[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42250-42263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20034]
[[Page 42249]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 42250]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF73
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose designation
of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). The
species is now classified as endangered throughout its entire range. We
recently determined, however, that north of Orange County, California,
more populations exist than were known at the time of the listing, that
the threats to those populations are less severe than previously
believed, and that the tidewater goby has a greater ability than was
known in 1994 to recolonize habitats from which it is temporarily
absent. Based on this new information, we recently proposed removal of
the northern populations of tidewater goby from protection under the
Act. We also determined that the Orange and San Diego, California,
Counties population of tidewater gobies constitutes a distinct
population segment (DPS) that is genetically distinct and that
continues to be threatened by habitat loss and degradation, predation
by non-native species, and extreme weather and streamflow conditions.
Therefore, we proposed that this DPS be retained as an endangered
species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This
proposed critical habitat designation for the tidewater goby
encompasses areas within that proposed DPS. Section 4 of the Act
requires us to consider economic and other impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We solicit data and comments from
the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on the
economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this
proposal to incorporate or address new information received during the
comment period.
DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until
October 4, 1999. Public hearing requests must be received by September
17, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and other materials concerning this
proposal to Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen Knowles at the above address;
telephone 760/431-9440, facsimile 760/431-5902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is a small, elongate,
grey-brown fish not exceeding 50 millimeters (mm) (2 inches (in.))
standard length and is characterized by large, dusky pectoral fins and
a ventral sucker-like disk formed by the complete fusion of the pelvic
fins. The tidewater goby is a short-lived species, apparently having an
annual life cycle (Irwin and Soltz 1984, Swift et al. 1997). The
tidewater goby is the only member of the monotypic genus Eucyclogobius,
and is in the family Gobiidae. It was first described in 1857 by Girard
as Gobius newberryi. Based on Girard's specimens, Gill (1862) erected
the genus Eucyclogobius for this distinctive species. The majority of
scientists have accepted this classification (e.g., Bailey et al. 1970,
Miller and Lea 1972, Hubbs et al. 1979, Robins et al. 1991, Eschmeyer
et al. 1983). A few older works including Ginsburg (1945) placed the
tidewater goby and the eight related eastern Pacific species into the
genus Lepidogobius. This classification includes the currently
recognized genera Lepidogobius, Clevelandia, Ilypnus, Quietula, and
Eucyclogobius. Birdsong et al. (1988) coined the informal Chasmichthys
species group, recognizing the phyletic relationship of the eastern
Pacific group with species in the northwestern Pacific.
Crabtree's (1985) allozyme work on tidewater gobies from 12
localities throughout the range shows fixed allelic differences at the
extreme northern (Lake Earl, Humboldt Bay) and southern (Canada de Agua
Caliente, Winchester Canyon, and San Onofre Lagoon) ends of the range.
The northern and southern populations are genetically distinct from
each other and from the central populations sampled. The more centrally
distributed populations are relatively similar to each other (Brush
Creek, Estero Americano, Corcoran Lagoon, Arroyo de Corral, Morro Bay,
Santa Ynez River, and Jalama Creek). Crabtree's results indicated that
there is a low level of gene flow (movement of individuals) among the
northern, central, and southern parts of the range. However, Lafferty
et al. (in prep.) point out that Crabtree's sites were widely
distributed geographically, and may not be indicative of gene flow on
more local levels. Lafferty's work is discussed in more detail below.
David Jacobs (University of California, Los Angeles, Department of
Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, in litt., 1998) recently
began an analysis of mitochondrial genetic material from tidewater goby
populations ranging from Humboldt to San Diego Counties. Preliminary
results indicate that the San Diego gobies have long been separated
from other gobies along the coast. These southernmost populations
likely began diverging from the remainder of the gobies in excess of
100,000 years ago.
The tidewater goby is endemic to California, and is unique in that
it is restricted to coastal brackish water habitats. Historically, the
species ranged from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte
County) near the Oregon border to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern San
Diego County). Within the range of the tidewater goby, shallow,
brackish water conditions occur in two relatively distinct situations:
(1) The upper edge of tidal bays, such as Tomales, Bolinas, and San
Francisco Bays near the entrance of freshwater tributaries, and (2) the
coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of small to large coastal rivers,
streams, or seasonally wet canyons, along most of the length of
California. Few well authenticated records of this species are known
from marine environments outside of enclosed coastal lagoons and
estuaries (Swift et al. 1989).
