[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 184 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57136-57159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24198]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG34


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Riverside Fairy Shrimp

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, propose designation of 
critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus 
woottoni), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 
We propose designation of critical habitat within an approximately 
4,880-hectare (12,060-acre) area in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 
Diego, and Ventura counties, California.
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to 
the conservation of a listed species and may require special management 
considerations or protection. The primary constituent elements for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp are those habitat components that are essential 
for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, reproduction, 
and dispersal.
    If this proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act would 
prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any 
activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. 
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 
November 20,

[[Page 57137]]

2000. Public hearing requests must be received by November 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods.
    1. You may mail written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue 
West, Carlsbad, California.
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected]. See the Public Comments Solicited section below for 
file format and other information about electronic filing.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office or at the Ventura Fish 
and Wildlife Office, 2394 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Ken Berg, Carlsbad Fish 
and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440; 
facsimile 760/431-5902).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus wootoni) is 
a small aquatic crustacean (Order: Anostraca) that occurs in vernal 
pools, pool-like ephemeral ponds, and human-modified depressions from 
coastal southern California south to northwestern Baja California, 
Mexico. This species is typically found in pools, ponds, and 
depressions that are deeper and cooler than the basins that support the 
related species, the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus 
sandiegonensis) (Hathaway and Simovich 1996). Water chemistry, depth, 
temperature, and ponding are considered important factors in 
determining fairy shrimp distribution (Belk 1977; Branchiopod Research 
Group 1996; Gonzales et al. 1996); hence, no individuals have been 
found in riverine or marine waters.
    Mature males are between 13 to 25 millimeters (mm) (0.5 to 1.0 
inches (in.)) long. The cercopods (structures that enhance the rudder-
like function of the abdomen) are separate with plumose setae (feathery 
bristles) along the borders. Mature females are between about 13 to 22 
mm (0.5 to 0.87 in.) in total length. The brood pouch extends to the 
seventh, eighth, or ninth abdominal segment. The cercopods of females 
are the same as the males. Both sexes of Riverside fairy shrimp have 
the red color of the cercopods covering all of the ninth abdominal 
segment and 30 to 40 percent of the eighth abdominal segment. Nearly 
all species of fairy shrimp feed on algae, bacteria, protozoa, 
rotifers, and bits of organic matter (Pennak 1989; Eng et al. 1990).
    Basins that support Riverside fairy shrimp are typically dry a 
portion of the year, but usually are filled by late fall, winter, or 
spring rains, and may persist into April or May. All anostracans, like 
the Riverside fairy shrimp, deposit eggs or cysts (organisms in a 
resting stage) in the pool's soil to wait out dry periods. The hatching 
of the cysts is usually observed from January to March; however, in 
years with early or late rainfall, the hatching period may be extended. 
The species hatches within 7 to 21 days after the pool refills, 
depending on water temperature, and matures between 48 to 56 days, 
depending on a variety of habitat conditions (Hathaway and Simovich 
1996). The ``resting'' or ``summer'' cysts are capable of withstanding 
temperature extremes and prolonged drying. When the pools refill in the 
same or subsequent rainy seasons, some but not all of the eggs may 
hatch. Fairy shrimp egg banks in the soil may be composed of the eggs 
from several years of breeding (Donald 1983; Simovich and Hathaway 
1997). Simovich and Hathaway (1997) found that only a fraction of the 
total cyst bank of anostracans in areas with variable weather 
conditions or filling periods, such as southern California, may hatch 
in any given year. Thus, reproductive success is spread over several 
seasons.
    Vernal pools have a discontinuous occurrence in several regions of 
California (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1995), from as far north as the Modoc 
Plateau in Modoc County, south to the international border in San Diego 
County. Vernal pools form in regions with Mediterranean climates, where 
shallow depressions fill with water during fall and winter rains and 
then evaporate in the spring (Collie and Lathrop 1976; Holland 1976, 
1988; Holland and Jain 1977, 1988; Thorne 1984; Zedler 1987; Simovich 
and Hathaway 1997). In years of high precipitation, overbank flooding 
from intermittent streams may augment the amount of water in some 
vernal pools (Hanes et al. 1990). Critical to the formation of vernal 
pools is the presence of nearly impermeable surface or subsurface soil 
layers and flat or gently sloping topography (less than 10 percent 
slope). Downward percolation of water in vernal pool basins is 
prevented by the presence of this impervious layer (Holland 1976, 
1988). In southern California, these impervious layers are typically 
alluvial materials with clay or clay loam subsoils, and they often form 
a distinctive micro-relief known as Gilgai or mima mound topography 
(Hallsworth et al. 1955; Cox 1984a). Basaltic or granitic substrates 
(e.g., Hidden Lake and Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County) or 
indurated hardpan layers (e.g., coastal San Diego County) may 
contribute to poor drainage as well. Vernal pool studies conducted in 
the Sacramento Valley indicate that the contribution of subsurface or 
overland water flows is significant only in years of high precipitation 
when pools are already saturated (Hanes and Stromberg 1996).
    On the coastal terraces in San Diego County, pools are associated 
with the Huerhuero, Stockpen, Redding, and Olivenhain soil series. 
Huerhuero and Stockpen soils were derived from marine sediments and 
terraces, while the Redding and Olivenhain soils series were formed 
from alluvium. The Redding and Olivenhain soils are believed to have 
supported the majority of the pools historically found in San Diego 
County. In Riverside County, the Santa Rosa Plateau has Murrieta stony 
clay loams and soils of the Las Posas series (Lathrop and Thorne 1976), 
and at Skunk Hollow the soils in the immediate area of the vernal pool 
are Las Posas clay loam, Wyman clay loam, and Willows soil (Zedler et 
al. 1990).
    Vernal pool systems are often characterized by different landscape 
features including mima mound (miniature mounds) micro-topography, 
varied pool basin size and depth, and vernal swales (low tract of 
marshy land). Vernal pool complexes that support one to more vernal 
pools are often interconnected by a shared watershed. This habitat 
heterogeneity (consisting of dissimilar elements or parts) generally 
ensures that some between-pool water flow continues.
    Urban and water development, flood control, highway and utility 
projects, as well as conversion of wildlands to agricultural use, have 
eliminated or degraded vernal pools and/or their watersheds in southern 
California (Jones and Stokes Associates 1987). Changes in hydrologic 
patterns, certain military activities, unauthorized fills, overgrazing, 
and off-road vehicle use also may imperil this aquatic habitat and the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. The

