[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