Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat and Taxonomic Revision for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover
Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)
Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)
Proposed Rules
Pages 2243-2254
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2012-521
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070; MO92210-0-0009
RIN 1018-AX10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat and Taxonomic Revision for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the March 22, 2011, proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Pacific Coast WSP) (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also recognizing the recent change to the taxonomy of the currently threatened taxon in which the species was split into two distinct species. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Pacific Coast WSP and an amended required determinations section of the proposal and reopening of the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. We are also seeking comment on additional proposed revisions to Unit CA 46 in Orange County, California. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider comments received on or before February 16, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Finley, Field Supervisor or Jim Watkins, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone (707) 822-7201; facsimile (707) 822-8411. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP that was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046), our DEA of the proposed revised designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the designation of ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) Areas that provide habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP that we did not discuss in the proposed revised critical habitat rule, and
(b) Areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species which may require special management considerations or protection and that we should include in the designation, and reason(s) why.
(3) Specific information on our proposed revised designation of back-dune systems and other habitats in an attempt to offset the anticipated effects of sea-level rise associated with climate change.
(4) Specific information on the Pacific Coast WSP, habitat conditions, and the presence of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species at any of the critical habitat units proposed in this revised rule (see Critical Habitat Units section and previous rules (64 FR 68508, December 7, 1999; 70 FR 56970, September 29, 2005; 76 FR 16046, March 22, 2011)).
(5) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be refined to more closely circumscribe the areas
Page 2244
identified as containing the features essential to the species' conservation or how we mapped the water's edge and whether any alternative methods could be used to better determine the critical habitat boundaries.
(6) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed revised designation that are subject to these impacts.
(7) Any information regarding the areas exempted from the proposed revised rule or whether any specific areas being proposed as revised critical habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any particular area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, including Tribal lands, within the proposed revised designation.
(8) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
(9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat.
(10) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
(11) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed revised critical habitat designation.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 16046) during the initial comment period from March 22, 2011, to May 23, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070, or by mail from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the taxonomic name change and designation of critical habitat for Pacific Coast WSP in this document. For more background information concerning the Pacific Coast WSP, refer to the proposed revised designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046). For more information on the Pacific Coast WSP or its habitat, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2010-
0070) or the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast WSP (Service 2007), which is online at http://ecos.fws.gov or from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
On March 22, 2011, we published a proposed rule to revise the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP (76 FR 16046). We proposed to designate approximately 28,261 acres (ac) (11,436 hectares (ha)) in 68 units located in Washington, Oregon, and California as critical habitat. That proposal opened a 60-day comment period, ending May 23, 2011. In this document we are proposing to revise the boundaries to Unit CA 46 based on new information (see Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat below). We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP on or before June 12, 2012.
Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes Affecting Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
We are making a technical correction to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reflect our acceptance of a taxonomic and nomenclatural change of western snowy plover to Charadrius nivosus nivosus from C. alexandrinus nivosus. We listed the Pacific Coast WSP as threatened under the then-recognized name of Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (58 FR 12864; March 5, 1993), which is a subspecies of the Eurasian Kentish plover (Charadrius alexandrinus (Linnaeus 1758)). We accepted this taxonomy and have used this name in all Service documents up to and including our proposed revision to the critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011).
