56970 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT89 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Pacific Coast 

Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

Pacific coast population of the western 

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus) pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 12,145 acres (ac) 

(4,921 hectares (ha)) fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The critical habitat is 

located within 3 states, and a total of 20 

counties. The county breakdown by 

State is as follows: California—San 

Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, 

Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, 

Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, 

Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del 

Norte; Oregon—Curry, Coos, Douglas, 

Lane, Tillamook; and Washington— 

Pacific, Grays Harbor. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

October 31, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon 

Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (telephone 707/ 

822–7201). The final rule, economic 

analysis, and supporting Geographic 

Information System (GIS) reports will 

also be available via the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/ 

default.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon 

Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (telephone 707/ 

822–7201; facsimile 707/822–8411). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides 

Little Additional Protection to Species 

In 30 years of implementing the Act, 

the Service has found that the 

designation of statutory critical habitat 

provides little additional protection to 

most listed species, while consuming 

significant amounts of available 

conservation resources. The Service’s 

present system for designating critical 

habitat has evolved since its original 

statutory prescription into a process that 

provides little real conservation benefit, 

is driven by litigation and the courts 

rather than biology, limits our ability to 

fully evaluate the science involved, 

consumes enormous agency resources, 

and imposes huge social and economic 

costs. The Service believes that 

additional agency discretion would 

allow our focus to return to those 

actions that provide the greatest benefit 

to the species most in need of 

protection. 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

While attention to and protection of 

habitat is paramount to successful 

conservation actions, we have 

consistently found that, in most 

circumstances, the designation of 

critical habitat is of little additional 

value for most listed species, yet it 

consumes large amounts of conservation 

resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because 

the Act can protect species with and 

without critical habitat designation, 

critical habitat designation may be 

redundant to the other consultation 

requirements of section 7.’’ Currently, 

only 473 species or 38 percent of the 

1,253 listed species in the U.S. under 

the jurisdiction of the Service have 

designated critical habitat. 

We address the habitat needs of all 

1,253 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

Section 4 recovery planning process, the 

Section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to 

the States, and the Section 10 incidental 

take permit process. The Service 

believes that it is these measures that 

may make the difference between 

extinction and survival for many 

species. 

We note, however that two courts 

found our definition of adverse 

modification to be invalid (March 15, 

2001, decision of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 

Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service et al., F.3d 434 and the August 

6, 2004, Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service). In 

response to these decisions, we are 

reviewing the regulatory definition of 

adverse modification in relation to the 

conservation of the species. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result of 

this consequence, listing petition 

responses, the Service’s own proposals 

to list critically imperiled species, and 

final listing determinations on existing 

proposals are all significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with almost no ability to 

provide for adequate public 

participation or to ensure a defect-free 

rulemaking process before making 

decisions on listing and critical habitat 

proposals due to the risks associated 

with noncompliance with judicially 

imposed deadlines. This situation in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless, is very expensive, and 

in the final analysis provides relatively 

little additional protection to listed 

species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the costs 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the costs of 

requesting and responding to public 

comments, and, in some cases, the costs 

of compliance with National 

Environmental Policy Act. None of 

these costs result in any benefit to the 

species that is not already afforded by 

the protections of the Act enumerated 

earlier, and these associated costs 

directly reduce the scarce funds 

available for direct and tangible 

conservation actions. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56971 

Background 

Background information on the 

Pacific coast population of the western 

snowy plover (Pacific Coast WSP) can 

be found in our final rule listing of the 

Pacific Coast WSP, published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on March 5, 1993 

(58 FR 12864), and our recent proposal 

of critical habitat for this population, 

published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 

75608). Additional background 

information is also available in our 

previous final designation of critical 

habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP, 

published on December 7, 1999 (64 FR 

68508). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For a discussion of previous Federal 

actions regarding the Pacific Coast WSP, 

please see our final rule listing the 

population, published on March 5, 1993 

(58 FR 12864), our recent proposal of 

critical habitat for this population, 

published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 

75608), and the December 7, 1999, final 

rule to designate critical habitat for the 

Pacific coast population of the western 

snowy plover (64 FR 68508). The 

December 7, 1999, was remanded and 

partially vacated by the United States 

District Court for the District of Oregon 

on July 2, 2003, for the Service to 

reconsider the designation and conduct 

a new analysis of economic impacts 

(Coos County Board of County 

Commissioners et. al. v. Department of 

the Interior et al., CV 02–6128, M. 

Hogan). The court set a deadline of 

December 1, 2004, for submittal of a 

new proposed critical habitat 

designation to the Office of the Federal 

Register; the proposed rule was 

published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 

75608). On August 16, 2005, we 

published in the FR (70 FR 48094) a 

notice of availability for the draft 

economic analysis associated with the 

proposed rule and we reopened the 

comment period on the proposed rule 

for 30 days. The court-established 

deadline for submittal of the final 

designation is September 20, 2005. This 

final rule complies with the September 

20, 2005, deadline. 

In August 2002, we received a 

petition to delist the Pacific Coast WSP 

from the Surf Ocean Beach Commission 

of Lompoc, California. The City of 

Morro Bay submitted largely the same 

petition dated May 30, 2003. On March 

22, 2004, we published a notice that the 

petition presented substantial 

information to indicate that delisting 

may be warranted (69 FR 13326). We are 

currently conducting both a 12-month 

and a 5-year status review of the 

population under sections 4(b)(3)(A), 

4(b)(3)(B) and 4(c)(2) of the Act, in order 

to issue the finding required by section 

4(b)(3)(B) in response to the petitions. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast 

WSP in the proposed rule published on 

December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608). We 

also contacted the appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies; Tribes; 

scientific organizations; and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule. We 

received two requests for a public 

hearing or ‘‘workshop’’ prior to the 

published deadline. Public meetings 

were held in Tomales, California, and 

Crescent City, California, on February 

14, 2005, and March 8, 2005, 

respectively. The initial comment 

period closed on February 15, 2005. A 

second comment period for the draft 

Economic Analysis (DEA) was open 

from August 16, 2005 to September 15, 

2005. All comments and new 

information received during the two 

comment periods have been 

incorporated into this final rule as 

appropriate. 

A total of 1,055 commenters 

responded during the two comment 

periods, including 8 Federal agencies, 4 

State agencies, 17 local agencies, 21 

organizations, and 1005 individuals. 

Form letters attributed the most 

comments on the proposed Lake Earl 

unit (CA 1), and comment cards and a 

petition accounted for most of the 

comments regarding the proposal of 

Dillon Beach (CA 7). Thirty-four 

commenters submitted two separate sets 

of comments. During the comment 

period from December 17, 2004, to 

February 15, 2005, we received 36 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and DEA: 1 from a State agency, 6 from 

local agencies, and 29 from 

organizations and individuals. 

Most comments did not support 

designation of critical habitat. The vast 

majority of comments objected to the 

designation of Dillon Beach (CA 7) and 

Lake Earl (CA 1). Five hundred ninety 

petition signatures and form letters 

objected to designation of Dillon Beach 

(CA 7) as critical habitat, and 117 form 

letters opposed designation of the Lake 

Earl unit (CA 1). The petition and form 

letters associated with these 2 units 

skewed the overall support for 

designation; representing approximately 

67 percent of the comments received. 

We reviewed all comments for 

substantive information and new data 

regarding the listed population and its 

critical habitat. Comments containing 

substantive information have been 

grouped together by issue and are 

addressed in the following summary. 

All comments and information have 

been incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited independent 

opinions from at least three 

knowledgeable individuals who have 

expertise with the species, the 

geographic region where the species 

occurs, and/or familiarity with the 

principles of conservation biology. Of 

the five individuals contacted, three 

responded. The peer reviewers generally 

supported the proposal and provided us 

with comments which are included in 

the summary below and incorporated 

into the final rule, as appropriate. 

Unless otherwise noted, the peer review 

commented on our proposed rule 

published December 17, 2004. 

Subsequent changes to our proposal 

reflected in the final rule resulting from 

comments received during the second 

comment period did not receive peer 

review comment. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

the western snowy plover, and 

addressed them in the following 

summary. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

1. Comment: A peer reviewer who 

conducts shorebird research in northern 

California through an academic 

institution agreed with the general 

biology presented in the proposed rule; 

however, the reviewer felt that 

describing the Pacific Coast WSP’s 

social system as territorial was 

misleading. Although true for breeding 

areas where the densities of nesting 

plovers is high, the reviewer stated that 

plovers in many parts of the Pacific 

Coast WSP’s range do not defend a welldefined space (i.e. territory). This point 

may be important when estimating the 

number of individual breeders that can 

be supported by an area of particular 

size. 

Our Response: We agree with the peer 

reviewer regarding the territorial nature 

of the Pacific Coast WSP, and his point 

relative to estimating the number of 

breeders capable of using a specified 

area. Our estimates provided in the unit 

descriptions were based on the best 

historical information we had from 

surveys conducted in the late 1970s. It 

is unknown if those estimates were 

56972 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

based on an already declining 

population, or a population that was at 

carrying capacity. In addition, changing 

conditions in the dynamic habitats 

preferred by the Pacific Coast WSP 

likely affects an area’s capacity to 

support breeding plovers. 

2. Comment: One peer reviewer is 

investigating the importance of social 

attraction in relation to the settlement of 

inexperienced Pacific Coast WSPs (i.e. 

first-time breeders). Preliminary data 

from Coal Oil Point suggest that social 

factors play a role in attracting plovers 

to nest in an area. If true, the 

management of wintering flocks may be 

important relative to determining where 

plovers nest (e.g. Coal Oil Point Preserve 

at U.C. Santa Barbara, California). 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s preliminary assessment of 

the Coal Oil Point Preserve study. Our 

designation of critical habitat recognizes 

the importance of both wintering and 

breeding areas. 

3. Comment: Two of the peer 

reviewers commented on our proposal 

to designate critical habitat only in areas 

currently occupied, or occupied at the 

time of listing. Specifically, the 1993 

listing was based, in part, on the 

absence of breeding plovers at formerly 

occupied sites, and the former critical 

habitat designation in 1999 made use of 

former and current site (1998) 

occupancy. Birds absent from formerly 

occupied sites may be an outcome of 

low population size, not necessarily 

because habitat has become unsuitable 

at a site. The proposed units place a 

higher emphasis on occupied sites than 

unoccupied. As the Pacific Coast WSP 

recovers, it will presumably need areas 

in which to expand; some of which are 

currently suitable, but unoccupied. 

Our Response: Although we 

acknowledge that unoccupied areas may 

be important for the conservation of 

many species, the Service determined 

that no unoccupied units were essential 

for conservation of this DPS. 

4. Comment: A peer reviewer 

suggested that the Eel River gravel bars 

below (i.e. downstream) of Fernbridge 

be included as designated critical 

habitat due to their importance as 

breeding habitat both locally, and in 

northern California and southern 

Oregon region. 

Our Response: We acknowledge the 

importance of the lower gravel bars on 

the Eel River to plover conservation in 

northern California; however, our data 

show that the pre-listing discovery of 

plovers on the Eel River system were 

above Fernbridge, and subsequent data 

from the mid to late 1990s indicates that 

most plover use was also between 

Fernbridge and the Van Duzen River. 

We also acknowledge that plover 

surveys outside of the area proposed for 

critical habitat (CA 4D) were inadequate 

during that time period. Without 

supporting data, we did not propose the 

lower portions of the Eel River as 

critical habitat. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, if a State 

agency files comments disagreeing with 

a proposed regulation, and the Service 

issues a final regulation in conflict with 

the State’s comments, or fails to adopt 

a regulation petitioned by a State 

agency, the Secretary shall submit to the 

State agency a written justification for 

her failure to adopt regulation 

consistent with the agency’s comments 

or petition. Comments received from 

States regarding the proposal to 

designate critical habitat for the western 

snowy plover are addressed below. 

5. State Comment: The California 

Department of Boating and Waterways 

commented that designation of critical 

habitat at Dillon Beach would restrict 

and prohibit boat launching along the 

beach and at the Lawson’s Landing 

facility, resulting in a significant fiscal 

impact. 

Our Response: Critical habitat has 

been designated at the proposed 

location since 1999 (64 FR 68508). The 

draft economic analysis for the 

proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR 

48094) differs from the State’s 

assessment, and concludes there is no 

significant economic impact at the 

proposed Dillon Beach unit. However, 

this unit was excluded from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see section titled Application 

of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

6. State Comment: The Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) supports the proposed 

designations in occupied units with the 

exception of unit boundaries for OR 8A 

and OR 10A. The State would like those 

unit boundaries to more closely 

coincide with the State’s draft HCP. 

Additionally, ODFW proposes 

designation of Bayocean and Clatsop 

River Spit as critical habitat. 

Our Response: Where possible, unit 

boundaries have been adjusted to 

conform more closely to the 

management boundaries presented in 

the State’s draft HCP. Bayocean Spit (OR 

3) is designated as critical habitat. We 

believe that ODFW was referring to the 

Columbia River Spit regarding their 

comment on the Clatsop River Spit 

because of the underlying federal 

ownership at that location. We are not 

designating the Columbia River Spit 

(subunit OR 1A in the proposed rule) 

because it was determined not to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

7. State Comment: The Oregon Parks 

and Recreation Department also 

generally supported designation of the 

proposed units; however, believes that 

only the occupied units should be 

designated to conform to the State’s 

HCP effort. 

Our Response: We have made 

adjustments to our occupied proposed 

units to have them more closely aligned 

with the State’s HCP effort. 

Comments Related to Previous Federal 

Actions, the Act, and Implementing 

Regulations 

8. Comment: Several commenters 

noted that the Service has pending 

action on the 12-month finding for a 

petition to delist the Pacific Coast WSP 

as a threatened species. 

Our Response: We are currently in the 

process of completing our status review 

for this species. The court’s deadline for 

completing this designation does not 

permit us to take into account whatever 

actions, if any, might ultimately result 

from our status review. If we conclude 

that the species remains in need of the 

protections of the Act, the critical 

habitat designated here will remain in 

place. If we determine that the species 

is not in need of the protection of the 

Act, and ultimately remove it from the 

list, then this critical habitat designation 

would be vacated. 

9. Comment: Several commenters 

indicated that the Service was violating 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) by not preparing an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Our Response: It is our position that 

we do not need to comply with NEPA 

in connection with designating critical 

habitat under the Act outside the 

jurisdictional areas of the Tenth Circuit 

Court. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This assertion was 

upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 

116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)). 

10. Comment: A commenter stated 

that the Service’s contention that several 

areas could be excluded because 

‘‘existing management is sufficient to 

conserve the species’’ is incorrect. They 

state that areas where management 

activities are being implemented to 

conserve the plover by definition 

‘‘require special management 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56973 

considerations or protection.’’

Otherwise, management activities 

would not have been implemented (e.g., 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 

240 F. Supp 2d 1090 (D. Az. 2003)). 

They also state that excluding areas 

under section 4(b)(2) based on the 

Service’s conclusion that the benefits of 

designating any area as critical habitat is 

insignificant, is also incorrect. They 

maintain that critical habitat 

designation can provide significant 

protection to a species’ habitat, 

particularly as that habitat pertains to 

recovery (as opposed to mere survival) 

(see Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. Department of Interior, 113 F. 3d 

1121, 1125–1127 (9th Cir. 1997); 

Conservation Council for Hawaii v. 

Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1285–1286 

(D. Ha. 1998)). 

Our Response: Rationale for any 

exemptions and exclusions of particular 

areas have been included in this 

document. We believe that the 

commenter has oversimplified the 

process by which lands are determined 

to be included, exempted, or excluded 

from a critical habitat determination. It 

is incorrect to state that the Service 

views the all benefits of designating 

critical habitat in any particular area as 

insignificant. Our analyses under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act weigh the 

benefits of exclusion against the benefits 

of inclusion and determine within any 

particular area whether it is appropriate 

to exclude. 

11. Comment: A commenter disagreed 

with the statement in the proposed rule, 

that ‘‘In 30 years of implementing the 

Act the Service has found that the 

designation of statutory critical habitat 

provides little additional protection to 

most listed species * * *’’ The 

commenter stated that the proposal 

includes absolutely no evidence to 

bolster these assertions, which are 

inconsistent with recent, controlling 

judicial decisions, congressional intent, 

and sound science. They asserted that 

the fact that the Service’s critical habitat 

decisions are driven by lawsuits and 

court-ordered deadlines is irrelevant to 

the Service’s mandatory obligation to 

designate critical habitat for the plover 

and other listed species. They also 

assert that the Service’s budget requests 

typically fall short of the amount of 

money necessary to address the backlog 

of listing and critical habitat, and that 

limited resources should not be used as 

an excuse for not designating critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: Comment noted. As 

discussed in the sections ‘‘Designation 

of Critical Habitat Provides Little 

Additional Protection to Species,’’ ‘‘Role 

of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of 

Administering and Implementing the 

Act,’’ and ‘‘Procedural and Resource 

Difficulties in Designating Critical 

Habitat’’ and other sections of this and 

other critical habitat designations, we 

believe that, in most cases, conservation 

mechanisms provided through section 7 

consultations, the section 4 recovery 

planning process, the section 9 

protective prohibitions of unauthorized 

take, section 6 funding to the States, the 

section 10 incidental take permit 

process, and cooperative programs with 

private and public landholders and 

tribal nations provide greater incentives 

and conservation benefits than does the 

designation of critical habitat. 

12. Comment: A commenter stated 

that the Service improperly excluded 

habitat areas that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that 

were included in the 1999 designation 

because they did not qualify based on 

either the criteria for breeding sites or 

the criteria for wintering sites. The 

Service failed to provide an adequate 

explanation of these criteria or any 

justification for the application of the 

criteria. Any areas included in the 1999 

designation that are not included in the 

proposed designation must be identified 

and the reasons for the reversal must be 

explained. They state that an agency 

changing a prior decision must apply a 

reasoned analysis. 

Our Response: The Service in issuing 

this new designation of critical habitat 

for the West Coast WSP conducted a 

new evaluation in order to determine 

what habitat features are essential. 

Further, new information has become 

available since the previous designation 

of critical habitat. We do not believe it 

is necessary to identify all changes from 

the previous CH designation; this new 

designation supercedes the previous 

designation. We also believe that a 

reasoned analysis is provided to justify 

the final designation of critical habitat 

for this population. 

Comments Related to Site-Specific 

Areas and Unoccupied Areas Identified 

for Possible Inclusion 

13. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service’s assertion that human 

activity is the primary threat to plovers 

is erroneous as animal predators are 

more responsible for plover kills. The 

commenter opines that the Service 

should focus its efforts on predator 

controls over global land use and 

development restrictions. Another 

commenter states that human activity 

reduces the adverse effects of predators 

and increases the plover’s success. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter that predators may directly 

kill and injure more plovers than 

humans do. However, we don’t agree 

that human activity in an area reduces 

the adverse effects of predators on 

plovers. Red foxes, crows, and ravens all 

may be equally or more effective at 

preying upon plovers in areas which are 

subject to human activity; plovers in 

contact with humans are probably more 

likely to be flushed from their nests and 

subject to subsequent predation. We do 

agree that a reduction of predation is 

beneficial to plovers; nest exclosures, 

predator-proof trash receptacles, and 

both lethal and non-lethal control of 

predators have been successful in 

reducing the impacts of predators on 

plover reproduction and survival. We 

believe that effective conservation 

measures for enhancing reproduction 

and survival can include a combination 

of actions to reduce both predator and 

human effects, depending upon the 

specific threats which need to be 

addressed. 

14. Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that Clatsop Spit (OR–1) 

be considered occupied because the 

Necanicum River Spit (OR–1B) had 

confirmed breeding plovers in 2000 and 

2002. 

Our Response: Our definition of 

occupancy required that the unit be 

occupied by snowy plovers at the time 

of listing. The definition of critical 

habitat in the ESA refers to habitat 

occupied at the time of listing, and 

Congress has established different 

criteria for designating habitat not 

occupied at the time of listing. 

Monitoring data from 1991 to 1995 

indicate that the area in question was 

likely unoccupied in 1993 at the time of 

the plover’s listing. Consequently, 

critical habitat units that were 

unoccupied during that period, but later 

occupied, were considered unoccupied 

for the purposes of this designation. The 

units described above were not 

designated as critical habitat because 

they were not found to be essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

15. Comment: One commenter 

believed that Sand Lake North (OR–5A) 

should not be included in the critical 

habitat designation because it was 

viewed as having little recovery benefit 

in the draft Oregon coast-wide Habitat 

Conservation Plan (DHCP) process. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter. Sand Lake North (OR–5A) 

has not been designated as critical 

habitat. 

16. Comment: Three commenters 

recommended adjusting the northern 

boundary of the Siltcoos River Spit unit 

(OR–8A) to correspond with the edge of 

the dry sand nesting season restriction 

that is approximately 0.6 mile (0.96 

kilometer) north of the Siltcoos River 

56974 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

mouth. A separate commenter noted 

that the ‘‘breach’’ just north of the 

Siltcoos River is a winter site that 

warrants special management 

consideration. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenters, and have adjusted the 

northern boundary of the critical habitat 

unit to correspond with the 2005 snowy 

plover management area. 

17. Comment: One commenter 

suggested adjusting the southern 

boundary of the Dunes Overlook/ 

Tahkenitch Creek Spit (OR–8B) critical 

habitat unit to match the off-highway 

vehicle closure boundary. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter and have made this 

adjustment. 

18. Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Tenmile Creek Spit 

(OR–8D) be reduced in size to no more 

than 100 feet north and 100 feet south 

of Tenmile Creek to maintain the 

current population and no more than 

100 yards north and south to 

accommodate recovery. 

Our Response: We did not modify the 

critical habitat designation. Reducing 

the size of this critical habitat unit 

would reduce protections afforded by 

the designation to highly mobile chicks 

during the rearing period, and to nesting 

and wintering adults. 

19. Comment: Two commenters 

suggested the southern boundary of 

Coos Bay North Spit (OR–9) be moved 

from 1⁄3 to 1⁄2 mile north of the jetty 

because western snowy plovers do not 

nest on the beach in that area. Another 

commenter recommended that we move 

the northern boundary of OR–9 about 1⁄4

mile south of the New Carrissa because 

western snowy plovers do not nest on 

the beach in that area. 

Our Response: We did not make the 

requested adjustment. Reducing the size 

of this critical habitat unit would reduce 

protections afforded by the designation 

to highly mobile chicks during the 

rearing period, and to nesting and 

wintering adults. 

20. Comment: Two commenters 

wanted to exclude the sand road behind 

the foredune in OR–9 as this is used for 

recreation and access by Corps of 

Engineers. 

Our Response: The foredune road at 

Coos Bay North Spit (OR–9) currently 

bisects a large habitat restoration (HRA) 

area that is managed and maintained as 

a breeding area. The management of the 

site includes closing the foredune road 

from 15 March to 15 September each 

year to reduce human disturbance and 

to facilitate brood movement from the 

HRA to the beach. Two alternate routes 

are available to access the north jetty, 

both of which avoid the HRA. These 

alternate routes are suitable to 

accommodate routine use. 

Consequently, we did not modify the 

designation in response to the 

commenters’ suggestion. 

21. Comment: Three commenters 

suggested moving the southern 

boundary of Bandon to Floras Lake unit 

(OR–10A) about 0.6 miles north since 

the area immediately west of Floras 

Lake is managed cooperatively with 

Curry County. Another commenter 

wanted to reduce the size of OR–10A to 

just those sites actually used by 

breeding snowy plovers with no more 

than a 100-yard buffer to the north and 

south of those sites. 

Our Response: We did not make the 

requested adjustments. Reducing the 

size of the critical habitat unit reduces 

protections afforded by the designation 

to highly mobile chicks during the 

rearing period, and to nesting and 

wintering adults as the Pacific Coast 

WSP expands with recovery. 

22. Comment: Many commenters 

(including a number of form letters) 

suggested removing the proposed Lake 

Earl unit (CA 1) from the final 

designation, while other commenters 

suggested eliminating the northern part, 

or the entire unit due to economic 

reasons, its narrowness, steep slope, and 

unsuitability resulting from dense 

European beachgrass. Commenters also 

questioned the value of designating 

critical habitat at the Lake Earl lagoon, 

stating that the Service has failed to 

show that nesting ever occurred at the 

unit’s location. 

Our Response: We agree with those 

commenters that provided information 

regarding the unsuitability of the 

narrow, northern portion of the 

proposed Lake Earl unit. The 

boundaries of the Lake Earl unit have 

been adjusted to remove the narrow, 

unsuitable portion to the north. The unit 

has been expanded to the State Park 

boundary to the south, resulting in an 

overall reduction in the unit’s size. 

However, we believe that the remainder 

of the unit is important geographically 

to other essential habitat areas for the 

conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Lake Earl was designated as critical 

habitat because of its importance as a 

wintering area and its potential to 

support significant breeding 

populations. Plovers have been 

observed in the Lake Earl lagoon system 

during the breeding season in 1991 

(PRBO, unpublished data) and nesting 

at Lake Talawa in 1997 (Page et al. 

1981). We believe the economic impact 

presented by commenters is overstated 

because the current importance of the 

unit to plovers is based primarily on its 

utility as wintering habitat. Impacts to 

OHV and other recreational uses are 

minimal because much of the revised 

unit is difficult to access in winter due 

to the open breach of the Lake Earl 

lagoon. 

23. Comment: One commenter states 

that the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

has failed to meet with the 

representatives and citizens of Del Norte 

County to discuss how critical habitat 

designation may restrict recreational 

use, reduce land values, and effect the 

breaching of lakes. 

Our Response: Staff from the Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office provided a 

presentation on the proposed critical 

habitat and answered questions at a Del 

Norte County Board of Supervisors 

(Board) meeting on March 8, 2005. The 

Arcata office held an additional public 

meeting in the Board’s chambers on 

June 9, 2005, to discuss issues with the 

public regarding critical habitat 

designation. At both meetings, staff 

stated that restrictions applied to 

recreation and other uses within 

suitable plover habitat are dependant on 

the managing entity’s actions, and are 

usually implemented in an effort to 

avoid take of a listed species rather than 

as a result of critical habitat designation. 

Service staff also stated that they are not 

qualified to make economic 

determinations regarding land values, 

and advised the Board and meeting 

participants to review the economic 

analysis when it became available. 

Service staff also discussed their 

January 05, 2005 biological/conference 

opinion for the 10-year Permit to breach 

the Lake Earl sandbar. In that biological 

opinion, no restrictions were imposed 

as a result of the proposal to designate 

critical habitat at the breach site 

(Section 7 consultation 8–14–05–2577). 

24. Comment: A few commenters 

believed that the Clam Beach/Little 

River subunit should not be designated 

as critical habitat because of impacts to 

recreational uses and the resultant 

impacts to the local economy. One 

commenter mentioned that he had in 

his possession an informal survey 

support the impacts attributed to plover 

management activities. 

Our Response: The draft Economic 

Analysis does not attribute a significant 

fiscal impact to designating critical 

habitat at the Clam Beach/Little River 

subunit (CA 3A). Additionally, the 

Humboldt County Public Works 

Department has stated that visitation is 

increasing at Clam Beach County Park 

(within subunit CA 3A), further 

indicating that visitor use is not 

significantly affected by plover 

management or potential critical habitat 

designation. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56975 

25. Comment: Many people 

(including signers of several petitions 

and form letters) commented on the 

proposed Dillon Beach (CA 7) unit. 

Overall, six supported designation of 

the unit; 14 did not state their position 

but requested information or public 

hearings, or suggested foci for the 

economic assessment; and the rest were 

opposed to the designation. Of those 

opposed, all but three indicated concern 

over loss of access to the beach. Other 

concerns raised included potential 

negative impacts to small businesses 

and local property values due to loss of 

beach access (94 commenters); and a 

perception that the proposed unit is not 

important to WSP conservation since 

snowy plovers do not nest there (458 

commenters). People also disputed the 

conservation importance of the site, 

claiming that some other site would be 

better (39 commenters), and that the 

plovers are doing well enough at Dillon 

Beach to make critical habitat 

designation unnecessary (39 

commenters). Four commenters pointed 

out that the identification of humans 

and pets as potential threats in the unit 

description implies an intent to restrict 

access by humans and pets. One 

hundred eight commenters requested a 

public workshop or hearing. Additional 

points raised included a concern that 

designation would influence state or 

local agencies to restrict recreational 

activities or land-use permits in the 

area. One commenter also argued that 

since plovers from outside the listed 

coastal population over winter on 

California beaches, there is no way to 

know whether those at Dillon Beach are 

from the listed or unlisted population. 

Our Response: This unit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, primarily based upon the 

landowner’s willingness to enter a 

partnership ensure conservation (see 

section titled Application of Section 

3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). We 

identified the Dillon Beach site as 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because it has the essential 

habitat features, and because surveys 

have found higher populations of 

wintering plovers there than any other 

coastal site north of San Francisco (Page 

in litt. 2003). Adult over wintering 

survival is essential to the recovery of 

the population (Nur et al 1999). The 

surveys have also consistently noted 

numerous plovers banded as chicks at 

other coastal beaches, indicating that all 

or a substantial portion of plovers at the 

site are from the listed population 

(Watkins, in litt. 2005). In response to 

the requests for a public workshop or 

hearing, we hosted a well-attended 

public workshop in the area on 

February 14th, 2005, where these points 

were explained. 

26. Comment: Several people 

commented on the units proposed for 

Sonoma, Marin and San Francisco 

Counties. One comment was on behalf 

of the Pt. Reyes National Seashore in 

support of the designation. Another was 

written at the public workshop held for 

Dillon Beach, and was generally 

supportive. A third letter provided 

information regarding pets at Limantour 

Spit (CA 9) but was otherwise neutral. 

The final two letters were neutral but 

encouraged us to include additional 

areas; specifically Ocean Beach, San 

Francisco County, and Salmon Creek 

and Doran Spit, Sonoma County. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information and support provided, and 

support the habitat restoration measures 

outlined by the Pt. Reyes National 

Seashore. We have decided not to 

include the suggested additional areas 

because they do not meet our three 

criteria from the Methods section: They 

do not support either sizeable nesting 

populations or wintering populations, 

nor do they provide unique habitat or 

facilitate genetic exchange between 

otherwise widely separated units. 

Although we do not consider these areas 

essential for recovery, we do consider 

them important, and will continue to 

review projects in these areas that might 

affect WSP as required by sections 7 and 

10 of the Act. 

27. Comment: One commenter 

requested the Service exclude, under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, certain lands 

within the Oceano Dunes State 

Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA), 

from the designation of critical habitat 

for the western snowy plover for 

economic and other reasons. The 

commenter suggested that because no 

direct public access exists from the 

south, the structure of the park requires 

vehicles to drive along the shoreline, 

through areas proposed for critical 

habitat, to access areas of the dunes 

used by off-road vehicles. 

Our Response: In the final rule, we 

have removed the heavily disturbed 

open riding area of the ODSVRA from 

the entrance of the park and extending 

to the southern exclosure. The 

remainder of this unit was excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

28. Comment: The same commenter 

stated that economic costs of inclusion 

(at ODSVRA) are great. 

Our Response: This unit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

29. Comment: The same commenter 

pointed out that conservation measures 

have been implemented at ODSVRA 

that have resulted in an increase in the 

number of nesting western snowy 

plovers, as well as an increase in their 

fledge rate, at this site. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter that conservation measures 

implemented at ODSVRA have been 

very effective, resulting in increased 

numbers of nesting western snowy 

plovers. Consequently, during the 2004 

nesting season, ODSVRA supported 

approximately 4.6 percent of the coastal 

population of western snowy plovers. 

Of the 147 nests located at this site in 

2004, 95 percent were found within the 

areas managed for western snowy 

plovers (State Parks 2004). 

30. Comment: The same commenter 

stated that State Parks is currently 

preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) for the San Luis Obispo Coast 

District including the ODSVRA. 

Our Response: We are aware that 

State Parks is preparing a draft HCP for 

this area. It is not our policy to exclude 

areas from critical habitat based upon 

management plans which have not yet 

been made available for our review. 

However, this unit was excluded from 

critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

31. Comment: Two commenters 

requested exclusion of three parcels 

(identified as the McDonald site (16.2 

acres), the Sterling site (approximately 7 

acres), and the Lonestar site (39 acres)) 

along the coastline of Sand City from 

critical habitat for the western snowy 

plover, stating that a 1996 Memorandum 

of Understanding (1996 MOU) between 

the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Monterey Peninsula 

Regional Parks District, City of Sand 

City, and Sand City Redevelopment 

Agency established a plan that ‘‘* * * 

would actively manage (western snowy 

plover)/human interaction, thus 

maximizing the likelihood of (western 

snowy plover) recovery * * *.’’

Our Response: We have reviewed the 

1996 MOU. At no point does it mention 

56976 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

western snowy plovers or their 

management. It does state that the 

signatories ‘‘desire’’ to ‘‘(s)upport efforts 

to restore sand dunes and associated 

dune vegetation and habitat’’ and 

‘‘(c)reate and preserve a north/south 

habitat corridor for endangered and 

threatened species’’. However, the 1996 

MOU does not outline any specific 

actions to meet the habitat needs of 

western snowy. However, this unit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

32. Comment: Two commenters 

requested exclusion of three parcels (as 

described above) along the coastline of 

Sand City from critical habitat for the 

western snowy plover, stating that a 

habitat conservation plan (HCP) being 

developed for the area is likely to assist 

in the recovery of the species and that 

designation of critical habitat within the 

subject parcels could disrupt the HCP 

planning process. 

Our Response: We are available to 

assist non-federal landowners in 

development of HCPs that address listed 

species, including the western snowy 

plover. However, the ongoing 

development of a draft habitat 

conservation plan does not assure that 

the plan will be adequate or 

implemented. This unit was excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

33. Comment: A commenter requested 

exclusion of three parcels (as described 

above) along the coastline of Sand City 

from critical habitat for the western 

snowy plover, stating that there would 

be little benefit to designating critical 

habitat within the subject parcels 

(largely because the commenter believes 

that there would be no consultation 

under section 7 of the Act for activities 

within those parcels). 

Our Response: This unit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). The primary benefit of any critical 

habitat with regard to activities that 

require consultation pursuant to section 

7 of the Act is to ensure that the 

activities will not destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat. We 

believe that the commenter’s conclusion 

that activities within the subject parcels 

would not require section 7 

consultation(s) is premature. At a 

minimum, the Service would be 

required to conduct an internal section 

7 consultation before any incidental 

take permit could be issued through the 

HCP process. Any other action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by a 

Federal agency that may affect a listed 

species would also require section 7 

consultation. 

34. Comment: A commenter requested 

exclusion of three parcels along the 

coastline of Sand City (as described 

above) from critical habitat for the 

western snowy plover, stating that 

designation of critical habitat within the 

subject parcels would have adverse 

economic effects on the City of Sand 

City by preventing future development 

activities within the subject parcels. 

Our Response: This unit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

35. Comment: A commenter requested 

exclusion of three parcels (as described 

above) along the coastline of Sand City 

from critical habitat for the western 

snowy plover, stating that because the 

subject parcels account for only 

approximately 20 percent of the Sand 

City coastline and represent marginal 

habitat, that their development would 

not impede recovery of the species. 

Our Response: The majority of 

documented western snowy plover 

nests along the Sand City coastline have 

occurred within the three subject 

parcels (Noda in litt. 2003). In addition 

to breeding habitat, Sand City beaches 

have provided habitat for wintering 

western snowy plovers (Noda in litt. 

2003). However, this unit was excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

36. Comment: One commenter 

requested the Service minimize the 

areas of the Nipomo Dunes and Morro 

Bay designated as critical habitat for the 

‘‘coastal plover’’. 

Our Response: This unit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

37. Comment: One commenter 

suggested that two beaches in Santa 

Barbara County (East Beach and the 

breakwater Sand Spit in Santa Barbara 

Harbor) should be included in the final 

rule. The commenter also stated that 

these two sites were included in the 

1999 final rule, but were excluded in 

our proposed rule without explanation. 

The exclusion of these two beaches 

without proper documentation and 

analysis is unsupported. 

Our Response: Our current 

designation of critical habitat is 

different from the 1999 rule in two 

primary ways. In this designation, we 

utilized a different methodology for 

determining essential areas, and we 

relied upon additional scientific 

information which was not available in 

1999. Thus, this rule, while similar in 

many respects to that in 1999, is a new 

designation, and does not designate the 

same areas. 

38. Comment: Several commenters 

noted a discrepancy between the 

description of subunit CA 19A and the 

map for this subunit. The subunit is 

described as extending 6.1 mi (9.8 km) 

along the coast from the north jetty of 

the Channel Islands harbor. However 

the map of this subunit (Map 54) depicts 

it as starting about 1 mile north of the 

jetty. The commenters noted that the 

area immediately north of the jetty is 

known as Hollywood Beach and is an 

‘‘active critical habitat area of the 

western snowy plover.’’

Our Response: Although the 

description of subunit CA 19A in the 

proposed rule included the Hollywood 

Beach area, an error was made during 

the preparation of the maps and 

Hollywood Beach was inadvertently not 

shown. We have now corrected that 

error, and Hollywood Beach is included 

in this final designation for the plover. 

39. Comment: A commenter pointed 

out that, although the 2004 proposed 

rule states that all 61 ac proposed for 

designation at unit CA 13 (Pt. Sur 

Beach) are privately owned, a portion of 

the 61 ac is actually state lands. If the 

intent of the critical habitat designation 

is only to include private lands, then the 

commenter objects because the habitat 

features essential for the conservation of 

the plover are equally present in both 

the public and private portions of the 

unit and both public and private lands 

should be included. 

Our Response: A table in the 

proposed rule (69 FR 75608) 

erroneously listed unit CA 13 as being 

private land. In actuality, unit CA 13 is 

entirely made up of State-owned land as 

stated in the text description for the 

unit. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56977 

40. Comment: A commenter stated 

that one of the functions of the jetty at 

the south end of subunit CA 19A is to 

act as a sand trap. Every 2 years they are 

required to dredge sand from this 

location and transport it farther south 

along to coast where there is erosion 

occurring. The commenter further noted 

that the biannual dredging has been 

ongoing for 40 years, and that the 

discontinuation of dredging could result 

in the creation of extremely hazardous 

conditions to vessels in the area. The 

commenter urged the Service to remove 

this sand trap area from the designation. 

Our Response: Hollywood Beach, the 

area north of the jetty to which the 

commenter is referring is both a nesting 

and a wintering area for snowy plovers 

and has been determined to contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. Therefore, we have 

included it in this final designation. We 

also point out that the designation of 

critical habitat does not prevent the 

sand dredging from occurring. If the 

action is permitted or authorized by a 

Federal agency, the Service would likely 

be involved with or without the critical 

habitat designation through a section 7 

consultation with the Federal agency. 

We will continue to work with dredging 

operators to ensure endangered species 

conservation is made compatible with 

the safety of all vessels. 

41. Comment: A commenter requested 

that two areas within or near the city of 

Morro Bay not be included in the 

designation. The commenter 

characterized the area south of Highway 

41/Atascadero Road to Morro Bay Rock 

in subunit CA 15B as being heavily used 

for recreation and including parking 

lots, restrooms, lifeguard towers. The 

commenter also stated that we were in 

error when we said that subunit 15B is 

near the city of Morro Bay and is 

managed entirely by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation. 

The area south of Atascadero Road is 

within the city limits and is owned and 

managed by the city. Similarly, the 

commenter stated we were in error 

when we said that the area south of 

Atascadero Road is an important 

breeding area supporting up to 40 nests 

each year when in fact there has never 

been any documentation of nesting or 

breeding in this area. 

The second area the commenter 

requested not be included in subunit CA 

15B extends north from Azure Street to 

the north end of the subunit. The 

commenter characterizes this area as 

being heavily populated with hundreds 

of homes and a State campground with 

thousands of visitors per year. The 

commenter further noted that few nests 

have been observed in this area and 

only in some years does nesting occur 

at all in the area. 

Our Response: When we stated in the 

proposed rule (69 FR 75608) that 

subunit 15B was an important breeding 

area supporting up to 40 nests each 

year, we were discussing the entire 

subunit, not just the area south of 

Atascadero Road. However, as no nests 

have been documented for the area 

south of Atascadero Road and this area 

is highly disturbed, we have removed it 

from the designation as not being 

essential to the conservation of the 

plover. The remainder of this subunit 

was excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

42. Comment: A commenter requested 

that Hueneme Beach Park in subunit CA 

19B not be included in the designation. 

The commenter characterized the park 

as a highly disturbed and heavily used 

recreational resource that is not 

appropriate for critical habitat. The park 

includes a fishing pier, picnic tables, 

barbeques, restaurant, parking lots, dog 

walk, and volleyball courts, and is also 

the location of biennial sand 

replenishment activities. 

Our Response: Based on the 

information provided by the commenter 

and because there are no nesting plovers 

in the area, we have removed Hueneme 

Beach Park from subunit CA 19B 

because it is highly disturbed and not 

essential to the conservation of the 

western snowy plover. However, the 

remainder of subunit CA 19B has been 

designated as critical habitat. 

43. Comment: A commenter requested 

that the Santa Barbara Harbor from Pt. 

Castillo to Salinas Creek and including 

the sand spit at the end of the 

breakwater be included in the critical 

habitat designation as it was in 1999. 

Our Response: Although the area to 

which the commenter is referring was 

included in the 1999 designation (64 FR 

68508) as CA–14 unit 2—Point Castillo/ 

Santa Barbara Harbor Beach, we used a 

different methodology and set of criteria 

to determine critical habitat in the 2004 

proposal (69 FR 75608). The Point 

Castillo/Santa Barbara Harbor Beach 

area was not included in the 2004 

proposal because it did not meet the 

criteria for critical habitat established 

for the designation. 

44. Comment: A commenter believes 

that the expansion of critical habitat in 

CA–18, Devereux Beach would be an 

ineffective form of conservation for the 

plover. As stated in the proposed 

designation (69 FR 75608), ‘‘In 30 years 

of implementing the Act, the Service 

has found that the designation of 

statutory critical habitat provides little 

additional protection to most listed 

species, while consuming significant 

amounts of available conservation 

resources.’’ Furthermore, research 

conducted by Lafferty (2001) at Coal Oil 

Point indicates that expansion of the 

fenced area on the beach did not 

provide comparable gains in plover 

protection. 

Our Response: This unit does not 

represent an expansion. This area was 

included in the original 1999 critical 

habitat designation for the plover (64 FR 

68508) as CA–14, unit 1—Devereux 

Beach. In the original designation, the 

unit contained approximately 57 ac, 

while in the 2004 proposed rule, the 

unit is only 36 ac. The referenced 

fenced area is for the protection of 

nesting plovers. However, nesting 

plovers may forage over the entire beach 

and plovers also winter over the entire 

beach. Therefore, we have designated 

Devereux Beach as critical habitat for 

the plover, not just the area that is 

fenced to protect nesting plovers. 

45. Comment: Another commenter 

noted that the California Coastal 

Commission has banned dogs from 

Devereux Beach (unit CA 18) where 

critical habitat has been designated and 

that the area designated at Devereux 

Beach should be reduced. 

Our Response: Devereux Beach is 

both a plover breeding area and a 

wintering area, with as many as 360 

wintering birds. Unit CA 18 also 

contains the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. Therefore, we have 

designated 36 ac in this area as critical 

habitat for the plover, which is reduced 

from the approximately 57 ac 

designated in this area in 1999 (64 FR 

68508). 

46. Comment: Los Padres National 

Forest concurred with the decision of 

the Service not to include in the critical 

habitat designation location CA–69 (San 

Carpoforo Beach) from the draft 

recovery plan for the western snowy 

plover. San Carpoforo Beach is a very 

small beach that is occupied mainly by 

a few (about 35) wintering plovers. 

Our Response: We concur. San 

Carpoforo Beach was not included in 

the critical habitat designation because 

it did not meet the criteria we set forth 

in this final designation. 

47. Comment: One commenter 

applauded the Service for designating 

critical habitat for the plover in San Luis 

Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura 

Counties, but also stated that all areas 

occupied by plovers should be 

designated. 

56978 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: The Act states, at 

section 3(5)(C), that except in particular 

circumstances determined by the 

Secretary, critical habitat shall not 

include the entire geographical area 

which can be occupied by the 

threatened or endangered species. We 

have designated habitat that contain 

sufficient features essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

48. Comment: One commenter asked 

that Morro Bay’s sandspit and beach 

[CA 15C] not be designated. 

Our Response: This subunit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

49. Comment: One commenter 

believed that San Buenaventura Beach 

should be included as it was in the 1999 

designation. 

Our Response: Although the area to 

which the commenter is referring was 

included in the 1999 designation, we 

used a different methodology and set of 

criteria to determine critical habitat in 

the 2004 proposal (69 FR 75608). The 

San Buenaventura Beach area was not 

included because it did not meet the 

criteria for critical habitat established 

for the designation. 

50. Comment: Two commenters stated 

that, since the criteria used to determine 

critical habitat for the western snowy 

plover are improper, those areas in San 

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura 

Counties that were included in the 1999 

designation but excluded in the 2004 

proposal (Arroyo Hondo, Arroyo 

Laguna, Torro Creek, Jalama, Point 

Castillo/Santa Barbara Harbor, 

Carpinteria Beach, and San 

Buenaventura) should be included as 

critical habitat. These beaches should be 

included in the final designation as they 

are utilized by the species for wintering, 

they contain the identified primary 

constituent elements that may require 

special management, and the sites are 

essential to the survival and recovery of 

the plover. 

Our Response: Although the areas to 

which the commenters are referring 

were included in the 1999 designation, 

we used a different methodology and set 

of criteria to determine critical habitat 

in the 2004 proposal (69 FR 75608). 

These areas were not included in the 

2004 proposal because they did not 

meet the criteria for critical habitat 

established for the designation. 

51. Comment: A commenter stated 

that the Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes 

National Wildlife Refuge should be 

included in the final designation and 

that the Service’s exclusion of this area 

because it is subject to a ‘‘plover 

management plan’’ that has undergone 

section 7 review was improper. No 

information was provided on the 

management plan to determine whether 

or not the plan provides a conservation 

benefit or otherwise meets the Service’s 

criteria for adequate plans. In addition, 

the fact that the plan has undergone 

section 7 consultation does not 

demonstrate that the plan provides any 

benefits for the plover. The Service also 

failed to adequately balance the benefits 

of inclusion vs. the benefits of inclusion 

for the area when it was excluded. 

Our Response: We have now included 

more detailed information on the 

Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes National 

Wildlife Refuge plover management 

plan in this final rule. The refuges meet 

our criteria for management plans. See 

the Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below for a 

detailed discussion of our exclusion of 

this refuge. 

52. Comment: One commenter noted 

two areas in Orange County that were 

not proposed for critical habitat but are 

used by wintering plovers and 

constitute high quality habitat. One area 

is Surfside Beach in northern Orange 

County and the other is Newport Beach 

between Balboa Pier and the entrance to 

Newport Bay. 

Our Response: Snowy Plovers were 

not discovered using these sites until 

the fall of 2004. We recognize that both 

locations support high quality habitat 

with large concentrations of snowy 

plovers, and have the potential to 

support breeding birds. However, the 

Service did not determine these areas to 

be essential to the conservation of the 

DPS and they were not designated as 

critical habitat. We are working with 

local jurisdictions and managers to 

reduce the threats to snowy plovers at 

these sites. 

53. Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the Subunit CA 21D, Hermosa State 

Beach, is located in a heavily populated 

urban environment and should not be 

considered critical habitat. They also 

expressed concern over future 

restrictions on beach use. 

Our Response: Hermosa Beach 

annually supports a relatively large 

wintering flock of snowy plovers (69 FR 

75627). This flock persists despite the 

heavy recreational use of the beach area. 

Nearly all beaches in southern 

California are subject to heavy 

recreational use. To restrict snowy 

plovers to beaches without heavy 

recreational use would limit the plovers 

to few if any beaches in southern 

California. 

54. Comment: Some commenters 

questioned the value of designating 

critical habitat at the Lake Earl lagoon 

(CA 1), and state that the Service failed 

to show that nesting ever occurred at the 

unit’s location. 

Our Response: Plovers were observed 

during the breeding season west of the 

Lake Earl lagoon during a breeding 

season window survey in 1991 (PRBO 

unpublished data). No plovers were 

observed during the subsequent survey 

in 1995 (an incomplete survey year, 

PRBO unpublished data). Page, et al., 

1981, states that nesting plovers were 

found on the beach at Lake Talawa (i.e. 

western most portion of the Lake Earl 

lagoon system) during May, 1997. 

Yocom and Harris suspected breeding at 

the same location in 1975, but were 

unable to confirm it. Plovers currently 

overwinter within the designated CA 1 

unit. 

55. Comment: One commenter states 

that the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

has failed to meet with the County of 

Del Norte and private citizens to 

comment on restricted recreational use, 

loss in land values, and effects on the 

‘‘Federal project’’ of breaching lakes. 

