11768 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD10

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Designation of

Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast

Population of the Western Snowy

Plover

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes to designate

28 areas along the coast of California,

Oregon, and Washington as critical

habitat for the Pacific coast vertebrate

population segment of the western

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus). This small shorebird is listed

as a threatened species under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). Critical habitat

designation would provide additional

protection under section 7 of the Act

with regard to activities that require

Federal agency action. As required by

section 4 of the Act, the Service will

consider economic and other relevant

impacts prior to making a final decision

on the size and configuration of critical

habitat.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by May 31,

1995. Public hearing requests must be

received by April 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to Joel Medlin, Field Supervisor, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento

Field Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room

E–1803, Sacramento, CA 95825–1846.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Karen J. Miller, Sacramento Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section) telephone 916/

979–2725, facsimile 916/979–2723.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Previous Federal Actions

On March 24, 1988, the Service

received a petition from Dr. J.P. Myers

of the National Audubon Society to list

the Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover as a threatened

species under the Act. On November 14,

1988, the Service published a 90-day

petition finding (53 FR 45788) that

substantial information had been

presented indicating the requested

action may be warranted. At that time,

the Service acknowledged that

questions pertaining to the demarcation

of the subspecies and significance of

interchange between coastal and interior

stocks of the subspecies remained to be

answered. Public comments were

requested on the status of the coastal

population of the western snowy plover.

A status review of the entire subspecies

had been in progress since the Service’s

December 30, 1982, Vertebrate Notice of

Review (47 FR 58454). In that notice, as

in subsequent notices of review

(September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958);

January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554)), the

western snowy plover was included as

a category 2 candidate. Category 2

encompasses species for which

information now in possession of the

Service indicates that proposing to list

as endangered or threatened is possibly

appropriate, but for which conclusive

data on biological vulnerability and

threat are not currently available to

support proposed rules. The public

comment period on the petition was

closed on July 11, 1989 (54 FR 26811,

June 26, 1989).

In September 1989, the Service

completed a status report on the western

snowy plover. Based on the best

scientific and commercial data

available, including comments

submitted during the status review, the

Service made a 12-month petition

finding on June 25, 1990, that the

petitioned action was warranted but

precluded by other pending listing

actions, in accordance with section

4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act.

On January 14, 1992 (57 FR 1443), the

Service published a proposal to list the

coastal population of the western snowy

plover as a threatened species. After a

review of the best scientific and

commercial available and all comments

received in response to the proposed

rule, the Service published a final rule

to list the coastal population of the

western snowy plover as a threatened

species on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864),

and thereby activated the protections

applicable to listed species. The Service

did not propose to designate critical

habitat for the snowy plover within the

proposed or final listing rulemaking

because the Service found that critical

habitat was not then determinable. The

Service now has the information needed

for a critical habitat proposal.

Ecological Considerations

The western snowy plover, which is

one of twelve subspecies of the snowy

plover (Rittinghaus 1961 in Jacobs

1986), is a small, pale colored shorebird

with dark patches on either side of the

upper breast. The species was first

described in 1758 by Linnaeus

(American Ornithologists’ Union 1957).

For a complete discussion of the ecology

and life history of this subspecies, see

the Service’s March 5, 1993, final rule

listing the coastal population of the

western snowy plover as a threatened

species (58 FR 12864).

The Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover breeds in loose

colonies primarily on coastal beaches

from southern Washington to southern

Baja California, Mexico. On the Pacific

coast, larger concentrations of breeding

birds occur in the south than in the

north, suggesting that the center of the

plovers’ coastal distribution lies closer

to the southern boundary of California

(Page and Stenzel 1981). In Baja

California, Mexico, snowy plovers are

distributed across 28 sites, with

concentrations at six coastal lakes (Dra.

Graciela De La Graza Garcia, Director

General of Conservation Ecology and

Natural Resources, United States of

Mexico, in litt., 1992). Other less

common nesting habitat includes salt

pans, coastal dredged spoil disposal

sites, dry salt ponds, and salt pond

levees and islands (Widrig 1980, Wilson

1980, Page and Stenzel 1981). Sand

spits, dune-backed beaches, unvegetated

beach strands, open areas around

estuaries, and beaches at river mouths

are the preferred coastal habitats for

nesting (Stenzel et al. 1981, Wilson

1980).

Based on the most recent surveys, a

total of 28 snowy plover breeding sites

or areas currently occur on the Pacific

Coast of the United States. Two sites

occur in southern Washington—one at

Leadbetter Point, in Willapa Bay

(Widrig 1980), and the other at Damon

Point, in Grays Harbor (Anthony 1985).

In Oregon, nesting birds were recorded

in 6 locations in 1990 with 3 sites

(Bayocean Spit, North Spit Coos Bay

and spoils, and Bandon State ParkFloras Lake) supporting 81 percent of

the total coastal nesting population

(Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, unpubl. data, 1991). A total of

20 plover breeding areas currently occur

in coastal California (Page et al. 1991).

Eight areas support 78 percent of the

California coastal breeding population:

San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay,

Morro Bay, the Callendar-Mussel Rock

Dunes area, the Point Sal to Point

Conception area, the Oxnard lowland,

Santa Rosa Island, and San Nicolas

Island (Page et al. 1991).

The coastal population of the western

snowy plover consists of both resident

and migratory birds. Some birds winter

in the same areas used for breeding

(Warriner et al. 1986, Wilson-Jacobs,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11769

pers. comm. in Page et al. 1986). Other

birds migrate either north or south to

wintering areas (Warriner et al. 1986).

Plovers occasionally winter in southern

coastal Washington (Brittell et al. 1976).

The recent discovery of snowy plovers

wintering near Cape Shoalwater in

Pacific County, Washington, represents

the northernmost record of wintering

snowy plovers on the Pacific coast

(Scott Richardson, Washington

Department of Wildlife, pers. comm.,

1994). From 43 to 81 plovers wintered

on the Oregon coast between 1982–

1990, primarily on 3 beach segments

(Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife 1994). The majority of birds,

however, winter south of Bodega Bay,

California (Page et al. 1986). Wintering

plovers occur in widely scattered

locations on both coasts of Baja

California and significant numbers have

been observed on the mainland coast of

Mexico at least as far south as San Blas,

Nayarit (Page et al. 1986). Many interior

birds west of the Rocky Mountains

winter on the Pacific coast (Page et al.

1986, Stern et al. 1988). Birds winter in

habitats similar to those used during the

nesting season.

Widely varying nest success

(percentage of nests hatching at least

one egg) and reproductive success

(number of young fledged per female,

pair, or nest) are reported in the

literature. Nest success ranges from 0 to

80 percent for coastal snowy plovers

(Widrig 1980, Wilson 1980, Saul 1982,

Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 1985,

Wickham unpubl. data in Jacobs 1986,

Warriner et al. 1986). Instances of low

nest success have been attributed to a

variety of factors, including predation,

human disturbance, and inclement

weather conditions. Reproductive

success ranges from 0.05 to 2.40 young

fledged per female, pair or nest (Page et

al. 1977, Widrig 1980, Wilson 1980,

Saul 1982, Warriner et al. 1986, Page

1988). Page et al. (1977) estimated that

snowy plovers must fledge 0.8 young

per female to maintain a stable

population. Reproductive success falls

far short of this threshold at many

nesting sites (Widrig 1980, Wilson 1980,

Warriner et al. 1986, Page 1988, Page

1990).

Management Considerations

Historic records indicate that nesting

western snowy plovers were once more

widely distributed in coastal California,

Oregon, and Washington than they are

currently. In coastal California, snowy

plovers bred at 53 locations prior to

1970 (Page and Stenzel 1981). Since that

time, no evidence of breeding birds has

been found at 33 of these 53 sites,

representing a 62 percent decline in

breeding sites (Page and Stenzel 1981).

The greatest losses of breeding habitat

were in southern California, within the

central portion of the snowy plover’s

coastal breeding range. In Oregon,

snowy plovers historically nested at 29

locations on the coast (Charles Bruce,

Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, pers. comm., 1991). In 1990

only 6 nesting colonies remained,

representing a 79 percent decline in

active breeding sites. In Washington,

snowy plovers formerly nested in at

least 5 sites on the coast (Eric Cummins,

pers. comm., 1991). Today only 2

colony sites remain active, representing,

at minimum, a 60 percent decline in

breeding sites.

In addition to loss of nesting sites, the

plover breeding population in

California, Oregon, and Washington has

declined 17 percent between 1977 and

1989 (Page et al. 1991). Declines in the

breeding population have been

specifically documented in Oregon and

California. Breeding season surveys

along the Oregon coast from 1978 to

1993 show that the number of adult

snowy plovers has declined

significantly at an average annual rate of

about 7 percent (Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife 1994). The number of

adults has declined from a high of 142

adults in 1981 to a low of 30 adults in

1992 (Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife 1994; Randy Fisher, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, in litt.,

1992). If the current trend continues,

breeding snowy plovers could disappear

from coastal Oregon by 1999. In 1981,

the coastal California breeding

population of snowy plovers was

estimated to be 1,565 adults (Page and

Stenzel 1981). In 1989, surveys revealed

1,386 plovers (Page et al. 1991), an 11

percent decline in the breeding

population. The population decline in

California may be greater than

indicated; the 1989 survey results are

considered more reliable than the earlier

estimates, which may have

underestimated the overall population

size (Gary Page, pers. comm., 1991).

Although there are no historic data for

Washington, it is doubtful that the

snowy plover breeding population in

Washington was ever very large (Brittell

et al. 1976). However, loss of nesting

sites in this state probably has resulted

in a reduction in their overall

population size. In recent years, fewer

than 30 birds have nested on the

southern coast of Washington (James

Atkinson, pers. comm, 1990; Eric

Cummins, pers. comm., 1991). In 1991,

only one successful brood was detected

in the State (Tom Juelson, Washington

Department of Wildlife, in litt., 1992).

Survey data also indicate a decline in

wintering snowy plovers, particularly in

southern California. The number of

snowy plovers observed during

Christmas Bird Counts from 1962 to

1984 significantly decreased in southern

California despite an increase in

observer participation in the counts

(Page et al. 1986). This observed decline

was not accompanied by a significant

loss of wintering habitat over the same

time period (Page et al. 1986).

The most important form of habitat

loss to coastal breeding snowy plovers

has been encroachment of European

beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria). This

non-native plant was introduced to the

west coast around 1898 to stabilize

dunes (Wiedemann 1987). Since then it

has spread up and down the coast and

now is found from British Columbia to

southern California (Ventura County).

European beachgrass is currently a

major dune plant at about 50 percent of

California breeding sites and all of those

in Oregon and Washington (J.P. Myers,

National Audubon Society, in litt.,

1988). Stabilizing sand dunes with

European beachgrass has reduced the

amount of unvegetated area above the

tideline, decreased the width of the

beach, and increased its slope. These

changes have reduced the amount of

potential snowy plover nesting habitat

on many beaches and may hamper

brood movements. The beachgrass

community also provides habitat for

snowy plover predators that historically

would have been largely precluded by

the lack of cover in the dune

community. Cost effective methods to

control or eradicate European

beachgrass have not yet been found.

In the habitat remaining for snowy

plover nesting, human activity (e.g.,

walking, jogging, running pets,

horseback riding, off-road vehicle use,

and beach raking) is a key factor in the

ongoing decline in snowy plover coastal

breeding sites and breeding populations

in California, Oregon, and Washington.

The nesting season of the western

snowy plover (mid-March to midSeptember) coincides with the season of

greatest human use on beaches of the

west coast (Memorial Day through Labor

Day). Human activities detrimental to

nesting snowy plovers include

unintentional disturbance and

trampling of eggs and chicks by people

and unleashed pets (Stenzel et al. 1981,

Warriner et al. 1986, P. Persons, in litt.,

1992), off-road vehicle use (Widrig

1980, Stenzel et al. 1981, Anthony 1985,

Warriner et al. 1986, Page 1988, Philip

Persons, in litt., 1992); horseback riding

(Woolington 1985, Page 1988, Philip

Persons, in litt., 1992); and beach raking

(Stenzel et al. 1981). Page et al. (1977)
11770 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

found that snowy plovers were

disturbed more than twice as often by

such human activities than all other

natural causes combined.

