA
22) are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)
of the Act. We are not including approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of habitat
for the Pacific Coast WSP in this revised final critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 32 and CA 33, 1,135 ac (460 ha)
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
[[Page 36776]]
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).
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 western snowy
plover by: (1) Implementing restrictions on recreational beach access
during the nesting season, which are evaluated each year for their
effectiveness in protecting snowy plovers; (2) prohibiting recreational
off-road vehicle activity on western snowy plover beaches at any time
except when essential to support the VAFB mission or in an emergency;
(3) training VAFB personnel to operate ATVs to avoid impacts to western
snowy plovers and their habitat; (4) using horse and foot patrols when
possible on base beaches; (5) enforcing leash laws throughout VAFB
year-round; (6) prohibiting all pets on western snowy plover nesting
beaches between March 1 and September 30 each year; (7) implementing a
predator management plan that includes ecologically sound approaches to
reducing predation of western snowy plover nests and chicks; (8)
cleaning base beaches between October 1 and February 28 each year under
the ``Adopt-a-Beach Program'' and implementing program-specific
monitoring of western snowy plovers, to determine impacts from launches
and other Air Force activities; (9) restricting aircraft overflight to
a minimum of 500-foot altitude above western snowy plover nesting
beaches; and (10) establishing flight patterns to minimize aircraft
presence over these beaches (VAFB 2011, Tab D, p. 18-20). 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 the western snowy
plover and its habitat.
Habitat features essential to the conservation of the western snowy
plover exist on VAFB, and activities occurring on VAFB are currently
being conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to western snowy
plover habitat. This military installation has a Secretarial-approved
INRMP that provides a benefit to the western snowy plover, and VAFB has
committed to work closely with the Service and the CDFG to continually
refine their existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review
process. 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
western snowy plover and its habitat. This includes habitat located on
Vandenberg North (CA 32) and South (CA 33) beaches. 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 1,135 ac (460 ha) of habitat in this revised
critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, CA 40 and CA 41, 208 ac (84 ha)
The Department of the Navy, Naval Base Ventura County, manages two
facilities in Ventura County, California: Point Mugu and San Nicolas
Island. Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu (NBVC, Point Mugu) was
established in 1949 as the Naval Air Weapons Station to support a new
U.S. Naval Air Missile Test Center, which provided material and service
support, including military personnel administration, air traffic
control, and flight line functions. The NBVC, Point Mugu occupies
approximately 4,490 ac (1,817 ha) of land on the coast of southern
California, Ventura County. Currently, the installation is used for
target drone launches, aircraft operations, and beach missile launch
operations, and is responsible for maintenance of the roads and
perimeter fence, utilities maintenance, pest management, recreation,
and natural resource management.
The NBVC, Point Mugu INRMP is a planning document that guides the
management and conservation of natural resources under the
installation's control. The INRMP was prepared to ensure that natural
resources are managed in support of the Naval Base Ventura County's
military command mission and that all activities are consistent with
Federal stewardship requirements. The NBVC, Point Mugu INRMP was
completed in 2002, and renewed and approved by the Service in 2008. The
INRMP is Naval Base Ventura County's adaptive plan for managing natural
resources to support and be consistent with the military mission, while
protecting and enhancing the biological integrity of lands under its
use (U.S. Navy 2002, p. ES-3). Naval Base Ventura County is committed
to an ecosystem management approach for its natural resources program
by integrating all components of natural resource management into a
comprehensive and coordinated effort. An integrated approach to
ecosystem management will help protect the biological diversity found
at NBVC, Point Mugu.
The INRMP identifies the following management and protective
measure goals for the Pacific Coast WSP:
(1) Monitor and manage breeding habitat of Pacific Coast WSPs;
(2) Monitor and manage wintering and migration areas to maximize
Pacific Coast WSP population survival;
(3) Develop mechanisms for long-term management and protection of
Pacific Coast WSPs and their breeding and wintering habitat;
(4) Undertake scientific investigations that facilitate recovery
efforts;
(5) Undertake public information and education programs for Pacific
Coast WSPs;
(6) Continue measures in place for Pacific Coast WSP protection,
including beach closures;
(7) Protect and maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate
high-quality breeding habitat;
(8) Keep Pacific Coast WSP management areas closed to all pets,
leashed or not, with the exception of NBVC security dogs on official
duty (e.g., apprehending a suspect);
(9) Monitor habitat to maintain the nesting substrates necessary
for Pacific Coast WSP breeding success;
(10) Identify factors that limit the quality of wintering and
breeding habitat;
(11) Clean and restore the eastern arm of Mugu Lagoon to sandy
beach;
(12) Improve methods of monitoring Pacific Coast WSPs, such as
color banding; and
(13) Develop and implement public information and education
programs on Pacific Coast WSPs and recovery efforts at the proposed
Mugu Lagoon Visitor Education Center.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are
[[Page 36777]]
subject to the 2008 INRMP for NBVC, Point Mugu and that the
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP have and will provide a
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP and features essential to its
conservation, and will benefit Pacific Coast WSPs occurring in habitats
within or adjacent to NBVC, Point Mugu. Therefore, lands within this
installation (Units CA 40 and CA 41) are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including
approximately 208 ac (84 ha) of habitat in this revised final critical
habitat designation because of this exemption.
Department of the Navy, Naval Base Ventura County, San Nicolas Island
(CA 42), 321 ac (130 ha)
San Nicolas Island is under the jurisdiction of Department of the
Navy, Naval Base Ventura County. The 14,230-ac (5,759-ha) San Nicolas
Island is located approximately 65 mi (105 km) south of NBVC, Point
Mugu. Naval facilities on San Nicolas Island include a 10,000-ft
(3,048-m) concrete and asphalt runway, radar tracking instrumentation,
electro-optical devices, telemetry, communications equipment, and
missile and target launch areas, as well as personnel support.
Currently, the island is used as the management launch platform for
short- and medium-range missile testing, and an observation facility
for missile testing. Primarily, San Nicolas Island's mission is to
support the primary research, design, development, testing, and
evaluation of air weapons and associated aircraft systems into anti-
surface and anti-air warfare aircraft.
The San Nicolas Island INRMP (U.S. Navy 2005, pp. 1-129) is a
planning document that guides the management and conservation of
natural resources under the Navy Base Ventura County's control. The
INRMP was prepared to ensure that natural resources are managed in
support of the Naval Base Ventura County's military command mission and
that all activities are consistent with Federal stewardship
requirements. The San Nicolas Island INRMP was completed and approved
by the Service in 2003, and renewed in 2005. The San Nicolas Island
INRMP is Naval Base Ventura County's adaptive plan for managing natural
resources to support and be consistent with the military mission, while
protecting and enhancing the biological integrity of lands under its
use (U.S. Navy 2005, p. 5). Naval Base Ventura County is committed to
an ecosystem management approach for its natural resources program by
integrating all components of natural resource management into a
comprehensive and coordinated effort. An integrated approach to
ecosystem management will help protect the biological diversity found
at San Nicolas Island.
The San Nicolas Island INRMP identifies the following management
and protective measure goals for the Pacific Coast WSP:
(1) Monitor Pacific Coast WSPs' nests during missile launches,
barge landings, and other activities that may disturb nesting
behaviors;
(2) Close Pacific Coast WSP nesting areas to recreational activity
during the breeding season (March through September);
(3) Monitor the effects of Navy activities on Pacific Coast WSPs by
conducting island-wide Pacific Coast WSP censuses twice annually, once
during the breeding season and once during the winter season;
(4) Educate island personnel regarding protected species
regulations and responsibilities;
(5) Maintain signs around breeding sites to alert personnel of
closures;
(6) Conduct site-specific Pacific Coast WSP surveys in potential or
known breeding habitat prior to disturbance activities;
(7) Remove unnecessary structures in Pacific Coast WSP nesting
areas and attach avian excluders to essential structures, if feasible;
(8) Conduct amphibious training exercises on beaches not harboring
nesting Pacific Coast WSPs;
(9) Continue to implement a feral cat control/removal program;
(10) Develop and maintain a computer database for storing
information on locations of nesting sites, incidental sightings and
size and results of surveys for resource management purposes;
(11) Continue to participate with recovery planning and other
efforts to help establish stable Pacific Coast WSP populations; and
(12) Support research to explore the effects of increasing pinniped
(seal, sea lion) populations on nesting success of Pacific Coast WSPs.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the 2005 INRMP for San Nicolas Island and that the
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP have and will provide a
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP and features essential to its
conservation, and will benefit Pacific Coast WSPs occurring in habitats
within or adjacent to NBVC, San Nicolas Island. Therefore, lands within
this installation (Unit CA 42) are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. We are not including
approximately 321 ac (130 ha) of habitat in this revised final critical
habitat designation because of this exemption.
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton (CA 49), 441 ac (179 ha)
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton is the Marine Corps' premier
amphibious training installation and it is the 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 is developed, most of the
installation is largely undeveloped land that is used for training. MCB
Camp Pendleton is situated between two major metropolitan areas: The
City of Los Angeles that is 82 mi (132 km) to the north, and the City
of San Diego that is 38 mi (61 km) to the south. MCB Camp Pendleton is
located north of the City of Oceanside, southeast of the City of San
Clemente, and adjacent to the western side of the unincorporated
community of Fallbrook, San Diego County, California. Aside from a
portion of the installation's border that is shared with the Cleveland
National Forest's San Mateo Wilderness Area and Fallbrook Naval Weapons
Station, surrounding land use includes urban development, rural
residential development, and farming and ranching. The largest single
leaseholder on the installation is CDPR, which possesses a 50-year real
estate lease granted on September 1, 1971, for 2,000 ac (809 ha) that
encompasses 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. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 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
Pacific Coast WSP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix F, Section F.23,
pp. F85-F89). The Service provided concurrence in 2001 and 2007
[[Page 36778]]
for the respective INRMPs. Additionally, CDPR is required to conduct
its natural resources management consistent with the philosophies and
supportive of the objectives in the revised 2007 INRMP (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Chapter 2, p. 31).
The Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat are provided protection and
management by the Estuarine and Beach Conservation Plan (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, pp. B-1--B-20), which was addressed through
the section 7 consultation process with a biological opinion issued by
the Service on October 30, 1995 (Service 1995, Biological Opinion 1-6-
95-F02), and is now implemented under the 2007 INRMP. Base-wide
protection measures for avoidance and minimization of impacts to
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat, especially during the breeding
season, are provided in both the conservation plan and Base Order
P3500.1M. The base-wide protection measures for Pacific Coast WSP
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Minimize reduction or loss of upland buffers surrounding
coastal wetlands;
(2) Restore the dune system in the vicinity of the Santa Margarita
Estuary following the guidance developed by The Nature Conservancy;
(3) Maintain integrity of listed species' habitat; and
(4) Promote growth of current population of Pacific Coast WSPs (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, pp. B5-B7).
Annual management and protection measures for Pacific Coast WSPs
identified in Appendix F of the INRMP include, but are not limited to:
(1) Installation of sign postings describing the sensitive nature
of the breeding area/season;
(2) Installation of permanent/temporary fencing that directs
military training away from sensitive nesting and foraging areas;
(3) Beach habitat enhancement (nonnative vegetation control and
sand mobilization);
(4) Ant control (ants can cause incubating adults to abandon a
nest, and can contribute towards chick mortality); and
(5) Focused predator control (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix F,
p. F89).
Current environmental training regulations and restrictions are
provided to all military personnel to maintain compliance with the
terms of the INRMP. Training regulations guide activities to protect
endangered and threatened species on the installation, including
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. Specific conservation measures,
outlined in the Instructions for Military Training Activities section
of the Estuarine and Beach Conservation Plan, are applied to Pacific
Coast WSP and its habitat (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, p. B-13). These
include:
(1) Military activities are kept to a minimum within the Santa
Margarita Management Zone (i.e., the area on the base where the
majority of nesting sites occur) and any nesting site outside the
traditionally fenced nesting areas during the breeding/nesting season
(1 March-31 August) for the Pacific Coast WSP. A buffer distance of 984
ft (300 m) away from fenced or posted nesting areas must be adhered to
for all activities involving smoke, pyrotechnics, loud noises, blowing
sand, and large groupings of personnel (14 or more). Aircraft are not
authorized to land within 984 ft (300 m) of fenced nesting areas on
Blue Beach or White Beach and are required to maintain an altitude of
300 ft (91 m) Above Ground Level (AGL) or more above nesting areas.
(2) Recreational activities within the Santa Margarita Management
Zone and posted nest locations during the breeding season are to be
kept to a minimum, and camping at Cocklebur Canyon Beach is prohibited.
(3) Foot traffic within the Santa Margarita Management Zone is
prohibited within 150 ft (46 m) of posted nesting areas during the
breeding season.
(4) A 300-ft (91-m) buffer from posted nesting areas is required
for surf fishermen, and no live baitfish or amphibians are allowed for
fishing activities.
Additionally, MCB Camp Pendleton Environmental Security staff
review projects and enforce existing regulations and orders that,
through their implementation under National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements, avoid and minimize impacts
to natural resources, including the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat.
MCB Camp Pendleton also provides training to personnel on environmental
awareness for sensitive resources on the base, including the Pacific
Coast WSP 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 Pacific Coast WSPs and
their habitat.
MCB Camp Pendleton's INRMP also benefits Pacific Coast WSP through
ongoing monitoring and research efforts. To assess the effectiveness of
MCB Camp Pendleton's Estuarine and Beach Conservation Plan, biennial
monitoring is conducted to determine number of pairs, hatching success,
and reproductive success (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix B, p. B12).
Annual monitoring of nests is conducted to track Pacific Coast WSP
population trends (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix F, p. F89). Data
are provided to all necessary personnel through MCB Camp Pendleton's
GIS database on sensitive resources and MCB Camp Pendleton's published
resource atlas. Moreover, CDPR is required to conduct its natural
resources management consistent with the philosophies and supportive of
the objectives of the INRMP (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, p. 2-30).
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP and that conservation
efforts identified in the 2007 INRMP do and will continue to provide a
benefit to Pacific Coast WSP and features essential to its
conservation, and will benefit Pacific Coast WSPs occurring in habitats
within or adjacent to MCB Camp Pendleton. This includes habitat located
in the following areas: San Onofre Beach, Aliso/French Creek Mouth, and
Santa Margarita River Estuary (names of areas follow those used in the
draft recovery plan (Service 2001, Appendix B, p. B-16)). Therefore,
lands within this installation are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including
approximately 441 ac (179 ha) of habitat in this revised final critical
habitat designation because of this exemption.
Naval Base Coronado, Naval Air Station (CA 55A, CA 55C, CA 55D, and CA
55H), 734 ac (297 ha)
Naval Base Coronado includes eight military facilities in San Diego
County, California. Three of these facilities (Naval Air Station North
Island (CA 55A); Naval Amphibious Base Coronado (CA 55C, and CA 55D);
and Naval Radio Receiving Facility (CA 55H)) include beach habitat that
supports Pacific Coast WSPs. For planning and description purposes
regarding these beaches and the military training that occurs here, the
U.S. Navy describes these areas as:
(1) Naval Air Station North Island (NAS North Island),
(2) Naval Amphibious Base Coronado or Silver Strand Training
Complex--North (SSTC-North), and
(3) Naval Radio Receiving Facility or Silver Strand Training
Complex--South (SSTC-South).
[[Page 36779]]
NAS North Island is located north of the City of Coronado and
encompasses 2,803 ac (1134 ha), of which approximately 95 ac (39 ha) is
southern foredune/beach habitat. SSTC-North is located south of the
City of Coronado and encompasses roughly 1,000 ac (405 ha), of which
approximately 257 ac (104 ha) are beach-front habitat leased from CDPR
for amphibious military training activities. SSTC-North, including the
San Diego Bay-front beach referred to as Delta Beach, supports
approximately 278 ac (113 ha) of southern foredune/beach habitat. SSTC-
South is located north of the City of Imperial Beach, and encompasses
450 ac (182 ha), of which approximately 78 ac (32 ha) is southern
foredune/beach habitat.
