Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2243 

will not send a copy of this Report and 

Order pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), 

because this proceeding is terminated 

without the adoption of any rules. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Although the Public Notice accepted 

two separate petitions for rule making as 

counterproposals in this proceeding, the 

Report and Order finds that these 

related proposals should not be 

considered as counterproposals because 

they are not mutually exclusive with the 

Needles allotment proposed in the 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this 

proceeding. See Public Notice, Report 

No. 2883, March 10, 2009. Instead we 

will consider these proposals filed by 

Rocket Radio, Inc. (RM–11517) and 

Univision Radio License Corporation 

(RM–11518), which are mutually 

exclusive with each other, in a separate 

FM rule making proceeding in MB 

Docket No. 11–207. For information 

regarding proper filing procedures for 

comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nazifa Sawez, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2012–717 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070; 

MO92210–0–0009] 

RIN 1018–AX10 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat and Taxonomic Revision for 

the Pacific Coast Population of the 

Western Snowy Plover 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the March 22, 2011, proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the Pacific Coast population of the 

western snowy plover (Pacific Coast 

WSP) (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are 

also recognizing the recent change to the 

taxonomy of the currently threatened 

taxon in which the species was split 

into two distinct species. We also 

announce the availability of a draft 

economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat for Pacific Coast WSP and an 

amended required determinations 

section of the proposal and reopening of 

the comment period to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the revised 

proposed rule, the associated DEA, and 

the amended required determinations 

section. We are also seeking comment 

on additional proposed revisions to Unit 

CA 46 in Orange County, California. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted, as they will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received on or before February 16, 2012. 

Comments submitted electronically 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES section, below) must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2010– 

0070; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the Pacific Coast WSP that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), our DEA 

of the proposed revised designation, and 

the amended required determinations 

provided in this document. We will 

consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not revise the designation of 

‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

whether there are threats to the species 

from human activity, the degree of 

which can be expected to increase due 

to the designation, and whether that 

increase in threat outweighs the benefit 

of designation such that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) Areas that provide habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP that we did not 

discuss in the proposed revised critical 

habitat rule, and 

(b) Areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that contain elements of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection and that we 

should include in the designation, and 

reason(s) why. 

(3) Specific information on our 

proposed revised designation of backdune systems and other habitats in an 

attempt to offset the anticipated effects 

of sea-level rise associated with climate 

change. 

(4) Specific information on the Pacific 

Coast WSP, habitat conditions, and the 

presence of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species at any of the critical habitat 

units proposed in this revised rule (see 

Critical Habitat Units section and 

previous rules (64 FR 68508, December 

7, 1999; 70 FR 56970, September 29, 

2005; 76 FR 16046, March 22, 2011)). 

(5) How the proposed revised critical 

habitat boundaries could be refined to 

more closely circumscribe the areas 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

identified as containing the features 

essential to the species’ conservation or 

how we mapped the water’s edge and 

whether any alternative methods could 

be used to better determine the critical 

habitat boundaries. 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts that may result from 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

from the proposed revised designation 

that are subject to these impacts. 

(7) Any information regarding the 

areas exempted from the proposed 

revised rule or whether any specific 

areas being proposed as revised critical 

habitat should be excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether 

the benefits of potentially excluding any 

particular area outweigh the benefits of 

including that area under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, including Tribal lands, 

within the proposed revised 

designation. 

(8) Information on any quantifiable 

economic costs or benefits of the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat. 

(9) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

revised critical habitat. 

(10) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

(11) Information on the extent to 

which the description of economic 

impacts in the DEA is complete and 

accurate. 

(12) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and 

how the consequences of such reactions, 

if likely to occur, would relate to the 

conservation and regulatory benefits of 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation. 

If you submitted comments or 

information on the proposed rule (76 FR 

16046) during the initial comment 

period from March 22, 2011, to May 23, 

2011, please do not resubmit them. We 

have incorporated them into the public 

record, and we will fully consider them 

in the preparation of our final 

determination. Our final determination 

concerning revised critical habitat will 

take into consideration all written 

comments and any additional 

information we receive during both 

comment periods. On the basis of public 

comments, we may, during the 

development of our final determination, 

find that areas proposed are not 

essential, are appropriate for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are 

not appropriate for exclusion. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

or DEA by one of the methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section. We request that 

you send comments only by the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. We will post all 

hardcopy comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov as well. If you 

submit a hardcopy comment that 

includes personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule and 

DEA, will be available for public 

inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

You may obtain copies of the proposed 

rule and the DEA on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070, or by mail 

from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the taxonomic 

name change and designation of critical 

habitat for Pacific Coast WSP in this 

document. For more background 

information concerning the Pacific 

Coast WSP, refer to the proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046). For more 

information on the Pacific Coast WSP or 

its habitat, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864), which is 

available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket 

Number FWS–R8–ES–2010–0070) or the 

Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP 

(Service 2007), which is online at 

http://ecos.fws.gov or from the Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 22, 2011, we published a 

proposed rule to revise the designation 

of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast 

WSP (76 FR 16046). We proposed to 

designate approximately 28,261 acres 

(ac) (11,436 hectares (ha)) in 68 units 

located in Washington, Oregon, and 

California as critical habitat. That 

proposal opened a 60-day comment 

period, ending May 23, 2011. In this 

document we are proposing to revise the 

boundaries to Unit CA 46 based on new 

information (see Changes to Proposed 

Revised Critical Habitat below). We will 

submit for publication in the Federal 

Register a final critical habitat 

designation for the Pacific Coast WSP 

on or before June 12, 2012. 

Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes 

Affecting Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus 

We are making a technical correction 

to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) 

to reflect our acceptance of a taxonomic 

and nomenclatural change of western 

snowy plover to Charadrius nivosus 

nivosus from C. alexandrinus nivosus. 

We listed the Pacific Coast WSP as 

threatened under the then-recognized 

name of Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus (58 FR 12864; March 5, 1993), 

which is a subspecies of the Eurasian 

Kentish plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus (Linnaeus 1758)). We 

accepted this taxonomy and have used 

this name in all Service documents up 

to and including our proposed revision 

to the critical habitat for the Pacific 

Coast WSP (76 FR 16046; March 22, 

2011). 