The tidewater goby is often found in waters of relatively low
salinities (around 10 parts per thousand (ppt)) in the uppermost
brackish zone of larger estuaries and coastal lagoons. The fish can
tolerate a wide range of salinities, however, (Swift et al. 1989, 1997;
Worcester 1992, Worcester and Lea 1996), and is frequently found
throughout lagoons. Tidewater gobies regularly range upstream into
fresh water, and downstream into water of up to 28 ppt salinity
(Worcester 1992, Swenson 1995). Specimens have also been collected at
salinities as high as 42 ppt (Swift et al. 1989). The species'
tolerance of high salinities (up to 60 ppt for varying time periods)
likely enables it to withstand exposure to the marine environment,
allowing it to colonize or re-establish in lagoons and estuaries
following flood events (Swift et al. 1989; Worcester and Lea 1996;
Lafferty et al. in prep.).
Tidewater gobies are usually collected in water less than 1 meter
(m) (3 feet (ft)) deep; many localities have no area
[[Page 42251]]
deeper than this (Wang 1982, Irvin and Soltz 1984; Swenson 1995).
However, it has been found in waters over 1 m in depth (Worcester 1992,
Lafferty and Altstatt 1995; Swift et al. 1997; Smith 1998). In lagoons
and estuaries with deeper water, the failure to collect gobies may be
due to the inadequacy of the sampling methods, rather than the lack of
gobies (Worcester 1992, Lafferty 1997, Smith 1998).
Tidewater gobies often migrate upstream into tributaries up to 2.0
kilometers (km) (1.2 miles) (mi) from the estuary. However, in San
Antonio Creek and the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County,
tidewater gobies are often collected 5-8 km (3-5 mi) upstream of the
tidal or lagoonal areas, sometimes in beaver-impounded sections of
streams (Swift et al. 1989). The fish move upstream in summer and fall,
as sub-adults and adults. There is little evidence of reproduction in
these upper areas (Swift et al. 1997).
Populations originally inhabiting tidal areas, such as those found
in San Francisco Bay, rarely were studied before they disappeared, and
none remain to adequately study the use of truly tidal conditions by
this species. Several of the lagoonal habitats have been converted by
human activities into tidal harbors and bays, such as Humboldt Bay,
Elkhorn Slough, Morro Bay and Santa Margarita River, among others
(Swift et al. 1989, 1993). Populations recently present in these
artificially created tidal situations have disappeared in the last 5 to
10 years. The only tidal system in which tidewater gobies remain is
Humboldt Bay (Swift et al. 1989).
The life history of tidewater gobies is keyed to the annual cycles
of the coastal lagoons and estuaries (Swift et al. 1989, 1994; Swenson
1994, 1995). Water in estuaries, lagoons and bays is at its lowest
salinity during the winter and spring as a result of precipitation and
runoff. During this time, high runoff causes the sandbars at the mouths
of the lagoons to breach, allowing mixing of the relatively fresh
estuarine and lagoon waters with seawater. This annual building and
breaching of the sandbars is part of the normal dynamics of the systems
in which the tidewater goby has evolved (Zedler 1982, Lafferty and
Alstatt 1995, Heasly et al. 1997). The time of sandbar closure varies
greatly among systems and years, and typically occurs from spring to
late summer. Summer salinity in the lagoon depends upon the amount of
freshwater inflow at the time of sandbar formation (Zedler 1982, Heasly
et al. 1997).
Males begin digging breeding burrows 75 to 100 mm (3-4 in.) deep,
usually in relatively unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand averaging 0.5
mm (0.02 in.) in diameter, in April or May (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson
1994, 1995). Swenson (1995) demonstrated that tidewater gobies prefer
this substrate in the laboratory, but also found tidewater gobies
digging breeding burrows in mud in the wild (Swenson 1994). Inter-
burrow distances range from about 5 to 275 centimeters (cm) (2 to 110
in) (Swenson 1995). Females lay about 100 to000 eggs per clutch,
averaging 400 eggs/clutch, with clutch size depending on the size of
both the female and the male. Females can lay more than one clutch of
eggs over their lifespan, with captive females spawning 6-12 times
(Swenson 1995). Spawning frequency in wild females probably varies due
to fluctuations in food supply and other environmental conditions. Male
gobies remain in the burrow to guard the eggs that are attached to sand
grains in the walls of the burrow. Males also spawn more than once per
season (Swenson 1995), and have been observed guarding multiple
clutches in the same burrow (Swift et al. 1989, Swenson 1995). Males
frequently go at least for a few weeks without feeding, and this
probably contributes to mid-summer mortality (Swift et al. 1989;
Swenson 1994, 1995).
Reproduction peaks during spring to mid-summer, late April or May
to July, and can continue into November or December depending on the
seasonal temperature and rainfall. Reproduction sometimes increases
slightly in the fall (Swift et al. 1989). Reproduction takes place from
15-20 degrees Celsius ( deg.C) (60-65 degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F)) and
at salinities of 0-25 ppt (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995).