In the few instances where human

intrusion into snowy plover nesting

areas has been precluded either through

area closures or by natural events,

nesting success has improved. The

average number of young fledged per

nesting pair increased from 0.75 to 2.00

after the nesting site at Leadbetter Point,

Washington was closed to human

activities (Saul 1982). Similarly, vehicle

closure on a portion of Pismo Beach,

California, led to an eight-fold increase

in the nesting plover population (W.

David Shuford, Point Reyes Bird

Observatory, in litt., 1989). After beach

access was virtually eliminated by the

1989 earthquake, fledging success

increased 16 percent at Moss Landing

Beach, California (Page 1990).

Predation by mammalian and avian

predators is a major concern at a

number of nesting sites. Western snowy

plover eggs, chicks, and adults are taken

by a variety of avian and mammalian

predators. These losses, particularly to

avian predators, are exacerbated by

human disturbances. Of the many

predators, American crows (Corvus

brachyrhynchos), ravens (C. corax), and

red fox (Vulpes) have had a significantly

adverse effect on reproductive success

at several colony sites (Wilson-Jacobs

and Meslow 1984, Page 1988, John and

Jane Warriner, Point Reyes Bird

Observatory, in litt., 1989, Page 1990,

Stern et al. 1991). Accumulation of trash

at beaches attracts these as well as other

predators (Stern et al. 1990, Hogan

1991).

At most active breeding sites few

measures have been implemented

specifically to protect snowy plovers.

Artificial measures have been used at

several nesting sites to improve snowy

plover nesting success. In 1991, the

California Department of Parks and

Recreation and the Service conducted

plover nest enclosure studies on

National Wildlife Refuge and State

property in the Monterey area. Hatching

success of plover nests in enclosures

was 81 percent as compared to 28

percent for unprotected nests (Richard

G. Rayburn, California Department of

Parks and Recreation, in litt., 1992,

Elaine Harding-Smith, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, pers. comm., 1992).

Use of nest enclosures at Coos Bay

North Spit resulted in up to 88 percent

nesting success, compared to as low as

9 percent success for unprotected nests

(Stern et al. 1991, Randy Fisher, in litt.,

1992). Nest enclosures continue to be

used at the above sites. The Service

recently finalized a predator

management plan for Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge, which

proposes management measures to

reduce red fox populations on the

Refuge (Parker and Takekawa 1993).

In a few areas in California, including

the Marine Corps Base at Camp

Pendleton, plovers have benefitted

somewhat from protective measures

taken for the endangered California least

tern (Sterna antillarum browni). At

Vandenberg Air Force Base in southern

California, beaches are closed to all foot

and vehicular traffic during the least

tern nesting season (Donna Brewer, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.,

1991). Dogs and cattle have been

restricted from some beaches at Point

Reyes National Seashore (Gary Page,

pers. comm., 1991), and some beaches

on Federal land in Oregon have been

closed to vehicles to protect plovers and

other wildlife (Charles Bruce, pers.

comm., 1991). Leadbetter Point in

Washington (Fish and Wildlife Service),

a 5-acre spoil disposal site in Coos Bay

(Bureau of Land Management), and a 25-

acre spoil disposal site in Coos Bay

(Corps of Engineers) are the only nesting

sites where human access has been

restricted in the past specifically for

plover nesting. In 1993, at Oregon

Dunes National Recreation Area, the

Forest Service used temporary fencing

and signing to direct beach visitors

away from snowy plover nesting areas.

At Coos Bay, Oregon, the Corps of

Engineers is proposing two projects to

create or improve plover nesting habitat

using dredged spoils.

Relationship to Recovery

Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that

‘‘all Federal departments and agencies

shall seek to conserve endangered and

threatened species and shall utilize their

authorities in furtherance of the

purposes of this Act.’’ Section 3(3) of

the Act defines conservation as the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to recover an endangered or threatened

species to the point at which it no

longer needs to be listed under the Act.

The Act mandates the conservation of

listed species through different

mechanisms, such as section 7

(requiring Federal agencies to further

the purposes of the Act by carrying out

conservation programs and insuring that

Federal actions will not likely

jeopardize the continued existence of

listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

designated critical habitat); section 9

(prohibition of taking of listed species);

section 10 (wildlife research permits,

and other permits based on conservation

plans); section 6 (cooperative

agreements and Federal grants); section

5 (land acquisition); and research.

A recovery plan under section 4(f) of

the Act is the ‘‘umbrella’’ that

eventually guides all of these activities

and promotes species’ conservation and

eventual delisting. Recovery plans

provide guidance, which may include

population goals and identification of

areas in need of protection or special

management, so that the species’ status

may improve to where it may be

removed from the list of endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants. Recovery

plans usually include management

recommendations for areas proposed or

designated as critical habitat.

The Service considers the

conservation of a species in a

designation of critical habitat. The

designation of critical habitat will not,

in itself, result in the recovery of the

species, but is one of several measures

available to contribute to conservation

of the species. Critical habitat helps

focus conservation activities by

identifying areas that contain essential

habitat features (primary constituent

elements) that require special

management. The protection given

critical habitat under section 7 also

immediately increases the protection

given to these primary constituent

elements and essential areas and

preserves options for the long-term

conservation of the species. The

protection of these areas may also

shorten the time needed to achieve

recovery. Designation of critical habitat

also heightens the awareness of the

public and agencies of species

conservation needs.

Designating critical habitat does not

create a management plan, establish

numerical population goals, or prescribe

specific management actions, and it has

no direct effect on areas not designated.

Specific management recommendations

for critical habitat are addressed in

recovery plans, management plans, and

section 7 consultations. Areas outside of

critical habitat also may have an

important role in conservation of a

listed species. A designation of critical

habitat may be reevaluated and revised

at any time that new information

indicates changes are warranted. In

considering whether to designate

critical habitat, the Service will evaluate

whether land management plans,

recovery plans, or other conservation

strategies have been developed and fully

implemented that may reduce the need

for the additional protection provided

by a critical habitat designation.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11771

Critical Habitat

Definition

Critical habitat, as defined by section

3 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532) means (i)

the specific areas within the

geographical area occupied by a species

at the time it is listed on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) which may

require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii)

specific areas outside the geographical

area occupied by the species at the time

it is listed, upon determination that

such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species. The term

‘‘conservation’’ as defined in section

3(3) of the Act, means ‘‘to use and the

use of all methods and procedures

which are necessary to bring any

endangered species or threatened

species to the point at which the

measures provided pursuant to this Act

are no longer necessary.’’ 16 U.S.C.

1532(3). Critical habitat, then, is to

include biologically suitable areas

necessary to recovery of the species.

Critical habitat may be proposed for

species that are already listed as

threatened or endangered. Section 3

further states that in most cases the

entire range of a species should not be

encompassed within critical habitat.

Primary Constituent Elements

The Act requires critical habitat

designations to be based on the best

scientific data available 16 U.S.C.

1533(a)(2). In determining what areas

are critical habitat, the Service considers

those physical and biological attributes

that are essential to the conservation of

the species and that may require special

management considerations or

protection. Such requirements include,

but are not limited to, the following (1)

Space for individual and population

growth, and normal behavior; (2) food,

water, or other nutritional or

physiological requirements; (3) cover or

shelter; (4) sites for breeding,

reproduction, rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; and

generally (5) habitats that are protected

from disturbance or are representative of

the historic, geographical, and

ecological distributions of a species (50

CFR 424.12).

In considering the designation of

critical habitat, the Service focuses on

the primary physical or biological

constituent elements of the area that are

essential to the conservation of the

species (50 CFR 424.12). Primary

constituent elements may include, but

are not limited to, roost sites, nesting

grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites,

seasonal wetland or dryland, water

quality or quantity, host species or plant

pollinator, geological formation,

vegetation type, tide, and specific soil

types (50 CFR 424.12).

The proposed designation of critical

habitat for the coastal population of the

western snowy plover is based on the

following physical and biological

features and primary constituent

elements:

* Space for individual and population

growth.

* Food, water, air, light, minerals, and

other nutritional or physiological

requirements.

* Roost sites.

* Sites for breeding, reproduction, and

rearing of offspring.

* Habitats (nesting grounds and feeding

sites) that are protected from disturbance and

are representative of the historic geographical

and ecological distribution of the species.

For all areas of critical habitat

proposed for the plover, these physical

and biological features and primary

constituent elements are provided or

will be provided by intertidal beaches

(between mean low water and mean

high tide), associated dune systems, and

river estuaries. Important components of

the beach/dune/estuarine ecosystem

include surf-cast kelp, sparsely

vegetated foredunes, interdunal flats,

spits, washover areas, blowouts,

intertidal flats, salt flats, and flat rocky

outcrops. Several of these components

(sparse vegetation, salt flats) are

mimicked in artificial habitat types used

less commonly by snowy plovers (i.e.,

dredge spoil sites and salt ponds and

adjoining levees). Functional suitability

of areas containing the features listed

above is also contingent upon isolation

from human disturbance and predation.

These attributes are considered essential

to the conservation of the coastal

population of the western snowy plover.

The primary constituent elements of

snowy plover nesting, foraging, and

roosting habitat could occur on virtually

every beach along the Pacific coast.

Therefore, biologically based criteria

were developed as a basis for further

identifying critical habitat areas and

related recovery objectives. The key

components of site importance as it

relates to recovery of the species were

existing nesting capacity, wintering

capacity, and geographic location.

Those sites in Washington, Oregon, and

California that currently support the

majority of breeding and wintering

western snowy plovers were initially

selected for critical habitat designation.

Several additional sites in California

were selected for designation to avoid a

large gap in the geographic distribution

of breeding or wintering birds.

Important nesting and wintering sites

were identified from Page and Stenzel

(1981), Page et al. (1986), Page et al.

(1991), Washington Department of

Wildlife (1993), and Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife (1994); and through

personal communications with

professionals in the field.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

The Service has identified 28 critical

habitat areas totalling approximately

20,000 acres and about 210 miles of

coastline, or about 10 percent of the

coastline of California, Oregon, and

Washington. Of the 28 areas, 19 critical

habitat areas are proposed in California,

7 in Oregon, and 2 in Washington.

Within the last decade, these sites

provided habitat for about 65 percent of

nesting and 60 percent of wintering

western snowy plovers in California; 95

percent of nesting and 95 percent of

wintering plovers in Oregon; and 100

percent of nesting and about 90 percent

of wintering plovers in Washington.

Protection and special management of

these sites are essential to recovery of

the coastal population of the western

snowy plover and will form the

cornerstone of a recovery plan.

In California, approximately 25

percent of proposed critical habitat

occurs on Federal lands. About 50

percent of critical habitat proposed on

non-Federal lands is State-owned, with

the California Department of Parks and

Recreation being the primary land

manager. In Oregon about 45 percent of

proposed critical habitat areas occurs on

Federal land with the remainder

controlled primarily by State agencies.

Of the two sites proposed in the State

of Washington, one is State property,

and the second includes State lands

adjacent to Willapa National Wildlife

Refuge.

The Service excluded from proposed

critical habitat designation, lands that

already provide adequate protection for

the western snowy plover. These sites

include lands that provide plover

nesting and wintering habitat within

three National Wildlife Refuge

complexes—Willapa National Wildlife

Refuge in Washington, and Salinas

National Wildlife Refuge and the

Southern California Coastal Complex in

California. Programs currently exist on

these refuges to protect snowy plovers.

Also excluded are lands owned and/or

managed by the National Park Service.