In 2009, Clemens Kuumlpper (Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK); Tamaacutes Szeacutekely (Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK); and Terry Burke (Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK), submitted a proposal to the American Ornithologist's Union (AOU)--the recognized body on ornithological naming and scientific nomenclature (AOU 2010A, pp. 145-
146). The proposal presented information to split the Kentish plover from the snowy plover and adopt Kentish plover for Palaearctic populations (zoogeographical region consisting of Europe, Africa north of the Sahara, and most of Asia north of the Himalayas) and change the scientific name of the snowy plover in Central and North America to Charadrius nivosus (Cassin 1858) with three subspecies: C. nivosus nivosus (currently C. alexandrinus
Page 2245
nivosus) (range to include all of the continental United States and portions of Mexico), C. nivosus tenuirostris (currently C. alexandrinus nivosus) (range to include Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Caribbean and the Yucatan Peninsula) and C. nivosus occidentalis (currently C. alexandrinus occidentalis) (range to include South America). The proposal cited genetic, morphological, and behavioral differences between C. alexandrinus and C. nivosus (Funk et al. 2007; Kuumlpper et al. 2009). The proposal was adopted by the AOU (AOU 2010B, pp. 1-5; Chesser et al. 2011, pp. 603-604). We are within this proposed rule accepting the taxonomic change for the Pacific Coast WSP and recognize the listed entity as C. nivosus nivosus and will make changes to the Code of Federal Regulations in the final designation (see Proposed Regulation Promulgation section). We also make the necessary changes to the historical range of C. nivosus nivosus at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to include the entire continental United States. These technical corrections do not affect the description, distribution, or listing status of the Pacific Coast WSP. However, the complete range of C. nivosus nivosus now includes the Florida occurrences of the subspecies.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed revised rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies funding, authorizing, permitting, or proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate and revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of the Interior may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of the Pacific Coast WSP, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the Pacific Coast WSP and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for Pacific Coast WSP due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Federal agencies.
The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed revised critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES section).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP. The DEA separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to ``without critical habitat'' and ``with critical habitat'' scenarios. The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to the Pacific Coast WSP (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, these incremental conservation measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when weighing the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, ``Framework for the Analysis,'' of the DEA (Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc) 2011).
The DEA evaluates the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP. The analysis focuses on reasonably foreseeable incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation, or those impacts not expected to occur absent critical habitat designation. Forecasted impacts are based on the planning periods for potentially affected projects and look out over a 20-year time horizon (through 2031). The DEA considers economic impacts of Pacific Coast WSP conservation efforts on the following activities: (1) Recreation; (2) development; (3) gravel mining; (4) military activities; and (5) habitat and species management.
Due to strong existing protections (include symbolic fencing, nest exclosures, signage, driving restrictions, and mechanized beach cleaning restrictions) for the Pacific Coast WSP, the direct incremental impacts quantified in the DEA are limited to the administrative cost of considering adverse modification during section 7 consultation with the Service as well as the additional effort necessary to include analysis of critical habitat in three future Habitat Conservation Plans
Page 2246
and one Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). These incremental impacts of the proposed revised critical habitat designation over the 20-year timeframe (2012 through 2031) are estimated to be $261,000 ($24,700 on an annualized basis), assuming a seven percent discount rate. Impacts to military activities represent the greatest percentage of these overall cost estimates--approximately 72 percent. Impacts to development activities represent approximately 17 percent, habitat and species management 6 percent, and mining 4 percent of the overall impacts (percentages do not sum due to rounding). Incremental impacts to recreational activities are not expected due to lack of a Federal nexus compelling section 7 consultation with the Service and significant protection already provided by existing regulations and programs (IEc 2011, pp. 4-9-4-12).
The analysis also identifies three activities that may experience indirect incremental impacts of the proposed revised critical habitat designation: Recreation at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) (Unit CA 31), development of the Sterling/McDonald site (Unit CA 22), and development of the Security National Guaranty (SNG) site (Unit CA 22). Indirect impacts resulting from future litigation or increased scrutiny from State agencies may include prohibiting off-highway-
vehicle use at Oceano Dunes SVRA and denial of development permits for the Sterling/McDonald and SNG sites. Due to uncertainty surrounding the likelihood and extent of such indirect impacts, the data necessary to quantify these impacts are unavailable. Therefore, these indirect incremental impacts are discussed qualitatively in the DEA (IEc 2011, p. 4-2).