The U.S. Navy completed an INRMP in 2002 to provide a viable
framework for the management of natural resources on lands controlled
by for Naval Base Coronado. This INRMP was approved by the Service. The
U.S. Navy continues to implement the completed 2002 INRMP as a revision
is being drafted. The INRMP identifies conservation and management
recommendations within the scope of the installation's military
mission, including conservation measures for Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat (Naval Base Coronado 2002, Section 3, pp. 81-83). The
management strategy outlines actions that would contribute to the
recovery of Pacific Coast WSP through development of cooperative,
ecosystem management-based strategies (Naval Base Coronado 2002,
Section 4, pp. 56-58).
The INRMP revision will reflect the management changes driven by
the U.S. Navy's need for additional beach training. The U.S. Navy will
continue to implement the 2002 INRMP, subject to modified management
strategies identified in the 2010 Silver Strand Training Area
Biological Opinion (BO), until completion of a revised INRMP. The
revised INRMP will include the management strategy identified in the
2010 Silver Strand Training BO. The 2002 INRMP identifies conservation
and management recommendations within the scope of the installation's
military mission, including conservation measures for Pacific Coast WSP
and its habitat (Naval Base Coronado 2002, Section 3, pp. 81-83). The
management strategy outlines actions that would contribute to the
recovery of Pacific Coast WSP through development of cooperative,
ecosystem management-based strategies (Naval Base Coronado 2002,
Section 4, pp. 56-58). Management actions that will benefit the Pacific
Coast WSP to be implemented by the Navy on the U.S. Navy's Silver
Strand Training Complex Operations, Naval Base, Coronado, in accordance
with the 2002 INRMP as modified by the 2010 SSTC BO (08B0503-09F0517)
include:
(1) Minimize the potential for take of nests and chicks at SSTC-N
and SSTC-S Beaches during the breeding season;
(2) Monitor training activities to ascertain the impact on Pacific
Coast WSP distribution and report any observed incidental take to the
Service annually;
(3) Modify the beach to create hummocks to deter plovers from
nesting in intensively used beach lanes;
(4) Schedule efforts to avoid beach lanes with higher nest numbers;
(5) Study the effects of military working dogs on plovers to
develop additional conservation measures, if necessary;
(6) Require that dogs be on leashes;
(7) Annual nest site preparation;
(8) Mark and avoid up to 22 nests at SSTC-S, SSTC-N Beaches, plus
any additional nests that exceed 22 that are initiated in beach lanes
Orange 1 and Orange 2;
(9) Protect nesting and foraging areas at NAS North Island, SSTC-
North, SSTC-South, and Delta Beach from predation by supporting
consistent and effective predator management;
(10) Enhance and disallow mowing of remnant dune areas as potential
nest sites in areas that can be protected from human disturbance and
predators during nesting season;
(11) Conduct monitoring throughout Naval Base Coronado and
establish a consistent approach to monitoring nesting attempts and
hatching success to determine the success of predator management
activities, and limit predator-prey interactions by fencing unless it
conflicts with U.S. Navy training;
(12) Identify opportunities to use dredge material that has high
sand content for expansion and rehabilitation of beach areas at NAS
North Island and Delta Beach to create improved nesting substrate;
(13) Minimize activities that can affect invertebrate populations
necessary for Pacific Coast WSP foraging by prohibiting beach raking on
Naval Base Coronado beaches, with the exception of the area immediately
in front of the Navy Lodge at NAS North Island and Camp Surf at SSTC-
South;
(14) If any relocation of nest/eggs is necessary as a protective
measure, each nest/egg will be relocated the shortest distance possible
into suitable habitat by Service-approved monitors to increase the
chance of nest success;
(15) Identify conflicts for immediate action and response;
(16) Public outreach to military residents of adjacent housing;
(17) Post signs to eliminate human trespassers during nesting
season and possibly for nest avoidance as well; and
(18) Work with the Service and others to develop a regional
approach to managing and conserving the habitat needed to sustain
Pacific Coast WSP.
The 2010 SSTC BO (08B0503-09F0517, p. 128) also specifies that if
new information reveals that the increased training is affecting
Pacific Coast WSP in a manner inconsistent with the conclusion of the
Biological Opinion, then reinitiation of consultation may be warranted.
If monitoring indicates that the western snowy plover numbers within
the area of increased military training decline below the 5-year
average, as determined by maximum active nest numbers--average of 18
plover pairs at SSTC (range of 11 to 22); 10 plover pairs at NASNI
(range of 7 to 14); and 8 plover pairs at SSSB (range of 5 to 9)--
reinitiation of consultation may be warranted. If snowy plover use of
SSTC beaches declines, Service and U.S. Navy biologists will evaluate
alternative explanations for any observed decline (such as,
continuation of low productivity associated with predation) and the
need for additional conservation measures. This cooperative
relationship allows the Service to work closely with the U.S. Navy for
the continued implementation of beneficial measures to Pacific Coast
WSP, while minimizing impacts associated with the increased training
activities that are required for military readiness.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Naval Base Coronado INRMP and that the conservation
efforts identified in the existing Service- approved INRMP will provide
a benefit to Pacific Coast WSP features essential to its conservation
and will benefit Pacific Coast WSPs occurring in habitats within and
adjacent to NAS North Island, SSTC-North, and SSTC-South. We also
anticipate that the draft revised INRMP will provide a similar if not
greater benefits to Pacific Coast WSPs, but will reopen this
designation as necessary to evaluate the conservation efforts in Naval
Base Coronado's final revised INRMP. Therefore, lands within this
installation (Units CA 55A, CA 55C, CA 55D, and CA 55H) are exempt
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately
734 ac (297 ha) of habitat in this revised final critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
[[Page 36780]]
Table 5 below provides approximate land areas (ac, ha) that meet
the definition of critical habitat but are exempt from designation
under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
Table 5--Exemptions From Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting the
definition of Areas exempted in
Unit Specific area Basis for exemption critical habitat ac (ha)
in ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA 22................ Naval Support Area 4(a)(3)(B).......... 8 ac (3 ha)........ 8 ac (3 ha).
Monterey.
CA 32................ Vandenberg Air Force Base 4(a)(3)(B).......... 711 ac (288 ha).... 711 ac (288 ha).
North.
CA 33................ Vandenberg Air Force Base 4(a)(3)(B).......... 423 ac (171 ha).... 423 ac (171 ha).
South.
CA 40................ Naval Base Ventura County 4(a)(3)(B).......... 136 ac (55 ha)..... 136 ac (55 ha).
Point Mugu, Mugu Lagoon
North.
CA 41................ Naval Base Ventura County 4(a)(3)(B).......... 72 ac (29 ha)...... 72 ac (29 ha).
Point Mugu, Mugu Lagoon
South.
CA 42................ Naval Base Ventura 4(a)(3)(B).......... 321 ac (130 ha).... 321 ac (130 ha).
County, San Nicolas
Island.
CA 49................ Marine Corps Base (MCB) 4(a)(3)(B).......... 441 ac (179 ha).... 441 ac (179 ha).
Camp Pendleton.
CA 55A............... Naval Base Coronado, 4(a)(3)(B).......... 142 ac (57 ha)..... 142 ac (57 ha).
Naval Air Station North
Island.
CA 55C............... Naval Base Coronado 4(a)(3)(B).......... 436 ac (176 ha).... 436 ac (176 ha).
Silver Strand Beach.
CA 55D............... Naval Base Coronado Delta 4(a)(3)(B).......... 90 ac (36 ha)...... 90 ac (36 ha).
Beach.
CA 55H............... Naval Base Coronado Naval 4(a)(3)(B).......... 66 ac (27 ha)...... 66 ac (27 ha).
Radio Receiving Facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............ ......................... .................... ................... 2,846 ac (1,151
ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusions
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
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 decision not 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.
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate 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.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation that a critical habitat designation would
provide.
In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP, the benefits of critical
habitat include public awareness of the Pacific Coast WSP's presence
and the importance of habitat protection, and in cases where a Federal
nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the Pacific Coast WSP
due to the protection from adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat.
When we evaluate the existence of a conservation or management plan
when considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized;
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be
adapted in the future in response to new information.
After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments received and information in our
files, we evaluated whether certain lands in the revised proposed
critical habitat were appropriate for exclusion from this revised final
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We considered the
areas discussed below for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
and present our detailed analysis below. For those areas in which the
Secretary has exercised his discretion to exclude, we conclude that:
(1) Their value for conservation will be preserved in the near
future by existing protective actions, or
[[Page 36781]]
(2) The benefits of excluding the particular area outweigh the
benefits of their inclusion, based on the ``other relevant factor''
provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We are excluding a total of approximately 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of
land from critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. Table 6 below
provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands in each State by unit that
meet the definition of critical habitat but are being excluded under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. Maps
showing excluded areas are available upon request by contacting the
Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see the ADDRESSES section).
Table 6--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical
Habitat Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area excluded under
Unit/subunit section 4(b)(2) of the
act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department HCP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT......................................... ac (ha).
OR 1 Columbia River Spit..................... 169 (68).
OR 2 Necanicum River Spit.................... 200 (81).
OR 3 Nehalem River Spit...................... 299 (121).
OR 4 Bayocean Spit........................... 166 (67).
OR 5 Netarts Spit............................ 541 (219).
OR 6 Sand Lake South......................... 195 (79).
OR 7 Sutton/Baker Beaches.................... 96 (39).
OR 8B Siltcoos River Spit.................... 125 (51).
OR 8C Dunes Overlook/Tahkenitch Creek Spit... 333 (135).
OR 8D North Umpqua River Spit................ 177 (71).
OR 9 Tenmile Creek Spit...................... 21 (8).
OR 10 Coos Bay North Spit.................... 35 (14).
OR 11 Bandon to New River.................... 475 (192).
OR 12 Elk River Spit......................... 167 (68).
OR 13 Euchre Creek Spit...................... 107 (43).
--------------------------
Subtotal for OPRD HCP Lands.............. 3,106 (1,257).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Multi-Species HCPs and Other Management Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT......................................... ac (ha).
CA 50A Batiquitos Lagoon..................... 24 (10).
CA 50B Batiquitos Lagoon..................... 23 (9).
CA 50C Batiquitos Lagoon..................... 19 (8).
CA 52B San Dieguito Lagoon................... 3 (1).
CA 52C San Dieguito Lagoon................... 4 (2).
CA 53 Los Penasquitos Lagoon................. 32 (13).
CA 54A Fiesta Island......................... 2 (1).
CA 54B Mariner's Point....................... 7 (3).
CA 54C South Mission Beach................... 38 (15).
CA 54D San Diego River Channel............... 51 (21).
CA 55E Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife 53 (21).
Refuge and D Street Fill.
CA G55 Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve.......... 10 (4).
--------------------------
Subtotal for all Southern CA Plans....... 266 (108).
Subtotal for all HCP Lands in OR and CA.. 3,372 (1,365).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Lands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoalwater Bay Tribe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT......................................... ac (ha).
Shoalwater Bay tribal lands within WA3B 425 (172).
Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit.
--------------------------
Subtotal for Tribal Lands................ 425 ac (172 ha).
--------------------------
Total Area Excluded Under 4(b)(2).... 3,797 (1,537).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
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 prepared a draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial
Economics Incorporated (IEc) 2011, pp. 1-130). The draft analysis,
dated September 15, 2011, was made available for public review and
comment from January 17, 2012, through February 16, 2012 (77 FR 2243).
Following the close of the comment
[[Page 36782]]
period, a final analysis (dated March 23, 2012) of the potential
economic effects of the designation was developed taking into
consideration the public comments and any new information (IEc 2012,
pp. 1-131).
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Pacific
Coast WSP; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of
whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact
of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing
scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical
habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for
the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State,
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The
``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks
retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was
listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to
occur with the designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision makers use this information to assess whether the
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or
economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at costs that
have been incurred since 1993 (year of the species' listing) (58 FR
12864; March 5, 1993), and considers those costs that may occur in the
20 years following the designation of critical habitat, which was
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA
quantifies economic impacts of the Pacific Coast WSP conservation
efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1)
Recreation; (2) commercial and residential development; (3) gravel
mining; (4) military activities; and (5) habitat and species
management.
Nearly 86 percent of the critical habitat is not expected to
experience any incremental impacts. In some of these units, the
critical habitat area is subject to existing HCPs or land management
plans that incorporate plover conservation. For other units, no future
land use threats (e.g., development or transportation projects) are
forecast to occur (IEc 2012, p. 4-1).
In the DEA, the major cost was associated with military operations
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, which was proposed for designation as
Units CA 32 and 33 in our March 2011 proposed revised designation.
Vandenberg Air Force Base subsequently completed a Secretarial-approved
INRMP and has been exempted from this final revised designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions section).
The FEA estimates total potential incremental economic impacts in
areas proposed as revised critical habitat over the next 20 years (2012
to 2032) to be $266,000, annualized at $25,100 using a 7 percent
discount rate. These totals include the potential incremental impacts
associated with inclusion of Vandenberg Air Force Base and, as a result
of its exemption from this final designation, the total potential
incremental impacts may be less. These costs represent additional
administrative effort as part of future consultations under section 7
of the Act. We do not expect that the designation will result in
additional conservation efforts for the plover due to the nature of the
known projects. Exhibit 4-2 provides the estimated incremental impacts
by activity (IEc 2012, p. 4-6). Development activities have the highest
incremental impact at $50,000, followed by habitat and species
management at $16,700, and mining at $10,500.
Development
The FEA estimates the largest impacts of the proposed revised
critical habitat rule would result from real estate development. The
FEA has identified two commercial resort developments that may be
affected by the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
WSP. The total incremental impacts within Unit CA 22 are estimated to
be $17,100 ($1,610 annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate and include
the administrative cost of addressing adverse modification during
consultation as well as any additional conservation efforts necessary
to avoid adverse modification (IEc 2012, pp. 4-4, 4-12--4-14). These
costs are assuming that a Federal nexus would be identified for the
proposed project; currently, however, there is no federal nexus and
thus consultation under section 7 is not required. Indirect costs
(i.e., lost potential income to local business and construction jobs)
may also be associated with this unit and the project proponents have
estimated these impacts to be approximately $30 million annually to the
local economy if the projects are not allowed to proceed due to
litigation or other permit proceedings not connected with this critical
habitat designation (IEc 2012, p. 4-14). These estimates could not be
verified by our economic analysis. Both development sites are located
at the southerly end of Unit CA 22 in Sand City, California. The first
development site, commonly known as the ``Sterling/McDonald'' site, is
jointly owned by a private developer and the Sand City Redevelopment
Agency. The project proponents are presently in the process of
developing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA. Project
proponents expect the EIR to be completed in 6 months. The second site
on the Sand City coastline is the Security National Guaranty (SNG)
development site (formerly known as the Lonestar site). Similar to the
Sterling McDonald site, the SNG site is planned for a mixed-use
visitor-serving resort. The hotel-condo resort will include up to 341
units. Pursuant to CEQA, the resort has undergone a full EIR along with
an addendum update and peer review.
These development projects do not have a Federal nexus and thus
consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Act is not
required. Due to the lack of a Federal nexus, no direct impacts of
critical habitat designation are expected; however, indirect impacts
(i.e. lost potential income to local business and construction jobs)
are possible in the event that other permitting processes or litigation
unrelated to this designation affect project approvals (IEc 2012, pp.
4-12-4-13). SNG has prepared a detailed habitat protection plan (HPP)
that evaluates and mitigates potential impacts to any presence of
sensitive biological resources, including the Pacific Coast WSP.
Conservation
[[Page 36783]]
measures contained within the HPP related to the plover include:
Fencing and signage around construction; Pacific Coast WSP surveys
prior to, during, and after construction; erection of exclosures and
signage if any nesting Pacific Coast WSPs are discovered; predator
management; permanent conservation easement for Pacific Coast WSP
habitat on the property; and quarterly and annual reporting to the
Service (IEc 2012, p. 4-13).
One additional development project was identified in subunit CA 55B
by the City of Coronado. The City of Coronado has developed a
conceptual plan for a Class 1 bike path and pedestrian trail for the
Central Beach area in subunit CA 55B. If this plan moves forward,
consultation with the Service would occur if there is a Federal nexus.