Important plover nesting areas on

National Park Service lands (such as

Santa Rosa Island) are relatively

inaccessible by the public. Any

recreational use impacts or other

identifiable impacts on breeding and

wintering birds or their habitat would
11772 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

be covered through the section 7

consultation process. Also excluded are

key nesting areas on Camp Pendleton in

San Diego County, California. A

programmatic consultation currently

underway between the Service and the

Department of the Navy will address

any adverse effects to nesting plovers

and their habitat. For the above sites,

therefore, designation of critical habitat

would provide no additional benefit to

the species. Prior to making a final

decision on this proposal the Service

will continue to consider whether

existing management provides adequate

protection for nesting and wintering

western snowy plovers. For example,

we are working with the Resources

Agency of California to identify

California State Park lands in this

proposal that are currently providing

adequate protection for these birds. The

Service may exclude adequately

protected sites from designation.

The Service also excluded from

proposed critical habitat sites that

would significantly conflict with the

survival and recovery objectives of other

listed species. Significant conflicts were

identified between the habitat needs of

snowy plovers and biological objectives

for the California clapper rail (Rallus

longirostris obsoletus), light-footed

clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes),

and salt marsh harvest mouse

(Reithrodontomys raviventris). The two

rails and mouse are federally listed

endangered species.

The California clapper rail and salt

marsh harvest mouse inhabit estuarine

marshes of San Francisco Bay. Over 90

percent of historic tidal marsh habitat in

the Bay has been lost, primarily through

the development of commercial salt

ponds (Josselyn 1983). Western snowy

plovers have taken advantage of this

artificial salt pond habitat, primarily in

south San Francisco Bay, and nest on

levees or islands within active salt

ponds or in abandoned dry salt ponds.

This artificial habitat supports the

largest subpopulation of snowy plovers

within its range (Page et al. 1991). This

same habitat, with the exception of two

salt pond sites used by nesting snowy

plovers, however, is identified in the

recovery plan for the California clapper

rail and salt marsh harvest mouse for

restoration to historic tidal marsh (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1984; Peter

Sorensen, Fish and Wildlife Service,

pers. comm., 1994).

The light-footed clapper rail inhabits

coastal tidal marshes from Santa Barbara

County south to Baja California, Mexico.

Over two-thirds of historic tidal marsh

habitat has been lost (Speth 1971)

primarily to urban development, flood

control, and oil development. Several

sites in Ventura, Orange, and San Diego

Counties provide nesting and/or

wintering habitat for snowy plovers, but

also provide high quality clapper rail

habitat or represent high priority tidal

marsh restoration sites in the lightfooted clapper rail recovery plan (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). These

sites are Bolsa Chica, Agua Hedionda

Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, San Elijo

Lagoon, San Dieguito Lagoon, Los

Penasquitos Lagoon, the San Diego

River mouth, and the marshes of south

San Diego Bay. Because the light-footed

clapper rail is endangered and the

habitat needs of this species differ

significantly from those of the western

snowy plover, the Service is excluding

these sites from critical habitat

designation.

Overall, this proposal focuses the

primary recovery objectives for the

western snowy plover on coastal beach

and dune habitats, which represent a

significant proportion of natural nesting

and wintering habitat of the coastal

population of the western snowy plover.

These natural habitats, therefore, are

considered essential to conservation of

this threatened species. Protection of

these sites as well as plover habitat on

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, and Navy lands at Camp

Pendleton will provide added

protection for about 76 percent of

nesting and 65 percent of wintering

plovers rangewide. Sites excluded from

critical habitat designation for the

various reasons given above should not

be considered as unnecessary to

conservation of the species. The

recovery plan for the coastal population

of the western snowy plover will

address the value of these areas to

species’ recovery. At the present time,

these excluded sites support about 20

percent of the coastal population of the

western snowy plover and during the

recovery process may provide birds to

supplement populations in essential

breeding and wintering areas. If

focusing recovery on the 28 proposed

critical habitat areas proves

unattainable, additional sites may be

proposed as critical habitat in the future

to aid in recovery of the species.

At this time, conservation of the

Pacific coast population of the western

snowy plover requires sufficient

management efforts at all sites proposed

as critical habitat. However, new

information that may be grounds for

review of this determination includes,

but is not limited to, data showing that

the species is more or less vulnerable

than currently thought, a change in the

species’ status due to catastrophic

events such as disease or weather, or

evidence that continuing efforts to

conserve the species are insufficient.

Many of the proposed critical habitat

areas include large expanses of beach.

For proposed sites that support nesting

snowy plovers, nesting colonies may

occupy only a small portion of the

proposed critical habitat area. The larger

critical habitat area is needed, however,

because foraging occurs throughout the

intertidal and foredune portions of the

beach. Designation of larger critical

habitat areas also will allow for natural

shifting of plover nesting colonies as a

result of vegetational changes and

weather related events that reconfigure

suitable nesting habitat.

Regulations governing designation of

critical habitat (50 CFR 424 12(h)) state

that critical habitat shall not be

designated within foreign countries.

Although the Pacific coast population of

the western snowy plover’s breeding

and wintering range extends into

Mexico, no critical habitat is proposed

outside United States jurisdiction.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for

any proposed or final regulation that

designates critical habitat, a brief

description and evaluation of those

activities (public or private) that may

adversely modify such habitat or may be

affected by such designation.

Regulations found at 50 CFR 402.02

define destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat 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, that is, its primary

constituent elements.

An activity will not adversely modify

an area within designated critical

habitat that does not contain any

constituent elements. For example,

existing areas such as parking lots,

paved roads, and various kinds of

structures within the proposed critical

habitat boundaries clearly would not

furnish habitat or biological features for

western snowy plovers. Furthermore,

some activities would not be restricted

by critical habitat designation because

they would have no significant adverse

effect on the primary constituent

elements.

Activities that may adversely modify

critical habitat are subject to regulation

under section 7(a) of the Act if they are

carried out, authorized, or funded by a

Federal agency. The purpose of

consultations between the Service and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11773

other Federal agencies is to ensure that

activities are carried out in a manner

that is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or

adversely modify or destroy its critical

habitat. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and 50 CFR

402.10 of the regulations, require

Federal agencies to confer informally

with the Service on any action that is

likely to result in destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical

habitat.

Activities areas that could adversely

affect proposed critical habitat of the

coastal population of the western snowy

plover fall into seven general categories:

(1) projects or management activities that

cause, induce, or increase human-associated

disturbance on beaches, including operation

of off-road vehicles on the beach and beach

cleaning. These activities may reduce the

functional suitability of nesting, foraging, and

roosting areas. Activities that may adversely

modify critical habitat areas that support

wintering birds (September 15–February 29)

include beach cleaning that removes surfcast

kelp and driftwood, dogs off leash, off-road

vehicle driven at night, and falcon flying.

Activities within posted fenced or otherwise

protected nesting areas (March 1–September

14) that may adversely modify critical habitat

areas include camping, off-road vehicle use

(day or night), walking, jogging, clam digging,

pets on or off leash, livestock grazing,

sunbathing, picnicking, horseback riding,

hang gliding, kite flying, model airplane

flying, beach cleaning, and falcon flying in or

over active nesting areas. With very few

exceptions, the nesting area is a small

fraction of the entire beach. Thus, no more

that 5 to 15 percent of the vast majority of

the units would be removed from these kinds

of public uses during the breeding season.

The Service would work with landowners to

develop signs or fencing or other means to

protect these small nesting areas.

Furthermore, western snowy plovers occupy

the soft sandy portions of the upper beach or

foredunes, and people tend to prefer lower

beach or sand that is regularly washed by the

tides. On a case by case basis, the few

restrictions could be removed after the

plovers had finished breeding or left

wintering grounds.

(2) actions that would promote unnatural

rates or sources of predation. For example,

producing human-generated litter that

attracts predators, or designing exclosures

that promote perching by avian predators

may adversely modify critical habitat by

reducing its functional suitability to support

nesting snowy plovers.

(3) actions that would promote the

invasion of non-native vegetation.

(4) activities associated with maintenance

and operation of salt ponds. Activities that

may adversely modify or destroy critical

habitat when conducted during the snowy

plover nesting season include flooding

inactive salt ponds; raising the water level in

active salt ponds; grading, resurfacing,

riprapping, or placing dredged spoils on

levees; and driving maintenance vehicles on

levees. However, levee maintenance

activities also may benefit snowy plovers by

providing vegetation-free habitat for nesting.

The Service would work with landowners to

avoid harmful activities during the breeding

season.

(5) dredge spoil disposal activities that may

adversely modify critical habitat when

conducted during the nesting season include

deposition of spoil material, laying of pipes

to transport the material, and use of

machinery to spread the material. However,

dredge spoil disposal sites also may benefit

snowy plovers by providing nesting habitat

free of European beachgrass. The Service

would work with landowners to avoid

harmful activities during the breeding

season.

(6) shoreline erosion control projects and

activities that may alter the topography of the

beach. Activities that may adversely modify

or destroy nesting, foraging, and roosting

habitat include beach nourishment (sand

deposition, spreading of sand with

machinery); construction of breakwaters and

jetties (interruption of sand deposition); dune

stabilization using native and non-native

vegetation or fencing (decreased beach width,

increased beach slope, reduction in blowouts

and other preferred nesting habitat); beach

leveling (increased tidal reach, removal of

sparse vegetation used by chicks for shelter,

destruction of rackline feeding habitat).

Beach nourishment projects, however, also

may have the potential to benefit nesting or

wintering plover habitat on some sites

experiencing serious erosion. The Service

would work with landowners to avoid

harmful activities when the birds are present.

(7) contamination events. Contamination

through oil spills or chemical releases may

adversely modify critical habitat by

contaminating snowy plovers and/or their

food sources.

Federal agencies that may be required

to consult with the Service on one or

more of these activities include the

Forest Service, Bureau of Land

Management, Federal Aviation

Administration, and the Departments of

the Army (including the Corps of

Engineers), Navy, and Air Force.

In addition several other species that

are listed under the Act occur in the

same general areas as western snowy

plovers. These species share the coastal

beach/dune/estuarine ecosystem with

snowy plovers. All of these species

occurred historically in association with

western snowy plovers in this Pacific

coast ecosystem, and thus, the habitat

requirements of these species do not

significantly conflict with those of the

snowy plover. Therefore, any plans

prepared for sites designated as critical

habitat for the snowy plover should be

considered ecosystem management

plans that accommodate needs of other

listed or proposed species that also

occur on the site. In doing so, these

proposed snowy plover critical habitat

areas more aptly represent critical

habitat for a multitude of species

inhabiting the coastal beach/dune/

estuarine ecosystem. Federal agencies

proposing management actions for other

listed species may affect critical habitat

for the western snowy plover and be

required to initiate formal consultation

under section 7 of the Act. Conversely,

proposed management actions for the

benefit of the plover or its habitat may

affect other listed species. The Service

will work with other Federal agencies to

develop ecosystem plans that provide

for the needs of all listed species.

When the Service issues an opinion

concluding that a project is likely to

result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat, the

Service also provides 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 formal 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 resulting in the 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.

Consideration of Economic and Other

Factors

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

Service to consider economic and other

impacts of designating any particular

area as critical habitat. For example,

beneficial impacts of critical habitat

designation may include (1) a clear

notification to Federal agencies and the

public of the existence and importance

of critical habitat, (2) voluntary

increased protection of snowy plovers

on some private lands, (3) stimulation of

additional attention to the requirements

of section 9 of the Act by private,

municipal, county, and state

landowners, (4) additional protection

for other listed and non-listed species

that occur in areas designated as critical

habitat for the snowy plover, and (5)

preservation of the beach-duneestuarine ecosystem. Section 4(b)(2)

authorizes the Service to exclude any

area from critical habitat designation if

the Service determines the benefits of

excluding the area outweigh the benefits

of including it, except that the Service
11774 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

may not exclude an area if the Service

determines that doing so would result in

extinction of the species. Pursuant to 50

CFR 424.19, the Service will consider

the economic and other relevant

impacts of designating of critical habitat

for the coastal population of the western

snowy plover.