[[Page 57138]]

flora and fauna in vernal pools or swales can change if the hydrologic 
regime is altered (Bauder 1986). Anthropogenic (human origin) 
activities that reduce the extent of the watershed or that alter runoff 
patterns (i.e., amounts and seasonal distribution of water) may 
eliminate the Riverside fairy shrimp, reduce population sizes or 
reproductive success, or shift the location of sites inhabited by this 
species.
    Historically, vernal pool soils covered approximately 500 square 
kilometers (km2) (200 square miles (mi2)) of San 
Diego County (Bauder and McMillan 1998). The greatest recent losses of 
vernal pool habitat in San Diego County have occurred in Mira Mesa, 
Rancho Penasquitos, and Kearny Mesa, which accounted for 73 percent of 
all the pools destroyed in the region during the 7-year period between 
1979 and 1986 (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1995). Other substantial losses have 
occurred in the Otay Mesa area, where over 40 percent of the vernal 
pools were destroyed between 1979 and 1990. Similar to San Diego 
County, vernal pool habitat was once extensive on the coastal plain of 
Los Angeles and Orange counties (Mattoni and Longcore 1998). 
Unfortunately, there has been a near-total loss of vernal pool habitat 
in these areas (Ferren and Pritchett 1988; Keeler-Wolf et al. 1995). 
Significant losses of vernal pools supporting this species have also 
occurred in Riverside County.