Our Response: Staff from the Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office provided a 

presentation on the proposed critical 

habitat and answered questions at a Del 

Norte County Board of Supervisors 

(Board) meeting on March 8, 2005, at 

the Board’s request. The Arcata office 

held an additional public meeting in the 

Board’s chambers on June 9, 2005, to 

discuss issues with the public regarding 

critical habitat designation. At both 

meetings, staff stated that restrictions 

applied to recreation and other uses 

within suitable plover habitat are 

dependant on the managing entity’s 

actions, and are usually implemented in 

an effort to avoid take of a listed species 

rather than as a result of critical habitat 

designation. Staff also stated that they 

are not qualified to make economic 

determinations regarding land values, 

and further stated that is why the 

Service contracts out the economic 

analysis for designation. With regards to 

the ‘‘Federal Project’’ of breaching the 

Lake Earl lagoon system, Service staff 

referenced the recently completed 

biological/conference opinion (January 

05, 2005) for the 10-year Permit to 

breach the Lake Earl sandbar. No 

mitigation, protective measures, or 

restrictions on the proposed action, or 

any activity, were imposed as a result of 

the proposal to designate critical habitat 

at the breach site (Section 7 consultation 

8–14–05–2577). If not for the Federal 

action (i.e. mechanical breaching), the 

lagoon would breach on its own at a 

higher water level. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56979 

56. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service’s assertion that human 

activity is the primary threat to plovers 

is erroneous as animal predators are 

more responsible for plover kills. The 

commenter opines that the Service 

should focus its efforts on predator 

controls over global land use and 

development restrictions. Another 

commenter states that human activity 

lowers the adverse effects of predators, 

and increases the plover’s success. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter that predators are likely 

responsible for more direct kills and 

injuries; however, humans have 

contributed to the impacts of predators. 

Nest and chick predators have been 

introduced into areas where they are not 

native, and impact the reproductive 

success and survival of plovers (e.g. red 

fox). When humans and their pet flush 

nesting plovers on sandy beaches, the 

plovers leave tracks in the sand as they 

move off and on to the nest. Corvids use 

the plover tracks to locate nests, 

increasing the opportunities for 

successful nest predation. Human 

development and trash in and adjacent 

to suitable plover habitat has increased 

the incidence of some plover predators 

(ravens and crows). Additionally, 

human activities, such as development 

and beach raking, have rendered some 

beach sections totally unusable to 

breeding plovers, reducing the number 

of areas suitable for nesting. The areas 

with the highest predation rates usually 

do have some predator management 

associated with them. Nest exclosures, 

predator-proof trash receptacles, 

aversions conditioning, and both lethal 

and non-lethal control of predators has 

been successful in reducing the impacts 

of predators on plover reproduction and 

survival. We believe that these actions 

implemented to reduce the impact of 

predators on plover nesting, and other 

management measures designed to 

reduce the potential impacts of humans 

(e.g. use of symbolic fencing, public 

education, and enforcement of 

regulations), are responsible for the 

increases in plover breeding success 

documented at many locations. 

Comments Related to Military Lands 

57. Comment: A commenter stated 

Vandenberg Air Force Base should not 

be excluded unless there is a final 

integrated natural resources 

management plan. 

Our Response: All lands essential to 

the conservation of the western snowy 

plover at Vandenberg have been 

excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act from the final designation of critical 

habitat because of alternative protective 

measures provided by the Air Force and 

because of the national security issues 

the Air Force stated in their February 7, 

2005, comment letter (see the 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below for a 

detailed discussion). 

58. Comment: The Air Force 

submitted several comments relating to 

the exclusion of Vandenberg Air Force 

Base (Vandenberg) from critical habitat. 

They state that: (1) The Air Force has 

worked with the Service to revise the 

INRMP (which is expected to be 

completed in 2005), and that the INRMP 

contains special management activities 

that adequately address the 

conservation of suitable habitat 

important to long-term protection and 

recovery of the western snowy plover; 

(2) the western snowy plover and its 

habitat are already being protected at 

Vandenberg by the Air Force’s Beach 

Management Plan; (3) all the proposed 

critical habitat areas on Vandenberg are 

occupied throughout the year and 

subject to consultation pursuant to 

section 7 of the Act; (4) the INRMP and 

Beach Management Plan together 

provide a greater level of protection for 

the western snowy plover and its habitat 

than a designation of critical habitat 

would provide; and (5) that the 

designation of critical habitat at 

Vandenberg would interfere with its 

mission execution and military training 

critical to national security. 

Our Response: All lands essential to 

the conservation of the western snowy 

plover at Vandenberg have been 

excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act from the final designation of critical 

habitat because of alternative protective 

measures provided by the Air Force and 

because of the national security issues 

the Air Force discussed in their 

February 7, 2005, comment letter (see 

the Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below for a 

detailed discussion). 

59. Comment: The Navy commented 

that Naval Base Ventura County has a 

finalized INRMP that contains 

management actions that benefit the 

western snowy plover and its habitat. 

Naval Base Ventura County also has a 

biological opinion from the Service 

(issued on June 6, 2001) for all routine 

operations, a major part of which covers 

the western snowy plover. The INRMP 

incorporates all management actions 

being carried out by Naval Base Ventura 

County in response to the biological 

opinion. 

Our Response: We have reviewed 

Naval Base Ventura County’s INRMP 

and biological opinion. The Secretary 

determined, in writing, that Naval Base 

Ventura County’s INRMP provides a 

benefit to the western snowy plover and 

therefore, consistent with Public Law 

108–136 (Nov. 2003): Nat. Defense 

Authorization Act for FY04 and Section 

4(a)(3) of the Act, the Department of 

Defense’s Naval Base Ventura County is 

exempt from critical habitat based on 

the adequacy of their legally operative 

INRMP (see the Application of Section 

3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section 

below for a detailed discussion). 

60. Comment: The U.S. Navy 

requested that their facilities around 

San Diego Bay that were included in the 

proposed critical habitat, including NAS 

North Island, NAB Coronado, Naval 

Radio Receiving Facility, and NOLF 

Imperial Beach, be excluded from the 

final critical habitat as they are covered 

by an INRMP that provides a benefit to 

the species. 

Our Response: The Secretary has 

determined the San Diego Bay Navy 

INRMP provides a benefit for the 

western snowy plover; accordingly, the 

Navy’s San Diego Bay facilities are 

exempt from critical habitat designation 

pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, 

based on the adequacy of their legally 

operative INRMP (see the Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section below for a detailed 

discussion). 

61. Comment: Marine Corps Base, 

Camp Pendleton commented that snowy 

plover habitat on the base receives 

substantial benefit from management 

actions directed through their Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plan 

(INRMP). Therefore, all lands on Camp 

Pendleton should be excluded from the 

Final Rule, per Section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act, as amended by the 2004 Defense 

Authorization Act. 

Our Response: Camp Pendleton 

actively manages snowy plover nesting 

and wintering habitat and this 

management has contributed to an 

increasing snowy plover population on 

the base over the past several years. The 

INRMP reinforces management actions 

stipulated under previous Section 7 

consultations with the Service. The 

Secretary has determined the San Diego 

Bay Navy INRMP provides a benefit for 

the western snowy plover; accordingly, 

the Navy’s San Diego Bay facilities are 

exempt from critical habitat designation 

pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, 

based on the adequacy of their legally 

operative INRMP (see the Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section below for a detailed 

discussion). However, we note that not 

all lands within Camp Pendleton are 

56980 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

covered by the INRMP subject to Marine 

Corps management. Unit CA 24 is 

located at the far north end of the base 

on land leased to the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, 

and is therefore actively managed by 

State Parks and not by the Base. The San 

Onofre State Beach within unit CA 24 

is a recreational beach utilized by 

thousands of people throughout the 

year. Despite this heavy use, the beach 

is annually used by a substantial 

wintering flock of snowy plovers (69 FR 

75628). As described in the proposed 

rule, this flock and the habitat that it 

utilizes are subject to disturbance due to 

the heavy recreational use of the area, 

which also likely precludes the use of 

the beach for breeding. With special 

management, the habitat in the 

proposed unit has a high potential to be 

managed and restored to a point where 

it is used by plovers for both breeding 

and wintering. Accordingly, we 

consider this beach to meet the 

definition of critical habitat and it is 

included in this designation. 

62. Comment: Camp Pendleton also 

commented that the proposed critical 

habitat potentially impacts their 

military mission due to constraints on 

lands that have value for military 

training and operations. They 

particularly objected to the designation 

of critical habitat on Green Beach, an 

amphibious landing and training beach. 

Our Response: We have refined our 

mapping for Unit CA 24 to more 

accurately define the essential snowy 

plover habitat between San Onofre 

Creek and San Mateo Creek. The 

majority of snowy plover use in this 

area currently is located in a less visited 

portion of the beach closer to the midpoint between the two creek mouths. 

The result of this refined mapping is a 

reduction in the length of the proposed 

unit at both ends, removing critical 

habitat from Green Beach as well as 

beach areas to the north of San Mateo 

Creek mouth. 

Comments Related to HCPs, NCCP 

Program, and Section 7 

63. Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Pacific Coast WSP 

already had adequate protections under 

Section 7 of the Act, and therefore did 

not need to provide additional 

protection afforded by designating 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: A critical habitat 

designation means that Federal agencies 

are required to consult with the Service 

on the impacts of actions they 

undertake, fund, or permit on 

designated critical habitat. While in 

many cases, these requirements may not 

provide substantial additional 

protection for most species, they do 

direct the Service to consider 

specifically whether a proposed action 

will affect the functionality of essential 

habitat to serve its intended 

conservation role for a species rather 

than to focus exclusively on whether the 

action is likely to jeopardize the species’

continued existence. We agree, 

however, that even absent a critical 

habitat designation, Federal agencies are 

still required to consult on the impacts 

of their activities on listed species and 

their habitat. 

Comments Related to Economic Impacts 

and Analysis; Other Relevant Impacts 

64. Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the DEA inappropriately 

ignores benefits although it is possible 

to quantify the economic benefits 

associated with species protection. One 

commenter offers, for example, that 

contingent valuation studies have 

demonstrated existence value of nonhuman species. Another commenter 

states that the DEA should consider 

‘‘non-use’’ welfare benefits, such as 

existence, option, stewardship, and 

bequest values, associated with 

protecting plover habitat. 

Our Response: In the context of a 

critical habitat designation, the primary 

purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the 

direct benefit) is to designate areas in 

need of special management that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of listed species. 

The designation of critical habitat 

may result in two distinct categories of 

benefits to society: (1) Use; and (2) nonuse benefits. Use benefits are simply the 

social benefits that accrue from the 

physical use of a resource. Visiting 

critical habitat to see endangered 

species in their natural habitat would be 

a primary example. Non-use benefits, in 

contrast, represent welfare gains from 

‘‘just knowing’’ that a particular listed 

species’ natural habitat is being 

specially managed for the survival and 

recovery of that species. Both use and 

non-use benefits may occur 

unaccompanied by any market 

transactions. 

A primary reason for conducting this 

analysis is to provide information 

regarding the economic impacts 

associated with a proposed critical 

habitat designation. Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act requires the Secretary to 

designate critical habitat based on the 

best scientific data available after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

and any other relevant impact, of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. Economic impacts can be both 

positive and negative and by definition, 

are observable through market 

transactions. 

Where data are available, this analysis 

attempts to recognize and measure the 

net economic impact of the proposed 

designation. For example, if the fencing 

of a species’ habitat to restrict motor 

vehicles results in an increase in the 

number of individuals visiting the site 

for wildlife viewing, then the analysis 

would recognize the potential for a 

positive economic impact and attempt 

to quantify the effect (e.g., impacts that 

would be associated with an increase in 

tourism spending by wildlife viewers). 

In this particular instance, however, the 

economic analysis did not identify any 

credible estimates or measures of 

positive economic impacts that could 

offset some of the negative economic 

impacts analyzed earlier in this 

analysis. 

Under Executive Order 12866, OMB 

directs Federal agencies to provide an 

assessment of both the social costs and 

benefits of proposed regulatory actions. 

OMB’s Circular A–4 distinguishes two 

types of economic benefits: Direct 

benefits and ancillary benefits. 

Ancillary benefits are defined as 

favorable impacts of a rulemaking that 

are typically unrelated, or secondary, to 

the statutory purpose of the rulemaking. 

In the context of critical habitat, the 

primary purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., 

the direct benefit) is the potential to 

enhance conservation of the species. 

The published economics literature has 

documented that social welfare benefits 

can result from the conservation and 

recovery of endangered and threatened 

species. In its guidance for 

implementing Executive Order 12866, 

OMB acknowledges that it may not be 

feasible to monetize, or even quantify, 

the benefits of environmental 

regulations due to either an absence of 

defensible, relevant studies or a lack of 

resources on the implementing agency’s 

part to conduct new research. Rather 

than rely on economic measures, the 

Service believes that the direct benefits 

of the proposed rule are best expressed 

in biological terms that can be weighed 

against the expected cost impacts of the 

rulemaking. 

We have accordingly considered, in 

evaluating the benefits of excluding 

versus including specific area, the 

biological benefits that may occur to a 

species from designation (see below, 

Exclusions Under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act), but these biological benefits are 

not addressed in the economic analysis. 

64a. Comment: Many commenters 

state that the DEA fails to distinguish 

costs specific to critical habitat 

designation from the costs of ESA listing 

and other co-extensive costs. One 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56981 

comment states that critical habitat will 

not increase management as plover 

management is already in place. 

Our Response: In conducting 

economic analyses, we are guided by 

the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling 

in the New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Association case (248 F.3d at 1285), 

which directed us to consider all 

impacts, ‘‘regardless of whether those 

impacts are attributable co-extensively 

to other causes.’’ As explained in the 

analysis, due to possible overlapping 

regulatory schemes and other reasons, 

there are also some elements of the 

analysis that may overstate some costs. 

65. Comment: Another comment 

stated that the DEA should not include 

past costs as these costs are sunk costs 

that can not be recouped. 

Our Response: As part of our 

economic analysis, we have estimated 

the past costs associated with the listing 

of the species prior to designating 

critical habitat. However, we have only 

used the prospective estimated costs for 

excluding certain units from this final 

critical habitat designation pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see section 

titled Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act below). 

66. Comment: Several commenters 

state that the DEA should address 

‘‘other relevant impacts’’ in addition to 

the economic impacts. 

Our Response: The Service believes 

the words ‘‘other relevant impacts’’ refer 

to policy issues, such as, for example 

fostering conservation partnerships and 

relations with tribal governments. These 

policy considerations are inappropriate 

for review in an economic analysis. If 

the Service considers excluding areas 

for these reasons, it conducts a separate 

analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

to balance the benefits of excluding 

these areas with the benefits of 

including them. 

67. Comment: One commenter states 

that the DEA should examine the costs 

of not designating critical habitat and 

the impacts of the plover being delisted. 

For example, it should consider impacts 

of legal challenges, relisting, and the 

need to fund management efforts for a 

species further from recovery than when 

originally listed. 

Our Response: As part of our 

economic analysis, we estimate the 

costs associated with those economic 

activities believed to most likely 

threaten the plover and its habitat 

within the boundaries of the proposed 

designation. Due to cost and time 

constraints, it is not possible for us to 

estimate costs associated with different 

listing procedures. 

68. Comment: One commenter states 

that, in the DEA, the area that will 

experience the greatest future economic 

impacts from plover conservation efforts 

is Unit CA–12C, including the area of 

Sand City. The cost in this area is 

disproportionate to the benefit of 

inclusion and the area should be 

excluded from the final designation. 

The comment further states that 

excluding Sand City from critical 

habitat will contribute to a more 

positive climate for voluntary habitat 

conservation efforts, which provide 

greater conservation benefits than 

critical habitat. This comment also 

asserts that it can not be argued that 

exclusion of the land area within Sand 

City would lead to the extinction of the 

plover or appreciably reduce its 

recovery. 

Our Response: As part of this final 

rule, we have excluded Unit CA–12C 

from this final critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. For further information see 

section titled Application of Section 

3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below. 

69. Comment: One comment states 

that Morro Bay should be excluded from 

CHD as the DEA identifies it as one of 

the high cost areas while no plovers 

fledged there in 2004 and only one in 

2003. The costs are therefore greater 

than the benefits for the community. 

The comment further states that the 

critical habitat designation is not 

working as there were more plovers on 

the beach in Morro Bay before the 

restrictions went into place. 

Our Response: We have excluded the 

Morro Bay unit from this final critical 

habitat designation pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see section titled 

below Application of Section 3(5)(A) 

and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). 

70. Comment: One comment noted 

that the Service did not provide the 

minimum required 60-day comment 

period and that comments are due only 

days before the court-ordered final 

designation deadline of September 20, 

2005. 

Our Response: The Service provided 

a 60-day comment period on the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

The need to meet the court ordered 

deadline of September 20, 2005 made it 

impossible for us to open the comment 

period on the economic analysis for 60 

days as well. 

71. Comment: A comment on the 

proposed designation requests that the 

Service correct the mapping errors in its 

December 17, 2004, proposed rule to 

protect Sand City and landowners 

should the proposed critical habitat 

boundaries become relevant. 

Our Response: Our maps are used 

only as a general guide to assist 

landowners to determine the location of 

the boundaries of a proposed or final 

critical habitat designation. The legal 

coordinates presented at the end of this 

final rule represent the actual 

boundaries of this final critical habitat 

designation. As part of this rule making 

process, we have made every effort to 

ensure that our maps are as accurate as 

possible. The final rule, economic 

analysis, and supporting Geographic 

Information System (GIS) maps will also 

be available via the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/ 

default.htm. 

72. Comment: One commenter 

requests that the Service clarify the 

exclusion of the Metropolitan’s property 

at Ormond Beach by delineating it on 

the map in the final rule as this was not 

clear in the maps contained in the 

proposed rule. 

Our Response: Our maps only depict 

those areas we have proposed or 

designated as critical habitat. We 

include some features on those maps so 

that the public can determine where the 

general boundaries of the proposed and 

final designation occur. Unfortunately, 

we can not have all features identified 

on these maps. In the case of areas 

excluded from the proposed and final 

designation, these areas would not be 

identified as critical habitat. Please be 

aware that the use of these maps is only 

intended to serve as a general guide for 

the public to determine the boundaries 

of critical habitat, and to determine the 

actual boundaries of this designation, a 

person should use the legal coordinates 

located at the end of this final rule. 

73. Comment: One commenter 

suggests that it might be instructive to 

do a study on how many people choose 

not to go to a beach because it is being 

used by vehicles. 

Our Response: In essence of costs and 

time, we have conducted our economic 

analysis to identify those economic 

activities believed to most likely 

threaten the plover and its habitat and, 

where possible, quantify the economic 

impact to avoid, mitigate, or compensate 

for such threats within the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. We 

found no evidence that beach use would 

increase if vehicle use was not 

permitted. 

74. Comment: One comment states 

that the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

has failed to meet with the County of 

Del Norte and private citizens to 

comment on restricted recreational use, 

loss in land values, and effects on the 

‘‘Federal project’’ of breaching lakes. 

56982 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Our Response: Staff from the Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office provided a 

presentation on the proposed critical 

habitat and answered questions at a Del 

Norte County Board of Supervisors 

(Board) meeting on March 8, 2005, at 

the Board’s request. The Arcata office 

held an additional public meeting in the 

Board’s chambers on June 9, 2005, to 

discuss issues with the public regarding 

critical habitat designation. At both 

meetings, staff stated that restrictions 

applied to recreation and other uses 

within suitable plover habitat are 

dependant on the managing entity’s 

actions, and are usually implemented in 

an effort to avoid take of a listed species 

rather than as a result of critical habitat 

designation. Staff also stated that they 

are not qualified to make economic 

determinations regarding land values, 

and further stated that is why the 

Service contracts out the economic 

analysis for designation. With regards to 

the ‘‘Federal Project’’ of breaching the 

Lake Earl lagoon system, Service staff 

referenced the recently completed 

biological/conference opinion (January 

5, 2005) for the 10-year Permit to breach 

the Lake Earl sandbar. No mitigation, 

protective measures, or restrictions on 

the proposed action, or any activity, 

were imposed as a result of the proposal 

to designate critical habitat at the breach 

site (Section 7 consultation 8–14–05–

2577). If not for the Federal action (i.e. 

mechanical breaching), the lagoon 

would breach on its own at a higher 

water level. 

75. Comment: One commenter states 

that the maps within the proposed rule 

are misleading as they do not make it 

clear that the majority of the designation 

is private property. The commenter 

states that 87 percent of the proposed 

designation is private property. The 

commenter also highlights that the map 

delineating Unit CA–1 is incorrect. 

Our Response: As part of our 

proposed and final designation of 

critical habitat, we have done our best 

to present maps of those areas we have 

determined to be critical habitat. We 

have provided legal coordinates so that 

a landowner can determine where the 

proposed or final critical habitat 

designations exist, maps to serve as a 

general reference or guide of where 

those boundaries occur, and have 

provided a table indicating the quantity 

of the proposed and final designation 

that is in private ownership, or is owned 

by the State, Federal, or local 

governments. In total, approximately 

3191 ac (1,296 ha) of this final 

designation is privately owned land. 

The final rule, economic analysis, and 

supporting Geographic Information 

System (GIS) maps will also be available 

via the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

pacific/sacramento/default.htm. 

76. Comment: One comment states 

that the DEA frequently uses the term 

‘‘opportunity costs,’’ but fails to 

mention the potential for ‘‘substitution 

effects.’’

Our Response: Section 4.3 and 4.4 

(specifically, paragraphs 147, 152–153, 

159, 171, 189, and 205, and Exhibit 4–

32) of the DEA address substitution 

effects. In addition, the analysis 

acknowledges the availability of 

substitute sites could lower the per-trip 

loss. Accordingly, the DEA assumes 

beaches where less than ten percent of 

the linear extent of the beach is fenced 

have sufficient substitute possibilities 

for beach-goers such that quantification 

of small changes in consumer surplus is 

not feasible. 

77. Comment: According to one 

commenter, an economic impact 

analysis should include the following 

elements: (1) Direct, indirect, and 

induced economic activities (output, 

employment and employee 

compensation); (2) changes in property 

values; (3) property takings; (4) 

recreational impacts; (5) business 

activity and potential economic growth; 

(6) commercial values; (7) County and 

State tax bases; (8) public works project 

impacts; (9) disproportionate economic 

burdens on society sections; (10) 

impacts to custom and culture; (11) 

impacts to other endangered species; 

(12) environmental impacts to other 

types of wildlife; and (13) any other 

relevant impacts. 

Our Response: The DEA does not 

address property takings, impacts to 

custom and culture, impacts to other 

endangered species, and environmental 

impacts to other types of wildlife as 

these elements are outside of the scope 

of the analysis as described in Section 

1. The remainder of these elements were 

explicitly considered and described in 

the DEA, and quantified where possible. 

78. Comment: Multiple comments 

state the resources employed to 

administer plover protection (i.e., labor, 

fencing, monitoring, etc.) injects 

spending into the local economy and 

this should be considered in the DEA. 

For example, one comment states that 

while the DEA only includes the 

economic costs associated with plover 

research and management activities, it 

should be noted that these activities also 

bring money into Humboldt County in 

the form of research grants and contracts 

that pay graduate students, consultants, 

and other researchers that live in the 

area. The comment highlights a recent 

Humboldt State University (HSU) Study 

that indicates that each HSU student not 

living at home contributes 

approximately $10,000 per year to the 

local economy, not including state fees. 

Three to four graduate students at HSU 

have studied the plover over the past 

five years. Another comment states the 

economic benefits and income from 

designation, habitat protection, 

monitoring, and management of snowy 

plover and other species utilizing the 

habitat, and recreational and 

educational opportunities should be 

included in the DEA. 

Our Response: The DEA 

acknowledges that certain communities 

may experience increased economic 

activity as a result of plover 

management efforts. The expenditure of 

management resources to protect the 

plover, however, represents an 

opportunity cost as these resources are 

no longer available for other uses. The 

fact that management expenditures 

generate local employment and 

associated spending for consultants, 

students and researchers represents a 

distributional effect rather than a 

compensating surplus gain. 

79. Comment: One commenter stated 

that while the forecast period of the 

DEA is only 20 years, the Service has a 

duty to imagine that our ancestors will 

be present for hundreds or thousands of 

years and the birds should be here along 

with them. 

Our Response: Section 1.3 of the DEA 

discusses the analytic time frame. To be 

credible, the economic analysis must 

estimate economic impacts based on 

activities that are reasonably 

foreseeable. A 20 year time horizon is 

used, because many land managers do 

not have specific plans for projects 

beyond 20 years, and forecasting beyond 

this time increases the subjectivity of 

estimating potential economic impacts 

(i.e., any results would run the risk of 

being speculative). In addition, forecasts 

used in the analysis of future economic 

activity are based on current 

socioeconomic trends and the current 

level of technology, both of which are 

likely to change over the long term. 

80. Comment: Multiple comments 

expressed concern that while the DEA 

acknowledges that no data exist on 

whether or to what extent plover 

habitats might affect the use of beaches, 

it still applies the assumption that fewer 

visitors will visit a beach during 

breeding season. For example, several 

commenters highlight that no evidence 

exists that recreation has declined at 

particular sites (e.g., Coal Oil Point 

Reserve) where critical habitat has been 

designated since 1999. Further, 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation states that they have not 

found that plover fencing significantly 

reduces visitation or diminishes 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56983 

recreational experiences, except for at 

the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular 

Recreation. The comment states that 

data indicate that from 1995 to 2004, 

visitation at many state beaches showed 

an upward trend in visitor attendance. 

For example, Salinas River State Beach 

is one of the most productive and 

heavily fenced parks units in CA–12C, 

with 99 nests reported in 2004 over the 

3.5 miles of beach habitat. Attendance 

figures for this park unit have steadily 

increased since 1997 despite critical 

habitat designation in 1999 and an 

increase in number of fenced plover 

nesting areas. 

Our Response: Section 4.3 of the DEA 

details the methodology applied to 

determine what, if any, impacts may 

occur due to plover fencing on beaches. 

While attendance at State beaches may 

have increased, it is not necessarily the 

case the plover fencing did not impact 

visitation. Data are not available, for 

example, to estimate whether visitation 

would have increased at an even greater 

rate in the absence of plover protections. 

Ideally, visitation rates at individual 

beaches would be compared before and 

after plover conservation efforts were 

undertaken. Such data were not 

available for use in the DEA. Therefore, 

absent empirical evidence of the change 

in visitation levels, the assumption that 

fewer recreators visit plover beaches 

than would have absent fencing is an 

appropriate means to bound the 

potential impact of conservation efforts. 

This approach was peer reviewed and 

determined to be reasonable. 

81. Comment: Many comments 

disagree with that the assumption in the 

DEA that all the foregone acres of beach 

set aside for plover breeding could be 

used for recreation. In particular, 

commenters state that the assumption 

that recreation is completely eliminated 

from entire stretches of beach where 

symbolic fences or exclosures are 

erected overestimates impacts. They 

state that most access restrictions occur 

on the foredune, away from the wave 

slope (or wet sand) where most 

recreation (e.g., walking, riding, driving) 

occurs. In addition, for a number of the 

beaches, the fenced areas are not 

amenable to recreation for much of the 

plover breeding season. One commenter 

asserts that this is not considered in the 

DEA, which assumes year round usage 

of all acreage designated. 

Our Response: Paragraphs 148–149 of 

the DEA present the anecdotal evidence 

provided in the literature and by 

interest groups and beach managers that 

beach visitors may or may not be 

affected by plover conservation efforts 

depending on, for example, their 

primary purpose of visitation and 

location of fencing. In fact, some visitors 

may consider their beach visit enhanced 

due to the possibility of plover viewing, 

while others may consider it degraded 

due to restricted access at particular 

stretches of beach. Because of the 

uncertainty surrounding the potential 

reactions of beach visitors to ploverrelated access restrictions, the DEA 

employs two alternative methods to 

estimate the potential magnitude as 

discussed in Section 4.3. The first 

method, scenario 1, used in the DEA 

assumes that as a result of plover 

restrictions, recreators take fewer trips 

to the beach. The availability of 

substitutes is considered. For beaches at 

which less than 10 percent of the beach 

length restricts recreation, this analysis 

assumes that recreators may visit 

substitute sites of the beach resulting in 

negligible welfare losses. The second 

method used in the DEA, scenario 2, 

assumes that rather than losing beach 

trips, recreators visit their first choice 

sites but have a diminished experience 

as a result of plover restrictions. This 

second approach may overstate losses at 

beaches that are sparsely visited and 

therefore are not likely to experience 

significant congestion as a result of 

fencing. This scenario, however, does 

not account for the losses to recreators 

who choose to visit a less-preferred 

beach or who make fewer trips. 

82. Comment: Multiple commenters 

assert that the methodology used to 

estimate lost recreational opportunities 

in the DEA is flawed. One commenter 

noted that the assumption that all beach 

users get less enjoyment from short 

stretches of beach, specifically that 

pedestrians and equestrians lose $1.42 

in daily net economic value for every 

one mile reduction in beach length, 

means that everyone gets less pleasure 

from visiting shorter beaches, such as 

College Cove, than longer beaches, such 

as Mad River. 

Our Response: The DEA assumes that 

visitors hold the same value for each 

one mile stretch of beach at all beaches 

across the designation. Accordingly, if a 

stretch of beach is restricted, the value 

to the visitor of that stretch is lost. The 

DEA does not make inter-beach 

comparisons of value. That is, the lost 

value of a restricted area on a particular 

beach reduces the value of that same 

beach absent plover fencing. The total 

values of various beaches (for example, 

shorter to longer beaches) can not be 

compared using only the value per mile 

per person per day. Other variables 

factor into estimating the value the 

public places on a beach, for example, 

the availability of parking. 

83. Comment: One commenter states 

that the claim in section 4.5.1 of the 

DEA that 70 percent of total annual 

beach attendance occurs during plover 

nesting season is incorrect. The 

commenter offers that a more likely 

estimate is 20 to 25 percent as nesting 

season occurs five to six weeks before 

school is over for the summer and that 

peak beach attendance is in July and 

August. Another commenter stated that 

reliance on vehicle-counters and vehicle 

counts in parking lots can overstate 

visitors. 

Our Response: As described in the 

proposed rule, the DEA considers plover 

nesting season to be from early March 

to late September. Paragraph 158 

describes that the estimate of 70 percent 

visitation during the nesting season is 

based on monthly visitation rates for 

beaches managed by California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

with greater than ten plovers. In each 

instance, the DEA employs the most 

comprehensive data available in 

estimating number of visitors to the 

beach, in some cases visitor logs are 

kept by the beach managers, in other 

cases vehicle counts are considered the 

best indicator of visitation rates. 

84. Comment: A comment highlights 

that the DEA states ‘‘Where data are not 

available for a beach area considered in 

the analysis, the closest similar site was 

identified and its attendance rate is used 

to calculate expected visitation.’’ The 

comment notes that this assumption is 

very problematic in California, where 

beach visitation varies significantly 

from beach to beach and it is 

inappropriate to assume that beaches 

near one another would have similar 

visitation. 

Our Response: In the absence of 

specific visitation data for particular 

beaches, the analysis applies the 

visitation rates from the nearest beach 

with similar characteristics. The DEA 

acknowledges the limitations of this 

transfer and notes that better data are 

not currently available to improve upon 

these visitation estimates. The Service 

also notes that this type of data 

limitation only occurred in four 

subunits, only one of which experiences 

fencing. 

85. Comment: One commenter offers 

that estimates of plover exclosure 

diameters of five to eight meters as 

assumed in the DEA far exceeds the 

actual size of the exclosures. 

Our Response: As described in 

paragraph 165 of the DEA, the five to 

eight foot diameter design for exclosures 

assumed in the DEA is equal to that 

prescribed in the California Department 

of Parks and Recreation’s Plover 

Systemwide Management Guidelines. 

86. Comment: Other commenters 

question the DEA’s assumption that the 

56984 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

value of a diminished beach trip is 

directly proportional to length of beach 

closed. The commenters note that the 

Lew and Larson study (Lew, Daniel K. 

and Douglas M. Larson, 2005, Valuing 

Recreation and Amenities at San Diego 

County Beaches, Coastal Management, 

33:71–86) from which this information 

was obtained also offers the following 

information cited in the DEA ‘‘the 

coefficient on the length variables 

indicate utility increases with the length 

of the beach at a decreasing rate. In fact, 

the Lew and Larson paper provides the 

coefficients, which show that while 

beach length is positive, beach length 

squared is negative, making apparent 

that there is a non-linear and 

diminishing effect of additional beach 

length. Thus, the last few linear yards or 

miles of beach have less effect on 

visitation and value than the first linear 

years or miles of beach.’’ The 

commenters therefore state that the DEA 

should incorporate this information or 

estimate elasticity of demand for 

recreation at the beaches to account for 

this affect. 

Our Response: Paragraph 196 of the 

DEA describes the method applied to 

estimate value per mile of beach. The 

DEA applies the mean beach length 

from the peer-reviewed California-based 

study (Lew and Larson, 2005) of 2.06 

miles, and divides it by the implicit 

price estimated from the study’s utility 

function. This results in a value of $1.42 

per beach mile per visitor on average. 

While Lew and Larson do use a 

functional form (quadratic) that allows 

them to estimate a non-constant 

marginal impact of beach length, strictly 

applying this functional form to 

individual beaches creates 

complications. For example, the Lew 

and Larson results imply that for all 

beaches longer than 8.4 miles, 

additional length will decrease the 

value of a visit. Equivalently, the results 

imply that partial closures may lead to 

benefits for visitors at such beaches. In 

order to apply the results of this study 

to our sample of beaches, the DEA 

derives and applies a single average 

value from the Lew and Larson study. 

Further, plover fencing may occur 

anywhere along the beach (e.g., at the 

beginning, end, at multiple locations, or 

at access points) and therefore result in 

fragmented beach access; that is, access 

restrictions for plover conservation are 

not necessarily continuous. The DEA 

does not assume that there is a negative 

value to incremental reductions in 

beach length for sites longer than 8.4 

miles but instead assumes visitors value 

incremental length on longer beaches as 

much as on shorter (below 8.4 miles) 

beaches. This method of applying the 

Lew and Larson study to estimate 

decreased value of beaches due to 

plover restrictions was determined by 

peer reviewers to be reasonable with the 

data available. 

87. Comment: Several comments state 

that the assumption that visitors are 

distributed evenly along the entire 

length of the beach is false. Specifically, 

the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation comments that beach users at 

most non-motorized beaches areas tend 

to spend the majority of their time 

within a quarter of a mile from the 

access points or along the wet sand near 

the waters edge. 

Our Response: Exhibit 4–32 the DEA 

acknowledges that, to the extent visitors 

congregate around access points, this 

analysis overstates the lost recreation 

value associated with plover 

conservation efforts. However, 

quantified estimates of the distribution 

of visitors away from access points are 

not available for California. In addition, 

the estimation of the specific visitor 

densities in the vicinity of the plover 

fencing or exclosures is complicated by 

the fact that the location plover fencing 

may change over time depending on the 

location of nest sites. 

88. Comment: One comment on the 

DEA states that the $30 per person per 

day value of lost recreation applied in 

the DEA is drawn from a study of beach 

use in the San Diego area and may not 

apply to rural areas such as Humboldt 

County. Similarly, another comment 

states the use of Southern California 

value estimates for other regions that are 

vastly different in populace and land 

uses overstates recreation impacts in the 

other regions. 

Our Response: Ideally, specific per 

person per day values for lost recreation 

would be applied for each individual 

beach in the analysis. During the 

development of the DEA, however, 

these data were not determined to be 

available for each beach in California, 

Oregon, and Washington. Available 

studies that estimate value of beaches 

for recreation are based on beaches in 

Santa Monica and Orange Counties, 

California and the east coast (e.g. 

Florida and New Jersey). Values 

reported in these other studies of beach 

recreation, range from approximately 

$12 to $62. The DEA estimate of $30 per 

person per day for a beach trip falls well 

within this range. Based on location, 

date, and study characteristics, the Lew 

and Larson (2005) value of general 

beach recreation on San Diego beaches 

was determined to be the most 

appropriate for the DEA. Peer reviewers 

of the DEA agreed that this value was 

reasonable considering available 

information. 

89. Comment: Multiple comments on 

the DEA assert that the value of the 

birding, botonizing, and general naturerelated enjoyment should be included. 

The comments provide numerous 

specific examples of essential habitat 

units where birders travel specifically to 

see plovers and where plover 

management results in a more 

aesthetically pleasing area. The 

Service’s 2001 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation estimates 1.3 

million individuals visited the 

California ocean side to engage in 

shorebird viewing accounting for over 

22 million non-residential (i.e., away 

from home) bird observation days in 

California. This study highlights that in 

2001, expenditures in California by all 

wildlife viewers amounted to an 

estimated $2.1 billion, and that 

shorebird viewing constitutes an 

important component of all wildlife 

viewing in California. Finally, a 

comment states that the preservation of 

open space for the plover draws local, 

regional, and international visitors that 

contribute to the local economy. 

Our Response: The DEA 

acknowledges the potential for benefits 

to the birding community of plover 

conservation efforts and notes that, to 

the extent that birding, botanizing, and 

general nature-related enjoyment are 

increased by the plover conservation 

efforts, the DEA overstates the economic 

impact of these conservation efforts. 

Evidence exists that some percentage of 

visitors engage in birding activities. The 

Oregon Shores Recreational Use Study 

estimates that 0.2 percent of visitors to 

all beaches across the State identified 

birding as the primary reason for their 

trip. Data are not available, however, to 

estimate the number of visitors that may 

engage specifically in plover-viewing. 

Further, the National Survey described 

above evidences the importance of 

wildlife-viewing in the entire State, not 

that specifically related to plover 

habitat. The Survey also does not offer 

sufficient information to determine how 

many viewers visit the plover beaches, 

and further, how their decision to visit 

is related to the plover conservation 

efforts quantifies in the DEA. 

90. Comment: One comment 

highlights the availability of literature 

valuing wildlife-viewing in California 

(Cooper and Loomis, 1991, ‘‘The 

Economics and Management of Water 

and Drainage,’’ Agriculture, Dinar and 

Zilberman, eds.). These data could be 

used to value the benefits that seeing 

additional plovers might provide to 

beach visitors. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56985 

Our Response: The study cited in the 

comment offers a metric to correlate 

bird populations with increased value 

for a birding trip. While the DEA 

acknowledges the potential for 

improved conditions for bird-watching, 

as mentioned above, data are lacking in 

the numbers of visitors to the plover 

beaches that participate in bird-viewing. 

In addition, data on the number of birds 

typically seen on a single trip at each 

site absent plover conservation 

activities, and the increase in plovers 

seen as a result of conservation 

activities, is unavailable. It is therefore 

not clear how these value estimates in 

the cited study may be applied to this 

analysis. 

91. Comment: Another comment 

states that the DEA uses the average 

value per trip of $30 from the Lew and 

Larson (2005) article. However, page 4–

21, footnote 118 of the DEA notes that 

when substitute beach opportunities are 

taken into account, the losses from 

completely closing a single beach is 

between $0 and $1 per person trip; for 

example, for Silver Strand State Beach 

the loss per trip is $0.09. As stated in 

the footnote, the losses estimated 

recognizing the availability of 

substitutes can lower the recreational 

losses by an order of magnitude. The 

comment further expresses that the Lew 

and Larson research could be used 

somehow to estimate the lost value from 

closing several beaches as an upper 

bound on partial closures of beaches 

due to critical habitat. 

Our Response: As noted in the Lew 

and Larson study, the values referred to 

in the comment, $0 to $1, are per-trip 

economic values of closing individual 

beaches out of choice set of 31 beaches 

in San Diego County. The per-trip value 

is multiplied by all the individuals in 

the county who ever visit any beach, 

regardless of whether their first choice 

site is the beach that closes. This 

aggregate value represents the welfare 

loss of closing a single beach. 

Transferring this value to the DEA 

requires estimating the total number of 

people who visit any beaches (public 

and private) within California, Oregon, 

and Washington, and not simply the 

plover beaches addressed in the DEA. In 

other words, value losses would occur 

to all visitors for which a plover beach 

is within his or her choice set. 

Estimating the number of beach users 

cannot be accomplished simply by 

looking at beach visitation data, as 

single users may visit the beach 

multiple times. In addition, data are not 

available at the State level to group 

beaches into choice sets, and to 

understand the total number of visitors 

to each set. These issues present 

significant limitations to using these 

data to estimate impacts of plover 

restrictions. In addition, although the 

per trip value loss is less than the value 

used in the DEA, the number of beach 

users by which this value is multiplied 

is likely more than the number of 

visitors to plover beaches. Therefore, a 

method that applies the $0 to $1 values 

may not result in a significantly lower 

estimate of impact. 

92. Comment: One party comments 

that the DEA assumption that the entire 

length of the critical habitat unit is 

closed where information on the 

amount of fencing is not available is not 

appropriate. The comment offers that 

the DEA should use instead estimate an 

average fencing length to total length of 

the critical habitat unit to make an 

informed estimate. 

Our Response: In the absence of 

information regarding length of fencing, 

the DEA assumes the entire length of 

critical habitat publicly owned or 

managed is fenced in four units. 

Estimating an average ratio of fenced to 

total beach is complicated by the 

extreme variation in this value across 

beaches. The ratio varies from 0.01 

percent to 100 percent across the 

proposed designation. In the case that 

the fenced area is smaller than the 

proposed habitat in these four units, 

impacts to recreation are likely 

overestimated. It is not clear, however, 

that the methodology suggested by the 

commenter would yield more accurate 

results than that employed in the DEA. 

93. Comment: A commenter states 

that the seventy mile portion of the 

coast between Gaviota and Guadalupe 

has only four coastal access points; 

those at Surf Beach and Ocean Beach 

provide the nearest coastal access for 

the 65,000 residents of Lompoc Valley. 

The comment further states that both 

beaches have been affected by the beach 

closures due to the designation of 

critical habitat for the plover. For 

Lompoc Valley residents, coastal access 

alternatives are almost an hour drive. 

Our Response: This comment 

provides anecdotal evidence supporting 

the assumption applied in the DEA that 

beach users may be impacted by plover 

conservation efforts and that limited 

substitutes may exist in particular areas. 

94. Comment: A commenter states 

that the recreational impacts to CA–17A 

and CA–17B are underestimated in the 

DEA and that the total economic loss in 

beach use at these sites is $627,908 per 

season (2002$). The comment questions 

the DEA conclusion that five other 

stretches of the California coast 

experience greater economic losses 

despite the fact that they have other 

beach access alternatives. The 

commenter requests that the DEA 

consider both the number of users and 

the availability of alternative beach 

access locations. 

Our Response: The data used to 

calculate the number of visitors 

impacted at these sites were provided 

by Santa Barbara County and Surf 

Ocean Beach Commission. Because data 

are available for the period after plover 

restrictions were put in place, based on 

the length of beach previously available, 

the analysis assumes visitation may 

have been four times higher without 

plover fencing. As described in Section 

4.3, the DEA employs two distinct 

scenarios to estimated the potential 

magnitude of loss associated with 

reduced recreational opportunities. 

Scenario 1 assumes that as a result of 

plover restrictions, recreators take fewer 

trips to the beach and assigns a value 

obtained from the published economics 

literature to those lost beach trips. 

Under this scenario the DEA estimates 

an annualized loss of $5.14 million for 

subunits CA–17A and CA–17B. 

Scenario 2 assumes that rather than 

losing beach trips, recreators still visit 

their first choice sites but have a 

diminished experience as a result of 

plover-related access restrictions. 

According to this scenario, an 

annualized loss of $120,000 is forecast 

in subunits CA–17A and CA–17B. The 

estimate provided by Santa Barbara 

County falls within the range of 

potential impacts as estimated in the 

DEA. 

95. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the DEA should not estimate losses 

to recreation on beaches at which access 

is restricted for national security 

reasons, such as Vandenburg Air Force 

Base, or on beaches for which the 

purpose of public acquisition is for 

habitat preservation, such as Coal Oil 

Point Reserve and Nipomo Dune 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Our Response: The DEA estimates 

losses to recreation at Vandenburg Air 

Force Base as stretches of beach that 

were previously open to the public were 

closed due to the presence of the plover 

and not for national security reasons 

(see Section 4). Similarly, stretches of 

beach that were open to the public at 

Coil Oil Point Reserve have been fenced 

for the plover. The economic analysis 

assumes that these access restrictions 

for the purpose of plover conservation 

may impact the visitors to these beaches 

and quantifies the impact. The DEA 

does not, however, estimate any impact 

to recreation at Nipomo Dune National 

Wildlife Refuge as access to this site 

restricts access to the public for reasons 

unrelated to the plover. 

56986 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

96. Comment: One comment 

expresses concern that the DEA applies 

an estimate of the value recreational 

vehicle use from a study based in Utah 

and North Carolina, while the plover 

habitat is within California, Oregon, and 

Washington. 

Our Response: Ideally, the DEA 

would employ a California-based study 

to determine the value of beach vehicle 

recreation. However, no such study was 

identified during the development of 

the DEA. The estimates used were 

contemplated by peer reviewers on the 

DEA and determined to be the most 

reasonable given currently available 

information. 

97. Comment: One comment states 

that the DEA does not take into account 

the fact that Oceano Dunes State 

Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) is 

the only beach in California that legally 

permits the general public to drive on 

the beach and camp with recreational 

vehicles (RVs) directly on the beach. 

The comment further states that the 

DEA does not account for the value 

visitors place on restrictions to the 

unique beach camping opportunities at 

ODSVRA. Given the high visitation rate, 

as well as the location of camping 

restrictions, plover conservation has 

substantially reduced the value of the 

camping experience by creating a 

congested camping environment. 

Our Response: The DEA assumes that 

no substitute sites for this beach exist 

and accordingly estimates the value of 

restricted trips by assuming these visits 

are completely lost. Further, the DEA 

values pedestrian trips to this site at $30 

per day and OHV trips to this site at $54 

per day, consistent with the other sites 

in the analysis and relying on data 

provided by OSDVRA on the relative 

proportions of visitor types. The 

increment by which the opportunity for 

camping may increase the value that 

recreators hold for this site is unknown, 

and no additional information about 

this value was provided in public 

comment. If the value of a camping trip 

to this site is greater than $30 per day, 

the DEA may underestimate impacts to 

pedestrian users who camp at ODSVRA. 

Similarly, if the value of a camping trip 

at this unique site exceeds $54 per day, 

the DEA may understate impacts to 

OHV users who camp at ODSVRA. 

98. Comment: One commenter states 

that visitors to ODSVRA tend not to be 

local residents and that applying the 

studies of expenditures of beach users 

for southern California, where many of 

the visitors are local, underestimates the 

impact to the regional economy. The 

comment further states that the DEA 

appears to underestimate attendance at 

ODSVRA. Page 4–45 of the DEA 

indicates beach attendance to be 

constant at 1,486,158 visitors (2002 

data) through 2025. The DEA does not 

take into account increasing visitation. 

Also, the comment states that the DEA 

does not provide information on how 

the annual visits per mile (200,812) 

during the breeding season was 

calculated. 

Our Response: Based on a study 

published by the State of California’s 

Department of Parks and Recreation in 

1993 and provided in public comment, 

ODSVRA users spend more per trip than 

assumed in the DEA. In response to this 

comment, the regional impact modeling 

tool, IMPLAN, employed in the DEA 

was re-run to determine impacts as a 

result of recreation restrictions at 

ODSVRA for San Luis Obispo County, 

California assuming each lost trip 

results in a decrease in local 

expenditures of $97, as opposed to the 

$51 originally assumed in the DEA. This 

value is applied to a reduction in 

209,164 trips in an average year from 

2005 to 2025 resulting in an estimated 

impact of $30.1 million. This loss 

represents 0.25 percent of the annual 

baseline economy of San Luis Obispo 

County. This loss in trips is also 

estimated to impact 597 jobs in the 

County, or 0.45 percent of the annual 

baseline jobs. 

To estimate visitation, the DEA used 

attendance data provided for ODSVRA 

by California State Parks for years 1997 

to 2004. The values presented on page 

4–45 represent average annual 

attendance during the nesting season. 

Attendance in 2004 was estimated to be 

1,763,948. Further, as described in 

paragraph 159, the annual visitor 

estimates are assumed to increase two 

percent annually and are not assumed to 

be constant across future years. 

To estimate the average annual 

number of visitors per mile at ODSVRA, 

the DEA assumes that 6.4 miles of beach 

are available for recreation in Unit CA–

16. The average annual visitation to the 

entire area is estimated to be 1.8 million 

and the DEA assumes that 70 percent of 

annual visitation occurs during the 

plover breeding season. The estimate of 

visitors per mile during the breeding 

season is calculated by dividing the 

annual number of visitors by the length 

of beach and multiplying it by the 

percent of annual visitation occurring 

during the breeding season. 

99. Comment: One commenter states 

that the DEA relies on the Second 

Administrative Draft Habitat 

Conservation Plan for the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation San 

Luis Obispo Coast District and Oceano 

Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area 

(ODSVRA) to describe plover 

conservation efforts on ODSVRA. This 

draft incorrectly states that exclosures 

occur only as far as pole seven on the 

beach when in fact they extend further 

to pole six. 

Our Response: The DEA relies on the 

Draft Habitat Conservation Plan to 

determine the extent of plover fencing at 

ODSVRA. To the extent that this plan 

underestimates the length of the 

restricted area, the DEA may 

underestimate impacts. The distance 

between poles six and seven is one half 

mile. 

100. Comment: One commenter offers 

that the DEA should have based its 

estimate of recreational impacts in OR–

9 on the recreation losses estimated as 

a result of the New Carissa tanker spill 

in the pre-assessment report. The use of 

the New Carissa value is valid, because 

the report estimates losses that 

recreationists were awarded in a court 

settlement. 

Our Response: The value per trip 

applied in the New Carissa impact study 

is $14.39 per person per trip compared 

to $30 assumed in the DEA. However, 

the DEA estimates a lesser number of 

visitors experiencing diminished 

recreation value. For example, the data 

applied in the DEA estimate 71 visitors 

to OR–9 in 1999 compared to 18,400 

visitors considered in the New Carissa 

study. The visitor count data used in the 

New Carissa report are 1999 vehicle 

count data taken at the BLM boat ramp 

north of OR–9. Based on information 

provided by BLM personnel, this visitor 

data is not an accurate count of visitor 

use in the critical habitat area. The BLM 

anticipates that most of the visitors 

counted in the New Carissa study use 

the boat ramp and do not access the 

plover area. To get to the plover area, a 

visitor would need a four wheeled drive 

vehicle to access the beach via the 

South Dike Road. No vehicle count data 

is available for the South Dike Road. 