In 2009, Clemens Ku ̈pper (Department 

of Biology and Biochemistry, University 

of Bath, Bath, UK); Tama ́s Sze ́kely 

(Department of Biology and 

Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, 

UK); and Terry Burke (Department of 

Animal and Plant Sciences, University 

of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK), submitted a 

proposal to the American 

Ornithologist’s Union (AOU)—the 

recognized body on ornithological 

naming and scientific nomenclature 

(AOU 2010A, pp. 145–146). The 

proposal presented information to split 

the Kentish plover from the snowy 

plover and adopt Kentish plover for 

Palaearctic populations 

(zoogeographical region consisting of 

Europe, Africa north of the Sahara, and 

most of Asia north of the Himalayas) 

and change the scientific name of the 

snowy plover in Central and North 

America to Charadrius nivosus (Cassin 

1858) with three subspecies: C. nivosus 

nivosus (currently C. alexandrinus 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2245 

nivosus) (range to include all of the 

continental United States and portions 

of Mexico), C. nivosus tenuirostris 

(currently C. alexandrinus nivosus) 

(range to include Cuba, Puerto Rico, the 

Caribbean and the Yucatan Peninsula) 

and C. nivosus occidentalis (currently C. 

alexandrinus occidentalis) (range to 

include South America). The proposal 

cited genetic, morphological, and 

behavioral differences between C. 

alexandrinus and C. nivosus (Funk et al. 

2007; Ku ̈pper et al. 2009). The proposal 

was adopted by the AOU (AOU 2010B, 

pp. 1–5; Chesser et al. 2011, pp. 603– 

604). We are within this proposed rule 

accepting the taxonomic change for the 

Pacific Coast WSP and recognize the 

listed entity as C. nivosus nivosus and 

will make changes to the Code of 

Federal Regulations in the final 

designation (see Proposed Regulation 

Promulgation section). We also make 

the necessary changes to the historical 

range of C. nivosus nivosus at 50 CFR 

17.11(h) to include the entire 

continental United States. These 

technical corrections do not affect the 

description, distribution, or listing 

status of the Pacific Coast WSP. 

However, the complete range of C. 

nivosus nivosus now includes the 

Florida occurrences of the subspecies. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as 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 essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection; and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. If the 

proposed revised rule is made final, 

section 7 of the Act will prohibit 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat by any activity funded, 

authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. Federal agencies 

funding, authorizing, permitting, or 

proposing actions affecting critical 

habitat must consult with us on the 

effects of their actions, under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

the Secretary shall designate and revise 

critical habitat based upon the best 

scientific data available, after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary of the Interior may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if he 

determines that the benefits of 

excluding the area outweigh the benefits 

of including the area as critical habitat, 

provided such exclusion will not result 

in the extinction of the species. 

When considering 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 

(activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies), the educational benefits of 

mapping areas containing essential 

features that aid in the recovery of the 

listed species, and any benefits that may 

result from 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. 

In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP, the 

benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of the presence of the 

Pacific Coast WSP and the importance 

of habitat protection, and, where a 

Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for Pacific Coast WSP due to 

protection from adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat. In 

practice, situations with a Federal nexus 

exist primarily on Federal lands or for 

projects undertaken, authorized, or 

otherwise permitted by Federal 

agencies. 

The final decision on whether to 

exclude any areas will be based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available at the time of the final 

designation, including information 

obtained during the comment period 

and information about the economic 

impact of designation. Accordingly, we 

have prepared a DEA concerning the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation, which is available for 

review and comment (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Draft Economic Analysis 

The purpose of the DEA is to identify 

and analyze the potential economic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation for 

the Pacific Coast WSP. The DEA 

separates conservation measures into 

two distinct categories according to 

‘‘without critical habitat’’ and ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ scenarios. The ‘‘without 

critical habitat’’ scenario represents the 

baseline for the analysis, considering 

protections otherwise afforded to the 

Pacific Coast WSP (e.g., under the 

Federal listing and other Federal, State, 

and local regulations). The ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts specifically due to 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, these 

incremental conservation measures and 

associated economic impacts would not 

occur but for the designation. 

Conservation measures implemented 

under the baseline (without critical 

habitat) scenario are described 

qualitatively within the DEA, but 

economic impacts associated with these 

measures are not quantified. Economic 

impacts are only quantified for 

conservation measures implemented 

specifically due to the designation of 

critical habitat (i.e., incremental 

impacts). 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 may 

consider in the final designation of 

critical habitat when weighing the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. For a further description of the 

methodology of the analysis, see 

Chapter 2, ‘‘Framework for the 

Analysis,’’ of the DEA (Industrial 

Economics Incorporated (IEc) 2011). 

The DEA evaluates the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. The 

analysis focuses on reasonably 

foreseeable incremental impacts of the 

critical habitat designation, or those 

impacts not expected to occur absent 

critical habitat designation. Forecasted 

impacts are based on the planning 

periods for potentially affected projects 

and look out over a 20-year time horizon 

(through 2031). The DEA considers 

economic impacts of Pacific Coast WSP 

conservation efforts on the following 

activities: (1) Recreation; (2) 

development; (3) gravel mining; (4) 

military activities; and (5) habitat and 

species management. 

Due to strong existing protections 

(include symbolic fencing, nest 

exclosures, signage, driving restrictions, 

and mechanized beach cleaning 

restrictions) for the Pacific Coast WSP, 

the direct incremental impacts 

quantified in the DEA are limited to the 

administrative cost of considering 

adverse modification during section 7 

consultation with the Service as well as 

the additional effort necessary to 

include analysis of critical habitat in 

three future Habitat Conservation Plans 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and one Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP) for 

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 

These incremental impacts of the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation over the 20-year timeframe 

(2012 through 2031) are estimated to be 

$261,000 ($24,700 on an annualized 

basis), assuming a seven percent 

discount rate. Impacts to military 

activities represent the greatest 

percentage of these overall cost 

estimates—approximately 72 percent. 

Impacts to development activities 

represent approximately 17 percent, 

habitat and species management 6 

percent, and mining 4 percent of the 

overall impacts (percentages do not sum 

due to rounding). Incremental impacts 

to recreational activities are not 

expected due to lack of a Federal nexus 

compelling section 7 consultation with 

the Service and significant protection 

already provided by existing regulations 

and programs (IEc 2011, pp. 4–9–4–12). 

The analysis also identifies three 

activities that may experience indirect 

incremental impacts of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation: 

Recreation at Oceano Dunes State 

Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) (Unit 

CA 31), development of the Sterling/ 

McDonald site (Unit CA 22), and 

development of the Security National 

Guaranty (SNG) site (Unit CA 22). 