The total incremental impacts within this unit are estimated to be
$4,670 ($441 annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate and include the
administrative cost of addressing adverse modification during
consultation as well as any additional conservation efforts necessary
to avoid adverse modification (IEc 2012, pp. 4-5, 4-14).
Recreation
The majority of incremental costs associated with recreation are at
the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA). Oceano Dunes
SVRA is one of several Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) areas administered by
the CDPR and encompasses roughly 3,590 ac (1,453 ha) in San Luis Obispo
County; approximately 1,500 ac (607 ha) are designated for camping and
OHV use. Portions of Oceano Dunes SVRA are located within Unit CA 31.
While there is no federal nexus for activities at Oceano Dunes SVRA,
CDPR is working with the Service to develop a habitat conservation plan
in connection with obtaining an incidental take permit. An intra-
Service consultation under section 7 would be required for issuance of
the permit. Consequently, the direct incremental impacts identified are
a result of section 7 administrative costs and are estimated to be
approximately $9,580 ($904 annualized, at a 7 percent discount rate);
however, additional indirect costs may also be associated with this
unit (IEc 2012, pp. 4-4, 4-10--4-12).
Mining
Gravel mining has occurred within Unit CA 6 and within the Eel
River basin for decades and has been regulated under a variety of
programs, including under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the
Rivers and Harbors Act, which are administered by the USACE. Currently,
six gravel extractors operate in Unit CA 6 under a countywide permit
issued by the USACE. A biological opinion has been issued for the
gravel mining operations, and the USACE is required to re-initiate
consultation to renew the Letter of Permission during the life of the
permit. The USACE must consult with the Service again in 2014, 2019,
2024, and 2029. The direct incremental impacts identified are a result
of section 7 administrative costs and are estimated to be approximately
$10,500 ($995 annualized, at a 7 percent discount rate) (IEc 2012, pp.
4-3, 4-18--4-19).
Habitat and Species Management
We have consulted on many habitat and species management projects
throughout the range of the Pacific Coast WSP. The FEA has identified
four habitat and species management activities that would require
consultation under section 7 of the Act. The projects include: (1) A
habitat restoration project in subunit WA 3B; (2) the draft Fort Ord
Dunes HCP; (3) the Santa Barbara County Parks Department draft HCP for
Rancho Guadalupe Dunes County Park in Unit CA 31; and (4) the draft HCP
for Oceano Dunes SVRA for the CDPR. Individual costs for each unit are
summarized in Exhibit 4-1 (IEc 2012, pp. 4-3--4-6). The total estimated
costs associated with these projects are $16,700 ($1,580 annualized, at
a 7 percent discount rate) (IEc 2012, pp. 4-21--4-23).
Because the FEA did not identify any disproportionate, or
unreasonable costs that are likely to result from the designation of
revised final critical habitat, the Secretary did not consider
exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP based on economic impacts. A
copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting
the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading
from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
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 (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we
have exempted from the designation of critical habitat those DOD lands
with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit to the Pacific
Coast WSP. We have also determined that the remaining lands within the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the species are not owned
or managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security.
In comments received from the Navy on our 2011 revised proposed
rule, we were notified that approximately 8 ac (3 ha) associated with a
Navy school (Naval Support Area Monterey) along the Monterey Bay coast
was identified within the revised proposed critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP. These DOD lands have been exempted from the revised
final designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions).
The Navy also identified that approximately 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) at
Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, was included in the revised
proposed rule. These lands were inadvertently included as part of Unit
CA 39 in the revised proposed designation due to a mapping error. The
identified 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) of Navy lands within Unit CA 39, Ormond
Beach, have been removed in this revised final designation because they
are unsuitable habitat and not essential to the conservation of the
species.
No other DOD lands have been identified within the revised final
designation. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from this revised 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 to 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-to
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
We consider a current land management or conservation plan (HCPs,
as well as other types) to provide adequate management or protection
for Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat if it meets the following
criteria:
(1) The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of
protection from adverse modification or
[[Page 36784]]
destruction than that provided through a consultation under section 7
of the Act;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future and effective, based on past practices, written
guidance, or regulations; and
(3) The plan provides adaptive management and conservation
strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles
of conservation biology.
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue to non-
Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that
results in the incidental taking of a listed species (i.e., take that
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an
otherwise lawful activity). The Act specifies that an application for
an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a habitat conservation
plan, and specifies the content of such a plan. The purpose of HCPs is
to describe and ensure that the effects of the permitted action on
covered species are adequately minimized and mitigated, and that the
action does not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the
species. In our assessment of HCPs associated with this final
rulemaking, the analysis required for these types of exclusions
involves careful consideration of the benefits of designation versus
the benefits of exclusion. The benefits of designation typically arise
from additional section 7 protections, as well as enhanced public
awareness once specific areas are identified as critical habitat. The
benefits of exclusion generally relate to relieving regulatory burdens
on existing conservation partners, maintaining good working
relationships with them, and encouraging the development of new
partnerships.
Some HCP permittees have expressed the view that critical habitat
designation on lands covered by an HCP devalues the conservation
efforts of the plan's proponents, and could undermine the partnerships
fostered through the development and implementation of the plans. They
believe critical habitat designation on HCP lands would discourage
development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans in the
future. Where an existing HCP provides for protection for a species and
its essential habitat within the plan area, or where the existence of a
Federal nexus for future activities is uncertain, the benefits of
preserving existing partnerships by excluding the covered lands from
critical habitat are most significant. Excluding lands owned by or
under the jurisdiction of the permittees of an HCP, under these
circumstances, promotes positive working relationships and eliminates
impacts to existing and future partnerships while encouraging
development of additional HCPs for other species.
Large-scale HCPs take many years to develop and foster an
ecosystem-based approach to habitat conservation planning, by
addressing conservation issues through a coordinated approach. If local
jurisdictions were to require landowners to obtain incidental take
permits (ITP) individually prior to the issuance of a building permit
under section 10 of the Act, this would result in uncoordinated, patchy
conservation that would be less likely to achieve listed species
recovery. We actively work to foster partnerships with local
jurisdictions and encourage development of regional HCPs that afford
proactive, landscape-level conservation for multiple species, including
voluntary protections for covered species.
The proposed rule to revise designated habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011) did not specifically identify
any HCP, management plan, or conservation partnership that the Service
was proposing at that time for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. The Service did indicate that it was seeking input from the public
as to whether the Secretary should exclude HCP areas or other such
areas under management that benefits the Pacific Coast WSP from the
final revised designation, and mentioned that there were areas in the
revised proposed designation that were included in management plans or
other large-scale HCPs, such as the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department (OPRD) Habitat Conservation Plan. The Service also sought
input on exclusions of Tribal Lands from the final revised designation.
In developing the revised final critical habitat and weighing the
benefits of exclusion versus inclusion, we have analyzed these areas
that are managed under a HCP, similar management plan, or conservation
partnership and have determined that several units or portions of units
that were included in the revised proposed designation are managed
consistent with the intent of the exclusion language. We discuss each
of these areas below.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Habitat Conservation Plan
The OPRD HCP was permitted under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act in
2011, and covers about 230 mi (370 km) of sandy shore within the range
of the Pacific Coast WSP in Oregon. The associated incidental take
permit (ITP) authorizes incidental take of the Pacific Coast WSP caused
by public use and recreation management activities, natural resources
management activities, and beach management activities along the coast
of Oregon for a period of 25 years (Service 2011).
The HCP-covered lands consist of the ``Ocean Shore,'' an area
defined by Oregon State statute as the sandy areas of the Oregon coast
between the extreme low tide and the actual of statutory vegetation
line, whichever is farther landward. HCP-covered lands do not include
the Federal lands within the ``Ocean Shore'' boundary. In the areas
adjacent to Federal lands, the covered lands extend from the extreme
low tide to the mean high tide. Covered lands are either owned and
leased by OPRD as a State Park or Natural Area or managed under a
statutory recreation easement within the Ocean Shore (Oregon Revised
Statute 390.635 and 390.620; Oregon Administrative Rule 736-020-
0040(3)). Federal lands are not covered by the HCP and were, therefore,
not considered for exclusion.
Conservation measures to be implemented on the covered lands will
be focused on 16 management areas that were identified to have the
greatest potential to provide Pacific Coast WSP habitat when considered
in the context of recreational use of the Ocean Shore, historical
Pacific Coast WSP use, and the biological requirements of the species.
The OPRD either owns or leases five of these management areas,
which are identified as ``Snowy Plover Management Areas'' (SPMAs): (1)
Columbia River South Jetty; (2) Necanicum Spit; (3) Nehalem Spit; (4)
Bandon; and (5) Netarts Spit. The remaining 11 potential management
areas are identified as ``Recreation Management Areas'' (RMAs) and are
adjacent to upland areas owned by other landowners but are located
within the area defined as Ocean Shore. Together, the 16 management
areas span approximately 48 mi (77 km) of the 230 mi (370 km) of sandy
Ocean Shore in Oregon.
The conservation measures (Table 7) include: (1) Implementation of
Pacific Coast WSP management activities on OPRD-owned or -leased SPMAs;
(2) implementation of recreational use
[[Page 36785]]
restrictions at SPMAs and RMAs owned by other landowners; and (3)
implementation of beach management activities on the Ocean Shore.
Table 7--Summary of Pacific Coast WSP Conservation Objectives Within the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
HCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area specific management objectives Conservation benefit to Pacific Coast WSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrict activities near nesting habitat Protect nesting and foraging areas.
during the breeding season (March 15
through September 15).
Restore and maintain plover nesting habitat. Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and foraging areas.
Restore, maintain, and manage currently Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and foraging areas.
unoccupied sites for plover nesting.
Manage predators within plover nesting areas Protect individuals, eggs, and young.
Monitor breeding and nonbreeding population. Ensure effectiveness of plover conservation measures in HCP.
Conduct public outreach and education about Protect nesting and foraging areas.
plovers and their habitat.
Provide law enforcement of HCP rules and Protect nesting and foraging areas.
regulations.
If wintering plovers are impacted by covered Protect wintering, nesting, and foraging plovers.
activities or climate change is impacting
plovers within the covered lands, modify
the HCP to respond to changed circumstances.
Ensure site-specific management actions are Protect, restore, or enhance breeding, wintering, and foraging
prioritized and completed through areas.
individual site management plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the OPRD HCP, site management plans are required by the HCP
for each area managed for Pacific Coast WSPs. Site management plans
include management prescriptions specific to individual management
areas and describe how the conservation measures required by the HCP
(i.e., recreation management, habitat restoration and maintenance,
predator management, monitoring, enforcement, and public outreach and
education) will be completed at each managed area. Site management
plans also outline the extent of seasonal recreational use restrictions
for each area and are approved by the Service, and are reviewed every 5
years to ensure the provisions are providing conservation benefits and
meeting the intent of the HCP.
The Bandon State Natural Area (SNA) is managed as the Bandon SPMA.
OPRD has completed a draft site management plan, which has been
submitted to the Service for review and approval. This site management
plan further describes how the conservation measures, required in the
HCP, will be completed at Bandon SPMA. Active management of the Bandon
SPMA, per this site management plan, will begin in 2013. In the
interim, OPRD continues to manage plovers at the site by restricting
recreational access, providing public education, law enforcement, and
habitat restoration and management. The site management plan will
specify the long-term implementation of the OPRD HCP provisions at
Bandon SPMA.
In addition to the occupied Bandon SPMA, as many as four areas
currently unoccupied by the Pacific Coast WSP have been identified as
SPMAs and targeted for management of potential nesting populations of
the Pacific Coast WSP over the term of the 25-year ITP. Three SPMAs
will initially be managed by OPRD for nesting populations of Pacific
Coast WSP: (1) Columbia River South Jetty; (2) Necanicum Spit; and (3)
Nehalem Spit.
By 2013, OPRD will prepare site management plans that describe how
restoration and management measures required by the HCP are implemented
at these three unoccupied SPMAs. Active management will begin the
nesting season after site plans have been approved by the Service,
starting in 2014. One additional SPMA, Netarts Spit, could also be
managed if (1) the Columbia River South Jetty, Necanicum Spit, or the
Nehalem Spit SPMA becomes occupied; and (2) one of the RMAs is not
already under active, Service-approved management for the Pacific Coast
WSP. Under these circumstances, OPRD will commit to managing Netarts
Spit for nesting populations of the Pacific Coast WSP to ensure that a
minimum of three unoccupied SPMAs are being actively managed at any
given time over the term of the 25-year ITP.
As discussed above, RMAs extend from the extreme low tide line to
the mean high tide line on Federal lands, and from the mean low tide
line to the statutory or actual vegetation line, whichever is most
landward, on all other lands. Under the HCP, the OPRD will implement
recreational use restrictions at up to 11 RMAs, which include; Bayocean
Spit, South Sand Lake Spit, Sutton/Baker Beach, Siltcoos Estuary/Dunes
Overlook/Tahkenitch Estuary, Tahkenitch South, Umpqua River North
Jetty, Tenmile, Coos Bay North Spit, New River, Elk River, and Euchre
Creek.
If a RMA or the area immediately inland of a RMA becomes occupied
by the Pacific Coast WSP, but a site management plan does not exist,
the OPRD will automatically implement recreational use restrictions on
HCP-covered lands between March 15 and September 15 of each year. These
restrictions will remain in place until an agreement is reached between
the Service and the landowner on conservation, any recommended
conservation actions or a site management plan is developed by OPRD.
The OPRD will also be notified of any changes that may modify the
application of recreational use restrictions to a more focused area,
based on the conservation needs of the plovers at the site, as outlined
in the HCP. The provisions to implement restrictions on the covered
lands allow OPRD to protect plovers within covered lands regardless of
the management on the adjacent areas. In addition, a memorandum of
understanding has been completed and signed by all involved State and
Federal agencies, ensuring consistent management of plovers across
jurisdictional boundaries according to the provisions of the HCP.
In the event that a Service-approved site management plan has been
developed, the OPRD will implement recreational use restrictions in
cooperation with the landowner as directed by the site management plan.
If an RMA and the areas immediately inland of the RMA are unoccupied by
the Pacific Coast WSP, the OPRD will only implement recreational use
restrictions at the request of the landowner and after consultation
with
[[Page 36786]]
the Service and collaboration with the OPRD. The OPRD will also work
with county and private landowners adjacent to RMAs to provide
supervision, enforcement, and signage on their lands, because such
restrictions (ropes, signs, enforcement) cannot be implemented by a
private landowner on the Ocean Shore without OPRD approval.
If a Pacific Coast WSP should nest on HCP-covered lands outside an
occupied or unoccupied SPMA or RMA, the OPRD will install fencing
around the individual nest in coordination with the landowner, and will
consider installing a nest enclosure after consultation with the
Service. Specifically, the OPRD will install a 164-foot (50-m radius)
roped buffer around the nest that allows access along the wet sand, and
will determine, through coordination with the Service, if use of an
exclosure to protect the nest from predation is appropriate. The OPRD
will also work with the Service and the landowner to install signage,
as appropriate, to indicate the presence of nesting Pacific Coast WSPs.
The terms of the OPRD HCP and associated ITP only addressed impacts
to Pacific Coast WSPs during the breeding season. The HCP concluded
that the impacts of covered activities did not rise to the level of
take for wintering Pacific Coast WSPs. Therefore, OPRD did not request
coverage by the ITP for activities that occur outside the breeding
season, nor did the OPRD HCP include provisions for wintering habitat
management or protection. However, the provisions for habitat
management of nesting areas within the covered lands should provide
conservation value for wintering habitat within the conservation area
by providing protections during the nonbreeding season to foraging,
roosting, and winter use areas. In addition, OPRD included a provision
that would require amendment of the HCP, if covered activities were
determined to adversely impact wintering Pacific Coast WSPs, based on
annual monitoring.
The OPRD HCP has provisions for adaptive management to address
uncertainties in achieving conservation objectives for Pacific Coast
WSP habitat, including uncertainties that may be associated with
climate change. The adaptive management strategy helps to ensure
management will continue to be consistent with agreed-upon Pacific
Coast WSP conservation objectives. Climate change and associated sea-
level rise were considered ``changed circumstances'' that may require
additional conservation measures of OPRD. In the event that sea-level
rise results in loss of Pacific Coast WSP nesting habitat over the term
of the HCP, OPRD and the Service will determine appropriate
conservation measures necessary to respond to the changed circumstance.