Typically, winter rains and cold weather interrupt spawning, but in
some warm years reproduction may occur throughout the year (Goldberg
1977, Wang 1984). Goldberg (1977) showed by histological analysis that
females have the potential to lay eggs all year in southern California,
but this rarely has been documented. Length-frequency data from
southern and central California (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995)
and age data analysis from otoliths from central California populations
(Swift et al. 1997) indicate that tidewater gobies are an annual
species and typically live one year or less.
Tidewater goby eggs hatch in 7-10 days at temperatures of 15-18
deg.C (60-65 deg.F) at lengths of 4-7 mm (0.2 in.). The newly hatched
larvae are planktonic (float in water column) for one to a few days and
once they reach 8-18 mm (0.3-0.8 in.) in length, become substrate
oriented. All larger size classes are substrate oriented and, although
little habitat segregation by size has been noted (Swift et al. 1989,
Swenson 1995), Worcester (1992) did find that larval gobies in Pico
Creek Lagoon tended to use the deeper portion of the lagoon.
Individuals collected in marshes appear to be larger (43-45 mm (1.7-1.8
in.) standard length) than those collected in open areas of lagoons
(32-35 mm (1.3-1.4 in.) standard length) (Swenson 1995).
Studies of the tidewater goby's feeding habits suggest that it is a
generalist. At all sizes examined, tidewater gobies feed on small
invertebrates, usually mysids, amphipods, ostracods, snails, and
aquatic insect larvae, particularly dipterans (Irwin and Soltz 1984;
Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995). The food items of the smallest
tidewater gobies (4-8 mm (0.2-0.3 in.)) have not been examined, but
they probably feed on unicellular phytoplankton or zooplankton similar
to many other early stage larval fishes (Swenson and McCray 1996).
Tidewater gobies are preyed upon by native species such as prickly
sculpin (Cottus asper), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), starry
flounder (Platichthys californicus) (Swift et al. 1997), and possibly
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Swift et al. 1989). However, tidewater
gobies were found in stomachs of only 6 percent of nearly 120 of the
latter three species examined, and comprised less than 20 percent by
volume of the prey. Predation by the native Sacramento perch
(Archoplites interruptus) and tule perch (Hysterocarpus traski) may
have prevented tidewater gobies from inhabiting the San Francisco Bay
delta (Swift et al. 1989), although direct documentation to support
this hypothesis is lacking.
Non-native African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) also prey upon
tidewater gobies (Lafferty and Page 1997), although this is probably
not a significant source of mortality due to the limited distribution
of this species in tidewater goby habitats. The frogs are killed by the
higher salinities that occur when the lagoons are breached (Glenn
Greenwald, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs.). Several non-
native fish species also prey on tidewater gobies. The shimofuri goby
(Tridentiger bifasciatus), which has become established in the San
Francisco Bay region (Matern and Fleming 1995), may compete with the
smaller tidewater goby, based on dietary overlap (Swenson 1995) and
foraging and reproductive behavioral alterations in captivity.
Shimofuri gobies eat juvenile tidewater gobies in captivity, but
[[Page 42252]]
usually were unable to catch subadult and adult tidewater gobies
(Swenson and Matern 1995). Evidence of predation or competition in the
wild is lacking (Swenson 1998). Some authors hypothesize that
competition occurs between tidewater gobies and yellowfin
(Acanthogobius flavimanus) and chameleon (Tridentiger trigonocephalus)
gobies. Although Wang (1984) found that yellowfin gobies do prey on
tidewater gobies, no data were presented indicating the extent of such
interactions, nor has there been any further documentation of such
competitive or predatory interactions with either species. Shapovalov
and Taft (1954) documented the non-native striped bass (Morone
saxatilis) preying on tidewater gobies in Waddell Creek Lagoon, but
stated that striped bass were found only infrequently in the areas
inhabited by the goby. Sunfishes and black bass (centrarchids) have
been introduced in or near coastal lagoons and may prey heavily on
tidewater gobies under some conditions. Predation by young-of-the-year
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) on tidewater gobies was
documented in one system (Santa Ynez River), where tidewater gobies
accounted for 61 percent of the prey volume of 55 percent (10 of 18) of
the juvenile bass sampled (Swift et al. 1997). Although tidewater
gobies disappeared soon after centrarchids were introduced at several
localities, direct evidence that the introductions led to the
extirpations is lacking (Swift et al. 1989, 1994; Rathbun et al. 1991).
In at least one location, tidewater gobies have re-established
naturally.