Indirect impacts resulting from future 

litigation or increased scrutiny from 

State agencies may include prohibiting 

off-highway-vehicle use at Oceano 

Dunes SVRA and denial of development 

permits for the Sterling/McDonald and 

SNG sites. Due to uncertainty 

surrounding the likelihood and extent of 

such indirect impacts, the data 

necessary to quantify these impacts are 

unavailable. Therefore, these indirect 

incremental impacts are discussed 

qualitatively in the DEA (IEc 2011, 

p. 4–2). 

Vandenberg Air Force Base INRMP 

In the March 22, 2011, proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat 

(76 FR 16046), we did not consider 

Vandenberg Air Force Base for 

exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act because they had not yet completed 

a Service-approved INRMP. On April 

14, 2011, VAFB completed and we 

approved the INRMP for VAFB as part 

of the requirements of the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 670a) (for a full discussion of 

the Sikes Act, see the Exemptions 

section of the March 22, 2011, proposed 

revision to critical habitat (76 FR 

16046)). The VAFB INRMP provides for 

the conservation, management, and 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. The INRMP includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Because the INRMP was not finalized 

and approved prior to the March 22, 

2011, proposed revised critical habitat 

designation for the Pacific Coast WSP 

(76 FR 16046), we did not exempt these 

areas prior to their proposal. We will 

review the INRMP and will determine 

in our final designation of critical 

habitat if the plan provides a benefit to 

the Pacific Coast WSP in those areas 

covered by the INRMP that we had 

determined to be essential to and for the 

conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. 

If it does, we will exempt those areas 

covered by the INRMP from the final 

designation under the requirements of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–136) 

and section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

the DEA, as well as all aspects of the 

proposed revised designation, the 

changes contained in this NOA, and our 

amended required determinations. We 

may revise the proposed revised 

designation or supporting documents to 

incorporate or address information we 

receive during the public comment 

period. In particular, we may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area, provided the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Changes to Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat 

In this document, we are making 

revisions to the proposed revised 

critical habitat as identified and 

described in the proposed rule that we 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046) and are 

seeking comment on the revisions. The 

changes occur in what was proposed as 

subunits CA 46A–D (Bolsa Chica 

Ecological Reserve) and subunit CA 46E 

(Bolsa Chica State Beach) of Unit CA 46. 

We are also adding one subunit (subunit 

CA 46F) to Unit CA 46. During the 

public comment period for the March 

22, 2011, proposed revised critical 

habitat (76 FR 16046), we received 

comments from a species expert 

indicating that we should reevaluate the 

proposed boundaries at the Bolsa Chica 

Ecological Reserve because certain areas 

included in Unit CA 46 are not utilized 

for nesting or foraging by the Pacific 

Coast WSP, whereas other areas that 

were not included in proposed revised 

critical habitat within Bolsa Chica 

Ecological Reserve are used for nesting 

and foraging (P. Knapp, pers. comm. 

2011). 

We also received comments and new 

information from California State Parks 

and a species expert indicating that we 

should reevaluate the proposed 

boundaries of subunit CA 46E at Bolsa 

Chica State Beach because the area no 

longer contains the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, and is no 

longer being used for wintering by the 

Pacific Coast WSP and has not been 

used in the last 4 years (D. Prior, 

California State Parks, pers. comm. 

2011; P. Knapp, pers. comm. 2011). The 

information provided indicated that 

areas north of the proposal in subunit 

CA 46E at Bolsa Chica State Beach are 

being used by the Pacific Coast WSP as 

a wintering habitat and that we should 

reevaluate the proposed boundaries of 

beach areas in Unit CA 46 (Prior, pers. 

comm. 2011; Knapp, pers. comm. 2011). 

We have reviewed the new information 

and have determined it appropriate to 

adjust our proposed revised designation 

of Unit CA 46. 

The purpose of the revisions 

described below is to better delineate 

the areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP 

and to ensure that all areas proposed are 

consistent with the criteria outlined in 

the proposed revised rule (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat’’ 

section in the proposed revised critical 

habitat designation (76 FR 16046; March 

22, 2011)). The areas added to the 

proposed unit are within the 

geographical area that was occupied by 

the species at the time it was listed and 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. A revised map is included 

in the Proposed Regulation 

Promulgation section of this document. 

Below, we briefly describe the changes 

made to Unit CA 46. As a result of these 

revisions, the naming convention for the 

subunits CA 46A–E will change and an 

additional subunit (CA 46F) will be 

added. Also as a result of these 

revisions, the total area proposed for 

designation as critical habitat in Unit 

CA 46 is 568 ac (230 ha), an increase of 

50 ac (20 ha). The change increases the 

total amount of proposed revised critical 

habitat to 30,497 ac (12,342 ha) (see 

Table 3 below). 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2247 

Changes to Critical Habitat Unit 

Descriptions 

Unit CA 46: Bolsa Chica State Beach 

and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 

Through this notice, we propose to 

exchange the naming conventions 

between subunits CA 46A and 46E so 

that the Bolsa Chica State Beach will 

now be part of subunit CA 46A and the 

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve will 

include subunits CA 46B–F. As revised 

here, the subunits in Bolsa Chica State 

Beach and Bolsa Chica Ecological 

Reserve are located east of the Pacific 

Coast Highway, in Orange County, 

California. As a result of this revision, 

the total area proposed for designation 

as critical habitat at Bolsa Chica State 

Beach (now designated as subunit CA 

46A) is 93 ac (38 ha); and the total area 

for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 

subunits (now designated as subunits 

CA 46B–46F) is 475 ac (192 ha). These 

subunits are entirely owned by the State 

of California. 

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 

contains significant nesting and foraging 

areas. This location supported 47 

breeding adult Pacific Coast WSP in 

2009 (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 8). 

All subunits at Bolsa Chica Ecological 

Reserve were occupied at the time of 

listing and are currently occupied and 

annually support one of the largest 

breeding populations of Pacific Coast 

WSP in the region. The Recovery Plan 

for 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). In the proposed 

revised rule, we incorrectly stated that 

this reserve is an abandoned oil field. 

This reserve is in fact 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 semidiurnal tidal range of southern 

California’s ocean waters (Knapp and 

Peterson 2009, p. 1). Including these 

occupied areas for breeding, foraging, 

and dispersal is consistent with our 

criteria used to identify critical habitat, 

as outlined in the proposed rule (76 FR 

16046; March 22, 2011). No changes 

were made to subunits CA 46B or CA 

46D. Please see the proposed revised 

critical habitat for a description of these 

subunits (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011). 

Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica State 

Beach 

Through this notice, the proposed 

revised designation’s subunit CA 46E is 

renamed as subunit CA 46A. After 

further analysis and review of 

comments received on the proposed 

revised designation, we have adjusted 

the boundary of the 8 ac (3 ha) of beach 

that was included in the proposed rule 

because the area no longer contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species, and 

has not supported Pacific Coast WSP for 

the past 4 years (Prior, pers. comm. 

2011). The subunit as revised here 

consists of sandy beach habitat north of 

the critical habitat unit proposed in 

March 2011, and extends to just south 

of the Sunset Beach area near Warner 

Avenue adjacent to the Bolsa Chica 

Ecological Reserve. As a result of the 

revision reflected here, the area 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat in subunit CA 46A is 93 ac (38 

ha), an increase of 85 ac (35 ha) from 

what was proposed for Bolsa Chica State 

Beach in the proposed revised 

designation. This subunit is owned 

entirely by the State of California. The 

revised subunit CA 46A was occupied at 

the time of listing and is currently 

occupied and contains the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species, 

including a wide sandy beach with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates for foraging, and 

because it supports an average wintering 

flock of 27 Pacific Coast WSP (Service 

unpublished data 2003–2010) in a 

location with high-quality breeding 

habitat. Subunit CA 46A may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

recreational disturbance and beach 

raking as discussed for this subunit in 

the March 2011 proposed revised rule. 

Additionally, adding occupied areas for 

wintering, foraging, and dispersal is 

consistent with our criteria used to 

identify critical habitat, as outlined in 

the proposed revised rule (76 FR 16046; 

March 22, 2011). 

Unit CA46: Bolsa Chica Ecological 

Reserve; Subunits CA 46C, 46E, 46F 

Subunit CA 46C 

We revised subunit CA 46C to include 

additional areas containing the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species for breeding, 

foraging, and dispersal that were not 

captured in the proposed revised rule. 

This addition is based on information 

received during the public comment 

period that indicates that these areas 

include year-round foraging habitat in 

extensive mudflats and additional 

nesting areas for Pacific Coast WSP to 

expand into. This unit was occupied at 

the time of listing. This location 

contains the physical and 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. As a result of this 

revision, the area proposed for 

designation as critical habitat in subunit 

CA 46C is 222 ac (90 ha), an increase of 

201 ac (81 ha) from the proposed rule. 

This location contains tidally 

influenced estuarine mud flats 

supporting small invertebrates, and 

seasonally dry ponds and nesting 

islands that provide nesting and 

foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. 

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 nesting and 

foraging areas and predation of chicks 

and eggs. 

Subunit CA 46E 

Here, we rename the Bolsa Chica 

Ecological Reserve areas that were 

proposed as subunit CA 46A in the 

proposed revised rule to subunit CA 46E 

and remove the areas that do not 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. This area was occupied at 

the time of listing. This revised subunit 

CA 46E is reduced in size to more 

accurately represent the nesting and 

foraging areas used by Pacific Coast 

WSP. We removed almost all of the 

Muted Tidal Basin area from subunit 

46E because this area does not contain 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of Pacific 

Coast WSP. We have adjusted the 

boundary in the Future Full Tidal Basin 

to represent areas used for nesting and 

foraging. As a result of this revision, the 

area proposed for designation as critical 

habitat in subunit CA 46E is 247 ac (100 

ha), a decrease of 237 ac (96 ha) from 

what was proposed as subunit CA 46A 

in the proposed rule. This revised 

location contains tidally influenced 

estuarine mud flats supporting small 

invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds 

and nesting islands that provide nesting 

and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast 

WSP. 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 nesting and 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

foraging areas and predation of chicks 

and eggs. 

Subunit 46F 

We add one subunit (CA 46F) to 

represent the single nesting and foraging 

area utilized by Pacific Coast WSP in 

the Muted Tidal Basin (Nest Site 2). 

This area was occupied at the time of 

listing and contains the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. This 

location contains tidally influenced 

estuarine mud flats supporting small 

invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds 

and nesting islands that provide nesting 

and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast 

WSP. 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 nesting and 

foraging areas and predation of chicks 

and eggs. As a result of this addition, 

the area proposed for designation as 

critical habitat in subunit CA 46F is 2 

ac (1 ha). 

In addition to the unit changes 

outlined above, we are also correcting 

land ownership acreage numbers 

identified in Table 3 of the March 22, 

2011, proposed revised rule (76 FR 

16046). The corrected Table 3 with 

changes to Unit CA–46 is below. Also, 

in the proposed revised rule we 

incorrectly stated that no Department of 

Defense lands were within the proposed 

revised designation. Approximately 

1,084 ac (439 ha) have been identified 

on VAFB in units CA–32 and CA–33. 

On April 14, 2011, we approved the 

INRMP for VAFB and have determined 

that the plan provides a benefit to the 

species for which critical habitat is 

proposed for designation. We have now 

reviewed and approved the VAFB 

INRMP and will recommend that the 

Secretary exempt the areas determined 

to be essential to and for the 

conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP 

from the final designation under the 

requirements of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Pub. L. 108–136) and section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP SHOWING FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, 

AND OTHER (PRIVATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) LAND OWNERSHIP

Unit number Unit name 

Total Federal Tribal State Other 

ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha 

Washington: 

WA 1 .................................. Copalis Spit ............................... 407 165 0 0 0 0 407 165 0 0 

WA 2 .................................. Damon Point ............................. 673 272 0 0 0 0 648 262 25 10 

WA 3A ................................ Midway Beach ........................... 697 282 0 0 0 0 697 282 0 0 

WA 3B * .............................. Shoalwater/Graveyard ............... 1,121 454 0 0 336 136 505 204 280 113 

Unit WA–3 Totals ........ .................................................... 1,818 736 0 0 336 136 1,202 486 280 113 

WA 4A ................................ Leadbetter Spit .......................... 2,463 997 2,026 820 0 0 437 177 0 0 

WA 4B ................................ Gunpowder Sands Island .......... 904 366 904 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unit WA–4 Totals ........ .................................................... 3,367 1,363 2,930 1,186 0 0 437 177 0 0 

WASHINGTON 

STATE TOTALS.