Benefits of Inclusion--Oregon Parks and Recreation Department HCP
The primary effect of designating any particular area as critical
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, authorize,
or fund do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
This would provide an additional benefit beyond that provided under the
jeopardy standard which obligates Federal agencies to consult under
section 7 of the Act with us on actions that may affect a federally
listed species to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the species'
continued existence. If a federally listed species does not occupy an
area where a proposed action may occur, Federal agencies are not
obligated to consult with us to ensure actions do not jeopardize the
species' existence. However, the designation of critical habitat in
such unoccupied areas provides an additional layer of regulatory review
that would require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that
critical habitat is not adversely modified. Therefore, there may be an
additional regulatory benefit to designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas that we have determined to be essential.
In evaluating project effects on critical habitat, the Service must
be satisfied that the PCEs and, therefore, the essential features of
the critical habitat likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the conservation of the affected
species would be appreciably reduced. If critical habitat were
designated in areas of unoccupied habitat or currently occupied areas
subsequently become unoccupied, different outcomes or requirements are
also likely because effects to unoccupied areas of critical habitat are
not likely to trigger the need for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also result in ancillary
conservation benefits to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering additional
review and conservation through other Federal laws. The Federal laws
most likely to afford protection to designated Pacific Coast WSP
habitat are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA; 33
U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Projects requiring a review under the CWA, CZMA,
and RHA that are located within critical habitat or are likely to
affect critical habitat would create a Federal nexus and trigger
section 7 consultation under the Act. Examples of potential projects
that may trigger consultation as a result of CWA, CZMA, and RHA include
beach restoration (such as, beach replenishment or removal of nonnative
plants) and channel dredging.
Another important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate landowners and
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and
may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Any information about the Pacific Coast WSP and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion--Oregon Parks and Recreation Department HCP
The benefits of excluding from designated critical habitat the
approximately 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) of lands owned and managed by the
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department are significant and include the
measures summarized in Table 7 above.
We have created close partnerships with the OPRD and several other
stakeholders through the development of the OPRD HCP, which
incorporates protections and management objectives for the Pacific
Coast WSP and the habitat upon which it depends for breeding,
sheltering, and foraging activities. The conservation strategy
identified in the OPRD HCP, along with our close coordination with
OPRD, addresses the identified threats to Pacific Coast WSP and the
geographical areas that contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in the areas identified in
Table 6. The management objectives identified within this conservation
strategy seek to achieve conservation goals for Pacific Coast WSPs and
their habitat, and thus can be of greater conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which does not require specific
actions. Thus, the OPRD HCP provides a greater benefit to the Pacific
Coast WSP than would designating critical habitat. Therefore, the
relative benefits of designation of critical habitat on these lands are
diminished and limited.
Conservation measures that provide a benefit to Pacific Coast WSP
and its habitat have been implemented in the areas owned and managed by
the OPRD. These measures will continue to be
[[Page 36787]]
implemented as the OPRD and the Service finalize site-specific
management plans on covered lands. Such measures include protection of
nesting and foraging areas, predator management at nest sites, and
trash clean-up at occupied sites.
Excluding the approximately 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) owned and managed
by the OPRD from the critical habitat designation will sustain and
enhance the working relationship between the Service and the OPRD. The
willingness of the OPRD to work with the Service on innovative ways to
manage federally listed species will continue to reinforce those
conservation efforts and our partnership, which contribute
significantly toward achieving recovery of Pacific Coast WSP. We
consider this voluntary partnership in conservation vital to our
understanding of the status of species on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery actions such as habitat
protection and restoration, and beneficial management actions for
species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 3,106 ac
(1,257 ha) of land owned and managed by the OPRD from our designation
of critical habitat. The benefits of including these lands in the
designation are small because the regulatory, educational, and
ancillary benefits that would result from critical habitat designation
are almost entirely redundant with the regulatory, educational, and
ancillary benefits already afforded through the OPRD HCP and under
State and Federal law.
The OPRD HCP provides for significant conservation and management
of the geographical areas that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP and
help achieve recovery of this species through the objectives as
described in Table 7. Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat
will help preserve the partnerships we have developed with the OPRD,
other stakeholders, and project proponents through the development and
ongoing implementation of the OPRD HCP. These partnerships are focused
on conservation of multiple species, including Pacific Coast WSP, and
secure conservation benefits for the species that will lead to
recovery, as described above, beyond those that could be required under
a critical habitat designation. Furthermore, these partnerships aid in
fostering future partnerships for the benefit of listed species.
We also conclude that the educational benefits of designating
critical habitat on lands owned and managed by the OPRD would be
negligible because there have been numerous opportunities for public
education and outreach related to Pacific Coast WSP over the 10-year
development of the HCP. In addition, the HCP includes public education
and related tasks to conserve plovers on the entire Oregon coast.
Western snowy plovers are State-listed throughout Oregon, and as a
result, they receive a high degree of conservation oversight and
management within the State. The OPRD HCP has gone through the State's
public review and input process, and again through the Federal public
review and input process under NEPA. These processes have provided
extensive opportunities to educate the public and landowners about the
location of plovers and plover habitat, and efforts to conserve the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Pacific Coast WSP.
Pacific Coast WSP currently occupies areas that are owned and
managed by the OPRD and covered by its HCP (refer to Table 3). Because
one of the primary threats to the Pacific Coast WSP is habitat loss and
degradation, the consultation process under section 7 of the Act for
projects with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating effects to the
plovers, evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or
functionality of the habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated for these lands; a similar
analysis would be performed to conduct the adverse modification
analysis (IEc 2011, p. D-3). Consultation will continue to occur in
areas outside the covered lands that remain critical habitat, but not
on the excluded areas. However, the HCP has provisions for protecting
and restoring plover habitat on occupied and unoccupied lands that far
exceed the conservation afforded by section 7 consultation. These
measures will not only prevent the degradation of essential features of
plover habitat, but they will improve and maintain these features over
time.
We have determined that the management actions provided through
implementation of the OPRD HCP, in conjunction with our partnership
with the OPRD, provide a greater benefit to Pacific Coast WSP than
would critical habitat designation. Furthermore, we have determined
that the additional regulatory benefits of designating critical habitat
in the occupied areas afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation
process, are minimal because of limited Federal nexus and conservation
measures which specifically benefit Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat
are in place to address unoccupied areas. We also conclude that the
educational and ancillary benefits of designating the geographical
areas containing the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific WSP would be minimal, because the HCP
process has already provided considerable public education and
ancillary benefits. Therefore, in consideration of the factors
discussed above in the Benefits of Exclusion section, including the
relevant impact to current and future partnerships, we have determined
that the significant benefits of exclusion of lands covered by the OPRD
HCP outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Oregon Parks
and Recreation Department HCP
We have determined that the exclusion of 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) from
the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP of lands
owned and managed by the OPRD, as identified in the OPRD HCP will not
result in extinction of the species because current conservation
efforts under the plan adequately protect the geographical areas
containing the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For projects affecting plovers in occupied
areas, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled with
protection provided by OPRD HCP, would provide assurances that this
species will not go extinct as a result of excluding these lands from
the critical habitat designation. Based on the above discussion, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
to exclude from this final critical habitat designation portions of the
units or subunits that are within the OPRD HCP boundary (refer to Table
6), totaling 3,106 ac (1,257 ha) of land.
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)--City of San Diego Subarea
Plan
The MSCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program
that encompasses 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) within 12 jurisdictions of
southwestern San Diego County, California (County of San Diego 1998).
The MSCP identifies the conservation needs of 85 federally listed and
sensitive species, including the Pacific Coast WSP, and serves as the
basis for development of subarea plans by each jurisdiction in support
of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits. The MSCP
[[Page 36788]]
identifies where mitigation activities should be focused, such that
upon full implementation of the subarea plans approximately 171,920 ac
(69,574 ha) of the MSCP plan area will be preserved and managed for
covered species (County of San Diego 1998, pp. 2-1, 4-2--4-4).
Conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP is addressed in the MSCP and
in the City of San Diego Subarea Plan. The section 10(a)(1)(B) permit
for the City of San Diego Subarea Plan was issued on July 18, 1997
(Service 1997). The City of San Diego Subarea Plan identifies areas
where mitigation activities should be focused to assemble preserve
areas in the Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA); additional preserve
areas within the MSCP (i.e., outside the City of San Diego Subarea Plan
jurisdiction) include Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas (PAMA).
When completed at the end of the 50-year permit term, the public
sector (Federal, State, and local government, and the general public)
will have contributed 108,750 ac (44,010 ha) (63 percent) to the
preserve areas, of which 81,750 ac (33,083 ha) (48 percent) was
existing public land when the MSCP was established, and 27,000 ac
(10,927 ha) (16 percent) will have been acquired. At completion, the
private sector will have contributed 63,170 ac (25,564 ha) (37 percent)
to the preserve areas as part of the development process, either
through avoidance of impacts or as compensatory mitigation for impacts
to biological resources outside the preserve. Currently, and in the
future, Federal and State governments, local jurisdictions and special
districts, and managers of privately owned land will manage and monitor
their land in the preserve within the MHPA for species and habitat
protection (County of San Diego 1998, pp. 2-1, 4-2--4-4).
The MSCP requires the City of San Diego to develop framework and
site-specific management plans, subject to the review and approval of
the Service and CDFG, to guide the management of all preserve land
under City control. Currently, the framework plan for the City of San
Diego is in place. The City of San Diego has not yet completed site-
specific management plans for some lands containing Pacific Coast WSP,
including some lands we are excluding from critical habitat designation
(CA 52B-C and CA 53). However, the City of San Diego has completed the
Mission Bay Natural Resources Management Plan, which addresses Pacific
Coast WSP within Mission Bay (CA 54A-D).
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary is exercising his
discretion to exclude from critical habitat, all proposed subunits
within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan boundaries, including a
portion of proposed subunits within San Dieguito Lagoon (CA 52B-C), all
of the proposed unit at Los Penasquitos Lagoon (CA 53), and all
proposed subunits within Mission Bay (CA 54A-D). This area encompasses
approximately 137 ac (55 ha) of land. We did not exclude one subunit
within the San Dieguito Lagoon (CA 52A) as this area is not within the
boundaries of the City of San Diego Subarea Plan. All areas containing
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species that occur on non-Federal lands covered by the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP are excluded from the final critical
habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion--City of San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP
The primary effect of designating any particular area as critical
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, authorize,
or fund do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Absent critical habitat designation in occupied areas, Federal agencies
remain obligated under section 7 of the Act to consult with us on
actions that may affect a federally listed species to ensure such
actions do not jeopardize the species' continued existence. If a
federally listed species does not occupy an area where a proposed
action may occur, Federal agencies are not obligated to consult with us
to ensure actions do not jeopardize the species' existence. However,
the designation of critical habitat in such unoccupied areas provides
an additional layer of regulatory review that would require Federal
agencies to consult with us to ensure that critical habitat is not
adversely modified. Therefore, there may be an additional regulatory
benefit to designating critical habitat in unoccupied areas that we
have determined to be essential, such as Fiesta Island (CA 54A).
In evaluating project effects on critical habitat, the Service must
be satisfied that the PCEs and, therefore, the essential features of
the critical habitat likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the conservation of the affected
species would be appreciably reduced. If critical habitat were
designated in areas of unoccupied habitat or currently occupied areas
subsequently become unoccupied, different outcomes or requirements are
also likely because effects to unoccupied areas of critical habitat are
not likely to trigger the need for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also result in ancillary
conservation benefits to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering additional
review and conservation through other Federal laws. The Federal laws
most likely to afford protection to designated Pacific Coast WSP
habitat are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Projects requiring a
review under the CWA, CZMA, and RHA that are located within critical
habitat or are likely to affect critical habitat would create a Federal
nexus and trigger section 7 consultation under the Act. Examples of
potential projects that may trigger consultation as a result of CWA,
CZMA, and RHA include beach restoration (such as, beach replenishment
or removal of nonnative plants) and channel dredging. Thus, review of
Federal actions affecting designated critical habitat units would
consider the importance of this habitat to the species and the
protections required for the species and its habitat.
Another important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate landowners and
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and
may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Any information about the Pacific Coast WSP and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion--City of San Diego Subarea Plan Under the MSCP
The benefits of excluding from designated critical habitat the
approximately 137 ac (55 ha) of land within the boundaries of the City
of San Diego Subarea Plan are significant and include: (1) That the
conservation management objectives for Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat identified in the City of San Diego Subarea Plan, described in
Table 8 below, would continue to be implemented into the future; (2)
continued and strengthened effective working relationships with all
MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to promote the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat; (3) continued meaningful
collaboration and cooperation in working toward recovering this
species, including conservation benefits that might not otherwise
occur; (4) encouragement of other jurisdictions with completed subarea
plans under the MSCP to amend their plans to cover and benefit the
[[Page 36789]]
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat; (5) encouragement of other coastal
jurisdictions within the range of Pacific Coast WSP to complete HCPs or
subarea plans under the MSCP that cover or are adjacent to Pacific
Coast WSP habitat (including the cities of Coronado and Imperial
Beach); and (6) encouragement of additional HCP and other conservation
plan development in the future on other private lands that include the
Pacific Coast WSP and other federally listed species.
Table 8--Summary of Pacific Coast WSP Conservation Objectives Within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan Under
the MSCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area specific management objectives Conservation benefit to Pacific Coast WSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect nesting sites from human disturbance Protect breeding areas.
during the reproductive season.
Implement specific measures to protect Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and foraging areas.
against detrimental edge effects.
Ensure that incidental take (during the Protect individuals and nests.
breeding season) associated with
maintenance or removal of levees or dikes
is not authorized except as specifically
approved by wildlife agencies.
Ensure the conservation of: 99 percent of Protect nesting, wintering, and foraging areas.
saltpan habitat; 90-95 percent of remaining
beach habitat outside of intensively used
beaches; and 93 percent of potential
habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have created close partnerships with the City of San Diego and
several other stakeholders through the development of the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan, which incorporate protections and management
objectives (described in Table 8 above) for the Pacific Coast WSP and
the habitat upon which it depends for breeding, sheltering, and
foraging activities. The conservation strategy identified in the
subarea plan, along with our close coordination with the city and other
stakeholders, addresses the identified threats to Pacific Coast WSP and
the geographical areas that contain the physical or biological features
essential to its conservation. The conservation gains to the Pacific
Coast WSP identified within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan are more
beneficial than designation of critical habitat because inclusion in
critical habitat does not require beneficial management actions. Thus,
the City of San Diego Subarea Plan provides a greater benefit to the
Pacific Coast WSP than would designation of critical habitat. Our
partnership with the City of San Diego helps ensure implementation of
the protections and management actions identified within the City of
San Diego Subarea Plan. Therefore, the relative benefits of designation
of critical habitat on these lands are diminished and limited.
Excluding lands within the MSCP from the critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance the working relationship between
the Service and the City of San Diego. The willingness of the City to
work with the Service on innovative ways to manage federally listed
species will continue to reinforce those conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute significantly toward achieving recovery
of Pacific Coast WSP.
By excluding the approximately 137 ac (55 ha) of land within the
boundaries of the City of San Diego Subarea Plan from critical habitat
designation, we are encouraging new partnerships with other landowners
and jurisdictions to protect the Pacific Coast WSP and other listed
species. Our ongoing partnerships with the City of San Diego, the
larger regional MSCP participants, and the landscape-level multiple
species conservation planning efforts they promote, are essential to
achieve long-term conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. We consider
this voluntary partnership in conservation vital to our understanding
of the status of species on non-Federal lands and necessary for us to
implement recovery actions such as habitat protection and restoration,
and beneficial management actions for species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--City of
San Diego Subarea Plan Under the MSCP
We have reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of approximately 137
ac (55 ha) of land within the boundaries of the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan. The benefits of including these lands in the designation
are small because the regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits
that would result from critical habitat designation are almost entirely
redundant with the regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits
already afforded through the City of San Diego Subarea Plan and under
State and Federal laws. The City of San Diego Subarea Plan provides for
significant conservation and management of the geographical areas that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP and help achieve recovery of this
species through the objectives as described in Table 8.
Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help preserve
the partnerships we have developed with local jurisdictions and project
proponents through the development and ongoing implementation of the
MSCP and the City of San Diego Subarea Plan. These partnerships are
focused on conservation of multiple species, including Pacific Coast
WSP, and secure conservation benefits for the species that will lead to
recovery, as described above, beyond those that could be required under
a critical habitat designation. Furthermore, these partnerships aid in
fostering future partnerships for the benefit of listed species, the
majority of which do not occur on Federal lands and thus are less
likely to result in a section 7 consultation.
We also conclude that the educational benefits of designating
critical habitat within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan boundaries
would be negligible because there have been several opportunities for
public education and outreach related to Pacific Coast WSP. The
framework for the regional MSCP was developed over a 7-year period; the
City of San Diego Subarea plan has been in place since 1997.
Implementation of the subarea plan is formally reviewed yearly through
publicly available annual reports and a public meeting, providing
extensive opportunity to educate the public and landowners about the
location of, and efforts to conserve, the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of Pacific Coast WSP.
Within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan boundaries, Pacific Coast
WSP currently occupies all but one subunit (CA 54A). Any project with a
Federal nexus will require consultation under section 7 of the Act in
those subunits occupied by Pacific Coast WSPs.
[[Page 36790]]
Furthermore, because one of the primary threats to the Pacific Coast
WSP is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation process required
under section 7 of the Act for a project with a Federal nexus will, in
evaluating effects to the plovers, most likely evaluate the effects of
the action on the conservation or functionality of occupied habitat for
the Pacific Coast WSP and thus the jeopardy analysis would be similar
to that performed to conduct the adverse modification analysis (IEc
2011, p. D-3). Therefore, there would be minimal additional benefit of
designating critical habitat within the boundaries of the City of San
Diego Subarea Plan. The management objectives identified within this
conservation strategy seek to achieve conservation goals for Pacific
Coast WSPs and their habitat, and thus can be of greater conservation
benefit than the designation of critical habitat, which does not
require specific actions, particularly in the unoccupied subunit CA
54A. The City of San Diego Subarea Plan would ensure the conservation
of 99 percent of saltpan habitat; 90-95 percent of remaining beach
habitat outside of intensively used beaches; and 93 percent of
potential habitat. We have determined that the additional regulatory
benefits of designating critical habitat in the occupied areas afforded
through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process are minimal because of
limited Federal nexus, and because of conservation measures in place
which specifically benefit Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. These
conservation measures also provide for conservation of Pacific Coast
WSP habitat in unoccupied areas. The City of San Diego Subarea Plan
will also manage saltpan habitat within the MSCP used by Pacific Coast
WSP for breeding and the City will implement measures to protect
nesting sites from human disturbance during the reproductive season,
control predators, and protect against detrimental edge effects
(Service 1997, p. 110-111).
We have determined that the additional regulatory benefits of
designating occupied areas as Pacific Coast WSP critical habitat, such
as protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2) consultation
process, are minimal. Furthermore, the conservation objectives
identified by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan, in conjunction with
our partnership with the City of San Diego will provide a greater
benefit to the species than critical habitat designation, especially in
areas that are not currently occupied because the specific measures
identified above in the plan that benefit the plover and its habitat
will be implemented regardless of the species presence. We also
conclude that the educational and ancillary benefits of designating
critical habitat for Pacific WSP within the City of San Diego Subareas
Plan boundaries would be negligible because of the partnership
established between the Service and the City of San Diego, the
management objectives identified in the City of San Diego Subarea Plan,
the educational outreach that has occurred as part of the subarea
planning process, and the independent regulatory protection already
provided under the subarea plan. Therefore, in consideration of the
relevant impact to current and future partnerships, as summarized in
the Benefits of Exclusion section above, we determined the significant
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--City of San
Diego Subarea Plan Under the MSCP
We determine that the exclusion of 137 ac (55 ha) of land from the
designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP within the
boundaries of the City of San Diego Subarea Plan will not result in
extinction of the species because current conservation efforts under
the subarea plan adequately protect the geographical areas containing
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. In our 1997 Biological Opinion, the Service determined
that implementation of the City of San Diego Subarea Plan is not likely
to result in jeopardy to Pacific Coast WSP (Service 1997, p. 111).
Therefore, based on the benefits described above, we have determined
that this exclusion would not result in the extinction of the Pacific
Coast WSP. Based on the above discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation a portion of proposed subunits
within San Dieguito Lagoon (CA 52B-C), all of the proposed unit at Los
Penasquitos Lagoon (CA 53), and all proposed subunits within Mission
Bay (CA 54A-D) addressed by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under
the MSCP, totaling 137 ac (55 ha) of land.
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP)--Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan (Carlsbad HMP)
The MHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program
that encompasses 111,908 ac (45,279 ha) within seven jurisdictions in
northwestern San Diego County, California, including the cities of
Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach,
and Vista. The MHCP was designed to create, manage, and monitor an
ecosystem preserve. The MHCP is a subregional plan that identifies the
conservation needs of 77 federally listed and sensitive species,
including Pacific Coast WSP, and serves as the basis for development of
subarea plans by each jurisdiction in support of section 10(a)(1)(B)
permits. The subregional MHCP identifies where mitigation activities
should be focused, such that upon full implementation of the subarea
plans over 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) of the MHCP plan area will be preserved
and managed for covered species (AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc.
(AMEC) and Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) 2003, p. E-16). The
MHCP is also a subregional plan under the State of California's Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) program and was developed in
cooperation with CDFG. The MHCP preserve system is intended to protect
viable occurrences of native plant and animal species and their
habitats in perpetuity, while accommodating continued economic
development and quality of life for residents of northern San Diego
County.
Conservation of Pacific Coast WSP is addressed in the subregional
plan and in the Carlsbad HMP. The section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the
City of Carlsbad HMP was issued on November 9, 2004 (Service 2004a).
The Carlsbad HMP identifies areas where mitigation activities should be
focused to assemble preserve areas within the Focused Planning Areas
(FPAs). The FPAs are comprised of ``hard line'' preserves, indicating
that lands will be conserved and managed for biological resources, and
``soft line'' planning areas, within which preserve areas will
ultimately be delineated and managed based on further data and planning
(AMEC and CBI 2003, p. ES-6). Those areas of the MHCP preserve that are
already conserved, as well as those designated for inclusion in the
preserve under the plan, are referred to as the ``preserve area'' in
this revised final critical habitat designation. Conservation within
the FPAs will be achieved by the implementing measures documented in
each city's subarea plan, including land use regulation, minimization
of impacts, mitigation, and acquisition of parcels from willing sellers
(AMEC and CBI 2003, p. ES-6).
The Carlsbad HMP was approved by the Service on October 15, 2004.
Approximately 24,570 ac (9,943 ha) of land are within the Carlsbad HMP
[[Page 36791]]
planning area, with about 8,800 ac (3,561 ha) remaining as natural
habitat for species covered under the plan. Of this remaining habitat,
the Carlsbad HMP proposes to establish a preserve system covering
approximately 6,786 ac (2,746 ha). The MHCP requires the City of
Carlsbad to develop area-specific management directives to address
species and habitat needs for the preserve areas, including lands that
support Pacific Coast WSP, and its habitat, and requires the City of
Carlsbad to describe specific policies that will be implemented for the
MHCP, subject to the review and approval of the Service and CDFG, to
guide the City's preserve system. The City of Carlsbad has not yet
completed area-specific management directives for some lands that
support Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. However, the MSCP, which has
been approved and permitted by the Service and CDFG. provides an
overarching conservation benefit for the Pacific Coast WSP, and the
Carlsbad HMP includes numerous conservation measures to benefit the
Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat and will be implemented regardless of
any area specific plan (see Table 9). Furthermore, the City has
demonstrated their commitment to implementation of the HMP since its
approval in 2004, and we are confident their commitment will continue
into the future as they establish the preserve system and the
directives that will govern management of the preserve lands.
Therefore, the lands identified as critical habitat subunit CA 50A-C
which are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP are being excluded from
this revised critical habitat designation. Currently, and in the
future, Federal and State governments, local jurisdictions and special
districts, and managers of privately owned land will manage and monitor
their land in the preserve within the FPA for species and habitat
protection (AMEC and CBI 2003, p. E-24).
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary is exercising his
discretion to exclude from critical habitat, all proposed subunits
within Batiquitos Lagoon (CA 50A-C) that are addressed by the Carlsbad
HMP under the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). This area
encompasses approximately 66 ac (27 ha) of land. All geographical areas
containing the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that occur on non-Federal lands covered by
the Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP are excluded from the final critical
habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion--Carlsbad HMP Under the MHCP
The primary effect of designating any particular area as critical
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, authorize
or fund do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Absent critical habitat designation in occupied areas, Federal agencies
remain obligated under section 7 of the Act to consult with us on
actions that may affect a federally listed species to ensure such
actions do not jeopardize the species' continued existence. If a
federally listed species does not occupy an area where a proposed
action may occur, Federal agencies are not obligated to consult with us
to ensure actions do not jeopardize the species' existence. However,
the designation of critical habitat in such unoccupied areas provides
an additional layer of regulatory review that would require Federal
agencies to consult with us to ensure that critical habitat is not
adversely modified. Therefore, there may be an additional regulatory
benefit to designating critical habitat in unoccupied areas that we
have determined to be essential.
In evaluating project effects on critical habitat, the Service must
be satisfied that the PCEs and, therefore, the essential features of
the critical habitat likely will not be altered or destroyed by
proposed activities to the extent that the conservation of the affected
species would be appreciably reduced. If critical habitat were
designated in areas of unoccupied habitat or currently occupied areas
subsequently become unoccupied, different outcomes or requirements are
also likely because effects to unoccupied areas of critical habitat are
not likely to trigger the need for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also result in ancillary
conservation benefits to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering additional
review and conservation through other Federal laws. The Federal laws
most likely to afford protection to designated Pacific Coast WSP
habitat are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Projects requiring a
review under the CWA, CZMA, and RHA that are located within critical
habitat or are likely to affect critical habitat would create a Federal
nexus and trigger section 7 consultation under the Act. Examples of
potential projects that may trigger consultation as a result of CWA,
CZMA, and RHA include beach restoration (such as replenishment or
removal of nonnative plants) and channel dredging. Thus, review of
Federal actions affecting designated critical habitat units would
consider the importance of this habitat to the species and the
protections required for the species and its habitat.
Another important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate landowners and
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and
may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Any information about the Pacific Coast WSP and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion--Carlsbad HMP Under the MHCP
The benefits of excluding from designated critical habitat the
approximately 66 ac (27 ha) of land within the boundaries of the
Carlsbad HMP are significant and include: (1) An assurance that the
conservation management objectives for Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat contained in the Carlsbad HMP, as described in Table 9 below,
will be implemented into the future; (2) continued and strengthened
effective working relationships with all MHCP jurisdictions and
stakeholders to promote the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP and
its habitat; (3) continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in
working toward recovering this species, including conservation benefits
that might not otherwise occur; (4) encouragement of other
jurisdictions with completed subarea plans under the MHCP to amend
their plans to cover and benefit the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat;
(5) encouragement of other coastal jurisdictions within the range of
Pacific Coast WSP to complete HCPs or subarea plans under the MHCP that
cover or are adjacent to Pacific Coast WSP habitat (including the
cities of Encinitas, Oceanside, and Solana Beach); and (6)
encouragement of additional HCP and other conservation plan development
in the future on other private lands that include the Pacific Coast WSP
and other federally listed species.
[[Page 36792]]
Table 9--Summary of Pacific Coast WSP Conservation Objectives Within the Carlsbad HMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area specific management objectives Conservation benefit to Pacific Coast WSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conserve saltmarsh and estuarine habitats at Protect nesting, wintering, and foraging areas.
Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos
Lagoons consistent with the City of
Carlsbad's wetland policy.
Assure no net loss of saltmarsh and Protect, restore, or enhance foraging areas.
estuarine habitats within the City of
Carlsbad.
Conserve all major populations within the Protect individuals.
City of Carlsbad, i.e., at Agua Hedionda
and Batiquitos Lagoons.
Assure no direct impacts to nesting areas... Protect nests.
Manage preserve areas to minimize edge Protect, restore, or enhance breeding, wintering, and foraging
effects; control nonnative plants; maintain areas.
hydrology and water quality; protect
habitats from physical disturbances; and
control predators.
Restore and enhance habitat in preserved Protect, restore, or enhance breeding, wintering, and foraging
areas, where possible. areas.
Restrict activities near nesting habitat Protect individuals and nests.
during the breeding season (April 1 through
August 31).
Implement access control measures for areas Protect individuals.
where populations are present during the
nonbreeding season, if warranted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have created close partnerships with the City of Carlsbad and
several other stakeholders through the development of the Carlsbad HMP,
which incorporates protections and management objectives (described in
Table 9 above) for the Pacific Coast WSP and the habitat upon which it
depends for breeding, sheltering, and foraging activities. The
conservation strategy identified in the Carlsbad HMP, along with our
close coordination with each city and other stakeholders, addresses the
identified threats to Pacific Coast WSP and the geographical areas that
contain the physical or biological features essential to its
conservation. The conservation gains to the Pacific Coast WSP
identified within the Carlsbad HMP are more beneficial than designation
of critical habitat because critical habitat designation does not
require beneficial management actions. Thus, the Carlsbad HMP provides
a greater benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP than would designating
critical habitat. Our partnership with the City of Carlsbad helps
ensure implementation of the protections and management actions
identified within the Carlsbad HMP. Therefore, the relative benefits of
designation of these lands are diminished and limited.
By excluding the approximately 66 ac (27 ha) of land within the
boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP from critical habitat designation, we
are encouraging new partnerships with other landowners and
jurisdictions to protect the Pacific Coast WSP and other listed
species. Our ongoing partnerships with the City of Carlsbad, the larger
regional MHCP participants, and the landscape-level multiple species
conservation planning efforts they promote, are essential to achieve
long-term conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. We consider this
voluntary partnership in conservation vital to our understanding of the
status of species on non-Federal lands and necessary for us to
implement recovery actions, such as habitat protection and restoration,
and beneficial management actions for species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Carlsbad
HMP Under the MHCP
The benefits of including these lands in the designation are small
because the regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits that would
result from critical habitat designation are almost entirely redundant
with the regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits already
afforded through the Carlsbad HMP and under State and Federal law. The
Carlsbad HMP provides for significant conservation and management of
the geographical areas that contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP and help achieve
recovery of this species through the objectives as described in Table
9.
Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help preserve
the partnerships we have developed with local jurisdictions and project
proponents through the development and ongoing implementation of the
MHCP and Carlsbad HMP. These partnerships are focused on conservation
of multiple species, including Pacific Coast WSP, and secure
conservation benefits for the species that will lead to recovery, as
described above, beyond those that could be required under a critical
habitat designation. Furthermore, these partnerships aid in fostering
future partnerships for the benefit of listed species, the majority of
which do not occur on federal lands and thus are less likely to result
in a section 7 consultation.
We also conclude that the educational benefits of designating
critical habitat within the boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP would be
negligible because there have been several opportunities for public
education and outreach related to Pacific Coast WSP. The framework for
the regional MHCP was developed over a 12-year period; the Carlsbad HMP
has been in place since 2004. Implementation of the subarea plan is
formally reviewed yearly through publicly available annual reports and
a public meeting, providing extensive opportunity to educate the public
and landowners about the location of, and efforts to conserve, the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Pacific Coast WSP.
Within the Carlsbad HMP boundaries, any project with a Federal
nexus will require consultation under section 7 of the Act because
Pacific Coast WSP currently occupies all proposed subunits within the
plan boundaries. Furthermore, because one of the primary threats to the
Pacific Coast WSP is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation
process required under section 7 of the Act for a project with a
Federal nexus will, when analyzing effects to plovers, most likely
evaluate the effects of the action on the conservation or functionality
of occupied habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and thus the jeopardy
analysis would be similar to that performed to conduct the adverse
modification analysis (IEc 2011, p. D-3). Therefore, there would be
minimal additional benefit of designating critical habitat within the
boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP.