The DEA therefore considers the best 

available visitor use data for OR–9 to be 

the Oregon Shore Recreational Use 

Study that specifically surveyed the 

beach contained within OR–9. 

101. Comment: One commenter states 

that overestimation of impacts is 

inherent in the following quote from the 

text box on page 4–5 of the DEA: ‘‘* * * 

assuming half of the beach is 

inaccessible as a result of plover 

conservation efforts approximately 

9,200 trips would be lost annually 

* * *. However, it is unclear what 

proportion of the visitors using this 

parking lot are precluded from 

recreating in these areas proposed for 

designation as a result of plover 

conservation efforts.’’ The commenter 

states that it seems there should be no 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56987 

loss in visitation at this BLM site 

associated with the plover critical 

habitat unit. 

Our Response: The text box on page 

4–5 presents information provided by 

the County Commissioner of Coos Bay, 

Oregon in contrast to that provided in 

the DEA. This information is included 

for comparison but not quantified in the 

total economic impacts described in the 

DEA. 

102. Comment: Two commenters 

disagree with the DEA’s assumption that 

saltwater fishing trips involve beach 

vehicle use. 

Our Response: Information provided 

by managers and stakeholders during 

the development of the DEA indicated 

that vehicles are used to facilitate surf 

fishing and that surf fishing may 

therefore be reduced by restrictions on 

driving. Peer review of the DEA also 

determined this assumption was 

reasonable. 

103. Comment: One comment 

provided on the DEA states that the 

regional economic impact model 

overstates lost regional spending 

resulting from restricted beach 

visitation. The commenters opine that 

spending would simply be redistributed 

toward substitute goods. 

Our Response: Section 4.6 of the DEA 

discusses this limitation of the regional 

economic impact model, IMPLAN. This 

model does not assume that spending 

would occur on substitute goods within 

the region. To the extent that visitors 

purchase substitute goods and services 

in the region, the DEA may overestimate 

regional economic impacts. The regional 

economic impacts as estimated, 

however, are considered to represent a 

reasonable upper bound of impacts to 

the local economic as a result of 

restricting recreational visitation. 

104. Comment: One comment 

expressed concern about the sources of 

data used to estimate reductions in 

recreational use. The commenters were 

unable to verify data assumed to be 

provided by Humboldt County Public 

Works and BLM’s Arcata Office. 

Our Response: Beach visitation data 

were not provided by Humboldt County 

Public Works or BLM’s Arcata Office for 

the DEA. These data were provided by 

Humboldt County Parks Department. 

BLM’s Arcata office provided 

information on OHV restrictions, but 

not visitor attendance. 

105. Comment: Two comments were 

provided stating that the number of 

visitors impacted at Silver Strand State 

Beach is overstated in the DEA. The 

number of vehicles and campers 

counted in 2004 was 97,949. 

Our Response: Monthly attendance 

data for Silver Strand State Beach 

provided by California Department of 

Parks of Recreation from 2001 to 2005 

are used in the DEA. According to these 

data 326,746 visitors were recorded in 

2004. This source was determined to 

provide the best available data. 

106. Comment: Two commenters 

noted that reductions in some types of 

recreation, such as off-highway vehicle 

(OHV), or equestrian use, may result in 

increases in beach trip value for other 

user groups. 

Our Response: Exhibit 4–32 of the 

DEA describes that, to the extent that 

plover-related vehicle restrictions 

increases the value of a beach trip for 

other recreational user groups, the 

analysis overstates economic impacts to 

recreational users. Data were not 

identified, however, that describe the 

relationship of beach vehicle use and 

value to the pedestrian or equestrian 

recreators. 

107. Comment: One comment asserts 

that the regional economic impact 

analysis in the DEA does not take into 

account the impact to visitors with 

complex mechanical needs stemming 

from the use of Recreational Vehicles 

(RVs), OHVs, and dune buggies. 

Our Response: As discussed above, in 

response to comments on the DEA, the 

IMPLAN regional modeling tool was 

used to determine regional impacts of 

restrictions to vehicle use at ODSVRA 

for San Luis Obispo County, California. 

Following comment, this revised 

IMPLAN analysis assumes a greater 

decrease in local expenditures per trip 

than used in the DEA based on a study 

published by the State of California’s 

Department of Parks and Recreation in 

1993 on ODSVRA users. Impacts to 

vehicle recreation-related activities, 

such as gas and equipment were 

considered in this analysis, which 

estimated an of impact of $30.1 million 

to the regional economy. 

108. Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern that while dogwalking has occurred on Sands Beach 

for decades, recently, the California 

Coastal Commission has banned dogs 

from the beach as a result of a land swap 

deal to protect a nearby bluff. 

Our Response: Footnote 128 of the 

DEA discusses the value that beach 

visitors may have for dog-walking on 

plover beaches. This comment provides 

anecdotal evidence that some visitors 

may experience diminished trip value 

in the case that this activity is restricted 

for the purposes of plover conservation. 

The incremental value that the 

opportunity for dog-walking may have 

on the value of a beach trip, however, 

is unclear. 

109. Comment: One commenter states 

that the DEA does not report that 

approximately 15 acres of CA–18 are 

owned and managed by the City. Public 

uses on this 15 acres include fishing, 

trails, scuba diving, swimming, vista 

points, windsurfing, and wildlife 

viewing. Excluding the impact to these 

recreational uses underestimates the 

economic impact of plover conservation 

in this unit. The City of Goleta is in the 

process of implementing a long-term 

management plan, covering these 15 

acres, that includes plover protection 

provisions. 

Our Response: This comment 

provides new information of recreation 

taking place on a City beach within the 

potential plover habitat in Unit CA–18. 

The DEA does not currently estimate 

impacts in this area. Additional 

information would be required on the 

number and type of visitors and on the 

potential plover management activities 

on this beach in order to estimate 

impacts. That visitors engage in dog 

walking evidences the positive value of 

this type of beach recreation, however 

this value has not explicitly been 

studied. 

110. Comment: A commenter states 

the DEA does not recognize the impacts 

to recreational activities that occur 

within Unit CA–1, or the businesses that 

rely on those activities. The DEA does 

not recognize the historic use of the area 

by the general public for uses such as 

horseback riding, hiking, fishing, OHVs, 

birding, and camping. The use of the 

area is promoted as a public access 

point as part of the County Local Coastal 

Program, and the County maintains a 

parking facility at the west end of Kellog 

Road to serve the general public. 

Our Response: Based on this 

information, the DEA likely 

underestimates impacts to recreation in 

CA–1 of plover conservation. More 

information is needed on the extent of 

recreational activity and of plover 

conservation efforts in this area, 

however, before economic impacts may 

be estimated. 

111. Comment: One comment states 

that the DEA did not consider 

recreational impacts to Kellogg Beach in 

Unit CA–1. 

Our Response: This comment 

provided did not indicate that plover 

management would occur at Kellogg 

Beach that would impact recreation. 

Further, conversation with Del Norte 

County did not indicate that plover 

fencing occurs in this area. To the extent 

that plover management does occur at 

Kellogg Beach in the future, the DEA 

may underestimate impacts to CA–1. 

112. Comment: One comment states 

that the DEA underestimates the 

number of recreational trips lost at Clam 

Beach, at 55 trips per year, and therefore 

56988 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

underestimates the regional impact of 

these lost trips. 

Our Response: As described in 

Exhibit 4–30 of the DEA, an average 

annual loss of 1,109 trips is estimated 

for Unit CA–3A at Clam Beach. The 

commenter appears to have assumed 

that the 1,109 trips lost were estimated 

over 25 years, when in fact the estimate 

is annual. 

113. Comment: According to one 

commenter, the DEA should include 

any economic impact on commercial 

beach fishing. 

Our Response: In developing the DEA, 

no information was identified 

concerning any commercial beach 

fishing operations within the proposed 

critical habitat designation. To the 

extent that commercial beach fishing 

operations does occur, impacts to these 

beach users are not incorporated. The 

extent to which commercial fishers were 

included in the visitor counts, impacts 

to these parties were included in the 

DEA. However, they were assigned a 

recreational fishing value, which may 

differ from values of trips to commercial 

fishers. 

114. Comment: One comment asserts 

that the DEA underestimates the 

regional economic impact of plover 

conservation efforts. The commenter 

states that his/her Clam Beach 

horseback riding business was 

impacted, harassed, and eventually 

closed due to plover listing, plover 

advocates, and agency threats and that 

$20,000 per year is lost to the 

community by this business being 

closed. 

Our Response: The DEA considers the 

impact of plover conservation efforts on 

small recreation-related businesses in 

this region in Section 4.6. 

115. Comment: Multiple commenters 

state that the DEA did not consider 

potential reductions in property value 

due to plover-related land use 

restrictions. For example, according to 

one comment, property owners within 

critical habitat will bear ‘‘stigma 

impacts,’’ including ‘‘changes to private 

property values associated with public 

attitudes about the limits and costs of 

implementing a project in critical 

habitat.’’ In contrast, other commenters 

assert that the DEA suggestion that 

restricting beach access can only have a 

negative effect on property values is 

incorrect and suggest that restricting 

beach access could have a positive 

offsetting impact on certain types of 

property value, particularly beach 

residents, if beach congestion is 

reduced. The DEA does not include 

potential benefits from restricted beach 

access, or cite relevant hedonic price 

literature quantifying the relationship 

between congestion externalities and 

housing prices. 

Our Response: Section 1.2.3 of the 

DEA describes the potential for stigma 

impacts. More specifically, Section 5.1 

of the DEA discusses the potential for 

plover conservation efforts to affect 

property values. While property value 

research demonstrates that proximity 

and access to beaches may increase the 

value of a property, research was not 

identified that correlates the level of 

beach access to property value. Plover 

conservation efforts are not anticipated 

to completely preclude access to 

beaches, and no data are available to 

estimate potential percentage decrease 

in property value if beach access is 

restricted but not precluded. Section 

4.3.2 of the DEA discusses the effect of 

beach congestion on value of a beach 

trip, but no literature was identified in 

the development of the DEA correlating 

beach congestions and housing price. 

116. Comment: A comment provided 

states that while the DEA acknowledges 

the three development nodes on the 

Sand City Cost, the Monterey Bay 

Shores’, MacDonald, and Sterling sites, 

it only considers impacts to the 

Monterey Bay Shores’ site. 

Our Response: Section 5.3.3 of the 

DEA describes the impacts of 

implementing plover conservation 

efforts in the implementation of the 

Sand City development project. The 

DEA acknowledges the three sites that 

comprise this development project: The 

McDonald Site, Sterling Site, and Lone 

Star Site (also referred to as Monterey 

Bay Shores). The DEA, however, 

incorrectly refers to the three sites 

collectively as the ‘‘Monterey Shores 

development project.’’ The description 

of plover conservation efforts to 

minimize impacts is from the draft 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the 

Monterey Bay Shores Project site 

specifically. The DEA assumes that 

similar conservation efforts may be 

required at all three sites. Importantly, 

however, the economic impacts as 

quantified in the DEA were obtained 

from personal communication with the 

attorney from Sand City and include 

impacts to the entire Sand City 

development project. 

117. Comment: Two commenters 

assert that the DEA should not include 

economic impacts to Sand City 

associated with HCP development. 

Commenters offers that the California 

Coastal Commission’s (CCC) denial of a 

development permit for this project was 

based on a number of reasons involving 

the project’s failure to meet legal 

standards under California’s Coastal Act 

and was not predicated solely on the 

presence of plovers on the property. 

Comment from the CCC asserts that they 

did not permit the project primarily due 

to a water availability issue, and not 

because of the plover. 

Our Response: Section 5.3.3 of the 

DEA acknowledges that initial project 

plans were not permitted for multiple 

reasons and that it is unclear to what 

extent the re-planning efforts were 

driven by the plover. The DEA further 

acknowledges that consideration of 

multiple factors influenced the 

currently proposed mitigation measures 

associated with the revised plan for 

development of Sand City, for example 

the purchase of private lots for open 

space and development. Particular 

conservation efforts described such as 

hiring of full-time plover monitors, 

however, are clearly related to the 

plover. The DEA isolates conservation 

efforts associated with the development 

that specifically benefit the plover and 

its habitat for inclusion in the estimate 

of impacts to Sand City. Of note, Unit 

12C of the proposed critical habitat, 

which contains this proposed 

development site, is excluded from final 

critical habitat. 

118. Comment: One commenter states 

that the DEA’s assumption that there 

will be no development impacts on the 

Oxfoot Property (Unit CA–7) is 

unreasonable. The commenter asserts 

that the Dillon Beach site will likely be 

developed in some fashion during the 

next 20 years and that the lack of a 

current formal development application 

is not a basis for concluding that none 

will occur. This comment further states 

that when development is proposed, the 

permitting authority will impose land 

use and beach access restrictions related 

to plover critical habitat. Because beach 

access has a positive effect on property 

value, the commenter states that 

restricting beach access to future 

development will have a negative effect 

on property value. 

Our Response: Section 5.3.4 of the 

DEA acknowledges the development 

potential of Dillon Beach within Unit 

CA–7. Communication with the Marin 

County Planning commission indicated 

that development projects in the area in 

the past have not been influenced by the 

plover or habitat. During the 

development of the DEA, the 

commenter provided plans for the 

proposed Lawson Family Dillon Beach 

Resort, which were developed in 1995–

1996 and included a memorandum on 

environmental constraints associated 

with the project which was reviewed by 

the County in preparing the Dillon 

Beach Community Plan. This 

memorandum highlighted impacts to 

special status species within the vicinity 

of the proposed project site. The plover 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56989 

is not included in this list and the 

memorandum concludes that other 

wildlife species are not found at the site. 

It is therefore considered unlikely that 

plover conservation efforts would be a 

condition of permitting for this or 

similar development projects within the 

Dillon Beach area. 

119. Comment: One commenter states 

that, ‘‘there will be future costs for 

administration of habitat conservation 

plans for the private lands within Area 

CA–1,’’ that are not captured in the 

DEA. For example, administrative costs 

of section 7 consultation associated with 

breaching of Lake Earl are not included. 

Our Response: As described in 

Section 5.3.4, Unit CA–1 is within Del 

Norte County, California and is 87 

percent private lands. While attempts to 

develop the area have occurred, it has 

not been permitted for various reasons 

unrelated to the plover. Primarily the 

water table is very high in this area. 

Breaching of the adjacent lake would 

need to occur more often in order to 

make development possible, but the 

lake breaching presents an issue for the 

endangered tidewater goby. (Note that 

breaching of the lake could be beneficial 

to the plover.) No information was 

uncovered in the development of the 

DEA indicating future habitat 

conservation plans for the plover in this 

unit. Past consultation in 2003 on the 

lake breaching did not result in any 

conservation efforts for the plover. The 

consultation did, however, consider 

impacts of the project to the plover and 

administrative costs are therefore 

captured. In the case that consultation 

were to occur for the similar breaching 

efforts in the future, the DEA 

underestimates the administrative costs 

of considering the plover, although no 

plover-related conservation efforts are 

expected to result consistent with 

previous consultations on the same 

project. 

120. Comment: According to one 

comment, the DEA does not include the 

economic loss of potential reduced 

campground development in Unit CA–

3A, Clam Beach/Little River. 

Our Response: As detailed in Section 

5.3.3 of the DEA, Humboldt County 

Public Works estimates that in the case 

that plover conservation efforts limit the 

planned expansion of the existing 

public campgrounds in Humboldt 

County, the County could lose up to 

$30,000 per year in unrealized revenue. 

This impact is included in the DEA. 

121. Comment: According to a 

comment, the DEA underestimates 

management costs for ODSVRA. The 

DEA estimates that from 1993 to 2000, 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation spent approximately 

$200,000 annually on plover 

management, almost all of which was 

spent at Oceano Dunes. Those costs 

increased to $750,000 per year from 

2001 to 2004. Future management costs 

at ODSVRA are expected to exceed 

$750,000 per year going forward. No 

mention is made, however, of the recent 

settlement of litigation between 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation and Sierra Club, in which 

State Parks committed to spending in 

excess of $500,000 in plover 

conservation and monitoring efforts. 

Our Response: Paragraph 100 of the 

DEA describes the expected 

expenditures for plover management by 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation as a result of the litigation 

referenced in this comment. The future 

management costs of $750,000 per year 

referenced above, and incorporated in 

the DEA’s impact estimate, includes the 

$500,000 for plover management 

resulting from the consent decree 

between California Department of Parks 

and Recreation and the Sierra Club. 

122. Comment: One comment 

suggests the DEA underestimates 

management costs at California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

sites by not using the average cost to 

protect a plover nest at ODSVRA of 

$5,700 per nest. The DEA instead uses 

an estimate of $750 per nest for other 

sites. 

Our Response: Paragraphs 99 and 100 

of the DEA discuss California 

Department of Parks and Recreation per 

nest management costs. As highlighted 

elsewhere in this comment, ODSVRA is 

unique when compared to all other 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation sites, in that it provides 

large-scale vehicular recreation and 

camping on the dunes. California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

provided an estimate of future 

management costs of $300,000 annually 

for all sites other than ODSVRA and 

$750,000 annually for ODSVRA. These 

estimates were divided by the number 

of nests present to determine a per nest 

cost. The per nest cost is used in the 

DEA to estimate management 

expenditures at each unit as 

expenditures are not tracked by 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation according to individual unit. 

It is therefore not appropriate to apply 

per nest management costs estimated for 

ODSVRA to other California Department 

of Parks and Recreation sites. 

123. Comment: One commenter 

asserts that the DEA should consider 

cost savings resulting from converting 

from daily, weekly, or other raking, to 

less frequent raking schemes. 

Our Response: The mechanical beach 

cleaning restrictions estimated in 

Section 4.5.2 of the DEA occur entirely 

within Los Angeles County. The County 

indicated that the Los Angeles County 

Fire Department—Lifeguard Division 

requires that the tide line be raked daily 

to create an even surface for safe 

emergency vehicular response and for 

general safety patrol. In addition, if 

mechanized beach cleaning were 

reduced the county would have to hire 

additional staff to manually clean the 

required beaches. Therefore, no cost 

savings are anticipated associated with 

decreasing the frequency of beach 

raking in Los Angeles County. 

124. Comment: One commenter states 

that cost estimates for management and 

monitoring appear to have been 

exaggerated in the DEA by including 

staff and contractor activities not 

specifically related to the presence or 

potential presence of plovers. For 

example, Silver Strand State Beach has 

limited beach raking, and Border Field 

State Park has no beach raking related 

to plover. 

Our Response: The DEA agrees with 

this comment and does not estimate any 

impacts of reduced beach raking for 

either of these sites. 

125. Comment: One comment asserts 

that cost estimates for management and 

monitoring are overstated at Border 

Field State Park. Monitoring, 

management, and fencing at this park 

are focused on the California least tern 

and no areas are specifically closed due 

to the presence of plover. 

Our Response: Management costs 

estimated in Section 3 for this assume 

that California State Parks will spend 

$750 per nest for plover management, 

which includes construction of 

exclosures and symbolic fencing, dog 

prohibitions, and predator controls. 

These efforts have been undertaken at 

other California State Parks and are 

therefore assumed to be potentially 

relevant at other State Parks that 

support the plover in the future. As 

described in Section 4 of the DEA does 

not estimate any recreational losses in 

this unit. 

126. Comment: According to one 

commenter, impacts calculated for Unit 

CA–12A, Jetty Road to Aptos are based 

on the future use of exclosures. While 

it is true exclosures have been used in 

the past, they may not necessarily be in 

the future. For example, in the 2005 

breeding season no exclosures were 

used on this beach section. 

Our Response: The DEA assumes past 

management efforts may continue into 

the future in the case that the area is 

designated as critical habitat. To the 

extent that plover fencing or exclosures 

56990 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

are not constructed, the DEA likely 

overestimates the impacts of plover 

conservation efforts at this site. Unit 

12A has been excluded from final 

critical habitat designation. 

127. Comment: One commenter states 

that the DEA does not include any 

economic impacts of predator control. 

Our Response: Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of 

the DEA discuss and quantify 

management costs, including predator 

control. 

128. Comment: A comment provided 

on the DEA requests that the range in 

gravel mining costs related to plover 

monitoring be explained. 

Our Response: Paragraph 335 of the 

DEA summarizes impacts to gravel 

mining. Gravel mining costs are 

expected to range from $5,000 to 

$50,000 for plover monitoring. The 

range is great as costs depend on 

whether and where the plovers are 

located in the area. Costs may increase, 

for example, if plovers are in the 

proposed extraction area. 

129. Comment: One comment states 

that the DEA does not properly 

distinguish property ownership and cost 

associated with North Island North 

(CA–27A) and North Island South (CA–

27B). North Island North is Naval Base 

Coronado. The Department of Defense 

(DOD) owns land in both units but are 

listed in Exhibit 3–4 as private. Further, 

North Island South costs are included as 

DOD costs but the property is primarily 

owned and managed by City of 

Coronado. 

Our Response: The Proposed Rule 

states that both subunits are located 

entirely on land owned by the 

Department of Defense. Exhibit 3–4 of 

the DEA however, incorrectly identifies 

the land manager as private. The DEA 

does not estimate costs other than 

military for these two subunits as 

described in Section 6.2.2. Therefore, 

this correction is purely descriptive and 

does not affect impact estimates. 

130. Comment: One commenter states 

that the DEA should include costs 

attributable to section 7 consultations, 

law enforcement, or additional expenses 

to public works related to plover 

conservation efforts. 

Our Response: Section 3.3 of the DEA 

quantifies the administrative costs of 

section 7 consultation; Sections 3.1 and 

3.2 quantify and discuss management 

costs, including law enforcement costs 

where appropriate. Further, impacts to 

public works project, such as the 

Humboldt County camp grounds, are 

considered in the DEA. 

131. Comment: One commenter 

highlights that paragraph 18 of the DEA 

does not acknowledge that the HCP 

developed by the California State Parks 

for Oceano Dunes is only a draft and 

includes several state park units in the 

San Luis Obispo County in addition to 

Oceano Dunes State Vehicular 

Recreation Area. 

Our Response: Paragraph 100 

acknowledges the draft HCP includes 

Estero Bluffs, Morro Strand State Beach, 

Montana Del Oro State Park, Pismo 

Dunes Natural Preserve, and Oceano 

Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In developing the final critical habitat 

designation for the Pacific Coast WSP, 

we reviewed public comments received 

on the proposed designation of critical 

habitat published December 17, 2004 

(69 FR 75608), and the draft economic 

analysis published on August 16, 2005 

(70 FR 48094); conducted further 

evaluation of lands proposed as critical 

habitat; refined our mapping 

methodologies; and excluded additional 

habitat from the final designation. Table 

1, included in the ‘‘Critical Habitat 

Designation’’ section, outlines changes 

in acreages for each subunit where 

changes occurred between the proposed 

rule published on December 17, 2004 

(69 FR 75608) and this final rule. In 

addition to clarifications in the text 

pertainting to units or subunits, we 

made changes to our proposed 

designation as follows: 

(1) We mapped critical habitat more 

precisely by eliminating habitat areas of 

marginal quality that we do not expect 

to be used by Pacific Coast WSP. In 

certain locations, we determined that 

habitat had been degraded by extensive 

stands of non-native vegetation where 

beach managers are unable to plan dune 

system restoration due to shortages in 

funding or staff. In some instances, 

habitat may have also been degraded by 

overuse by humans, such as at OHV 

parks. As a result, the following critical 

habitat units had adjustments to their 

boundaries. The rationale for each 

adjustment is provided under the unit 

description. The affected critical habitat 

units are: CA 1, CA 15B, CA 16, and CA 

19B. 

(2) Several military areas were 

exempted from critical habitat 

designation due to their legally 

operative INRMPs. In addition, three 

National Wildlife Refuges were found to 

not to meet the definition of critical 

habitat under section 3(5)(a) of the Act, 

and were removed from the designation. 

Finally, several areas were excluded 

from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. These areas were 

excluded either for national security 

reasons, operative habitat conservation 

plans, or because of the high economic 

costs of critical habitat designation. For 

a complete description of these areas, 

please see the section titled Application 

of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

(3) Although we attempted to remove 

as many areas of unsuitable habitat to 

Pacific Coast WSP as possible before 

publishing the proposed rule, we were 

not able to eliminate all of them. As a 

result, the final rule represents a more 

precise delineation of essential habitat 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements. This correction 

resulted in a reduction in the total 

acreage published in the proposed rule. 

The affected critical habitat units are: 

CA 4D, and CA 19A, which contained 

areas in the proposed rule that were 

removed in the final designation. Some 

other designated units may also contain 

small portions which do not contain the 

primary constituent elements. Since it is 

not possible to remove each and every 

area that may be unsuitable Pacific 

Coast WSP habitat, even at the refined 

mapping scale used, the maps of the 

designation still may include areas that 

do not contain primary constituent 

elements. These areas lacking the 

primary constituent elements at time of 

the final rule’s publication are not 

designated as critical habitat. 

(4) Some mapping errors occurred in 

the proposed critical habitat rule for the 

Pacific Coast WSP, resulting in 

misnaming a proposed unit, an error in 

the depiction of unit boundaries, or in 

supplying the wrong UTMs (Universal 

Transverse Mercator) in a unit’s legal 

description. The affected units corrected 

in this final rule are CA 4D, CA 12C, 

and CA 22. Refer to the specific unit 

description for corrections. 

(5) The Unoccupied Areas Identified 

for Possible Inclusion presented in the 

proposed rule were determined not to 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. Consequently, we are not 

designating those areas in Washington 

and Oregon that were not occupied at 

the time of listing in 1993. Those units 

are WA 1, OR 1A, OR 1B, OR 2, OR 4, 

OR 5A, OR 5B, OR 6, OR 8, OR 10B, OR 

10C, OR 11, and OR 12. 

(6) An error was made during 

development of the proposed rule 

concerning the occupancy of CA 11A at 

the time of listing. We mistakenly stated 

that CA 11A (Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz 

County, California) was unoccupied 

during 1993, resulting in us not formally 

proposing this subunit as critical 

habitat. We were referred to data in our 

possession at the time of listing 

indicating that breeding plovers were 

present at Waddell Creek in 1991, and 

again in 1995. No surveys were 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56991 

conducted during the interim period. 

Consequently, we assume CA 11A was 

occupied at the time of listing, thereby 

fully meeting our designation criteria as 

critical habitat. 

We present brief descriptions below 

of the changes that have been made to 

units from those proposed or considered 

under the proposed rule (69 FR 75608), 

and provide the rationale for their 

change. A more complete discussion of 

changes is provided in the unit 

descriptions for those units that are 

designated as critical habitat. The 

critical habitat features essential for the 

conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP 

are defined in the ‘‘Primary Constituent 

Elements’’ section below. All designated 

units are located within the range of the 

population, in the States of Washington, 

Oregon, and California. They are all 

considered currently occupied (with 

documented use by plovers since 2000), 

unless otherwise noted. 

Washington 

WA 4, Leadbetter Point/Gunpowder 

Sands, 832 ac (337 ha): The portion of 

the spit within the Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge does not meet the 

definition of critical habitat in section 

3(5)(a) of the Act, as it does not require 

special management. As a result, the 

unit size has decreased to its designated 

832 acres (337 ha) from its proposed 

1,069 acres (433 ha) with the exclusion 

of the Refuge. 

Oregon 

OR 8, (Subunits OR 8A and OR 8B): 

A number of changes to the Siltcoos 

River Spit (OR 8A) and Dunes Overlook/ 

Tahkenitch Creek Spit (OR 8B) subunits 

were made in response to public 

comment. The changes reduced the total 

size of the unit from 563 to 535 acres 

and included: (1) Creating a new smaller 

unit (Siltcoos Breach) from the northern 

portion of OR 8A; (2) locating the 

northern boundary of OR 8A 0.6-miles 

north of the Siltcoos River; and (3) 

combining proposed subunits OR 8B 

with OR 8A. These modifications better 

reflect the current biological and 

management conditions at the site since 

they designate an important wintering 

area (the Siltcoos Breach), support the 

existing snowy plover management 

areas, and provide consistency with the 

Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the 

Western Snowy Plover (Oregon Parks 

and Recreation Department 2004). 

California 

CA 1, Lake Earl, 57 ac (24 ha): The 

portion of the proposed unit extending 

north to Kellogg Road, has been 

dropped from the final critical habitat 

designation, reducing the size of the 

unit from 91 acres (37 ha) to the 

designated 57 acres (24 ha). The narrow 

portion of the proposed unit that 

extended along the Pacific Shores 

housing development was eliminated 

from the final rule because of 

information received regarding the 

dense stands of non-native European 

beachgrass along an already narrow 

beach, the slope of the beachfront, and 

intensive use by OHVs. These combined 

factors make the northern portion of the 

proposed unit non-essential habitat. As 

a consequence, the unit’s northern 

boundary has been moved to exclude 

the private property. The southern 

boundary has been changed to extend 

slightly to the south onto State Park 

property. 

CA 4D, Eel River Gravel Bars, 1,190 ac 

(481 ha): The overall acreage of this unit 

has changed from the proposed 1,193 ac 

(483 ha) due to information received 

regarding the inclusion of developed 

properties managed by the California 

Department of Transportation. The three 

acres containing road developments 

have been dropped from the final 

designation, and are considered a 

mapping error. 

CA 7, Dillon Beach, 30 ac (12 ha): 

This unit was excluded from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, primarily based upon the 

landowner’s willingness to enter a 

partnership ensure conservation (see 

section titled Application of Section 

3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). 

CA 12A, Jetty Road to Aptos, 272 ac 

(110 ha): This subunit was excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

CA 12C, Monterey to Moss Landing, 

788 ac (319 ha): We have corrected a 

mapping error which was made during 

preparation of the proposed rule; to 

correct that error, we have removed 15 

ac from the final designation. The 

remainder of this subunit was excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

CA 15B, Atascadero Beach, 101 ac (40 

ha): A 43-ac (17 ha) portion of this 

subunit managed by the City of Morro 

Bay was removed from the proposed 

subunit because we determined that this 

area is not essential to the conservation 

of the plover. The remainder of this 

subunit was excluded from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act based upon its high economic 

costs (see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). 

CA 16, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, 

969 ac (392 ha): A 300-ac (121.4-ha) 

heavily used open riding area within 

Oceano Dunes State Vehicular 

Recreation Area was removed from the 

proposed unit because we determined 

that this area is not essential to the 

conservation of the plover. The 

remainder of this subunit was excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

CA 17, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

930 ac (376 ha): This unit, comprised of 

subunits CA 17A and CA 17B, is located 

on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa 

Barbara County, California. We have 

excluded all essential lands in this unit 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see Application of Section 3(5)(A) 

and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a 

detailed discussion). 

CA 19A, Mandalay Beach to Santa 

Clara River, 410 ac (166 ha): As stated 

in the unit description in the proposed 

rule (69 FR 75608), this subunit extends 

6.1 mi (9.8 km) north along the coast 

from the north jetty of the Channel 

Islands harbor to the Santa Clara River. 

However, the map of this subunit (Map 

54), as published in the proposed rule, 

depicted this unit as starting about 1 

mile north of the jetty (Hollywood 

Beach). We have corrected the map of 

subunit 19A to display the complete 

subunit, which includes Hollywood 

Beach. 

CA 19B, Ormond Beach, 175 ac (71 

ha): We removed a 28-ac (11 ha) area of 

subunit CA 19B, from the J Street 

drainage to the south jetty of Port 

Hueneme, because it is a highly 

disturbed and a heavily used 

recreational area. We determined that 

the area removed is not essential to the 

conservation of the plover. 

CA 19C, Mugu Lagoon North, 321 ac 

(130 ha): This subunit is owned entirely 

by the Department of Defense (Naval 

Base Ventura). Naval Base Ventura 

County has a final approved INRMP that 

provides a conservation benefit to the 

western snowy plover. We have now 

determined that the Naval Base Ventura 

County is exempted under 4(a)(3) of the 

Act and thus these lands are removed 

from final designation. 

CA 19D, Mugu Lagoon South, 87 ac 

(35 ha): This subunit is mostly owned 

56992 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

by Department of Defense (Naval Base 

Ventura). Based on a final INRMP which 

the Secretary has determined provides a 

benefit to the plover, the military 

portion is therefore exempted under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. However, 

there is a 18.3-ac (7.4 ha) section at its 

southern end of the subunit which 

extends into Pt Mugu State Park, owned 

and managed by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation. 

The portion within the State Park is 

designated as critical habitat. 

CA 22B, Bolsa Chica State Beach, 4 ac 

(2 ha): This subunit was mislabeled 

during the proposed rule process. The 

correct name, shown here for subunit 

CA 22B, is Bolsa Chica State Beach. The 

UTMs for the unit’s legal description 

were also presented in error during the 

proposed rule, and are correctly 

provided with the subunits map. The 

overall acreage and ownership remain 

the same, as does the subunit’s narrative 

description provided in the proposed 

rule (69 FR 75608). 

CA 24, San Onofre Beach, 40 ac (16 

ha): We have refined our mapping for 

Unit CA 24 to more accurately define 

the essential snowy plover habitat 

between San Onofre Creek and San 

Mateo Creek. The majority of snowy 

plover use in this area currently is 

located in a less visited portion of the 

beach closer to the mid-point between 

the two creek mouths. The result of this 

refined mapping is a reduction in the 

length of the proposed unit at both ends, 

removing critical habitat from Green 

Beach as well as beach areas to the 

north of San Mateo Creek mouth. 

CA 27A, North Island/Coronado, 117 

ac (47 ha): This subunit is exempted 

under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because 

of their approved INRMP that provides 

a benefit to the species (see Application 

of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

Subunit CA 27C, Silver Strand, 99 ac 

(40 ha): All Navy lands within subunit 

CA 27C are exempted under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act because of their 

approved INRMP that provides a benefit 

to the species (see Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

The remainder of this subunit (Silver 

Strand State Beach) was excluded from 

critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). 

Subunit CA 27D, Delta Beach, 85 ac 

(35 ha): All lands within subunit CA 

27D have been exempted under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act because of the Navy’s 

approved INRMP that provides a benefit 

to the species (see Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring an endangered or a 

threatened species to the point at which 

listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are ‘‘essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 

are found the primary constituent 

elements, as defined at 50 CFR 

424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the essential features thereon may 

require special management or 

protection. Thus, we do not include 

areas where existing management is 

sufficient to conserve the species. (As 

discussed below, such areas may also be 

excluded from critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data do not demonstrate 

that the conservation needs of the 

species so require, we will not designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

and section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. They require Service 

biologists to the extent consistent with 

the Act and with the use of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information sources include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issues by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

what we know at the time of 

designation. Habitat is often dynamic, 

and species may move from one area to 

another over time. Furthermore, we 

recognize that designation of critical 

habitat may not include all of the 

habitat areas that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of the species. For these 

reasons, critical habitat designations do 

not signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

be required for recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56993 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas that contain habitat 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP. Data sources 

include research published in peerreviewed articles; previous Service 

documents on the species, including the 

original critical habitat designation 

(Service 1999) and final listing 

determination (Service 1993); numerous 

surveys; and, aerial photographs and 

GIS mapping information from State 

sources and our files. We designated no 

areas outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by the species. 

We have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of this species. Sources of 

information include data in reports 

submitted during section 7 

consultations and by biologists holding 

section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; 

research published in peer-reviewed 

articles and presented in academic 

theses and agency reports; regional 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coverages; and data colleted in support 

of Habitat Conservation Plans and other 

local, State, and Federal planning 

documents. 

Four steps were conducted to identify 

critical habitat units. First, we identified 

those areas occupied by the Pacific 

Coast WSP at the time of listing. 

Secondly, we identified, in accordance 

with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the 

physical and biological habitat features 

(also called primary constituent 

elements, or PCEs) at those sites that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We mapped critical habitat unit 

boundaries at each site based on the 

extent of habitat containing sufficient 

PCEs to support biological function. The 

mapping itself was the third step, while 

the fourth and final step was to find that 

certain units, which do not require 

special management, do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, and to exempt 

other units that are subject to an 

approved INRMP that provides a benefit 

to the species under section 4(a)(3), and 

to exclude certain units based on 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusion under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, below, for a detailed 

description). We discuss each of these 

steps more fully below in the section 

titled ‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’. 

Our mapping process was based on 

the need to exclude areas that lack 

PCEs, while simultaneously accounting 

for the dynamic nature of beach habitat. 

Our mapping process also allowed us to 

provide a reasonable level of certainty to 

landowners regarding the location of 

unit boundaries relative to private 

lands. 

We used Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) software to establish 

landward bounds for those breeding and 

wintering sites that meet the criteria 

identified under the section titled 

‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’. We drew the landward bounds 

so as to exclude habitat lacking PCEs, as 

determined using the most recent digital 

orthorectified aerial photographs 

available. We also incorporated 

appropriate input regarding PCEs 

received during the public comment 

periods. We set the landward bounds to 

remain fixed in place, defined by the 

UTM North American Datum 27 

coordinates of their vertices and 

endpoints, because most private land is 

located near the landward bounds, and 

because the landward side of the unit is 

likely to change less over time than 

other boundaries. 

We depict the mapped shoreline, or 

waterline, bounds of each unit 

according to mean low water (MLW), 

including waters of the Pacific Ocean 

proper, bays, estuaries, and rivers where 

water level is significantly influenced 

by tides. However, the actual critical 

habitat designation includes the 

intertidal zone extending to the water’s 

edge. Use of the shoreline, or water’s 

edge, as a boundary provides an easy-tofind landmark when visiting one of the 

designated critical habitat units. The 

water’s edge incorporates essential 

habitat features that are constantly 

changing due to tides and wave action, 

beach erosion and aggradation, 

deposition of driftwood and 

stabilization due to vegetation growth, 

shifting windblown sand dunes, and 

other processes. For purposes of 

estimating unit sizes, we approximated 

MLW in California using the most 

recent GIS projection of MHW. We 

chose MHW because it is the only 

approximation of the coastline currently 

available in GIS format. We were unable 

to obtain recent GIS maps of MHW or 

MLW for Oregon and Washington. 

Therefore, we approximated MLW for 

units in those States based on aerial 

photographs. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, we are required to base critical 

habitat determinations on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and to consider those physical and 

biological features (primary constituent 

elements (PCEs)) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and that 

may require special management 

considerations and protection. These 

include, but are not limited to: Space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific primary constituent 

elements for the Pacific Coast WSP are 

derived from the biological needs of the 

Pacific Coast WSP as described in the 

previously published in our recent reproposal of critical habitat, published 

on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75608). 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, and Normal Behavior 

Pacific Coast WSPs establish nesting 

territories, but these can vary widely in 

size and do not provide adequate habitat 

for foraging. Pacific Coast WSP broods 

rarely remain in the nesting area until 

fledging (Warriner et al. 1986, Stern et 

al. 1990), and may travel along the 

beach as far as 4 miles (6.4 kilometers 

from their natal area )(Casler et al. 

1993). Critical habitat must therefore 

extend beyond nesting territories to 

include space for foraging and water 

requirements during the nesting season, 

and space for over wintering. 

Food and Water 

Pacific Coast WSPs typically forage in 

open areas by locating prey visually and 

then running to seize it with their beaks 

(Page et al. 1995a). They may also probe 

in the sand for burrowing invertebrates, 

or charge flying insects that are resting 

on the ground, snapping at them as they 

flush. Accordingly, they need open 

areas to forage and facilitate both prey 

location and capture. Areas with 

deposits of tide-cast wrack (e.g., kelp or 

driftwood) provide important foraging 

sites because they attract certain 

56994 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

invertebrates that plovers consume 

(Page et al. 1995a). Plovers forage both 

above and below high tide, but not 

while those areas are underwater. 

Therefore, foraging areas will typically 

be limited by water on their shoreward 

side and by dense vegetation or 

development on their landward sides. 

Coastal plovers use sites of fresh 

water for drinking where available. 

However, some historic nesting sites 

have no obvious nearby freshwater 

sources, particularly in southern 

California. Researchers assume that 

adults and chicks in these areas obtain 

their necessary water from the food they 

eat. Accordingly, we have not included 

freshwater sites among the primary 

constituent elements of the Pacific Coast 

WSP population. 

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring 

Pacific Coast WSPs nest in 

depressions that are open, relatively flat, 

and near tidal waters but far enough 

away to avoid being inundated by daily 

tides. Typical substrate is beach sand, 

although plovers are known to lay eggs 

in existing depressions with harder 

ground such as salt pan, cobblestones, 

or dredge tailings. Where available, 

dune systems with numerous flat areas 

and easy access to the shore are 

particularly favored for nesting. 

Additionally, plover nesting areas 

require shelter from predators and 

human disturbance, as discussed below. 

If nesting is successful, unfledged 

chicks will forage with one or both 

parents, using the same foraging areas 

and behaviors as adults. 

Cover or Shelter 

Plovers and their eggs are well 

camouflaged against light colored, 

sandy or pebbly backgrounds (Page et 

al. 1995a). Therefore, open areas with 

such substrates actually constitute 

shelter for purposes of nesting and 

foraging. Such areas provide little cover 

to predators, and allow plovers to fully 

utilize their camouflage and running 

speed. Chicks may also crouch near 

driftwood, dune plants and piles of kelp 

to hide from predators (Page and Stenzel 

1981). Consequently, open areas do not 

provide shelter from wind and storms. 

These weather events are known to 

cause many nest losses, along with 

extreme high tides. Plovers readily 

scrape blown sand out of their nests, 

although there is little they can do to 

protect the nests against serious storms 

or flooding other than attempting to lay 

a new clutch if one is destroyed (Page 

et al. 1995a). 

No studies have quantified the 

amount of vegetation cover that would 

make an area unsuitable for nesting or 

foraging. However, coastal nesting and 

foraging locations typically have 

relatively well-defined boundaries 

between the favorable open sandy 

substrates and the unfavorable dense 

vegetation that occurs inland. Such 

boundaries are clearly visible in aerial 

and satellite photographs and therefore 

were used by us to map essential habitat 

features for this species. 

Undisturbed Areas 

Disturbance of nesting or brooding 

plovers by humans and domestic 

animals is a major factor affecting nest 

success of the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Plovers leave their nests when humans 

or pets approach too closely. Dogs may 

also deliberately chase plovers and 

trample nests, while vehicles may 

directly crush adults, chicks or nests, 

separate chicks from brooding adults, 

and interfere with foraging (Warriner et 

al. 1986, Service 1993 Ruhlen et al. 

2003). Additionally, repeated flushing 

of incubating plovers exposes the eggs 

to the weather and deplete energy 

reserves needed by the adult. As a 

result, this could lead to reductions in 

nesting success. Surveys from 1994 to 

1997 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California, found the rate of nest loss on 

southern beaches with higher 

recreational use to be consistently 

higher than on north beaches where 

recreational use was much lower 

(Persons and Applegate 1997). Ruhlen et 

al. (2003) found that increased human 

activities on Point Reyes beaches 

resulted in a lower chick survival rate. 

Additionally, recent efforts (i.e., use of 

docents, symbolic fencing, and public 

outreach) in various locations 

throughout the Pacific Coast WSP’s 

range to direct recreational beach use 

away from nesting plovers, has resulted 

in higher reproductive success 

positively correlated with protection 

efforts in these areas (Page, et al. 2003 

(summer 93 survey), Palermo 2004). 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Pacific Coast WSP 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the Pacific Coast WSP’s 

primary constituent elements are: 

(1) Sparsely vegetated areas above 

daily high tides (e.g., sandy beaches, 

dune systems immediately inland of an 

active beach face, salt flats, seasonally 

exposed gravel bars, dredge spoil sites, 

artificial salt ponds and adjoining 

levees) that are relatively undisturbed 

by the presence of humans, pets, 

vehicles or human-attracted predators; 

(2) Sparsely vegetated sandy beach, 

mud flats, gravel bars or artificial salt 

ponds subject to daily tidal inundation 

but not currently under water, that 

support small invertebrates such as 

crabs, worms, flies, beetles, sand 

hoppers, clams, and ostracods; and, 

(3) Surf or tide-cast organic debris 

such as seaweed or driftwood located on 

open substrates such as those 

mentioned above (essential to support 

small invertebrates for food, and to 

provide shelter from predators and 

weather for reproduction). 

All areas designated as critical habitat 

for the Pacific Coast WSP were occupied 

by the species at the time of listing and 

contain sufficient primary constituent 

elements to support essential biological 

function. These primary constituent 

elements were identified on the bases 

that they are essential for Pacific Coast 

WSP reproduction, food supplies, and 

shelter from predators and weather 

elements. Additionally, these areas are 

essential because they provide 

protection from disturbance and space 

for growth and normal behavior. 

Unoccupied Areas Identified for 

Inclusion 

The Act has different standards for 

designation of critical habitat in 

occupied and unoccupied habitat. For 

areas occupied by the species, these 

are—(i) the specific areas on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. For areas not occupied, a 

determination is required that the entire 

area is essential for the conservation of 

the species before it can be included in 

critical habitat. 

Our proposed rule included a section 

containing Unoccupied Areas Identified 

for Inclusion, for which we requested 

comment regarding whether they should 

be included (in whole or in part) in the 

designation. Those areas identified for 

specific review were: WA 1, OR 1A, OR 

1B, OR 2, OR 4, OR 5A, OR 5B, OR 6, 

OR 8C, OR 10B, OR 10C, OR 11, and OR 

12. We also asked for comment on the 

appropriateness of designating areas 

that were occupied at the time of listing 

but are currently unoccupied. 

Although public comment was 

generally favorable towards including 

the unoccupied areas in final critical 

habitat designation, we are designating 

only areas actually occupied at the time 

of listing in 1993 because we do not 

believe that the unoccupied areas are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Most of the unoccupied habitat 

considered for designation was in 

Oregon, where a State-wide effort is 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56995 

underway to improve the survival and 

recovery of the Pacific Coast WSP 

through the development of a Habitat 

Conservation Plan. Additionally, the 

western snowy plover is State listed 

throughout Oregon, thereby already 

receiving regulatory protection beyond 

that associated with the Act. No areas 

outside of the range of the Pacific Coast 

WSP have been designated as critical 

habitat in this final rule. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

To identify sites containing habitat 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP (as defined above 

in our Methods section), we applied the 

following three criteria: 

(1) Our first criterion for critical 

habitat unit selection was to choose 

sites in a geographic region capable of 

supporting breeding plovers. Where 

appropriate, we adjusted our estimates 

of the number of breeding birds a site 

could support according to additional 

information supplied by surveys and by 

local species and habitat experts. 

(2) We added any major, currently 

occupied wintering sites not already 

selected under criterion one. This was 

necessary to provide sufficient habitat 

for the survival of breeding birds during 

the non-breeding season. A ‘‘major’’

wintering site must support more 

wintering birds than average for the 

geographical region. 

(3) Finally, we added additional sites 

that provide unique habitat, or that are 

situated to facilitate interchange 

between otherwise widely separated 

units. This criterion is based on 

standard conservation biology 

principles for the conservation of rare 

and endangered animals and their 

habitats (Shaffer 1981, 1987, 1995; 

Fahrig and Merriam 1985; Gilpin and 

Soule 1986; Goodman 1987a, 1987b; 

Stacey and Taper 1992; Mangel and Tier 

1994; Lesica and Allendorf 1995; Fahrig 

1997; Noss and Csuti 1997; Huxel and 

Hastings 1998; Redford and Richter 

1999; Debinski and Holt 2000; Sherwin 

and Moritz 2000; Grosberg 2002; and, 

Noss et al. 2002). By protecting a variety 

of habitats and facilitating interchange 

between them, we increase the ability of 

the species to adjust to various limiting 

factors that affect the population, such 

as predators, disease, major storms, and 

inbreeding. 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands that we have determined are 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the PCEs. 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act 

authorizes us to issue permits for the 

take of listed species incidental to 

otherwise lawful activities. An 

incidental take permit application must 

be supported by a habitat conservation 

plan (HCP) that identifies conservation 

measures that the permittee agrees to 

implement for the species to minimize 

and mitigate the impacts of the 

requested incidental take. We often 

exclude non-Federal public lands and 

private lands that are covered by an 

existing operative HCP and executed 

implementation agreement (IA) under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from 

designated critical habitat because the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion as discussed in 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Those HCPs 

that meet our issuance criteria and have 

been released for public notice and 

comment have been excluded from final 

critical habitat (see Table 2). 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid proposing the designation of 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, boat ramps and other 

structures that lack PCEs for the Pacific 

Coast WSP. Any such structures 

inadvertently left inside proposed 

critical habitat boundaries are not 

considered part of the proposed unit. 

This also applies to the land on which 

such structures sit directly. Therefore, 

Federal actions limited to these areas 

would not trigger section 7 

consultations, unless they affect the 

species and/or primary constituent 

elements in adjacent critical habitat. 

A brief discussion of each area 

designated as critical habitat is provided 

in the unit descriptions below. 

Additional detailed documentation 

concerning the essential nature of these 

areas is contained in our supporting 

record for this rulemaking. 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the PCEs may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

contain habitat features essential for 

conservation may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. The threats affecting the 

continued survival and recovery of the 

Pacific Coast WSP within each of the 

proposed critical habitat units and that 

may require special management are 

described in the critical habitat unit 

descriptions in our December 17, 2004, 

proposed rule (69 FR 75608). Primary 

threats requiring special management 

considerations include disturbance of 

nesting or foraging plovers by humans, 

vehicles, and domestic animals, high 

levels of predation on eggs and young, 

and loss of habitat due to development 

and encroachment of dune-stabilizing 

vegetation such as European beachgrass 

(Ammophila arenaria) (Service 1993). 