Lafferty et al. (in prep.) monitored persistence of 17 tidewater
goby populations in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties during and
after the heavy winter flows of 1995. All 17 populations persisted
after the high flows and no significant changes in population sizes
were detected. In addition, gobies apparently colonized Canada Honda,
approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the closest known population, during or
after the flooding (Swift et al. 1997). Lafferty et al. (in prep.)
proposed that flood events such as those that occurred in 1995 act as
mechanisms of dispersal by washing gobies out into the ocean's littoral
zone where they are carried by longshore currents to other estuaries
down the coast. As Swenson (in prep.) points out, Lafferty's work
suggests that populations at the northern ends of population clusters
are more likely than southern populations to serve as source
populations. Lafferty et al. (in prep.) estimated the extirpation and
recolonization rates for 37 populations in southern California, based
on over 250 presence-absence records, found a high rate of
recolonization. The results suggest that there is more gene flow among
populations within geographic clusters (e.g., northern California, San
Francisco Bay, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo and south) than previously
believed. They also found a positive association between tidewater goby
presence and wet years, suggesting that flooding may contribute to
recolonization of sites from which gobies have temporarily disappeared.
Lagoons in which tidewater gobies are found range in size from less
than 0.10 hectare (ha) (0.25 acres (ac)) of surface area to about 800
ha (2000 ac). Most lagoons with tidewater goby populations are in the
range of 0.5-5.0 ha (1.25-12.5 ac). Surveys of tidewater goby
localities and historical records indicate that size, configuration,
location, and access by humans are all related to persistence of
populations (Swift et al. 1989, 1994). Watered surface areas smaller
than about 2 ha (5 ac) generally have histories of extinction,
extirpation, or population reduction to very low levels, although some
as small as 0.35 ha (0.86 ac) have been identified as having permanent
tidewater goby populations (Swift et al. 1997, Lafferty 1997, Heasly et
al. 1997). As evidenced by the Canada Honda colonization (Swift et al.
1997), relatively long distances are not obstacles to colonization or
re-establishment. Many of the small lagoons with histories of
intermittent populations are within 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi) of larger
lagoons that can act as sources of colonizing gobies.
The largest localities have not proven to be the best for the
species, as evidenced by the loss of tidewater gobies from San
Francisco and Morro Bays and the Santa Margarita River estuary. Today,
the most stable and largest populations are in lagoons and estuaries of
intermediate sizes, 2-50 ha (5-125 ac) that have remained relatively
unaffected by human activities, although some systems that are heavily
affected or altered also have relatively large, stable populations
(e.g., Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County, Santa Clara River, Ventura
County, Santa Ynez River, Santa Barbara County, Pismo Creek, and San
Luis Obispo County). In many cases, these probably have provided the
colonists for the smaller ephemeral sites (Swift et al.1997; Lafferty
et al. in prep.).
Previous Federal Action
We first classified the tidewater goby as a Category 2 candidate
species in 1982 (47 FR 58454). It was reclassified as a Category 1
candidate in 1991 (56 FR 58804) based on status and threat information
in Swift et al. (1989). At that time, Category 2 candidates were those
taxa for which information in our possession indicated that proposing
to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for
which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not
currently available to support a listing proposal. Category 1 candidate
species, now referred to as candidate species, were those taxa for
which we had on file, substantial information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as threatened
or endangered. On October 24, 1990, we received a petition from Dr.
Camm Swift, Associate Curator of Fishes at the Los Angeles Museum of
Natural History, to list the tidewater goby as endangered. Our finding
that the requested action may be warranted was published on March 22,
1991 (56 FR 12146). A proposal to list the tidewater goby as an
endangered species was published on December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58770). On
March 7, 1994, the tidewater goby was listed as a federally endangered
species (59 FR 5494). At that time, we did not designate critical
habitat, explaining that:
In the case of the tidewater goby, critical habitat is not
presently determinable. A final designation of critical habitat
requires detailed information on the possible economic effects of
such a designation. The Service does not currently have sufficient
information needed to perform the economic analysis (59 FR 5495).
On September 18, 1998, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in California against the
United States Department of the Interior et al. for failure to
designate critical habitat for the tidewater goby. On April 5, 1999,
Judge Carlos R. Moreno ordered that the ``Service publish a proposed
critical habitat designation for the tidewater goby in 120 days''
(Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Department of
the Interior et al. CV 98-7596).
The processing of this proposed critical habitat designation does
not conform with our current Listing Priority Guidance (LPG) for FY
1998/1999. That guidance gives the highest priority (Tier 1) to
processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority
[[Page 42253]]
(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species
to the lists, processing new listing proposals, processing
administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the lists,
delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited
number of proposed and final rules to delist or reclassify species; and
third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat. Our Pacific Region is currently working
on Tier 1 and 2 actions; however, we are undertaking this Tier 3 action
in order to comply with the above-mentioned court order.