.................................................... 6,265 2,535 2,930 1,186 336 136 2,694 1,090 305 123 

Oregon: 

OR 1 ................................... Columbia River Spit .................. 169 68 169 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 2 ................................... Necanicum River Spit ............... 211 85 0 0 0 0 161 65 50 20 

OR 3 ................................... Nehalem River Spit ................... 299 121 0 0 0 0 299 121 0 0 

OR 4 ................................... Bayocean Spit ........................... 367 149 279 113 0 0 0 0 88 36 

OR 5 ................................... Netarts Spit ............................... 541 219 0 0 0 0 541 219 0 0 

OR 6 ................................... Sand Lake South ...................... 200 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 81 

OR 7 ................................... Sutton/Baker Beaches .............. 372 151 372 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 8A ................................ Siltcoos Breach ......................... 15 6 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 8B ................................ Siltcoos River Spit ..................... 241 98 241 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 8C ................................ Dunes Overlook Tahkenitch 

Creek Spit.

716 290 716 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 8D ................................ North Umpqua River Spit .......... 236 96 151 61 0 0 85 34 0 0 

Unit OR–8 Totals ........ .................................................... 1,208 489 1,123 454 0 0 85 34 0 0 

OR 9 ................................... Tenmile Creek Spit ................... 244 99 244 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 10 ................................. Coos Bay North Spit ................. 308 125 308 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 

OR 11 ................................. Bandon to New River ................ 1,016 411 459 186 0 0 267 108 290 117 

OR 12 * ............................... Elk River Spit ............................ 167 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 68 

OR 13 ................................. Euchre Creek ............................ 116 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 47 

OREGON STATE 

TOTALS.

.................................................... 5,218 2,112 2,954 1,195 0 0 1,353 548 911 369 

California: 

CA 1 ................................... Lake Earl ................................... 74 30 0 0 0 0 22 9 52 21 

CA 2 ................................... Gold Bluffs Beach ..................... 235 95 0 0 0 0 235 95 0 0 

CA 3A ................................. Humboldt Lagoons—Stone Lagoon.55 22 0 0 0 0 55 22 0 0 

CA 3B ................................. Humboldt Lagoons—Big Lagoon.271 110 0 0 0 0 270 109 <1 <1 

Unit CA–3 Totals ........ .................................................... 326 132 0 0 0 0 325 132 0 0 

CA 4A ................................. Clam Beach/Little River ............ 340 138 0 0 0 0 226 91 114 46 

CA 4B ................................. Mad River .................................. 456 185 0 0 0 0 149 60 307 124 

Unit CA–4 Totals ........ .................................................... 796 322 0 0 0 0 375 152 421 170 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2249 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP SHOWING FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, 

AND OTHER (PRIVATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued 

Unit number Unit name 

Total Federal Tribal State Other 

ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha 

CA 5A ................................. Humboldt Bay South Spit .......... 577 234 20 8 0 0 541 219 16 6 

CA 5B ................................. Eel River North Spit/Beach ....... 467 189 0 0 0 0 460 186 7 3 

CA 5C ................................ Eel River South Spit/Beach ...... 340 138 0 0 0 0 176 71 164 66 

Unit CA–5 Totals ........ .................................................... 1,384 560 20 8 0 0 1,177 476 187 76 

CA 6 ................................... Eel River Gravel Bars ............... 2,699 1,092 0 0 0 0 591 239 2,108 853 

CA 7 ................................... MacKerricher Beach .................. 1,176 476 0 0 0 0 1,102 446 74 30 

CA 8 ................................... Manchester Beach .................... 482 195 68 28 0 0 402 163 12 5 

CA 9 ................................... Dillon Beach .............................. 39 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 16 

CA 10A ............................... Pt Reyes .................................... 460 186 460 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CA 10B ............................... Limantour .................................. 156 63 156 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unit CA–10 Totals ...... .................................................... 616 249 616 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CA 11 ................................. Napa .......................................... 618 250 0 0 0 0 618 250 0 0 

CA 12 ................................. Hayward .................................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

CA 13A ............................... Eden Landing ............................ 237 96 0 0 0 0 228 92 8 3 

CA 13B ............................... Eden Landing ............................ 171 69 0 0 0 0 171 69 0 0 

CA 13C .............................. Eden Landing ............................ 609 246 0 0 0 0 602 244 7 3 

Unit CA–13 Totals ...... .................................................... 1,017 412 0 0 0 0 1,001 405 15 6 

CA 14 ................................. Ravenswood .............................. 89 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 36 

CA 15 ................................. Warm Springs ........................... 169 68 169 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CA 16 ................................. Half Moon Bay .......................... 36 15 0 0 0 0 36 15 0 0 

CA 17 ................................. Waddell Creek Beach ............... 25 10 0 0 0 0 19 8 7 3 

CA 18 ................................. Scott Creek Beach .................... 23 9 0 0 0 0 15 6 8 3 

CA 19 ................................. Wilder Creek Beach .................. 15 6 0 0 0 0 15 6 0 0 

CA 20 ................................. Jetty Road to Aptos .................. 400 162 0 0 0 0 370 150 30 12 

CA 21 ................................. Elkhorn Slough Mudflats ........... 281 114 0 0 0 0 281 114 0 0 

CA 22 ................................. Monterey to Moss Landing ....... 971 393 424 172 0 0 286 116 261 106 

CA 23 ................................. Point Sur Beach ........................ 72 29 0 0 0 0 38 15 34 14 

CA 24 ................................. San Carpoforo Creek ................ 24 10 4 2 0 0 18 7 3 1 

CA 25 ................................. Arroyo Laguna Creek ................ 28 11 0 0 0 0 18 7 10 4 

CA 26 ................................. San Simeon State Beach .......... 24 10 0 0 0 0 24 10 0 0 

CA 27 ................................. Villa Creek Beach ..................... 20 8 0 0 0 0 20 8 0 0 

CA 28 ................................. Toro Creek ................................ 34 14 0 0 0 0 11 4 23 9 

CA 29 ................................. Atascadero Beach/Morro Strand 

SB.