Economic Analysis

The economic analysis is designed to

provide information to assist in making

determinations about areas which may

be excluded from critical habitat. It is

conducted by examining how a

designation of critical habitat for the

snowy plover would be expected to

affect the use of Federal lands as well

as non-Federal activities authorized or

funded by Federal agencies. Activities

on private or state-owned lands that do

not involve Federal permits, funding or

other Federal actions would not be

restricted by a designation of critical

habitat.

The economic analysis distinguishes

between economic effects caused by the

listing of the snowy plover as threatened

and those that would be caused by the

proposed designation of critical habitat.

Furthermore, if a proposed action would

otherwise have been limited or

prohibited by another statute or

regulation, such as the Clean Water Act,

those economic effects would not be

attributable to either listing or critical

habitat designation under the

Endangered Species Act.

Economic effects are the costs or

benefits to society of precluding or

limiting specific land uses in areas

being considered for designation as

critical habitat. Economic effects are

categorized as either efficiency or

distributional. Economic efficiency

effects are those consequences of critical

habitat designation that cause changes

in national income. Economic

distribution effects pertain to regional

changes that may have offsetting effects

elsewhere in the national economy.

Efficiency effects are used primarily to

determine whether an action is

economically sound and whether

expected benefits exceed costs.

Distributional effects are used to

evaluate regional and local economic

impacts.

Consultation Under Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Act (16 USC 1536),

requires Federal agencies to insure that

activities they fund, authorize, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or

result in destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat. Jeopardy

is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as any

action reasonably expected to reduce

appreciably the likelihood of both the

survival and recovery of the species in

the wild by reducing its reproduction,

numbers, or distribution. Destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat

is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as any

direct or indirect alteration that

appreciably diminishes the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and

recovery of the species.

Under section 7, a Federal agency

must consult with the Service if it

determines that an action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat.

During consultation, the Service reviews

the agency’s proposed action and

prepares a biological opinion as to

whether that action is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

the species or destroy or adversely

modify its critical habitat.

In cases where species are listed

without critical habitat, the Service

determines only whether the proposed

action is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species. In

cases where critical habitat has been

designated, the Service also determines

whether the proposed action is likely to

destroy or adversely modify critical

habitat. The additional requirement for

Federal agencies to avoid destruction

and adverse modification of critical

habitat may result in incremental

restrictions on agency actions beyond

those required to avoid jeopardy or for

other statutory or regulatory purposes.

The incremental restrictions arising

from section 7 consultations on

destruction or adverse modification are

the only way that designating critical

habitat produces an economic impact.

To isolate that incremental impact, total

economic effects of limitations on a

proposed action within critical habitat

must be apportioned between a species

listing (jeopardy, take prohibitions, etc.)

and critical habitat designation

(destruction or adverse modifications).

If the action is found to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species or

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat, the Service is required to

provide, to the extent possible,

reasonable and prudent alternatives to

the proposed action. By definition,

reasonable and prudent alternatives

allow the proposed action to go forward

while removing the conditions that

jeopardize the species or destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. For

the snowy plover, the Service believes

that reasonable and prudent alternatives

developed as part of consultation will

allow most activities to continue,

subject to some limitations. Such

alternatives might include fencing or

seasonal closure of certain areas to

human uses, as well as changes in beach

erosion control or dredging plans.

Determination of whether an action

will result in jeopardy and/or adverse

modification is dependent upon a

number of factors, such as the type of

project, its size, location, and duration.

In many cases, sufficient management

actions will permit agencies to avoid

adverse modification with little or no

effect on their activities. The Service

believes that, in the case of the snowy

plover, the large majority of economic

impacts as a result of section 7

consultation will occur as a result of

listing, through the application of the

jeopardy standard and incidental take

prohibitions.

Framework of Analysis

The economic analysis examines the

costs and benefits of precluding or

limiting specific land uses within areas

designated as critical habitat. It is cast

in a ‘‘with’’ critical habitat versus a

‘‘without’’ critical habitat framework

and seeks to measure the net change in

the various categories of benefits and

costs when the critical habitat

designation is imposed on the existing

baseline.

National and Regional Effects

The economic effects of critical

habitat designation consist of those

affecting national income and those that

are important on a local or regional

level.

National economic (efficiency) costs

represent changes in national income

(the total value of goods and services).

They are measured as changes in

consumer surplus and producer surplus

(economic rent). Economic efficiency

analysis seeks to maximize national

income from a given resource base.

Gains and losses in recreation values,

increased costs imposed on

management agencies or development

projects, loss of earnings by displaced

labor or capital assets, and changes in

revenue from user fees (beach user fees,

etc.) are typical national economic costs

of critical habitat designation. The

economic cost of designating critical

habitat includes any additional costs

that would be imposed, regardless of

whether they are incurred by a Federal

agency, a state agency or the private

sector so long as they stem from a

section 7 consultation regarding

destruction or adverse modification of

the habitat proposed to be designated.

Regional economic (distributional)

impacts represent transfers between

people, groups, or geographic regions,

with no net effect on the national total.

Distributional impacts relate to equity

and fairness considerations and deal
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11775

primarily with how income and wealth

are divided among regions and groups.

Changes in employment, household

income and local or state tax revenues

are frequently used to portray regional

effects.

A Net-Cost With and With-out

Approach

Designation of critical habitat will

often result in both economic gains and

losses. Careful application of a with and

without analytical framework will help

to distinguish between the two. For

example, with critical habitat recreation

such as bird watching may be preserved

that otherwise would have been lost

because of a development project or

continued habitat loss. The national

economic value of the preserved

recreation and the regional jobs and

household income it produces are gains,

or benefits, of designation. Without

critical habitat, an area may have been

used for developed recreational

purposes, but critical habitat

designation would prohibit those uses.

The values and jobs associated with that

now precluded use become a loss

(benefit foregone) due to critical habitat

designation. It is the net effect of these

changes in both the national and

regional accounts that is important.

Describing what probably would have

happened to an area of potential critical

habitat in both the with and without

scenarios, both currently and in the

future, is an important part of the

analysis. The availability of data limits

quantification of the net effects in many

instances.

Baseline for Analysis

As noted earlier, the economic effects

of critical habitat designation are

incremental to those already created by

the Clean Water Act and other statutes,

and by listing the snowy plover as

threatened. Actions taken for those

other purposes establish the baseline for

this analysis. It is the marginal increase

in species protection provided by

designation of critical habitat and the

marginal change in costs, regional

impacts, and benefits that the

designation produces that are relevant

to this analysis.

Data Requirements

The Service has notified Federal

agencies having jurisdiction over the

areas being proposed as critical and

asked them to estimate the effect of

designation on their activities. Each

agency was sent detailed maps and legal

descriptions of the proposed areas and

asked to identify areas for which they

were responsible. They were then asked

to provide detailed descriptions of

activities on those areas that may be

affected by critical habitat designation,

in three situations:

Without Listing: Activities that would

have been taking place in the proposed

area if there had been no listing of the

snowy plover as threatened.

With Listing: Activities that would be

taking place once any existing or

anticipated restrictions to avoid

jeopardy decisions in section 7

consultations were put in place. This

level of activity becomes the baseline for

evaluation of the incremental effect of

critical habitat designation.

With Critical Habitat: Activities

expected to take place once any

anticipated restrictions to avoid adverse

modification decisions in section 7

consultations were put in place. The

difference between this level and the

With-Listing level is the impact

attributable to designating critical

habitat.

Land management agencies were

asked to quantify their responses as

much as possible in terms of days of

beach use, cattle grazing, etc., and to

estimate any change in their operational

costs as a result of listing and of

designating critical habitat. Other

Federal agencies that may be affected by

critical habitat through their regulatory

or funding roles were also sent maps

and legal descriptions of the proposed

critical habitat and were asked if any of

the areas were involved in pending or

anticipated permit or funding actions.

Responses to those requests will form

the empirical basis of the economic

analysis. The Service is also seeking

information about such possible actions

during the public comment period.

The Exclusion Process

This section summarizes the

procedure that will be followed prior to

a final rule in determining whether or

not to exclude an area (or areas) from

designation as critical habitat for the

western snowy plover. The criteria used

to help reach a determination and the

steps followed are described below.

Section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended,

generally defines critical habitat as:

(i) The specific areas within the

geographical area occupied by the species, at

the time it is listed * * * on which are found

those physical or biological features (I)

essential to the conservation of the species

and (II) which may require special

management considerations or protection.

Section 3 further states that in most

cases critical habitat will not encompass

the entire range of the species. The Act

also directs the Secretary to consider

economic and other relevant impacts in

the designation of critical habitat.

Section 4(b)(2) states:

The Secretary shall designate critical

habitat, and make revisions thereto * * * on

the basis of the best scientific data available

and after taking into consideration the

economic impact, and any other relevant

impact, of specifying any particular area as

critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude

any area from critical habitat if he determines

that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh

the benefits of specifying such area as part of

the critical habitat, unless he determines,

based on the best scientific and commercial

data available, that the failure to designate

such area as critical habitat will result in the

extinction of the species concerned.

Exclusion of an area as critical habitat

would only eliminate the protection

provided by the destruction or adverse

modification standard of section 7; it

would not alleviate the need to comply

with other requirements of the Act in

that area, such as section 7 consultation

on jeopardy and section 9 prohibitions

on take. These requirements would

apply regardless of whether or not

critical habitat is designated for a

particular area.

The authority to make determinations

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act has been

delegated to the Director of the Fish and

Wildlife Service. Implementation of

section 4(b)(2) requires three

determinations: (1) The conservation

benefits to the species of including an

area as critical habitat, (2) the economic

and other costs of including an area, and

(3) the cumulative effects of exclusions

on the probability of species extinction.

If the exclusion of an area or areas from

critical habitat would result in species

extinction, then exclusion of the critical

habitat area(s) would not be authorized

under the Act.

The process used to evaluate critical

habitat areas to determine whether the

benefits of exclusion outweigh the

benefits of inclusion as critical habitat

can be summarized in several sequential

steps:

Step 1 Identify areas that meet the

definition of critical habitat in section

3(5) of the Act.

Step 2 Conduct an economic analysis

to determine the anticipated

economic consequences of

designating areas as critical habitat.

Step 3 Identify the applicable

economic, biological, and other

information that need to be

considered to determine whether to

retain, exclude, or modify areas as

critical habitat.

For the western snowy plover, the

Service is proposing specific critical

habitat areas that the Service believes

are essential to the plovers’

conservation. The biological value and
11776 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

roles of each area in providing

conservation benefits to the snowy

plover have been identified in preparing

the proposal. An economic analysis will

be completed which estimates the

potential economic effects of proposing

critical habitat. The steps followed by

the Service in designating critical

habitat and in assessing the potential

economic effects associated with a

designation of the proposed areas will

be fully described in the final rule and

in the economic analysis report.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final

action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as

possible in the conservation of

endangered or threatened species and

the protection of critical habitat.

Therefore, comments or suggestions

from the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, the scientific

community, industry, or any other

interested party concerning this

proposed rule are hereby solicited.

Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Reasons why any habitat (either

existing or additional areas) should or

should not be determined to be critical

habitat as provided by section 4 of the

Act;

(2) Current or planned activities and

their possible impacts on proposed

critical habitat areas;

(3) Any foreseeable economic and

other impacts resulting from the

proposed designation of critical habitat;

(4) Economic values associated with

benefits of designating critical habitat

for the coastal population of the western

snowy plover; and

(5) Information the Service might use,

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in

determining whether the benefits of

excluding an area from critical habitat

outweigh the benefits of specifying the

area as critical habitat.

Any final decision on this proposal

will take into consideration the

comments and any additional

information received by the Service

during the 60-day comment period

following publication of this proposed

rule. The final decision on designation

of critical habitat also will include any

exclusion determinations.

The Endangered Species Act provides

for a public hearing on this proposal, if

requested. Requests must be received

within 45 days of the date of publication

of this proposal in the Federal Register.