On June 24, 1999, we proposed, based on our re-evaluation of the
species status throughout its range, to delist the northern populations
of the tidewater goby, and to retain the tidewater goby populations in
Orange and San Diego Counties as endangered (64 FR 33816). We
determined that north of Orange County, more populations exist than
were known at the time of the listing, that threats to those
populations are less severe than previously believed, and that the
tidewater goby has a greater ability to recolonize habitats from which
it is temporarily absent than was known in 1994. We determined that the
Orange and San Diego Counties populations of tidewater gobies are
genetically distinct, and represent a DPS. We further determined that
this DPS, comprised of gobies from only six localities, continues to be
threatened by habitat loss and degradation, predation by nonnative
species, and extreme weather and streamflow conditions. Therefore, we
proposed that populations north of Orange County be removed from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Animals, and that the southern DPS of
tidewater gobies be retained as an endangered species on the list.
Other Federal involvement with the tidewater goby following the
initial listing has included section 7 consultations, permitting of
breaching and other activities in lagoons through the Clean Water Act,
section 404 process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and
contributed funding to conduct research and surveys. Measures to reduce
impacts to tidewater goby habitat and reduce or eliminate the potential
for take of individuals have included adjusting the timing of projects
to avoid disruption to breeding activities, the use of silt fencing to
reduce sediment loads and as barricades around project sites,
installing cofferdams above and below project sites, removal and
translocation of animals found within the exclosures prior to necessary
dewatering of project sites, minimizing project impacted area, and
requiring qualified biologists to oversee all activities.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the
point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Because the best available information led us to conclude that the
northern tidewater goby populations are no longer endangered and were
thus proposed for delisting, we also have concluded that the
designation of critical habitat for those Northern populations is not
appropriate. We then evaluated benefits to the tidewater goby that
could result from critical habitat designation in the southern portion
of its range, Orange and San Diego Counties. Tidewater gobies and their
habitats in Orange and San Diego Counties are described in detail in
the March 7, 1994, final rule listing the species as endangered (59 FR
5494). All of the areas currently thought to be inhabited by the
southern DPS of the tidewater goby are owned and controlled by the
Federal government. The other areas we evaluated for possible
designation are either owned and controlled by the Federal government
or are non-Federal lands with a Federal nexus (by virtue of regulation
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act).
The possible benefits of critical habitat designation include
initiating the section 7 consultation requirement in areas currently
unoccupied by the goby. Another possible benefit to the tidewater goby
stemming from the designation of critical habitat is ensuring that
important habitat and habitat features essential to the tidewater goby
are identified for the purposes of Federal agency planning and
identifying precise areas where section 7 consultation will be required
for unoccupied sites.
To our knowledge, the tidewater goby is not currently threatened by
take, collection, or intentional acts of vandalism, and we have no
evidence that these threats would be precipitated by designating
critical habitat. Thus, the apparent benefits to designating critical
habitat are not counterbalanced by any risks, and we find that
designating critical habitat for the tidewater goby is prudent.
Proposed Designation--Occupied Habitat
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for habitat
occupied by the species, critical habitat is defined as specific areas
that contain those physical or biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species and that may require special
management considerations or protection. The habitat features (primary
constituent elements) that provide for the physiological, behavioral,
and ecological requirements essential for the conservation of the
species are described at 50 CFR 424.12, and include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior;
Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
Cover or shelter;
Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and
Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative
of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The primary constituent habitat elements for the tidewater goby
were determined from studies on their habitat requirements and
population biology (Lafferty et al. in prep.; Manion 1993; Swensen
1994, 1995, 1998; Swift 1989) and include habitat components that are
essential to the biological needs of foraging, nest construction,
spawning, sheltering, and dispersal. The primary constituent elements
for the tidewater goby are coastal lagoons and estuary systems
supported by a natural hydrological regime and an environment free from
exotic predatory fishes. These elements are discussed in detail below.
Coastal lagoons and estuaries with natural hydrology generally
provide several specific habitat elements that gobies require. For
instance, aquatic systems supported by a natural hydrological regime
are often characterized by a combination of slightly different habitat
types: freshwater creek, brackish lagoon, and coastal salt marsh. This
habitat heterogeneity generally ensures that some streamflow continues
and deep pockets of permanent water remain as
[[Page 42254]]
refugia during times of drought; provides for a variety of substrate
types, of which sand and coarse silt are necessary for construction of
burrows; and provides for structural complexity of the stream channel,
which supports various types of aquatic and emergent vegetation. This
structural complexity and presence of vegetation may ensure that all
gobies are not washed out to sea during flood events (Swensen 1995).
Lastly, lagoons and estuaries with a natural hydrological regime and
corresponding habitat complexity generally provide for the diversity of
prey species (e.g., aquatic invertebrates including aquatic insect
larvae, ostracods, crustaceans, and snails) that gobies require.