The areas designated as critical 

habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP will 

require some level of management and/ 

or protection to (1) address the current 

and future threats to the species; and, 

(2) maintain the primary constituent 

elements essential to its conservation in 

order to ensure the overall conservation 

of the species. The designation of 

critical habitat does not imply that lands 

outside of critical habitat do not play an 

important role in the conservation of the 

plover. Federal activities that may affect 

those unprotected areas outside of 

critical habitat are still subject to review 

under section 7 of the Act if they may 

affect the Pacific Coast WSP. The 

prohibitions of section 9 (e.g., 

prohibitions against killing, harming, 

harassing, capturing plovers) also 

continue to apply both inside and 

outside of designated critical habitat. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 32 units in 

Washington, Oregon, and California as 

critical habitat for the Pacific Coast 

WSP. All these units are within the 

range occupied by the species, and 

constitute our best assessment at this 

time of the areas containing habitat 

features essential for the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP. The areas 

designated as critical habitat are 

outlined in Table 2 below. 

Tables 1 and 2 show the approximate 

area not included in critical habitat 

pursuant to sections 3(5)(A), 4(a)(3) and 

4(b)(2) of the Act (Table 1), and the 

approximate area designated as critical 

habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP by 

land ownership and State (Table 2). 

56996 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—APPROXIMATE AREA AC (HA) NOT INCLUDED IN CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP PURSUANT

TO SECTIONS 3(5)(A), 4(A)(3) AND 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT

Size 

Unit Acres ha Basis of exclusion 

WA 4. Leadbetter Pt ........................................................................ 270 109 Mgt. Plan .................................... 3(5)(A) 

CA 7. Dillon Beach .......................................................................... 30 12 Conserv. Agreement .................. 4(b)(2) 

San Francisco Bay .......................................................................... 1,847 747 Mgt. Plan .................................... 4(b)(2) 

CA 12A. Jetty Rd. to Aptos ............................................................. 272 110 Economics .................................. 4(b)(2) 

CA 12C. Monterey to Moss Lnd ...................................................... 803 325 Mgt. Plan economics .................. 3(5)(A)/4(b)(2) 

CA 15B. Atascadero ........................................................................ 144 58 Economics .................................. 4(b)(2) 

CA 15C. Morro Bay ......................................................................... 611 247 Economics .................................. 4(b)(2) 

CA 16. Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes .............................................. 1,269 513 Mgt. Plan/economics .................. 3(5)(A)/4(b)(2) 

CA 17A. Vandenberg North ............................................................. 626 253 National Security ........................ 4(b)(2) 

CA 17B. Vandenberg South ............................................................ 304 123 National Security ........................ 4(b)(2) 

San Nicholas Island ......................................................................... 534 212 INRMP ........................................ 4(a)(3) 

CA 19C. Magu Lagoon .................................................................... 321 130 INRMP ........................................ 4(a)(3) 

CA 19D. Magu Lagoon .................................................................... 69 28 INRMP ........................................ 4(a)(3) 

Camp Pendleton .............................................................................. 49 20 INRMP ........................................ 4(a)(3) 

San Diego MSCP/HCP .................................................................... 23 9 Mgt. Plan .................................... 4(b)(2) 

CA 27A. North Island ....................................................................... 117 47 INRMP ........................................ 4(a)(3) 

CA 27C. Silver Strand ..................................................................... 174 70 INRMP/economics ...................... 4(a)(3)/4(b)(2) 

CA 27D. Delta Beach ...................................................................... 85 35 INRMP ........................................ 4(a)(3) 

Total .......................................................................................... 7,548 3048 

The rationale for the use of an 

exclusion or exemption is provided in 

the sections below discussing the 

application of section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) 

and exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP 

Unit 

Federal State/local Private Total 

acres ha acres ha acres ha acres ha 

Washington: 

WA 2. Damon Pt., Oyhut .................................. 0 0 908 368 0 0 908 368 

WA 3. Midway Beach ....................................... 0 0 266 108 520 210 786 318 

WA 4. Leadbetter Pt ......................................... 0 0 832 337 0 0 832 337 

Subtotal ...................................................... 0 0 2006 813 520 210 2526 1023 

Oregon: 

OR 3. Bayocean Spit ........................................ 85 34 122 49 .5 0 0 207 83 .5 

OR 7. Baker/Sutton Beaches ........................... 260 105 0 0 0 0 260 105 

OR 8. Siltcoos to Tenmile: 

OR 8A. Siltcoos 

BreachltcoosreachBreeBreach .............. 8 3 0 0 0 0 8 3 

OR 8B. Siltcoos River Spit to Tahkenitch 

Cr. Spit ................................................... 527 213 0 0 0 0 527 213 

OR 8D. Tenmile Creek Spit ...................... 234 .5 95 0 0 0 0 234 .5 95 

OR 9. Coos Bay North Spit .............................. 278 113 0 0 0 0 278 113 

OR 10A. Bandon to Floras Creek .................... 298 121 171 69 163 66 632 256 

Subtotal .................................................. 1690 .5 684 293 118 .5 163 66 2146 .5 868 .5 

California: 

CA 1. Lake Earl ................................................ 0 0 11 5 46 19 57 24 

CA 2. Big Lagoon ............................................. 0 0 280 113 0 0 280 113 

CA 3. McKinleyville Area: 

CA 3A. Clam Beach/Little River ................ 0 0 131 53 24 10 155 63 

CA 3B. Mad River ..................................... 0 0 161 65 217 88 377 153 

CA 4. Eel River Area: 

CA 4A. Humboldt Bay, S. Spit .................. 20 8 354 143 0 0 375 152 

CA 4B. Eel River N Spit/Beach ................. 0 0 278 112 5 2 283 114 

CA 4C. Eel River S Spit/Beach ................. 0 0 4 2 397 161 402 163 

CA 4D. Eel River Gravel Bars ................... 0 0 255 103 938 379 1193 483 

CA 5. MacKerricher Beach ............................... 0 0 1017 412 31 13 1048 424 

CA 6. Manchester Beach ................................. 0 0 336 136 5 2 341 138 

CA 8. Pt. Reyes Beach .................................... 462 187 0 0 0 0 462 187 

CA 9. Limantour Spit ........................................ 124 50 0 0 0 0 124 50 

CA 10. Half Moon Bay ...................................... 0 0 37 15 0 0 37 15 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56997 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE PACIFIC COAST WSP—Continued 

Unit 

Federal State/local Private Total 

acres ha acres ha acres ha acres ha 

CA 11. Santa Cruz Coast: 

CA 11A. Waddell Cr. Beach ...................... 0 0 8 3 1 0.5 9 4 

CA 11B. Scott Cr. Beach .......................... 0 0 0 0 19 8 19 8 

CA 11C. Wilder Cr. Beach ........................ 0 0 10 4 0 0 10 4 

CA 12. Monterey Bay Beaches: 

CA 12B. Elkhorn Sl Mudflat ...................... 0 0 281 114 0 0 281 114 

CA 13. Pt.Sur Beach ........................................ 0 0 61 25 0 0 61 25 

CA 14. San Simeon Beach .............................. 0 0 28 11 0 0 28 11 

CA 15. Estero Bay Beaches: 

CA 15A. Villa Cr. Beach ............................ 0 0 17 7 0 0 17 7 

CA 18. Devereux Beach ................................... 0 0 36 15 0 0 36 15 

CA 19. Oxnard Lowlands: 

CA 19A. Mandalay to Santa Clara R 

Mouth ..................................................... 0 0 245 99 105 42 350 142 

CA 19B. Ormond Beach ............................ 0 0 175 71 0 0 175 71 

CA 19D. Magu Lagoon S .......................... 0 0 87 35 0 0 87 35 

CA 20. Zuma Beach ......................................... 0 0 60 24 8 3 68 28 

CA 21. Santa Monica Bay: 

CA 21A. Santa Monica Beach .................. 0 0 6 2 19 8 25 10 

CA 21B. Dockweiler N ............................... 0 0 43 17 0 0 43 17 

CA 21C. Dockweiler S ............................... 0 0 13 5 11 5 24 10 

CA 21D. Hermosa Beach .......................... 0 0 10 4 0 0 10 4 

CA 22. Bolsa Chica Area: 

CA 22A. Bolsa Chica Reserve .................. 0 0 0 0 591 239 591 239 

CA 22B. Bolsa Chica St. Beach ................ 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 2 

CA 23. Santa Ana R Mouth .............................. 0 0 12 5 1 0 13 5 

CA 24. San Onofre Beach ................................ 0 0 40 16 9 4 49 20 

CA 25. Batiquitos Lagoon: 

CA 25A. Batiquitos West ........................... 0 0 15 6 6 3 21 9 

CA 25B. Batiquitos Middle ........................ 0 0 15 6 8 3 23 9 

CA 25C. Batiquitos East ............................ 0 0 0 0 21 8 21 8 

CA 26. Los Penasquitos ................................... 0 0 24 10 0 0 24 10 

CA 27. S. San Diego: 

CA 27B. North Island ................................ 44 18 44 18 

CA 27E. Sweetwater NWR ....................... 77 31 0 0 51 21 128 52 

CA 27F. Tijuana R. Beach ........................ 105 42 77 31 0 0 182 73 

Subtotal .................................................. 788 318 4175 1689 2508 1018.5 7477 3029 

Total .................................................... 2478 .5 1002 6474 2620 .5 3191 1294.5 12145 4921 

We present brief descriptions of all of 

the units, and reasons why they are 

essential for the conservation of Pacific 

Coast WSP. The critical habitat features 

essential for the conservation of the 

Pacific Coast WSP are defined in the 

‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’ section 

above. All units are located within the 

range of the population, in the States of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

They are all considered currently 

occupied (with documented use by 

plovers since 2000), unless otherwise 

noted. Those units not currently 

occupied are considered essential to the 

conservation of the population for the 

reasons provided in the description. 

Washington 

WA 2, Damon Point/Oyhut Wildlife 

Area, 908 ac (368 ha): This unit is 

located at the southern end of the 

community of Ocean Shores and is a 

sandy spit that extends into Grays 

Harbor. Damon Point includes the 

following features essential to the 

conservation of the species: sandy 

beaches that are relatively undisturbed 

by human or tidal activity (nesting 

habitat), large expanses of sparsely 

vegetated barren terrain, and mudflats 

and sheltered bays that provide ample 

foraging areas. Research in the mid 

1980’s indicated that up to 20 snowy 

plovers used the area for nesting. Plover 

use has declined somewhat over the 

past 20 years; currently between 6 and 

9 adult birds use the site during the 

breeding season (average reproductive 

success at Damon is 1.5 chicks per male) 

(WDFW in litt. 2003). The conservation 

goal for WA 2 is 12 adult plovers. 

Approximately 99 percent of the 908- 

acre unit is administered by the State 

(Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife—227 ac (92 ha); Washington 

State Parks—63.6 ac (25.7 ha); and 

Washington Department of Natural 

Resources—605.6 ac (245.1 ha)). The 

western edge of the unit lies adjacent to 

a municipal wastewater treatment 

facility that is managed by the City of 

Ocean Shores (9 ac (3.6 ha)). The access 

road has washed out and the area is 

currently inaccessible to motorized 

vehicles. Management may be needed to 

address threats to plovers from 

recreational use (pedestrians with dogs), 

habitat loss from European beachgrass, 

and potential re-opening of the vehicle 

access road. 

WA 3, Midway Beach, 786 ac (318 

ha): This unit is located between the 

community of Grayland and Willapa 

Bay and covers an area called Twin 

Harbors Beaches. Midway is an 

expansive beach and is nearly 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) wide at the widest point. Beach 

accretion since 1998 has greatly 

improved habitat conditions, resulting 

in the re-establishment of a plover 

population at this site (WDFW in litt. 

56998 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2000). Nearly half of the birds that nest 

and/or over-winter at Midway were 

banded in Oregon or Humboldt County, 

California (WDFW in litt. 2003). Threats 

at Midway include motorized vehicles 

combined with a lack of enforcement of 

the wet sand driving restrictions and 

human activity on holiday weekends 

(e.g., Fourth of July fireworks). Although 

public access is restricted on private 

property, beach driving is permitted 

below MHW. Approximately 2⁄3 (about 

520 ac (210.4 ha)) of this unit is on 

private property with the remainder 

(266 ac (107.6 ha)) on State park lands. 

Private property rights extend to the 

mean low water line (MLW) in 

Washington State. The conservation 

goal for Midway Beach is 30 adult 

breeding birds. Twenty-eight plovers 

nested at this site during the 2003 

breeding season, and the site has shown 

a relatively high average annual 

production of 1.3 to 1.9 chicks per male 

(WDFW in litt. 2003). 

WA 4. Leadbetter Point/Gunpowder 

Sands, 832 ac (337 ha): The Leadbetter 

Point/Gunpowder Sands critical habitat 

unit is located at the northern end of the 

Long Beach Peninsula, a 26-mile (41.8- 

km) long spit that defines the west side 

of Willapa Bay and extends down to the 

mouth of the Columbia River. The unit 

is located just north of the community 

of Ocean Park. The portion of the spit 

within the Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge has not been included in the 

final critical habitat designation under 

subsection 3(5)(a) of the Act, based on 

its existing management. As a result of 

Refuge exclusion, the unit size has 

decreased from 1,069 acres (433 ha) to 

its current 832 acres (337 ha). The 

southern portion of the unit, including 

Leadbetter Point State Park and the 

beach south of the state park boundary, 

is managed by the Washington State 

Parks and Recreation Department. State 

regulations, including motorized vehicle 

access during special shellfish seasons 

and recreational use, apply to the 

portion of the beach that is managed by 

the State. South of the Willapa NWR 

boundary, the state park jurisdiction 

follows an 1880 property line that 

extends well above the mean high tide 

line and includes all of the snowy 

plover nesting and foraging habitat in 

that part of the unit. 

Leadbetter is the largest of the critical 

habitat units in Washington and covers 

approximately 832 acres (337 ha) over 7 

miles (11.3 km) of coastline. The entire 

unit is on lands that are managed by 

Washington State. Approximately 30 

snowy plovers nest and over-winter on 

the spit, with about 20–25 birds nesting 

north of the refuge boundary and 5–10 

birds using the state park beaches to the 

south (Service in litt. 2004). Plover use 

of the beaches south of the refuge 

boundary appears to be increasing. The 

unit includes PCEs such as: sandy 

beaches and sparsely vegetated dunes 

for nesting as well as miles of surf-cast 

organic debris and sheltered bays for 

foraging. The combined dynamics of 

weather and surf cause large quantities 

of wood and shell material to 

accumulate on the spit, providing prime 

nesting habitat, hiding areas from 

predators, foraging opportunities, and 

shelter from inclement weather for 

plover broods. The plover population at 

Leadbetter has been slowly increasing 

since intensive monitoring began in 

1993 and we consider the area capable 

of supporting at least 30 breeding 

plovers given appropriate management. 

The primary threat north of the refuge 

boundary is human disturbance during 

the spring razor clam season, which 

opens beaches to motorized vehicle and 

provides access into plover nesting 

areas that normally receive limited 

human use. Beaches south of the refuge 

are open to public use year round. The 

State Parks department has posted 

interpretive signs in areas being used by 

plovers and is increasing enforcement of 

the wet sand driving regulations. 

Oregon 

OR 3, Bayocean Spit, 207 ac (84 ha): 

This unit is on the western coast of 

Tillamook County, Oregon, and about 8 

mi (12.9 km) northwest of the City of 

Tillamook. It is bounded by Tillamook 

Bay on the east, the Tillamook Bay 

South Jetty to the north, and the Pacific 

Ocean to the west. The unit is 

characteristic of a dune-backed beach in 

close proximity to mud flats and an 

estuary. It includes the following 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species (PCEs): large areas of sandy 

dune relatively undisturbed by human 

or tidal activity (for nesting and 

foraging); areas of sandy beach above 

and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for foraging); and 

close proximity to tidally influenced 

estuarine mud flats (for foraging). Two 

breeding plovers and one wintering 

plover were documented in this unit in 

1993 and 2000, respectively (ODFW in 

litt. 1994; Service in litt. 2004). This unit 

provides habitat capable of supporting 

16 breeding plovers under proper 

management. The unit consists of 85 ac 

(34.4 ha) of federally owned land and 

122 ac (49.4 ha) of county-owned land. 

The primary threats that may require 

special management in this unit are 

introduced European beachgrass that 

encroaches on the available nesting and 

foraging habitat; disturbance from 

humans, dogs and horses in important 

foraging and nesting areas; and 

predators such as the common raven. 

OR 7, Sutton/Baker Beaches, 260 ac 

(105.2 ha): This unit is on the western 

coast of Lane County, Oregon, about 8 

mi (12.9 km) north of the City of 

Florence. It is bounded by Sutton Creek 

to the south, Heceta Head to the north, 

and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The 

unit is characteristic of a dune-backed 

beach and wide sand spits with 

overwash areas. It includes the 

following features essential to the 

conservation of the species: large areas 

of sandy dunes or sand spit overwashes 

relatively undisturbed by human or 

tidal activity (for nesting and foraging) 

and areas of sandy beach above and 

below the high tide line with occasional 

surf-cast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for foraging). Most 

recently documented plovers for this 

unit include an average of 2 breeding 

plovers in 2003 and 8 wintering plovers 

in 2004 (Lauten et al. in litt. 2003; 

Service in litt. 2004). This unit is 

capable of supporting 12 breeding 

plovers under proper management. The 

unit consists of 260 federally owned ac 

(105.2 ha) managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service in Siuslaw National Forest. The 

primary threats that may require special 

management in this unit are introduced 

European beachgrass that encroaches on 

the available nesting and foraging 

habitat; disturbance from humans, dogs 

and horses in important foraging and 

nesting areas; and predators such as the 

American crow and common raven. 

Unit OR 8, Siltcoos to Tahkenitch 

Creek Spit: This unit includes two 

subunits within Lane and Douglas 

counties, Oregon. 

Subunit OR 8A, Siltcoos Breach, 8 ac 

(3 ha): This subunit is on the 

southwestern coast of Lane County, 

Oregon, about 7 mi (11.3 km) southwest 

of the City of Florence. It is a large 

opening in the foredune just north of the 

Siltcoos River and is an important 

winter roost. The subunit is 

characteristic of a dune-backed beach in 

close proximity to a tidally influenced 

river mouth. It includes the following 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species: Sparsely vegetated areas of 

sandy dune relatively undisturbed by 

human or tidal activity (for roosting); 

areas of sandy beach above and below 

the high tide line with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for foraging); and close 

proximity to tidally influenced 

freshwater areas (for foraging). Recently 

documented plovers for this subunit 

include 20 wintering plovers in 2004 

(Service in litt. 2004). The subunit 

consists of 8 federally owned acres (3.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56999 

ha) managed by the U.S. Forest Service 

as the Oregon Dunes National 

Recreation Area in the Siuslaw National 

Forest. The primary threats that may 

require special management in this 

subunit are introduced European 

beachgrass that encroaches on the 

available roosting habitat and 

disturbance from OHVs in the important 

roosting areas. 

Subunit OR 8B, Siltcoos River to 

Tahkenitch Creek Spit, 527 ac (213 ha): 

The northern end of this subunit is on 

the southwestern coast of Lane County, 

Oregon, about 7 mi (11.3 km) southwest 

of the City of Florence. The southern 

end is on the northwestern coast of 

Douglas County, Oregon, about 10 mi 

(16.1 km) northwest of the City of 

Reedsport. It is bounded by the Siltcoos 

River to the north, Tahkenitch Creek to 

the south and the Pacific Ocean to the 

west. The subunit is characteristic of a 

dune-backed beach and sand spit in 

close proximity to a tidally influenced 

river mouth. It includes the following 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species: Wide sand spits or wash 

overs and sparsely vegetated areas of 

sandy dune relatively undisturbed by 

human or tidal activity (for nesting and 

foraging); areas of sandy beach above 

and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for foraging); and 

close proximity to tidally influenced 

freshwater areas (for foraging). Recently 

documented plovers for this subunit 

include an average of seven breeding 

plovers in 2003 and two wintering 

plovers in 2003 (Lauten et al. in litt. 

2003; Service in litt. 2004). This subunit 

is capable of supporting 20 breeding 

plovers under proper management. The 

subunit consists of 527 federally owned 

acres (213.3 ha) managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service as the Oregon Dunes 

National Recreation Area in the Siuslaw 

National Forest. The primary threats 

that may require special management in 

this subunit are introduced European 

beachgrass that encroaches on the 

available nesting and foraging habitat; 

disturbance from humans, dogs and 

OHVs in important foraging and nesting 

areas; and predators such as the 

American crow and common raven. 

OR 9, Coos Bay North Spit, 278 ac 

(112.5 ha): This unit is on the western 

coast of Coos County, Oregon, about 5 

mi (8.0 km) west of the City of Coos Bay. 

It is bounded by Coos Bay to the east, 

the Coos Bay North Jetty to the south, 

and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The 

unit is characteristic of a dune-backed 

beach and interior interdune flats 

created through dredge material 

disposal or through habitat restoration. 

It includes the following features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (PCEs): Expansive sparsely 

vegetated interdune flats (for nesting 

and foraging); areas of sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging); and close proximity to tidally 

influenced estuarine areas (for foraging). 

The most recently documented plovers 

for this unit include an average of 17 

breeding and 3 wintering plovers in 

2003 (Lauten et al. in litt. 2003; Service 

in litt. 2004). This unit provides habitat 

capable of supporting 54 breeding 

plovers under proper management. The 

unit consists of 278 federally owned 

acres (112.5 ha) primarily managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

Threats that may require special 

management in this unit are introduced 

European beachgrass that encroaches on 

the available nesting and foraging 

habitat; disturbance from humans, dogs 

and OHVs in important foraging and 

nesting areas; and predators such as the 

American crow and common raven. 

OR 10, Bandon/Cape Blanco Area: 

One subunit within this unit was 

identified as essential to the 

conservation of the species, near the 

town of Bandon in Coos and Curry 

Counties, Oregon. 

Subunit OR 10A, Bandon to Floras 

Lake, 632 ac (256 ha): This subunit is on 

the southwestern coast of Coos County, 

Oregon, about 4 mi (6.4 km) south of the 

City of Bandon. It is bounded by China 

Creek to the north, the New River to the 

east, Floras Lake to the south, and the 

Pacific Ocean to the west. The subunit 

is characteristic of a dune-backed beach 

and barrier spit. It includes the 

following features essential to the 

conservation of the species: Wide sand 

spits or washovers and sparsely 

vegetated areas of sandy dune relatively 

undisturbed by human or tidal activity 

(for nesting and foraging); areas of sandy 

beach above and below the high tide 

line with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates 

(foraging); and close proximity to tidally 

influenced freshwater areas (for 

foraging). The most recently 

documented plovers for this subunit 

include an average of 15 breeding and 

18 wintering plovers in 2003 (Lauten et 

al. in litt. 2003; Service in litt. 2004). 

This subunit is capable of supporting 54 

breeding plovers under proper 

management. The subunit consists of 

298 ac (120 ha) of federally owned land, 

171 ac (69 ha) of State-owned land, 12 

ac of county-owned land (5 ha), and 163 

ac (66 ha) of privately owned land. The 

Bureau of Land Management and the 

Oregon Parks and Recreation 

Department are the unit’s primary land 

managers. Threats that may require 

special management in this subunit are 

introduced European beachgrass that 

encroaches on the available nesting and 

foraging habitat; disturbance from 

humans, dogs, horses and OHVs in 

important foraging and nesting areas; 

and predators such as the common 

raven and red fox. 

California 

Unit CA 1, Lake Earl; 57 ac (24 ha): 

This unit is located directly west of the 

Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa lagoon system. 

The portion of the proposed unit 

extending north to Kellogg Road has 

been dropped from the final critical 

habitat designation, reducing the size of 

the unit from 91 acres (37 ha) to the 

designated 57 acres (24 ha). The narrow 

portion of the proposed unit that 

extended along the Pacific Shores 

housing development was removed 

from the final rule because of 

information received regarding the 

dense stands of non-native European 

beachgrass along an already narrow 

beach, the relatively steep slope of the 

beachfront, and intensive use by OHVs. 

These factors combined make the 

northern portion of the proposed unit 

non-essential habitat. As a consequence, 

the final designated unit extends 

slightly to the south on to State Park 

property, while avoiding the private 

property to the north. 

The Lake Earl lagoon is approximately 

3 mi (4.8 km) in length, encompasses 

90.8 ac (36.7 ha), and lies approximately 

2 mi (3.2 km) north of Point Saint 

George and the McNamara Airfield. 

Essential features of the unit for Pacific 

Coast WSP conservation include sandy 

beaches above and below the mean high 

tide line, wind-blown sand in dune 

systems immediately inland of the 

active beach face, and the wash over 

area at the lagoon mouth. The Lake Earl 

unit is a historical breeding site, and has 

harbored a small population of 

wintering plovers in recent years 

(Watkins, pers. comm. 2004). We expect 

this unit is capable of supporting 10 

breeding plovers with adaptive 

management. All 57 ac (24 ha) are 

managed by the State under the 

jurisdiction of the California 

Department of Fish and Game, and 

California State Parks. Threats to the 

species include the following: 

Degradation of the sand dune system 

due to encroachment of European 

beachgrass; destruction of habitat and 

loss of wintering and nesting plovers 

from OHV use; and, destruction of 

habitat from annual mechanical 

breaching (as authorized by the U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE)) of the 

Lake Earl/Lake Tolowa lagoon. 

57000 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Monitoring indicates that the practice of 

breaching has only temporary, shortterm effects to wintering plovers. 

CA 2, Big Lagoon, 280 ac (113 ha): 

This unit consists of a large sand spit 

that divides the Pacific Ocean from Big 

Lagoon. The northern extent of the Big 

Lagoon spit is approximately three mi 

(4.8 km) south of the Town of Orick. 

The unit contains the following features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Pacific Coast WSP (PCEs): Low lying 

sandy dunes and open sandy areas that 

are relatively undisturbed by humans; 

and sandy beach above and below the 

high tide line that supports small 

invertebrates. The Big Lagoon spit is 

historical nesting habitat, and currently 

maintains a winter population of fewer 

than 10 plovers (Watkins, pers. comm. 

2001). We estimate the unit can support 

16 breeding plovers. The unit is located 

on the spit, which is approximately 3.8 

mi (6.1 km) in length. Most of the unit 

(279.2 ac, 113.0 ha) is managed by the 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation (CA State Parks). An 

additional 0.6 ac (0.26 ha) are Humboldt 

County-managed. State Parks has 

conducted habitat restoration at this 

unit through the hand-removal of nonnative vegetation. The primary threat to 

wintering and breeding plovers that may 

require special management is the 

disturbance from humans and dogs 

walking through winter flocks and 

potential nesting areas. 

CA 3, McKinleyville Area: This unit 

consists of two subunits in the vicinity 

of McKinleyville, California, in 

Humboldt County. 

CA 3A, Clam Beach/Little River, 155 

ac (63 ha): The Little River/Clam Beach 

subunit’s northern boundary is directly 

across from the south abutment of the 

U.S. Highway 101 bridge that crosses 

the Little River. The southern subunit 

boundary is aligned with the north end 

of the southernmost, paved Clam Beach 

parking area. The length of the unit is 

approximately 1.8 mi (2.8 km). Essential 

features of the subunit that contribute 

towards the conservation of the Pacific 

Coast WSP include large areas of sandy 

dunes, areas of sandy beach above and 

below the high tide line, and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain. The 

subunit currently supports a breeding 

population of approximately 12 plovers, 

and a winter population of up to 55 

plovers (Colwell, et al. 2003). It has 

developed into one of four primary 

nesting locations within northern 

California. We expect the subunit to be 

capable of supporting six pairs of 

breeding plovers. The primary threats to 

nests, chicks, and both wintering and 

breeding adult plovers in this subunit 

are OHV use, predators, and disturbance 

caused by humans and dogs. Of the total 

154.9 ac (62.7 ha), approximately 81.5 

acres (33 ha) are under the jurisdiction 

of the CA State Parks, 24.1 acres (9.8 ha) 

are in private ownership, and 49.5 acres 

(20 ha) are under the ownership and 

management of Humboldt County. 

CA 3B, Mad River Beach, 377 ac (153 

ha): This subunit was largely swept 

clean of European beachgrass when the 

Mad River temporarily shifted north in 

the 1980’s and 1990’s. The Mad River 

Beach subunit is approximately 2.8 mi 

(4.5 km) long, and ranges from the U.S. 

Highway 101 Vista Point below the 

Arcata Airport in the north, to School 

Road in the south. One hundred sixty 

one acres (65 ha) are owned and 

managed by Humboldt County, and 

216.5 (87.6 ha) are privately owned. 

Essential features of the subunit that 

contribute towards the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP include large 

areas of sandy dunes, areas of sandy 

beach above and below the high tide 

line, and generally barren to sparsely 

vegetated terrain. We expect the subunit 

to eventually support 12 breeding 

plovers with proper management. The 

current breeding population is believed 

to be less than 5 plovers, although 

plovers from this subunit readily 

intermix with plovers in CA 3A 

(Colwell, et al. 2003). Occasional winter 

use by plovers has been intermittently 

documented, with most wintering 

within the adjacent critical habitat unit 

to the north (Hall, pers. comm. 2003). 

The primary threats to nests, chicks, and 

both wintering and breeding adult 

plovers are OHV use, and disturbance 

caused by equestrians and humans with 

accompanying dogs. 

Unit CA 4, Eel River Area: This unit 

consists of 4 subunits, 1 each on the 

north and south spits of the mouth of 

the Eel River, 1 for the Eel River gravel 

bars supporting nesting plovers 

approximately 5 to 10 mi (3 to 6 km) 

inland, and 1 extending from the south 

spit of Humboldt Bay to the beach 

adjacent to the north Eel River spit 

subunit. 

Subunit CA 4A, Humboldt Bay, South 

Spit Beach, 375 ac (152 ha): This 

subunit is located across Humboldt Bay, 

less than one mile (<1.6 km) west of the 

City of Eureka, with the southern 

boundary being Table Bluff. Three 

hundred forty-four acres (139.3 ha) of 

the unit are owned by the California 

Department of Fish and Game, but are 

managed by the Federal Bureau of Land 

Management, 10.1 ac (4.1 ha) are owned 

and managed by the County of 

Humboldt, and 20.2 ac (8.2 ha) are 

owned by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. The subunit is 4.8 mi (7.7 

km) in total length. The following 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP can be found 

within the unit: Large areas of sandy 

dunes, areas of sandy beach above and 

below the high tide line, and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain. The 

plover wintering population is 

estimated at under 15 individuals, and 

three nests, from 4 breeders, were 

attempted within the subunit in 2003 

(Colwell, et al. 2003). This subunit is 

capable of supporting 30 breeding 

plovers. The Bureau of Land 

Management has conducted habitat 

restoration within the subunit, in 

consultation with us. The primary 

threats to adult plovers, chicks, and 

nests, are OHV use, and disturbance 

from equestrians and humans with dogs. 

Subunit CA 4B, Eel River North Spit 

and Beach, 283 ac (114 ha): This subunit 

stretches from Table Bluff on the north 

to the mouth of the Eel River in the 

south. The subunit is estimated to be 3.9 

miles (6.3 km) long, and is managed by 

the California Department of Fish and 

Game, except for five acres of private 

land. Essential features of the unit 

include: Large areas of sandy, sparsely 

vegetated dunes for reproduction and 

foraging, and areas of sandy beach above 

and below the high tide line supporting 

small invertebrates for foraging. 

Driftwood is an important component of 

the habitat in this subunit, providing 

shelter from the wind both for nesting 

plovers and for invertebrate prey 

species. The subunit’s winter 

population of plovers is estimated at 

less than 20 (LeValley, 2004). As many 

as 11 breeders have been observed 

during breeding season window 

surveys, with a breeding population 

estimated at less than 15 (Colwell, et al. 

2003). We expect this subunit to 

eventually support 20 breeding plovers 

with proper management. Threats 

include predators, OHVs, and 

disturbance from equestrians and 

humans with dogs. 

Subunit CA 4C, Eel River South Spit 

and Beach, 402 ac (163 ha): This subunit 

encompasses the beach segment from 

the mouth of the Eel River, south to 

Centerville Road, approximately 4 miles 

(6.4 km) west of the Town of Ferndale. 

The subunit is 5 miles (8.3 km) long. 

397.1 acres (160.7 ha) are private, and 

the remaining 4.4 ac (1.8 ha) are 

managed by Humboldt County. 

Essential features of the subunit 

include: Large areas of sandy dunes, 

areas of sandy beach above and below 

the high tide line, and generally barren 

to sparsely vegetated terrain. This 

subunit is capable of supporting 20 

breeding plovers. A single nest was 

found during the 2004 breeding season 

(McAllister, pers. comm. 2004). The 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57001 

winter population is estimated at under 

80 plovers, many of which breed on the 

Eel River gravel bars (CA 5) (McAllister, 

pers. comm. 2003, Transou, pers. comm. 

2003). Threats include predators, OHVs, 

and disturbance from equestrians and 

humans with dogs. 

Subunit CA 4D, Eel River Gravel Bars; 

1,190 ac (481 ha): The overall acreage of 

this unit has changed from the proposed 

1,193 ac (483 ha) due to information 

received regarding the inclusion of 

developed properties managed by the 

California Department of 

Transportation. The 3 acres containing 

road developments have been dropped 

from the final designation, and is 

considered a mapping error. 

This subunit is inundated during 

winter months due to high flows in the 

Eel River. It is 6.4 mi (10.3 km) from the 

Town of Fernbridge, upstream to the 

confluence of the Van Duzen River. The 

Eel River is contained by levees in this 

section, and consists of gravel bars and 

wooded islands. The subunit contains a 

total of 1,190 ac (481 ha), of which 176 

ac (71) are owned and managed by 

Humboldt County, 76 ac (30 ha) are 

under the jurisdiction of the California 

State Lands Commission, and 938 ac 

(379 ha) are privately owned. Essential 

features of this subunit include bare, 

open gravel bars comprised of both sand 

and cobble which support reproduction 

and foraging. This Subunit harbors the 

most important breeding habitat in 

California north of San Francisco Bay, 

having the highest fledging success rate 

of any area from Mendocino County to 

the Oregon border. This subunit is 

capable of supporting 40 breeding 

plovers. Recent window surveys 

documented 22 breeding birds in this 

subunit (LeValley, pers. comm. 2004). 

Threats include predators, OHVs, and 

disturbance from gravel mining and 

humans with dogs. 

CA 5, MacKerricher Beach, 1,048 ac 

(424 ha): This unit is approximately 3.5 

miles (5.5 km) long. The unit is just 

south of the Ten Mile River, and 

approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) north of 

the City of Fort Bragg. 1,017.2 acres 

(411.6 ha) are managed by CA State 

Parks, and 31.2 acres (12.6 ha) are 

private. Essential features of the unit 

include: Large areas of sandy dunes, 

areas of sandy beach above and below 

the high tide line, and generally barren 

to sparsely vegetated terrain. State Parks 

has been conducting removal of 

European beachgrass to improve habitat 

for the Pacific Coast WSP and other 

sensitive dune species within the unit. 

This unit is capable of supporting 20 

breeding plovers. The current breeding 

population is estimated at less than 10 

(Colwell, et al. 2003). The winter 

population of plovers is under 45 

(Cebula, pers. comm. 2004). Threats to 

nests, chicks and both wintering and 

breeding adults include predators and 

disturbance from equestrians and 

humans with dogs. 

CA 6, Manchester Beach, 341 ac (138 

ha): The Manchester Beach unit is 

approximately 3.5 miles (5.7 km) in 

length. California State Parks manages 

336.2 ac (136.1 ha) of the unit, while the 

remaining 4.8 ac (1.9 ha) are private. 

Essential features of the unit include: 

Large areas of sandy dunes, areas of 

sandy beach above and below the high 

tide line, and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain. This unit 

provides an important wintering site for 

the region (Service 2001). In 2003, a pair 

of plovers nested within the unit, and 

successfully hatched 2 chicks. However, 

those chicks did not survive (Colwell, et 

al. 2003). The current wintering 

population is estimated at less than 20 

(Cebula, pers. comm. 2004). Threats to 

nests, chicks and both wintering and 

breeding adults include predators and 

disturbance from equestrians and 

humans with dogs. 

CA 7, Dillon Beach, 30 ac (12 ha): 

This unit was excluded from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, primarily based upon the 

landowner’s willingness to enter a 

partnership ensure conservation (see 

section titled Application of Section 

3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). This 

unit is located at the mouth of Tomales 

Bay, just south of the town of Dillon 

Beach. It stretches for about 1.25 mi 

(2.01 km) north from Sand Point. PCEs 

provided by the unit include surf-cast 

debris supporting small invertebrates for 

foraging, and large stretches of relatively 

undisturbed, sparsely vegetated sandy 

beach, both above and below high tide 

line, for foraging and potentially for 

nesting. Although nesting has not been 

noted here, the unit is an important 

wintering area. One hundred twenty 

three wintering plovers were counted at 

this spot during the last winter survey 

in January 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). 

Other than State lands intermittently 

exposed below mean high tide, the unit 

is entirely on private land. Potential 

threats that may require special 

management include predators and 

disturbance by humans and their pets. 

CA 8, Pt. Reyes Beach, 462 ac (187 

ha): This unit occupies most of the westfacing beach between Point Reyes and 

Tomales Point. It is located entirely 

within the Point Reyes National 

Seashore, and consists primarily of 

dune backed beaches. The unit includes 

the following PCEs essential to plover 

conservation: Sparsely vegetated sandy 

beach above and below high tide for 

nesting and foraging, wind-blown sand 

dunes for nesting and predator 

avoidance, and tide-cast debris 

attracting small invertebrates for 

foraging. It supports both nesting and 

wintering plovers, and can support 50 

breeding birds with proper 

management. Threats in the area that 

may require special management 

include disturbance by humans and 

pets, and predators (particularly ravens 

and crows). 

CA 9, Limantour Spit, 124 ac (50 ha): 

Limantour Spit is a roughly 2.25 mile 

(4.0 km) sand spit at the north end of 

Drake’s Bay. The unit includes the end 

of the spit, and contracts to include only 

the south-facing beach towards the base 

of the spit. It is completely within the 

Point Reyes National Seashore. CA 9 

can support both nesting and wintering 

plovers, although nesting has not been 

documented since 2000 (Page in litt. 

2003, 2004). Ninety-five wintering 

plovers were counted at the site during 

the January 2004 survey (Page in litt. 

2004). The unit is expected to contribute 

significantly to plover conservation in 

the region by providing habitat capable 

of supporting ten nesting birds. PCEs at 

the unit include sparsely vegetated 

beach sand, above and below high tide 

for nesting and foraging, and tide-cast 

debris supporting small invertebrates. 

Threats that may require special 

management include disturbance by 

humans and pets, and nest predators 

such as crows and ravens. 

CA 10, Half Moon Bay, 37 ac (15 ha): 

This unit stretches for about 1.25 mi 

(2.01 km) along Half Moon Bay State 

Beach, and is entirely within California 

State Park land. It includes sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line for 

nesting and foraging, and surf-cast 

debris to attract small invertebrates. 

Small numbers of breeding birds have 

been found at the location in the past 

three surveys, including four breeding 

birds in the most recent survey, 

conducted in 2003 (Page in litt. 2003). 

The unit also supports a sizeable winter 

flock, consisting of 65 birds in 2004 

(Page in litt. 2004). We expect the unit 

to eventually support ten breeding birds 

in the unit under proper management, 

which makes it a potentially significant 

contributor to plover conservation. 

Potential threats in the area that may 

require special management include 

disturbance by humans and pets, and 

nest predators. 

CA 11, Santa Cruz Coast: This unit 

consists of three relatively small pocket 

beaches in Santa Cruz County, 

California. The unit forms an important 

link between larger breeding beeches to 

57002 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the north and south, such as Half Moon 

Bay and the Monterey Bay beaches. 

Subunit CA 11A, Waddell Creek 

Beach, 9 ac (4 ha): This subunit includes 

the mouth of Waddell Creek and is 

located about 20 mi (32.2 km) north of 

the city of Santa Cruz. It extends about 

0.7 mi (1.1 km) north along the coast 

from a point about 0.1 mi (0.2 km) south 

of the creek mouth to a point about 0.6 

mi (0.4 km) north of the creek. This unit 

was listed as being unoccupied in the 

proposed rule in error. From 3 to 11 

nesting plovers were counted in this 

unit in the early 1990’s, and the area 

also supported a sizeable wintering 

plover population of up to 50 birds 

during that time (Service 1991). More 

recently, at least one nest successfully 

hatched in 2004 and one in 2005 (G. 

Page, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 

pers. comm. 2005). The area provides 

several essential habitat features, 

including wind-blown sand dunes, 

areas of sandy beach above and below 

the high tide line with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) 

and generally barren to sparsely 

vegetated terrain (for foraging and 

predator avoidance). With proper 

management, and in conjunction with 

the other two small units proposed for 

Santa Cruz County (CA 11B and 11C), 

this subunit can attract additional 

nesting plovers and thereby facilitate 

genetic interchange between the larger 

units at Half Moon Bay (CA 10) and 

Palm Beach and Moss Landing (CA 12) 

(see Criterion 3, Methods section, 

above). CA 11A encompasses 

approximately 8.1 ac (3.3 ha) of State 

land and 1.3 ac (0.5 ha) of private land. 

Human disturbance is the primary 

threat to plovers in the subunit that 

might require special management. 

Subunit CA 11B, Scott Creek Beach, 

19 ac (8 ha): This subunit includes the 

mouths of Scott and Molino creeks and 

is located about 13 mi (20.9 km) north 

of the city of Santa Cruz. It extends 

about 0.7 mi (1.1 km) north along the 

coast from the southern end of the 

sandy beach (0.3 mi (0.5 km) south of 

Molino Creek) to a point about 0.1 mi 

(0.4 km) north of Scott Creek. Recent 

surveys have found from 12 (in 2000) to 

1 (in 2004) nesting plovers occupying 

the area (Page in litt. 2004), and it is an 

important snowy plover wintering area, 

with up to 114 birds each winter (Page 

in litt. 2004). This subunit is essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

with proper management, and in 

conjunction with the other two small 

units proposed for Santa Cruz County 

(CA 11B and 11C), it can attract 

additional nesting plovers and thereby 

facilitate genetic interchange between 

the larger units at Half Moon Bay (CA 

10) and Palm Beach and Moss Landing 

(CA 12) (see Criterion 3, Methods 

section, above). The subunit includes 

the following habitat features essential 

to the species: Areas of sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). CA 13 is 

situated entirely on private land. 

Human disturbance and predators are 

the primary threats to snowy plovers in 

this subunit that may require special 

management. 

Subunit CA 11C, Wilder Creek Beach, 

10 ac (4 ha): This subunit is located at 

the mouth of Laguna Creek and is about 

8 mi (12.9 km) north of the city of Santa 

Cruz. It extends about 0.5 mi (0.3 km) 

north along the coast from the southern 

end of the sandy beach to the northern 

end of the beach across the mouth of 

Laguna Creek. Five nesting plovers were 

found in the area in 2000 (Page in litt. 

2004). The subunit includes the 

following essential features: Areas of 

sandy beach above and below the high 

tide line with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates (for 

nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). CA 

11C is capable of supporting sixteen 

breeding birds under proper 

management. The subunit is entirely 

situated on State-owned land. 

Disturbance from humans and pets, 

development, OHV use, pets, and 

predators are the primary threats to 

snowy plovers in this subunit that may 

require special management. 

CA 12, Monterey Bay Beaches: This 

unit now includes one subunit within 

Monterey Bay, California, in parts of 

Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. 

Subunit CA 12A, Jetty Rd to Aptos, 

272 ac (110 ha): This subunit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of Section 

3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). This 

subunit is about 5 mi (8 km) west of the 

city of Watsonville and includes Sunset 

and Zmudowski State beaches. The 

mouth of the Pajaro River is located near 

the center of the unit, and Elkhorn 

Slough is at the south end of the unit. 

It extends about 8.5 mi (13.7 km) north 

along the coast from Elkhorn Slough to 

Zils Road. This is an important snowy 

plover nesting area, with 8–38 birds 

nesting each year, and is also an 

important wintering area, with up to 

250 birds each winter (Page in litt. 

2004)). This subunit is capable of 

supporting 54 breeding birds under 

proper management. It includes the 

following features essential to the 

species: Areas of sandy beach above and 

below the high tide line with occasional 

surf-cast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) 

and generally barren to sparsely 

vegetated terrain (for foraging and 

predator avoidance). CA 12A exists 

entirely on State lands. Human 

disturbance, development, horses, OHV 

use, pets, predators, and dunestabilizing vegetation such as European 

beachgrass are the primary threats to 

snowy plovers in this subunit that may 

require special management. 

Subunit CA 12B, Elkhorn Slough 

Mudflats, 281 ac (114 ha): CA 12B is 

about 3.5 mi (5.6 km) north of the city 

of Castroville along the north side of 

Elkhorn Slough east of Highway 1. It 

extends about 1 mi (1.6 km) along the 

north shore of Elkhorn Slough east of 

Highway 1 and about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 

north from Elkhorn Slough to Bennett 

Slough. This is an important nesting 

area, with 6–47 birds nesting each year, 

and is also an important wintering area, 

with up to 95 birds each winter (Page in 

litt. 2004, Stenzel in litt. 2004). This 

subunit is capable of supporting 80 

breeding birds under proper 

management. It includes the following 

features essential to the species: Areas 

of sandy beach above and below the 

high tide line with occasional surf-cast 

wrack supporting small invertebrates 

(for nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). The 

subunit is situated entirely on Stateowned land. Human disturbance, 

development, horses, OHV use, pets, 

predators, and vegetation are the 

primary threats to snowy plovers in this 

subunit that may require special 

management. 

Subunit CA 12C, Monterey to Moss 

Landing, 788 ac (319 ha): This subunit 

was excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). This subunit includes the beaches 

along the southern half of Monterey Bay 

from the city of Monterey at the south 

end of the subunit to Moss Landing and 

the mouth of Elkhorn Slough at the 

north end of the unit. The mouth of the 

Salinas River is located near the center 

of the unit. It extends about 15 mi (24.2 

km) north along the coast from 

Monterey to Moss Landing. This is an 

important nesting area, with 61 to 104 

nesting birds each year, and is also an 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57003 

important snowy plover wintering area, 

with up to 190 birds each winter (Page 

in litt. 2004, Stenzel in litt. 2004). This 

subunit is capable of supporting 162 

breeding birds under proper 

management. It includes the following 

habitat features essential to the species: 

Areas of sandy beach above and below 

the high tide line with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) 

and generally barren to sparsely 

vegetated terrain (for foraging and 

predator avoidance). CA 12C includes 

approximately 470 ac (190 ha) of State 

and local lands, and 63 ac (25 ha) of 

Federal land. It would include an 

additional 142 ac (57.5 ha) of Federal 

land in the Salinas River National 

Wildlife Refuge, but we are excluding 

that area based on the existence of a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Salinas River NWR that has undergone 

section 7 consultation (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). Human disturbance, 

development, horses, OHV use, pets, 

predators, and habitat changes resulting 

from exotic vegetation are the primary 

threats to snowy plovers in this subunit 

that may require special management. 

CA 13, Point Sur Beach, 61 ac (25 ha): 

This unit is about 17 mi (27.4 km) south 

of the city of Monterey and immediately 

north of Point Sur. It extends about 1 mi 

(1.6 km) north along the coast from 

Point Sur. This is an important snowy 

plover wintering area, with up to 65 

birds each winter (Page in litt. 2004). A 

few nesting pairs (1–2) also occupy this 

unit each year (Stenzel in litt. 2004). 

This unit is capable of supporting 20 

breeding birds under proper 

management. It includes the following 

features essential to the species: Windblown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). This unit is 

situated entirely on State-owned land. 

Human disturbance and habitat changes 

due to exotic vegetation are the primary 

threats to snowy plovers in this unit that 

may require special management. 

CA 14, San Simeon Beach, 28 ac (11 

ha): CA 14, which is entirely within San 

Simeon State Beach, is located about 5 

mi (8 km) south of San Simeon. It 

extends about 0.9 mi (1.5 km) north 

along the coast from a point opposite 

the intersection of Highway 1 and 

Moonstone Beach Drive to the 

northwestern corner of San Simeon 

State Beach. This is an important snowy 

plover wintering area, supporting 143 

birds as documented by the most recent 

winter survey (Page in litt. 2004). The 

unit also supports a small number of 

nesting plovers: One nest hatched three 

chicks in 2002, and one nest was 

initiated but lost to predators in 2003 

(Orr in litt. 2004). This unit includes the 

following features essential to the 

species: Areas of sandy beach above and 

below the high tide line with occasional 

surf-cast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) 

and generally barren to sparsely 

vegetated terrain (for foraging and 

predator avoidance). Human 

disturbance, pets, and dune stabilizing 

vegetation are the primary threats to 

snowy plovers in this unit that may 

require special management. 

CA 15, Estero Bay Beaches: This unit 

now includes one subunit in Estero Bay, 

California, San Luis Obispo County. The 

subunit designated as critical habitat 

(CA 15A) is a pocket beach at the north 

end of the bay. 