Such requests must be made in writing

and should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that an Environmental

Assessment and/or an Environmental

Impact Statement, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. A notice outlining the

Service’s reasons for this determination

was published in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule was reviewed by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866. Based on the

information discussed in this rule

concerning public projects and private

activities within critical habitat areas,

there are no significant economic

impacts resulting from the critical

habitat designation. There are a limited

number of actions on private land that

have Federal involvement through

funds or permits that may be affected by

critical habitat designation. Also, no

direct costs, enforcement costs,

information collection, or recordkeeping

requirements are imposed on small

entities by this designation. Further, the

rule contains no recordkeeping

requirements as defined by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990. This

rule does not require a Federalism

assessment under Executive Order

12612 because it would not have any

significant federalism effects as

described in the order.

References Cited

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. The

A.O.U. checklist of North American

birds. Fifth edition. 168 pp.

Anthony, J.L. 1985. A report on the

distribution, numbers and human

disturbance of snowy plovers at Damon

Point, Washington. Report to the

Washington Department of Game.

Evergreen State College, Washington. 24

pp.

Brittell, J.D., J.M. Brown, and R.L. Eaton.

1976. Marine shoreline fauna of

Washington, Vol. II. Washington

Department of Game and Ecology,

Olympia, Washington. 341 pp.

Hogan, C. 1991. Snowy plover and human

activities at Damon Point, Washington.

May 1 to June 10, 1991. Unpubl. report

to Washington Department Wildlife,

Olympia, Washington. 10 pp.

Jacobs, R.A. 1986. Snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus). Section 4.4.1, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources

Management Manual, Technical Report

EL–86–54, Portland, Oregon. 25 pp.

Josselyn, M. 1983. The ecology of San

Francisco Bay tidal marshes: a

community profile. Prepared for the

National Coastal Ecosystem Team, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell,

Louisiana. 102 pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

1994. Final Draft. Oregon conservation

program for the western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).

Portland, Oregon. 56 pp.

Page, G.W. 1988. Nesting success of snowy

plovers in central coastal California in

1988. Report of the Point Reyes Bird

Observatory, Stinson Beach, California. 7

pp.

lll 1990. Nesting success of snowy

plovers in central coastal California in

1989 and 1990. Report of the Point Reyes

Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach,

California. 13 pp.

Page, G.W., F.C. Bidstrup, R.J. Ramer, and

L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Distribution of

wintering snowy plovers in California

and adjacent states. Western Birds

17(4):145–170.

Page, G.W. and L.E. Stenzel (eds.). 1981. The

breeding status of the snowy plover in

California. Western Birds 12(1):1–40.

Page, G.W., L.E. Stenzel, W.D. Shuford, and

C.R. Bruce. 1991. Distribution and

abundance of the snowy plover on its

western North American breeding

grounds. J. Field Ornithol. 62(2):245–

255.

Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner and

R.M. Halbeisen. 1977. Status of the

snowy plover on the northern California

coast. Part I: Reproductive timing and

success. California Department of Fish

and Game Nongame Wildlife

Investigations, Sacramento, California.

10 pp.

Parker, M.W. and J.E. Takekawa. 1993.

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

predator management plan and final

environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay

National Wildlife Refuge, Newark,

California. 56 pp.

Saul, S.M. 1982. Clam diggers and snowy

plovers. Washington Wildl. 32(1):28–30.

Speth, J.W. 1971. The status of coastal

wetlands in southern California. Paper

presented at annual meeting Western

Section of the Wildlife Society.

Stenzel, L.E., S.C. Peaslee, and G.W. Page.

1981. II. Mainland Coast. Pages 6–16 in

Page, G.W. and L.E. Stenzel, (eds.). The

breeding status of the snowy plover in

California. Western Birds 12(1):1–40.

Stern, M.A., K.A. Kristensen, and J.F.

Morawski. 1988. Investigations of snowy

plovers at Abert Lake, Lake Co., Oregon.

Final Rept. for Oregon Department Fish

and Wildlife Nongame Prog. 12 pp.

Stern, M.A., J.S. McIver, and G.A. Rosenberg.

1990. Investigations of the western

snowy plover at the Coos Bay North Spit

and adjacent sites in Coos and Curry

Counties, Oregon, 1990. Report to

Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife

Nongame Program 33 pp.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11777

Stern, M.A., J.S. McIver, and G.A. Rosenberg.

1991. Nesting and reproductive success

of snowy plovers along the south Oregon

coast 1991. Report to Oregon Department

Fish and Wildlife Nongame Prog. 19 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Salt

marsh harvest mouse and California

clapper rail recovery plan. Portland,

Oregon. 141 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Lightfooted clapper rail recovery plan.

Portland, Oregon. 121 pp.

Warriner, J.S., J.C. Warriner, G.W. Page, and

L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Mating system and

reproductive success of a small

population of polygamous snowy

plovers. Wilson Bull. 98(1):15–37.

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993.

Washington State recovery plan for the

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus).

Draft. 76 pp.

Widrig, R.S. 1980. Snowy plovers at

Leadbetter Point. An opportunity for

wildlife management? Prepared for the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Willapa

National Wildlife Refuge, Ilwaco,

Washington. 14 pp.

Wiedemann, A.M. 1987. The ecology of

European beachgrass (Ammophila

arenaria (L.) Link). A review of the

literature. Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife Nongame Wildlife Program

Technical Report #87–1–01. 18 pp.

Wilson, R.A. 1980. Snowy plover nesting

ecology on the Oregon coast. M.S.

Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis,

Oregon. 41 pp.

Wilson-Jacobs, R. and G.L. Dorsey. 1985.

Snowy plover use of Coos Bay north spit,

Oregon. Murrelet 66(3):75–81.

Wilson-Jacobs, R. and E.C. Meslow. 1984.

Distribution, abundance, and nesting

characteristics of snowy plovers on the

Oregon coast. Northwest Science

58(1):40–48.

Woolington, M.C. 1985. A preliminary

investigation of the effect of recreational

use on nesting snowy plovers at Sutton

and Siltcoos beach areas, Oregon. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Nongame Program. 37 pp.

Author: The primary author of this

proposed rule is Karen J. Miller, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E–1803,

Sacramento, California 95825–1846 (916/

979–2725).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to

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 USC 1361–1407; 16 USC

1531–1544; 16 USC 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

§ 17.11 [Amended]

2. It is proposed to amend § 17.11(h)

by revising the ‘‘critical habitat’’ entry

for ‘‘Plover, western snowy’’, under

BIRDS, to read 17.95(b).

3. It is proposed to amend § 17.95(b)

by adding, in the same alphabetical

order as the species occurs in § 17.11(h),

critical habitat of the Pacific coast

population of the western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) to

read as follows.

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

* * * * *

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus)

Washington. Areas of land and water as

follows:

WA–1. Damon Point, Grays Harbor County

(Index Map 1)

Beginning at 46°55′55′′ N, 124°09′07′′ W,

thence northwesterly following the property

line of the Oyhut Wildlife Recreation Area to

46°55′58′′ N, 124°09′14′′ W, thence

northwesterly to 46°56′12′′ N, 124°09′16′′ W,

thence northeasterly to 46°56′27′′ N,

124°09′11′′ W, thence northeasterly to

46°56′52′′ N, 124°08′02′′ W, thence east to

MLW, thence southeasterly, southerly, and

southwesterly following MLW around

Damon Point to a point directly east of the

point of beginning, thence west to the point

of beginning. (Point Brown and Westport

USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1983)
11778 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

WA–2. Leadbetter Point, Pacific County

(Index Map 1)

Beginning at 46°36′22′′ N, 124°03′51′′ W,

thence northeasterly to 46°37′38′′ N,

124°03′55′′ W, thence northeasterly to

46°38′30′′ N, 124°03′01′′ W, thence

southeasterly to 46°37′58′′ N, 124°02′05′′ W,

thence southwesterly to 46°37′48′′ N,

124°02′20′′ W, thence south to MLW, thence

northeasterly around the north end of

Leadbetter Point, thence southerly following

MLW to a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. Excludes all U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service property. (North Cove and

Oysterville USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1984)

Oregon. Areas of land and water as follows:

OR–1. Bayocean Spit, Tillamook County

(Index Map 1)

Beginning at 45°33′57′′N, 123°56′50′′W,

thence north to MLW, thence southeasterly

following MLW to 45°33′42′′N, 123°56′21′′W,

thence southerly to 45°33′28′′N,

123°56′18′′W, thence southwesterly to

45°33′12′′N, 123°56′45′′W, thence southerly

following the easterly edge of the sand

depicted on the topographic map as a dashed

line to 45°32′28′′N, 123°56′54′′W, thence

southerly to 45°32′23′′N, 123°56′56′′W,

thence southerly following the easterly edge

of the sand depicted on the topographic map

as a dashed line to 45°30′21′′N, 123°57′21′′W,

thence west to MLW, thence northerly

following MLW to the toe of the South Jetty,

thence directly west to the point of

beginning. (Garibaldi USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1985)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11779

OR–2. Heceta Head to Siuslaw River, Lane

County (Index Map 1)

Beginning at 44°06′15′′N, 124°07′20′′W,

thence southerly to 44°05′51′′N,

124°07′18′′W, thence southerly to

44°05′15′′N, 124°07′26′′W, thence southerly

to 44°04′10′′N, 124°07′35′′W, thence

southeasterly to 44°04′03′′N, 124°07′23′′W,

thence southerly following the east edge of

the sand depicted on the topographic map as

a dashed line to 44°02′50′′N, 124°07′53′′W,

thence westerly to 44°02′50′′N, 124°07′57′′W,

thence southerly to 44°01′08′′N,

124°08′19′′W, thence westerly following the

northerly toe of the North Jetty to MLW,

thence northerly following MLW to a point

directly west of the point of beginning,

thence east to the point of beginning. (Mercer

Lake USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1984)
11780 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

OR–3. Siuslaw River to Siltcoos River, Lane

County (Index Map 1)

Beginning at 44°00′59′′N, 124°08′15′′W,

thence easterly following the toe of the South

Jetty to 44°00′54′′N, 124°08′01′′W, thence

southwesterly to 44°00′49′′N, 124°08′06′′W,

thence southerly to 44°00′00′′N,

124°08′06′′W, thence southerly following 25

ft. east of road to 43°57′23′′N, 124°08′27′′W,

thence southerly to 43°52′55′′N,

124°09°10′′W, thence southeasterly to

43°52′46′′N, 124°08′58′′W, thence southerly

to 43°52′38′′N, 124°08′58′′W, thence west to

MLW, thence southerly and westerly

following MLW around the southern end of

the spit, thence northerly following MLW to

a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. (Mercer Lake, Goose Pasture, and

Tahkenitch Creek USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1984)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11781

OR–4. Siltcoos River to Threemile Creek,

Lane and Douglas County (Index Map 1)

Beginning at 43°52′29′′N, 124°08′55′′W,

thence southwesterly to 43°52′13′′N,

124°09′11′′W, thence westerly to 43°52′12′′N,

124°09′18′′W, thence southerly to

43°49′02′′N, 124°09′52′′W, thence east to

43°49′02′′N, 124°09′43′′W, thence southerly

to 43°47′08′′N, 124°10′04′′W, thence

southwesterly to 43°47′00′′N, 124°10′16N′W,

thence southerly to 43°45′00′′N,

124°10′42′′W, thence west to MLW, thence

northerly following MLW to a point directly

north of the point of beginning, thence south

to the point of beginning. (Goose Pasture and

Tahkenitch Creek USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1984)
11782 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

OR–5. Umpqua River to Horsfall Beach,

Douglas and Coos County (Index Map 1)