Previous Federal Action

    The San Gorgonio chapter of the Sierra Club submitted a petition 
dated September 19, 1988, to list the Riverside fairy shrimp as 
endangered. The petitioner asserted that emergency listing for this 
species was appropriate. However, the Service determined that emergency 
listing was not warranted since the species was more widespread than 
first thought and occurred in at least one protected site. 
Nevertheless, we did publish a proposed rule to list the Riverside 
fairy shrimp as an endangered species in the Federal Register on 
November 12, 1991 (56 FR 57503). Because the species was not identified 
until 1985, and its existence remained known only to a few scientists 
until 1988, the proposed rule constituted the first Federal action on 
the Riverside fairy shrimp. We published the final rule to list the 
Riverside fairy shrimp as endangered in the Federal Register on August 
3, 1993 (58 FR 41384). In 1998, the Vernal Pools of Southern California 
Recovery Plan ((U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1998) was 
finalized. This recovery plan included the efforts required to meet the 
recovery needs of the Riverside fairy shrimp.
    On June 30, 1999, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 
filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Northern District of 
California for our failure to designate critical habitat for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. On February 15, 2000, the Service entered into 
a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, by which the Service agreed 
to readdress the prudency of designating critical habitat for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp by September 1, 2000, and propose critical 
habitat if prudent (Southwest Center for Biodiversity v. United States 
Department of the Interior et. al., C99-3202 SC). This date was 
subsequently extended to September 15, 2000.
    At the time of listing, we concluded that designation of critical 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp was not prudent because such 
designation would not benefit the species. We were concerned that 
critical habitat designation would likely increase the degree of threat 
from vandalism, collecting, or other human activities. However, we have 
determined that the threats to this species and its habitat from 
specific instances of habitat destruction do not outweigh the broader 
educational and any potential regulatory and other possible benefits 
that designation of critical habitat would provide for this species. A 
designation of critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp will 
provide educational benefits by formally identifying those areas 
essential to the conservation of the species. These areas were already 
identified in the Vernal Pools of Southern California Recovery Plan as 
the focus of our recovery efforts for the Riverside fairy shrimp 
(Service 1998).

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.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat 
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may 
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical 
habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the 
species.
    Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation 
activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the 
physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of that species. Designation of critical habitat alerts 
the public as well as land-managing agencies to the importance of these 
areas.
    Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and may provide protection to 
areas where significant threats to the species have been identified. 
Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse 
modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal 
agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are 
likely to result in the adverse modification or destruction of proposed 
critical habitat. Aside from the protection that may be provided under 
section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands 
designated as critical habitat.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult 
with us to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 
endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. In 50 CFR 402.02, ``jeopardize the 
continued existence'' (of a species) is defined as engaging in an 
activity likely to result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood 
of survival and recovery of a listed species. ``Destruction or adverse 
modification'' (of critical habitat) is defined as a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for the survival and recovery of the listed species for which critical 
habitat was designated. Thus, the definitions of ``jeopardy'' to the 
species and ``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are nearly 
identical (50 CFR 402.02).
    Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery 
of a listed

[[Page 57139]]

species. Designation does not create a management plan, establish 
numerical population goals, and prescribe specific management actions 
(inside or outside of critical habitat). Specific management 
recommendations for areas designated as critical habitat are most 
appropriately addressed in recovery, conservation, and management 
plans, and through section 7 consultations and section 10 permits.