Subunit CA 15A, Villa Creek Beach, 

17 ac (7 ha): The Villa Creek subunit is 

about 3.5 mi (5.6 km) northwest of the 

city of Cayucos, and is managed by the 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation. Villa Creek Beach is located 

near the northern boundary of the Estero 

Bluffs property. It extends 0.3 mi (0.5 

km) northwest along the beach from an 

unnamed headland 1.4 mi (2.3 km) 

north of Point Cayucos to an unnamed 

headland northwest of Villa Creek, and 

inland (north) for 0.25 mi (0.4 km) along 

Villa Creek. This subunit is an 

important breeding area that supports 

between 21 and 38 adults during the 

breeding season, and up to 31 nests 

(Larson 2003a). This area is also an 

important wintering site that supports 

up to 30 wintering birds (George 2001). 

It includes the following features 

essential to the species: Areas of sandy 

beach above and below the high tide 

line with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates (for 

nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). 

Threats that may require special 

management include human 

disturbance, pets, horses, and predators. 

Subunit CA 15B, Atascadero Beach, 

101 ac (40 ha): This subunit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). A 43-ac (17 ha) portion of this 

subunit from Highway 41/Atascadero 

Road south to Morro Bay Rock was 

removed as not essential to the 

conservation of the plover. This area is 

heavily disturbed by recreational beach 

users and does not provide the features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species (e.g., an area free from 

disturbance) and is not, by definition, 

critical habitat. However, the remainder 

of subunit 15B was determined to be 

essential for western snowy plover 

conservation. 

The subunit is located at Morro 

Strand State Beach near the city of 

Morro Bay, and is managed entirely by 

the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation. It extends about 1.6 mi (2.5 

km) north along the beach from 

Atascadero Road/Highway 41 to an 

unnamed rocky outcrop opposite the 

end of Yerba Buena Street at the north 

end of Morro Bay. This is an important 

breeding area supporting up to 40 nests 

each year (Larson 2003b). CA 15B is also 

an important wintering area, with up to 

152 wintering birds (Service 2001). This 

subunit is essential to species 

conservation because it contributes 

significantly to the regional 

conservation goal by providing habitat 

capable of supporting 40 breeding birds 

under proper management (Service 

2001). It includes the following features 

essential to the species: Areas of sandy 

beach above and below the high tide 

line with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates (for 

nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). 

Human disturbance, pets, and predators 

are the primary threats to plovers in this 

unit that may require special 

management. 

Subunit CA 15C, Morro Bay Beach, 

611 ac (247 ha): This subunit was 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act based upon its high economic costs 

(see section titled Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). The subunit is located at Morro 

Bay near Morro Rock. The majority of 

the beach is managed by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, 

while the northern tip of the sand spit 

is owned by the city of Morro Bay. It 

extends 6.9 miles (11.1 km) north along 

the beach from a rocky outcrop about 

0.2 mi (0.3 km) north of Hazard Canyon 

to the northern tip of the sand spit. This 

is an important breeding and wintering 

area that supports more than 100 

breeding adults and up to 148 wintering 

birds (Page in litt. 2003). This subunit is 

capable of supporting 110 breeding 

birds under proper management. It 

includes the following features essential 

to the species: Wind-blown sand dunes, 

areas of above and below the high tide 

line with occasional surf-cast wrack 

57004 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

supporting small invertebrates (for 

nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). 

Human disturbance, horses, pets, 

predators, and dune-stabilizing 

vegetation are the primary threats to 

plovers that may require special 

management. 

CA 16, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, 

969 ac (392 ha): A 300-ac (121.4-ha) 

portion of this unit was removed 

because we determined it was not 

essential to the conservation of the 

plover. The area removed consists of the 

heavily used open riding area at Oceano 

Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area. 

The open riding area is the entire area 

open to recreation vehicles during the 

western snowy plover nesting season, 

and extends from the park entrance to 

post 6 (State Parks 2004). There are 

marker posts, numbered 1 through 8 

along the coastal strand of the riding 

area to provide orientation. These posts 

are 0.5 miles apart. The open riding area 

is not essential for the conservation of 

the western snowy plover because it is 

subject to regular disturbance from both 

street legal vehicles and OHVs. Vehicle 

disturbance in the open riding area has 

precluded it from supporting a 

substantial number of nesting western 

snowy plovers (only one nest was 

established in the open riding area in 

2004 [State Parks 2004]). The open 

riding area does not contain the features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species (e.g., an area free from 

disturbance) and is not, by definition, 

critical habitat. Therefore, we are not 

designating the open riding area, 

including the 3.5-mile (5.6 km) length of 

beach from the park entrance to the start 

of the nesting area at post 6, as critical 

habitat. 

The remainder of this unit was either 

removed from critical habitat pursuant 

to section 3(5)(a) of the Act, based upon 

its existing management, or excluded 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act). The remainder of the 

unit consists of two larger areas 

connected by a narrow strip of land 

below the mean high water (MHW) line. 

The narrow strip is all that remains of 

that part of the unit after the exclusion 

of Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes National 

Wildlife Refuge. The Unit is located 

south of Grover City and Oceano and 

includes areas of Rancho Guadalupe 

County Park, managed by Santa Barbara 

County; and the Guadalupe Oil Field, 

the Oso Flaco Natural Area and Oceano 

Dunes Off-road Vehicular Recreation 

Area, managed by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation. 

The unit extends about 9 mi (14.5 km) 

north along the beach from a point 

about 0.4 mi (0.6 km) north of Mussel 

Point to Marker Post 6. Marker posts 

numbered 1 through 8, and 0.5 mile 

apart, occur along the coastal strand of 

the ODSVRA riding area to provide 

orientation to park visitors. This is an 

important breeding area capable of 

supporting between 123 and 246 

breeding adults (Service 2001) and over 

300 wintering birds (Service 2001; 

George 2001). This unit is essential to 

species conservation because it 

contributes significantly to the regional 

conservation goal by providing habitat 

capable of supporting 350 breeding 

birds under proper management 

(Service 2001). It includes the following 

features essential to the species: windblown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). This unit 

includes approximately 469.7 ac (190 

ha) of State and local land, and 498.9 ac 

(201.9 ha) of private land. Potential 

threats that may require special 

management include direct human 

disturbance, OHVs, horses, pets, and 

predators. 

CA 17, Vandenberg: This unit, 

consisting of two subunits, is located on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa 

Barbara County, California. We have 

excluded all essential lands in this unit 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see Application of Section 3(5)(A) 

and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a 

detailed discussion). 

Subunit CA 17A, Vandenberg North, 

626 ac (253 ha): We have excluded all 

essential lands in this subunit from the 

final critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed 

discussion). This subunit is located on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base about 14 mi 

(22.5 km) southwest of the city of Santa 

Maria. It extends about 7.9 mi (12.7 km) 

north along the coast from a point along 

the beach 0.5 mi (0.8 km) south of 

Purisima Point to an unnamed creek or 

canyon 0.6 mi (1 km) south of Lion’s 

Head, an area of rocky outcrops. This is 

an important breeding area that 

supports between 90 and 145 breeding 

adults (SRS 2003). This is also an 

important wintering area with up to 265 

wintering birds (Page in litt. 2004). This 

subunit is capable of supporting 250 

breeding birds under proper 

management. It includes the following 

features essential to the species: windblown sand dunes, areas of sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). The subunit is 

entirely owned by the U.S. Air Force. 

Disturbance of nesting by humans and 

pets, military activities, predators, and 

the spread of dense vegetation are the 

primary threats to plovers in this 

subunit that may require special 

management. 

Subunit CA 17B, Vandenberg South, 

304 ac (123 ha): We have excluded all 

essential lands in this subunit from the 

final critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed 

discussion). This subunit is located on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base about 9 mi 

(14.5 km) west of the city of Lompoc, 

and is entirely on U.S. Air Force land. 

It extends about 4.6 mi (7.4 km) north 

along the coast from an unnamed rocky 

outcrop 0.2 mi (0.3 km) north of Can ̃ ada 

la Honda Creek to the first rock 

outcropping along the beach north of 

the Santa Ynez River (0.8 mi (0.3 km) 

north of the river). This is an important 

breeding area that supports between 10 

and 97 breeding adults (SRS 2003). This 

is also an important wintering area with 

up to 233 wintering birds (Page in litt. 

2004). This subunit is capable of 

supporting 150 breeding birds under 

proper management. It includes the 

following features essential to the 

species: wind-blown sand dunes, areas 

of sandy beach above and below the 

high tide line with occasional surf-cast 

wrack supporting small invertebrates 

(for nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). 

Human disturbance, military activities, 

pets, predators, and the spread of densegrowing vegetation are the primary 

threats to plovers in this subunit that 

may require special management. 

CA 18, Devereux Beach, 36 ac (15 ha): 

This unit is situated entirely on State 

and local land at Coal Oil Point, about 

7 mi (11.3 km) west along the coast from 

the city of Santa Barbara. It extends 

about 3.1 mi (1.9 km) north along the 

coast from the western boundary of Isla 

Vista County Park to a point along the 

beach opposite the end of Santa Barbara 

Shores Drive. In recent years, up to 18 

breeding plovers have occupied this 

unit (Sandoval 2004). This unit is also 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57005 

an important wintering area; three 

hundred and sixty birds were found in 

the area in the most recent winter 

survey (Page in litt. 2004). The unit 

includes the following features essential 

to the species: areas of sandy beach 

above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). Disturbance by 

humans and pets is the primary threat 

to snowy plovers in this unit that may 

require special management. 

CA 19, Oxnard Lowlands: This unit 

includes four subunits near the city of 

Oxnard in Ventura County, California. 

This is an important snowy plover 

breeding location for this region of the 

coast, as the next concentration of 

nesting snowy plovers to the south is 

located on Camp Pendleton Marine 

Corps Base about 100 mi (160 km) away. 

Subunit CA 19A, Mandalay Beach to 

Santa Clara River, 406 ac (164 ha): This 

subunit extends 6.1 mi (9.8 km) north 

along the coast from the north jetty of 

the Channel Islands harbor to a point 

about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) north of the Santa 

Clara River. However, the map of this 

subunit (Map 54), published in the 

proposed rule, depicted this unit as 

starting about 1 mile north of the jetty 

(Hollywood Beach). We have corrected 

the map of subunit 19A to display the 

complete subunit, which includes 

Hollywood Beach. 

We removed a 4-ac (1.6 ha) area from 

the proposed subunit CA 19A because it 

is a highly disturbed and heavily used 

recreational area that includes 

volleyball courts. This area is heavily 

disturbed by recreational beach users 

and does not include the PCEs for the 

conservation of the species, and is not, 

by definition, critical habitat. However, 

with this removal, the final designation 

includes the remainder of subunit CA 

19A as critical habitat. 

This is an important snowy plover 

nesting area, with 9 to 70 birds nesting 

each year and is also an important 

wintering area for the plover, with up to 

33 birds each winter (Service 2001). 

This unit is essential to species 

conservation because it contributes 

significantly to the regional 

conservation goal by providing habitat 

capable of supporting 64 breeding birds 

under proper management (Service 

2001). It includes the following features 

essential to the species: wind-blown 

sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above 

and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). This unit 

includes approximately 104.5 ac (42.3 

ha) of private land. The remaining 301.3 

ac (123.5 ha) belongs to State or local 

agencies. Potential threats that may 

require special management include 

direct human disturbance, development, 

pets, and dune-stabilizing vegetation. 

Subunit CA 19B, Ormond Beach, 175 

ac (70.8 ha): This subunit is located on 

State lands near the cities of Port 

Hueneme and Oxnard. It extends about 

2.9 mi (4.7 km) northwest along the 

coast from Arnold Road and the 

boundary of the Navy Base Ventura 

County, Point Mugu (NBVC) to the J 

Street Drainage, approximately 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) east of the south jetty of Port 

Hueneme. We removed a 28-ac (11.3 ha) 

area of subunit CA 19B, from the J Street 

drainage to the south jetty of Port 

Hueneme, because it is a highly 

disturbed and heavily used recreational 

area that includes a fishing pier, picnic 

tables, barbeques, restaurant, parking 

lots, dog walk, and volleyball courts. 

This area is also the location of biennial 

sand replenishment activities. This area 

is heavily disturbed by recreational 

beach users and does not provide the 

PCEs essential for the conservation of 

the species (e.g., an area free from 

disturbance) and is not, by definition, 

critical habitat. However, we have 

designated the remainder of subunit CA 

19B as critical habitat. 

This subunit is an important snowy 

plover nesting area for this region of the 

coast, as the next concentration of 

nesting snowy plovers to the south 

(other than the adjacent unit CA 19C) is 

located on Camp Pendleton Marine 

Corps Base about 100 mi (160 km). The 

number of birds nesting within this unit 

has varied from about 20 to 34 per year 

(Service 2001). CA 19B is also an 

important wintering area for the plover, 

with up to 123 birds each winter 

(Service 2001). This subunit is essential 

to species conservation because it 

contributes significantly to the regional 

conservation goal by providing habitat 

capable of supporting 50 breeding birds 

under proper management (Service 

2001). It includes the following features 

essential to the species: Wind-blown 

sand dunes, areas of sandy beach above 

and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for nesting and 

foraging) and generally barren to 

sparsely vegetated terrain (for foraging 

and predator avoidance). Disturbance 

from humans and pets is the primary 

threat that may require special 

management for snowy plovers in this 

unit. 

Subunit CA 19C, Mugu Lagoon North, 

321 ac (130 ha): This subunit is owned 

by DOD (Naval Base Ventura). The DOD 

portion is exempted under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act because of their 

approved INRMP that provides a benefit 

to the species (see Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

This subunit begins immediately 

adjacent to subunit CA 19B, at the 

northern coastal boundary of Navy Base 

Ventura County, Pt Mugu (NBVC), and 

extends about 3.3 mi (5.3 km) southeast. 

Surveys have generally provided 

information for the entire ‘‘Mugu 

Lagoon Beach’’ area, so plover 

population information provided here 

for CA 19C applies to CA 19D as well. 

The number of birds nesting in the area 

has varied from about 40 to 80 per year 

(Stenzel in litt. 2004). CA 19C and 19D 

are also important wintering areas for 

the plover, with up to 62 birds each 

winter (Page in litt. 2004). CA 19C and 

19D are capable of supporting 110 

breeding birds under proper 

management. They include the 

following features essential to the 

species: Areas of sandy beach above and 

below the high tide line with occasional 

surf-cast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates (for nesting and foraging) 

and generally barren to sparsely 

vegetated terrain (for foraging and 

predator avoidance). CA 19C is located 

entirely within the boundaries of the 

NBVC. Important threats that may 

require special management include 

direct human disturbance, military 

activities, and predators. 

Subunit CA 19D, Mugu Lagoon South, 

87 ac (35 ha): This subunit is mostly 

owned by DOD (Naval Base Ventura). 

The DOD portion is exempted under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of the 

approved INRMP that provides a benefit 

to the species. Remaining in the 

designation is an 18.3-ac (7.4 ha) section 

at its southern end, which extends into 

Pt Mugu State Park, owned by the 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation. Because surveys have 

commonly treated CA 19C and CA 19D 

as a single unit, plover population 

information for both subunits is 

provided in the narrative for CA 19C. 

The subunit contains the following 

features essential to the species: Areas 

of sandy beach above and below the 

high tide line with occasional surf-cast 

wrack supporting small invertebrates 

(for nesting and foraging) and generally 

barren to sparsely vegetated terrain (for 

foraging and predator avoidance). 

Important threats that may require 

special management include direct 

human disturbance, military activities, 

and predators. 

57006 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

CA 20, Zuma Beach, 68 ac (28 ha): 

This unit is located about 8 mi (3.2 km) 

west of the city of Malibu. It extends 

about 2.8 mi (4.5 km) north along the 

coast from the north side of Point Dume 

to the base of Trancas Canyon. This unit 

is an important wintering location for 

the plover, with 130 birds surveyed in 

January, 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). It 

includes the following essential 

features: Areas of sandy beach above 

and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates (for foraging) and 

generally barren to sparsely vegetated 

terrain (for foraging and predator 

avoidance). This unit encompasses 

approximately 60 ac (24.3 ha) of CA 

State Parks lands, and 8 ac (3.2 ha) of 

privately owned land. Direct human 

disturbance, development, horses, and 

pets are the primary threats to snowy 

plovers in this unit that may require 

special management. 

CA 21, Santa Monica Bay: This unit 

includes four subunits in Santa Monica 

Bay, Los Angeles County, California. 

Subunit CA 21A, Santa Monica 

Beach, 25 ac (10 ha): This subunit is on 

the west coast of Los Angeles County, 

immediately west of the City of Santa 

Monica. It stretches roughly 0.9 miles 

(1.4 km) from Montana Avenue to the 

mouth of Santa Monica Canyon. This 

location includes the following essential 

habitat features: A wide sandy beach 

with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates. It 

supported a wintering flock of 32 

plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004), and 

annually supports a significant 

wintering flock of plovers in a location 

with high quality breeding habitat. The 

subunit consists of 25 ac (10 ha), of 

which 6 ac (2.4 ha) are owned by the CA 

State Parks, and 19 acres (7.7 ha) are 

private. The primary threats that may 

require special management in this 

subunit are disturbance from human 

recreational use, as well as beach raking, 

which removes the wrack line and 

reduces food resources. 

Subunit CA 21B, Dockweiler North, 

43 ac (17 ha): This subunit is located 

immediately west of the Los Angeles 

International Airport, south of Ballona 

Creek and west of the El Segundo 

Dunes. It stretches roughly 0.5 miles 

(0.8 km) centered at Sandpiper Street. 

Essential habitat features (PCEs) in the 

subunit include a wide sandy beach 

with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates. This 

subunit, in conjuction with subunits 

21C and 21D, annually supports a 

significant wintering flock of plovers in 

a location with high quality breeding 

habitat (Page in litt. 2004). It is entirely 

owned by the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation. The primary 

threats that may require special 

management are disturbance from 

human recreational use, as well as 

beach raking, which removes the wrack 

line and reduces food resources. 

Subunit CA 21C, Dockweiler South, 

24 ac (10 ha): This subunit is located 

immediately west of the City of El 

Segundo and the Hyperion Wastewater 

Treatment Plant. It stretches roughly 0.7 

miles (1.1 km) centered at Grand 

Avenue. This location includes the 

following essential habitat features: A 

wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates. In conjuction with 

subunits 21B and 21D it annually 

supports a significant wintering flock of 

plovers in a location with high quality 

breeding habitat (Page in litt. 2004). This 

subunit consists of 24 acres (9.7 ha), of 

which 13 acres (5.3 ha) are owned by 

the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, and 11 acres (4.5 ha) are 

privately owned. The primary threats 

that may require special management in 

this subunit are disturbance from 

human recreational use, as well as 

beach raking, which removes the wrack 

line and reduces food resources. 

Subunit CA 21D, Hermosa State 

Beach, 10 ac (4 ha): This subunit is 

located immediately west of the City of 

Hermosa Beach. This subunit stretches 

roughly 0.25 miles (0.4 km) from 2nd 

Street to 6th Street. This location 

includes the following PCEs: A wide 

sandy beach with occasional surf-cast 

wrack supporting small invertebrates. 

This location contained a wintering 

flock of 33 plovers in 2004, and 43 in 

2003 (Clark in litt. 2004; Page in litt. 

2004). In conjunction with subunits 21B 

and 21C it annually supports a large and 

significant wintering flock of plovers. 

This subunit consists of 10 acres (4 ha), 

all of which are owned by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation. 

The primary threats that may require 

special management in this subunit are 

disturbance from human recreational 

use, as well as beach raking, which 

removes the wrack line and reduces 

food resources. 

CA 22, Bolsa Chica Area: This unit 

includes two subunits in the vicinity of 

the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Orange 

County, California. The first of these 

subunits includes essential habitat in 

the wetlands themselves, while the 

second comprises a small area of beach 

immediately adjacent. 

Subunit CA 22A, Bolsa Chica Reserve, 

591 ac (239 ha): This subunit is located 

immediately west of the City of 

Huntington Beach and east of the Pacific 

Coast Highway. It contains the following 

essential habitat features: Tidally 

influenced estuarine mud flats 

supporting small invertebrates, and 

seasonally dry ponds that provide 

nesting and foraging habitat for snowy 

plovers. This location supported 31 

breeding adult plovers in 2003, and 38 

in 2002 (Page in litt. 2003). This subunit 

annually supports one of the largest 

breeding populations of snowy plovers 

in the region, and contributes 

significantly to the conservation goal for 

the region by providing habitat capable 

of supporting 50 breeding birds under 

proper management. This subunit 

consists of 591 acres (239.2 ha), all of 

which are privately owned. The primary 

threat that may require special 

management in this subunit is egg and 

chick predation. This site, an 

abandoned oil field, is planned to 

undergo significant reconstruction and 

restoration, which should greatly 

increase the available breeding habitat 

for snowy plovers. Subunit CA 22B, 

Bolsa Chica State Beach; 13 ac (2 ha): 

This subunit was mislabeled during the 

proposed rule process. The correct 

name, shown here for subunit CA 22B, 

is Bolsa Chica State Beach. The UTMs 

for the unit’s legal description were also 

presented in error during the proposed 

rule, and are correctly provided within 

this rule. CA 22B is located immediately 

west of the City of Huntington Beach 

and south of CA 22A. It stretches 

roughly 0.3 miles (0.4 km) from 

Seapoint Avenue north to the future 

lagoon mouth channel into Bolsa Chica 

Ecological Reserve. This location 

includes the following essential habitat 

features: A wide sandy beach with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates. The subunit 

contained a wintering flock of 11 

plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004), and 

annually supports a significant 

wintering flock of plovers in a location 

with high quality breeding habitat. This 

subunit consists of 12 ac (5 ha) owned 

by the California Department of Parks 

and Recreation and 1 ac (0.4 ha) that is 

privately owned. The primary threats 

that may require special management in 

this subunit are disturbance from 

human recreational use, as well as 

beach raking, which removes the wrack 

line and reduces food resources. 

CA 23, Santa Ana River Mouth, 13 ac 

(5 ha): This unit is on the west coast of 

Orange County, immediately west of the 

City of Huntington Beach. It includes 

the following essential habitat features: 

A wide sandy beach with surf-cast 

wrack supporting small invertebrates, 

and tidally influenced estuarine mud 

flats that provide nesting and foraging 

habitat for snowy plovers. This site 

contains a large breeding colony of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57007 

California Least Terns and has also 

supported occasional breeding snowy 

plovers. This unit is the only beach 

front location in Orange County that 

supports adult plovers through the 

breeding season. The entire unit is 

owned by the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation. The primary 

threat that may require special 

management in this unit is disturbance 

from human recreational use. 

Unit CA 24, San Onofre Beach; 40 ac 

(16 ha): This unit is on the west coast 

of San Diego County, at the northwest 

corner of Marine Corps Base Camp 

Pendleton. This unit stretches roughly 

0.8 miles (1 km) from the mouth of San 

Mateo Creek to the mouth of San Onofre 

Creek and includes the following 

essential habitat features: A wide sandy 

beach with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates. This 

location contained a wintering flock of 

14 plovers in January, 2004, with 60 

recorded in January, 2003 (Clark in litt. 

2004, Page in litt. 2004). This unit 

annually supports a large and 

significant wintering flock of plovers 

(Page in litt. 2004) and contributes 

significantly to the conservation goal for 

the region by providing habitat capable 

of supporting 15 breeding birds under 

proper management. The unit consists 

of 40 acres (16 ha), of which 37.5 ac (15 

ha) are owned by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, 

and 2.5 ac (1 ha) are privately owned. 

The primary threat that may require 

special management in this unit is 

disturbance from human recreational 

use. 

CA 25 (A, B and C), Batiquitos 

Lagoon, 65 ac (26 ha): This unit is on 

the west coast of San Diego County, 

between the cities of Carlsbad and 

Encinitas. The unit includes three 

subunits that make up the breeding 

islands created for nesting seabirds and 

shorebirds during restoration of the 

lagoon in 1996. Also included is a 

portion of South Carlsbad State Beach 

that supports a significant wintering 

population of plovers. This unit 

includes the following essential habitat 

features: Sandy beaches and tidally 

influenced estuarine mud flats with 

tide-cast organic debris supporting 

small invertebrates. This location 

contained a wintering flock of 82 

plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). 

Nineteen breeding adults were recorded 

during the 2003 window survey (Page in 

litt. 2003). This unit annually supports 

a large and significant wintering flock of 

plovers, and contributes significantly to 

the conservation goal for the region by 

providing habitat capable of supporting 

70 breeding birds under proper 

management. This unit consists of a 

total of 65 acres (26 ha), of which 9 

acres (4 ha) are owned by the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, 21 

acres (8 ha) are owned by the California 

Department of Fish and Game, and 35 

acres (14 ha) are non-public. The 

primary threats that may require special 

management in this unit are egg and 

chick predation, as well as disturbance 

from human recreational use at South 

Carlsbad State Beach. 

CA 26, Los Penasquitos, 24 ac (10 ha): 

This unit is located in San Diego 

County, immediately south of the City 

of Del Mar. It includes a portion of 

Torrey Pines State Beach that supports 

a significant wintering population of 

plovers. Essential habitat features 

supported by the unit include a wide 

sandy beach with occasional surf-cast 

wrack supporting small invertebrates, as 

well as tidally influenced estuarine mud 

flats with tide-cast organic debris. This 

location contained a wintering flock of 

21 plovers in 2004, and 39 in 2003 

(Clark in litt. 2004, Page in litt. 2004). 

This unit annually supports a large and 

significant wintering flock of plovers, 

and contributes significantly to the 

conservation goal for the region by 

providing habitat capable of supporting 

ten breeding birds under proper 

management. The unit consists of 24 

acres (10 ha), all of which are owned by 

the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation. The primary threat that may 

require special management in this unit 

is disturbance from human recreational 

use. 

CA 27, South San Diego Beaches: This 

unit includes six subunits in south San 

Diego County, California. Four of these 

subunits are on the Pacific coast, 

extending southwards from the mouth 

of San Diego Bay. The remaining two 

subunits (27D and 27E) are located in 

the San Diego Bay itself while a sixth 

subunit (27E) is in San Diego Bay itself. 

Subunit CA 27A, North Island North, 

117 ac (47 ha): This subunit is exempted 

under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because 

of their approved INRMP that provides 

a benefit to the species (see Application 

of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). It 

is located immediately west of the City 

of Coronado. The subunit stretches 

roughly 1.9 miles (3 km) from Zuniga 

Point to the north end of Coronado City 

Beach. This subunit and the adjacent 

subunit 27B contain the following 

essential habitat features: A wide sandy 

beach with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates, as well 

as wind-blown sand in dune systems 

immediately inland of the active beach 

face. This location contained a 

wintering flock of 37 plovers in January, 

2004 (Page in litt. 2004). Biologists also 

recorded 17 breeding adults during the 

2003 window survey (Page in litt. 2003). 

These subunits annually support a large 

and significant wintering flock of 

plovers, and contribute significantly to 

the conservation goal for the region by 

providing habitat capable of supporting 

20 breeding birds under proper 

management. This subunit is entirely on 

land owned by the Department of 

Defense. The primary threats that may 

require special management in these 

subunits are disturbance from human 

recreational use and military activities, 

as well as beach raking, which removes 

the wrack line and reduces food 

resources. 

Subunit CA27B North Island S., 44 ac 

(18 ha): This subunit is located 

immediately west of the City of 

Coronado. This subunit stretches 

roughly 0.6 miles (0.9 km) from the 

boundary with NAS North Island to the 

south end of the natural sand dunes at 

Coronado City Beach. It includes the 

following essential habitat features: A 

wide sandy beach with occasional surfcast wrack supporting small 

invertebrates, as well as wind-blown 

sand in dune systems immediately 

inland of the active beach face. This 

location is adjacent to the sizable plover 

population at NAS North Island, which 

contained a wintering flock of 37 

plovers in January, 2004 (Page in litt. 

2004). Biologists also recorded 17 

breeding adults at North Island during 

the 2003 window survey (Page in litt. 

2003). This subunit contributes 

significantly to the conservation goal for 

the region by providing habitat, in 

conjunction with the adjacent military 

lands, capable of supporting 20 breeding 

birds under proper management. This 

unit consists of land 44 acres owned by 

the City of Coronado. The primary 

threats that may require special 

management in these subunits are 

disturbance from human recreational 

use as well as beach raking, which 

removes the wrack line and reduces 

food resources. 

Subunit CA 27C, Silver Strand, 99 ac 

(40 ha): All Navy lands within subunit 

CA 27C have been exempted under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act because of 

their approved INRMP that provides a 

benefit to the species (see Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

The remainder of this subunit (Silver 

Strand State Beach) was excluded from 

critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act based upon its 

high economic costs (see section titled 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

57008 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

4(b)(2) of the Act). This subunit is 

located immediately south of the City of 

Coronado. It stretches roughly 3.5 miles 

(5.6 km) along the Pacific coast side of 

the Silver Strand, from the southern end 

of NAB Coronado to the south end of 

the Naval Radio Receiving Facility. The 

essential habitat features of this subunit 

include a wide sandy beach with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting 

small invertebrates, as well as windblown sand in dune systems 

immediately inland of the active beach 

face. In conjunction with excluded 

habitat on NAB Coronado, this location 

contained wintering flocks totaling 56 

plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). Fifty 

eight breeding adults were recorded 

during the 2003 window survey (Page in 

litt. 2003). This subunit annually 

supports a large and significant 

wintering flock of plovers (Page in litt. 

2004), and will contribute significantly 

to the recovery goal for the region by 

supporting 65 breeding birds under 

proper management. The subunit 

consists of 96 ac (39 ha) owned by the 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, and 3 ac (1 ha) of non-public 

land. The primary threat that may 

require special management in this unit 

is disturbance from human recreational 

use and military training, as well as egg 

and chick predation. 

Subunit CA 27D, Delta Beach, 85 ac 

(35 ha): All lands within subunit CA 

27D have been exempted under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act because of the Navy’s 

approved INRMP that provides a benefit 

to the species (see Application of 

Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

This subunit is located immediately 

south of the City of Coronado on the 

west side of San Diego Bay. It includes 

the following essential habitat features: 

sandy beaches above and below mean 

high tide line and tidally influenced 

estuarine mud flats with tide-cast 

organic debris that provide nesting and 

foraging habitat for snowy plovers. This 

location contained a wintering flock of 

32 plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 2004). 

It annually supports a large and 

significant wintering flock of plovers, 

and contributes significantly to the 

conservation goal for the region by 

providing habitat capable of supporting 

10 breeding birds under proper 

management. This subunit consists of 

85.3 acres (34.5 ha), all of which are 

owned by the Department of Defense. 

The primary threat that may require 

special management in this subunit is 

egg and chick predation. 

Subunit CA 27E, Sweetwater National 

Wildlife Refuge, 128 ac (52 ha): This 

subunit is located immediately west of 

the City of Chula Vista on the east side 

of San Diego Bay. It includes the 

following essential habitat features: 

Sandy beaches above and below mean 

high tide line and tidally influenced 

estuarine mud flats that provide nesting 

and foraging habitat for snowy plovers. 

This location contained a wintering 

flock of 36 plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 

2004). It annually supports a large and 

significant wintering flock of plovers, 

and contributes significantly to the 

conservation goal for the region by 

providing habitat capable of supporting 

20 breeding birds under proper 

management. This subunit consists of 

128 ac (52 ha), of which 77 ac (31 ha) 

are owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and 51 ac (21 ha) are privately 

owned. The primary threat that may 

require special management in this 

subunit is egg and chick predation. 

Subunit CA 27F, Tijuana Estuary and 

Beach, 182ac (73.5 ha): This unit was 

slightly modified to remove a small 

amount of acreage of Navy land 

exempted under 4(a)(3) (See exemptions 

under 4(a)(3) below). The subunit is 

located immediately south of the City of 

Imperial Beach. It stretches roughly 2.3 

miles (3.7 km) from the end of Seacoast 

Drive to the U.S./Mexico border. This 

location includes the following essential 

habitat features: A wide sandy beach 

with occasional surf-cast wrack 

supporting small invertebrates, as well 

as tidally influenced estuarine mud flats 

with tide-cast organic debris supporting 

small invertebrates for foraging. This 

subunit contained wintering flocks 

totaling 93 plovers in 2004 (Page in litt. 

2004). It also supported at least 12 

breeding adults in 2003, as indicated by 

the 2003 window survey (Page in litt. 

2003). This subunit annually supports a 

large and significant wintering flock of 

plovers, and contributes significantly to 

the conservation goal for the region by 

providing habitat capable of supporting 

40 breeding birds under proper 

management. The subunit is 182ac (73.5 

ha), of which 76 acres (31 ha) are owned 

by the California Department of Parks 

and Recreation, 83 acres (34 ha) are 

owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and 22 acres (9 ha) are nonpublic. The primary threats that may 

require special management in this unit 

are disturbance from human 

recreational use and predation of chicks 

and eggs. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.2, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to: Alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ We are currently 

reviewing the regulatory definition of 

adverse modification in relation to the 

conservation of the species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. Conference reports 

provide conservation recommendations 

to assist the agency in eliminating 

conflicts that may be caused by the 

proposed action. We may issue a formal 

conference report if requested by a 

Federal agency. Formal conference 

reports on proposed critical habitat 

contain an opinion that is prepared 

according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the formal conference report as the 

biological opinion when the critical 

habitat is designated, if no substantial 

new information or changes in the 

action alter the content of the opinion 

(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report are advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of such a species or to destroy 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Through this consultation, the 

action agency ensures that their actions 

do not destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, we also 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57009 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable. ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ are defined at 50 CFR 

402.02 as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that the 

Director believes would avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where critical 

habitat is subsequently designated and 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action or such discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law. Consequently, some Federal 

agencies may request reinitiation of 

consultation or a conference with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect designated critical habitat, or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Pacific Coast WSP or its critical habitat 

will require consultation under section 

7. Activities on private or State-owned 

lands, or lands under County or local 

jurisdictions requiring a permit from a 

Federal agency, such as a permit from 

the Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the 

Service, or some other Federal action, 

including funding (e.g., Federal 

Highway Administration or Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

funding), will be subject to the section 

7 consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat and actions on non-Federal and 

private lands that are not federally 

funded, authorized, or permitted, do not 

require section 7 consultations. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the Pacific Coast WSP. Federal 

activities that, when carried out, may 

adversely affect critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Actions and management efforts 

affecting Pacific Coast WSP on Federal 

lands such as national seashores, parks, 

and wildlife reserves; 

(2) Dredging and dredge spoil 

placement activities that permanently 

remove PCEs to the extent the essential 

biological function of plover habitat is 

adversely affected for the foreseeable 

future; 

(3) Construction and maintenance of 

eroded areas or structures (e.g., roads, 

walkways, marinas, salt ponds, access 

points, bridges, culverts) which interfere 

with plover nesting, breeding, or 

foraging, produce increases in 

predation, or promote a dense growth of 

vegetation that precludes an area’s use 

by plovers; 

(4) Stormwater and wastewater 

discharge from communities; 

(5) Flood control actions that change 

the PCEs to the extent that the habitat 

no longer contributes to the 

conservation of the species. 

Such activities may adversely modify 

critical habitat by flooding, covering 

with material, removing tide-cast 

organic debris, removing or depositing 

substrate in such a way as to diminish 

invertebrate prey, encourage dense 

vegetation growth, inundating an area 

with contaminants or failing to 

adequately provide for contaminant 

removal, or by failing to provide a 

relatively disturbance-free area for the 

completion of biological functions. 

All lands designated as critical habitat 

are within the historical geographic area 

occupied by the species, and are likely 

to be used by the Pacific Coast WSP 

whether for foraging, breeding, growth 

of juveniles, dispersal, migration or 

sheltering. Some of these lands may 

currently be subject to activities 

identified as potentially adversely 

affecting the critical habitat. The Service 

will determine if Federal actions taken 

within these areas result in adverse 

modification to critical habitat when the 

Section 7 consultation process is 

implemented. We consider all lands 

included in this designation to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Federal agencies already 

consult with us on activities that may 

affect the Pacific Coast WSP in areas 

currently occupied by the species to 

ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. Additionally, many of the 

critical habitat units designated under 

this rule were previously designated on 

December 9, 1999 (64 FR 68508). As a 

consequence, we believe this 

designation of critical habitat is not 

likely to result in a significant 

regulatory burden above that already in 

place due to the presence of the listed 

species and previously designated 

critical habitat. 

If you have questions regarding 

whether specific activities will 

constitute destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, contact 

the Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Requests for copies of the regulations on 

listed wildlife and plants and inquiries 

about prohibitions and permits may be 

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 

911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 

97232 (telephone 503/231–2063; 

facsimile 503/231–6243. 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species on which are found those 

physical and biological features (i) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (ii) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Therefore, areas within the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

that do not contain the features essential 

for the conservation of the species are 

not, by definition, critical habitat. 

Similarly, areas within the geographic 

area occupied by the species that do not 

require special management also are 

not, by definition, critical habitat. To 

determine whether an area requires 

special management, we first determine 

if the essential features located there 

generally require special management to 

address applicable threats. If those 

features do not require special 

management, or if they do in general but 

not for the particular area in question 

because of the existence of an adequate 

management plan or for some other 

reason, then the area does not require 

special management. 

We consider a current plan to provide 

adequate management or protection if it 

meets three criteria: (1) The plan is 

complete and provides a conservation 

benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must 

maintain or provide for an increase in 

the species’ population, or the 

enhancement or restoration of its habitat 

within the area covered by the plan); (2) 

the plan provides assurances that the 

conservation management strategies and 

actions will be implemented (i.e., those 

responsible for implementing the plan 

are capable of accomplishing the 

objectives, and have an implementation 

57010 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

schedule or adequate funding for 

implementing the management plan); 

and, (3) the plan provides assurances 

that the conservation strategies and 

measures will be effective (i.e., it 

identifies biological goals, has 

provisions for reporting progress, and is 

of a duration sufficient to implement the 

plan and achieve the plan’s goals and 

objectives). 

Section 318 of the fiscal year 2004 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(Pub. L. 108–136) amended the Act to 

address the relationship of Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plans 

(INRMPs) to critical habitat by adding a 

new section 4(a)(3)(B). This provision 

prohibits the Service from designating 

as critical habitat any lands or other 

geographical areas owned or controlled 

by the Department of Defense, or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an INRMP prepared under section 101 

of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 

Secretary of the Interior determines in 

writing that such plan provides a benefit 

to the species for which critical habitat 

is proposed for designation. 

Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

states that critical habitat shall be 

designated, and revised on the basis of 

the best scientific data available after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, the impact on national security, 

and any other relevant impact of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. An area may be excluded from 

critical habitat if it is determined, 

following an analysis, that the benefits 

of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 

of specifying a particular area as critical 

habitat, unless the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species. 

In our critical habitat designations we 

used both the provisions outlined in 

sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to 

evaluate those specific areas that we are 

proposing as critical habitat. Lands we 

have found do not meet the definition 

of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A), 

and lands excluded pursuant to section 

4(b)(2), include those covered by the 

following types of plans if they provide 

assurances that the conservation 

measures they outline will be 

implemented and effective: (1) Legally 

operative HCPs that cover the species; 

(2) draft HCPs that cover the species and 

have undergone public review and 

comment (i.e., pending HCPs); (3) Tribal 

conservation plans that cover the 

species; (4) State conservation plans that 

cover the species; and, (5) National 

Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans. See below for a 

detailed discussion. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Military Lands—Application of Section 

4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

As discussed above, under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act, the Secretary is 

prohibited from designating as critical 

habitat any Department of Defense lands 

or other geographical areas that are 

subject to an INRMP if the Secretary has 

determined in writing that such plan 

provides a benefit to the species for 

which critical habitat is proposed for 

designation. In order to qualify for this 

exemption, an INRMP must be found to 

provide benefit to the species in 

question. An INRMP integrates 

implementation of the military mission 

of the installation with stewardship of 

the natural resources found there. Each 

INRMP includes an assessment of the 

ecological needs on the military 

installation, including conservation 

provisions for listed species; a statement 

of goals and priorities; a detailed 

description of management actions to be 

implemented to provide for these 

ecological needs; and a monitoring and 

adaptive management plan. We consult 

with the military on the development 

and implementation of INRMPs for 

installations with listed species. Habitat 

on military installations with completed 

and approved INRMPs that provide a 

benefit to the species are exempt from 

designation as critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(a)(3)(B). 

We are re-affirming our exemption of 

the U.S. Navy’s San Nicolas Island and 

have exempted lands owned by U.S. 

Navy (Naval Base Coronado, Naval Base 

Ventura County) and the U.S. Marine 

Corps (Camp Pendleton) from this final 

critical habitat designation pursuant to 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act based on 

legally operative INRMPs that provide a 

benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. This 

includes all or portions of Units CA 27 

at Naval Base Coronado, CA at Camp 

Pendleton, and CA 19 and Naval Base 

Ventura County. In our December 17, 

2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608), we 

excluded Camp Pendleton and Naval 

Base Coronado under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act for national security reasons, we 

now recognize that we are prohibited 

from designating critical habitat on 

those lands pursuant to section 4(a)(3) 

of the Act based on their legally 

operative INRMPs that have been found 

to provide a benefit to the Pacific Coast 

WSP. We are excluding all essential 

habitat on Vandenberg Air Force Base 

(AFB) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

based on impacts to national security. 

Vandenberg AFB is in the process of 

completing an INRMP and 

accompanying Endangered Species 

Management Plan (ESMP), which will 

provide management for the Pacific 

Coast WSP. 

San Nicolas Island 

As described in our December 17, 

2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608) all 

534 ac (212 ha) of essential habitat on 

San Nicolas Island, in Ventura County, 

California are exempt from this critical 

habitat designation pursuant to section 

4(a)(3) of the Act. This area corresponds 

roughly to location CA–100 in our Draft 

Recovery Plan, is owned by the U.S. 

Navy, and contains habitat capable of 

supporting 150 breeding plovers with 

adaptive management. The U.S. Navy 

has completed an INRMP which 

addresses plover management for the 

area. The Secretary has determined that 

the INRMP provides a benefit to the 

species and provided a biological 

opinion during formal consultation 

under section 7 of the Act. 

Naval Base Coronado (NBC) 

The U.S. Navy completed a final 

INRMP in May 2002 for Naval Base 

Coronado, which includes North Island 

Naval Air Station, Naval Amphibious 

Base, Coronado, and Naval Radio 

Receiving Facility, that provides a 

benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. The 

Proposed Management Strategy for the 

Western Snowy Plover (P. 4–56) 

itemizes the actions to which the Navy 

has committed in order to manage the 

species on their lands. Many of the 

items reiterate terms and conditions of 

previous biological opinions issued by 

the Service. However, the INRMP does 

go on to stipulate other actions above 

and beyond these requirements 

including minimizing activities which 

can affect invertebrate populations upon 

which shorebirds depend for foraging, 

identifying opportunities to use dredge 

material having high sand content for 

expansion and rehabilitation of beach 

areas to create improved nesting 

substrate, and replacing exotic iceplant 

and other nonnatives from remnant 

dunes with native vegetation to comply 

with Executive Order 13112 on Invasive 

Species and the Noxious Weed Act. 

These activities would enhance the 

habitat and population of western 

snowy plovers on Navy lands. 

Therefore, we find that the INRMP for 

Naval Base Coronado provides a benefit 

for the Pacific Coast WSP and pursuant 

to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, Navy lands 

within proposed unit CA 27 are exempt 

from critical habitat. 

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton 

(MCBCP) 

The Marine Corps Base, Camp 

Pendleton completed a final INRMP in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57011 

October 2001 that provides a benefit to 

the Pacific Coast WSP. This INRMP 

itemizes the actions to which the 

Marine Corps has committed in order to 

manage the species on their lands. Many 

of the items reiterate terms and 

conditions of previous biological 

opinions issued by the Service. These 

include annually fencing and posting 

warning signs around the plover nesting 

areas; annually monitoring the plover 

population and locations, providing 

estimates of the number of breeding 

individuals, reproductive success, 

distribution, abundance, and habitat; 

and continuing predator control 

measures within the vicinity of plover 

nesting sites. These activities have 

enhanced the habitat and population of 

western snowy plovers at Camp 

Pendleton. Therefore, we find that the 

INRMP for Marine Corps Base, Camp 

Pendleton provides a benefit for the 

Pacific Coast WSP and pursuant to 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act, Marine Corps 

lands at Camp Pendleton are exempt 

from critical habitat. 

Naval Base Ventura County 

We have reviewed Naval Base 

Ventura County’s INRMP and biological 

opinion, and the Secretary has 

determined that Naval Base Ventura 

County’s INRMP provides a benefit to 

the western snowy plover and therefore, 

consistent with Public Law 108–136 

(Nov. 2003): Nat. Defense Authorization 

Act for FY04 and Section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act, the Department of Defense’s Naval 

Base Ventura County (subunits CA 19C 

and part of CA 19D) is exempt from 

critical habitat based on the adequacy of 

their legally operative INRMP. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base 

We are excluding Vandenberg AFB 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on 

information we received regarding use 

of these areas for mission-essential 

training and the potential impacts on 

national security. Based on the 

following analysis, we find the benefit 

of excluding these units outweighs the 

benefit of including them, primarily due 

to the impact on national security. 

The western snowy plover occupies 

12.5 miles (20 km) of beach and dune 

habitat on Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

Vandenberg contains features essential 

to the conservation of the species and is 

of important biological value because it 

supports approximately 20 percent of 

the Pacific coast population of western 

snowy plovers. 

The Air Force recognizes the need for 

protection and conservation of sensitive 

species, including the western snowy 

plover, on military lands and has 

identified conservation measures to 

protect and conserve western snowy 

plovers and their habitat. The Air Force 

has coordinated with us to finalize the 

development of their Endangered 

Species Management Plan (ESMP) for 

the western snowy plover at 

Vandenberg, which currently guides 

management of all lands occupied by 

western snowy plovers at this base. The 

ESMP includes measures to minimize 

harm to the western snowy plover from 

base activities and outlines actions to 

ensure the persistence of western snowy 

plovers on the installation. The ESMP is 

an appendix to, and part of, the INRMP 

for Vandenberg Air Force Base. We 

anticipate the INRMP will be signed in 

late 2005. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

The primary benefit of any critical 

habitat with regard to activities that 

require consultation pursuant to section 

7 of the Act is to ensure that the activity 

will not destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. However, 

because the Air Force has worked 

cooperatively with the Service to 

develop an ESMP that protects the 

western snowy plover and its essential 

habitat on Vandenberg, and the nearly 

finalized INRMP is expected to be 

completed in 2005 (for which we will 

complete a Section 7 consultation), we 

do not believe that designation of 

critical habitat on the base will 

significantly benefit the western snowy 

plover beyond the protection already 

afforded the species under the Act. The 

designation of critical habitat may 

provide a different level of protection 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the 

Pacific Coast WSP that is separate from 

the obligation of a Federal agency to 

ensure that their actions are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the endangered species. Under the 

Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to the recovery of a species than 

was previously believed, but it is not 

possible to quantify this benefit at 

present. However, the protection 

provided is still a limitation on the 

harm that occurs as opposed to a 

requirement to provide a conservation 

benefit. We completed a section 7 

consultation on the ESMP. 

The area excluded as critical habitat 

is currently occupied by the species. If 

this area were designated as critical 

habitat, any actions with a Federal 

nexus which might adversely affect the 

critical habitat would require a 

consultation with us, as explained 

previously, in Effects of Critical Habitat 

Designation section. However, 

inasmuch as this area is currently 

occupied by the species, consultation 

for Federal activities which might 

adversely impact the species or would 

result in take would be required even 

without the critical habitat designation. 

Primary constituent elements in this 

area would be protected from 

destruction or adverse modification by 

federal actions using a conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. This 

requirement would be in addition to the 

requirement that proposed Federal 

actions avoid likely jeopardy to the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

as the area is occupied by the Pacific 

Coast WSP, consultation for activities 

which may adversely affect the species, 

including possibly significant habitat 

modification (see definition of ‘‘harm’’

at 50 CFR 17.3), would be required, 

even without the critical habitat 

designation. The requirement to 

conduct such consultation would occur 

regardless of whether the authorization 

for incidental take occurs under either 

section 7 or section 10 of the Act. 

In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated 

that the identification of habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

species can provide informational 

benefits to the public, State and local 

governments, scientific organizations, 

and Federal agencies. The court also 

noted that heightened public awareness 

of the plight of listed species and their 

habitats may facilitate conservation 

efforts. However, we believe that there 

would be little additional informational 

benefit gained from including 

Vandenberg AFB within the designation 

because the educational benefits have 

been largely accomplished through the 

INRMP development process and 

development of the ESMP for the 

western snowy plover. The Air Force is 

already aware of essential western 

snowy plover habitat areas on the 

installation. In addition, we have 

already completed formal section 7 

consultation on the ESMP. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

Substantial benefits are expected to 

result from the exclusion of Vandenberg 

from critical habitat. The Air Force has 

stated in their February 7, 2005, 

comment letter that designation of 

beaches and coastline at Vandenberg, as 

critical habitat, would limit the amount 

of coastline available for executing their 

mission. Mission activities at 

Vandenberg include: Launching and 

tracking satellites in space, training 

missile crews, supporting ship to shore 

military training exercises, testing and 

evaluating the country’s 

intercontinental ballistic missile 

57012 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

systems, and supporting aircraft tests in 

the Western Test Range/Pacific Missile 

Range (California, Hawaii, and the 

western Pacific Ocean). Designation of 

critical habitat on the base would 

require the Air Force to engage in 

additional consultation with us on 

activities that may affect designated 

critical habitat. The requirement to 

consult on activities occurring on the 

base could delay and impair the ability 

of the Air Force to conduct mission 

critical activities, thereby adversely 

affecting national security. 