Beginning at 43°3951 N, 124°1225 W,

thence southerly to 43°3936 N, 124°1225 W,

thence southerly to 43°3840 N, 124°1229 W,

thence southerly following 25 ft. east of road

to 43°3730 N, 124°1246 W, thence

southwesterly to 43°3439 N, 124°1334 W,

thence southwesterly to 43°3400 N, 124°1346

W, thence easterly to 43°3358 N, 124°1326

W, thence southwesterly to 43°3329 N,

124°1337 W, thence westerly to 43° 3326 N,

124°1353 W, thence southwesterly following

20 ft. contour to 43°3000 N, 124°1516 W,

thence southwesterly to 43°2708 N, 124°1636

W, thence west to MLW, thence northeasterly

following MLW to the southern toe of South

Jetty, thence northeast to the point of

beginning. (Winchester Bay and Lakeside

USGS 7.5 Quads 1985, and Empire USGS

7.5’’ Quad 1970)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11783

OR–6. Horsfall Beach to Coos Bay, Coos

County (Index Map 1)

Unit 1

Beginning at 43°2708 N, 124°1636 W,

thence southwesterly following 20 ft. contour

to 43°2534 N, 124°1727 W, thence

southwesterly following 20 ft. contour to

43°2223 N, 124°1925 W, thence east to MLW,

thence southerly and westerly following

MLW around the southern tip of the north

spit, thence northeasterly following MLW to

a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. (Empire and Charleston USGS

7.5’’ Quads 1970)

Unit 2

Beginning at 43°2502 N, 124°1612 W,

thence southeasterly to 43°2451 N, 124°1618

W, thence east to MLW, thence southerly

following MLW to a point directly east of

43°2444 N, 124°1618 W, thence west to said

point, thence westerly to 43°2444 N,

124°1701 W, thence northeasterly to 43°24 57

N, 124°1700 W, thence northwesterly to

43°2454 N, 124°1704 W, thence northeasterly

to the point of beginning. (Empire USGS 7.5’’

Quad 1970)

Unit 3

Beginning at 43°2105 N, 124°2026 W,

thence southwesterly to 43°2039 N, 124°2054

W, thence southwesterly to 43°2121 N,

124°2121 W, thence north to MLW, thence

northeasterly following MLW to the southern

toe of the South Jetty, thence easterly

following the toe of the South Jetty to the

point of beginning. (Charleston USGS 7.5’’

Quad 1970)
11784 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

OR–7. Bandon Park to Floras Lake, Coos and

Curry Counties (Index Map 1)

Beginning at 43°04′14′′N, 124°26′01′′W,

thence southerly to 43°03′22′′N,

124°26′10′′W, thence southerly to

43°02′42′′N, 124°26′16′′W, thence southerly

to 43°01′42′′N, 124°26′26′′W, thence

southwesterly to 43°00′56′′N, 124°26′58′′W,

thence southwesterly to 43°00′00′′N,

124°27′17′′W, thence southerly to

42°59′27′′N, 124°27′25′′W, thence

southwesterly to 42°57′16′′N, 124°28′24′′W,

thence southwesterly to 42°55′52′′N,

124°29′09′′W, thence southwesterly to

42°54′48′′N, 124°30′00′′W, thence

southwesterly to 42°54′10′′N, 124°30′22′′W,

thence southwesterly to 42°53′42′′N,

124°30′49′′W, thence west to MLW, thence

northeasterly following MLW to a point

directly west of the point of beginning,

thence east to the point of beginning. (Floras

Lake and Langlois USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1986,

and Bandon USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1970)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11785
11786 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

California. Areas of land and water as

follows:

CA–1. Humboldt Coast Lagoon Beaches,

Humboldt County (Index Map 2)

Unit 1—Stone Lagoon

Beginning at 41°15′33′′N, 124°05′54′′W,

thence south and east following the west side

of the access road to Dry Lagoon State Park

to 41°15′29′′N, 124°05′49′′W, thence

southwesterly following the high water line

of Stone Lagoon to 41°14′42′′N, 124°06′08′′W,

thence southwesterly to 41°14′40′′N,

124°06′10′′W, thence southwesterly

following the 40-foot contour line to

41°14′14′′N, 124°06′21′′W, thence west to

MLW, thence northeasterly following MLW

to a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. (Orick and Rodgers Peak USGS

7.5′′ Quads 1966)

E:\GRAPHICS\EP02MR95.011

Unit 2—Big Lagoon

Beginning at 41°13′00′′N, 124°06′39′′W,

thence southerly following the 40-foot

contour line to 41°12′47′′N, 124°06′40′′W,

thence southerly following the Big Lagoon

State Park property line to 41°12′39′′N,

124°06′40′′′W, thence northwesterly and

southwesterly following the high water line

of Big Lagoon to 41°09′54′′N, 124°07′49′′W,

thence southwesterly following the Big

Lagoon State Park property line to

41°09′49′′N, 124°08′00′′W, thence west to

MLW, thence northeasterly following MLW

to a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. (Rodgers Peak USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1966 and Trinidad USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1978)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11787

CA–2. Eel River Beaches, Humboldt County

(Index Map 2)

Unit 1—Eel River North

Beginning at 40°41′51′′N, 124°16′27′′W,

thence southwesterly to 40°40′11′′N,

124°17′30′′W, thence south to MLW, thence

southerly following MLW around the south

end of the split, thence north following MLW

to a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. (Cannibal Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1972)
11788 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Unit 2—Eel River South

Beginning at 40°34′29′′N, 124°21′01′′W,

thence west to MLW, thence northeasterly

following MLW to a point directly west of

40°38′28′′N, 124°18′42′′W, thence east to said

point, thence east to MHW of the left bank

of the Eel and Salt Rivers, thence

southwesterly following MHW of the left

bank of the Salt River to 40°37′54′′N,

124°18′52′′W, thence southerly to

40°37′38′′N, 124°18′53′′W, thence

southwesterly to 40°37′14′′N, 124°19′25′′W,

thence southwesterly to 40°36′44′′N,

124°19′36′′W, thence southwesterly to

40°34′29′′N, 124°20′56′′W, thence westerly to

the point of beginning. (Cannibal Island and

Ferndale USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1972)

CA–3. Bodega Bay, Sonoma County (Index

Map 2)

Unit 1—Bodega Harbor

Beginning at 38°18′51′′N, 123°03′02′′W, at

MHW on Doran Spit, thence north to

38°19′30′′N, 123°03′02′′W, thence east to

38°19′30′′N, 123°02′38′′W, thence

southeasterly to 38°19′22′′N, 123°02′26′′W,

thence southerly to 38°19′13′′N,

123°02′20′′W, on the MHW line of Bodega

Harbor, thence southerly and westerly

following MHW to the point of beginning.

(Bodega Head USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1972)

Unit 2—Doran Beach

Beginning at 38°18′22′′ N, 123°03′09′′W, at

the west end of the North Jetty, thence east

to MLW, thence northerly and easterly

following MLW to a point directly south of

38°18′44′′N, 123°01′36′′W, thence north to

said point, thence northwesterly to

38°18′52′′N, 123°02′07′′W, thence westerly to

38°18′51′′N, 123°02′34′′W, thence

southwesterly to 38°18′42′′N, 123°03′01′′W,

thence southwesterly to 38°18′34′′N,

123°03′08′′W, thence southerly to the point

of beginning. (Bodega Head USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1972)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11789

CA–4. Dillon Beach, Marin County (Index

Map 2)

Beginning at 38°14′57′′N, 122°57′58′′W,

thence southerly to 38°14′31′′N,

122°58′01′′W, thence southwesterly to

38°13′57′′N, 122°58′15′′W, thence

southeasterly to 38°13′21′′N, 122°58′12′′W,

thence south to MLW, thence northwesterly

and northerly to a point directly west of the

point of beginning, thence east to the point

of beginning. (Tomales USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1971)

CA–5. Half Moon Bay Beaches, San Mateo

County (Index Map 3)

Beginning at 37°28′57′′N, 122°27′06′′W,

thence southeasterly to 37°28′26′′N,

122°26′45′′W, thence southwesterly to

37°28′24′′N, 122°26′47′′W, thence southerly

following the 20-foot contour line to

37°27′49′′N, 122°26′40′′W, thence west to

MLW, thence northwesterly following MLW

to a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of

beginning. (Half Moon Bay USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1973)
11790 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CA–6. Santa Cruz Coast Beaches, Santa Cruz

County (Index Map 3)

Unit 1—Waddell Creek Beach

Beginning at 37°05′35′′N, 122°16′32′′W,

thence west to MLW, thence northwesterly

following MLW to a point west of

37°05′52′′N, 122°16′32′′W, thence east to said

point, thence southeasterly to MHW line of

Waddell Creek 37°05′41′′N, 122°16′34′′W,

thence south to point of beginning. (Ano

Nuevo USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1968)

Unit 2—Scott Creek Beach

Beginning at 37°02′33′′N, 122°13′53′′W,

located at northwest end of beach, thence

southeasterly to 37°02′22′′N, 122°13′36′′W,

located west of Highway 1 and excluding the

existing Highway 1 ROW, thence south to

37°01′58′′N, 122°13′34′′W, located at south

end of beach on 60 foot contour line, thence

west to MLW, thence northwesterly

following MLW to a point directly west of

point of beginning, thence east to point of

beginning. (Davenport USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1968)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11791

Unit 3—Laguna Creek Beach

Beginning at 36°59′04′′N, 122°09′26′′W,

located at northwest end of beach on 20 foot

contour line, thence east following 20 foot

contour line to 36°59′03′′N, 122°09′14′′W,

located at Laguna Creek at a point 800 feet

south of Highway 1, thence south to MLW,

thence northwesterly following MLW to a

point directly south of point of beginning,

thence north to point of beginning. (Santa

Cruz USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1981)

Unit 4—Wilder Creek Beach

Beginning at 36°57′17′′N, 122°04′43′′W,

located at northwest end of upper beach on

40 foot contour line, thence southwesterly to

36°57′16′′N, 122°04′29′′W, located at

northeast end of upper beach east of 40 foot

contour line, thence south to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to 40 foot

contour line at west end of beach, thence

north following 40 foot contour line to point

of beginning. (Santa Cruz USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1981)
11792 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CA–7. Monterey Bay Beaches, Santa Cruz

and Monterey Counties (Index Map 3)

Unit 1—Sunset Beach

Beginning at 36°54′38′′N, 121°50′50′′W,

located west of Zils Road, thence

southeasterly to 36°51′25′′N, 121°48′13′′W,

thence east along north bank of Pajaro River

to 36°51′27′′N, 121°48′30′′W, located south of

mouth of Watson Slough, thence south to

MLW, thence southerly following MLW

around south end of beach, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point west

of point of beginning, thence east to point of

beginning. (Watsonville West and Moss

Landing USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1980)

Unit 2—Mudowski Beach

Beginning at 36°49′′25′′ N, 121°48′21′′ W,

thence southerly to 36°50′58′′ N, 121°48′15′′

W, located north of the 10 foot contour line

and west of Jensen Road, thence

southwesterly to 36°51′11′′ N, 121°48′20′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 36°50′43′′ N,

121°47′15′′ W, located east of seawall, thence

south to MLW, thence southwesterly

following MLW around south end of beach,

thence northwesterly following MLW to

north end of beach, thence northeasterly

following MLW around north end of beach to

a point north of point of beginning, thence

south to point of beginning. (Moss Landing

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1980)

Unit 3—Elkhorn Slough Mud Flat/Salt Pond

Beginning at north bank of Elkhorn Slough

36°48′49′′ N, 121°46′12′′ W, thence west

following south perimeter of mud flat and

salt pond to 36°48′50′′ N, 121°47′02′′ W,

which excludes the existing Highway 1

ROW, thence north following west perimeter

of the salt pond, thence east following

northern perimeter of salt pond to west

perimeter of mud flat, thence north following

west perimeter of mud flat to 36°49′14′′ N,

121°46′55′′ W, located on south shore of

Bennett Slough, thence northeasterly

following south bank of Bennett Slough to

36°49′24′′ N, 121°46′22′′ W, located at the

northern most point of mud flat, thence

southeasterly following the east perimeter of

the mud flat to 36°49′12′′ N, 121°46′12′′ W,

thence easterly following the perimeter of the

mud flat to 36°49′59′′ N, 121°45′59′′ W,

thence south following east perimeter of mud

flat to 36°49′04′′ N, 121°45′58′′ W, thence
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11793

southwesterly along northern shore of

Elkhorn Slough to point of beginning. (Moss

Landing USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1980)

Unit 4—Salinas River Beach

Beginning at 36°48′01′′ N, 121°47′18′′ W,

located south of boat launch, thence

southerly to 36°46′31′′ N, 121°47′40′′ W,

thence southerly to 36°45′00′′ N, 121°48′04′′

W, located on north bank of Salinas River,

thence southeasterly following north bank of

Salinas River to 36°44′16′′ N, 121°47′20′′ W,

thence southwesterly across Salinas River to

36°44′10′′ N, 121°47′28′′ W, located on south

bank, thence northwesterly following south

bank of Salinas River to 36°44′41′′ N,

121°48′02′′ W, thence westerly to 36°44′49′′

N, 121°48′12′′ W, thence south to 36°44′54′′

N, 121°48′12′′ W, located at northern most

point of a large pond, thence southeasterly

following north shore of pond to 36°44′44′′

N, 121°47′53′′ W, thence southwesterly to

36°44′34′′ N, 121°48′13′′ W, thence southerly

to 36°42′59′′ N, 121°48′17′′ W, thence

southerly to 36°41′45′′ N, 121°48′49′′ W,

thence southerly to 36°39′45′′ N, 121°49′17′′

W, thence west to MLW, thence northerly

following MLW to a point west of point of

beginning, thence east to point of beginning.