Vandenberg Air Force Base INRMP
In the March 22, 2011, proposed revised designation of critical habitat (76 FR 16046), we did not consider Vandenberg Air Force Base for exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the Act because they had not yet completed a Service-approved INRMP. On April 14, 2011, VAFB completed and we approved the INRMP for VAFB as part of the requirements of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) (for a full discussion of the Sikes Act, see the Exemptions section of the March 22, 2011, proposed revision to critical habitat (76 FR 16046)). The VAFB INRMP provides for the conservation, management, and stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. The INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Because the INRMP was not finalized and approved prior to the March 22, 2011, proposed revised critical habitat designation for the Pacific Coast WSP (76 FR 16046), we did not exempt these areas prior to their proposal. We will review the INRMP and will determine in our final designation of critical habitat if the plan provides a benefit to the Pacific Coast WSP in those areas covered by the INRMP that we had determined to be essential to and for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP. If it does, we will exempt those areas covered by the INRMP from the final designation under the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) and section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed revised designation, the changes contained in this NOA, and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed revised designation or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat
In this document, we are making revisions to the proposed revised critical habitat as identified and described in the proposed rule that we published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16046) and are seeking comment on the revisions. The changes occur in what was proposed as subunits CA 46A-D (Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) and subunit CA 46E (Bolsa Chica State Beach) of Unit CA 46. We are also adding one subunit (subunit CA 46F) to Unit CA 46. During the public comment period for the March 22, 2011, proposed revised critical habitat (76 FR 16046), we received comments from a species expert indicating that we should reevaluate the proposed boundaries at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve because certain areas included in Unit CA 46 are not utilized for nesting or foraging by the Pacific Coast WSP, whereas other areas that were not included in proposed revised critical habitat within Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are used for nesting and foraging (P. Knapp, pers. comm. 2011).
We also received comments and new information from California State Parks and a species expert indicating that we should reevaluate the proposed boundaries of subunit CA 46E at Bolsa Chica State Beach because the area no longer contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and is no longer being used for wintering by the Pacific Coast WSP and has not been used in the last 4 years (D. Prior, California State Parks, pers. comm. 2011; P. Knapp, pers. comm. 2011). The information provided indicated that areas north of the proposal in subunit CA 46E at Bolsa Chica State Beach are being used by the Pacific Coast WSP as a wintering habitat and that we should reevaluate the proposed boundaries of beach areas in Unit CA 46 (Prior, pers. comm. 2011; Knapp, pers. comm. 2011). We have reviewed the new information and have determined it appropriate to adjust our proposed revised designation of Unit CA 46.
The purpose of the revisions described below is to better delineate the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP and to ensure that all areas proposed are consistent with the criteria outlined in the proposed revised rule (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section in the proposed revised critical habitat designation (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011)). The areas added to the proposed unit are within the geographical area that was occupied by the species at the time it was listed and contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. A revised map is included in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of this document. Below, we briefly describe the changes made to Unit CA 46. As a result of these revisions, the naming convention for the subunits CA 46A-E will change and an additional subunit (CA 46F) will be added. Also as a result of these revisions, the total area proposed for designation as critical habitat in Unit CA 46 is 568 ac (230 ha), an increase of 50 ac (20 ha). The change increases the total amount of proposed revised critical habitat to 30,497 ac (12,342 ha) (see Table 3 below).
Page 2247
Changes to Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions
Unit CA 46: Bolsa Chica State Beach and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve
Through this notice, we propose to exchange the naming conventions between subunits CA 46A and 46E so that the Bolsa Chica State Beach will now be part of subunit CA 46A and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve will include subunits CA 46B-F. As revised here, the subunits in Bolsa Chica State Beach and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are located east of the Pacific Coast Highway, in Orange County, California. As a result of this revision, the total area proposed for designation as critical habitat at Bolsa Chica State Beach (now designated as subunit CA 46A) is 93 ac (38 ha); and the total area for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve subunits (now designated as subunits CA 46B-46F) is 475 ac (192 ha). These subunits are entirely owned by the State of California.
Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve contains significant nesting and foraging areas. This location supported 47 breeding adult Pacific Coast WSP in 2009 (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 8). All subunits at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve were occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied and annually support one of the largest breeding populations of Pacific Coast WSP in the region. The Recovery Plan for Pacific Coast WSP states that this location contributes to the conservation goal for the region by providing a management potential of 70 breeding birds (Service 2007, Appendix B). This location also supported an average wintering flock of 14 Pacific Coast WSP from 2003 through 2010 (Service unpublished data). In the proposed revised rule, we incorrectly stated that this reserve is an abandoned oil field. This reserve is in fact an active oil field that underwent significant reconstruction and restoration between 2004 and 2006, including the addition of three new nest sites and a new ocean inlet that allows the water level to rise and fall resembling the irregular semi-diurnal tidal range of southern California's ocean waters (Knapp and Peterson 2009, p. 1). Including these occupied areas for breeding, foraging, and dispersal is consistent with our criteria used to identify critical habitat, as outlined in the proposed rule (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011). No changes were made to subunits CA 46B or CA 46D. Please see the proposed revised critical habitat for a description of these subunits (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011).
Subunit CA 46A: Bolsa Chica State Beach
Through this notice, the proposed revised designation's subunit CA 46E is renamed as subunit CA 46A. After further analysis and review of comments received on the proposed revised designation, we have adjusted the boundary of the 8 ac (3 ha) of beach that was included in the proposed rule because the area no longer contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and has not supported Pacific Coast WSP for the past 4 years (Prior, pers. comm. 2011). The subunit as revised here consists of sandy beach habitat north of the critical habitat unit proposed in March 2011, and extends to just south of the Sunset Beach area near Warner Avenue adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. As a result of the revision reflected here, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46A is 93 ac (38 ha), an increase of 85 ac (35 ha) from what was proposed for Bolsa Chica State Beach in the proposed revised designation. This subunit is owned entirely by the State of California. The revised subunit CA 46A was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, including a wide sandy beach with occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates for foraging, and because it supports an average wintering flock of 27 Pacific Coast WSP (Service unpublished data 2003-2010) in a location with high-quality breeding habitat. Subunit CA 46A may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from recreational disturbance and beach raking as discussed for this subunit in the March 2011 proposed revised rule. Additionally, adding occupied areas for wintering, foraging, and dispersal is consistent with our criteria used to identify critical habitat, as outlined in the proposed revised rule (76 FR 16046; March 22, 2011).
Unit CA46: Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve; Subunits CA 46C, 46E, 46F
Subunit CA 46C
We revised subunit CA 46C to include additional areas containing the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species for breeding, foraging, and dispersal that were not captured in the proposed revised rule. This addition is based on information received during the public comment period that indicates that these areas include year-round foraging habitat in extensive mudflats and additional nesting areas for Pacific Coast WSP to expand into. This unit was occupied at the time of listing. This location contains the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, including tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. As a result of this revision, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46C is 222 ac (90 ha), an increase of 201 ac (81 ha) from the proposed rule. This location contains tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds and nesting islands that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation encroachment in nesting and foraging areas and predation of chicks and eggs.
Subunit CA 46E
Here, we rename the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve areas that were proposed as subunit CA 46A in the proposed revised rule to subunit CA 46E and remove the areas that do not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This area was occupied at the time of listing. This revised subunit CA 46E is reduced in size to more accurately represent the nesting and foraging areas used by Pacific Coast WSP. We removed almost all of the Muted Tidal Basin area from subunit 46E because this area does not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Pacific Coast WSP. We have adjusted the boundary in the Future Full Tidal Basin to represent areas used for nesting and foraging. As a result of this revision, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46E is 247 ac (100 ha), a decrease of 237 ac (96 ha) from what was proposed as subunit CA 46A in the proposed rule. This revised location contains tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds and nesting islands that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation encroachment in nesting and
Page 2248
foraging areas and predation of chicks and eggs.