214 87 0 0 0 0 65 26 149 60 

CA 30 ................................. Morro Bay Beach ...................... 1,078 436 0 0 0 0 949 384 129 52 

CA 31 ................................. Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes .... 1,655 670 242 98 0 0 553 224 860 348 

CA 32 ................................. Vandenberg North ..................... 711 288 711 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CA 33 ................................. Vandenberg South .................... 424 172 374 151 0 0 0 0 50 20 

CA 34 ................................. Devereaux Beach ...................... 52 21 0 0 0 0 43 17 9 4 

CA 35 ................................. Santa Barbara Beaches ............ 65 26 0 0 0 0 30 12 35 14 

CA 36 ................................. Santa Rosa Island Beaches ..... 586 237 586 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CA 37 ................................. San Buenaventura Beach ......... 69 28 0 0 0 0 69 28 0 0 

CA 38 ................................. Mandalay to Santa Clara River 671 272 0 0 0 0 458 185 213 86 

CA 39 ................................. Ormond Beach .......................... 319 129 0 0 0 0 159 64 160 65 

CA 43 ................................. Zuma Beach .............................. 73 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 72 29 

CA 44 ................................. Malibu Beach ............................ 13 5 0 0 0 0 13 5 0 0 

CA 45A ............................... Santa Monica Beach ................. 48 19 0 0 0 0 29 12 19 8 

CA 45B ............................... Dockweiler North ....................... 34 14 0 0 0 0 34 14 0 0 

CA 45C .............................. Dockweiler South ...................... 65 26 0 0 0 0 54 22 11 4 

CA 45D .............................. Hermosa State Beach ............... 27 11 0 0 0 0 8 3 19 8 

Unit CA–45 Totals ...... .................................................... 174 70 0 0 0 0 125 51 49 20 

CA 46A ............................... Bolsa Chica State Beach .......... 93 38 0 0 0 0 93 38 0 0 

CA 46B ............................... Bolsa Chica Reserve ................ 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

CA 46C .............................. Bolsa Chica Reserve ................ 222 90 0 0 0 0 222 90 0 0 

CA 46D .............................. Bolsa Chica Reserve ................ 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

CA 46E ............................... Bolsa Chica Reserve ................ 247 100 0 0 0 0 247 100 0 0 

CA 46F ............................... Bolsa Chica Reserve ................ 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

Unit CA–46 Totals ...... .................................................... 568 230 0 0 0 0 568 230 0 0 

CA 47 ................................. Santa Ana River Mouth ............. 19 8 0 0 0 0 18 7 1 0 

CA 48 ................................. Balboa Beach ............................ 25 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 10 

CA 50A ............................... Batiquitos Lagoon ..................... 24 10 0 0 0 0 18 7 6 2 

CA 50B ............................... Batiquitos Lagoon ..................... 23 9 0 0 0 0 15 6 8 3 

CA 50C .............................. Batiquitos Lagoon ..................... 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 8 

Unit CA–50 Totals ...... .................................................... 66 27 0 0 0 0 33 13 33 13 

CA 51A ............................... San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve.3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 

CA 51B ............................... San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve.5 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP SHOWING FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, 

AND OTHER (PRIVATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued 

Unit number Unit name 

Total Federal Tribal State Other 

ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha 

CA 51C .............................. San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve.7 3 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 

Unit CA–51 Totals ...... .................................................... 15 6 0 0 0 0 11 4 4 2 

CA 52A ............................... San Dieguito Lagoon ................ 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 

CA 52B ............................... San Dieguito Lagoon ................ 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 

CA 52C .............................. San Dieguito Lagoon ................ 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 

Unit CA–52 Totals ...... .................................................... 11 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 7 3 

CA 53 ................................. Los Penasquitos Lagoon .......... 32 13 0 0 0 0 32 13 1 0 

CA 54A ............................... Fiesta Island .............................. 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

CA 54B ............................... Mariner’s Point .......................... 7 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 

CA 54C .............................. South Mission Beach ................ 38 15 0 0 0 0 8 3 30 12 

CA 54D .............................. San Diego River Channel ......... 51 21 0 0 0 0 38 15 13 5 

Unit CA–54 Totals ...... .................................................... 98 40 0 0 0 0 48 19 50 20 

CA 55B ............................... Coronado Beach ....................... 74 30 0 0 0 0 74 30 0 0 

CA 55E ............................... Sweetwater Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge and D Street 

Fill.

132 53 77 31 0 0 1 0 54 22 

CA 55F ............................... Silver Strand State Beach ......... 82 33 74 30 0 0 8 3 0 0 

CA 55G .............................. Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve .... 10 4 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 

CA 55I ................................ San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, South Bay Unit.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 

CA 55J ............................... Tijuana Estuary and Beach ....... 150 61 71 29 0 0 58 23 21 8 

Unit CA–55 Totals 

(does not include exempt sub-units).

.................................................... 453 183 222 90 0 0 151 61 80 32 

CALIFORNIA TOTALS..................................................... 19,014 7,695 3,436 1,390 0 0 10,279 4,160 5,301 2,145 

WASHINGTON, 

OREGON, 

CALIFORNIA 

GRAND TOTALS.

.................................................... 30,497 12,342 9,320 3,772 336 136 14,326 5,798 6,517 2,637 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our March 22, 2011, proposed rule 

(76 FR 16046), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

executive orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. We have now 

made use of the DEA data to make these 

determinations. In this document, we 

affirm the information in our proposed 

revised rule concerning Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 

13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, 

Supply, Distribution, and Use), the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the National Environmental 

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and 

the President’s memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA data, we are 

amending our required determination 

concerning the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

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 of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of 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. 

Based on our DEA of the proposed 

revised designation, we provide our 

analysis for determining whether the 

proposed revised designation would 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based on comments we receive, 

we may revise this determination as part 

of our final rulemaking. 

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; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2251 

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 designation 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 proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP would affect a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered the number of small entities 

affected within particular types of 

economic activities, such as 

development, recreation, habitat 

management or restoration activities 

(IEc 2011, p. A–5). In order to determine 

whether it is appropriate for our agency 

to certify that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, we considered each industry or 

category individually. In estimating the 

numbers of small entities potentially 

affected, we also considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Critical habitat 

designation will not affect activities that 

do not have any Federal involvement; 

designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. In areas where the Pacific 

Coast WSP is present, Federal agencies 

already are required to consult with us 

under section 7 of the Act on activities 

they fund, permit, or implement that 

may affect the species. If we finalize this 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation, consultations to avoid the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

In the DEA, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

entities resulting from implementation 

of conservation actions related to the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. The 

Service and the action agency are the 

only entities with direct compliance 

costs associated with this proposed 

revised critical habitat designation, 

although small entities may participate 

in section 7 consultation as a third 

party. It is, therefore, possible that the 

small entities may spend additional 

time considering critical habitat during 

section 7 consultation for the Pacific 

Coast WSP. The DEA indicates that the 

incremental impacts potentially 

incurred by small entities are limited to 

two private developers working through 

the Sand City Redevelopment Agency at 

the Sterling-McDonald site (Unit CA 22) 

and Security National Guaranty (SNG) 