Excludes all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

property. (Moss Landing USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1980 and Marina USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1983)
11794 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Unit 5—Fort Ord/Seaside Beaches

Beginning at 36°39′44′′N, 121°49′17′′W,

located west of beach parking lot, thence

southerly following upper beach where it

meets toe of bluffs to 36°38′33′′N,

121°49′54′′W, thence southerly following

upper beach where it meets toe of bluffs to

36°36′58′′N, 121°51′00′′W, thence continue

southwesterly following upper portion of

beach where it meets toe of bluffs and sand

dunes to 36°36′06′′N, 121°52′15′′W, thence

west to 36°36′06′′N, 121°52′30′′W, thence

north to MLW, thence northeasterly

following MLW to a point west of point of

beginning, thence east to point of beginning.

(Marina USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1983 and Seaside

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1968)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11795

CA–8. Point Sur Beach, Monterey County

(Index Map 3)

Beginning at 36°19′11′′N, 121°53′39′′W,

located at north end of beach, thence south

to 36°18′31′′N, 121°53′32′′W, located north of

Lighthouse Road, thence southwesterly

following a line north of Lighthouse Road to

36°18′37′′N, 121°53′46′′W, thence west to

MLW, thence northeasterly following MLW

to a point west of point of beginning, thence

east to point of beginning. (Point Sur USGS

7.5′′ Quad 1983)

CA–9. Arroyo Hondo Creek Beach, San Luis

Obispo County (Index Map 3)

Beginning at 35°45′23′′N, 121°19′02′′W,

thence southerly following the 20-foot

contour line to 35°45′00′′N, 121°18′52′′W,

thence southeasterly to 35°44′54′′N,

121°18′55′′W, thence west to MLW, thence

northerly following MLW to a point directly

west of the point of beginning, thence east to

the point of beginning. (Burro Mountain

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1972 and Piedras Blancas

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1959)
11796 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CA–10. Arroyo Laguna Creek Beach, San

Luis Obispo County (Index Map 3)

Beginning at 35°39′08′′N, 121°13′15′′W,

located south of Highway 1 and excluding

the existing Highway 1 ROW, thence

southeasterly to 35°39′05′′N, 121°13′17′′W,

thence south to MLW, thence westerly

following MLW to a point south of point of

beginning, thence north to point of

beginning. (San Simeon USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1958)

CA–11. Morro Bay Beaches, San Luis Obispo

County (Index Map 3)

Unit 1—Toro Creek

Beginning at 35°24′57′′ N, 120°52′27′′ W,

located west of Highway 1 and excluding the

existing Highway 1 ROW, thence southerly

along a line west of Highway 1, excluding the

existing Highway 1 ROW, to 35°24′30′′N,

120°52′14′′W, thence west to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point west

of point of beginning, thence east to point of

beginning. (Morro Bay North USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1965)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11797

Unit 2—Atascadero Beach

Beginning at 35°24′13′′N, 120°52′02′′W,

located west of Beachcomber Drive, thence

southeasterly along upper beach to

35°23′38′′N, 120°51′48′′W, located west of

Sandalwood Avenue, thence south to

35°23′24′′N, 120°51′39′′W, thence south to

35°22′22′′N, 120°51′31′′W, located at the

southwest end of powerplant, thence west to

MLW, thence northerly following MLW to a

point west of point of beginning, thence east

to point of beginning. (Morro Bay North and

Morro Bay South USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1965)

Unit 3—Morro Bay Beach

Beginning at 35°17′28′′N, 120°52′46′′W,

located at south end of beach, thence west to

MLW, thence northeasterly following MLW

to breakwater, thence from breakwater

following MLW clockwise around northern

end of peninsula to a point east of

35°21′28′′N, 120°51′28′′W, thence west to

said point, thence southwesterly to

35°19′54′′N, 120°51′38′′W, thence

southwesterly to 35°18′38′′N, 120°52′06′′W,

thence southwesterly to point of beginning.

(Morro Bay South USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1978)
11798 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CA–12. Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes, San

Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties

(Index Map 3)

Beginning at 34°53′02′′N, 120°39′40′′W,

located northeast of Mussel Point, thence

west to MLW, thence northerly following

MLW to a point west of 35°06′06′′N,

120°37′45′′W, thence east to said point,

thence southeasterly to 35°06′01′′N,

120°37′40′′W, located on north bank of

Arroyo Grande Creek, thence easterly

following north bank of Arroyo Grande Creek

to 35°05′58′′N, 120°37′19′′W, thence

southerly across Arroyo Grande Creek to

35°05′56′′N, 120°37′18′′W, thence westerly to

35°05′58′′N, 120°37′38′′W, thence

southeasterly to 35°05′27′′N, 120°37′32′′W,

thence southerly to 35°04′27′′N,

120°37′30′′W, thence southwesterly to

35°02′32′′N, 120°37′35′′W, thence south to

35°01′42′′N, 120°37′35′′W, thence

southwesterly to 34°58′53′′N, 120°39′02′′W,

thence southeasterly across Guadalupe oil

field to 34°58′10′′N, 120°38′27′′W, located at

east end of a pond north of Santa Maria

River, thence southwesterly to a point on 40-

foot contour line 34°57′45′′N, 120°38′59′′W,

located south of the Santa Maria River,

thence southwesterly along the 40-foot

contour line to point of beginning. (Oceano

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1979 and Point Sal USGS

7.5′′ Quad 1974)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11799

CA–13. Point Sal to Point Conception

Beaches, Santa Barbara County (Index Map

3)

Unit 1—Vandenberg Beach

Beginning at 35°51′41′′N, 120°36′36′′W,

located on 40-foot contour line, thence

southerly along 40-foot contour line to

34°45′22′′N, 120°37′50′′W, located southeast

of Purisma Point, thence south to MLW,

thence northwesterly following MLW around

Purisma Point, thence north following MLW

to a point west of point of beginning, thence

east to point of beginning. (Casmalia USGS

7.5′′ Quad 1982)
11800 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Unit 2—Santa Ynez River Mouth/Ocean

Beach

Beginning at 34°42′16′′N, 120°35′54′′W,

located west of beach access road, thence

southeasterly to 34°41′56′′N, 120°35′45′′W,

located west of railroad tracks, thence

southwesterly to 34°41′35′′N, 120°35′55′′W,

located on north bank of Santa Ynez River,

thence northeasterly to 34°41′41′′N,

120°35′43′′W, thence southeasterly along

north bank of Santa Ynez River to

34°41′24′′N, 120°35′05′′W, located at end of

Gravel Pit Road, thence southwesterly to

34°41′18′′N, 120°35′13′′W, located on south

bank of Santa Ynez River, thence west across

railroad tracks to 34°41′27′′N, 120°35′58′′W,

located on 40-foot contour line, thence

southwesterly along 40-foot contour line to

34°37′28′′N, 120°37′16′′W, located 400 feet

west of railroad tracks, thence west to MLW,

thence northeasterly following MLW to a

point west of point of beginning, thence east

to point of beginning. (Surf USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1974)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11801

Unit 3—Jalama Beach

Beginning at 34° 30′ 48′′ N, 120° 30′ 12′′

W, thence southeasterly to 34° 30′ 44′′ N,

120° 30′ 04′′ W, located at northern end of

Jalama Beach Lagoon, thence southeasterly to

34° 30′ 23′′ N, 120° 29′ 55′′ W, thence

southeasterly to 34° 29′ 53′′ N, 120° 29′ 44′′

W, thence southeasterly to 34° 29′ 43′′ N,

120° 29′ 42′′ W, thence west to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point west

of point of beginning, thence east to point of

beginning. (Tranquillon Mountain USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1959, Lompoc Hills USGS 7.5’’ Quad

1971, and Point Conception USGS 7.5’’ Quad

1974)
11802 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CA–14. Santa Barbara Coast Beaches, Santa

Barbara County (Index Map 3)

Unit 1—Devereaux Beach

Beginning at 34° 25′ 13′′ N, 119° 53′ 31′′

W, located on 20 foot contour line, thence

southeasterly following 20-foot contour line,

thence northeasterly around Coal Oil Point to

34° 24′ 33′′ N, 119° 51′ 57′′ W, located on 20

foot contour line, thence south to MLW,

thence westerly following MLW,

southwesterly around Coal Oil Point, thence

northwesterly to a point south of point of

beginning, thence north to point of

beginning. (Dos Pueblos Canyon and Goleta

USGS 7.5’’ 3 Quad 1988)

Unit 2—Point Castillo/ Santa Barbara Harbor

Beach

Point Castillo

Beginning (breakwater and sandspit) at

34°24′17′′ N, 119°41′13′′ W, located at

Beacon, thence south to MLW, thence

southwesterly following MLW on outside of

breakwater to Point Castillo, thence

northeasterly following MLW inside of

breakwater to southwest end of sandspit,

thence circle sandspit clockwise following

MLW to a point south of point of beginning,

thence north to point of beginning. (Santa

Barbara USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1967)

Santa Barbara Harbor Beach

Beginning at 34°24′16′′ N, 119°41′37′′ W,

located at southwest end of beach, thence

northeasterly following a line south of

Cabrillo Blvd. to 34°22′09′′ N, 119°38′22′′ W,

located on west side of Stearns Wharf, thence

northeasterly to 34°24′54′′ N, 119°40′52′′ W,

thence easterly following a line just south of

Cabrillo Blvd. to 34°25′03′′ N, 119°39′50′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 34°25′00′′ N,

119°38′01′′ W, thence south to MLW, thence

southwesterly following MLW to a point east

of point of beginning, thence west to point

of beginning. (Santa Barbara USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1967)

Unit 3—Carpinteria Beach

Beginning at 34°23′38′′ N, 119°31′26′′ W,

located at end of Linden St. on northwest end

of beach, thence southeasterly to 34°23′22′′

N, 119°31′02′′ W, located at southeast end of

the beach, thence south to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point

south of point of beginning, thence north to

point of beginning. (Carpinteria USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1988)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11803

CA–15. Oxnard Lowlands, Ventura County

(Index Map 4)

Unit 1—San Buena/Ventura Beach

Beginning 34°16′33′′ N, 119°17′38′′ W,

which is located at northwest end of beach,

thence east to 34°16′51′′ N, 119°17′24′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 34°16′40′′ N,

119°17′03′′ W, thence southeasterly to

34°16′15′′ N, 119°16′33′′ W, thence

southeasterly to 34°15′40′′ N, 119°16′16′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 34°15′02′′ N,

119°15′52′′ W, thence west to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point

south of point of beginning, thence north to

point of beginning. (Ventura USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1967)
11804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Unit 2—Mandalay Beach/Santa Clara River

Mouth

Beginning at 34°14′28′′ N, 119°16′12′′ W,

located at the north end of beach, thence

southeasterly to 34°14′10′′ N, 119°15′30′′ W,

located on north bank of Santa Clara River,

thence east to 34°14′09′′ N, 119°15′57′′ W,

thence south to 34°14′09′′ N, 119°13′57′′ W,

thence west following south bank of Santa

Clara River to 34°14′01′′ N, 119°15′30′′ W,

thence southwesterly to 34°13′53′′ N,

119°15′40′′ W, located on 15-foot contour

line, thence southeasterly to 34°12′58′′ N,

119°15′15′′ W, located on north end of

McGrath Lake, thence southeasterly

following 15-foot contour line to 34°09′30′′

N, 119°13′28′′ W, located on north side of

boat ramp, thence west to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point west

of point of beginning, thence east to point of

beginning. (Oxnard USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1967)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11805

Unit 3—Ormond Beach

Beginning at 34°08′40′′ N, 119°11′58′′ W,

located east of road to jetty, thence

southeasterly to 34°08′49′′ N, 119°11′58′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 34°07′48′′ N,

119°10′15′′ W, located at northwest end of

wetlands, thence southeasterly to 34°07′22′′

N, 119°09′19′′ W, located on west side of

Arnold Road, thence southwest along Arnold

Road to 34°07′10′′ N, 119°09′32′′ W, located

at end of Arnold Road, thence west to MLW,

thence northwesterly following MLW to a

point south of point of beginning, thence

north to point of beginning. (Oxnard and

Point Mugu USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1967)
11806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Unit 4—Mugu Lagoon Beach

Beginning at 34°07′15′′ N, 119°09′28′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 34°06′45′′ N,

119°08′44′′ W, thence southwesterly to

34°06′42′′ N, 119°08′47′′ W, thence

southeasterly to 34°06′31′′ N, 119°08′32′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 34°06′20′′ N,

119°08′10′′ W, thence southeasterly following

10-foot contour line to 34°06′03′′ N,

119°05′44′′ W, thence east following the

HWL of Mugu Lagoon and crossing the

mouth of said lagoon to 34°05′34′′ N,

119°04′13′′ W, thence southeasterly to

34°05′28′′ N, 119°04′08′′ W, located on 10

foot contour line, thence southeasterly

following 10 foot contour line to 34°05′10′′ N,

119°03′38′′ W, located on west side of Point

Mugu, thence west to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW, but excluding

the mouth of Mugu Lagoon, to a point south

of point of beginning, thence north to point

of beginning. (Point Mugu USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1967)

CA–16. San Nicolas Island Beaches, Ventura

County (Index Map 4)

Unit SN–1

Beginning at 33°14′02′′ N, 119°26′12′′ W,

thence east to MLW, thence southeasterly

and southwesterly following MLW around

east end of Island to a point east of 33°13′27′′

N, 119°26′11′′ W, thence west to said point,

thence north following 25-foot contour line

to point of beginning. (San Nicolas Island

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–2

Beginning at 33°12′59′′ N, 119°28′33′′ W,

located south of Island Road, thence easterly

to 33°12′57′′ N, 119°27′59′′ W, thence easterly

to 33°13′02′′ N, 119°27′17′′ W, thence easterly

to 33°13′10′′ N, 119°26′55′′ W, thence south

to MLW, thence west following MLW to a

point south of point of beginning, thence

north to point of beginning. (San Nicolas

Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–3

Beginning at 33°13′12′′ N, 119°29′36′′ W,

located south of Island Road, thence easterly

to 33°13′ 11′′ N, 119°29′09′′ W, thence

easterly to 33°13′02′′ N, 119°28′39′′ W, thence

south to MLW, thence west following MLW

to a point south of point of beginning, thence

north to point of beginning. (San Nicolas

Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–4

Beginning at 33°13′18′′ N, 119° 30’ 05’’ W,

thence southeasterly to 33°13′ 10′′ N,

119°29′48′′ W, thence west to MLW, thence

northwesterly to a point south of point of

beginning, thence north to point of

beginning. (San Nicolas Island USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1956)

Unit SN–5

Beginning at 33°13′24′′ N, 119°30′25′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 33°13′17′′ N,

119°30′09′′ W, thence south to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point

south of point of beginning, thence north to

point of beginning. (San Nicolas Island USGS

7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–6

Beginning at 33°13′47′′ N, 119°31′12′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 33°13′ 36′′ N,

119°0′55′′ W, thence south to MLW, thence

northwesterly following MLW to a point

south of point of beginning, thence north to

point of beginning. (San Nicolas Island USGS

7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–7

Beginning at 33°14′10′′ N, 119°32′49′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 33°14′07′′ N,

119°32′41′′ W, thence southeasterly to

33°14′00′′ N, 119°32′38′′ W, thence south to

MLW, thence northwesterly following MLW

to a point south of point of beginning, thence

north to point of beginning. (San Nicolas

Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–8

Beach within circle with a radius of 250

feet with center at 33°14′40′′ N, 119°33′29′′

W. (San Nicolas Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad

1956)

Unit SN–9

Beginning at 33°16′22′′ N, 119°33′11′′ W,

thence southwesterly to 33°16′17′′ N,

119°33′22′′ W, thence southwesterly to

33°16′13′′ N, 119°33′43′′ W, thence north to

MLW, thence northeasterly following MLW

to a point north of point of beginning, thence
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11807

south to point of beginning. (San Nicolas

Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–10

Beginning at 33°17′01′′ N, 119°31′58′′ W,

thence southwesterly to 33°16′51′′ N,

119°32′08′′ W, thence southwesterly to

33°16′47′′ N, 119°32′21′′ W, thence north to

MLW, thence northeasterly following MLW

to a point west of point of beginning, thence

east to point of beginning. (San Nicolas

Island USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1956)

Unit SN–11

Beginning at 33°15′31′′ N, 119°27′52′′ W,

thence westerly to 33°15′32′′ N, 119°28′11′′

W, thence westerly to 33°15′46′′ N,

119°28′55′′ W, thence northwesterly to

33°15′59′′ N, 119°29′10′′ W, thence

southwesterly to 33°15′54′′ N, 119°29′34′′ W,

thence northwesterly to 33°15′58′′ N,

119°29′52′′ W, thence north to MLW, thence

easterly following MLW to a point north of

point of beginning, thence south to point of

beginning. (San Nicolas Island USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1956)

Unit SN–12

Beginning at 33°14′25′′ N, 119°26′35′′ W,

thence northwesterly to 33°14′40′′ N,

119°26′49′′ W, thence east to MLW, thence

southeasterly following MLW to a point east

of point of beginning, thence west to point

of beginning. (San Nicolas Island USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1956)

CA–17. Malibu Lagoon, Los Angeles County

(Index Map 4)

Beginning at 34°01′58′′ N, 118°40′53′′ W,

thence northwesterly crossing Highway 1,

and excluding Highway 1 and the existing

ROW north and south of Highway 1, to

34°02′04′′ N, 118°40′56′′ W, thence

northwesterly to 34°02′13′′ N, 118°40′59′′ W,

thence northeasterly to 34°02′14′′ N,

118°40′56′′ W, thence southeasterly to

34°02′03′′ N, 118°40′47′′ W, thence east to

34°02′03′′ N, 118°40′44′′ W, thence

northeasterly to 34°02′12′′ N, 118°40′37′′ W,

thence south to MLW, thence southerly and

westerly following MLW to a point directly

south of the point of beginning, thence north

to the point of beginning. (Malibu Beach

USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1981)

CA–18. Mission Beach and Bay, San Diego

County (Index Map 4)

Unit 1—Fiesta Island

Beginning at 32°46′07′′ N, 117°14′34′′ W,

thence south to MLW, thence southerly and

northerly following MLW to a point directly

south of 32°45′34′′ N, 117°14′50′′ W, thence

north to said point, thence northwesterly to

32°45′52′′ N, 117°14′58′′ W, thence

northeasterly to 32°46′16′′ N, 117°14′55′′ W,

thence southeasterly to the point of

beginning. (La Jolla USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1975)

Unit 2—Mariner’s Basin

Beginning at 32°46′31′′ N, 117°13′25′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 32°46′30′′ N,

117°13′23′′ W, thence southwesterly to

32°46′15′′ N, 117°13′34′′ W, thence

southeasterly to 32°46′10′′ N, 117°13′23′′ W,

thence south to MLW, thence westerly and

northerly following MLW to a point directly

west of the point of beginning, thence east to

the point of beginning. (La Jolla USGS 7.5′′

Quad 1975)

Unit 3—Mission Beach

Beginning at 32°46′26′′ N, 117°15′08′′ W,

thence southerly to 32°46′02′′ N, 117°15′06′′

W, thence southerly to 32°45′43′′ N,

117°15′05′′ W, thence southeasterly to

32°45′34′′ N, 117°14′57′′ W, which is on the

north jetty to Mission Bay, thence westerly

following the north side of the jetty to MLW,

thence northerly following MLW to a point

directly west of the point of beginning,

thence east to the point of beginning. (La

Jolla USGS 7.5′′ Quad 1975)
11808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CA–19. South San Diego Coast Beaches, San

Diego County (Index Map 4)

Unit 1—Silver Strand/Delta Beach

Beginning at 32°40′08′′ N, 117°09′54′′ W,

thence northeasterly to 32°40′40′′ N,

117°09′13′′ W, thence east to MLW, thence

southwesterly following MLW to a point

directly north of 32°39′27′′ N, 117°09′10′′ W,

thence south to said point, thence

northeasterly to 32°39′30′′ N, 117°08′57′′ W,

thence southeasterly to 32°39′16′′ N,

117°08′48′′ W, thence southwesterly to

32°39′11′′ N, 117°09′00′′ W, thence

southeasterly following the east side of the

San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad

tracks to 32°38′34′′ N, 117°08′40′′ W, thence

northeasterly to 32°38′39′′ N, 117°08′36′′ W,

thence east to MLW, thence southerly

following MLW to a point directly east of

32°38′12′′ N, 117°08′26′′ W, thence west to

said point, thence southwesterly to 32°38′11′′

N, 117°08′31′′ W, thence southeasterly to

32°37′20′′ N, 117°08′10′′ W, thence

southeasterly following the west side of

Silver Strand Boulevard to 32°36′43′′ N,

117°08′02′′ W, thence southeasterly to

32°36′32′′ N, 117°07′55′′ W, thence southerly

to 32°35′09′′ N, 117°07′51′′ W, thence west to

MLW, thence north following MLW to a

point directly west of the point of beginning,

thence east to the point of beginning. (Point

Loma and Imperial Beach, Calif.—Baja Calif.

Norte USGS 7.5′′ Quads 1975)

Unit 2—Tijuana River Beach

Beginning at 32°3401 N, 117°0753 W,

thence southerly following the unimproved

road to 32°3344 N, 117°0749 W, thence east

to the HWL of Oneonta Slough, thence south

following the HWL of said slough to 32°3326

N, 117°0740 W, which is at the mouth of

Tijuana River, thence southeasterly crossing

said river to 32°3236 N, 117°0724 W, thence

south to 32°3204 N, 117°0724 W, thence west

to MLW, thence northerly following MLW,

but excluding the mouth of Tijuana River, to

a point directly west of the point of

beginning, thence east to the point of the

beginning. Excludes all U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service property. (Imperial Beach,

Calif.—Baja Calif. Norte USGS 7.5 Quad

1975)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11809

Primary Constituent Elements: Beaches,

dunes, and estuaries that provide habitat, or

with rehabilitation, could provide habitat for

nesting, roosting, foraging, and migration.

Dated: February 1, 1995.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 95–4422 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P