The second constituent element of tidewater goby habitat is a
system that is free from exotic species. Exotic fishes can devastate
tidewater goby populations through competition and predation.
Largemouth bass, black bass, sunfishes, stripped bass, shimofuri
gobies, and yellowfin gobies have all been suspected of preying on
tidewater gobies. African clawed frogs are another exotic species that
have been found to prey on tidewater gobies. Keeping exotic species out
of occupied goby habitats, and eliminating them from potential
reestablishment sites will be crucial to the conservation of the goby.
The primary constituent elements are found in all of the six areas
occupied by the tidewater goby. These areas are San Onofre Creek, Las
Flores Creek, Hidden Creek, Aliso Creek, French Creek, and Cockleburr
Creek, all of which are on the Marine Corps base, Camp Pendleton. In
each of the areas, however, all of these habitat elements are, to
varying degrees, degraded or imperiled by a combination of human-caused
and natural factors (see analysis in the June 24, 1999 proposed rule to
delist the northern population; 64 FR 33816), and therefore require
special management considerations or protection. The six areas
currently occupied by the proposed southern DPS of the tidewater goby
are proposed for designation as critical habitat.
Proposed Designation--Unoccupied Habitat
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species may meet the definition of
critical habitat upon determination that they are essential for the
conservation of the species. We identified the unoccupied lagoons and
estuaries where gobies occurred in the past and evaluated those that
might be essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
southern DPS of the tidewater goby is in danger of becoming extinct
because of habitat conversion over the last few decades (i.e., altered
hydrology), which has resulted in habitat loss and local extinctions.
The six remaining occupied habitat areas, discussed above, represent a
remnant of the former range that once extended from Aliso Creek, Orange
County in the north to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County in the
south. Even the remaining populations are threatened by human-caused
habitat alteration, predation by non-native species, and occasional
extreme streamflow conditions (see analysis in 64 FR 33816). Because of
these threats, the recent proposal to delist the tidewater goby over
much of its range retained the endangered status of the southern DPS.
The long-term survival of tidewater gobies in Orange and San Diego
Counties depends upon the presence of enough habitat areas to support
the natural pattern of local extinctions and recolonizations (Swift
1989, Lafferty et al. in prep.) that characterize its population
biology. The removal of threats and the colonization of gobies to
additional areas that are currently unoccupied will be necessary.
To determine which unoccupied areas are essential and should be
designated as critical habitat, we evaluated which unoccupied areas
could provide the primary constituent elements and support tidewater
gobies in the future, and, by virtue of their geographical
distribution, provide for a network of habitat areas supporting gobies
and acting as sources of recolonization for other nearby habitat areas.
The essential unoccupied areas that are restorable, or contain
restorable areas, and are most likely to promote recolonization of
adjacent habitat areas, are Aliso Creek, Orange County, and four
estuaries in San Diego County: San Mateo Creek, the Santa Margarita
River, Buena Vista Lagoon, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. These areas are
proposed as critical habitat for the tidewater goby.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
At this time, the proposed critical habitat areas discussed below
constitute our best evaluation of areas needed for the conservation of
the tidewater goby. We used the best scientific information available,
and took into consideration the proposal to delist the northern
populations of the species. We emphasized areas that are essential to
the conservation of this species because they provide for the
demographic interchange necessary to maintain the viability of the
southern DPS. Proposed critical habitat may be revised should new
information become available prior to the final rule, and existing
critical habitat may be revised if new information becomes available
after the final rule.
The following general areas are proposed as critical habitat (see
legal descriptions for exact habitat boundaries):
1. Aliso Creek (Orange County) and its associated lagoon and marsh
from the Pacific Ocean to approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) upstream;
2. San Mateo Creek, its associated lagoon and marsh, from the
Pacific Ocean to approximately 1.3 km (0.9 mi) upstream;
3. San Onofre Creek, its associated lagoon and marsh, from the
Pacific Ocean to approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream;
4. approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) of Las Flores Creek, and its
associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;
5. approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Hidden Creek, and its
associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;
6. approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) of Aliso Creek and its associated
lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;
7. approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) of French Creek, and its
associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;
8. approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) of Cockleburr Creek and its
associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;
9. the Santa Margarita River, from the Pacific Ocean to a point
approximately 5.0 km (3.1 mi) upstream;
10. Buena Vista Lagoon, its associated marsh and creek, from the
Pacific Ocean to a point approximately 3.4 km (2.1 mi) upstream; and
11. Agua Hedionda Lagoon, its associated marsh and creek, from the
Pacific Ocean to a point approximately 3.7 km 92.3 mi) upstream.