We have determined that the additional regulatory benefits of
designating critical habitat for Pacific Coast WSP within the
boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP, such as protection afforded through the
section 7(a)(2) consultation process, are minimal. We also conclude
that the educational and
[[Page 36793]]
ancillary benefits of designating critical habitat for Pacific WSP
within the boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP would be negligible because
of the partnership established between the Service and the City of
Carlsbad, the management objectives identified in the Carlsbad HMP, and
the independent regulatory protection already provided under the
Carlsbad HMP. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, as summarized in the Benefits of
Exclusion section above, we determine that the significant benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Carlsbad HMP
Under the MHCP
We determine that the exclusion of 66 ac (27 ha) of land from the
designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP within the
boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP will not result in extinction of the
species because current conservation efforts under the Carlsbad HMP
adequately protect the geographical areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. In
our 2004 Biological Opinion, the Service determined that the MHCP
subregional and the City's subarea plans are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence or recovery of the Pacific Coast WSP (Service
2004, pp. 148-149). No direct impacts are expected from the MHCP
subregional plan or the City's subarea plan due to 100 percent
conservation of the coastal lagoons and because the MHCP will not allow
any take of individuals or nests of Pacific Coast WSP. Therefore, we
have determined that this exclusion will not result in the extinction
of the Pacific Coast WSP. Based on the above discussion, the Secretary
is exercising his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to
exclude from this final critical habitat designation all proposed
subunits within Batiquitos Lagoon (CA 50A-C) that are addressed by the
Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP, totaling 66 ac (27 ha) of land.
Other Management Plans
San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan
In a collaborative strategy, the Port of San Diego and the U.S.
Department of the Navy, Southwest Division prepared an INRMP for the
San Diego Bay in September of 2000 (San Diego Bay INRMP) (U.S. Navy and
San Diego Unified Port District 2000, p. xxi). The lands within the
boundaries of the San Diego Bay INRMP that were proposed as revised
critical habitat include Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and
D Street Fill (CA 55E) and Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve (CA 55G). These
lands are owned and managed by the Port of San Diego. As described
above under the section titled Exemptions, all lands in the San Diego
Bay that are owned or managed by the U.S. Department of the Navy are
exempted from critical habitat as a result of benefits provided to
Pacific Coast WSP based on a separate and distinct INRMP (Naval Base
Coronado INRMP).
Because subunits CA 55E and CA 55G are not owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense, but rather are owned and managed by the Port
of San Diego, it is inappropriate to exempt the Port of San Diego lands
from the critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of
the Act. However, after reviewing comments from the Port of San Diego
concerning these subunits during both comment periods, conducting an
analysis of the benefits of inclusion compared with the benefits of
exclusion, and determining that exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species, we are excluding these Port of San Diego
lands (CA 55E and CA 55G) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We,
hereafter, refer to the Port of San Diego management plan for the Port
lands incorporated into the San Diego Bay INRMP as the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan.
The intent of the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan is to
provide for stewardship of natural resources while supporting the
ability of the Port of San Diego to achieve their mission within San
Diego Bay. The plan is part of a larger strategy to assist the users of
the San Diego Bay to make better, more cost-effective decisions about
the development, conservation, restoration, and management of San Diego
Bay. This strategy takes an ecosystem approach to management, whereby
San Diego Bay is viewed as an ecosystem as opposed to a collection of
individual species, sites, or projects, and management is addressed
across ownership and jurisdictional boundaries. In conjunction with the
San Diego Bay INRMP, the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan was
developed through the cooperative effort of 13 governmental and
nongovernmental organizations representing the primary working group
known as the Technical Oversight Committee (TOC). The Service, a member
of the TOC, participated in the development of the plan and is a
signatory to the overarching San Diego Bay INRMP, which includes the
Port of San Diego's lands.
The footprint of the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan
encompasses both uplands adjacent to the bay and all tidelands bayward
of the historical mean high tide. Historical tideland areas owned or
controlled by the Port of San Diego include 5,483 ac (2,219 ha) of
nearly 15,000 ac (6,070 ha) of land and water within San Diego Bay,
which collectively supports over 1,100 documented marine and
terrestrial species (U.S. Navy and Port of San Diego 2011, p. 1-12),
including Pacific Coast WSP.
In conjunction with the San Diego Bay INRMP, the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan is currently being revised (U.S. Navy, Southwest
Division and Port of San Diego 2011). The Service is providing input
during the development of this revision. The revised version includes
many of the same objectives and strategies as the current version,
although it expands coverage on water quality, sediment quality,
sustainable development, and other topics. The revision also outlines
additional benefits for Pacific Coast WSP. In February of 2012, a draft
was released for public comment, and the Port of San Diego had a public
meeting to allow members of the public to provide input. Both the San
Diego Bay INRMP and the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan continue
to be implemented while being updated and revised.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary is exercising his
discretion to exclude from critical habitat a portion of proposed
subunits within San Diego Bay, which includes the non-Federal lands
portion of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and D Street
Fill subunit (CA 55E) and the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve subunit (CA
55G) addressed by the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan. This area
encompasses approximately 63 ac (25 ha) of non-Federal land. A 79-ac
(32-ha) portion of subunit CA 55E (Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge and D Street Fill) is Federal land that is a part of the greater
San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex and is not excluded from
critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion--San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan
The primary effect of designating any particular area as critical
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, authorize,
or fund do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Absent critical habitat
[[Page 36794]]
designation in occupied areas, Federal agencies remain obligated under
section 7 of the Act to consult with us on actions that may affect a
federally listed species to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the
species' continued existence. If a federally listed species does not
occupy an area where a proposed action may occur, Federal agencies are
not obligated to consult with us to ensure actions do not jeopardize
the species' existence. However, the designation of critical habitat in
such unoccupied areas provides an additional layer of regulatory review
that would require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that
critical habitat is not adversely modified. Therefore, there may be an
additional regulatory benefit to designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas that we have determined to be essential, such as Chula
Vista Wildlife Reserve (CA 55G).
As stated above, the principal benefit of any designated critical
habitat is that Federal activities will require section 7 consultations
to ensure that adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat. This would provide an
additional benefit beyond that provided under the jeopardy standard. In
evaluating project effects on critical habitat, the Service must be
satisfied that the PCEs and, therefore, the essential features of the
critical habitat likely will not be altered or destroyed by proposed
activities to the extent that the conservation of the affected species
would be appreciably reduced. If critical habitat were designated in
areas of unoccupied habitat or currently occupied areas subsequently
become unoccupied, different outcomes or requirements are also likely
because effects to unoccupied areas of critical habitat are not likely
to trigger the need for a jeopardy analysis.
Critical habitat designation can also result in ancillary
conservation benefits to the Pacific Coast WSP by triggering additional
review and conservation through other Federal laws. The Federal laws
most likely to afford protection to designated Pacific Coast WSP
habitat are the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Projects requiring a
review under the CWA, CZMA, and RHA that are located within critical
habitat or are likely to affect critical habitat would create a Federal
nexus and trigger section 7 consultation under the Act. Examples of
potential projects that may trigger consultation as a result of CWA,
CZMA, and RHA include beach restoration (such as, beach replenishment
or removal of nonnative plants) and channel dredging. Thus, review of
Federal actions affecting designated critical habitat units would
consider the importance of this habitat to the species and the
protections required for the species and its habitat.
Another important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is that the designation can serve to educate landowners and
the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and
may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Any information about the Pacific Coast WSP and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
Benefits of Exclusion--San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan
The benefits of excluding from designated critical habitat the
approximately 63 ac (25 ha) of lands owned and managed by the Port of
San Diego within the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan are
significant and include: (1) An expectation that the management
objectives contained within the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan,
as described in Table 10 below, will be implemented into the future;
(2) continued and strengthened effective working relationships with the
Port of San Diego and other jurisdictions and stakeholders in the San
Diego Bay to promote the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP and its
habitat; (3) continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in
working toward recovering this species, including conservation benefits
that might not otherwise occur; (4) encouragement of other coastal
jurisdictions within the range of Pacific Coast WSP to complete
management plans that provide a benefit to Pacific Coast WSP or its
habitat; and (5) encouragement of future management plan development on
private lands that include the Pacific Coast WSP and other federally
listed species.
Table 10--Summary of Pacific Coast WSP Conservation Objectives within the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area specific management objectives Conservation Benefit to Pacific Coast WSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support consistent and effective predator Protect nesting and foraging areas.
management at nest sites.
Protect unvegetated areas or remnant dune Protect nesting and foraging areas.
sites above the high tide line which are
potential nesting sites.
Reduce human use during nesting season, Protect nesting and foraging areas.
particularly in the upper dunes; enforce dog
leashing; and post signs.
Clean up trash, which attracts predators..... Protect nesting and foraging areas.
Prohibit beach raking which can affect Protect foraging areas.
invertebrate populations upon which the
plover depends.
Enhance remnant dune areas as potential nest Restore habitat for nesting adults.
sites in areas that can be protected from
human disturbance and predators during
nesting season.
Remove ice plant (e.g., Carpobrotus sp.) and Restore habitat for nesting adults.
other nonnatives from remnant dunes.
Support broader beaches with gentler slopes Restore habitat for nesting adults.
to support plover nesting.
Conduct research and monitoring in support of Restore habitat for nesting adults.
the management objective (i.e., study the
plover's preference for higher mudflat, so
that function may be protected or enhanced).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have created close partnerships with the Port of San Diego and
several other stakeholders through the development of the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan, which incorporates protections and management
objectives (described above in Table 10) for the Pacific Coast WSP and
the habitat upon which it depends for breeding, sheltering, and
foraging activities. The conservation strategy identified in the San
Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan, along with our close coordination
with Port of San Diego, addresses the identified threats to Pacific
Coast WSP and the geographical areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to its conservation on subunits CA 55E
and CA 55G. The management objectives identified within this
conservation
[[Page 36795]]
strategy are more beneficial than designation of critical habitat on
lands owned and managed by the Port of San Diego because critical
habitat designation does not require beneficial management actions.
Thus, the Port of San Diego Natural Resources Plan provides a greater
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP than would designating critical
habitat. Therefore, the relative benefits of designation of critical
habitat on these lands are diminished and limited.
Conservation measures that provide a benefit to Pacific Coast WSP
and its habitat have been implemented in both subunits (CA 55E and CA
55G) owned and managed by the Port of San Diego since 2000. These
measures will continue to be implemented as the Port of San Diego
finalizes the revised plan (expected in late 2012). Such measures
include protection of nesting and foraging areas, predator management
at nest sites, prohibition of beach raking, and trash clean-up at
occupied sites (described in Table 10 above) (U.S. Navy and San Diego
Unified Port District 2000, p. 4-109; Maher, pers. comm. 2012).
Excluding the approximately 63 ac (25 ha) owned and managed by the
Port of San Diego from the critical habitat designation will sustain
and enhance the working relationship between the Service and the Port
of San Diego. The willingness of the Port of San Diego to work with the
Service on innovative ways to manage federally listed species will
continue to reinforce those conservation efforts and our partnership,
which contribute significantly toward achieving recovery of Pacific
Coast WSP. We consider this voluntary partnership in conservation vital
to our understanding of the status of species on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery actions such as habitat
protection and restoration, and beneficial management actions for
species.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--San Diego
Bay Natural Resources Plan
The benefits of including these lands in the designation are small
because the regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits that would
result from critical habitat designation are almost entirely redundant
with the regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits already
afforded through the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan and under
State and Federal law.
The San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan provides for significant
conservation and management of the geographical areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast WSP and help achieve recovery of this species through the
objectives as described in Table 10. Exclusion of these lands from
critical habitat will help preserve the partnerships we have developed
with the Port of San Diego and project proponents through the
development and ongoing implementation of the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan. These partnerships are focused on conservation of
multiple species, including Pacific Coast WSP, and secure conservation
benefits for the species that will lead to recovery, as described
above, beyond those that could be required under a critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, these partnerships aid in fostering future
partnerships for the benefit of listed species, the majority of which
do not occur on federal lands and thus are less likely to result in a
section 7 consultation.
We also conclude that the educational benefits of designating
critical habitat on lands owned and managed by the Port of San Diego
would be negligible because there have been several opportunities for
public education and outreach related to Pacific Coast WSP. As part of
the larger San Diego Bay INRMP, the San Diego Bay Natural Resources
Plan has been in place since 2000. Additionally, as part of the larger
San Diego Bay INRMP, implementation of the revised San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan will be formally reviewed yearly through
publicly available annual reports and a public meeting, again providing
extensive opportunity to educate the public and landowners about the
location of, and efforts to conserve, the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of Pacific Coast WSP. Members of
the TOC, and specifically the Port of San Diego, are aware of the value
of these lands to the conservation of Pacific Coast WSP, and
conservation measures are already in place to protect Pacific Coast WSP
habitat.
Pacific Coast WSP currently occupies one subunit (CA 55E) that is
owned and managed by the Port of San Diego with the Port of San Diego
Natural Resources Plan. Because one of the primary threats to the
Pacific Coast WSP is habitat loss and degradation, the consultation
process under section 7 of the Act for a project with a Federal nexus
will, in analyzing effects to the plovers, most likely evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation or functionality of the
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP; a similar analysis would be
performed to conduct the adverse modification analysis (IEc 2011, p. D-
3).
We have determined that the management actions provided through
implementation of the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan, in
conjunction with our partnership with the Port of San Diego, provide a
greater benefit to Pacific Coast WSP than would critical habitat
designation in the unoccupied subunit (CA 55G). As outlined in Table
10, the San Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan outlines numerous measures
which benefit the Pacific Coast WSP including measures in currently
unoccupied areas such as in subunit CA 55G. These measures include
restoration of marginal habitat or areas currently not being used by
the plover. Furthermore, we determine that the additional regulatory
benefits of designating critical habitat in the occupied subunit (CA
55E), such as protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process, are minimal. We also conclude that the
educational and ancillary benefits of designating the geographical
areas containing the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Pacific WSP provided by the San Diego Bay Natural
Resources Plan would be negligible because of the partnership
established between the Service and the Port of San Diego and the
management objectives identified in the San Diego Bay Natural Resources
Plan. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to current and
future partnerships, as summarized in the Benefits of Exclusion section
above, we determined the significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the
minor benefits of critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan
We determined that the exclusion of 63 ac (25 ha) from the
designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP of lands
owned and managed by the Port of San Diego, as identified in the San
Diego Bay Natural Resources Plan will not result in extinction of the
species because current conservation efforts under the plan adequately
protect the geographical areas containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. For projects
affecting plovers in occupied areas, the jeopardy standard of section 7
of the Act, coupled with protection provided by the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan, provide assurances that this species will not
go extinct as a result of excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. Based on the above
[[Page 36796]]
discussion, the Secretary is exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this final critical habitat
designation a portion of proposed subunits within San Diego Bay
(Sweetwater Marsh NWR and D Street Fill (CA 55E) and Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve (CA 55G)) that are addressed by the San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan, totaling 63 ac (25 ha) of land. We also
anticipate that the expected revisions to the existing San Diego Bay
Natural Resources Plan will provide an even greater conservation
benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat due to our close
working relationship with the Port of San Diego.
Tribal Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and the relevant
provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the Interior
(512 DM 2), we coordinate with federally-recognized Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. Further, Secretarial Order 3206,
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act'' (1997) states that (1) critical
habitat shall not be designated in areas that may impact tribal trust
resources, may impact tribally-owned fee lands, or are used to exercise
tribal rights unless it is determined essential to conserve a listed
species; and (2) in designating critical habitat, the Service shall
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
lands.
Habitat on tribal lands was determined to be essential to the
conservation of Pacific Coast WSP due to its location within the matrix
of habitat available for Pacific Coast WSP. Because Pacific Coast WSPs
move between coastal sites based on site condition and season,
connectivity among and within habitats is essential for long-term
persistence and recovery of the Pacific Coast WSP. Beach and intertidal
habitat on or adjacent to tribal lands were determined to be important
to maintain nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat, and to maintain
connectivity between breeding and wintering habitats. The longstanding
and distinctive relationship between Federal and tribal governments is
defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions,
and agreements, which differentiate tribal governments from the other
entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal government.