Methods

    In determining areas that are essential to conserve the Riverside 
fairy shrimp, we used the best scientific and commercial data 
available. This included data from research and survey observations 
published in peer-reviewed articles, recovery criteria outlined in the 
Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California (Recovery Plan) 
(USFWS 1998), regional Geographic Information System (GIS) vegetation 
and species coverages (including layers for Los Angeles, Orange, 
Riverside, and San Diego counties), data collected on the U.S. Marine 
Corps Air Station Miramar (Miramar) and U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp 
Pendleton (Camp Pendleton), and data collected from reports submitted 
by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits. As stated 
earlier, Riverside fairy shrimp occur in ephemeral pools and ponds that 
may not be present throughout a given year or from year to year. 
Therefore, proposed critical habitat units include a mosaic of vernal 
pools, ponds, and depressions currently supporting Riverside fairy 
shrimp, as well as areas that have supported vernal pools in the past 
and are still capable of supporting pools, vernal pool vegetation, and 
the Riverside fairy.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base critical habitat determinations 
on the best scientific and commercial data available. We consider those 
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These features 
include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population 
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding and 
reproduction; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic and ecological distributions of a 
species.
    The primary constituent elements for the Riverside fairy shrimp are 
those habitat components that are essential for the primary biological 
needs of foraging, sheltering, reproduction, and dispersal. These 
primary constituent elements are found in areas that support vernal 
pools or other ephemeral ponds and depressions and their associated 
watersheds. The primary constituent elements are: small to large pools 
with moderate to deep depths that hold water for sufficient lengths of 
time necessary for Riverside fairy shrimp incubation and reproduction, 
but not necessarily every year; the associated watershed(s) and other 
hydrologic features that support pool basins and their related pool 
complexes; flat or gently sloping topography; and any soil type with a 
clay component and/or an impermeable surface or subsurface layer known 
to support vernal pool habitat. All proposed critical habitat areas 
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In an effort to map areas essential to the conservation of the 
species, we used data on known Riverside fairy shrimp locations and 
those vernal pools and vernal pool complexes that were identified in 
the Recovery Plan as essential for the stabilization and recovery of 
the species. We then evaluated those areas based on the hydrology, 
watershed, and topographic features. Based on this evaluation, a 250-
meter (m) (0.15 mile (mi)) Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid was 
overlaid on top of those vernal pool complexes and their associated 
watersheds. The UTM grid encompasses either individual vernal pool 
basins or vernal pool complexes and provides additional assurances that 
watersheds and hydrologic processes are captured and maintained for 
this species. In those cases where occupied vernal pools were not 
specifically mapped in the Recovery Plan, we relied on recent 
scientific data to update the map coverage. We did not map critical 
habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all developed areas, such as 
towns or housing developments, or other lands unlikely to contain the 
primary constituent elements essential for conservation of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. Areas of existing features and structures 
within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, 
aqueducts, railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other 
urban landscaped areas, will not contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas, 
therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they 
affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent 
critical habitat.
    We also considered the existing status of lands in areas proposed 
as critical habitat and whether to exclude legally operative Habitat 
Conservation Plans (HCP) through section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We fully 
expect that HCPs undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g., counties, 
cities) and other parties will identify, protect, and provide 
appropriate management for those specific lands within the boundaries 
of the plans that are essential for the long-term conservation of the 
species. We also expect that activities covered by and carried out in 
accordance with the provisions of a legally operative HCP will not 
result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    We expect that critical habitat may be used as a tool to help 
identify areas within the range of the Riverside fairy shrimp that are 
most critical for the conservation of the species. Critical habitat 
designation should not preclude the development of HCPs on non-Federal 
lands. We consider HCPs to be one of the most important methods through 
which non-Federal landowners can resolve endangered species conflicts. 
We provide technical assistance and work closely with applicants 
throughout development of HCPs to help identify special management 
considerations for listed species.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The approximate area encompassing proposed critical habitat by 
county and land ownership is shown in Table 1. Proposed critical 
habitat includes Riverside fairy shrimp habitat throughout the species' 
range in the United States (i.e., Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 
Diego, and Ventura counties, California) and is generally based on the 
geographic location of vernal pools, soil types, and local variation of 
topographic position (i.e., coastal mesas or inland valleys). Lands 
proposed are under private, State, and Federal ownership and divided 
into six Critical Habitat Units. A brief description of each unit and 
reasons for proposing it as critical habitat are presented below.

[[Page 57140]]



            Table 1.--Approximate Area Encompassing Proposed Critical Habitat in Hectares (HA) (Acres (AC)) by County and Land Ownership.\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             County                       Federal land                Local/state land                Private land                      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles....................  N/A..........................  N/A.........................  195 ha (480 ac).............  195 ha (480 ac)
Ventura........................  N/A..........................  N/A.........................  25 ha (60 ac)...............  25 ha (60 ac)
Riverside......................  N/A..........................  N/A.........................  1,775 ha (4,390 ac).........  1,775 ha (4,390 ac)
Orange.........................  45 ha (110 ac)...............  5 ha (10 ac)................  405 ha (1,000 ac)...........  455 ha (1,120 ac)
San Diego......................  2,290 ha (5,660 ac)..........  N/A.........................  140 ha (350 ac).............  2,430 ha (6,010 ac)
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................  2,335 ha (5,770 ac)..........  5 ha (10 ac)................  2,540 ha (6,280 ac).........  4,880 ha (12,060 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.471 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, approximate
  hectares and acres have been rounded to the nearest 5.

    Map Unit 1: Transverse Range Critical Habitat Unit, Ventura and Los 
Angeles Counties, California (145 ha (350 ac)).
    The Transverse Range critical habitat unit includes the vernal 
pools at Cruzan Mesa, Los Angeles County, and the former Carlsberg 
Ranch, Ventura County. These vernal pools represent the northern limit 
of occupied habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp and are the last 
remaining vernal pools in Los Angeles and Ventura counties known to 
support this species. The conservation of these vernal pools is 
necessary to stabilize the populations of Riverside fairy shrimp in Los 
Angeles and Ventura counties by providing protection for the pools, as 
well as indicating the importance of these pools to the recovery of the 
species.
    Map Unit 2: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area, Los Angeles 
and Orange Counties, California. (525 ha (1,310 ac)).
    The Los Angeles coastal prairie unit includes an approximately 12-
ha (30-ac) area within and adjacent to the El Segundo Blue Butterfly 
Preserve, west of Pershing Drive at the Los Angeles International 
Airport. This unit is the only suitable remnant area located within the 
historical coastal prairie landscape, which formerly extended from 
Playa del Rey south to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, an area of 
approximately 95 km\2\ (37 mi\2\ ). This landscape historically 
included the federally endangered California orcutt grass (Orcuttia 
californica) and San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. 
parishii). This unit also supports versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 
lindahli) and western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii). Riverside 
fairy shrimp cysts were first collected east of Pershing Drive in 1997, 
but adult shrimp have not been found to date, likely due to the 
extensive disturbance to the landscape, including the introduction of 
fill material, changes in water chemistry, modification of the 
watersheds, and the resulting shortened duration of water ponding. We 
are not designating the area east of Pershing Drive due to the 
extensive alteration of the habitat that has occurred. Considering the 
extensive habitat available, populations of Riverside fairy shrimp in 
this region were likely robust and formed the core population between 
the limited Cruzan Mesa and Carlsberg Ranch pools (Unit 1), at the 
northern end of the range of the species, and the pool groups in 
central and southern Orange County. The conservation of this area is 
necessary for the recovery of an isolated, formerly robust population 
that likely contains unique genetic diversity important to the overall 
long-term conservation of the species.
    In Orange County, this critical habitat unit includes the vernal 
pools and vernal pool-like ephemeral ponds at the Marine Corps Air 
Station El Toro, Chiquita Ridge, Tejeras Creek, Rancho Viejo, 
Saddleback Meadows, and along the southern Orange County foothills. 
These vernal pools are the last remaining vernal pools in Orange County 
known to support this species (Service 1993). The conservation of these 
vernal pools is necessary to stabilize the populations of Riverside 
fairy shrimp in Orange County by providing specific protection to 
important habitat for the shrimp.
    Map Unit 3: Western Riverside County Critical Habitat Unit, 
Riverside County, California (1,780 ha (4,400 ac)).
    The Western Riverside County critical habitat unit includes the 
vernal pools on the Santa Rosa Plateau and in Murrieta. These 
populations represent the eastern limit of occupied habitat for 
Riverside fairy shrimp and are two of the three remaining populations 
in Riverside County. Conservation of these pools will provide for the 
conservation and recovery of the Riverside fairy shrimp, as well as 
stabilize the current populations of shrimp in Riverside County. The 
third population, Skunk Hollow, is protected as part of an approved 
mitigation bank that is within the Rancho Bella Vista HCP area.
    Map Unit 4: North San Diego County Critical Habitat Unit, San Diego 
County, California (2,340 ha (5,780 ac)).
    The North San Diego County critical habitat unit includes the 
vernal pools at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. This unit encompasses 
approximately 45 ha (110 ac) within Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton has 
several substantial vernal pool complexes that support the Riverside 
fairy shrimp. The Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California 
includes the Camp Pendleton pool complexes within the San Diego North 
Coastal Mesas Management Areas. Designation of critical habitat in this 
area will conserve important habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp and 
will contribute to the recovery efforts identified in the Recovery 
Plan.
    Within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, one vernal pool 
complex is located at the Poinsettia Lane train station. This complex 
is associated with a remnant parcel of coastal terrace habitat and is 
essential for stabilizing the species in northern San Diego County and 
preserving genetic diversity.
    Map Unit 5: Central San Diego County Critical Habitat Unit, San 
Diego County, California (30 ha (75 ac)).
    The Central San Diego County critical habitat unit includes a 
vernal pool within Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar. This location is 
the only known occurrence of Riverside fairy shrimp within the Central 
Coastal Mesa Management Area, San Diego County. In addition, this pool 
is identified in the Recovery Plan as necessary to stabilize the 
Riverside fairy shrimp in central San Diego County.
    Map Unit 6: South San Diego County Critical Habitat Unit, San Diego 
County, California (65 ha (160 acres)).
    The South San Diego County critical habitat unit includes the 
ephemeral basin along the United States-Mexico border. This ephemeral 
basin is on Federal lands (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and 
represents