Each area includes the current 50-year flood plain.
Although the majority of land being proposed for designation is
under Federal administration and management, some estuary and riparian
systems are on State, county, city, and private lands. The Aliso Creek
segment, Orange County, is owned by the County of Orange, the City of
South Laguna, and private interests. Buena Vista Lagoon is owned by the
California Department of Fish and Game, the City of Carlsbad, and the
City of Oceanside. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is owned by the San Diego Gas
and Electric Company, which leases to the City of Carlsbad, and
[[Page 42255]]
public and private interests. The segments on San Mateo Creek, San
Onofre Creek, Las Flores Creek, Hidden Creek, Aliso Creek, French
Creek, Cockleburr Creek, and the Santa Margarita River are owned by the
Marine Corps base, Camp Pendleton. Many activities carried out on
private, Tribal, State, and Federal lands have Federal involvement, and
would be subject to section 7. However, on private lands where no
Federal involvement exists, a critical habitat designation has no
regulatory impact.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving
listed species are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed or critical habitat
is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into consultation with us.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical
habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to
reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances
where critical habitat is subsequently designated. Consequently, some
Federal agencies may request conferencing with us on actions for which
formal consultation has been completed. Conference reports provide
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation
recommendations in a conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain
a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if
critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference
report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is
designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). We may also
prepare a formal conference report to address the effects on proposed
critical habitat from issuance of an incidental take permit, under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the tidewater goby or
its critical habitat will continue to require section 7 consultation.
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal
agency, such as a permit from the ACOE under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, will also continue to be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting the species, as
well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or
permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed
or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities
involving a Federal action that may adversely modify such habitat or
that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the
primary constituent elements to an extent that the value of critical
habitat for both the survival and recovery of the tidewater goby is
appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize
the continued existence of the species. Activities that, when carried
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities such as water diversion or impoundment, groundwater
pumping, artificial lagoon breaching to protect urban or agricultural
areas from inundation, or any other activity that alters water quality
or quantity to an extent that water quality becomes unsuitable to
support gobies, or any activity that significantly affects the natural
hydrologic function of the lagoon system;
(2) Activities such as coastal development, sand and gravel mining,
channelization, dredging, impoundment, or construction of flood control
structures, that alter watershed characteristics or appreciably alter
stream channel and or lagoon morphology; and
(3) Activities which could lead to the introduction of exotic
species, especially exotic fishes, into occupied or potential goby
habitat.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th
Ave, Portland, OR 97232 (telephone 503-231-2063, facsimile 503-231-
6243).
Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency
activities. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in
areas currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do
not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. These actions
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the ACOE under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization by Federal agencies;
(3) Road construction, right of way designation, or regulation of
agricultural activities by Federal agencies; and
(4) Some military maneuvers on the Marine Corps base, Camp
Pendleton.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct
an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as
critical habitat prior to a final determination. When completed,
[[Page 42256]]
we will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis with a
notice in the Federal Register, and we will open a 30-day comment
period at that time.
Public Comments Solicited
It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal
will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of
tidewater goby habitat, and what habitat is essential to the
conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on
small entities or families; and,
(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for the tidewater goby, such as those derived from non-
consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention,
``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose
of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of
critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made at least 15
days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal if any are requested, and announce the
dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal Register and
local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly
stated? (2) Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the notice
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the
Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the notice? What else could we do to make the notice
easier to understand?
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this action has been
submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget. A 60-day
comment period is opened with the publication of this rule. Following
issuance of this proposed rule, we will prepare an economic analysis to
determine the economic consequences of designating the proposed areas
as critical habitat. If our economic analysis reveals that the economic
impacts of designating any area as critical habitat outweigh the
benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from
consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species. In the economic analysis, we will address any possible
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions and any effects on
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients. This proposed rule does not raise
novel legal or policy issues.
Other Rulemaking Determinations
In the economic analysis, we will determine the economic and other
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation in compliance
with:
1. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
2. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2))
3. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
4. Taking Personal Property Rights (Executive Order 12630)
5. Federalism (Executive Order 12612)
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Service has
determined that this proposed rule is consistent with sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. The proposed rule and final rule will be reviewed
by the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office. We will make
every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no
drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures,
reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is
minimized.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which the Office of Management and Budget approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act is required.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. A notice outlining the
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This rule does not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2: We understand that recognized
Federal Tribes must be related to on a Government-to-Government basis.
The 1997 Secretarial Order on Native Americans and the Endangered
Species Act clearly states that Tribal lands should not be designated
unless absolutely necessary for the conservation of the species.