In addition, exclusion of Vandenberg 

beaches from the final designation will 

allow us to continue working with the 

Air Force in a spirit of cooperation and 

partnership. The DOD generally views 

designation of critical habitat on 

military lands as an indication that their 

actions to protect the species and its 

habitat are inadequate. Excluding these 

areas from the perceived negative 

consequences of critical habitat will 

facilitate cooperative efforts between the 

Service and the Air Force to formulate 

the best possible INRMP and ESMP, and 

continue effective management of the 

western snowy plover at Vandenberg 

Air Force Base. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

In 2004, we had a series of meetings 

with the Air Force to discuss their 

management of western snowy plovers, 

their essential habitat, and possible 

impacts to the base. We also received 

extensive comments from the Air Force 

during the public comment period. In 

light of the Air Force’s ESMP for the 

western snowy plover, and the Air 

Force’s need to maintain a high level of 

readiness regarding mission critical 

National security interests, we excluded 

critical habitat on all lands within unit 

CA 17, including all Vandenberg lands, 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We find 

that the benefits of excluding these 

lands from critical habitat outweigh the 

benefits of including them. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

We find that the exclusion of these 

areas will not lead to the extinction of 

the western snowy plover because Air 

Force activities at Vandenberg have had 

little, if any, adverse effect on western 

snowy plovers, and the ESMP is 

expected to effectively manage for the 

persistence of the western snowy 

plovers at this installation. Also because 

these lands are occupied by plovers, any 

actions which might adversely affect the 

western snowy plover must undergo a 

consultation with the Service under the 

requirements of section 7 of the Act. 

The western snowy plover is protected 

from take under section 9. The 

exclusions leave these protections 

unchanged from those which would 

exist if the excluded areas were 

designated as critical habitat. Based 

upon the above, we find that these 

exclusions would not result in 

extinction of the species. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

National Wildlife Refuges—Application 

of Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 

We are not including essential habitat 

in all or portions of units CA 12C, CA 

16, and WA 4 that fall within the 

boundaries of Salinas River National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR), GuadalupeNipomo Dunes NWR, or Willapa NWR 

respectively under section 3(5)(A) of the 

Act. The Salinas River NWR has 

completed a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) that addresses 

plovers, Willapa NWR is in the process 

of completing a CCP and is actively 

managing for snowy plovers on refuge 

lands, and Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes 

NWR has completed a plover 

management plan. In order for the 

Secretary to determine that an area is 

adequately managed and does not 

require special management, the 

Secretary must evaluate existing 

management and find that it provides 

(1) a conservation benefit to the species; 

(2) reasonable assurances for 

implementation; and (3) reasonable 

assurances that conservation efforts will 

be effective. The Secretary has reviewed 

the management plans and actions for 

each of the three refuges and has 

determined that all three refuges are 

adequately managed for the Pacific 

Coast WSP, and therefore do not need 

special management are not included in 

this final critical habitat designation 

pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. 

Salinas River NWR 

We are re-affirming our application of 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act to essential 

habitat at Salinas River NWR as 

described in our December 17, 2004, 

proposed rule (69 FR 75608). Salinas 

River NWR has completed a CCP that 

provides a conservation benefit to the 

Pacific Coast WSP. The CCP emphasizes 

the protection of plovers by a variety of 

means, including seasonal closure of 

nesting areas, nest exclosures, symbolic 

fencing (low cable fence used to 

discourage humans from approaching 

nests), and law enforcement patrols. 

Under the CCP plovers are monitored 

each breeding season for reproductive 

success and all nestlings are banded for 

further monitoring. In addition, 

mammalian predators are managed to 

selectively remove problem predators 

during the plover breeding season. We 

expect funding to continue to this refuge 

through the Federal budget process to 

continue to implement the CCP. An 

intra-Service section 7 consultation was 

completed on the CCP on June 25, 2002 

(Service 2002). The Service found that 

most of the management actions 

proposed in the CCP would be effective 

and provide a conservation benefit to 

plovers. Therefore, all essential habitat 

for the Pacific Coast WSP within the 

Salinas River NWR (142–ac (57.5 ha) 

portion of subunit 12C) is not included 

in this final critical habitat designation 

as these lands are adequately managed 

pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. 

Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR 

We are re-affirming our application of 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act to essential 

habitat at Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes 

NWR as described in our December 17, 

2004, proposed rule (69 FR 75608). 

Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR has 

completed a plover management plan 

that provides a conservation benefit to 

this species. The plan provides for the 

protection of plovers by a variety of 

means, including seasonal closure of 

nesting areas, nest exclosures, symbolic 

fencing (low cable fence used to 

discourage humans from approaching 

nests), and law enforcement patrols. 

Under the plan plovers are monitored 

each breeding season for reproductive 

success; the number of plovers 

wintering on the refuge is also 

monitored. We expect funding to 

continue to this refuge through the 

Federal budget process to continue to 

implement the plover management plan. 

An intra-Service section 7 consultation 

was completed on the refuge’s plover 

management plan on March 22, 2001 

(Service 2001). The Secretary 

determined that the measures included 

in the plan would be effective and 

benefit plovers. Therefore, all essential 

habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP within 

the Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR 

(234–ac (94.7 ha) portion of unit 16) is 

not included in this final critical habitat 

designation as these lands are 

adequately managed pursuant to section 

3(5)(A) of the Act. 

Willapa NWR 

Willapa NWR is in the process of 

completing a CCP, and is currently 

operating under a management plan that 

was signed in 1986, which provides for 

management for the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Although the 1986 refuge management 

plan was signed and implemented prior 

to the Pacific Coast WSP listing in 1993, 

it addresses issues related to human 

disturbance and protection of the snowy 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57013 

plover as a sensitive species, and serves 

as in interim management plan. 

The Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa 

NWR is one of the northern-most 

breeding sites for the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Refuge personnel from Willapa NWR 

have been monitoring snowy plovers on 

the refuge annually since 1984. Nest 

exclosures were first used on the refuge 

in 2004 and are credited with significant 

improvement in hatching success. The 

refuge has been posting snowy plover 

nesting areas on the Leadbetter Unit 

since the species was listed. Area 

closure signs are erected in early to midMarch each year and taken down in 

October. Symbolic fencing is erected at 

two areas where hiking trails emerge 

onto the beach to direct people to the 

wet sand portion of the beach. The 

Leadbetter unit of Willapa NWR is 

closed to motor vehicles except during 

special razor clam seasons (generally 2–

3 days a month from late fall through 

early spring). Dogs are not permitted on 

the beach. The refuge is committed to 

minimizing disturbance to snowy 

plovers during the nesting season and 

will continue to manage public use at 

the Leadbetter Unit. 

Historical nesting habitat for the 

snowy plover on Leadbetter Point 

consisted of extensive areas of open or 

sparsely vegetated, low dunes. Much of 

this habitat has been invaded by 

American and European beachgrass. 

The refuge initiated habitat restoration 

of historical nesting areas at Leadbetter 

Spit in 2002. Sixteen acres of beachgrass 

have been cleared to date and snowy 

plovers have nested every year in the 

restoration area since the first acre was 

cleared. 

We expect funding to continue to this 

refuge through the federal budget 

process to continue implementing 

plover management and finalization and 

implementation of the CCP. The 

Secretary has determined that the 

management measures at Willapa NWR 

are effective and provide a conservation 

benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Therefore, all essential habitat for this 

species at Willapa NWR (Unit WA 4) is 

not included in this final critical habitat 

designation as these lands are 

adequately managed pursuant to section 

3(5)(A) of the Act. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Habitat Conservation Plans 

(HCPs)—Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

We are excluding critical habitat from 

approximately 23 ac (9.3 ha) of nonFederal lands within the San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP) Area under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. Non-Federal lands we are 

excluding from critical habitat include 

lands at the mouth of the San Diego 

River. 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP) 

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

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data available after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, impact on national security, and 

any other relevant impact, of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

An area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying a particular area 

as critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. Consequently, we may exclude 

an area from critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or other relevant impacts such 

as preservation of conservation 

partnerships, if we determine the 

benefits of excluding an area from 

critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 

including the area in critical habitat, 

provided the action of excluding the 

area will not result in the extinction of 

the species. 

Below we first provide some general 

background information on the San 

Diego Multiple Species Conservation 

Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCP/ 

HCP), followed by an analysis pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2) of the Act of the 

benefits of including San Diego MSCP/ 

HCP land within the critical habitat 

designation, an analysis of the benefits 

of excluding this area, and an analysis 

of why we believe the benefits of 

exclusion are greater than those of 

inclusion. Finally, we provide a 

determination that exclusion of these 

lands will not result in extinction of the 

Pacific Coast WSP. 

In southwestern San Diego County, 

the MSCP effort encompasses more than 

236,000 ha (582,000 ac) and involves 

the participation of the County of San 

Diego and 11 cities, including the City 

of San Diego. This regional HCP is also 

a regional subarea plan under the NCCP 

program and is being developed in 

cooperation with California Department 

of Fish and Game. The MSCP provides 

for the establishment of approximately 

69,573 ha (171,000 ac) of preserve areas 

to provide conservation benefits for 85 

federally listed and sensitive species 

over the life of the permit (50 years), 

including the Pacific Coast WSP. 

We have excluded from this critical 

habitat designation approximately 23 ac 

(9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands within the 

Multiple Habitat Preserve Alternative 

(MHPA) that are targeted for 

conservation within the City of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Plan 

(MSCP) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Non-Federal lands that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are excluded from critical 

habitat include lands at the mouth of 

the San Diego River for the Pacific Coast 

WSP. 

Conservation measures specific to the 

Pacific Coast WSP within the San Diego 

MSCP/HCP include conservation of 

93% of potential habitat (about 650 

acres), including 99% of saltpan habitat 

and 90–95% of beach outside of 

intensive recreational beaches. The City 

of San Diego must implement measures 

to protect nesting sites from human 

disturbance during the reproductive 

season and control predators. Based on 

habitat preservation and potential 

impacts, direct effects to the species are 

not anticipated from implementation of 

the plan. Indirect effects will include 

edge effects from increased recreation 

uses, beach cleaning, and predation 

resulting from additional landscaping 

and structures that could be used as 

raptor perches. Effects to this species are 

to be minimized through conditions for 

coverage that include protection of 

nesting sites from human disturbance 

during the reproductive season and 

specific measures to protect against 

detrimental edge effects. No take of 

plovers was authorized through the 

plan. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

Overall, we believe that there is 

minimal benefit from designating 

critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP 

within the San Diego MSCP/HCP 

because, as explained above, these lands 

are already managed for the 

conservation of covered species, 

including the Pacific Coast WSP. Below 

we discuss benefits of inclusion of these 

HCP lands. 

A benefit of including an area within 

a critical habitat designation is the 

protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act that directs Federal agencies to 

ensure that their actions do not result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat may provide a different 

level of protection under section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act for the Pacific Coast WSP that 

is separate from the obligation of a 

Federal agency to ensure that their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the endangered 

species. Under the Gifford Pinchot 

decision, critical habitat designations 

may provide greater benefits to the 

recovery of a species than was 

57014 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

previously believed, but it is not 

possible to quantify this benefit at 

present. However, the protection 

provided is still a limitation on the 

harm that occurs as opposed to a 

requirement to provide a conservation 

benefit. We completed a section 7 

consultation on the issuance of the 

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the San 

Diego MSCP/HCP on June 6, 1997, and 

concluded that no take of this species is 

authorized under the plan, and therefore 

implementation of the plan is not likely 

to result in jeopardy to the species. 

The area excluded as critical habitat 

is currently occupied by the species. If 

this area were designated as critical 

habitat, any actions with a Federal 

nexus which might adversely affect the 

critical habitat would require a 

consultation with us, as explained 

previously, in Effects of Critical Habitat 

Designation section. However, 

inasmuch as this area is currently 

occupied by the species, consultation 

for Federal activities which might 

adversely impact the species or would 

result in take would be required even 

without the critical habitat designation. 

Primary constituent elements in this 

area would be protected from 

destruction or adverse modification by 

Federal actions using a conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. This 

requirement would be in addition to the 

requirement that proposed Federal 

actions avoid likely jeopardy to the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

as the mouth of the San Diego River is 

occupied by the Pacific Coast WSP, 

consultation for activities which may 

adversely affect the species, including 

possibly significant habitat modification 

(see definition of ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 

17.3), would be required, even without 

the critical habitat designation. The 

requirement to conduct such 

consultation would occur regardless of 

whether the authorization for incidental 

take occurs under either section 7 or 

section 10 of the Act. 

In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated 

that the identification of habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

species can provide informational 

benefits to the public, State and local 

governments, scientific organizations, 

and Federal agencies. The court also 

noted that heightened public awareness 

of the plight of listed species and their 

habitats may facilitate conservation 

efforts. However, we believe that there 

would be little additional informational 

benefit gained from including the San 

Diego MSCP/HCP within the 

designation because this area is 

included in the HCP. Consequently, we 

believe that the informational benefits 

are already provided even though this 

area is not designated as critical habitat. 

Additionally, the purpose of the San 

Diego MSCP/HCP to provide protection 

and enhancement of habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP is already well 

established among State and local 

governments, and Federal agencies. 

The inclusion of these 23 ac (9.3 ha) 

of non-Federal land as critical habitat 

would provide some additional Federal 

regulatory benefits for the species 

consistent with the conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. A 

benefit of inclusion would be the 

requirement of a Federal agency to 

ensure that their actions on these nonFederal lands do not likely result in 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. This additional analysis to 

determine destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat is likely 

to be small because the lands are not 

under Federal ownership and any 

Federal agency proposing a Federal 

action on these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of nonFederal lands would likely consider the 

conservation value of these lands as 

identified in the San Diego MSCP/HCP 

and take the necessary steps to avoid 

jeopardy or the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

As discussed below, however, we 

believe that designating any non-Federal 

lands within the MHPA as critical 

habitat would provide little additional 

educational and Federal regulatory 

benefits for the species. Because the 

excluded areas are occupied by the 

species, there must be consultation with 

the Service over any action which may 

affect these populations or that would 

result in take. The additional 

educational benefits that might arise 

from critical habitat designation have 

been largely accomplished through the 

public review and comment of the 

environmental impact documents which 

accompanied the development of the 

San Diego MSCP/HCP and the 

recognition by the City of San Diego of 

the presence of the threatened Pacific 

Coast WSP and the value of their lands 

for the conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service equated the 

jeopardy standard with the standard for 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. However, in Gifford 

Pinchot the court noted the government, 

by simply considering the action’s 

survival consequences, was reading the 

concept of recovery out of the 

regulation. The court, relying on the 

CFR definition of adverse modification, 

required the Service to determine 

whether recovery was adversely 

affected. The Gifford Pinchot decision 

arguably made it easier to reach an 

‘‘adverse modification’’ finding by 

reducing the harm, affecting recovery, 

rather than the survival of the species. 

However, there is an important 

distinction: Section 7(a)(2) limits harm 

to the species either through take or 

critical habitat. It does not require 

positive improvements or enhancement 

of the species status. Thus, any 

management plan which considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard will almost 

always provide more benefit than the 

critical habitat designation. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

As mentioned above, the San Diego 

MSCP/HCP provides for the 

conservation of occupied and potential 

habitat, the control of nest predators, 

and measures to protect nesting sites 

from human disturbance. The San Diego 

MSCP/HCP therefore provides for 

protection of the PCEs, and addresses 

special management needs such as 

predator control and management of 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

would therefore not provide as great a 

benefit to the species as the positive 

management measures in the plan. 

The benefits of excluding lands 

within HCPs from critical habitat 

designation include relieving 

landowners, communities, and counties 

of any additional regulatory burden that 

might be imposed by a critical habitat 

designation consistent with the 

conservation standard based on the 

Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford 

Pinchot. Many HCPs, particularly large 

regional HCPs take many years to 

develop and, upon completion, become 

regional conservation plans that are 

consistent with the recovery objectives 

for listed species that are covered within 

the plan area. Additionally, many of 

these HCPs provide conservation 

benefits to unlisted, sensitive species. 

Imposing an additional regulatory 

review after an HCP is completed solely 

as a result of the designation of critical 

habitat may undermine conservation 

efforts and partnerships in many areas. 

In fact, it could result in the loss of 

species’ benefits if participants abandon 

the voluntary HCP process because the 

critical habitat designation may result in 

additional regulatory requirements than 

faced by other parties who have not 

voluntarily participated in species 

conservation. Designation of critical 

habitat within the boundaries of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57015 

approved HCPs could be viewed as a 

disincentive to those entities currently 

developing HCPs or contemplating them 

in the future. Another benefit from 

excluding these lands is to maintain the 

partnerships developed among the City 

of San Diego, the State of California, and 

the Service to implement the San Diego 

MSCP/HCP. Instead of using limited 

funds to comply with administrative 

consultation and designation 

requirements which can not provide 

protection beyond what is currently in 

place, the partners could instead use 

their limited funds for the conservation 

of this species. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

within HCPs from critical habitat 

designation is the unhindered, 

continued ability to seek new 

partnerships with future HCP 

participants including States, Counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners, 

which together can implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands 

within HCP plan areas are designated as 

critical habitat, it would likely have a 

negative effect on our ability to establish 

new partnerships to develop HCPs, 

particularly large, regional HCPs that 

involve numerous participants and 

address landscape-level conservation of 

species and habitats. By excluding these 

lands, we preserve our current 

partnerships and encourage additional 

conservation actions in the future. 

Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP/HCP 

application must itself be consulted 

upon. While this consultation will not 

look specifically at the issue of adverse 

modification to critical habitat, unless 

critical habitat has already been 

designated within the proposed plan 

area, it will determine if the HCP 

jeopardizes the species in the plan area. 

In addition, Federal actions not covered 

by the HCP in areas occupied by listed 

species would still require consultation 

under section 7 of the Act. HCP and 

NCCP/HCPs typically provide for 

greater conservation benefits to a 

covered species than section 7 

consultations because HCPs and NCCP/ 

HCPs assure the long-term protection 

and management of a covered species 

and its habitat, and funding for such 

management through the standards 

found in the 5 Point Policy for HCPs (64 

FR 35242) and the HCP ‘‘No Surprises’’

regulation (63 FR 8859). Such 

assurances are typically not provided by 

section 7 consultations that, in contrast 

to HCPs, often do not commit the 

project proponent to long-term special 

management or protections. Thus, a 

consultation typically does not accord 

the lands it covers the extensive benefits 

a HCP or NCCP/HCP provides. The 

development and implementation of 

HCPs or NCCP/HCPs provide other 

important conservation benefits, 

including the development of biological 

information to guide the conservation 

efforts and assist in species 

conservation, and the creation of 

innovative solutions to conserve species 

while allowing for development. 

In the biological opinion for the San 

Diego MSCP/HCP, the Service 

concluded that no take of this species is 

authorized under the plan and therefore 

implementation of the plan is not likely 

to result in jeopardy to the species. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

We have reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP from approximately 

23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands 

within the San Diego MSCP/HCP; and 

based on this evaluation, we find that 

the benefits of exclusion (avoid 

increased regulatory costs which could 

result from including those lands in this 

designation of critical habitat, ensure 

the willingness of existing partners to 

continue active conservation measures, 

maintain the ability to attract new 

partners, and direct limited funding to 

conservation actions with partners) of 

the lands containing features essential 

to the conservation of the Pacific Coast 

WSP within the San Diego MSCP/HCP 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion 

(limited educational and regulatory 

benefits, which are largely otherwise 

provided for under the MSCP) of these 

lands as critical habitat. The benefits of 

inclusion of these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of nonFederal lands as critical habitat are 

lessened because of the significant level 

of conservation provided to the Pacific 

Coast WSP under the San Diego MSCP/ 

HCP (conservation of occupied and 

potential habitat, control of nest 

predators, and restrictions on 

disturbance and harassment). In 

contrast, the benefits of exclusion of 

these 23 ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands 

as critical habitat are increased because 

of the high level of cooperation by the 

City of San Diego and State of California 

to conserve this species and this 

partnership exceeds any conservation 

value provided by a critical habitat 

designation. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

We believe that exclusion of these 23 

ac (9.3 ha) of non-Federal lands will not 

result in extinction of the Pacific Coast 

WSP since these lands will be 

conserved and managed for the benefit 

of this species pursuant to the San Diego 

MSCP/HCP. The San Diego MSCP/HCP 

includes specific conservation 

objectives, avoidance and minimization 

measures, and management for the San 

Diego MSCP/HCP that exceed any 

conservation value provided as a result 

of a critical habitat designation. 

The jeopardy standard of section 7 

and routine implementation of habitat 

conservation through the section 7 

process also provide assurances that the 

species will not go extinct. In addition, 

the species is protected from take under 

section 9 of the Act. The exclusion 

leaves these protections unchanged 

from those that would exist if the 

excluded areas were designated as 

critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is being designated for 

the Pacific Coast WSP in other areas that 

will be accorded the protection from 

adverse modification by federal actions 

using the conservation standard based 

on the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot. Additionally, the 

species within the San Diego MSCP/ 

HCP occurs on lands protected and 

managed either explicitly for the species 

or indirectly through more general 

objectives to protect natural values. 

These factors acting in concert with the 

other protections provided under the 

Act, lead us to find that exclusion of 

these 23 ac (9.3 ha) within the San 

Diego MSCP/HCP will not result in 

extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to San 

Francisco Bay—Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

We are re-affirming our December 17, 

2004, proposed rule exclusion of six 

units bordering the south San Francisco 

Bay totaling 1,847 ac (747.4 ha) under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (69 FR 75608). 

Pacific Coast WSP habitat in this region 

consists primarily of artificial salt ponds 

and associated levees, much of which 

has recently come under the 

management of various local, State and 

Federal agencies including the Service 

and the California Department of Fish 

and Game (CDFG). The agencies are 

developing a management and 

restoration plan for the salt ponds that 

will take into account the conflicting 

habitat needs of at least four threatened 

or endangered species (i.e., Pacific Coast 

WSPs, clapper rails, salt marsh harvest 

mice, and least terns). Additionally, 

millions of migrating waterfowl and 

shorebirds that use this area yearly will 

be afforded protection in this area. The 

plan is expected to be completed in 

2007. (Margaret Kolar, Service, in litt., 

May 4, 2004). 

57016 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

The primary benefit of including an 

area within a critical habitat designation 

is the protection provided by section 

7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions do 

not result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat may 

provide a different level of protection 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the 

Pacific Coast WSP that is separate from 

the obligation of a Federal agency to 

ensure that their actions are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the endangered species. Under the 

Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to the recovery of a species than 

was previously believed, but it is not 

possible to quantify this benefit at 

present. However, the protection 

provided is still a limitation on the 

harm that occurs as opposed to a 

requirement to provide a conservation 

benefit. 

Primary constituent elements in this 

area would be protected from 

destruction or adverse modification by 

federal actions using a conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. This 

requirement would be in addition to the 

requirement that proposed Federal 

actions avoid likely jeopardy to the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

as San Francisco Bay is occupied by the 

Pacific Coast WSP, consultation for 

activities which may adversely affect 

the species, including possibly 

significant habitat modification (see 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), 

would be required, even without the 

critical habitat designation. The 

requirement to conduct such 

consultation would occur regardless of 

whether the authorization for incidental 

take occurs under either section 7 or 

section 10 of the Act. 

By including the six San Francisco 

Bay units in our final critical habitat 

designations, we could provide those 

areas with immediate critical habitat 

protection rather than waiting for the 

salt pond management plan to be 

completed in 2007. However, as 

discussed in the analyses for other 

excluded units above, the protections 

provided under section 7 largely overlap 

with protections resulting from critical 

habitat designation. Three of the 

excluded units are on the Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay NWR, which is 

managed by the Service. Any significant 

changes to salt pond operations within 

those units would trigger consultation 

under section 7, as would the 

completion of the salt pond 

management plan itself. Two of the 

units are on land managed by the CDFG, 

while the final and smallest unit is on 

land managed by a county governmental 

agency called the Hayward Area 

Recreation District (HARD). Both of 

these agencies are participating with the 

Service in development of the 

management plan, and neither would be 

directly affected by critical habitat 

designation since they are not Federal 

agencies. The Service is participating as 

well in the development of the 

management plan, making necessary an 

internal section 7 consultation 

evaluating the effects of the actions on 

the plan. 

In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated 

that the identification of habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

species can provide informational 

benefits to the public, State and local 

governments, scientific organizations, 

and Federal agencies. The court also 

noted that heightened public awareness 

of the plight of listed species and their 

habitats may facilitate conservation 

efforts. The additional educational 

benefits that might arise from critical 

habitat designation have been largely 

accomplished through the ongoing 

development of the management plan 

for these areas. 

For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service equated the 

jeopardy standard with the standard for 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. However, in Gifford 

Pinchot the court noted the government, 

by simply considering the action’s 

survival consequences, was reading the 

concept of recovery out of the 

regulation. The court, relying on the 

CFR definition of adverse modification, 

required the Service to determine 

whether recovery was adversely 

affected. The Gifford Pinchot decision 

arguably made it easier to reach an 

‘adverse modification’ finding by 

reducing the harm, affecting recovery, 

rather than the survival of the species. 

However, there is an important 

distinction: Section 7(a)(2) limits harm 

to the species either through take or 

critical habitat. It does not require 

positive improvements or enhancement 

of the species status. Thus, any 

management plan which considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard will almost 

always provide more benefit than the 

critical habitat designation. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

By excluding the six units from 

critical habitat designation, we avoid 

restricting the flexibility for the 

development of the salt pond 

management plan which might 

otherwise establish habitat managed for 

plovers in other locations. The six 

excluded San Francisco Bay units were 

chosen based on recent high usage of 

those areas by plovers, although the 

plovers have demonstrated a 

willingness to travel relatively large 

distances within the Bay area to nest 

wherever habitat is most appropriate 

(Kolar in litt. 2004). Because plover 

habitat in the area can easily be created 

or removed in different areas by drying 

or flooding particular ponds, the 

management planners currently have 

the flexibility to move plover habitat to 

wherever it would be most 

advantageous in light of the 

conservation needs of the population 

and of other threatened and endangered 

species present in the Bay area. By 

designating critical habitat according to 

the current locations of essential habitat 

features, we would tend to lock the 

current management scheme into place 

for the designated units, thereby 

reducing management flexibility for 

other listed species and targeted 

ecosystems. 

Additionally, the management 

planning process is a collaborative effort 

involving cooperation and input from 

numerous stakeholders such as 

landowners, public land managers, and 

the general public. This allows the best 

information and local knowledge to be 

brought to the table, and may encourage 

a sense of commitment to the Pacific 

Coast WSPs continuing well-being. We 

are unable to match this level of public 

participation in the critical habitat 

designation process due to time 

constraints. By excluding these lands, 

we preserve our current partnerships 

and encourage additional conservation 

actions in the future. Finally, the 

enhancement and management of plover 

habitat will benefit greatly from 

coordination between the various 

owners and managers in the area. The 

ongoing planning process can provide 

for that coordination, whereas the 

critical habitat designation process 

cannot. Designation of critical habitat 

would therefore not provide as great a 

benefit to the species as the positive 

management measures in a plan. 

(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Inclusion 

We find that the Pacific Coast WSP 

will obtain greater benefits if we avoid 

designating habitat in the San Francisco 

Bay and instead allow participating 

agencies to complete their salt pond 

management plan unencumbered by 

critical habitat considerations. While 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57017 

the salt pond management plan offers 

considerable benefits in comparison to 

critical habitat, we must also consider 

the likelihood that the plan will be 

completed. In this case we find the 

likelihood to be high because the major 

participants are all resource 

management agencies, and because the 

management plan is related to the recent 

purchase (i.e., 16,500 ac (6,677 ha)) of 

salt ponds from a salt manufacturing 

company) by the Service and CDFG. 

This purchase involved the close 

cooperation of numerous resource 

management and environmental 

organizations. Accordingly, we are 

excluding six units in the south San 

Francisco Bay from designation. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

Critical habitat is being designated for 

the Pacific Coast WSP in other areas that 

will be accorded the protection from 

adverse modification by federal actions 

using the conservation standard based 

on the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot. Also the jeopardy 

standard of section 7 and routine 

implementation of habitat conservation 

through the section 7 process provides 

assurances that the species will not go 

extinct. In addition, the species is 

protected from take under section 9 of 

the Act. The exclusion leaves these 

protections unchanged from those that 

would exist if the excluded areas were 

designated as critical habitat. 

Additionally, the species occurs on 

lands protected and managed either 

explicitly for the species or indirectly 

through more general objectives to 

protect natural values. These factors 

acting in concert with the other 

protections provided under the Act, 

lead us to find that exclusion the six 

south San Francisco units will not result 

in extinction of the Pacific Coast WSP. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Dillon 

Beach—Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

We are excluding unit CA 7 (Dillon 

Beach) 30 ac (12 ha), at the mouth of 

Tomales Bay in Marin County, 

California, under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. Pacific Coast WSP habitat in this 

region consists primarily of sparsely 

vegetated sandy beach both above and 

below the high tide line. Approximately 

95 percent of the unit is owned by 

Lawson’s Landing, Inc. (Lawson), which 

operates a nearby campground. The 

remainder is owned by Oxfoot 

Associates, LLC (Oxfoot), which 

operates a day-use beach with 

associated parking lot. The location 

supports wintering plovers, but does not 

currently support any nesting (Page in 

litt. 2004, Stenzel in litt. 2004). 

Wintering plovers are typically present 

at the site from July through February. 

The entire area is subject to moderate 

use by human pedestrians and 

unleashed dogs, which enter the beach 

from both the campground to the south 

and the day-use beach to the north. 

In the period between the proposed 

designation and the final designation we 

have been in contact with the 

landowners and are in the process of 

developing conservation measures to 

assist in conserving Pacific Coast WSP 

and their habitat on Dillon Beach. 

Although finalization of the 

conservation measures have not been 

completed, we expect the measures will 

be finalized and will benefit Pacific 

Coast WSP conservation in the area. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

The primary benefit of including an 

area within a critical habitat designation 

is the protection provided by section 

7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions do 

not result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat may 

provide a different level of protection 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the 

Pacific Coast WSP that is separate from 

the obligation of a Federal agency to 

ensure that their actions are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the endangered species. Under the 

Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to the recovery of a species than 

was previously believed, but it is not 

possible to quantify this benefit at 

present. However, the protection 

provided is still a limitation on the 

harm that occurs as opposed to a 

requirement to provide a conservation 

benefit. 

Primary constituent elements in this 

area would be protected from 

destruction or adverse modification by 

federal actions using a conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. This 

requirement would be in addition to the 

requirement that proposed Federal 

actions avoid likely jeopardy to the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

as Dillon Beach is occupied by 

wintering plovers, consultation for 

activities which may adversely affect 

the species, including possibly 

significant habitat modification (see 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), 

would be required, even without the 

critical habitat designation. The 

requirement to conduct such 

consultation would occur regardless of 

whether the authorization for incidental 

take occurs under either section 7 or 

section 10 of the Act. 

The inclusion of these 30 ac (12 ha) 

of non-Federal lands as critical habitat 

would provide some additional Federal 

regulatory benefits for the species 

consistent with the conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. 

However, this additional benefit is 

likely to be small because the lands are 

not under Federal ownership and any 

Federal agency proposing a Federal 

action on these 30 ac (12 ha) of nonFederal lands would likely consider the 

conservation value of these lands as 

identified in the proposed deed 

restrictions and conservation strategy, 

and take necessary steps to avoid 

jeopardy or destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

By including the Dillon Beach unit in 

our final critical habitat designations, 

we could provide those areas with 

immediate critical habitat protection 

rather than waiting for the agreement to 

be completed. However, as discussed in 

the analyses for other excluded units 

above, the protections provided under 

section 7 largely overlap with 

protections resulting from critical 

habitat designation. The Service is 

participating as well in the development 

of the conservation measures with the 

landowners, and as such, evaluating the 

effects of the actions on the Pacific 

Coast WSP. Excluding these privately 

owned lands with conservation 

strategies from critical habitat may, by 

way of example, provide positive social, 

legal, and economic incentives to other 

non-Federal landowners who own lands 

that could contribute to listed species 

recovery if voluntary conservation 

measures on these lands are 

implemented. 

In Sierra Club v. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated 

that the identification of habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

species can provide informational 

benefits to the public, State and local 

governments, scientific organizations, 

and Federal agencies. The court also 

noted that heightened public awareness 

of the plight of listed species and their 

habitats may facilitate conservation 

efforts. The additional educational 

benefits that might arise from critical 

habitat designation have been largely 

accomplished through the ongoing 

development of the management plan 

for this area. 

For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service equated the 

jeopardy standard with the standard for 

destruction or adverse modification of 

57018 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat. However, in Gifford 

Pinchot the court noted the government, 

by simply considering the action’s 

survival consequences, was reading the 

concept of recovery out of the 

regulation. The court, relying on the 

CFR definition of adverse modification, 

required the Service to determine 

whether recovery was adversely 

affected. The Gifford Pinchot decision 

arguably made it easier to reach an 

‘adverse modification’ finding by 

reducing the harm, affecting recovery, 

rather than the survival of the species. 

However, there is an important 

distinction: Section 7(a)(2) limits harm 

to the species either through take or 

critical habitat. It does not require 

positive improvements or enhancement 

of the species status. Thus, any 

management plan, or in this case 

proposed deed restriction with 

accompanying conservation strategy, 

which considers enhancement or 

recovery as the management standard 

will almost always provide more benefit 

than the critical habitat designation. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

Lawson and Oxfoot (landowners) are 

working with the Service to place deed 

restrictions over the 30 ac (12 ha) of 

privately owned land at Dillon Beach 

identified as essential habitat. Working 

with the Service, Lawson is proposing 

to restrict development and habitat 

alteration on the 30 ac (12 ha) proposed 

for critical habitat, while Oxfoot, who 

controls the major access point to the 

beach is proposing to construct and 

maintain interpretive signage visible to 

beachgoers entering the property. 

Additionally, the major landowner and 

the Service are pursuing grant funding 

by the landowner and the Service to 

produce additional interpretive signs 

and flyers, which would be placed in 

easily visible locations on portions of 

the property. These conservation 

measures will protect the wintering 

plover habitat at Dillon Beach. 

The provision restricting development 

and habitat alteration addresses the 

general rangewide threat of habitat loss, 

while the following provisions directly 

address the threat of disturbance by 

humans and pets, and indirectly address 

the threat of predators by encouraging 

beachgoers to avoid practices that might 

attract predators, such as leaving trash 

on the beach. Therefore, designation of 

critical habitat would not provide as 

great a benefit to the species as the 

positive management measures in the 

proposed plan. 

Additionally, the management 

planning process is a voluntary 

collaborative effort involving 

cooperation and input from the 

landowners and the Service. This 

cooperation allows the best information 

and local knowledge to be brought to 

the table, and may encourage a sense of 

commitment to the Pacific Coast WSPs 

continuing well-being. In this case, the 

landowner has explicitly stated that 

they would not be willing to work with 

the Service to conserve the Pacific Coast 

WSP and implement conservation 

measures if critical habitat is designated 

on their property. Finally, the 

enhancement and management of plover 

habitat will benefit greatly from 

coordination between the various 

owners and managers in the area. The 

ongoing planning process can provide 

for that coordination, whereas the 

critical habitat designation process 

cannot. Designation of critical habitat 

would therefore not provide as great a 

benefit to the species as the positive 

management measures in a plan. By 

excluding these lands, we preserve our 

current partnerships and encourage 

additional conservation actions in the 

future. 

(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Inclusion 

We have reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of approximately 30 ac (12 ha) 

from the critical habitat designation for 

the Pacific Coast WSP. Based on this 

evaluation, we find that the benefits of 

exclusion (ensure willingness of 

existing partners to enact conservation 

measures, maintain ability to attract 

new partners) of the lands containing 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP within Dillon 

Beach unit outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion (limited educational and 

regulatory benefits) of these lands as 

critical habitat. Allowing landowners to 

participate voluntarily to develop and 

implement management strategies and 

conservation measures will provide 

greater benefit to the species than 

designation of critical habitat alone. 

However, in weighing the benefits of 

inclusion versus the benefits of 

exclusion, the Service must also 

consider the likelihood that the 

conservation plan and accompanying 

deed restrictions will be completed. In 

this case we find the likelihood to be 

high because the major participants are 

all involved in the current process of 

developing conservation strategies for 

the Pacific Coast WSP and have 

voluntarily contacted the Service in the 

development of such measures. During 

the period between the proposed 

designation and the final designation we 

have been in contact with the local 

landowners and have established an 

excellent working relationship with the 

local landowners and their 

representative and feel confident that an 

agreement will be reached in the near 

future for the conservation of the Pacific 

Coast WSP and its habitat. Accordingly, 

we are excluding the Dillon Beach unit 

from the designation. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

We believe that exclusion of these 30 

ac (12 ha) of non-Federal lands will not 

result in extinction of the Pacific Coast 

WSP since these lands are proposed to 

be conserved and managed under deed 

restriction and an accompanying 

conservation strategy. Additionally, 

critical habitat is being designated for 

the Pacific Coast WSP in other areas that 

will be accorded the protection from 

adverse modification by Federal actions 

using the conservation standard based 

on the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot. Also the jeopardy 

standard of section 7 and routine 

implementation of habitat conservation 

through the section 7 process provides 

assurances that the species will not go 

extinct. In addition, the species is 

protected from take under section 9 of 

the Act. The exclusion leaves these 

protections unchanged from those that 

would exist if the excluded areas were 

designated as critical habitat. 

Additionally, the species occurs on 

lands protected and managed either 

explicitly for the species or indirectly 

through more general objectives to 

protect natural values. These factors 

acting in concert with the other 

protections provided under the Act, 

lead us to find that exclusion of the 30 

ac (12 ha) Dillon Beach unit would not 

result in extinction of the Pacific Coast 

WSP. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Economic Impacts—Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

This section allows the Secretary to 

exclude areas from critical habitat for 

economic reasons if she determines that 

the benefits of such exclusion exceed 

the benefits of designating the area as 

critical habitat, unless the exclusion 

will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. This is a 

discretionary authority Congress has 

provided to the Secretary with respect 

to critical habitat. Although economic 

and other impacts may not be 

considered when listing a species, 

Congress has expressly required their 

consideration when designating critical 

habitat. 

In general, we have considered in 

making the following exclusions that all 

of the costs and other impacts predicted 

in the economic analysis may not be 

avoided by excluding the area, due to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57019 

the fact that all of the areas in question 

are currently occupied by the Pacific 

Coast WSP requirements for 

consultation under Section 7 of the Act, 

or for permits under section 10 

(henceforth ‘‘consultation’’), for any take 

of this species, which should also serve 

to protect the species and its habitat, 

and other protections for the species 

exist elsewhere in the Act and under 

State and local laws and regulations. In 

conducting economic analyses, we are 

guided by the 10th Circuit Court of 

Appeal’s ruling in the New Mexico 

Cattle Growers Association case (248 

F.3d at 1285), which directed us to 

consider all impacts, ‘‘regardless of 

whether those impacts are attributable 

co-extensively to other causes.’’ As 

explained in the analysis, due to 

possible overlapping regulatory schemes 

and other reasons, there are also some 

elements of the analysis that may 

overstate some costs. 

Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has 

recently ruled (‘‘Gifford Pinchot’’, 378 

F.3d at 1071) that the Service’s 

regulations defining ‘‘adverse 

modification’’ of critical habitat are 

invalid because they define adverse 

modification as affecting both survival 

and recovery of a species. The Court 

directed us to consider that 

determinations of adverse modification 

should be focused on impacts to 

recovery. While we have not yet 

proposed a new definition for public 

review and comment, compliance with 

the Court’s direction may result in 

additional costs associated with the 

designation of critical habitat 

(depending upon the outcome of the 

rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty 

concerning the regulatory definition of 

adverse modification, our current 

methodological approach to conducting 

economic analyses of our critical habitat 

designations is to consider all 

conservation-related costs. This 

approach would include costs related to 

sections 4, 7, 9, and 10 of the Act, and 

should encompass costs that would be 

considered and evaluated in light of the 

Gifford Pinchot ruling. 

We are excluding all or portions of six 

units or subunits of the proposed 

critical habitat for economic reasons. 

Congress expressly contemplated that 

exclusions under this section might 

result in such situations when it enacted 

the exclusion authority. House Report 

95–1625, stated on page 17: ‘‘Factors of 

recognized or potential importance to 

human activities in an area will be 

considered by the Secretary in deciding 

whether or not all or part of that area 

should be included in the critical 

habitat * * * In some situations, no 

critical habitat would be specified. In 

such situations, the Act would still be 

in force preventing any taking or other 

prohibited act * * *’’ (emphasis 

supplied). We accordingly believe that 

these exclusions, and the basis upon 

which they are made, are fully within 

the parameters for the use of section 

4(b)(2) set out by Congress. In reaching 

our decision about which areas should 

be excluded from the final critical 

habitat designation for economic 

reasons, we considered the following 

factors to be important: (1) The units (or 

subunits) with the highest cost; (2) a 

substantial break in costs from one unit 

(or subunit) to the next that may 

indicate disproportionate impacts; and 

(3) possible cost impacts to public 

works projects such as transportation or 

other infrastructure from the 

designation. 

The draft economic analysis 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48094) analyzed 

the economic effects of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

Pacific Coast WSP in the States of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

The economic impacts of critical habitat 

designation vary widely between States, 

among counties, and even within 

counties. The counties most impacted 

by the critical habitat designation to the 

recreation and tourist industry are all 

located in either central or southern 

California, and include Santa Cruz, 

Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa 

Barbara, and San Diego counties. 

Further, economic impacts are unevenly 

distributed within counties. The 

analysis was conducted at the proposed 

unit or subunit level. The subunits with 

the greatest economic impacts include 

Vandenberg South (CA 17B), Atascadero 

Beach (CA 15B), Vandenberg North (CA 

17A), Silver Strand (CA 27C), Jetty Road 

to Aptos (CA 12A), Morro Bay Beach 

(CA 15C), Pismo Beach/Nipomo (CA 

16), and Monterey to Moss Landing (CA 

12C). These 8 subunits make up 

approximately 90 percent of the total 

costs of designation. Vandenberg North 

(CA 17A) and Vandenberg South (CA 

17B) are excluded under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act based on National Security 

concerns by the Air Force. Portions of 

Silver Strand (CA 27C) are exempt from 

this critical habitat designation under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. For a 

discussion of these exclusions and 

exemptions see the Relationship of 

Critical Habitat to Military 

LandslApplication of Section 4(a)(3) 

and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

section. Had these units not already 

been excluded or exempted, they likely 

would have been excluded for economic 

reasons. 

Mitigation requirements increase the 

cost of development and avoidance 

requirements are assumed to reduce 

coastal recreational opportunities and 

the quality of visits, thereby affecting 

the amount of localized tourism. 

Adverse impacts to coastal recreation 

and tourism are estimated to be 95 

percent of the costs associated with this 

critical habitat designation for the 

Pacific Coast WSP. Management 

activities designed to enhance plover 

conservation accounts for 

approximately 3.3 percent of 

designation costs, while impacts to 

military operations (1.4 percent), 

development (0.2 percent) and gravel 

mining (0.1 percent) were also 

estimated. The total future costs (from 

2005 to 2025) at the proposed critical 

habitat units are estimated to be $272.8 

million to $645.3 million on a present 

value basis ($514.9 to $1,222.7 million 

expressed in constant dollars). Costs 

attributed to lost or diminished 

recreation and tourism ranges from 

$244.4 million to $611.1 million. Future 

costs to the military resulting from the 

designation would be approximately 

$9.1 million in present value terms, plus 

adverse impacts to military readiness 

and national security that are not 

monetized. 

A copy of the final economic analysis 

with supporting documents are 

included in our administrative record 

and may be obtained by contacting U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of 

Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Economic Exclusions 

We have considered, but are 

excluding from critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP essential habitat in 

the six subunits and counties listed in 

Table 3. 

57020 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3.—EXCLUDED SUBUNITS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

Unit or subunit County 

Economic impact 

in draft EA 

($) 

CA 12A: Jetty Rd.—Aptos ....................................................... Santa Cruz and Monterey ....................................................... 48,563,000 

CA 12C: Monterey—Moss Landing ......................................... Monterey .................................................................................. 210,378,000 

CA 15B: Atascadero Beach ..................................................... San Luis Obispo ...................................................................... 31,395,000 

CA 15C: Morro Bay Beach ...................................................... San Luis Obispo ...................................................................... 73,584,000 

CA 16: Pismo Beach/Nipomo .................................................. San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara ...................................... 109,309,000 

CA 27C: Silver Strand ............................................................. San Diego ................................................................................ 43,714,000 

Total .................................................................................. .................................................................................................. 516,943,000 

The notice of availability of the draft 

economic analysis (70 FR 48094: August 

16, 2005) solicited public comment on 

the potential exclusion of high cost 

areas. As we finalized the economic 

analysis, we identified high costs 

associated with the proposed critical 

habitat designation throughout the range 

of the Pacific Coast WSP. Costs related 

to conservation activities for the 

proposed Pacific Coast WSP critical 

habitat pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 

of the Act are estimated to be $272.8 to 

$645.3 million over the next 20 years on 

a present value basis. In constant 

dollars, the draft economic analysis 

estimates there will be an economic 

impact of $514.9 to $1,22.7 million 

expressed in constant dollars over the 

next 20 years. The activities affected by 

plover conservation may include 

recreation, plover management, real 

estate development, military base 

operations, and gravel extraction. 

Ninety percent of all future costs are 

associated with 8 central and southern 

California units identified above (Table 

3). On the basis of the significance of 

these costs, we determined that these 

warrant exclusion from designation. 

(1) Benefits to Inclusion of the Six 

Excluded Units or Subunits 

The primary benefit of including an 

area within a critical habitat designation 

is the protection provided by section 

7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions do 

not result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat may 

provide a different level of protection 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for the 

Pacific Coast WSP that is separate from 

the obligation of a Federal agency to 

ensure that their actions are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the endangered species. Under the 

Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat 

designations may provide greater 

benefits to the recovery of a species than 

was previously believed, but it is not 

possible to quantify this benefit at 

present. However, the protection 

provided is still a limitation on the 

harm that occurs as opposed to a 

requirement to provide a conservation 

benefit. 

The area excluded as critical habitat 

is currently occupied by the species. If 

this area were designated as critical 

habitat, any actions with a Federal 

nexus which might adversely affect the 

critical habitat would require a 

consultation with us, as explained 

previously, in Effects of Critical Habitat 

Designation section. However, 

inasmuch as this area is currently 

occupied by the species, consultation 

for Federal activities which might 

adversely impact the species or would 

result in take would be required even 

without the critical habitat designation. 

Primary constituent elements in this 

area would be protected from 

destruction or adverse modification by 

federal actions using a conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. This 

requirement would be in addition to the 

requirement that proposed Federal 

actions avoid likely jeopardy to the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

as all six units are occupied by the 

Pacific Coast WSP, consultation for 

activities which may adversely affect 

the species, including possibly 

significant habitat modification (see 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), 

would be required, even without the 

critical habitat designation. The 

requirement to conduct such 

consultation would occur regardless of 

whether the authorization for incidental 

take occurs under either section 7 or 

section 10 of the Act. 

We determined, however, in the 

economic analysis that designation of 

critical habitat could result in up to 

$645.3 million in costs, the majority of 

which are related to recreational and 

tourism impacts. We believe that the 

potential decrease in coastal recreation 

and associated tourism resulting from 

this designation of critical habitat for 

the Pacific Coast WSP, would minimize 

impacts to and potentially provide some 

protection to the species, the sandy 

beach, river gravel bar, and evaporation 

pond habitats where they reside, and 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the species’ conservation 

(i.e., the primary constituent elements). 

Thus, this decrease in recreation and 

tourism would directly translate into a 

potential benefit to the species that 

would result from this designation. 

Another possible benefit of a critical 

habitat designation is education of 

landowners and the public regarding the 

potential conservation value of these 

areas. This may focus and contribute to 

conservation efforts by other parties by 

clearly delineating areas of high 

conservation values for certain species. 

However, we believe that this education 

benefit has largely been achieved, or is 

being achieved in equal measure by 

other means. Although we have not 

completed the recovery planning 

process for the Pacific Coast WSP, the 

designation of critical habitat would 

assist in the identification of potential 

core recovery areas for the species. The 

critical habitat designation and the 

current draft recovery plan provide 

information geared to the general 

public, landowners, and agencies about 

areas that are important for the 

conservation of the species and what 

actions they can implement to further 

the conservation of the Pacific Coast 

WSP within their own jurisdiction and 

capabilities, and contains provisions for 

ongoing public outreach and education 

as part of the recovery process. 

In summary, we believe that inclusion 

of the six subunits as critical habitat 

would provide some additional Federal 

regulatory benefits for the species. 

However, that benefit is limited to some 

degree by the fact that the designated 

critical habitat is occupied by the 

species, and therefore there must, in any 

case, be consultation with the Service 

over any Federal action which may 

affect the species in those six units. The 

additional educational benefits which 

might arise from critical habitat 

designation are largely accomplished 

through the multiple opportunities for 

public notice and comments which 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57021 

accompanied the development of this 

regulation, publicity over the prior 

litigation, and public outreach 

associated with the development of the 

draft and, ultimately, the 

implementation of the final recovery 

plan for the Pacific Coast WSP. 