This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust
responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of
the United States toward Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary
standards of due care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust
resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. Accordingly, we are
obligated to consult with Tribes based on their unique relationship
with the Federal government. In addition, we evaluate Tribes' past and
ongoing efforts for species conservation and the benefits of including
or excluding tribal lands in the designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
We contacted all tribes potentially affected by the revised
proposed designation and met with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe to discuss
their ongoing and future management strategies for Pacific Coast WSP.
We subsequently received a letter from the Shoalwater Bay Tribe
describing ongoing tribal management, conservation efforts, and tribal
coordination with the USACE. In their letter to us, the Shoalwater Bay
Tribe stated that they do not participate in nontribal habitat
designation processes (i.e., process to designate critical habitat
under the Act). The Tribe requested a section 4(b)(2) exclusion under
the Act.
We determined approximately 425 ac (172 ha) of lands owned by, or
under the jurisdiction of, the Tribe contained biological features
essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP, and therefore
meet the definition of critical habitat under the Act. These tribal
lands are located in subunit WA 3B. In making our final decision with
regard to the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP
on these tribal lands, we considered several factors, including
Secretarial Order 3206, Executive Order 13175, the President's
memorandum on ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951; April 29, 1994), conservation
measures in place on these lands that may benefit the Pacific Coast
WSP, economic impacts to tribes, our relationship with tribes, and
impacts to current and future partnerships with the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe and other tribes we coordinate with on endangered and
threatened species issues. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude approximately 425 ac
(172 ha) of tribal land from this revised final critical habitat
designation. As described in our analysis below, this conclusion was
reached after considering the relevant impacts of specifying these
areas as critical habitat.
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (Tribe) is a Federally-recognized
tribe with a relatively small (approximately one square mile)
reservation in Pacific County, Washington. Lands within the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Reservation boundary include upland forested terrestrial
habitats, a small residential and commercial area, and coastal marine
habitats. Critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP was proposed in
the portion of the reservation with coastal beaches as part of unit WA
3B. Through our ongoing coordination with the Tribe, we have
established a partnership that has benefitted natural resource
management on tribal lands. For our 4(b)(2) balancing analysis, we
considered our partnership with the Tribe and, therefore, analyzed the
benefits of including and excluding those lands under the sovereign
control of the Tribe that met the definition of critical habitat.
Existing tribal regulations, including the 2001 Tribal
Environmental Codes that protect the saltmarsh and sand spit as natural
areas, will ensure any land use actions, including those funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies, are not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of all lands
considered for exclusion. The Tribe coordinates with the Service on all
actions that have the potential to affect habitat for listed species on
the reservation, including the Pacific Coast WSP. In 2003, the Service
completed a Planning Aid Letter, and in 2006, we wrote a Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the USACE (Shoalwater Bay Indian
Tribe is the project sponsor) on the proposed Shoalwater Coastal
Erosion Project, which entails beach nourishment along the sand spit
used by the Pacific Coast WSP. We completed a section 7 consultation
for this project in 2007. The Service coordinated with the Tribe and
USACE on the project design. We are actively working with these
partners in implementation of the project to avoid or minimize impacts
to current Pacific Coast WSP nesting habitat. Since surveys were
conducted and nesting was confirmed in 2006, the Tribe has played an
active role in surveying for and protecting habitat for the Pacific
Coast WSP. In an email, dated June 9, 2011, to the Service, the USACE
indicated that they were in the process of developing a Snowy Plover
Management Plan as part of the beach nourishment and coastal erosion
project. In an August 31, 2011, letter to
[[Page 36797]]
the Service, the Tribe confirmed that they will continue to use their
existing regulatory structure to ``provide habitat protection for the
Pacific Coast WSP'' and ``keep trespassers off those areas considered
most important to the species,'' and references the USACE's intent to
``develop a Pacific Coast WSP habitat protection plan as part of the
erosion control project.'' The Tribe and Service are coordinating with
the USACE on drafting the habitat protection plan and implementation of
the project, which is scheduled to start in late summer 2012 (pending
surveys for the Pacific Coast WSP). We are also coordinating with the
Tribe and the USACE on the planting/vegetation management plan. We are
currently working on a memorandum of understanding with the Tribe
regarding plover protection. Any potential impacts to the Pacific Coast
WSP from future proposed activities on the tribal lands will be
addressed through a section 7 consultation using the jeopardy standard,
and such activities would also be subject to the take prohibitions in
section 9 of the Act.
Benefits of Inclusion--Shoalwater Bay Tribe
The main benefit of any designated critical habitat is that Federal
activities will require section 7 consultations to ensure that adequate
protection is provided to avoid adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat. This would provide an additional benefit beyond that
provided under the jeopardy standard. In evaluating project effects on
critical habitat, the Service must be satisfied that the PCEs and,
therefore, the essential features of the critical habitat likely will
not be altered or destroyed by proposed activities to the extent that
the conservation of the affected species would be appreciably reduced.
If critical habitat were designated in areas of unoccupied habitat or
currently occupied areas subsequently become unoccupied, different
outcomes or requirements are also likely because effects to unoccupied
areas of critical habitat are not likely to trigger the need for a
jeopardy analysis.
In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.
2001), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the
identification of habitat essential to the conservation of the species
can provide informational benefits to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The court
also noted that critical habitat designation may focus and heighten
public awareness of the plight of listed species and their habitats.
Designation of critical habitat may contribute to conservation efforts
by other parties by delineating areas of high conservation value for
the Pacific Coast WSP.
The primary benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement for Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat,
the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must also consult with us
on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of such species. The analysis of effects of a proposed
project on critical habitat is separate and different from that of the
effects of a proposed project on the species itself. The jeopardy
analysis evaluates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the
species, while the destruction or adverse modification analysis
evaluates the action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution
to conservation. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two
analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. This
will, in many instances, lead to different results and different
regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may
provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than listing
alone would do. However, for some species, and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the species.
Public education is often cited as another possible benefit of
including lands in critical habitat as it may help focus conservation
efforts on areas of high value for certain species. Partnership efforts
with the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe to conserve the Pacific Coast WSP
and other coastal species of concern have resulted in heightened
awareness about the species.
The designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP may
strengthen or reinforce some Federal laws, such as NEPA or Clean Water
Act. These laws analyze the potential for projects to significantly
affect the environment. Critical habitat may signal the presence of
sensitive habitat that could otherwise be missed in the review process
for these other environmental law.
Benefits of Exclusion--Shoalwater Bay Tribe
Under Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act,
we recognize that we must carry out our responsibilities under the Act
in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes
and tribal sovereignty while striving to ensure that tribes do not bear
a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as
to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation. In
accordance with the Presidential memorandums of April 29, 1994, and
November 9, 2009, to the maximum extent possible, tribes are the
appropriate governmental entities to manage their lands and tribal
trust resources, and we are responsible for strengthening government-
to-government relationships with tribes. Federal regulation through
critical habitat designation may affect the tribal working
relationships we now have and which we are strengthening throughout the
United States. Maintaining positive working relationships with tribes
is key to implementing natural resource programs of mutual interest,
including habitat conservation planning efforts. In light of the above-
mentioned orders and for a variety of other reasons described in their
comment letters and communications, critical habitat designation is
typically viewed by tribes as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion
into tribal self-governance.
In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP proposed critical habitat, the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe submitted a letter and email (August 31,
2011) requesting to be excluded from the critical habitat designation.
In their letter, they stated that the Tribe ``continues to demonstrate
its desire to protect threatened and/or endangered species through its
management and stewardship capabilities'' without ``externally defined
designated critical habitat designations.'' The Tribe stated that they
wish to make ``their own determinations regarding the Reservation and
tribal trust resources'' and ``are pleased that the Tribe has been able
to provide for the Pacific Coast WSP and steps are being taken to
continue that effort in the most effective way possible'' (letter
prepared by Gary Burns, Environmental Program Director and signed by
the Tribal Council Chairperson). These communications clearly indicate
that designation of tribal lands as critical habitat for Pacific Coast
WSP would impact future conservation partnership opportunities with the
Tribe. Therefore, a critical habitat designation could potentially
damage our relationship with the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. The
commitment by the Tribe to restore habitat for this
[[Page 36798]]
native plant and efforts to control invasive species such as smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) supports their commitment to protect
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and strengthens the ongoing
partnership with the Service. In their comments to the Service on the
proposed rule, the Tribe indicated they would use their existing
regulations to protect the Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat.
Significant benefits would be realized by forgoing designation of
critical habitat on lands managed by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
These benefits include:
(1) Continuing and strengthening of our effective relationship with
the Tribe to promote conservation of Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat;
and
(2) Allowing continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in
working toward recovering this species, including conservation actions
that might not otherwise occur.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe coordinates regularly with the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife on annual surveys for
the Pacific Coast WSP and is partnering with the Service (Willapa
National Wildlife Refuge and Ecological Services) to control nonnative/
invasive species and restore habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and
other coastal species on the outer beach. Service coordination includes
attending meetings with tribal representatives to discuss ongoing
projects, management plans, and other issues as that arise.
Because the Tribe is the entity that enforces protective
regulations on tribal land, and we have a working relationship with
them, exclusion of these lands will yield a significant partnership
benefit. We will continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe on
efforts to conserve the Pacific Coast WSP. Therefore, excluding these
lands from critical habitat provides the significant benefit of
maintaining and strengthening our existing conservation partnerships
and the potential of fostering new tribal partnerships.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion--Shoalwater Bay
Tribe
Based on the above considerations and consistent with the direction
provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Service has determined that
the benefits of excluding the above tribal lands outweigh the benefits
of including them as critical habitat. This conclusion is based on the
following factors. The tribal lands considered for exclusion are
currently occupied by Pacific Coast WSPs and will be subject to the
consultation requirements of the Act in the future. Although a jeopardy
and adverse modification analysis must satisfy two different standards,
because any modifications to proposed actions resulting from a section
7 consultation to minimize or avoid impacts to the Pacific Coast WSP
will be habitat-based, it is likely that measures implemented to
minimize impacts to the critical habitat will also minimize impacts to
the Pacific Coast WSP. Therefore, in the case of the Pacific Coast WSP,
the benefits of critical habitat designation are very similar to the
benefits of listing, and in some respects would be indistinguishable
from the benefits of listing. Few additional benefits are provided by
including these tribal lands in this critical habitat designation
beyond what will be achieved through the implementation of the existing
tribal management or conservation plans. In addition, we expect that
the benefit of informing the public of the importance of this area to
Pacific Coast WSP conservation would be low. Inclusion of tribal lands
will not significantly improve habitat protections for Pacific Coast
WSP beyond what is already provided for in the Tribe's own protective
policies and practices, discussed above.
Given the cooperative relationship between the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe and the Service, and all of the conservation benefits
taken together, the additional regulatory and educational benefits of
including the tribal lands as critical habitat are relatively small.
The designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the public
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, but this goal is
already being accomplished through the identification of these areas in
the tribal management planning, development of tribal Fish and Wildlife
Codes, and through their outreach efforts.
Because of the ongoing relationship between the Service and the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe through a variety of forums, we find the
benefits of these coordination efforts to be greater than the benefits
of applying the Act's section 7 consultations for critical habitat to
Federal activities on tribal lands. Based upon our consultations with
the Tribes, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat would
adversely impact our working relationship and the benefits resulting
from this relationship.
In contrast, although the benefits of encouraging tribal
participation in resource management planning may be indirect,
enthusiastic tribal participation and an atmosphere of cooperation are
crucial to the long-term effectiveness of implementing successful
endangered species conservation programs. Also, we have concluded that
the Tribe's voluntary conservation efforts will provide tangible
conservation benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction and
increase the likelihood for Pacific Coast WSP recovery. Therefore, we
assign great weight to these benefits of exclusion. To the extent that
there are regulatory benefits of including tribal lands in critical
habitat, there would be associated costs that could be avoided by
excluding the area from designation. As we expect the regulatory
benefits to be low, we likewise give weight to avoidance of those
associated costs, as well as the additional transaction costs related
to section 7 compliance.
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion of Shoalwater Bay Indian tribal lands as critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. Past, present, and future
coordination with the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe has provided and will
continue to provide Pacific Coast WSP habitat conservation needs on
tribal lands, such that there would be no additional benefit from
designation of critical habitat. Further, because any potential impacts
to the Pacific Coast WSP from future projects will be addressed through
a section 7 consultation with us under the jeopardy standard, critical
habitat designation on the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation would
largely be redundant with the combined benefits of listing and existing
tribal regulations and management. Therefore, the benefits of
designating critical habitat on tribal lands are not significant.
On the other hand, the benefits of excluding the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Reservation from critical habitat are significant. Exclusion of
these lands from critical habitat will help preserve and strengthen the
conservation partnership we have developed with the Tribe and will
foster future partnerships and development of management plans;
inclusion, however, would negatively impact our relationships with the
Tribe and other tribes. We are committed to working with the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe to further the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP
and other endangered and threatened species on the reservation. The
Tribe will continue to use their existing regulatory structure to
protect Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. The Tribe continues to
provide for indirect conservation of Pacific Coast WSP habitat by
implementing conservation measures for other coastal species that use
some of the same habitat. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant
impact to our partnership and our government-to-government
[[Page 36799]]
relationship with the Shoalwater Indian Bay Tribe, and the ongoing
conservation management practices of the Tribe and our current and
future conservation partnerships with them, we determined the
significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion in
the critical habitat designation.
In summary, we find that excluding the Shoalwater Bay Indian tribal
lands from this revised final critical habitat will preserve our
partnership and may foster future habitat management and species
conservation plans with the Tribe and with other tribes now and in the
future. These partnership benefits are significant and outweigh the
additional regulatory benefits of including these lands in final
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. As a result, the regulatory
benefits of critical habitat designation on tribal land would largely
be redundant with the combined benefits of listing and existing tribal
regulations.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Shoalwater Bay
Tribe
We determined that the exclusion of 425 ac (172 ha) of tribal lands
from the designation of Pacific Coast WSP critical habitat will not
result in extinction of the species. The jeopardy standard of section 7
of the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through
the section 7 process due to Pacific Coast WSP occupancy and protection
provided by under Title 23 of the Tribal Environmental Ordinances
provide assurances that this species will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation. Therefore,
based on the above discussion the Secretary is exercising his
discretion to exclude approximately 425 ac (172 ha) of tribal lands
managed by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe from this final critical
habitat designation.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The OIRA
has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
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 an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 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. In this final rule, we are certifying that the revised
critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we considered the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the
term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g.,
development industry, recreation, mining). We apply the ``substantial
number'' test individually to each industry to determine if
certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly
define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the Pacific Coast WSP. Federal agencies also must
consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application
of the ``Adverse Modification Standard'' section).
In our final economic analysis of the critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of the
Pacific Coast WSP and the designation of critical habitat. The analysis
is based on the estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as
described in Chapters 1 through 5 and Appendix A of the analysis and
evaluates the potential for economic
[[Page 36800]]
impacts related to: (1) Recreation; (2) commercial and residential
development; (3) gravel mining; (4) military activities; and (5)
habitat and species management (IEc 2012).
In the FEA of the revised proposed critical habitat, we evaluate
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed
revisions to critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. The FEA is
based on the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed
rulemaking as described in Chapter 4. The FEA evaluates the potential
for direct economic impacts related to activity categories identified
above as well as for indirect impacts related to CEQA, uncertainty, and
delay. The FEA concludes that the incremental impacts resulting from
this rulemaking that may be borne by small businesses will be
associated only with recreation. Incremental impacts are either not
expected for the other types of activities considered or, if expected,
will not be borne by small entities.