(Unit CA 22). The indirect incremental 

impacts resulting from development of 

the Sterling-McDonald and the Security 

National Guaranty (SNG) site (Unit CA 

22) result from potential denial of 

development permits for the SterlingMcDonald and SNG sites by the 

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 

Both projects have been in planning for 

numerous years, and previous 

applications for development permits 

from the CCC have been denied due to 

being in noncompliance with the 

California Coastal Act of 1976. The 

projects have been subsequently 

modified to decrease impacts to coastal 

resources, and proponents are again 

seeking CCC approval. Because the 

project modifications have not yet been 

reviewed by the CCC, there is still some 

uncertainty as to whether the projects 

will be allowed to move forward at this 

time and thus result in the potential 

incremental impacts identified in the 

DEA. 

The Sterling-McDonald site plan calls 

for a 342 unit coastal resort. The project 

has been in planning since the 1990s 

and an Environmental Impact Report 

(EIR) under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is 

currently under development on the 

project’s current design. Project 

proponents expect the EIR to be 

completed in 2012. 

The 39-ac (16-ha) SNG site is also 

planned for a mixed-use resort and will 

include up to 341 units. The proposed 

project has completed an EIR under 

CEQA and as part of local and State 

permitting processes, SNG has prepared 

a detailed habitat protection plan (HPP) 

for the site. The HPP evaluates and 

proposes mitigation for potential 

impacts to biological resources, 

including the Pacific Coast WSP and its 

habitat. Two other federally listed 

species occur at the project site 

including the endangered Smith’s blue 

butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) 

(with proposed critical habitat: 42 FR 

7972; February 8, 1977) and threatened 

Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe 

pungens var. pungens) with final critical 

habitat (73 FR 1525; January 9, 2008). 

The HPP also includes proposed 

mitigation for these two species. The 

HPP has been reviewed by the local 

jurisdictions and has been subject to 

public review as part of the CCC hearing 

process in December 2009. Project 

proponents anticipate that the CCC will 

conditionally approve the final resort 

design on adoption and implementation 

of the HPP. Final approval of the HPP 

by CCC is anticipated prior to the 

issuance of the final revised critical 

habitat designation for the Pacific Coast 

WSP. 

The process for the CCC to issue 

permits for coastal development projects 

involves the development of Local 

Coastal Programs (LCPs) by cities and 

counties. LCPs are basic planning tools 

used by local governments to guide 

development in the coastal zone, in 

partnership with the CCC. After an LCP 

has been certified by the CCC to be in 

compliance with the Coastal Act 

requirements, the coastal permitting 

authority over most new development is 

transferred to the local government. As 

of 2008, approximately 72 percent of the 

LCPs have been certified by the CCC, 

representing close to 90 percent of the 

geographic area of the coastal zone. Unit 

CA–22 for the Pacific Coast WSP falls 

within the City of Sand City LCP which 

includes the coastal areas near the City 

of Sand City south to Bay Avenue in 

Monterey County, California. Since 

2004, when the City of Sand City LCP 

was approved by the CCC, the City of 

Sand City issued a total of 107 permits 

for development projects or other 

construction activity affecting coastal 

resources within the LCP (CCC 2010, 

pp. Part 3 16–17). The two small 

businesses represent less than 2 percent 

of the total number of actions permitted 

regionally by the City of Sand City and 

certified by the CCC. 

Due to the uncertainty of the status of 

the two projects, the extent of their 

indirect impacts, and the unavailability 

of data necessary to quantify impacts, 

the DEA does not quantify, but 

qualitatively discusses, these potential 

indirect impacts (IEc 2011, p. A–5). 

Please refer to the DEA of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation for a 

more detailed discussion of potential 

economic impacts. 

Our analysis constitutes an evaluation 

of not only potentially directly affected 

parties, but those also potentially 

indirectly affected. Under the RFA and 

following recent case law, we are only 

required to evaluate the direct effects of 

a regulation to determine compliance. 

Because the regulatory effect of critical 

habitat is through section 7 of the Act 

which applies only to Federal agencies, 

we have determined that only Federal 

agencies are directly affected by this 

rulemaking. Other entities, such as 

small businesses, are only indirectly 

affected. However, to better understand 

the potential effects of a designation of 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

critical habitat, we frequently evaluate 

the potential impact to those entities 

that may be indirectly affected, as was 

the case for this rulemaking. In doing so, 

we focus on the specific areas being 

designated as critical habitat and 

compare the number of small business 

entities potentially affected in that area 

with other small business entities in the 

regional area, versus comparing the 

entities in the area of designation with 

entities nationally—which is more 

commonly done. This results in an 

estimation of a higher proportion of 

small businesses potentially affected. In 

this rulemaking, we calculate that the 

proportion of small businesses 

potentially affected is less than 2 

percent of those regionally. If we were 

to calculate that value based on the 

proportion nationally, then our estimate 

would be significantly lower than 

1 percent. 

Following our evaluation of potential 

effects to small business entities from 

this rulemaking, we do not believe that 

the two small businesses or less than 

2 percent of the small businesses in the 

affected sector represents a substantial 

number. However, we recognize that the 

potential effects to these small 

businesses may be significant due to not 

quantifying the potential economic 

impacts. We will further evaluate the 

potential effects to these small 

businesses as we develop our final 

rulemaking. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed revised 

designation would result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Information 

for this analysis was gathered from the 

Small Business Administration, 

stakeholders, and the Service. We have 

identified two small entities that may be 

impacted by the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation. For the 

above reasons and based on currently 

available information, we certify that, if 

promulgated, the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Arcata Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Region 8, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to further 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be amended 

at 76 FR 16046, March 22, 2011, as 

follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

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. 

2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Plover, western snowy’’ under 

‘‘BIRDS’’ in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

BIRDS

* * * * * * * 

Plover, western 

snowy.

Charadrius nivosus 

nivosus.

U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, 

KS, NM, NV, OK, 

OR, TX, UT, WA), 

Mexico.

U.S.A. (CA, OR, 

WA), Mexico 

(within 50 miles of 

Pacific coast). 