(2) Benefits to Exclusion of the Six 

Excluded Units or Subunits 

The economic analysis conducted for 

this proposal estimates that the costs 

associated with designating these six 

subunits would be approximately 

$645.3 million. Estimated costs would 

be associated with the Pacific Coast 

WSP in amounts shown in Table 3 

above. By excluding these subunits, 

some or all of these costs will be 

avoided. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion of the Six Units or 

Subunits 

We believe that the benefits from 

excluding these lands from the 

designation of critical habitat—avoiding 

the potential economic and human 

costs, both in dollars and jobs, predicted 

in the economic analysis— exceed the 

educational and regulatory benefits 

which could result from including those 

lands in this designation of critical 

habitat. 

We have evaluated and considered 

the potential economic costs on the 

recreation and tourism industry relative 

to the potential benefit for the Pacific 

Coast WSP and its primary constituent 

elements derived from the designation 

of critical habitat. We believe that the 

potential economic impact of up to 

approximately $645.3 million on the 

tourism industry significantly 

outweighs the potential conservation 

and protective benefits for the species 

and their primary constituent elements 

derived from the residential 

development not being constructed as a 

result of this designation. 

We also believe that excluding these 

lands, and thus helping landowners 

avoid the additional costs that would 

result from the designation, will 

contribute to a more positive climate for 

Habitat Conservation Plans and other 

active conservation measures which 

provide greater conservation benefits 

than would result from designation of 

critical habitat ‘‘ even in the post-Gifford 

Pinchot environment—which requires 

only that the there be no adverse 

modification resulting from actions with 

a Federal nexus. We therefore find that 

the benefits of excluding these areas 

from this designation of critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of including them 

in the designation. 

We believe that the required future 

recovery planning process would 

provide at least equivalent value to the 

public, State and local governments, 

scientific organizations, and Federal 

agencies in providing information about 

habitat that contains those features 

considered essential to the conservation 

of the Pacific Coast WSP, and in 

facilitating conservation efforts through 

heightened public awareness of the 

plight of the listed species. The draft 

recovery plan contains explicit 

objectives for ongoing public education, 

outreach, and collaboration at local, 

state, and federal levels, and between 

the private and public sectors, in 

recovering the Pacific Coast WSP. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

We believe that exclusion of these 

lands will not result in the extinction of 

the Pacific Coast WSP as these areas are 

considered occupied habitat. Actions 

which might adversely affect the species 

are expected to have a Federal nexus, 

and would thus undergo a section 7 

consultation with the Service. The 

jeopardy standard of section 7, and 

routine implementation of habitat 

preservation through the section 7 

process, as discussed in the economic 

analysis, provide assurance that the 

species will not go extinct. In addition, 

the species is protected from take under 

section 9 of the Act. The exclusion 

leaves these protections unchanged 

from those that would exist if the 

excluded areas were designated as 

critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is being designated for 

the species in other areas that will be 

accorded the protection from adverse 

modification by Federal actions using 

the conservation standard based on the 

Ninth Circuit decision in Gifford 

Pinchot. Additionally, the species 

occurs on lands protected and managed 

either explicitly for the species, or 

indirectly through more general 

objectives to protect natural values, this 

provides protection from extinction 

while conservation measures are being 

implemented. For example, the Pacific 

Coast WSP is protected on lands such as 

State and National Parks, and are 

managed specifically for the species e.g., 

Point Reyes National Seashore. The 

species also occurs on lands managed to 

protect and enhance coastal ecosystems 

and wetlands, e.g. Moss Landing 

Wildlife Area and the San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

We believe that exclusion of the six 

subunits will not result in extinction of 

the Pacific Coast WSP as they are 

considered occupied habitat. Federal 

Actions which might adversely affect 

the species would thus undergo a 

consultation with the Service under the 

requirements of section 7 of the Act. 

The jeopardy standard of section 7, and 

routine implementation of habitat 

preservation as part of the section 7 

process, as discussed in the draft 

economic analysis, provide insurance 

that the species will not go extinct. The 

exclusion leaves these protections 

unchanged from those that would exist 

if the excluded areas were designated as 

critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is being designated for 

the Pacific Coast WSP in other areas that 

will be accorded the protection from 

adverse modification by federal actions 

using the conservation standard based 

on the Ninth Circuit decision in Gifford 

Pinchot. Additionally, the species 

occurs on lands protected and managed 

either explicitly for the species, or 

indirectly through more general 

objectives to protect natural values, this 

factor acting in concert with the other 

protections provided under the Act for 

these lands absent designation of critical 

habitat on them, and acting in concert 

with protections afforded each species 

by the remaining critical habitat 

designation for the species, lead us to 

find that exclusion of these six subunits 

will not result in extinction of the 

Pacific Coast WSP. 

Economic Analysis 

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

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

information available and to consider 

the economic and other relevant 

impacts of designating a particular area 

as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 

from critical habitat upon a 

determination that the benefits of such 

exclusions outweigh the benefits of 

Specifying such areas as critical habitat. 

We cannot exclude such areas from 

critical habitat when such exclusion 

will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. The draft analysis was 

made available for public review on 

August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48094). We 

accepted comments on the draft analysis 

until September 15, 2005. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP. This information is 

intended to assist the Secretary in 

making decisions about whether the 

benefits of excluding particular areas 

from the designation outweigh the 

57022 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

benefits of including those areas in the 

designation. This economic analysis 

considers the economic efficiency 

effects that may result from the 

designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on small entities and the energy 

industry. This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

This analysis focuses on the direct 

and indirect costs of the rule. However, 

economic impacts to land use activities 

can exist in the absence of critical 

habitat. These impacts may result from, 

for example, local zoning laws, State 

and natural resource laws, and 

enforceable management plans and best 

management practices applied by other 

State and Federal agencies. Economic 

impacts that result from these types of 

protections are not included in the 

analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. 

A copy of the final economic analysis 

with supporting documents are 

included in our administrative record 

and may be obtained by contacting U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of 

Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES

section) or for downloading from the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

sacramento/default.htm. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

final rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the final rule clearly stated? (2) Does 

the final rule contain technical jargon 

that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does 

the format of the final rule (grouping 

and order of the sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing, and so forth) 

aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the 

description of the notice in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the preamble helpful in understanding 

the final rule? (5) What else could we do 

to make this final rule easier to 

understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this final rule easier to 

understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect the economy in a material way. 

Due to the timeline for publication in 

the Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed this rule. As 

explained above, we prepared an 

economic analysis of this action. We 

used this analysis to meet the 

requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

to determine the economic 

consequences of designating the specific 

areas as critical habitat. We also used it 

to help determine whether to exclude 

specific areas as critical habitat, as 

provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we 

determine that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless we determine, 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA also amended the RFA to 

require a certification statement. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., housing development, grazing, oil 

and gas production, timber harvesting). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

fund, permit, or implement that may 

affect Pacific Coast WSP. Federal 

agencies also must consult with us if 

their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57023 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Pacific coast population of the western 

snowy plover would affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities (e.g., recreation, residential 

and related development, and 

commercial gravel mining). We 

considered each industry or category 

individually to determine if certification 

is appropriate. In estimating the 

numbers of small entities potentially 

affected, we also considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement; some kinds of activities 

are unlikely to have any Federal 

involvement and so will not be affected 

by the designation of critical habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted or authorized by Federal 

agencies; non-Federal activities are not 

affected by the designation. 

In our economic analysis of this 

proposed designation, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities and small governments 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the listing of this species and 

proposed designation of its critical 

habitat. We evaluated small business 

entities in five categories: Habitat and 

plover management activities, beachrelated recreation activities, residential 

and related development, activities on 

military lands, and commercial mining. 

Of these five categories, impacts of 

plover conservation to habitat and 

plover management, and activities on 

military lands are not anticipated to 

affect small entities as discussed in 

Appendix A of our draft economic 

analysis. The following summary of the 

information contained in Appendix A of 

the draft economic analysis provides the 

basis for our determination. 

On the basis of our analysis of 

western snowy plover conservation 

measures, we determined that this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

western snowy plover would result in 

potential economic effects to recreation. 

Section 4 of the draft economic analysis 

discusses impacts of restrictions on 

recreational activity at beaches 

containing potential critical habitat for 

the plover. Individual recreators may 

experience welfare losses as a result of 

foregone or diminished trips to the 

beach. If fewer trips are taken by 

recreators, then some local businesses 

serving these visitors may be indirectly 

affected. In our August 16, 2005, notice 

of availability on the draft economic 

analysis and proposed rule (70 FR 

48094), we did not believe that this 

proposed designation would have an 

effect on a substantial number of small 

businesses and would also not result in 

a significant effect to impacted small 

businesses. In this final rule, we have 

excluded 8 units (Vandenberg South 

(CA 17B), Atascadero Beach (CA 15B), 

Vandenberg North (CA 17A), Silver 

Strand (CA 27C), Jetty Road to Aptos 

(CA 12A), Morro Bay Beach (CA 15C), 

Pismo Beach/Nipomo (CA 16), and 

Monterey to Moss Landing (CA 12C)) 

that contained approximately 90 percent 

of the economic impacts of the proposed 

designation; approximately 95 percent 

of the economic impacts are due to 

impacts to recreations. Because we have 

excluded these 8 units, this further 

confirms that this designation will not 

have an effect on a substantial number 

of small businesses and would also not 

result in a significant effect to impacted 

small businesses. 

For development activities, a detailed 

analysis of impacts to these activities is 

presented in Section 5 of the draft 

economic analysis. For this analysis, we 

determined that two development 

projects occurring within the potential 

critical habitat are expected to incur 

costs associated with plover 

conservation efforts. One of these 

projects is funded by Humboldt County, 

which does not qualify as a small 

government, and is therefore not 

relevant to this small business analysis. 

The economic impact to the one project 

that qualifies as a small business is 

estimated to be 2.5 percent of the tax 

revenue. Because only one small 

business is estimated to be impacted by 

this proposal and only 2.5 percent of 

revenues are estimated to be incurred, 

we have determined that this 

designation will not have an effect on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

For gravel mining activities, we have 

determined that five gravel mining 

companies exist within Unit CA–4D of 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. We determined that the 

annualized impact from plover 

conservation activities to these small 

businesses was approximately 0.5 

percent of the total sales of these five 

mining companies. From this analysis, 

we have determined that this 

designation would also not result in a 

significant effect to the annual sales of 

these small businesses impacted by this 

designation. 

Based on this data we have 

determined that this final designation 

would not affect a substantial number of 

small businesses involved in recreation, 

residential and related development and 

commercial gravel mining. Further, we 

have determined that this final 

designation would also not result in a 

significant effect to the annual sales of 

those small businesses impacted by this 

designation. As such, we are certifying 

that this final designation of critical 

habitat would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Please refer to 

Appendix A of our economic analysis of 

this designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts to small business entities. 

In general, two different mechanisms 

in section 7 consultations could lead to 

additional regulatory requirements for 

the approximately four small 

businesses, on average, that may be 

required to consult with us each year 

regarding their project’s impact on 

Pacific Coast WSP and its habitat. First, 

if we conclude, in a biological opinion, 

that a proposed action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat, we can offer ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives.’’ Reasonable and 

prudent alternatives are alternative 

actions that can be implemented in a 

manner consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that would 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of listed species or result in 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

A Federal agency and an applicant may 

elect to implement a reasonable and 

prudent alternative associated with a 

biological opinion that has found 

jeopardy or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. An agency or applicant 

could alternatively choose to seek an 

exemption from the requirements of the 

Act or proceed without implementing 

the reasonable and prudent alternative. 

However, unless an exemption were 

obtained, the Federal agency or 

applicant would be at risk of violating 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to 

proceed without implementing the 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

Second, if we find that a proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed animal or 

plant species, we may identify 

reasonable and prudent measures 

designed to minimize the amount or 

extent of take and require the Federal 

agency or applicant to implement such 

measures through non-discretionary 

terms and conditions. We may also 

identify discretionary conservation 

recommendations designed to minimize 

or avoid the adverse effects of a 

proposed action on listed species or 

critical habitat, help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop 

information that could contribute to the 

recovery of the species. 

57024 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Based on our experience with 

consultations pursuant to section 7 of 

the Act for all listed species, virtually 

all projects—including those that, in 

their initial proposed form, would result 

in jeopardy or adverse modification 

determinations in section 7 

consultations—can be implemented 

successfully with, at most, the adoption 

of reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These measures, by definition, must be 

economically feasible and within the 

scope of authority of the Federal agency 

involved in the consultation. We can 

only describe the general kinds of 

actions that may be identified in future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These are based on our understanding of 

the needs of the species and the threats 

it faces, as described in the final listing 

rule and this critical habitat designation. 

Within the final CHUs, the types of 

Federal actions or authorized activities 

that we have identified as potential 

concerns are: 

(1) Actions and management efforts 

affecting Pacific Coast WSP on Federal 

lands such as national seashores, parks, 

and wildlife reserves; 

(2) Dredging and dredge spoil 

placement activities that permanently 

remove PCEs to the extent that essential 

biological function of plover habitat is 

adversely affected; 

(3) Construction and maintenance of 

eroded areas or structures (e.g., roads, 

walkways, marinas, salt ponds, access 

points, bridges, culverts) which interfere 

with plover nesting, breeding, or 

foraging; produce increases in 

predation; or promote a dense growth of 

vegetation that precludes an area’s use 

by plovers; 

(4) Stormwater and wastewater 

discharge from communities; and, 

(5) Flood control actions that change 

the PCEs to the extent that the habitat 

no longer contributes to the 

conservation of the species. 

It is likely that a developer or other 

project proponent could modify a 

project or take measures to protect 

Pacific Coast WSP. The kinds of actions 

that may be included if future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives 

become necessary include conservation 

set-asides, predator reduction activities, 

symbolic fencing to reduce human 

impacts to breeding areas, management 

of nonnative species, restoration of 

degraded habitat, and regular 

monitoring. These are based on our 

understanding of the needs of the 

species and the threats it faces, as 

described in the final listing rule and 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

These measures are not likely to result 

in a significant economic impact to 

project proponents. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

have determined, for the above reasons 

and based on currently available 

information, that it is not likely to affect 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Federal involvement, and thus section 7 

consultations, would be limited to a 

subset of the area designated. The most 

likely Federal involvement could 

include Corps permits, permits we may 

issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Act, FHA funding for road 

improvements, and regulation of 

recreation by the Park Service and BLM. 

A regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) 

Under the SBREFA, this rule is not a 

major rule. Our detailed assessment of 

the economic effects of this designation 

is described in the economic analysis. 

Based on the effects identified in the 

economic analysis, we determined that 

this rule will not have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more, will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, and will 

not have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. Refer to 

the final economic analysis for a 

discussion of the effects of this 

determination. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This final 

rule to designated critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority, ‘‘if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

(b) The economic analysis discusses 

potential impacts of critical habitat 

designation for the western snowy 

plover including administrative costs, 

water management activities, oil and gas 

activities, concentrated animal feeding 

operations, agriculture, and 

transportation. The analysis estimates 

that costs of the rule could range from 

$272.8 to $645.3 million over the next 

20 years. In constant dollars, the draft 

economic analysis estimates there will 

be an economic impact of $514.9 to 

$1,222.7 million over the next 20 years. 

In this final rule, we have excluded 8 

units (Vandenberg South (CA 17B), 

Atascadero Beach (CA 15B), Vandenberg 

North (CA 17A), Silver Strand (CA 27C), 

Jetty Road to Aptos (CA 12A), Morro 

Bay Beach (CA 15C), Pismo Beach/ 

Nipomo (CA 16), and Monterey to Moss 

Landing (CA 12C)) that contained 

approximately 90 percent of the 

economic impacts of the proposed 

designation. Recreational activities are 

expected to experience the greatest 

economic impacts related to western 

snowy plover conservation activities, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57025 

although those impacts are going to be 

greatly diminished as a result of our 

exclusions pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. Impacts on small governments 

are not anticipated. Furthermore, any 

costs to recreators would not be 

expected to be passed on to entities that 

qualify as small governments. 

Consequently, for the reasons discussed 

above, we do not believe that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

western snowy plover will significantly 

or uniquely affect small government 

entities. As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits, or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(b) Due to current public knowledge 

of the species’ protection, the 

prohibition against take of the species 

both within and outside of the 

designated areas, and the fact that 

critical habitat provides no incremental 

restrictions, we do not anticipate that 

this rule will significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. As such, 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. We will, however, further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis and revise this 

assessment if appropriate. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with Department of Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in California, Oregon and Washington. 

The designation of critical habitat in 

areas currently occupied by the Pacific 

Coast WSP habitat imposes no 

additional restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are more clearly defined, and 

the primary constituent elements of the 

habitat necessary to the survival of the 

species are specifically identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have 

proposed designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent elements within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

Pacific Coast WSP. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This assertion was 

upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 

116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). This final 

determination does not constitute a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands essential for the conservation of 

the Pacific Coast WSP. Therefore, 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Pacific Coast WSP has not been 

designated on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office staff 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ 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] 

■ 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 § 17.95(b), revise the entry for 

‘‘Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus)—Pacific coast 

population’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(b) Birds. 

* * * * * 

57026 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus)—Pacific Coast 

Population 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

on the maps below for the following 

States and counties: 

(i) Washington: Grays Harbor and 

Pacific counties; 

(ii) Oregon: Coos, Curry, Douglas, 

Lane, and Tillamook counties; and 

(iii) California: Del Norte, Humboldt, 

Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, 

Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Luis 

Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa 

Cruz, and Ventura counties. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the pacific coast 

population of western snowy plover are 

the habitat components that provide: 

(i) Sparsely vegetated areas above 

daily high tides (such as sandy beaches, 

dune systems immediately inland of an 

active beach face, salt flats, seasonally 

exposed gravel bars, dredge spoil sites, 

artificial salt ponds and adjoining 

levees) that are relatively undisturbed 

by the presence of humans, pets, 

vehicles or human-attracted predators 

(essential for reproduction, food, shelter 

from predators, protection from 

disturbance, and space for growth and 

normal behavior); 

(ii) Sparsely vegetated sandy beach, 

mud flats, gravel bars or artificial salt 

ponds subject to daily tidal inundation, 

but not currently under water, that 

support small invertebrates (essential 

for food); and 

(iii) Surf or tide-cast organic debris 

such as seaweed or driftwood (essential 

to support small invertebrates for food, 

and to provide shelter from predators 

and weather for reproduction). 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

existing features and structures, such as 

buildings, paved areas, boat ramps, and 

other developed areas, not containing 

one or more of the primary constituent 

elements. Any such structures that were 

inside the boundaries of a critical 

habitat unit at the time it was 

designated are not critical habitat. The 

land on which such structures directly 

sit is also not critical habitat, as long as 

the structures remain in place. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5′ quadrangles, and 

critical habitat units were then mapped 

using Universal Transverse Mercatur, 

North American Datum 1927 (UTM 

NAD 27) coordinates. These coordinates 

establish the vertices and endpoints of 

the landward bounds of the units. Other 

bounds are established descriptively 

according to compass headings and the 

position of the mean low waterline 

(MLW). For purposes of estimating unit 

sizes, we approximated MLW in 

California using the most recent GIS 

projection of mean high water (MHW). 

We chose MHW both because it is the 

only approximation of the coastline 

currently available in GIS format. We 

were unable to obtain recent GIS maps 

of MHW or MLW for Oregon and 

Washington; therefore, we 

approximated MLW for units in those 

States based on aerial photographs. 

(5) Exclusions from the critical habitat 

designation. Certain geographic areas 

are excluded from the critical habitat 

designation as described below in this 

paragraph (5). 

(i) Exclusions under sections 3(5)(A) 

and 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). Vandenberg Air Force 

Base, San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program, six units 

bordering the south San Francisco Bay 

totaling 1,847 ac (747.4 ha), Dillon 

Beach (Unit CA 7), Vandenberg South 

(CA 17B), Atascadero Beach (CA 15B), 

Vandenberg North (CA 17A), Silver 

Strand (CA 27C), Jetty Road to Aptos 

(CA 12A), Morro Bay Beach (CA 15C), 

Pismo Beach/Nipomo (CA 16), and 

Monterey to Moss Landing (CA 12C). 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(6) Note: Maps M1–M4 (index maps) 

follow: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57027 


ER29SE05.000</GPH>
57028 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57029 


ER29SE05.002</GPH>
57030 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57031 

(7) Unit WA 2, Gray’s Harbor County, 

Washington. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps West Port, and Point Brown, 

Washington, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 411969, 5198743; 412118, 

5198955; 412321, 5199143; 412474, 

5199276; 412581, 5199342; 412760, 

5199464; 412914, 5199534; 413095, 

5199617; 413220, 5199696; 413634, 

5199705; 413834, 5199702; 413941, 

5199606; 414011, 5199668; 414163, 

5199815; 414189, 5199727; 414265, 

5199581; 414434, 5199496; 414600, 

5199488; 414816, 5199423; 414960, 

5199536; 415149, 5199660; 415368, 

5199839; 415604, 5199856; 415808, 

5199733; 416012, 5199539; 416064, 

5199233; 416059, 5198892; 416059, 

5198535; 416020, 5198256; 415914, 

5198083; 415679, 5198078; 415512, 

5198134; 415356, 5198262; 415200, 

5198457; 414976, 5198591; 414791, 

5198696; 414626, 5198794; 414430, 

5198897; 414260, 5199040; 414064, 

5199151; 413809, 5199254; 413603, 

5199268; 413412, 5199107; 413205, 

5198905; 413067, 5198813; 412875, 

5198772; 412670, 5198713; 412504, 

5198634; 412411, 5198529; 412393, 

5198396; 412460, 5198236; 412387, 

5198123; 412260, 5197998; 412114, 

5198138; 411995, 5198227; 411816, 

5198366; returning to 411969, 5198743. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit WA 2 (Map M5) 

follows: 

57032 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57033 

(8) Unit WA 3, Pacific County, 

Washington. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Grayland, and North Cove, 

Washington, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 416476, 5177381; 415946, 

5177482; 415875, 5177830; 415806, 

5178119; 415755, 5178555; 415630, 

5178985; 415500, 5179419; 415492, 

5179835; 415746, 5180411; 415933, 

5180734; 416091, 5181113; 416093, 

5181429; 416098, 5181688; 416474, 

5181685; 416492, 5181483; 416521, 

5181242; 416550, 5180859; 416543, 

5180507; 416559, 5180293; 416559, 

5180171; 416537, 5180035; 416541, 

5179894; 416545, 5179798; 416570, 

5179614; 416563, 5179469; 416574, 

5179293; 416561, 5179199; 416543, 

5179101; 416528, 5178820; 416534, 

5178526; 416523, 5178330; 416545, 

5178157; 416516, 5177956; 416481, 

5177740; 416481, 5177511; returning to 

416476, 5177381. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit WA 3 (Map M6) 

follows: 

57034 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57035 

(9) Unit WA 4, Pacific County, 

Washington. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps North Cove, and Oysterville, 

Washington, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 418747, 5156518; 418673, 

5156518; 418673, 5156666; 418617, 

5157830; 418525, 5159271; 418433, 

5160860; 418285, 5162689; 418193, 

5164185; 418201, 5164730; 418262, 

5165289; 418377, 5166088; 418684, 

5166723; 419029, 5166925; 419464, 

5166919; 419684, 5166777; 419815, 

5166467; 419904, 5166114; 419756, 

5165718; 419549, 5165726; 419403, 

5165688; 419283, 5165618; 418960, 

5165433; 418727, 5165193; 418549, 

5164867; 418423, 5164456; 418422, 

5163778; 418444, 5162761; 418503, 

5161719; 418570, 5160431; 418666, 

5159127; 418777, 5157778; 418843, 

5156510; 418747, 5156518; returning to 

418747, 5156518. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit WA 4 (Map M7) 

follows: 

57036 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57037 

(10) Unit OR 3, Tillamook County, 

Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Garibaldi, Oregon, land bounded 

by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 425807, 5046046; 

425855, 5046042; 425953, 5046029; 

426052, 5045994; 426095, 5045969; 

426142, 5045939; 426175, 5045895; 

426208, 5045840; 426224, 5045807; 

426227, 5045780; 426208, 5045772; 

426184, 5045778; 426149, 5045794; 

426122, 5045784; 426098, 5045756; 

426081, 5045721; 426091, 5045643; 

426120, 5045495; 426128, 5045441; 

426159, 5045231; 426167, 5045131; 

426167, 5045049; 426151, 5045006; 

426143, 5044953; 426151, 5044898; 

426159, 5044844; 426124, 5044732; 

426104, 5044648; 426078, 5044433; 

426052, 5044257; 426020, 5044062; 

425972, 5043800; 425889, 5043253; 

425718, 5043279; 425706, 5043277, 

proceed generally N following the mean 

low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 425807, 5046046. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 3 (Map M8) 

follows: 

57038 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57039 

(11) Unit OR 7, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Mercer Lake OE W, and Mercer 

Lake, Oregon, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 410183, 4883959; 410218, 

4883951; 410246, 4883955; 410260, 

4883947; 410265, 4883920; 410273, 

4883864; 410269, 4883809; 410257, 

4883747; 410252, 4883652; 410244, 

4883585; 410241, 4883515; 410230, 

4883391; 410213, 4883323; 410205, 

4883270; 410202, 4883221; 410198, 

4883167; 410200, 4883104; 410207, 

4883029; 410211, 4882970; 410206, 

4882928; 410206, 4882870; 410213, 

4882806; 410239, 4882738; 410252, 

4882699; 410254, 4882655; 410259, 

4882615; 410261, 4882590; 410259, 

4882532; 410230, 4882501; 410203, 

4882470; 410179, 4882445; 410156, 

4882418; 410135, 4882388; 410116, 

4882344; 410099, 4882271; 410059, 

4881847; 410020, 4881553; 410011, 

4881367; 409963, 4881129; 409938, 

4880858; 409903, 4880597; 409872, 

4880368; 409867, 4880331; 409863, 

4880299; 409874, 4880271; 409885, 

4880244; 409903, 4880212; 409921, 

4880180; 409943, 4880130; 409952, 

4880094; 409956, 4880050; 409954, 

4880012; 409933, 4879992; 409921, 

4879973; 409921, 4879955; 409929, 

4879927; 409941, 4879890; 409944, 

4879863; 409941, 4879833; 409935, 

4879815; 409920, 4879804; 409874, 

4879770; 409848, 4879743; 409839, 

4879717; 409832, 4879667; 409841, 

4879634; 409837, 4879601; 409822, 

4879571; 409801, 4879536; 409784, 

4879508; 409775, 4879488; 409764, 

4879474; 409753, 4879444; 409768, 

4879273; 409762, 4879169; 409726, 

4879017; 409708, 4878913; 409692, 

4878839; 409682, 4878765; 409698, 

4878740; 409696, 4878733; 409699, 

4878717; 409701, 4878694; 409696, 

4878656; 409687, 4878598; 409692, 

4878500; 409693, 4878433; 409699, 

4878296; 409699, 4878270; 409695, 

4878244; 409682, 4878211; 409665, 

4878174; 409645, 4878126; 409639, 

4878088; 409638, 4878061; 409631, 

4878025; 409629, 4877989; 409615, 

4877967; 409609, 4877942; 409604, 

4877919; 409604, 4877895; 409613, 

4877852; 409597, 4877832; 409549, 

4877801; 409529, 4877773; 409450, 

4877776; 409382, 4877775; 409347, 

4877775; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 410183, 4883959. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 7 (Map M9) 

follows: 

57040 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57041 

(12) Unit OR 8A, Lane County and 

Douglas County, Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Goose Pasture, and Tahkenitch 

Creek, Oregon, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 407380, 4860464; 407406, 

4860666; 407511, 4860648; 407519, 

4860648; 407522, 4860651; 407524, 

4860654; 407527, 4860653; 407531, 

4860649; 407535, 4860642; 407538, 

4860635; 407538, 4860627; 407538, 

4860619; 407537, 4860612; 407533, 

4860609; 407530, 4860598; 407534, 

4860589; 407553, 4860580; 407551, 

4860572; 407549, 4860556; 407552, 

4860545; 407556, 4860538; 407563, 

4860528; 407570, 4860521; 407567, 

4860514; 407566, 4860503; 407567, 

4860492; 407577, 4860476; 407587, 

4860473; 407596, 4860469; 407590, 

4860435; 407561, 4860441; 407551, 

4860436; 407542, 4860427; 407534, 

4860424; 407526, 4860424; 407515, 

4860451; 407380, 4860464; proceed 

generally N following the mean low 

water mark (defined at the beginning of 

the section) and returning to 407380, 

4860464. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 8A (Map M10) 

follows: 

57042 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57043 

(13) Unit OR 8B, Douglas County, 

Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Tahkenitch Creek, Oregon, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 406189, 4851652; 

406140, 4851272; 406110, 4850981; 

406094, 4850863; 406112, 4850811; 

406137, 4850770; 406164, 4850739; 

406206, 4850717; 406241, 4850649; 

406269, 4850528; 406271, 4850440; 

406255, 4850358; 406244, 4850278; 

406233, 4850190; 406208, 4850160; 

406181, 4850149; 406192, 4850119; 

406178, 4850053; 406151, 4849995; 

406162, 4849965; 406181, 4849943; 

406149, 4849887; 406142, 4849860; 

406131, 4849819; 406125, 4849763; 

406107, 4849710; 406076, 4849613; 

406089, 4849502; 406063, 4849426; 

406033, 4849394; 405990, 4849385; 

405951, 4849350; 405932, 4849324; 

405929, 4849295; 405921, 4849256; 

405881, 4849256; 405830, 4849253; 

405798, 4849226; 405769, 4849126; 

405706, 4848682; 405673, 4848515; 

405610, 4848210; 405577, 4847990; 

405544, 4847815; 405461, 4847397; 

405368, 4846903; 405280, 4846370; 

405239, 4846137; 405096, 4845426; 

405005, 4845434; 405022, 4845624; 

405050, 4845765; 405069, 4845876; 

405124, 4846045; 405154, 4846214; 

405173, 4846400; 405225, 4846598; 

405259, 4846861; 405308, 4847125; 

405338, 4847285; 405365, 4847406; 

405393, 4847605; 405432, 4847726; 

405464, 4847878; 405505, 4848114; 

405505, 4848215; 405526, 4848317; 

405549, 4848411; 405568, 4848463; 

405582, 4848526; 405588, 4848603; 

405593, 4848630; 405626, 4848827; 

405654, 4848993; 405681, 4849080; 

405685, 4849161; 405712, 4849378; 

405719, 4849497; 405744, 4849633; 

405777, 4849767; 405819, 4849901; 

405844, 4850059; 405879, 4850171; 

405909, 4850333; 405898, 4850496; 

405931, 4850644; 405953, 4850761; 

406002, 4850989; 406034, 4851109; 

406048, 4851202; 406062, 4851291; 

406067, 4851372; 406069, 4851454; 

406090, 4851580; 406079, 4851662; 

406161, 4851892; 406192, 4852001; 

406218, 4852092; 406239, 4852197; 

406225, 4852259; 406209, 4852315; 

406218, 4852367; 406230, 4852424; 

406239, 4852484; 406266, 4852553; 

406271, 4852635; 406273, 4852725; 

406282, 4852799; 406294, 4852884; 

406308, 4852962; 406321, 4853033; 

406333, 4853104; 406348, 4853157; 

406367, 4853248; 406379, 4853320; 

406380, 4853362; 406377, 4853408; 

406372, 4853454; 406369, 4853491; 

406377, 4853533; 406406, 4853573; 

406409, 4853618; 406406, 4853660; 

406411, 4853702; 406426, 4853731; 

406454, 4853795; 406476, 4853895; 

406473, 4853951; 406476, 4854051; 

406475, 4854119; 406494, 4854200; 

406514, 4854270; 406530, 4854360; 

406546, 4854443; 406532, 4854535; 

406522, 4854585; 406551, 4854677; 

406585, 4854767; 406603, 4854831; 

406603, 4854865; 406608, 4854919; 

406625, 4854991; 406645, 4855053; 

406661, 4855121; 406679, 4855220; 

406691, 4855306; 406702, 4855384; 

406691, 4855441; 406671, 4855503; 

406678, 4855555; 406691, 4855624; 

406711, 4855718; 406739, 4855809; 

406762, 4855906; 406774, 4855986; 

406773, 4856058; 406762, 4856124; 

406776, 4856189; 406787, 4856270; 

406806, 4856354; 406815, 4856413; 

406813, 4856487; 406833, 4856551; 

406852, 4856628; 406860, 4856657; 

406870, 4856676; 406877, 4856700; 

406886, 4856729; 406887, 4856758; 

406890, 4856789; 406904, 4856844; 

406903, 4856902; 406899, 4856939; 

406901, 4856996; 406910, 4857037; 

406928, 4857075; 406954, 4857137; 

406961, 4857195; 406963, 4857248; 

406982, 4857293; 406989, 4857352; 

406999, 4857467; 407004, 4857524; 

407011, 4857598; 407012, 4857682; 

407022, 4857762; 407023, 4857822; 

407020, 4857860; 407039, 4857973; 

407104, 4858294; 407093, 4858371; 

407076, 4858441; 407082, 4858507; 

407106, 4858572; 407131, 4858625; 

407164, 4858662; 407179, 4858710; 

407183, 4858790; 407200, 4858879; 

407221, 4858961; 407247, 4859089; 

407246, 4859131; 407241, 4859169; 

407227, 4859248; 407237, 4859307; 

407234, 4859358; 407347, 4859349; 

407345, 4859280; 407338, 4859242; 

407338, 4859206; 407336, 4859179; 

407334, 4859157; 407329, 4859144; 

407328, 4859128; 407331, 4859105; 

407339, 4859089; 407347, 4859076; 

407359, 4859065; 407371, 4859057; 

407390, 4859051; 407418, 4859039; 

407436, 4859030; 407457, 4859016; 

407479, 4858997; 407513, 4858967; 

407532, 4858949; 407554, 4858932; 

407579, 4858907; 407587, 4858884; 

407599, 4858847; 407612, 4858818; 

407618, 4858790; 407626, 4858760; 

407629, 4858742; 407628, 4858717; 

407621, 4858691; 407615, 4858674; 

407621, 4858634; 407632, 4858609; 

407642, 4858582; 407654, 4858557; 

407671, 4858533; 407691, 4858503; 

407697, 4858486; 407699, 4858468; 

407702, 4858459; 407680, 4858431; 

407643, 4858402; 407633, 4858399; 

407607, 4858357; 407565, 4858284; 

407532, 4858252; 407492, 4858191; 

407465, 4858156; 407454, 4858128; 

407455, 4858063; 407402, 4858011; 

407335, 4857992; 407298, 4857997; 

407266, 4857992; 407232, 4857990; 

407203, 4857980; 407181, 4857952; 

407161, 4857909; 407146, 4857855; 

407132, 4857793; 407127, 4857763; 

407115, 4857726; 407092, 4857601; 

407078, 4857519; 407056, 4857385; 

407021, 4857166; 407011, 4857100; 

406997, 4856986; 406943, 4856627; 

406890, 4856228; 406828, 4855764; 

406774, 4855388; 406720, 4855094; 

406721, 4855074; 406731, 4855047; 

406756, 4855023; 406791, 4855014; 

406827, 4855005; 406838, 4854997; 

406815, 4854865; 406816, 4854840; 

406812, 4854805; 406803, 4854770; 

406787, 4854746; 406784, 4854725; 

406773, 4854681; 406749, 4854626; 

406750, 4854589; 406731, 4854491; 

406714, 4854455; 406710, 4854438; 

406714, 4854398; 406700, 4854302; 

406684, 4854217; 406675, 4854197; 

406621, 4854191; 406594, 4854177; 

406581, 4854167; 406555, 4853958; 

406555, 4853937; 406601, 4853933; 

406635, 4853937; 406665, 4853927; 

406682, 4853911; 406679, 4853866; 

406665, 4853816; 406650, 4853787; 

406617, 4853748; 406582, 4853724; 

406540, 4853706; 406525, 4853688; 

406511, 4853681; 406504, 4853649; 

406324, 4852508; 406312, 4852398; 

406288, 4852280; 406189, 4851652; 

proceed generally N following the mean 

low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 406189, 4851652. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 8B (Map M11) 

follows: 

57044 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57045 

(14) Unit OR 8D, Coos County, 

Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Lakeside, Oregon, land bounded by 

the following UTM 10 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 401636, 4828760; 

401679, 4828749; 401747, 4828726; 

401658, 4828374; 401613, 4828096; 

401470, 4827477; 401409, 4827191; 

401129, 4826018; 401127, 4826013; 

401086, 4825757; 401054, 4825630; 

401025, 4825485; 400988, 4825352; 

400986, 4825307; 401004, 4825278; 

401041, 4825223; 401105, 4825207; 

401218, 4825201; 401279, 4825159; 

401303, 4825088; 401306, 4825027; 

401290, 4824934; 401229, 4824826; 

401173, 4824723; 401118, 4824609; 

400993, 4824523; 400901, 4824418; 

400880, 4824308; 400860, 4824209; 

400860, 4824112; 400857, 4824072; 

400855, 4824044; 400852, 4824012; 

400827, 4823985; 400798, 4823971; 

400769, 4823937; 400747, 4823910; 

400729, 4823894; 400718, 4823871; 

400697, 4823844; 400679, 4823812; 

400650, 4823775; 400612, 4823704; 

400552, 4823593; 400483, 4823365; 

400446, 4823262; 400393, 4823043; 

400362, 4822926; 400335, 4822833; 

400320, 4822785; 400224, 4822422; 

400189, 4822303; 400141, 4822147; 

400030, 4822156; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 401636, 4828760. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 8D (Map M12) 

follows: 

57046 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57047 

(15) Unit OR 9, Coos County, Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Empire, and Charleston, Oregon, 

land bounded by the following UTM 10 

NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 401636, 

4828760; 394245, 4805890; 393957, 

4805261; 393701, 4804768; 393592, 

4804572; 393390, 4804169; 393440, 

4804146; 393286, 4803816; 393209, 

4803614; 393042, 4803271; 392971, 

4803090; 392984, 4802913; 392971, 

4802808; 392997, 4802749; 393060, 

4802650; 392984, 4802525; 392909, 

4802426; 392851, 4802339; 392965, 

4802319; 393103, 4802120; 393037, 

4801882; 392991, 4801895; 392942, 

4801829; 392915, 4801780; 392702, 

4801829; 392390, 4801908; 392192, 

4801921; 392137, 4801773; 392058, 

4801603; 391696, 4801111; 391595, 

480115 proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 401636, 4828760. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 9 (Map M13) 

follows: 

57048 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57049 

(16) Unit OR 10A, Coos County and 

Curry County, Oregon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Bandon, Floras Lake, and 

Langlois, Oregon, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 383032, 4769361; 383046, 

4769436; 383042, 4769495; 383042, 

4769541; 383036, 4769584; 383034, 

4769625; 383032, 4769672; 383047, 

4769672; 383079, 4769666; 383115, 

4769654; 383145, 4769655; 383178, 

4769655; 383202, 4769645; 383228, 

4769633; 383248, 4769596; 383259, 

4769526; 383250, 4769486; 383225, 

4769479; 383179, 4769476; 383171, 

4769447; 383135, 4769361; 383100, 

4769213; 383079, 4769128; 383063, 

4769061; 383047, 4768989; 383045, 

4768946; 383030, 4768890; 383012, 

4768820; 382991, 4768707; 382977, 

4768620; 382965, 4768535; 382940, 

4768432; 382917, 4768316; 382895, 

4768227; 382870, 4768128; 382853, 

4768018; 382833, 4767920; 382798, 

4767778; 382768, 4767645; 382735, 

4767504; 382713, 4767389; 382691, 

4767273; 382666, 4767174; 382643, 

4767072; 382628, 4766975; 382608, 

4766922; 382591, 4766834; 382566, 

4766684; 382544, 4766554; 382576, 

4766510; 382603, 4766451; 382644, 

4766419; 382674, 4766392; 382671, 

4766339; 382641, 4766274; 382588, 

4766209; 382541, 4766138; 382545, 

4766086; 382567, 4766024; 382556, 

4765947; 382545, 4765889; 382529, 

4765815; 382508, 4765731; 382480, 

4765623; 382443, 4765515; 382432, 

4765445; 382402, 4765359; 382379, 

4765289; 382368, 4765189; 382358, 

4765107; 382333, 4765011; 382296, 

4764904; 382289, 4764842; 382255, 

4764757; 382230, 4764699; 382219, 

4764637; 382198, 4764585; 382190, 

4764527; 382180, 4764495; 382154, 

4764458; 382142, 4764403; 382142, 

4764352; 382142, 4764287; 382120, 

4764238; 382110, 4764191; 382108, 

4764152; 382081, 4764081; 382057, 

4764030; 382051, 4764000; 382053, 

4763958; 382032, 4763917; 382035, 

4763877; 382038, 4763851; 381965, 

4763851; 381908, 4763845; 381855, 

4763831; 381835, 4763787; 381815, 

4763732; 381796, 4763652; 381768, 

4763565; 381740, 4763474; 381700, 

4763351; 381665, 4763216; 381633, 

4763117; 381613, 4763049; 381577, 

4762926; 381547, 4762797; 381509, 

4762682; 381487, 4762602; 381457, 

4762530; 381435, 4762449; 381415, 

4762385; 381387, 4762281; 381356, 

4762183; 381331, 4762117; 381322, 

4762102; 381279, 4761979; 381241, 

4761866; 381217, 4761735; 381284, 

4761715; 381342, 4761681; 381292, 

4761524; 381229, 4761341; 381210, 

4761227; 381165, 4761047; 381126, 

4760920; 381057, 4760801; 381017, 

4760674; 380975, 4760600; 380940, 

4760529; 380922, 4760431; 380893, 

4760280; 380861, 4760150; 380845, 

4760050; 380821, 4759978; 380771, 

4759894; 380735, 4759845; 380710, 

4759775; 380685, 4759712; 380647, 

4759617; 380621, 4759515; 380602, 

4759445; 380558, 4759388; 380539, 

4759293; 380507, 4759191; 380469, 

4759070; 380450, 4758982; 380431, 

4758842; 380405, 4758791; 380386, 

4758721; 380361, 4758639; 380348, 

4758556; 380340, 4758479; 380312, 

4758387; 380278, 4758300; 380183, 

4758086; 379983, 4758087; 379957, 

4757987; 379865, 4757759; 379821, 

4757615; 379737, 4757407; 379704, 

4757340; 379624, 4757140; 379560, 

4756968; 379496, 4756803; 379432, 

4756628; 379387, 4756528; 379333, 

4756378; 379270, 4756202; 379190, 

4756013; 379160, 4755949; 379119, 

4755837; 379072, 4755728; 379003, 

4755562; 378939, 4755407; 378934, 

4755397; 378894, 4755299; 378848, 

4755186; 378802, 4755067; 378732, 

4754907; 378684, 4754772; 378652, 

4754685; 378588, 4754546; 378553, 

4754457; 378497, 4754350; 378440, 

4754210; 378435, 4754197; 378372, 

4754061; 378343, 4753975; 378311, 

4753896; 378286, 4753834; 378276, 

4753808; 378264, 4753779; 378238, 

4753706; 378235, 4753663; 378233, 

4753630; 378226, 4753586; 378215, 

4753550; 378208, 4753517; 378208, 

4753479; 378193, 4753454; 378168, 

4753407; 378140, 4753371; 378140, 

4753331; 378149, 4753278; 378140, 

4753234; 378110, 4753195; 378099, 

4753128; 378063, 4753070; 378034, 

4753026; 378017, 4752979; 377999, 

4752941; 377988, 4752913; 377955, 

4752901; 377934, 4752879; 377939, 

4752854; 377935, 4752828; 377911, 

4752803; 377895, 4752751; 377879, 

4752704; 377867, 4752664; 377851, 

4752619; 377850, 4752586; 377832, 

4752547; 377811, 4752531; 377785, 

4752535; 377769, 4752528; 377750, 

4752506; 377728, 4752511; 377714, 

4752531; 377697, 4752531; 377703, 

4752515; 377700, 4752489; 377688, 

4752482; 377692, 4752456; 377673, 

4752408; 377646, 4752346; 377641, 

4752310; 377639, 4752271; 377630, 

4752232; 377594, 4752154; 377575, 

4752116; 377560, 4752101; 377543, 

4752081; 377528, 4752077; 377524, 

4752063; 377532, 4752050; 377506, 

4752057; 377484, 4752070; 377462, 

4752061; 377445, 4752023; 377415, 

4751972; 377378, 4751899; 377368, 

4751881; 377287, 4751726; 377202, 

4751552; 377118, 4751382; 377052, 

4751245; 377001, 4751131; 376982, 

4751082; 376962, 4751045; 376928, 

4750980; 376866, 4750871; 376751, 

4750655; 376686, 4750517; 376667, 

4750450; 376658, 4750421; 376640, 

4750398; 376621, 4750368; 376621, 

4750340; 376624, 4750312; 376624, 

4750295; 376616, 4750282; 376607, 

4750262; 376599, 4750241; 376588, 

4750216; 376577, 4750207; 376442, 

4750212; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 383032, 4769361. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit OR 10A (Map M14) 

follows: 

57050 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57051 

(17) Unit CA 1, Del Norte County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Crescent City, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 398209, 4631037; 

398218, 4631060; 398224, 4631082; 

398235, 4631106; 398262, 4631184; 

398262, 4631184; 398262, 4631185; 

398373, 4631543; 398383, 4631574; 

398467, 4631555; 398466, 4631552; 

398670, 4631260; 398324, 4631005; 

398289, 4630526; 398017, 4630524; 

398209, 4631037; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 398209, 4631037. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 1 (Map M15) 

follows: 

57052 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57053 

(18) Unit CA 2, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Rodgers Peak, and Trinadad, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 406854, 4563175; 406909, 

4563169; 406777, 4562537; 406691, 

4561673; 406135, 4560211; 405555, 

4558600; 405187, 4557482; 404923, 

4557330; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 406854, 4563175. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 2 (Map M16) 

follows: 

57054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57055 

(19) Unit CA 3A, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Crannell, and Arcata North, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 406554, 4541473; 406850, 

4541471; 406870, 4540965; 406746, 

4540695; 406583, 4540426; 406413, 

4539149; 406354, 4538891; 406371, 

4538797; 406294, 4538652; 406149, 

4538652; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 406554, 4541473. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 3A (Map M17) 

follows after description of Unit CA 3B. 