Subunit 46F
We add one subunit (CA 46F) to represent the single nesting and foraging area utilized by Pacific Coast WSP in the Muted Tidal Basin (Nest Site 2). This area was occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This location contains tidally influenced estuarine mud flats supporting small invertebrates, and seasonally dry ponds and nesting islands that provide nesting and foraging habitat for Pacific Coast WSP. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from vegetation encroachment in nesting and foraging areas and predation of chicks and eggs. As a result of this addition, the area proposed for designation as critical habitat in subunit CA 46F is 2 ac (1 ha).
In addition to the unit changes outlined above, we are also correcting land ownership acreage numbers identified in Table 3 of the March 22, 2011, proposed revised rule (76 FR 16046). The corrected Table 3 with changes to Unit CA-46 is below. Also, in the proposed revised rule we incorrectly stated that no Department of Defense lands were within the proposed revised designation. Approximately 1,084 ac (439 ha) have been identified on VAFB in units CA-32 and CA-33. On April 14, 2011, we approved the INRMP for VAFB and have determined that the plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. We have now reviewed and approved the VAFB INRMP and will recommend that the Secretary exempt the areas determined to be essential to and for the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP from the final designation under the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) and section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
Table 3--Proposed Revised Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast WSP Showing Federal, State, Tribal, and Other (Private and Local Government) Land
Ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Tribal State Other
Unit number Unit name -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington:
WA 1............................. Copalis Spit........... 407 165 0 0 0 0 407 165 0 0
WA 2............................. Damon Point............ 673 272 0 0 0 0 648 262 25 10
WA 3A............................ Midway Beach........... 697 282 0 0 0 0 697 282 0 0
WA 3B *.......................... Shoalwater/Graveyard... 1,121 454 0 0 336 136 505 204 280 113
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit WA-3 Totals............. ....................... 1,818 736 0 0 336 136 1,202 486 280 113
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA 4A............................ Leadbetter Spit........ 2,463 997 2,026 820 0 0 437 177 0 0
WA 4B............................ Gunpowder Sands Island. 904 366 904 366 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit WA-4 Totals............. ....................... 3,367 1,363 2,930 1,186 0 0 437 177 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON STATE TOTALS.. ....................... 6,265 2,535 2,930 1,186 336 136 2,694 1,090 305 123
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon:
OR 1............................. Columbia River Spit.... 169 68 169 68 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR 2............................. Necanicum River Spit... 211 85 0 0 0 0 161 65 50 20
OR 3............................. Nehalem River Spit..... 299 121 0 0 0 0 299 121 0 0
OR 4............................. Bayocean Spit.......... 367 149 279 113 0 0 0 0 88 36
OR 5............................. Netarts Spit........... 541 219 0 0 0 0 541 219 0 0
OR 6............................. Sand Lake South........ 200 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 81
OR 7............................. Sutton/Baker Beaches... 372 151 372 151 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR 8A............................ Siltcoos Breach........ 15 6 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR 8B............................ Siltcoos River Spit.... 241 98 241 98 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR 8C............................ Dunes Overlook 716 290 716 290 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tahkenitch Creek Spit.
OR 8D............................ North Umpqua River Spit 236 96 151 61 0 0 85 34 0 0
Unit OR-8 Totals............. ....................... 1,208 489 1,123 454 0 0 85 34 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR 9............................. Tenmile Creek Spit..... 244 99 244 99 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR 10............................ Coos Bay North Spit.... 308 125 308 125 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR 11............................ Bandon to New River.... 1,016 411 459 186 0 0 267 108 290 117
OR 12 *.......................... Elk River Spit......... 167 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 68
OR 13............................ Euchre Creek........... 116 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 47
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OREGON STATE TOTALS...... ....................... 5,218 2,112 2,954 1,195 0 0 1,353 548 911 369
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:
CA 1............................. Lake Earl.............. 74 30 0 0 0 0 22 9 52 21
CA 2............................. Gold Bluffs Beach...... 235 95 0 0 0 0 235 95 0 0
CA 3A............................ Humboldt Lagoons--Stone 55 22 0 0 0 0 55 22 0 0
Lagoon.
CA 3B............................ Humboldt Lagoons--Big 271 110 0 0 0 0 270 109