T 493 17.95(b) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. Amend § 17.95(b), in the entry for 

‘‘Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius 

nivosus nivosus)—Pacific Coast 

Population’’ by redesignating 

paragraphs (87) through (108) as 

paragraphs (88) through (109) and 

revising paragraphs (82) through (86) 

and adding a new paragraph (87) to read 

as set forth below: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(b) Birds. 

* * * * * 

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius 

nivosus nivosus)—Pacific Coast 

Population. 

* * * * * 

(82) Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica 

State Beach, Orange County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica State 

Beach, Orange County, California] 

(ii) Note: Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa 

Chica Beach, Orange County, California, 

is depicted on the map in paragraph 

(87)(ii) of this entry. 

(83) Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa Chica 

Reserve, Orange County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa Chica Reserve, 

Orange County, California] 

(ii) Note: Subunit CA 46B: Bolsa 

Chica Reserve, Orange County, 

California, is depicted on the map in 

paragraph (87)(ii) of this entry. 

(84) Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa Chica 

Reserve, Orange County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa Chica Reserve, 

Orange County, California] 

(ii) Note: Subunit CA 46C: Bolsa 

Chica Reserve, Orange County, 

California, is depicted on the map in 

paragraph (87)(ii) of this entry. 

(85) Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica 

Reserve, Orange County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica Reserve, 

Orange County, California] 

(ii) Note: Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa 

Chica Reserve, Orange County, 

California, is depicted on the map in 

paragraph (87)(ii) of this entry. 

(86) Subunit CA 46E: Bolsa Chica 

Reserve, Orange County, California. 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2253 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

Subunit CA 46D: Bolsa Chica Reserve, 

Orange County, California] 

(ii) Note: Subunit CA 46E: Bolsa Chica 

Reserve, Orange County, California, is 

depicted on the map in paragraph 

(87)(ii) of this entry. 

(87) Subunit CA 46F: Bolsa Chica 

Reserve, Orange County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

Subunit CA 46F: Bolsa Chica Reserve, 

Orange County, California] 

(ii) Note: Map of Subunits CA 46A– 

46F: Bolsa Chica State Beach and Bolsa 

Chica Reserve, Orange County, 

California, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP17JA12.000</GPH>
2254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 4, 2012. 

Eileen Sobek, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–521 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0024; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AW89 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; 

reopening of comment period and 

announcement of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our September 27, 2011, revised 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog 

(Rana sevosa) [=Rana capito sevosa] 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). We are 

reopening the comment period to 

announce changes in methodology from 

the revised proposed rule and to allow 

all interested parties another 

opportunity to comment on the revised 

proposed rule. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted and 

will be fully considered in preparation 

of the final rule. We will also hold a 

public informational session and 

hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES

sections). 

DATES: Written Comments: We will 

consider comments received on or 

before March 2, 2012. Comments must 

be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time 

on the closing date. 

Public informational session and 

public hearing: We will hold a public 

informational session from 6 p.m. to 7 

p.m., followed by a public hearing from 

7 p.m. to 9 p.m., on January 31, 2012, 

in Gulfport, Mississippi. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You 

may submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ’’Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this proposed rule, 

which is FWS–R4–ES–2010–0024. 

Then, click on the search button. Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2010–0024; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; 

Arlington, VA 22203. 

Public Informational Session and 

Public Hearing 

The public informational session and 

hearing will be held at Gulfport High 

School (auditorium), 100 Perry Street, 

Gulfport, Mississippi 39507. 

People needing reasonable 

accommodations in order to attend and 

participate in the public hearing should 

contact Stephen Ricks, Mississippi 

Ecological Services Field Office, at (601) 

321–1122, as soon as possible (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In order 

to allow sufficient time to process 

requests, please call no later than one 

week before the hearing date (see 

DATES). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 

Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 

Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 

39213; by telephone (601) 321–1122; 

facsimile (505) 346–2542. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the revised 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog 

in this document. 

On September 27, 2011, we published 

a revised proposed rule (76 FR 59774) 

to designate critical habitat for the 

Mississippi gopher frog, and announced 

the availability of the draft economic 

analysis (DEA) for the revised proposed 

critical habitat designation. For a 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning the Mississippi gopher frog, 

please refer to the revised proposed 

rule. In response to comments we 

received during the public comment 

period that opened on September 27, 

2011 and closed on November 28, 2011, 

we have decided to allow the public 

more time to submit comments and to 

hold an informational session and 

public hearing (as described above), and 

to modify the revised proposed rule as 

described below. 

Changes From the Revised Proposed 

Rule 

As the starting point for delineating 

Mississippi gopher frog critical habitat 

in our revised proposed rule (76 FR 

59774), we used the median value of all 

data available to us on maximum 

distance movements of gopher frogs 

between their breeding ponds and 

upland habitats. However, in that 

revised proposed rule, we stated we 

used the mean value instead of the 

median. Of the two peer reviewers that 

commented during the comment period 

that closed on November 28, 2011, on 

whether the median or the mean of the 

maximum movement distances is most 

appropriate to use in the critical habitat 

delineation, one reviewer preferred the 

median and the other preferred the 

mean. 

Determining the optimum value to 

use in calculating the amount of habitat 

necessary for Mississippi gopher frog 

conservation is difficult, in part because 

the data were collected from different 

States, in studies with different 

objectives, and in habitat of differing 

quality. The maximum distance gopher 

frogs moved varied considerably among 

studies. At the low end of the range is 

a value of 240 meters (m) (787 feet (ft)) 

from one Mississippi gopher frog study, 

and at the upper end of the range is 

3,500 m (11,483 ft) for a gopher frog 

study in North Carolina. 

At the suggestion of one peer 

reviewer, we amended our methodology 

by combining all movement data from 

different studies conducted at the same 

site (Richter et al. 2001 and Tupy and 

Pechmann 2011, combined; Roznik 

2007, Roznik and Johnson 2009a, and 

Roznik et al. 2009, combined) and 

discarding one field observation (Carr 

1940) that did not provide specific data 

on breeding pond or upland habitat use. 

Based on the peer review comments we 

received and our further review of 

available data, we have determined the 

maximum movement distance values to 

be those provided in the table below. 

We continue to believe that the median, 

rather than the mean, is a more 

appropriate value to use in the 

delineation of critical habitat due to the 

skewed distribution of the data, and 

accordingly identified the median of the 

values in the table. 

Table 1. Movement of gopher frogs 

between wetland and upland sites*. 

Distance data represent the maximum 

straight line distance between the 

middle (except where noted) of a 

breeding pond and upland burrow sites 

for each gopher frog study. The gopher 

WREIER-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS