94-18975. Designated Critical Habitat; Johnson's Seagrass  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-18975]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: August 4, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    50 CFR Part 226
    [Docket No. 940701-4201; I.D. 113093B]
     
    
    Designated Critical Habitat; Johnson's Seagrass
    AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to designate critical habitat for Johnson's 
    seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered 
    Species Act (ESA). Because the subject matter of this proposed rule is 
    closely related to a proposal published on September 15, 1993 (58 FR 
    48326), to list Johnson's seagrass as a threatened species, NMFS is 
    announcing a public hearing to consider both proposed rules. NMFS is 
    also reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to list 
    Johnson's
    seagrass. The hearing will be held September 20, 1994, in Vero Beach, 
    FL.
        Johnson's seagrass is found on the east coast of Florida from 
    Sebastian Inlet to central Biscayne Bay. Within this range, five areas 
    in proximity to Sebastian Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, St. Lucie Inlet, 
    Jupiter Inlet and Lake Worth Inlet are proposed for critical habitat. 
    In addition, the proposed critical habitat designation identifies those 
    physical and biological features of the habitat that are essential to 
    the conservation of the species and that may require special management 
    consideration or protection. The economic and other impacts resulting 
    from this critical habitat designation, over and above those arising 
    from the listing of the species under the ESA, are expected to be 
    minimal. The designation of proposed critical habitat provides explicit 
    notice to Federal agencies and the public that these areas and features 
    are vital to the conservation of the species.
    
    DATES: Comments on both proposed rules must be received by October 13, 
    1994. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, 
    at 7:30 p.m.
    
    ADDRESSES: Send comments and requests for the environmental assessment 
    on the proposed designation of critical habitat and the status review 
    for listing Johnson's seagrass to Dr. William W. Fox, Jr., Director, 
    Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver 
    Spring, MD 20910.
        The public hearing will be held in the Commission Chambers of the 
    Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero 
    Beach, FL.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret C. Lorenz, Office of 
    Protected Resources, NMFS, 301/713-2322, or Colleen Coogan, Southeast 
    Region, NMFS, 813/893-3366.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        NMFS published a proposed rule to list Johnson's seagrass as a 
    threatened species on September 15, 1993 (58 FR 48326). Critical 
    habitat was not proposed for designation at that time because the 
    analysis of impacts of the proposed designation, as required by section 
    4(b)(2) of the ESA, had not been completed.
        NMFS has now completed an environmental assessment (EA), pursuant 
    to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to evaluate both the 
    environmental and economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat 
    designation (See ADDRESSES).
        The proposed designation identifies those physical and biological 
    features of the habitat that are essential to the conservation of the 
    species and that may require special management consideration or 
    protection. The direct economic and other impacts resulting from 
    designating critical habitat, over and above those that result from 
    listing the species, are expected to be minimal.
    
    Definition of Critical Habitat
    
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i) 
    the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
    * * * 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 * * * upon 
    a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
    conservation of the species.'' Areas outside the current range of a 
    species can only be designated if a designation limited to the species' 
    present distribution would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of 
    the species. The term conservation, as defined in section 3(3) of the 
    ESA, 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.''
        The criteria to be considered in designating critical habitat are 
    specified under 50 CFR 424.12. When designating critical habitat, NMFS 
    considers physical and biological features that are essential to the 
    conservation of the species and that may require special management 
    consideration or protection, including but not limited to the 
    following: (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for 
    normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals or other 
    nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) 
    sites for breeding, reproduction or rearing of offspring; and, 
    generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
    representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
    distributions of the species.
        In addition, NMFS must list the known physical and biological 
    features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area(s) 
    that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may 
    require special management considerations or protection. These 
    essential features may include, but are not limited to, food resources, 
    water quality or quantity and vegetation and sediment types and 
    stability.
    
    Consideration of Economic and Other Factors
    
        The economic, environmental and other impacts of a designation must 
    also be evaluated and considered. NMFS must identify present and future 
    activities that may adversely modify the proposed critical habitat or 
    be affected by a designation. An area may be excluded from a critical 
    habitat designation if NMFS determines that the overall benefits of 
    exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion 
    will result in the extinction of the species.
        The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental 
    impacts that specifically result from designating critical habitat, 
    above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the 
    species. These incremental impacts are expected to be minimal (See 
    Significance of Designating Critical Habitat section). In general, the 
    designation of critical habitat duplicates and reinforces the 
    substantive protection resulting from the listing itself.
        Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the 
    taking prohibitions under section 9 and associated regulations. With 
    respect to fish and wildlife, ``taking'' as defined in the ESA includes 
    harm to a listed species. Harm can occur through destruction or 
    modification of habitat (whether or not designated as critical) that 
    significantly impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding 
    or sheltering.
        With respect to plants, section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful for 
    any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction to ``remove and reduce to 
    possession any such species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; 
    maliciously damage or destroy any such species on any such area; or 
    remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other 
    area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any state or in 
    the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law.'' 
    Although this provision does not prohibit takings, such as harm or 
    harassment of a species of fish or wildlife, it does provide protection 
    for plants in areas under Federal jurisdiction and under state laws. As 
    with the takings prohibition for fish and wildlife, these protections 
    are triggered when a species is listed. Therefore, generally, the 
    critical habitat designation will duplicate these protections. This is 
    particularly true with respect to acts that ``remove, cut, dig up or 
    damage or destroy listed plants in knowing violation of any law or 
    regulation of any state.''
        Impacts attributable to listing also include those resulting from 
    the responsibility of all Federal agencies under section 7 to ensure 
    that their actions are not likely to jeopardize endangered or 
    threatened species. An action could be likely to jeopardize the 
    continued existence of a listed species through the destruction or 
    adverse modification of its habitat, whether or not that habitat has 
    been designated as critical.
    
    Significance of Designating Critical Habitat
    
        The designation of critical habitat does not, in itself, restrict 
    state or private activities within the area. A critical habitat 
    designation contributes to conservation of the species primarily by 
    identifying critically important areas and describing the features 
    within the areas that are essential to the species, thus alerting 
    public and private entities to the importance of the area. Under the 
    ESA, the only direct impact of a critical habitat designation is 
    through the provisions of section 7. Section 7 applies only to actions 
    with Federal involvement and does not affect state or private 
    activities unless there is Federal involvement.
        Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat 
    would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
    authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely 
    modify the designated critical habitat. Activities that adversely 
    modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that ``appreciably 
    diminish the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 
    recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). However, if no critical 
    habitat has been designated, Federal agencies still must ensure that 
    their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
    the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as 
    those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or 
    indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival 
    and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Using these definitions, 
    activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat also are 
    likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the protection provided by 
    a critical habitat designation usually only duplicates the protection 
    provided under the section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may 
    provide additional benefits to a species where areas outside of the 
    species' current range have been designated. In these cases, it is 
    expected that Federal agencies would consult on actions occurring in 
    these areas for which they would otherwise not need to consult.
        A designation of critical habitat provides a clearer indication to 
    the Federal agencies as to when consultation under section 7 is 
    required, particularly in cases where the action would not result in 
    direct mortality or injury to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an 
    action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is 
    not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the 
    essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which 
    activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section 
    7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the 
    designated area). For example, disposal of waste material in water 
    adjacent to a critical habitat area may affect an essential feature of 
    the designated habitat (water quality) and would be subject to the 
    provisions of section 7 of the ESA.
        A critical habitat designation also assists Federal agencies in 
    planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance, 
    those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7 
    consultations. This is particularly true in cases where there are 
    alternative areas that would provide for the conservation of the 
    species. With a designation of critical habitat, potential conflicts 
    between projects and endangered or threatened species can be identified 
    and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning process.
        Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it 
    helps focus Federal, state and private conservation and management 
    efforts in those areas. Recovery efforts may address special 
    considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation 
    regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The 
    economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the 
    time of proposal, and, therefore, are not considered in the critical 
    habitat designation process. Other Federal, state and local laws or 
    regulations, such as zoning or wetlands protection, may also provide 
    special protection for critical habitat areas.
    
    Process for Designating Critical Habitat
    
        Developing a proposal for critical habitat designation involves 
    three main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species 
    are evaluated and essential habitat areas and features are identified. 
    If there are alternative areas that would provide for the conservation 
    of the species, these alternatives are also identified. Second, the 
    need for special management considerations or protection of the area(s) 
    or features is evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other 
    impacts of designating these essential areas as ``critical habitat'' 
    are evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the 
    need for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the 
    proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for 
    comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments 
    on the proposal and impacts assessment, should be published within 1 
    year of the proposal. Section 4 (a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to 
    the maximum extent prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical 
    habitat concurrently with a determination that a species is endangered 
    or threatened. Final critical habitat designations may be revised, 
    using the same process, as new data become available.
        A description of the essential habitat, need for special management 
    considerations, and impacts of designating critical habitat for 
    Johnson's seagrass, as well as the proposed action, are described in 
    the following sections.
    
    Essential Habitat of Johnson's Seagrass
    
        The biology of Johnson's seagrass is discussed in the proposed rule 
    to list the species as threatened (58 FR 48326, September 15, 1993) and 
    includes information on the status of the species, its life history 
    characteristics and habitat requirements, as well as projects, 
    activities and other factors affecting the species. The current status 
    of Johnson's seagrass is presented in the EA prepared for this critical 
    habitat designation.
        The physical habitat that supports Johnson's seagrass includes both 
    shallow intertidal as well as deeper subtidal zones. The species 
    prospers and is able to colonize and maintain stable populations either 
    in water that is clear and deep (2-5 m) or in water that is shallow and 
    turbid. In tidal channels, it inhabits coarse sand substrates.
        Based on published reports and discussions with seagrass experts, 
    the distributional range of Johnson's seagrass is limited to the east 
    coast of Florida from central Biscayne Bay (25 deg.45' N. lat.) to 
    Sebastian Inlet (27 deg.50' N. lat.). There have been no reports of 
    healthy populations of this species outside the presently known range. 
    Although the species occurs throughout the Indian River Lagoon and Lake 
    Worth, the five specific areas proposed for critical habitat encompass 
    the largest known contiguous populations of Johnson's seagrass. While a 
    population within Biscayne Bay has been confirmed by literature and 
    observation, it is discontinuous from the other areas where the species 
    is found, and the area has not been studied or delineated.
        The species is patchily distributed within its range. The 
    dimensions of patches range from a few square centimeters to 
    approximately 327 square meters. The survival of the species likely 
    depends on maintaining its existing viable populations, especially the 
    areas where the larger patches are found. The Sebastian Inlet 
    population is believed to be the northern limit of its distribution and 
    includes the largest known patch of Johnson's seagrass. The other areas 
    proposed for critical habitat designation represent the core range of 
    the species.
        Spread of the species into new areas is limited by its reproductive 
    potential. Johnson's seagrass possesses only female flowers; thus 
    vegetative propagation, most likely through asexual branching, appears 
    to be its only means of reproduction and dispersal. If an established 
    community is disturbed, regrowth and reestablishment is extremely 
    unlikely. If extirpated from an area, it is doubtful that the species 
    would be capable of repopulation. This species' method of reproduction 
    impedes its ability to increase distribution as establishment of new 
    vegetation requires considerable stability in environmental conditions 
    and protection from human-induced disturbances.
        Based on the best available information, the essential features of 
    the areas proposed for critical habitat designation include adequate 
    (1) water quality; (2) salinity levels; (3) water transparency; (4) and 
    stable, unconsolidated sediments that are free from physical 
    disturbance.
    
    Need for Special Management Consideration or Protection
    
        NMFS has determined that the essential areas and features described 
    in the previous section are at risk and may require special management 
    consideration or protection. Special management may be required because 
    of the following activities: (1) Vessel traffic and the resulting 
    propeller dredging and anchor mooring; (2) maintenance dredging; (3) 
    dock and marina construction; (4) water pollution; and (5) land use 
    practices.
        Activities associated with recreational boat traffic account for 
    the majority of human use associated with the proposed critical habitat 
    areas. The destruction of the benthic community due to boating 
    activities, propeller dredging, anchor mooring and dock and marina 
    construction was observed at all sites during a study by NMFS from 
    1990-1992. These activities severely disrupt the benthic habitat, 
    breaching root systems and severing rhizomes and significantly reducing 
    the viability of the benthic community. Propeller dredging and anchor 
    mooring in shallow areas is a major disturbance to even the most robust 
    seagrasses. This destruction is expected to worsen with the predicted 
    increase in boating activity (Pat Rose, Florida Department of Natural 
    Resources, personal communication). Trampling of seagrass beds, a 
    secondary effect of recreational boating, also contributes to 
    disturbing seagrass habitat. Populations of Johnson's seagrass 
    inhabiting shallow water close to inlets where vessel traffic is 
    concentrated will be most affected.
        The constant sedimentation patterns in and around inlets require 
    frequent maintenance dredging, which could either directly remove 
    essential seagrass habitat or indirectly affect it by redistributing 
    sediments, burying plants and destabilizing the bottom structure. 
    Altering benthic topography or burying the plants may remove them from 
    the photic zone.
        Decreased water transparency caused by suspended sediments, water 
    color and chlorophylls could have significant detrimental effects on 
    the distribution and abundance of the deeper water populations of 
    Johnson's seagrass. Evidence from a distribution survey in Hobe and 
    Jupiter Sounds indicates that the abundance of this seagrass diminishes 
    in the more turbid interior portion of the lagoon where reduced 
    photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) limits photosynthesis.
        Other areas of concern include seagrass beds located in proximity 
    to rivers and canal mouths where low salinity, highly colored water is 
    discharged. Freshwater discharge into areas adjacent to seagrass beds 
    may provoke physiological stress upon the plants by reducing the 
    salinity levels. Additionally, colored waters released into these areas 
    reduce the amount of sunlight necessary for photosynthesis by rapidly 
    attenuating shorter wavelengths of PAR.
        Also, continuing and increasing degradation of water quality due to 
    increased land use and water management threatens the welfare of 
    seagrass communities. Nutrient overenrichment caused by inorganic and 
    organic nitrogen and phosphorous loading via urban and agricultural 
    land run-off stimulates increased algal growth that may smother 
    Johnson's seagrass, shade rooted vegetation and diminish the oxygen 
    content of the water. Low oxygen conditions have a demonstrated 
    negative impact on seagrasses and associated communities.
        Special consideration and protection for these and other habitat 
    features will be evaluated during the section 7 process and in 
    development and implementation of a recovery plan. If adequate 
    protection cannot be provided through consultation or through the 
    recovery planning process, separate management actions with binding 
    requirements may be considered.
    
    Federal Activities that May Impact Essential Habitat and Features
    
        A wide range of activities funded, authorized or carried out by 
    Federal agencies may affect the essential habitat requirements of 
    Johnson's seagrass. These include authorization by the U.S. Army Corps 
    of Engineers for beach nourishment, dredging and related activities 
    including construction of docks and marinas; actions by the U.S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency to manage freshwater discharges into 
    waterways; regulation of vessel traffic by the U.S. Coast Guard; 
    authorization of oil and gas exploration by the Minerals Management 
    Service; management of national refuges and protected species by the 
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; management of vessel traffic and other 
    activities by the U.S. Navy; authorization of state coastal zone 
    management plans by NOAA's National Ocean Service, and management of 
    commercial fishing and protected species by NMFS.
    
    Expected Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat
    
        Under section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies are required to ensure 
    that actions that they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to 
    jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or to result in 
    the destruction or adverse modification of listed species' critical 
    habitat. Also, takings of Johnson's seagrass will be prohibited under 
    the proposed regulations issued to list the species as threatened.
        This designation will identify specific habitat areas that have 
    been determined to be essential for the conservation of Johnson's 
    seagrass and that may be in need of special management considerations 
    or protection. It will require Federal agencies to evaluate their 
    activities with respect to the critical habitat of this species and to 
    consult with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA before engaging in 
    any action that may affect the critical habitat.
        However, if Johnson's seagrass is listed as proposed, Federal 
    agencies active within the range of the species will be required to 
    consult with NMFS if projects and activities they authorize, fund or 
    otherwise carry out may affect the species, regardless of whether 
    critical habitat is designated. Therefore, it is unlikely that 
    additional consultations will result from designating critical habitat 
    for Johnson's seagrass.
        In addition, it is not likely that designation of critical habitat 
    for Johnson's seagrass will have any additional adverse economic 
    impacts on Federal, state or private activities beyond those that would 
    occur as a result of listing the species. As discussed in the section 
    on activities that may impact essential habitat and features, the 
    Federal activities that may affect critical habitat are the same 
    activities that may affect the species itself. For plants, this is 
    particularly true when analyzing the impacts of designating critical 
    habitat. For example, the activities that affect water quality, an 
    essential feature of critical habitat, also will be considered in terms 
    of how they affect the species itself.
        Should this proposed designation of critical habitat be adopted, 
    Federal agencies will continue to engage in section 7 consultations to 
    determine if the actions they authorize, fund or carry out are likely 
    to jeopardize the continued existence of Johnson's seagrass; however, 
    with designation, they would also need to address explicitly impacts to 
    the species' critical habitat. This is not expected to affect 
    materially the scope of future consultations or result in greater 
    economic impacts, since the impacts to Johnson's seagrass habitat will 
    already be considered in section 7 consultations.
        The economic costs to be considered in a critical habitat 
    designation are the incremental costs of designation above the economic 
    impacts attributable to listing or attributable to authorities other 
    that the ESA. NMFS has determined that there are no incremental net 
    costs for areas within the species' current distribution, and no areas 
    outside the current range are proposed for critical habitat 
    designation.
    
    Proposed Critical Habitat
    
        Based on available information, NMFS proposes to designate critical 
    habitat that is considered essential for the survival and recovery of 
    Johnson's seagrass and that may require special management 
    consideration or protection. The critical habitat designation proposed 
    by this rule includes the largest contiguous areas that are currently 
    utilized by Johnson's seagrass.
        Although Johnson's seagrass is found throughout the Indian River 
    Lagoon, Lake Worth and in some areas of Biscayne Bay, NMFS is not 
    proposing to include these areas in the proposed designation until more 
    information is available and the areas are delineated, and it can be 
    determined that these areas meet the requirements for designation as 
    critical habitat. For the same reason, NMFS is not including in the 
    proposed designation any areas outside the species' currently known 
    geographical area. NMFS has concluded that, at this time, proper 
    management of the essential features of the areas in proximity to the 
    five inlets will be sufficient to provide for the survival and recovery 
    of this species. If the species is listed as proposed, Federal 
    activities in any area occupied by Johnson's seagrass would be subject 
    to the section 7 consultation process whether or not the area has been 
    designated as critical habitat. In addition, NMFS may reconsider this 
    evaluation and propose additional areas for critical habitat at any 
    time.
        The five areas proposed for critical habitat designation include 
    the intertidal and subtidal areas in proximity to five inlets on the 
    east coast of Florida. These areas are within 3 to 5 kilometers of the 
    inlet and experience regular tidal flushing with salinity greater than 
    15 ppt. Maps are provided for reference purposes to guide Federal 
    agencies and other interested parties in locating the general 
    boundaries of the proposed critical habitat. They do not constitute the 
    definition of the boundaries of critical habitat. Persons must refer to 
    the regulations at 50 CFR 226.91 for the actual boundaries of the 
    designated critical habitat.
    
    Public Comments Solicited
    
        NMFS is soliciting information, comments or recommendations on any 
    aspect of this proposal from all interested parties. NMFS will consider 
    all recommendations received before reaching a final decision. Because 
    the proposed rule for adding this species to the List of Threatened and 
    Endangered Species and designation of critical habitat are closely 
    related, NMFS will hold a public hearing to receive comments on both 
    rulings (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
    
    Classification
    
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
    purposes of E.O. 12866.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the General Counsel of 
    the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for 
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, 
    if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities since it is primarily Federal 
    agencies that will be affected. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 
    analysis is not required.
        The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (NOAA) has determined 
    that the proposed designation is consistent to the maximum extent 
    practicable with the approved Coastal Zone Management Program of the 
    State of Florida. This determination has been submitted for review by 
    the responsible state agency under section 3.7 of the Coastal Zone 
    Management Act.
        NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 states that critical habitat 
    designations under the ESA are categorically excluded from the 
    requirement to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an 
    environmental impact statement. However, in order to evaluate more 
    clearly the impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation, NMFS 
    has prepared an EA. Copies of the assessment are available on request 
    (see ADDRESSES).
    
    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
    
        Endangered and threatened species.
    
        Dated: July 25, 1994.
    Gary C. Matlock,
    Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    
        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is 
    proposed to be amended as follows:
    
    PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
    
        1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
    
    Subpart E--[Reserved]
    
        2. A new subpart E is added to part 226 and reserved.
        3. A new subpart F is added to part 226, consisting of Sec. 226.91, 
    to read as follows:
    
    Subpart F--Critical Habitat for Marine Plants
    
    
    Sec. 226.91  Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii).
    
        (a) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, within the following 
    boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance of Sebastian Inlet, 
    follow the shoreline north to the tip of Mud Hole; cross the Indian 
    River at Mud Hole to the Intercoastal Waterway; follow the Intercoastal 
    Waterway south for 7.5 miles; cross the Indian River and follow the 
    shoreline north to the southwestern entrance of Sebastian Inlet 
    (Sebastian, Fla., 1970, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad.).
        (b) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, within the following 
    boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance to Ft. Pierce Inlet, 
    follow the shoreline north to the North Beach Causeway and the A1A 
    Bridge; move west across the river at the causeway and bridge and 
    follow the shoreline south for 1.5 miles; cross the Indian River to the 
    shoreline of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve; follow 
    the shoreline north to the southwestern entrance of Ft. Pierce Inlet 
    (Fort Pierce, Fla., 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad.).
        (c) A portion of the Indian River within the following boundary: 
    Beginning at the northwestern entrance of St. Lucie Inlet follow the 
    shoreline north to the A1A Bridge; cross the river at the bridge and 
    follow the shoreline south to the entrance of the Intercoastal Waterway 
    at St. Lucie State Park; follow the shoreline north to the southwestern 
    entrance of St. Lucie Inlet (Fort Pierce, Fla., 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' 
    quad.).
        (d) A portion of Jupiter Sound and Hobe Sound, Florida, within the 
    following boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance to Jupiter 
    Inlet, follow the shoreline north to the Highway 707 Bridge; cross Hobe 
    Sound at the bridge and follow the shoreline south; cross the Route 1 
    Bridge and follow the shoreline to the southwestern entrance of Jupiter 
    Inlet (Jupiter, Fla, 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad. and Hobe Sound, Fla., 
    1967, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad.).
        (e) A portion of Lake Worth, Florida, within the following 
    boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance to Lake Worth Inlet, 
    follow the shoreline north to the Riviera Beach bridge; cross Lake 
    Worth at the bridge and follow the shoreline south for 2.5 miles; cross 
    Lake Worth and follow the shoreline to the southwestern entrance of 
    Lake Worth Inlet (Riviera Beach, Fla., 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad).
        4. Figures 9 through 13 are added in numerical order to the end of 
    part 226 to read as follows:
    
    BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
    
    TP04AU94.005
    
    
    TP04AU94.006
    
    
    TP04AU94.007
    
    
    TP04AU94.008
    
    
    TP04AU94.009
    
    
    [FR Doc. 94-18975 Filed 8-3-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/04/1994
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-18975
Dates:
Comments on both proposed rules must be received by October 13, 1994. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, at 7:30 p.m.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: August 4, 1994, Docket No. 940701-4201, I.D. 113093B
CFR: (1)
50 CFR 226.91