[[Page 57141]]

the southern limit of occupied habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp 
in the United States. This basin is identified in the Recovery Plan as 
necessary to stabilize the Riverside fairy shrimp in southern San Diego 
County. The protection provided through the designation of critical 
habitat will assist in the recovery efforts identified in the Recovery 
Plan.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the 
action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the 
survival and recovery of the species. Individuals, organizations, 
States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected 
by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on 
Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other 
authorization, or involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, 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. 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 
an 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 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    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. Through this consultation, we would ensure that 
the permitted actions do not adversely modify critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from 
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent 
alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation in instances where we have already reviewed an action for 
its effects on a listed species if critical habitat is subsequently 
designated. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for 
which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may 
affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy 
proposed critical habitat.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed 
or final regulation that designates critical habitat a description and 
evaluation of those activities involving a Federal action that may 
adversely modify or destroy such habitat or that may be affected by 
such designation. When determining whether any of these activities may 
adversely modify or destroy critical habitat, we base our analysis on 
the effects of the action on the entire critical habitat area and not 
just on the portion where the activity will occur. Adverse effects on 
constituent elements or individual segments of critical habitat units 
generally do not result in an adverse modification determination unless 
that loss, when added to the environmental baseline, is likely to 
appreciably diminish the capability of the critical habitat to satisfy 
essential requirements of the species. In other words, activities that 
may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include those that 
alter the primary constituent elements (defined above) to an extent 
that the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery 
of the Riverside fairy shrimp is appreciably reduced.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery, and actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' 
critical habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of 
critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species 
(50 CFR 402.02).
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned when the habitat is occupied by the species. The purpose of 
designating critical habitat is to contribute to a species' 
conservation, which by definition equates to survival and recovery. 
Section 7 prohibitions against the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat apply to actions that would impair survival and 
recovery of the listed species. Designation of critical habitat in 
areas occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp is not likely to result in 
a regulatory burden above that already in place due to the presence of 
the listed species. Additionally, designation of critical habitat in 
areas that are not known to be occupied by this species will also not 
likely result in an increased regulatory burden since the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) requires review of projects requiring 
permits in all vernal pools, whether it is known that Riverside fairy 
shrimp are present or not. In those limited cases where activities 
occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside fairy shrimp and 
other listed species are not found at the time of the action, an 
additional section 7 consultation with the Service

[[Page 57142]]

not previously required may be necessary for actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect the Riverside fairy 
shrimp or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 
consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit 
from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the Corps under section 
404 of the Clean Water Act, or some other Federal action, including 
funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or Federal Emergency Management Agency) will be subject 
to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands 
that are not federally funded or permitted do not require section 7 
consultation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and require that a section 
7 consultation be conducted include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Any activity, including the regulation of activities by the 
Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or activities carried 
out by or licensed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that 
could alter the watershed, water quality or quantity to an extent that 
water quality becomes unsuitable to support Riverside fairy shrimp, or 
any activity that significantly affects the natural hydrologic function 
of the vernal pool system and/or ephemeral pond or depression;
    (2) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, 
and regulation of agricultural activities, or any activity funded or 
carried out by the Department of Transportation or Department of 
Agriculture that results in discharge of dredged or fill material, 
excavation, or mechanized land clearing of ephemeral and/or vernal pool 
basins;
    (3) Regulation of airport improvement or maintenance activities by 
the Federal Aviation Administration;
    (4) Military training and maneuvers on Camp Pendleton and Miramar, 
and other applicable DOD lands;
    (5) Construction of roads and fences along the international border 
with Mexico, and associated immigration enforcement activities by the 
INS; and
    (6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal 
Communications Commission.
    Any of the above activities that appreciably diminish the value of 
critical habitat to the degree that they affect the survival and 
recovery of the Riverside fairy shrimp may be considered an adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We note that such activities may also 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field 
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 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).

Exclusion of Habitat Conservation Plans Under Section 4(b)(2)

    Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude from critical 
habitat designation areas where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species. The Service believes that in most instances 
the benefits of excluding HCPs from critical habitat designations will 
outweigh the benefits of including them.
    The benefits of excluding Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) include 
relieving landowners, communities and counties of any additional 
regulatory burden that might be imposed by critical habitat. This 
benefit is particularly compelling given the past representations on 
the part of the Service that once an HCP is negotiated and approved by 
us after public comment, activities consistent with the plan will 
satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Many HCPs, 
particularly large regional HCPs, take many years to develop and, upon 
completion, become regional conservation plans that are consistent with 
the recovery of covered species. Imposing an additional regulatory 
review after HCP completion could have a chilling effect on our entire 
HCP program, jeopardizing conservation efforts and conservation 
partnerships in many areas. Excluding HCPs provides the Service an 
opportunity to streamline regulatory compliance; and provides 
regulatory certainty for HCP participants.
    Another critical benefit of excluding HCPs is that it would 
encourage the continued development of partnerships with HCP 
participants, including states, local governments, conservation 
organizations, and private landowners, that together can implement 
conservation actions we would be unable to accomplish alone. These 
partnerships are built on our assurance that no additional 
requirements, beyond the commitments in the HCP, will be imposed to 
comply with the Act. The designation of critical habitat in areas 
covered by HCPs threatens these existing partnerships, and reduces the 
likelihood of successful future partnerships. The common perception, 
even if incorrect, that critical habitat designation will impose new 
and additional regulatory requirements on landowners, including lands 
covered by HCPs, suggests to many HCP participants that the Service may 
not fulfill the commitments we made during HCP negotiations. By 
excluding areas covered by HCPs from critical habitat designation, we 
clearly maintain our commitments, preserve these partnerships, and, we 
believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in the 
future.
    The benefits of including HCPs in critical habitat are normally 
small. The development and implementation HCPs provides important 
conservation benefits, including the development of biological 
information to guide conservation efforts to assist in species recovery 
and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species while 
allowing for regional development. When a species for which we are 
considering the designation of critical habitat is a covered species in 
an HCP, the additional protection for this species on HCP lands that 
would be provided by critical habitat designation would be minimal.
    One benefit provided by designation of critical habitat is the 
consultation requirement. The HCP would have to go through an 
additional consultation to look at the question of adverse modification 
of critical habitat. However, HCPs have already gone through a 
consultation process when the HCP was first established. Since HCPs 
address land use within the plan boundaries, habitat issues within the 
plan boundaries have been thoroughly addressed in HCP consultations. 
Therefore, in most instances we do not expect any additional regulatory 
impact on HCPs by critical habitat consultations. In addition, any 
educational benefits provided by critical habitat designation have been 
met by the public notice aspects of establishing an HCP, as well as by 
public participation in the development of many regional HCPs. As a 
result of the factors discussed above, when the benefits of excluding 
HCP land from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of 
including the land, we find that it is appropriate to exclude lands 
covered by legally operative HCPs.

[[Page 57143]]