As discussed in Appendix A of the FEA, Exhibit A-1 describes the
non-Federal entities that may be affected by critical habitat
designation and assesses whether they are considered small entities
under the RFA. The State of California (CDPR), Santa Barbara County,
Monterey County, Santa Cruz County, and City of Coronado will
participate in the future consultations with the Service. Of these
entities, only the City of Coronado meets the RFA's definition of a
small governmental jurisdiction. Third-party administrative costs for
the City of Coronado are expected to be $818 in 2012, assuming a 7
percent discount rate. This impact represents less than 0.01 percent of
the City's annual revenues of $40.3 million. In addition, the FEA has
identified the potential for critical habitat to possibly indirectly
influence future litigation or State review of environmental permits
within Oceano Dunes SVRA (Unit CA 31) and the two development projects
in Sand City (Unit CA 22). Critical habitat may indirectly serve as a
lever for future litigation aimed at reducing or eliminating OHV-
recreation on the beach. Such action would indirectly affect recreators
and businesses in the local community.
In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we
concluded that this rule would not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for Pacific Coast
WSP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
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 when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration.
The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Pacific Coast WSP
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As
such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), 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 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 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. 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) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to project
modifications that may need to be made for real estate development;
however, these are not expected to significantly affect small
governments. The City of Coronado has been identified as the only small
government affected by the designation, and the total estimated cost
associated with the designation is $818 in 2012, assuming a 7 percent
discount rate. This impact represents less than 0.01 percent of the
City's annual revenues of $40.3 million. Consequently, we do not
believe that this revised final critical habitat
[[Page 36801]]
designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating revised critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP in a
takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of
critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties
that receive Federal funding, 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. The FEA has identified that all
the incremental costs are entirely administrative in nature. No
incremental project modifications are anticipated to result from
section 7 consultations with the majority of consultation costs being
incurred by the Service and other Federal action agencies. Of the
approximately 76 anticipated consultations over the 20-year period of
analysis, only nine will involve third parties. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this revised designation of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this revised final critical
habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in
California, Oregon, and Washington. We did receive comments from State
Park managers in both Oregon and California. The ORPD requested that
lands under their approved HCP be excluded from designation. The CDPR
commented that portions of Oceano Dunes SVRA should be excluded from
designation; however, that park unit does not have an approved HCP or
other management plan. The designation may have some benefit to these
governments in that the areas that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to
the conservation of the species are specifically 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 case-by-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 system and that it meets the applicable
standards as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We
are designating revised critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. This revised final rule uses standard property
descriptions in the preamble's critical habitat unit descriptions and
identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP 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.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court of Appeals of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not
need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by 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
assertion was upheld by the Court of Appeals of the United States for
the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
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), E.O. 13175, 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.
In the proposed revisions to critical habitat published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), we proposed to
designate 1,121 ac in subunit WA 3B Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, of which
we claimed approximately 336 ac (136 ha) to be within the Shoalwater
Bay Tribal lands. After further review and additional information
provided by the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, we have identified approximately
425 ac (172 ha) belonging to the Tribe and meeting the definition of
critical habitat. We worked directly with the Tribe to determine
economic and other burdens expected to result from critical habitat
designation on tribal lands, and as a result of information exchanged,
the Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude all Shoalwater
Bay Tribal lands meeting the definition of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast WSP from this final
[[Page 36802]]
revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act--Tribal Lands section above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Field
Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff of the Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office and Pacific Southwest Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Plover, western
snowy'' under BIRDS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Plover, western snowy (Pacific Charadrius nivosus Pacific Coast Pacific Coast T 493 17.95(b) NA
Coast population DPS). nivosus. population DPS-- population DPS--
U.S.A. (CA, OR, U.S.A. (CA, OR,
WA), Mexico. WA), Mexico (within
50 miles of Pacific
coast).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(b) by revising the entry for ``Western Snowy
Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)--Pacific Coast Population'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(b) Birds.
* * * * *
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)--Pacific Coast
Population
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for: Washington--Grays
Harbor and Pacific Counties; Oregon--Clatsop, Tillamook, Lane, Douglas,
Coos, and Curry Counties; and California--Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Marin, Napa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover are sandy beaches,
dune systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt flats,
mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, artificial salt ponds and
adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites, with:
(i) Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas
and above the daily high tides;
(ii) Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse
vegetation, that are between the annual low tide or low-water flow and
annual high tide or high-water flow, subject to inundation but not
constantly under water, that support small invertebrates, such as
crabs, worms, flies, beetles, spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and
ostracods, that are essential food sources;
(iii) Surf- or water-deposited organic debris, such as seaweed
(including kelp and eelgrass) or driftwood located on open substrates
that supports and attracts small invertebrates described in paragraph
(ii) of this entry for food, and provides cover or shelter from
predators and weather, and assists in avoidance of detection (crypsis)
for nests, chicks, and incubating adults; and
(iv) Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets,
vehicles, or human-attracted predators which provide relatively
undisturbed areas for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, roads, paved areas, boat ramps, and other developed areas)
and the land on which such structures are directly located and existing
within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS digital ortho-photo quarter-quadrangles, and
critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 10N and 11N coordinates.
(5) The coordinates for these maps are available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070, at https://www.fws.gov/arcata/, or at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655
Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521.
[[Page 36803]]
(6) Index map of critical habitat units for the Pacific Coast
western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in Washington
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.000
[[Page 36804]]
(7) Unit WA 1: Copalis Spit, Grays Harbor County, Washington. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.001
[[Page 36805]]
(8) Unit WA 2: Damon Point, Grays Harbor County, Washington. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.002
[[Page 36806]]
(9) Subunit WA 3A: Midway Beach, Pacific County, Washington. Map of
Subunits WA 3A and WA 3B follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.003
(10) Subunit WA 3B: Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit, Pacific County,
Washington. Map of Subunits WA 3A and WA 3B is provided at paragraph
(8) of this entry.
[[Page 36807]]
(11) Subunit WA 4A: Leadbetter Spit, Pacific County, Washington.
Map of Subunits WA 4A and WA 4B follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.004
(12) Subunit WA 4B: Gunpowder Sands Island, Pacific County,
Washington. Map of Subunits WA 4A and WA 4B is provided at paragraph
(11) of this entry.
[[Page 36808]]
(13) Index map of critical habitat units for the Pacific Coast
western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in Oregon follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.005
[[Page 36809]]
(14) Unit OR 2: Necanicum River Spit, Clatsop County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.006
[[Page 36810]]
(15) Unit OR 4: Bayocean Spit, Tillamook County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.007
[[Page 36811]]
(16) Unit OR 6: Sand Lake South, Tillamook County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.008
[[Page 36812]]
(17) Unit OR 7: Sutton/Baker Beaches, Lane County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.009
[[Page 36813]]
(18) Subunit OR 8A: Siltcoos Breach, Lane County, Oregon. Map of
Subunits OR 8A, OR 8B, and OR 8C follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.010
(19) Subunit OR 8B: Siltcoos River Spit, Douglas and Lane Counties,
Oregon. Map of Subunits OR 8A, OR 8B, and OR 8C is provided at
paragraph (18) of this entry.
(20) Subunit OR 8C: Dunes Overlook Tahkenitch Creek Spit, Douglas
County, Oregon. Map of Subunits OR 8A, OR 8B, and OR 8C is provided at
paragraph (18) of this entry.
[[Page 36814]]
(21) Subunit OR 8D: North Umpqua River Spit, Douglas County,
Oregon. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.011
[[Page 36815]]
(22) Unit OR 9: Tenmile Creek Spit, Coos County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.012
[[Page 36816]]
(23) Unit OR 10: Coos Bay North Spit, Coos County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.013
[[Page 36817]]
(24) Unit OR 11: Bandon to New River, Coos and Curry Counties,
Oregon. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.014
[[Page 36818]]
(25) Unit OR 13: Euchre Creek Spit, Curry County, Oregon. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.015
[[Page 36819]]
(26) Index map of critical habitat units for the Pacific Coast
western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in Northern
California follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.016
[[Page 36820]]
(27) Unit CA 1: Lake Earl, Del Norte County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.017
[[Page 36821]]
(28) Unit CA 2: Gold Bluffs Beach, Humboldt County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.018
[[Page 36822]]
(29) Subunit CA 3A: Stone Lagoon, Humboldt County, California. Map
of Subunits CA 3A and CA 3B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.019
(30) Subunit CA 3B: Big Lagoon, Humboldt County, California. Map of
Subunits CA 3A and CA 3B is provided at paragraph 29 of this entry.
[[Page 36823]]
(31) Subunit CA 4A: Clam Beach/Little River, Humboldt County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 4A and CA 4B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.020
(32) Subunit CA 4B: Mad River Beach, Humboldt County, California.
Map of Subunits CA 4A and CA 4B is provided at paragraph 31 of this
entry.
[[Page 36824]]
(33) Subunit CA 5A: Humboldt Bay South Spit, Humboldt County,
California. Map of Subunit CA 5A and CA 5B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.021
(34) Subunit CA 5B: Eel River North Spit and Beach, Humboldt
County, California. Map of Subunits CA 5A and CA 5B is provided at
paragraph 33 of this entry.
[[Page 36825]]
(35) Subunit CA 5C: Eel River South Spit and Beach, Humboldt
County, California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.022
[[Page 36826]]
(36) Unit CA 6: Eel River Gravel Bars, Humboldt County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.023
[[Page 36827]]
(37) Unit CA 7: MacKerricher Beach, Mendocino County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.024
[[Page 36828]]
(38) Unit CA 8: Manchester Beach, Mendocino County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.025
[[Page 36829]]
(39) Unit CA 9: Dillon Beach, Marin County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.026
[[Page 36830]]
(40) Subunit CA 10A: Point Reyes, Marin County, California. Map of
Subunits CA 10A and CA 10B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.027
(41) Subunit CA 10B: Limantour, Marin County, California. Map of
Subunits CA 10A and CA 10B is provided at paragraph 40 of this entry.
[[Page 36831]]
(42) Unit CA 11: Napa-Sonoma, Napa County, California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.028
[[Page 36832]]
(43) Unit CA 12: Hayward, Alameda County, California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.029
[[Page 36833]]
(44) Subunit CA 13A: Eden Landing, Alameda County, California. Map
of Subunits CA 13A, CA 13B, and CA 13C follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.030
(45) Subunit CA 13B: Eden Landing, Alameda County, California. Map
of Subunits CA 13A, CA 13B, and CA 13C is provided at paragraph 44 of
this entry.
(46) Subunit CA 13C: Eden Landing, Alameda County, California. Map
of Subunits CA 13A, CA 13B, and CA 13C is provided at paragraph 44 of
this entry.
[[Page 36834]]
(47) Unit CA 14: Ravenswood, San Mateo County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.031
[[Page 36835]]
(48) Unit CA 15: Warm Springs, Alameda County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.032
[[Page 36836]]
(49) Unit CA 16: Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.033
[[Page 36837]]
(50) Unit CA 17: Waddell Creek Beach, Santa Cruz County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.034
[[Page 36838]]
(51) Unit CA 18: Scott Creek Beach, Santa Cruz County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.035
[[Page 36839]]
(52) Unit CA 19: Wilder Creek Beach, Santa Cruz County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.036
[[Page 36840]]
(53) Index map of critical habitat units for the Pacific Coast
western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) in Southern
California follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.037
[[Page 36841]]
(54) Unit CA 20: Jetty Road to Aptos, Santa Cruz and Monterey
Counties, California. Map of Units CA 20 and CA 21 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.038
(55) Unit CA 21: Elkhorn Slough Mudflats, Monterey County,
California. Map of Units CA 20 and CA 21 is provided at paragraph 54.
[[Page 36842]]
(56) Unit CA 22: Monterey to Moss Landing, Monterey County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.039
[[Page 36843]]
(57) Unit CA 23: Point Sur Beach, Monterey County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.040
[[Page 36844]]
(58) Unit CA 24: San Carpoforo Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.041
[[Page 36845]]
(59) Unit CA 25: Arroyo Laguna Creek, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.042
[[Page 36846]]
(60) Unit CA 26: San Simeon State Beach, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.043
[[Page 36847]]
(61) Unit CA 27: Villa Creek Beach, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.044
[[Page 36848]]
(62) Unit CA 28: Toro Creek, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Map of Units CA 28 and CA 29 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.045
(63) Unit CA 29: Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand State Beach: San
Luis Obispo County, California. Map of Units CA 28 and CA 29 is
provided at paragraph 62 of this entry.
[[Page 36849]]
(64) Unit CA 30: Morro Bay Beach, San Luis Obispo County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.046
[[Page 36850]]
(65) Unit CA 31: Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, San Luis Obispo and
Santa Barbara Counties, California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.047
[[Page 36851]]
(66) Unit CA 34: Devereaux Beach, Santa Barbara County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.048
[[Page 36852]]
(67) Unit CA 35: Santa Barbara Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.049
[[Page 36853]]
(68) Subunit CA 36A: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara
County, California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches,
including Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.050
(69) Subunit CA 36B: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara
County, California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches,
including Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of
this entry.
(70) Unit CA 36C: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(71) Unit CA 36D: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(72) Unit CA 36E: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(73) Unit CA 36F: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(74) Unit CA 36G: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(75) Unit CA 36H: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(76) Unit CA 36I: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(77) Unit CA 36J: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
[[Page 36854]]
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(78) Unit CA 36K: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, Santa Barbara County,
California. Map of Unit CA 36: Santa Rosa Island Beaches, including
Subunits CA 36A through CA 36K is provided at paragraph 68 of this
entry.
(79) Unit CA 37: San Buenaventura Beach, Ventura County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.051
[[Page 36855]]
(80) Unit CA 38: Mandalay Beach to Santa Clara River, Ventura
County, California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.052
[[Page 36856]]
(81) Unit CA 39: Ormond Beach, Ventura County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.053
[[Page 36857]]
(82) Unit CA 43: Zuma Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.054
[[Page 36858]]
(83) Unit CA 44: Malibu Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.055
[[Page 36859]]
(84) Subunit CA 45A: Santa Monica Beach, Los Angeles County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.056
[[Page 36860]]
(85) Subunit CA 45B: Dockweiler North, Los Angeles County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 45B and CA 45C follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.057
(86) Subunit CA 45C: Dockweiler South, Los Angeles County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 45B and CA 45C is provided at paragraph
85 of this entry.
[[Page 36861]]
(87) Subunit CA 45D: Hermosa State Beach, Los Angeles County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.058
[[Page 36862]]
(88) Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica State Beach, Orange County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA 46F follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.059
(89) Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA 46F is provided at
paragraph 88 of this entry.
(90) Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA 46F is provided at
paragraph 88 of this entry.
(91) Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA 46F is provided at
paragraph 88 of this entry.
(92) Subunit CA 46E: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA 46F is provided at
paragraph 88 of this entry.
(93) Subunit CA 46F: Bolsa Chica Reserve, Orange County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 46A through CA 46F is provided at
paragraph 88 of this entry.
[[Page 36863]]
(94) Unit CA 47: Santa Ana River Mouth, Orange County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.060
[[Page 36864]]
(95) Unit CA 48: Balboa Beach, Orange County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.061
[[Page 36865]]
(96) Subunit CA 51A: San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, San Diego
County, California. Map of Subunits CA 51A, CA 51B, and CA 51C follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.062
(97) Subunit CA 51B: San Elijo Ecological Reserve, San Diego
County, California. Map of Subunits CA 51A, CA 51B, and CA 51C is
provided at paragraph 96 of this entry.
(98) Subunit CA 51C: San Elijo Ecological Reserve, San Diego
County, California. Map of Subunits CA 51A, CA 51B, and CA 51C is
provided at paragraph 96 of this entry.
[[Page 36866]]
(99) Subunit CA 52A: San Dieguito Lagoon, San Diego County,
California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.063
[[Page 36867]]
(100) Subunit CA 55B: Coronado Beach, San Diego County, California.
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.064
[[Page 36868]]
(101) Subunit CA 55E: Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge,
San Diego County, California. Map of Subunits CA 55E, CA 55F, and CA
55I follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.065
(102) Subunit CA 55F: Silver Strand State Beach, San Diego County,
California. Map of Subunits CA 55E, CA 55F, and CA 55I is provided at
paragraph 101 of this entry.
(103) Subunit CA 55I: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge--South Bay
Unit, San Diego County, California. Map of Subunits CA 55E, CA 55F, and
CA 55I is provided at paragraph 101 of this entry.
[[Page 36869]]
(104) Subunit CA 55J: Tijuana Estuary and Border Field State Park,
San Diego County, California. Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN12.066
* * * * *
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-13886 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