(20) Unit CA 3B, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Arcata North, and Tyee City, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 405657, 4536319; 405968, 

4536317; 404931, 4531851; 404539, 

4531879 proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 405657, 4536319. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 3A and CA 3B 

(Map M17) follows: 

57056 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57057 

(21) Unit CA 4A, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Eureka, Fields Landing, and 

Cannibal Island, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 395866, 4512270; 

395968, 4512054; 395898, 4511510; 

395741, 4511140; 394616, 4509320; 

394166, 4508589; 392132, 4505460; 

392114, 4505473 proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 395866, 4512270. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4A (Map M18) 

follows: 

57058 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57059 

(22) Unit CA 4B, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Cannibal Island, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 392114, 4505473; 

392178, 4505423; 392157, 4505254; 

391892, 4504800; 391616, 4504350; 

390808, 4502622; 390100, 4501334; 

389495, 4499927; 389538, 4499526; 

389226, 4499809 proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 392114, 4505473. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4B (Map M19) 

follows: 

57060 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 


ER29SE05.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57061 

(23) Unit CA 4C, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Cannibal Island, and Ferndale, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 389046, 4499539; 389171, 

4499501; 388506, 4498145; 385862, 

4492184; 385723, 4492184 proceed 

generally N following the mean low 

water mark (defined at the beginning of 

the section) and returning to 389046, 

4499539. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4C (Map M20) 

follows: 


ER29SE05.019</GPH>
57062 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(24) Unit CA 4D, Humboldt County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Fortuna, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 402468, 4488324; 

402916, 4487812; 401861, 4487818; 

401912, 4488452; 401713, 4490121; 

402020, 4490920; 402257, 4491861; 

402084, 4492244; 401310, 4493127; 

401048, 4493965; 400511, 4494573; 

399443, 4495225; 398221, 4496114; 

398394, 4496472; 399149, 4496127; 

400242, 4495244; 401586, 4494208; 

402142, 4492667; 402449, 4491912; 

402481, 4491253; 402263, 4490095; 

402276, 4489021; 402468, 4488324; 

proceed generally N following the mean 

low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 402468, 4488324. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 4D (Map M21) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57063 


ER29SE05.020</GPH>
57064 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(25) Unit CA 5, Mendocino County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Inglenook, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 434183, 4378272; 

434210, 4378274; 434246, 4377994; 

434507, 4377586; 434498, 4376652; 

434928, 4376643; 434941, 4376311; 

434702, 4375952; 434316, 4375850; 

434321, 4375592; 433949, 4375521; 

433722, 4375797; 433623, 4375691; 

433938, 4375209; 434062, 4374702; 

434048, 4374174; 434190, 4373926; 

434133, 4373749; 433892, 4373805; 

433570, 4374036; 433436, 4374324; 

433498, 4374626; 433493, 4374864; 

433391, 4374920; 433325, 4374764; 

433205, 4374397; 433246, 4374176; 

433373, 4374009; 433684, 4372868; 

433502, 4372573; 432647, 4372582; 

432442, 4372975; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 434183, 4378272. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 5 (Map M22) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57065 


ER29SE05.021</GPH>
57066 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(26) Unit CA 6, Mendocino County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Mallo Pass Creek, and Point Arena 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 439747, 4317317; 439796, 

4317313; 439669, 4316995; 439235, 

4315894; 438610, 4314327; 438483, 

4314133; 438349, 4313805; 438391, 

4313293; 438277, 4312863; 438136, 

4312640; 438192, 4311851; 437426, 

4311863; 437428, 4312213; 437179, 

4312237; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 439747, 4317317. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 6 (Map M23) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57067 


ER29SE05.022</GPH>
57068 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(27) Unit CA 8, Marin County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Tomales, and Drakes Bay, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 504572, 4222726; 504572, 

4222726; 504614, 4222726; 504533, 

4222176; 504474, 4221753; 504423, 

4221606; 504323, 4220932; 504115, 

4220064; 504015, 4219779; 503828, 

4219017; 503862, 4218832; 503786, 

4218734; 503872, 4218442; 503881, 

4218252; 503864, 4218189; 504076, 

4218038; 504054, 4217950; 504303, 

4217736; 503996, 4217911; 503852, 

4217840; 503755, 4217538; 503404, 

4217327; 503248, 4217088; 503131, 

4216783; 503063, 4216501; 502871, 

4215990; 502578, 4215108; 502379, 

4214536; 502420, 4214406; 502698, 

4214160; 502576, 4214092; 502308, 

4214311; 501984, 4213425; 501745, 

4212755; 501458, 4211988; 501205, 

4211284; 501258, 4211192; 501175, 

4211211; 500930, 4210500; 500900, 

4210342; 500793, 4210193; 500720, 

4209996; 500637, 4209716; 500474, 

4209346; 500433, 4209173; 500364, 

4209049; 500289, 4208756; 500194, 

4208591; 500009, 4208106; 499997, 

4207982; 499943, 4207897; 499858, 

4207658; 499821, 4207609; 499817, 

4207502; 499707, 4207202; 499580, 

4206933; 499511, 4206729; 499411, 

4206501; 499306, 4206118; 499361, 

4205940; 499323, 4205958; 499335, 

4205836; 499191, 4205825; 499100, 

4205651; 498998, 4205696; 498933, 

4205752; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 504572, 4222726. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 8 (Map M24) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57069 


ER29SE05.023</GPH>
57070 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(28) Unit CA 9, Marin County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Drakes Bay, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 506112, 4209385; 

506127, 4209403; 506148, 4209411; 

506156, 4209407; 506160, 4209409; 

506164, 4209409; 506175, 4209409; 

506181, 4209408; 506190, 4209406; 

506199, 4209398; 506212, 4209393; 

506224, 4209381; 506227, 4209377; 

506236, 4209364; 506250, 4209351; 

506258, 4209335; 506283, 4209313; 

506304, 4209295; 506356, 4209248; 

506636, 4208969; 506702, 4208934; 

506808, 4208934; 506886, 4208919; 

506941, 4208908; 507068, 4208896; 

507113, 4208881; 507123, 4208888; 

507103, 4208939; 507113, 4208949; 

507123, 4208947; 507125, 4208947; 

507125, 4208947; 507136, 4208944; 

507169, 4208919; 507257, 4208926; 

507262, 4208927; 507276, 4208929; 

507278, 4208928; 507398, 4208937; 

507451, 4208967; 507465, 4208969; 

507473, 4208976; 507475, 4208978; 

507479, 4208977; 507486, 4208976; 

507497, 4208980; 507504, 4208982; 

507509, 4208988; 507513, 4208990; 

507524, 4208995; 507539, 4208993; 

507554, 4208995; 507557, 4208996; 

507564, 4208994; 507571, 4208993; 

507588, 4208983; 507672, 4208957; 

507725, 4208955; 507734, 4208948; 

507740, 4208941; 507742, 4208942; 

507745, 4208943; 507754, 4208938; 

507759, 4208931; 507809, 4208942; 

507821, 4208933; 507826, 4208934; 

507829, 4208935; 507833, 4208930; 

507835, 4208929; 507838, 4208927; 

507841, 4208925; 507848, 4208920; 

507853, 4208911; 507860, 4208908; 

507934, 4208927; 507969, 4208945; 

507995, 4209003; 508011, 4209013; 

508013, 4209018; 508016, 4209019; 

508030, 4209025; 508047, 4209034; 

508048, 4209035; 508050, 4209034; 

508068, 4209029; 508081, 4209024; 

508098, 4209021; 508101, 4209019; 

508150, 4209009; 508228, 4208993; 

508269, 4208978; 508305, 4208939; 

508313, 4208932; 508315, 4208928; 

508330, 4208912; 508483, 4208887; 

508485, 4208887; 508500, 4208884; 

508513, 4208881; 508589, 4208894; 

508691, 4208894; 508700, 4208902; 

508700, 4208822; 510301, 4208503; 

510301, 4208469; 510275, 4208473; 

510258, 4208478; 510237, 4208484; 

510228, 4208485; 510202, 4208487; 

510165, 4208496; 510134, 4208505; 

510112, 4208510; 510072, 4208518; 

510040, 4208527; 510006, 4208529; 

509977, 4208540; 509963, 4208543; 

509958, 4208543; 509938, 4208546; 

509898, 4208553; 509862, 4208555; 

509851, 4208558; 509835, 4208563; 

509824, 4208566; 509802, 4208571; 

509778, 4208576; 509750, 4208578; 

509731, 4208579; 509680, 4208585; 

509627, 4208595; 509577, 4208604; 

509563, 4208609; 509555, 4208612; 

509539, 4208617; 509508, 4208629; 

509462, 4208642; 509448, 4208645; 

509439, 4208647; 509429, 4208648; 

509392, 4208661; 509385, 4208663; 

509347, 4208677; 509308, 4208680; 

509279, 4208688; 509258, 4208693; 

509232, 4208697; 509196, 4208700; 

509178, 4208701; 508902, 4208724; 

508704, 4208751; 508696, 4208750; 

508682, 4208746; 508665, 4208742; 

508632, 4208740; 508601, 4208747; 

508577, 4208748; 508560, 4208749; 

508545, 4208753; 508525, 4208758; 

508498, 4208761; 508450, 4208766; 

508431, 4208764; 508396, 4208761; 

508350, 4208763; 508347, 4208763; 

508312, 4208768; 508275, 4208767; 

508237, 4208774; 508216, 4208775; 

508199, 4208775; 508178, 4208779; 

508166, 4208782; 508150, 4208784; 

508134, 4208786; 508100, 4208789; 

508095, 4208789; 508065, 4208793; 

508056, 4208793; 508019, 4208789; 

507980, 4208798; 507948, 4208793; 

507920, 4208793; 507910, 4208794; 

507867, 4208789; 507821, 4208791; 

507775, 4208790; 507763, 4208792; 

507743, 4208793; 507736, 4208794; 

507690, 4208795; 507651, 4208792; 

507617, 4208793; 507611, 4208793; 

507605, 4208792; 507602, 4208792; 

507576, 4208790; 507547, 4208791; 

507539, 4208791; 507487, 4208789; 

507446, 4208791; 507393, 4208795; 

507338, 4208787; 507282, 4208785; 

507236, 4208792; 507235, 4208792; 

507221, 4208796; 507202, 4208794; 

507189, 4208799; 507180, 4208798; 

507152, 4208804; 507140, 4208807; 

507117, 4208812; 507104, 4208816; 

507089, 4208816; 507071, 4208816; 

507066, 4208818; 507040, 4208823; 

507038, 4208824; 507007, 4208830; 

507001, 4208833; 506975, 4208844; 

506962, 4208850; 506875, 4208863; 

506828, 4208855; 506821, 4208851; 

506817, 4208849; 506799, 4208840; 

506780, 4208829; 506759, 4208821; 

506739, 4208815; 506738, 4208815; 

506712, 4208815; 506711, 4208816; 

506702, 4208812; 506675, 4208814; 

506663, 4208811; 506659, 4208810; 

506655, 4208811; 506640, 4208813; 

506636, 4208814; 506624, 4208811; 

506608, 4208809; 506582, 4208814; 

506547, 4208824; 506518, 4208825; 

506486, 4208836; 506484, 4208838; 

506477, 4208840; 506457, 4208849; 

506439, 4208863; 506434, 4208871; 

506430, 4208877; 506423, 4208885; 

506417, 4208891; 506409, 4208895; 

506397, 4208910; 506367, 4208941; 

506262, 4209015; 506194, 4209093; 

506158, 4209192; 506115, 4209314; and 

returning to 506112, 4209385. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 9 (Map M25) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57071 


ER29SE05.024</GPH>
57072 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(29) Unit CA 10, San Mateo County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Half Moon Bay, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 548431, 4148414; 

548480, 4148414; 548972, 4147370; 

549024, 4146767; 549079, 4146435; 

548995, 4146435; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 548431, 4148414. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 10 (Map M26) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57073 


ER29SE05.025</GPH>
57074 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(30) Unit CA 11A, Santa Cruz County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Ano Nuevo, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 564392, 4105215; 

564379, 4105194; 564373, 4105195; 

564326, 4105243; 564324, 4105252; 

564324, 4105263; 564324, 4105285; 

564319, 4105310; 564313, 4105344; 

564310, 4105355; 564303, 4105380; 

564295, 4105401; 564287, 4105409; 

564275, 4105421; 564247, 4105442; 

564236, 4105451; 564232, 4105454; 

564226, 4105459; 564212, 4105471; 

564207, 4105475; 564181, 4105500; 

564173, 4105507; 564153, 4105525; 

564145, 4105535; 564137, 4105544; 

564104, 4105574; 564086, 4105594; 

564072, 4105611; 564068, 4105616; 

564041, 4105649; 564025, 4105671; 

564013, 4105687; 564006, 4105696; 

564007, 4105697; 564059, 4105657; 

564114, 4105629; 564210, 4105606; 

564224, 4105591; 564223, 4105587; 

564223, 4105573; 564228, 4105565; 

564239, 4105548; 564250, 4105535; 

564261, 4105521; 564272, 4105509; 

564284, 4105491; 564300, 4105478; 

564307, 4105467; 564310, 4105464; 

564320, 4105457; 564333, 4105437; 

564335, 4105434; 564348, 4105415; 

564352, 4105411; 564363, 4105397; 

564376, 4105385; 564385, 4105367; 

564395, 4105341; 564401, 4105321; 

564403, 4105300; 564401, 4105280; 

564400, 4105273; 564397, 4105249; 

564392, 4105215; returning to 564392, 

4105215. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 11A (Map M27) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57075 


ER29SE05.026</GPH>
57076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(31) Unit CA 11B, Santa Cruz County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Davenport, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 568335, 4099623; 

568357, 4099641; 568491, 4099548; 

568511, 4099559; 568644, 4099426; 

568705, 4099359; 568766, 4099278; 

568789, 4099227; 568743, 4099219; 

568725, 4099203; 568732, 4099154; 

568793, 4099079; 568797, 4099050; 

568724, 4099017; 568788, 4098813; 

568812, 4098739; 568810, 4098648; 

568780, 4098657; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 568335, 4099623. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 11B (Map M28) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57077 


ER29SE05.027</GPH>
57078 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(32) Unit CA 11C, Santa Cruz County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Santa Cruz, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 581976, 4089882; 

581995, 4089920; 582016, 4089973; 

582043, 4090004; 582099, 4090029; 

582146, 4090031; 582186, 4090014; 

582190, 4089975; 582220, 4089960; 

582286, 4089956; 582339, 4089976; 

582379, 4089965; 582325, 4089864; 

582317, 4089828; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 581976, 4089882. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 11C (Map M29) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57079 


ER29SE05.028</GPH>
57080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(33) Unit CA 12B, Monterey County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Moss Landing, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 10 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 608763, 4074606; 

608691, 4074563; 608670, 4074673; 

608584, 4074676; 608543, 4074678; 

608446, 4074735; 608439, 4074818; 

608641, 4074826; 608664, 4074856; 

608625, 4075263; 608614, 4075389; 

608635, 4075389; 608631, 4075470; 

608729, 4075467; 608787, 4075475; 

608845, 4075503; 608883, 4075530; 

608927, 4075571; 608956, 4075595; 

608997, 4075637; 609048, 4075659; 

609093, 4075666; 609168, 4075653; 

609218, 4075654; 609270, 4075672; 

609344, 4075728; 609380, 4075742; 

609451, 4075750; 609528, 4075677; 

609566, 4075533; 609597, 4075526; 

609642, 4075452; 609672, 4075419; 

609693, 4075383; 609709, 4075374; 

609746, 4075376; 609782, 4075377; 

609817, 4075380; 609856, 4075384; 

609882, 4075367; 609917, 4075348; 

609958, 4075367; 609985, 4075364; 

610013, 4075359; 610058, 4075336; 

610029, 4075268; 610029, 4075128; 

609963, 4075106; 609930, 4075084; 

609878, 4075050; 609842, 4075010; 

609817, 4074970; 609801, 4074919; 

609802, 4074868; 609786, 4074834; 

609768, 4074794; 609748, 4074758; 

609727, 4074728; 609705, 4074713; 

609656, 4074713; 609581, 4074728; 

609517, 4074739; 609454, 4074739; 

609391, 4074732; 609351, 4074722; 

609319, 4074708; 609280, 4074688; 

609244, 4074671; 609173, 4074665; 

609007, 4074650; 608939, 4074661; 

608892, 4074643; 608840, 4074635; 

returning to 608763, 4074606. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 12B (Map M30) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57081 


ER29SE05.029</GPH>
57082 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(34) Unit CA 13, Monterey County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Point Sur, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 599299, 4019363; 

599421, 4019200; 599320, 4018471; 

599091, 4018323; 598903, 4018365; 

598903, 4018365; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 599299, 4019363. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 13 (Map M31) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57083 


ER29SE05.030</GPH>
57084 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(35) Unit CA 14, San Luis Obispo 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Pico Creek, and San Luis Obispo, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 10 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 669618, 3940622; 669684, 

3940666; 669759, 3940658; 669823, 

3940570; 669860, 3940553; 670111, 

3939799; 670221, 3939478; 670238, 

3939332; 670183, 3939330; proceed 

generally N following the mean low 

water mark (defined at the beginning of 

the section) and returning to 669618, 

3940622. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 14 (Map M32) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57085 


ER29SE05.031</GPH>
57086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(36) Unit CA 15A, San Luis Obispo 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Cayucos, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 10 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 684204, 3925805; 

684260, 3925827; 684349, 3925831; 

684316, 3925944; 684374, 3925990; 

684389, 3926027; 684425, 3926024; 

684453, 3925985; 684721, 3925617; 

684671, 3925608; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 684204, 3925805. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 15A (Map M33) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57087 


ER29SE05.032</GPH>
57088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(37) Unit CA 18, Santa Barbara 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Dos Pueblos Canyon, and Goleta, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 234194, 3812313; 234195, 

3812330; 234324, 3812283; 234446, 

3812230; 234583, 3812107; 234686, 

3812003; 234773, 3811918; 234823, 

3811862; 234938, 3811694; 235005, 

3811597; 235067, 3811524; 235171, 

3811381; 235232, 3811310; 235359, 

3811141; 235381, 3811072; 235424, 

3811010; 235428, 3810963; 235437, 

3810924; 235477, 3810884; 235498, 

3810866; 235532, 3810858; 235570, 

3810877; 235592, 3810897; 235616, 

3810922; 235681, 3810981; 235729, 

3811016; 235817, 3811054; 235933, 

3811084; 236074, 3811089; 236175, 

3811083; 236270, 3811077; 236314, 

3811067; 236310, 3811029; proceed 

generally N following the mean low 

water mark (defined at the beginning of 

the section) and returning to 234194, 

3812313. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 18 (Map M34) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57089 


ER29SE05.033</GPH>
57090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(38) Unit CA 19A, Ventura County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Oxnard, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 291536, 3790654; 

291943, 3790429; 293789, 3790422; 

293909, 3790178; 292342, 3790186; 

291693, 3789833; 291920, 3789159; 

292048, 3788658; 292238, 3788005; 

292271, 3787968; 292297, 3787886; 

292292, 3787826; 292351, 3787673; 

292404, 3787548; 292400, 3787482; 

292954, 3786197; 293048, 3785979; 

293018, 3785959; 293526, 3784688; 

293569, 3784701; 293823, 3784111; 

293981, 3783717; 293983, 3783693; 

294439, 3782668; 294526, 3782458; 

294707, 3782195; 294760, 3782104; 

294683, 3782108; 294704, 3782086; 

294750, 3781994; 294787, 3781952; 

294852, 3781838; 294879, 3781802; 

294729, 3781717; 294723, 3781760; 

294713, 3781782; 294699, 3781800; 

294676, 3781817; 294671, 3781819; 

294650, 3781827; 294631, 3781835; 

294604, 3781838; 294585, 3781849; 

294568, 3781857; 294557, 3781878; 

294553, 3781896; 294547, 3781922; 

294544, 3781941; 294543, 3781964; 

294543, 3781984; 294545, 3782006; 

294549, 3782032; 294548, 3782058; 

294542, 3782084; 294541, 3782090; 

294535, 3782125; 294526, 3782156; 

294514, 3782192; 294504, 3782226; 

294498, 3782242; 294495, 3782249; 

294489, 3782267; 294477, 3782306; 

294463, 3782352; 294448, 3782403; 

294434, 3782462; 294429, 3782477; 

294420, 3782507; 294402, 3782554; 

294389, 3782595; 294376, 3782626; 

294351, 3782682; 294331, 3782729; 

294314, 3782773; 294285, 3782829; 

294273, 3782855; 294256, 3782890; 

294239, 3782923; 294225, 3782962; 

294208, 3783001; 294187, 3783054; 

294180, 3783080; 294166, 3783116; 

294149, 3783150; 294139, 3783176; 

294130, 3783215; 294115, 3783248; 

294099, 3783272; 294085, 3783303; 

294074, 3783348; 294060, 3783377; 

294040, 3783411; 294010, 3783460; 

293994, 3783498; 293976, 3783551; 

293962, 3783594; 293942, 3783648; 

293922, 3783688; 293908, 3783715; 

293898, 3783734; 293878, 3783755; 

293874, 3783759; 293870, 3783763; 

293864, 3783782; 293863, 3783783; 

293855, 3783808; 293843, 3783854; 

293829, 3783891; 293814, 3783926; 

293794, 3783965; 293770, 3784021; 

293761, 3784045; 293741, 3784092; 

293716, 3784137; 293697, 3784189; 

293677, 3784240; 293652, 3784289; 

293623, 3784357; 293610, 3784393; 

293588, 3784443; 293572, 3784479; 

293561, 3784499; 293545, 3784529; 

293527, 3784573; 293506, 3784617; 

293486, 3784667; 293471, 3784713; 

293448, 3784768; 293427, 3784825; 

293410, 3784866; 293401, 3784887; 

293385, 3784930; 293360, 3784986; 

293337, 3785035; 293322, 3785078; 

293314, 3785099; 293304, 3785127; 

293286, 3785175; 293271, 3785215; 

293256, 3785255; 293254, 3785261; 

293240, 3785292; 293233, 3785328; 

293230, 3785340; 293229, 3785342; 

293224, 3785361; 293214, 3785382; 

293213, 3785384; 293203, 3785400; 

293191, 3785431; 293176, 3785478; 

293174, 3785482; 293171, 3785492; 

293158, 3785530; 293149, 3785548; 

293144, 3785558; 293142, 3785562; 

293120, 3785619; 293106, 3785651; 

293096, 3785681; 293092, 3785691; 

293084, 3785711; 293070, 3785746; 

293066, 3785755; 293066, 3785757; 

293055, 3785792; 293042, 3785823; 

293023, 3785874; 293004, 3785916; 

292989, 3785962; 292970, 3786005; 

292947, 3786059; 292927, 3786101; 

292916, 3786121; 292910, 3786135; 

292902, 3786150; 292885, 3786181; 

292872, 3786223; 292862, 3786258; 

292848, 3786284; 292840, 3786303; 

292825, 3786340; 292816, 3786363; 

292800, 3786391; 292798, 3786395; 

292792, 3786403; 292786, 3786410; 

292785, 3786412; 292782, 3786419; 

292775, 3786441; 292774, 3786443; 

292764, 3786469; 292755, 3786493; 

292725, 3786558; 292709, 3786595; 

292709, 3786598; 292697, 3786625; 

292681, 3786656; 292680, 3786658; 

292676, 3786663; 292670, 3786673; 

292666, 3786678; 292655, 3786700; 

292654, 3786703; 292642, 3786740; 

292634, 3786761; 292631, 3786772; 

292628, 3786779; 292618, 3786802; 

292609, 3786822; 292598, 3786846; 

292590, 3786864; 292588, 3786870; 

292581, 3786889; 292575, 3786906; 

292568, 3786919; 292563, 3786931; 

292562, 3786932; 292553, 3786951; 

292552, 3786953; 292532, 3787000; 

292512, 3787049; 292505, 3787071; 

292494, 3787099; 292481, 3787132; 

292478, 3787139; 292470, 3787163; 

292452, 3787219; 292430, 3787265; 

292425, 3787276; 292416, 3787297; 

292400, 3787337; 292384, 3787381; 

292380, 3787388; 292371, 3787404; 

292371, 3787405; 292364, 3787417; 

292343, 3787473; 292338, 3787485; 

292337, 3787488; 292321, 3787526; 

292297, 3787585; 292296, 3787588; 

292295, 3787588; 292272, 3787635; 

292243, 3787694; 292216, 3787767; 

292196, 3787815; 292177, 3787876; 

292159, 3787920; 292157, 3787926; 

292153, 3787937; 292146, 3787962; 

292136, 3787992; 292124, 3788022; 

292122, 3788027; 292115, 3788043; 

292095, 3788098; 292090, 3788116; 

292077, 3788155; 292076, 3788157; 

292076, 3788158; 292057, 3788206; 

292055, 3788211; 292053, 3788216; 

292048, 3788237; 292038, 3788270; 

292023, 3788314; 292018, 3788330; 

292002, 3788380; 291991, 3788411; 

291986, 3788424; 291974, 3788463; 

291968, 3788483; 291953, 3788529; 

291952, 3788534; 291947, 3788560; 

291943, 3788587; 291933, 3788636; 

291931, 3788640; 291916, 3788679; 

291897, 3788731; 291875, 3788782; 

291856, 3788846; 291832, 3788928; 

291818, 3788975; 291818, 3788976; 

291813, 3788995; 291807, 3789010; 

291807, 3789010; 291792, 3789048; 

291766, 3789118; 291751, 3789171; 

291739, 3789208; 291738, 3789212; 

291717, 3789279; 291703, 3789322; 

291696, 3789346; 291681, 3789395; 

291671, 3789432; 291671, 3789434; 

291665, 3789455; 291661, 3789464; 

291652, 3789484; 291510, 3789962; 

291510, 3789967; 291507, 3790007; 

291508, 3790019; 291510, 3790052; 

291509, 3790065; 291508, 3790095; 

291505, 3790118; 291499, 3790142; 

291490, 3790179; 291482, 3790214; 

291470, 3790249; 291468, 3790254; 

291456, 3790296; 291447, 3790332; 

291431, 3790369; 291421, 3790398; 

291419, 3790406; 291417, 3790413; 

291414, 3790433; 291406, 3790485; 

291387, 3790625; 291374, 3790687; 

291368, 3790723; 291362, 3790759; 

291358, 3790792; 291351, 3790831; 

291349, 3790865; 291348, 3790900; 

291344, 3790941; 291340, 3790980; 

291336, 3791004; 291335, 3791012; 

291362, 3791013; 291410, 3790772; 

291536, 3790654; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 291536, 3790654. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 19A (Map M35) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57091 


ER29SE05.034</GPH>
57092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(39) Unit CA 19B, Ventura County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Oxnard, and Point Magu, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E,N): 301219, 3777693; 300831, 

3777265; 300825, 3777270; 300806, 

3777284; 300783, 3777305; 300751, 

3777332; 300731, 3777349; 300698, 

3777377; 300669, 3777400; 300643, 

3777423; 300614, 3777448; 300567, 

3777480; 300539, 3777504; 300514, 

3777529; 300495, 3777545; 300468, 

3777563; 300449, 3777582; 300422, 

3777615; 300388, 3777639; 300367, 

3777657; 300344, 3777676; 300326, 

3777689; 300306, 3777706; 300289, 

3777719; 300273, 3777733; 300255, 

3777748; 300226, 3777778; 300207, 

3777796; 300191, 3777809; 300174, 

3777824; 300156, 3777841; 300139, 

3777858; 300117, 3777878; 300081, 

3777914; 300048, 3777944; 300039, 

3777958; 300028, 3777971; 300018, 

3777978; 299997, 3778002; 299978, 

3778030; 299954, 3778052; 299937, 

3778067; 299917, 3778082; 299885, 

3778114; 299854, 3778146; 299827, 

3778167; 299800, 3778187; 299773, 

3778211; 299761, 3778227; 299739, 

3778248; 299711, 3778277; 299687, 

3778297; 299657, 3778325; 299637, 

3778346; 299615, 3778366; 299579, 

3778392; 299550, 3778418; 299529, 

3778447; 299511, 3778468; 299494, 

3778483; 299474, 3778503; 299455, 

3778521; 299431, 3778534; 299401, 

3778560; 299376, 3778579; 299357, 

3778601; 299334, 3778630; 299313, 

3778649; 299295, 3778670; 299271, 

3778701; 299262, 3778707; 299243, 

3778722; 299213, 3778747; 299194, 

3778765; 299174, 3778786; 299144, 

3778817; 299117, 3778840; 299089, 

3778867; 299053, 3778901; 299018, 

3778932; 298985, 3778961; 298957, 

3778991; 298930, 3779014; 298897, 

3779041; 298864, 3779067; 298836, 

3779090; 298801, 3779115; 298770, 

3779144; 298729, 3779181; 298683, 

3779218; 298660, 3779236; 298620, 

3779280; 298584, 3779310; 298559, 

3779328; 298505, 3779359; 298474, 

3779379; 298431, 3779413; 298396, 

3779434; 298365, 3779448; 298317, 

3779471; 298289, 3779490; 298266, 

3779506; 298243, 3779519; 298216, 

3779537; 298200, 3779545; 298189, 

3779550; 298164, 3779563; 298122, 

3779582; 298080, 3779603; 298042, 

3779629; 298000, 3779648; 297961, 

3779678; 297913, 3779700; 297864, 

3779729; 297819, 3779758; 297771, 

3779784; 297727, 3779819; 297691, 

3779838; 297656, 3779855; 297613, 

3779877; 297567, 3779900; 297534, 

3779917; 297494, 3779932; 297453, 

3779953; 297404, 3779980; 297359, 

3780001; 297309, 3780030; 297242, 

3780065; 297270, 3780182; 297633, 

3780001; 298075, 3779695; 298150, 

3779675; 299371, 3778748; 299746, 

3778489; 300378, 3777964; 300888, 

3777929; 300911, 3777924; 300923, 

3777917; 300936, 3777908; 300956, 

3777892; 301219, 3777693; proceed 

generally N following the mean low 

water mark (defined at the beginning of 

the section) and returning to 301219, 

3777693. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 19B (Map M36) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57093 


ER29SE05.035</GPH>
57094 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(40) Unit CA 19D, Ventura County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Point Magu, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 309410, 3773725; 

309460, 3773796; 309560, 3773719; 

309596, 3773763; 309661, 3773726; 

309714, 3773654; 309836, 3773503; 

309847, 3773468; 309815, 3773441; 

309804, 3773452; 309784, 3773467; 

309774, 3773475; 309772, 3773477; 

309751, 3773495; 309739, 3773506; 

309712, 3773523; 309698, 3773533; 

309676, 3773549; 309673, 3773550; 

309661, 3773558; 309630, 3773578; 

309589, 3773607; 309578, 3773614; 

309530, 3773650; 309488, 3773677; 

309462, 3773692; 309445, 3773703; 

309433, 3773711; 309410, 3773725; 

proceed generally N following the mean 

low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 309410, 3773725. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 19D (Map M37) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57095 


ER29SE05.036</GPH>
57096 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(41) Unit CA 20, Los Angeles County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Point Dume, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 329965, 3766877; 

329924, 3766830; 329985, 3766786; 

330017, 3766822; 330095, 3766754; 

330094, 3766751; 330084, 3766734; 

330081, 3766721; 330155, 3766656; 

330233, 3766591; 330253, 3766588; 

330272, 3766589; 330283, 3766586; 

330337, 3766538; 330324, 3766526; 

330377, 3766467; 330388, 3766467; 

330428, 3766419; 330503, 3766346; 

330597, 3766260; 330733, 3766164; 

330734, 3766150; 330742, 3766140; 

330970, 3765974; 331003, 3765952; 

331025, 3765933; 331045, 3765912; 

331281, 3765663; 331539, 3765394; 

331669, 3765298; 331791, 3765248; 

331956, 3765199; 331981, 3765198; 

332021, 3765195; 332052, 3765196; 

332076, 3765189; 332121, 3765165; 

332140, 3765152; 332146, 3765142; 

332147, 3765126; 332122, 3765074; 

332087, 3765013; 332081, 3764993; 

332081, 3764972; 332083, 3764966; 

332099, 3764935; 332103, 3764929; 

332037, 3764863; 332019, 3764880; 

332003, 3764895; 331988, 3764908; 

331973, 3764917; 331965, 3764922; 

331957, 3764927; 331930, 3764951; 

331913, 3764969; 331904, 3764979; 

331897, 3764986; 331886, 3764999; 

331883, 3765003; 331882, 3765004; 

331876, 3765009; 331858, 3765025; 

331836, 3765051; 331813, 3765078; 

331797, 3765098; 331783, 3765116; 

331774, 3765125; 331755, 3765144; 

331738, 3765158; 331724, 3765168; 

331683, 3765204; 331643, 3765243; 

331640, 3765246; 331605, 3765278; 

331589, 3765293; 331588, 3765294; 

331564, 3765319; 331527, 3765350; 

331486, 3765395; 331456, 3765417; 

331433, 3765432; 331404, 3765452; 

331401, 3765454; 331400, 3765455; 

331389, 3765467; 331365, 3765493; 

331361, 3765497; 331325, 3765542; 

331299, 3765572; 331275, 3765604; 

331248, 3765627; 331243, 3765631; 

331212, 3765659; 331178, 3765688; 

331147, 3765713; 331108, 3765746; 

331070, 3765774; 331036, 3765797; 

331035, 3765798; 331012, 3765818; 

331009, 3765820; 330986, 3765838; 

330962, 3765871; 330937, 3765897; 

330904, 3765925; 330878, 3765944; 

330853, 3765961; 330827, 3765983; 

330795, 3766008; 330764, 3766026; 

330752, 3766032; 330739, 3766039; 

330732, 3766043; 330711, 3766057; 

330706, 3766060; 330681, 3766090; 

330679, 3766091; 330667, 3766104; 

330663, 3766107; 330653, 3766117; 

330644, 3766126; 330643, 3766127; 

330629, 3766143; 330604, 3766172; 

330587, 3766179; 330579, 3766181; 

330573, 3766186; 330368, 3766380; 

330365, 3766384; 330348, 3766403; 

330328, 3766422; 330321, 3766428; 

330279, 3766466; 330236, 3766502; 

330207, 3766528; 330173, 3766550; 

330136, 3766569; 330105, 3766597; 

330085, 3766611; 330070, 3766624; 

330023, 3766660; 330022, 3766661; 

330018, 3766664; 330010, 3766673; 

329969, 3766702; 329962, 3766707; 

329960, 3766708; 329937, 3766727; 

329911, 3766747; 329888, 3766766; 

329882, 3766771; 329847, 3766792; 

329813, 3766815; 329785, 3766836; 

329781, 3766839; 329816, 3766887; 

329836, 3766875; 329851, 3766892; 

329890, 3766865; 329899, 3766877; 

329886, 3766885; 329912, 3766923; 

329924, 3766912; 329965, 3766877; 

proceed generally N following the mean 

low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 329965, 3766877. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 20 (Map M38) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57097 


Er29se05.037</GPH>
57098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(42) Unit CA 21A, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Topanga, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 359653, 3766064; 

359698, 3766104; 359706, 3766112; 

359794, 3766072; 359841, 3766016; 

359865, 3765980; 359868, 3765955; 

359871, 3765928; 359981, 3765838; 

360136, 3765710; 360156, 3765737; 

360157, 3765740; 360346, 3765605; 

360713, 3765301; 360821, 3765208; 

360782, 3765167; 360750, 3765131; 

proceed generally N following the mean 

low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 359653, 3766064. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 21A (Map M39) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57099 


ER29SE05.038</GPH>
57100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(43) Unit CA 21B, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Venice, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 366261, 3757311; 

366467, 3757409; 366791, 3756716; 

366577, 3756633; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 366261, 3757311. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 21B (Map M40) 

follows after description of Unit CA 21C. 

(44) Unit CA 21C, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Venice, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 367740, 3753997; 

367843, 3754038; 367860, 3754002; 

367883, 3753980; 367924, 3753925; 

367945, 3753827; 367911, 3753766; 

367924, 3753739; 367968, 3753730; 

368021, 3753592; 368235, 3753042; 

368173, 3753011; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 367740, 3753997. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 21B and CA 21C 

(Map M40) follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57101 


ER29SE05.039</GPH>
57102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(45) Unit CA 21D, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Redondo Beach OE S, California, 

land bounded by the following UTM 11 

NAD 27 coordinates (E,N): 370468, 

3747024; 370560, 3747050; 370594, 

3746936; 370696, 3746667; 370602, 

3746644; proceed generally N following 

the mean low water mark (defined at the 

beginning of the section) and returning 

to 370468, 3747024. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 21D (Map M41) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57103 


ER29SE05.040</GPH>
57104 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(46) Unit CA 22A, Orange County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Seal Beach, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 403074, 3728680; 

403074, 3728681; 403267, 3728834; 

403265, 3728996; 403238, 3729044; 

403290, 3729077; 403342, 3729164; 

403545, 3729348; 403571, 3729356; 

403635, 3729419; 404409, 3729117; 

404407, 3728750; 404398, 3728717; 

404399, 3728532; 404464, 3728525; 

404727, 3728380; 404729, 3728299; 

405337, 3727975; 405370, 3727979; 

405369, 3727845; 405358, 3727807; 

405339, 3727778; 405295, 3727725; 

405113, 3727543; 405081, 3727505; 

405050, 3727457; 405006, 3727428; 

404907, 3727378; 404859, 3727355; 

404833, 3727349; 404801, 3727356; 

404766, 3727373; 404712, 3727387; 

404584, 3727405; 404557, 3727413; 

404529, 3727431; 404495, 3727462; 

404465, 3727486; 404426, 3727492; 

404372, 3727479; 404183, 3727422; 

403756, 3727974; 403749, 3727975; 

403740, 3727969; 403720, 3727949; 

403709, 3727950; 403697, 3727958; 

403684, 3727961; 403653, 3727943; 

returning to 403074, 3728680. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 22A (Map M42) 

follows after description of Unit CA 22B. 

(47) Unit CA 22B, Orange County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Seal Beach, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 404089, 3727241; 

404122, 3727265; 404183, 3727186; 

404256, 3727101; 404389, 3726951; 

404360, 3726921; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 404089, 3727241. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 22A and CA 22B 

(Map M42) follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57105 


ER29SE05.041</GPH>
57106 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(48) Unit CA 23, Orange County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Newport Beach, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 411152, 3721501; 

411152, 3721498; 411154, 3721486; 

411161, 3721477; 411171, 3721472; 

411183, 3721471; 411189, 3721473; 

411197, 3721476; 411208, 3721485; 

411217, 3721493; 411224, 3721488; 

411220, 3721483; 411201, 3721465; 

411198, 3721462; 411173, 3721438; 

411154, 3721408; 411133, 3721368; 

411117, 3721336; 411106, 3721293; 

411094, 3721298; 411074, 3721321; 

411069, 3721327; 411061, 3721335; 

411054, 3721344; 411043, 3721354; 

411039, 3721358; 411018, 3721375; 

411000, 3721392; 410981, 3721413; 

410958, 3721437; 410939, 3721452; 

410903, 3721473; 410888, 3721489; 

410971, 3721619; 410978, 3721616; 

410989, 3721606; 410997, 3721617; 

411008, 3721631; 411140, 3721534; 

411157, 3721515; returning to 411152, 

3721501. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 23 (Map M43) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57107 


ER29SE05.042</GPH>
57108 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(49) Unit CA 24, Orange County and 

San Diego County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map San Clemente, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 444728, 3694059; 

444754, 3694175; 444782, 3694151; 

444839, 3694108; 444911, 3694062; 

445037, 3694001; 445278, 3693889; 

445569, 3693753; 445795, 3693646; 

445898, 3693601; 445898, 3693576; 

445875, 3693547; 445874, 3693547; 

445838, 3693559; 445747, 3693585; 

445651, 3693593; 445618, 3693595; 

445475, 3693623; 445447, 3693630; 

445406, 3693640; 445385, 3693640; 

445369, 3693641; 445347, 3693640; 

445334, 3693645; 445329, 3693650; 

445313, 3693664; 445271, 3693702; 

445220, 3693751; 445194, 3693775; 

445105, 3693840; 445062, 3693872; 

445012, 3693898; 444957, 3693919; 

444929, 3693926; 444928, 3693926; 

444899, 3693930; 444882, 3693937; 

444854, 3693959; 444852, 3693960; 

444818, 3693980; 444814, 3693982; 

444767, 3694004; 444736, 3694020; 

444712, 3694035; 444709, 3694040; 

444728, 3694059; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 444728, 3694059. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 24 (Map M44) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57109 


ER29SE05.043</GPH>
57110 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(50) Unit CA 25A, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Encinitas, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 470975, 3660809; 

470982, 3660811; 471014, 3660802; 

471058, 3660765; 471085, 3660733; 

471105, 3660704; 471122, 3660645; 

471129, 3660592; 471148, 3660540; 

471147, 3660511; 471155, 3660493; 

471153, 3660485; 471153, 3660485; 

471147, 3660482; 471122, 3660510; 

471112, 3660507; 471106, 3660501; 

471067, 3660464; 471066, 3660464; 

471081, 3660447; 471084, 3660437; 

471084, 3660417; 471077, 3660393; 

471077, 3660378; 471085, 3660361; 

471044, 3660341; 471013, 3660349; 

471002, 3660338; 470992, 3660306; 

470980, 3660296; 470977, 3660316; 

470969, 3660338; 470968, 3660341; 

470962, 3660360; 470955, 3660391; 

470949, 3660420; 470943, 3660453; 

470942, 3660456; 470933, 3660489; 

470925, 3660522; 470924, 3660525; 

470914, 3660562; 470907, 3660588; 

470906, 3660597; 470901, 3660624; 

470893, 3660651; 470892, 3660654; 

470884, 3660676; 470877, 3660694; 

470872, 3660706; 470864, 3660726; 

470861, 3660740; 470860, 3660742; 

470859, 3660754; 470862, 3660764; 

470866, 3660765; 470874, 3660770; 

470903, 3660785; 470962, 3660804; 

returning to 470975, 3660809. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 25A (Map M45) 

follows after description of Unit CA 25C. 

(51) Unit CA 25B, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Oceanside, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 472453, 3660939; 

472518, 3660920; 472571, 3660894; 

472603, 3660856; 472613, 3660817; 

472614, 3660776; 472576, 3660736; 

472538, 3660692; 472498, 3660666; 

472478, 3660670; 472452, 3660693; 

472451, 3660695; 472404, 3660732; 

472373, 3660751; 472352, 3660760; 

472335, 3660762; 472311, 3660758; 

472296, 3660748; 472282, 3660746; 

472264, 3660752; 472244, 3660769; 

472209, 3660804; 472183, 3660843; 

472164, 3660882; 472153, 3660903; 

472145, 3660929; 472156, 3660952; 

472190, 3660981; 472223, 3660990; 

472288, 3660980; 472393, 3660956; 

returning to 472453, 3660939. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 25B (Map M45) 

follows after description of Unit CA 25C. 

(52) Unit CA 25C, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Oceanside, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 474053, 3661505; 

474074, 3661515; 474082, 3661492; 

474109, 3661464; 474118, 3661461; 

474119, 3661450; 474144, 3661424; 

474169, 3661398; 474189, 3661386; 

474201, 3661384; 474210, 3661378; 

474228, 3661376; 474237, 3661377; 

474247, 3661359; 474263, 3661344; 

474302, 3661334; 474357, 3661336; 

474385, 3661334; 474386, 3661294; 

474393, 3661252; 474413, 3661233; 

474450, 3661217; 474494, 3661203; 

474539, 3661214; 474584, 3661200; 

474628, 3661181; 474654, 3661143; 

474615, 3661062; 474594, 3661042; 

474562, 3661043; 474543, 3661039; 

474530, 3661043; 474504, 3661070; 

474472, 3661111; 474452, 3661130; 

474380, 3661179; 474321, 3661194; 

474236, 3661205; 474200, 3661211; 

474166, 3661225; 474140, 3661244; 

474113, 3661268; 474081, 3661304; 

474075, 3661333; 474076, 3661393; 

474075, 3661440; 474048, 3661501; 

returning to 474053, 3661505. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units CA 25A, CA 25B, 

and CA 25C (Map M45) follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57111 


ER29SE05.044</GPH>
57112 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(53) Unit CA 26, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Del Mar California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E,N): 475548, 3644417; 

475597, 3644428; 475626, 3644433; 

475629, 3644418; 475632, 3644391; 

475625, 3644370; 475626, 3644353; 

475627, 3644350; 475633, 3644335; 

475628, 3644322; 475637, 3644298; 

475640, 3644293; 475647, 3644279; 

475649, 3644271; 475641, 3644267; 

475639, 3644267; 475635, 3644257; 

475638, 3644237; 475642, 3644195; 

475643, 3644190; 475648, 3644165; 

475657, 3644139; 475658, 3644120; 

475664, 3644091; 475671, 3644073; 

475674, 3644054; 475683, 3644029; 

475688, 3644001; 475693, 3643983; 

475694, 3643965; 475701, 3643945; 

475704, 3643929; 475708, 3643891; 

475733, 3643895; 475749, 3643893; 

475778, 3643878; 475815, 3643868; 

475826, 3643878; 475869, 3643912; 

475883, 3643920; 475893, 3643930; 

475909, 3643935; 475919, 3643943; 

475930, 3643950; 475923, 3643429; 

475917, 3643436; 475902, 3643454; 

475885, 3643478; 475864, 3643509; 

475851, 3643533; 475838, 3643545; 

475824, 3643566; 475804, 3643590; 

475788, 3643603; 475774, 3643706; 

475763, 3643718; 475756, 3643749; 

475750, 3643781; 475748, 3643798; 

475714, 3643792; 475685, 3643787; 

475683, 3643797; 475689, 3643805; 

475711, 3643807; 475723, 3643809; 

475713, 3643871; 475701, 3643870; 

475700, 3643870; 475699, 3643869; 

475690, 3643866; 475667, 3643865; 

475660, 3643894; 475657, 3643904; 

475652, 3643926; 475647, 3643946; 

475644, 3643956; 475641, 3643964; 

475635, 3643986; 475630, 3644011; 

475622, 3644032; 475613, 3644053; 

475606, 3644077; 475599, 3644101; 

475595, 3644132; 475593, 3644149; 

475590, 3644179; 475586, 3644211; 

475582, 3644230; 475580, 3644243; 

475578, 3644258; 475573, 3644280; 

475567, 3644312; 475563, 3644337; 

475555, 3644376; 475550, 3644411; 

returning to 475548, 3644417. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 26 (Map M46) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57113 


ER29SE05.045</GPH>
57114 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(54) Unit CA 27B, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Point Loma, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 481501, 3616480; 

481510, 3616481; 481524, 3616453; 

481540, 3616447; 481565, 3616444; 

481580, 3616449; 481601, 3616462; 

481613, 3616490; 481630, 3616491; 

481669, 3616488; 481690, 3616481; 

481734, 3616460; 481794, 3616435; 

481826, 3616413; 481836, 3616401; 

481893, 3616389; 481928, 3616379; 

481996, 3616538; 481998, 3616537; 

482008, 3616531; 482011, 3616518; 

482024, 3616510; 482038, 3616511; 

482160, 3616439; 482347, 3616345; 

482534, 3616238; 482693, 3616137; 

482984, 3615950; 483137, 3615853; 

483030, 3615679; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 481501, 3616480. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 27B (Map M47) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57115 


ER29SE05.046</GPH>
57116 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(55) Unit CA 27E, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map National City, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 490217, 3611878; 

490174, 3611856; 490047, 3611789; 

490028, 3611784; 489947, 3611738; 

489878, 3611704; 489865, 3611701; 

489834, 3611692; 489806, 3611682; 

489792, 3611676; 489727, 3611655; 

489611, 3611609; 489580, 3611587; 

489555, 3611597; 489521, 3611593; 

489412, 3611550; 489384, 3611531; 

489366, 3611519; 489331, 3611518; 

489282, 3611513; 489259, 3611508; 

489253, 3611511; 489253, 3611512; 

489237, 3611505; 489229, 3611501; 

489208, 3611497; 489161, 3611496; 

489138, 3611503; 489122, 3611535; 

489097, 3611608; 489093, 3611675; 

489094, 3611724; 489101, 3611774; 

489123, 3611843; 489166, 3611914; 

489200, 3611955; 489201, 3611954; 

489200, 3611942; 489199, 3611931; 

489204, 3611920; 489210, 3611918; 

489219, 3611920; 489228, 3611922; 

489240, 3611929; 489246, 3611938; 

489245, 3611947; 489237, 3611952; 

489225, 3611959; 489219, 3611969; 

489220, 3611973; 489501, 3612069; 

489791, 3612166; 490070, 3612259; 

490144, 3612287; 490269, 3611906; 

490231, 3611887; 490217, 3611878; 

returning to 490217, 3611878. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 27E (Map M48) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57117 


ER29SE05.047</GPH>
57118 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(56) Unit CA 27F, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Imperial Beach, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E,N): 487747, 3603052; 

487774, 3603045; 487775, 3602998; 

487776, 3602973; 487782, 3602890; 

487784, 3602855; 487795, 3602817; 

487852, 3602714; 487855, 3602708; 

487857, 3602705; 487884, 3602674; 

487895, 3602625; 487900, 3602575; 

487888, 3602515; 487865, 3602451; 

487840, 3602415; 487840, 3602398; 

487845, 3602382; 487865, 3602354; 

487885, 3602334; 487935, 3602307; 

487986, 3602298; 488089, 3602283; 

488115, 3602272; 488115, 3602119; 

488115, 3602119; 488163, 3602119; 

488176, 3602119; 488191, 3602119; 

488215, 3602040; 488220, 3602021; 

488218, 3601977; 488214, 3601966; 

488209, 3601953; 488199, 3601928; 

488220, 3601871; 488227, 3601841; 

488221, 3601817; 488207, 3601802; 

488178, 3601790; 488177, 3601766; 

488183, 3601680; 488201, 3601524; 

488202, 3601514; 488218, 3601458; 

488235, 3601397; 488267, 3601352; 

488292, 3601337; 488296, 3601328; 

488298, 3601324; 488290, 3601310; 

488289, 3601309; 488294, 3601262; 

488308, 3601227; 488338, 3601155; 

488350, 3601139; 488372, 3601126; 

488369, 3601108; 488364, 3601102; 

488381, 3601046; 488393, 3601035; 

488389, 3601016; 488385, 3601005; 

488397, 3600864; 488414, 3600789; 

488431, 3600753; 488442, 3600707; 

488455, 3600623; 488460, 3600571; 

488462, 3600541; 488516, 3600211; 

488512, 3600098; 488525, 3599982; 

488543, 3599731; 488519, 3599700; 

488497, 3599679; 488484, 3599658; 

488481, 3599607; 488479, 3599545; 

488485, 3599487; 488391, 3599479; 

488355, 3600146; 488284, 3600563; 

488270, 3600623; 488268, 3600633; 

488266, 3600640; 488262, 3600676; 

488255, 3600707; 488246, 3600747; 

488237, 3600787; 488226, 3600824; 

488215, 3600867; 488203, 3600907; 

488196, 3600938; 488192, 3600960; 

488190, 3600970; 488188, 3600980; 

488180, 3601013; 488175, 3601040; 

488169, 3601068; 488156, 3601101; 

488152, 3601121; 488148, 3601136; 

488143, 3601148; 488104, 3601308; 

488055, 3601513; 487954, 3601774; 

487883, 3601935; 487822, 3602015; 

487792, 3602053; 487789, 3602061; 

487784, 3602072; 487780, 3602080; 

487765, 3602103; 487754, 3602128; 

487693, 3602349; 487693, 3602358; 

487684, 3602390; 487674, 3602420; 

487659, 3602478; 487655, 3602497; 

487646, 3602564; 487645, 3602576; 

487645, 3602586; 487644, 3602592; 

487640, 3602616; 487639, 3602636; 

487638, 3602646; 487636, 3602655; 

487633, 3602674; 487631, 3602703; 

487627, 3602732; 487623, 3602760; 

487621, 3602791; 487615, 3602816; 

487609, 3602849; 487607, 3602885; 

487605, 3602894; 487602, 3602915; 

487599, 3602941; 487595, 3602976; 

487595, 3602998; 487592, 3603024; 

487590, 3603045; 487669, 3603044; 

487680, 3603054; 487682, 3603073; 

487697, 3603064; 487705, 3603062; 

487747, 3603052; proceed generally N 

following the mean low water mark 

(defined at the beginning of the section) 

and returning to 487747, 3603052. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit CA 27F (Map M49) 

follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57119 

* * * * * Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–19096 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


ER29SE05.048</GPH>