According to the Secretarial Order, ``Critical habitat
[[Page 42257]]
shall not be designated in an area that may impact Tribal trust
resources unless it is determined essential to conserve a listed
species. In designating critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate
and document the extent to which the conservation needs of a listed
species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other lands.''
The proposed designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby
does not contain any Tribal lands or lands that we have identified as
impacting Tribal trust resources.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Author. The primary author of this notice is Glen Knowles (see
ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
part 17 as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``goby, tidewater'' under
``FISHES'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Goby, tidewater................... Eucyclogobius U.S.A. (CA)......... ......do............ E 527 17.95(e) NA
newberryi.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95 add critical habitat for the tidewater goby
(Eucyclogobius newberrii) under paragraph (e) in the same alphabetical
order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberrii)
1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Orange and San Diego
Counties, California, on the maps below.
2. Critical habitat includes the sections of streams indicated on
the maps below and their 50 year flood plain, including associated
lagoons and marsh.
3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include,
but are not limited to, those habitat components that are essential for
the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and reproduction.
These elements include the following: (1) Coastal lagoons and estuary
systems supported by a natural hydrological regime, which results in
sufficient streamflow, deep pockets of permanent water, sand and coarse
silt substrate, a variety of aquatic and emergent vegetation, and a
diversity of prey species; and (2) an environment free from exotic
fishes.
Map Unit 1: Orange County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Laguna Beach, California, and San Juan Capistrano, California. San
Bernardino Principal Meridian, California, T. 7 S., R 8 W., beginning
at a point on Aliso Creek in SW sec. 32 and at approximately
33 deg.30'46'' N latitude and 117 deg.44'37'' W longitude and
proceeding downstream (westerly) to the Pacific Ocean covering
approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi.), including the stream, its 50 year flood
plain, associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 2: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map San Clemente, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 9 S., R. 7 W., beginning at a point on San Mateo Creek
in NW sec. 14 and at approximately 33 deg.23'46'' N latitude and
117 deg.35'20'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (southerly) to
the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.3 km (0.9 mi.), including
the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 3: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map San Clemente, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 9 S., R. 7 W., beginning at a point on San Onofre Creek
in SE sec. 14 and at approximately 33 deg.23'05'' N latitude and
117 deg.34'30'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (southwesterly)
to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi.), including
the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 4: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 10 S., R. 6 W., beginning at a point on Las Flores Creek
in the middle of sec. 13 and at approximately 33 deg.17'32'' N latitude
and 117 deg.27'20'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (westerly) to
the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), including
the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 5: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Hidden Creek in
W sec. 30 and at approximately 33 deg.16'46'' N latitude and
117 deg.26'48'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (southwesterly)
to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), including
the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 6: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Aliso Creek in
NE sec. 31
[[Page 42258]]
and at approximately 33 deg.16'13'' N latitude and 117 deg.26'19'' W
longitude and proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the Pacific
Ocean covering approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi.), including the stream,
its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 7: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on French Creek in
E sec. 31 and at approximately 33 deg.16'01'' N latitude and
117 deg.26'01'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the
Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi.), including the
stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 8: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 11 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Cockleburr Creek
in NE sec. 5 and at approximately 33 deg.15'16'' N latitude and
117 deg.25'21'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the
Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi.), including the
stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.
Map Unit 9: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle
map Oceanside, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,
California, T. 11 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on the Santa
Margarita River in NW sec. 2 and at approximately 33 deg.15'08'' N
latitude and 117 deg.22'38'' W longitude and proceeding downstream
(westerly) to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 5.0 km (3.1
mi.), including the river's 50 year flood plain, associated lagoons and
marsh.
Map Unit 10: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5'
quadrangle map San Luis Rey, California. San Bernardino Principal
Meridian, California, T. 11 S., R. 4 W., beginning at a point on Buena
Vista Creek at the border of sec. 31 and 32 and at approximately
33 deg.10'48'' N latitude and 117 deg.19'49'' W longitude and
proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the Pacific Ocean covering
approximately 3.4 km (2.1 mi.), including Buena Vista Creek, its 50
year flood plain, Buena Vista Lagoon, and associated marsh.
Map Unit 11: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5'
quadrangle map San Luis Rey, California. San Bernardino Principal
Meridian, California, T. 12 S., R. 4 W., beginning at a point on Augua
Hedionda Creek in the middle of Section 9 and at approximately
33 deg.08'44'' N latitude and 117 deg.18'19'' W longitude and
proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the Pacific Ocean covering
approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi.), including the creek, its 50 year flood
plain, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and associated marsh.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 42259]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.004
[[Page 42260]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.005
[[Page 42261]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.006
[[Page 42262]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.007
[[Page 42263]]
Dated: July 29, 1999.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-20034 Filed 7-30-99; 2:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