    For this designation, we find that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation for the San Diego Multiple Species 
Conservation Program (MSCP). This exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species. We discuss this and the other specific HCPs 
in the range of the Riverside Fairy Shrimp area below.
    A number of habitat planning efforts have been completed within the 
range of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Principal among these are the San 
Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in San Diego County, 
and the Rancho Bella Vista HCP in Riverside County. The MSCP, through 
its subarea plans, provides conservation measures for the Riverside 
fairy shrimp as a covered species, although authorization for take, 
should any be needed, would come from a subsequent permitting process 
(typically through a section 7 consultation with the Corps of 
Engineers). The MSCP provides that the remaining fairy shrimp habitat 
within the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) should be avoided to 
the maximum extent practicable. Unavoidable impacts to this remaining 
area of habitat is to be minimized and mitigated to achieve no net loss 
of wetland function and value and to provide additional protective 
measures, including adaptive management, contained in the MSCP. The 
Rancho Bella Vista HCP provides conservation measures for the Riverside 
fairy shrimp as a covered species. We find that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation for these plans. The 
plans provides for the preservation of fairy shrimp habitat and any 
additional protection provided by critical habitat would be minimal. On 
the other hand the benefits of exclusion are high. Participants in 
these HCP processes have relied on the Service's assurances that once 
an HCP has been developed it will satisfy the participant's 
requirements under the ESA. Therefore, we propose that non-Federal land 
within the approved HCP planning areas in San Diego County and 
Riverside County for the Riverside fairy shrimp should be exempted from 
the designation, and therefore, not be proposed as critical habitat.
    We do not propose to exclude the NCCP/HCP for the Central/Coastal 
Orange County subregion. This plan provides only conditional coverage 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp. Riverside fairy shrimp in vernal pool 
habitats that are highly degraded and/or artificially created are a 
covered species and take is authorized under the HCP. However, 
Riverside fairy shrimp in non-degraded, natural vernal pool habitats 
are not considered covered species under the HCP, and take, should any 
be needed, can be authorized only under a separate permitting process 
(typically through a section 7 consultation with the Corps of 
Engineers). Because the natural vernal pools within the Central/Coastal 
Orange County subregion are considered complexes of high habitat value 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp that are not covered by the current HCP, 
the benefits from designating this area as critical habitat are not 
outweighed by the benefits provided by the HCP. Therefore, we are 
proposing that the natural vernal pools at Rancho Viejo, Tejeras Creek, 
and Marine Corps Air Station El Toro be included as critical habitat.
    HCPs currently under development are intended to provide for 
protection and management of habitat areas essential for the 
conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp, while directing development 
and habitat modification to nonessential areas of lower habitat value. 
The HCP development process provides an opportunity for more intensive 
data collection and analysis regarding the use of particular habitat 
areas by the Riverside fairy shrimp. The process also enables us to 
conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of such lands to the 
long-term survival of the species in the context of constructing a 
biologically configured system of interlinked habitat blocks. We fully 
expect that HCPs undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g., counties, 
cities) and other parties will identify, protect, and provide 
appropriate management for those specific lands within the boundaries 
of the plans that are essential for the long-term conservation of the 
species. We believe and fully expect that our analyses of these 
proposed HCPs and proposed permits under section 7 will show that 
covered activities carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 
HCPs and biological opinions will not result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    We provide technical assistance and work closely with applicants 
throughout the development of HCPs to identify lands essential for the 
long-term conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp and appropriate 
conservation management actions. Several HCP efforts are now under way 
for listed and nonlisted species in areas within the range of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp in areas we propose as critical habitat. These 
HCPs, which will incorporate adaptive management, should provide for 
the conservation of the species. Furthermore, we will complete intra-
service consultation on our issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for 
these HCPs to ensure permit issuance will not destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. The take minimization and mitigation measures 
provided under these HCPs are expected to protect and provide the 
conservation of essential habitat lands that lead to designation of the 
lands as critical habitat in this rule.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend for any final action resulting from this proposal to be 
as accurate and 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 
Riverside fairy shrimp 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 Riverside fairy shrimp, such as those derived from 
nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced 
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, 
``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).
    In this proposed rule, we do not propose to designate critical 
habitat on non-Federal lands within the boundaries of an existing 
approved HCP and subarea plan with an executed implementation agreement 
(IA) for Riverside fairy shrimp approved under section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act on or before the date of the final rule designating critical 
habitat. We believe that, since an existing HCP provides for long-term 
commitments to conserve the species and areas essential to the 
conservation of the species, the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion. However, we are soliciting comments on the 
appropriateness of this

[[Page 57144]]

approach, and on other alternative approaches for critical habitat 
designation in areas covered by existing approved HCPs:
    The amount of critical habitat we designate for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp in a final rule may either increase or decrease, depending upon 
which approach we adopt for dealing with designation in areas of 
existing approved HCPs.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold 
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by 
law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must 
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we 
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
    If you would like to submit comments by e-mail (see ADDRESSES 
section), please submit your comments as an ASCII file and avoid the 
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also 
include ``Attn: RIN 1018-AG34'' and your name and return address in 
your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the 
system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly 
by calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 760/
431-9440.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register 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 proposed rules easier to understand including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the document clearly stated?
    (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with the clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity?
    (4) Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposed rule? What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier 
to understand?

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 12866.
    (a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The Riverside 
fairy shrimp was listed as an endangered species in 1993. In fiscal 
years 1997 through 1999, we conducted seven formal section 7 
consultations with other Federal agencies to ensure that their actions 
would not jeopardize the continued existence of the fairy shrimp.
    Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a 
Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any 
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting 
activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a Federal 
agency (see Table 2 below). Section 7 requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species. Based upon our experience with the species and its needs, we 
conclude that any Federal action or authorized action that could 
potentially cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical 
habitat currently occupied by Riverside fairy shrimp would currently be 
considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act. Accordingly, the designation 
of currently occupied areas as critical habitat does not have any 
incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by 
Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal 
authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons that do not have a 
Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not restricted by the 
designation of critical habitat (however, they continue to be bound by 
the provisions of the Act concerning ``take'' of the species). 
Additionally, designation of critical habitat in areas that are not 
known to be occupied by this species will also not likely result in an 
increased regulatory burden since the Corps requires review of projects 
requiring permits in all vernal pools, whether it is known that 
Riverside fairy shrimp are present or not. In those limited cases where 
activities occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside fairy 
shrimp and other listed species are not found at the time of the 
action, additional section 7 consultation with the Service not 
previously required may be necessary for actions funded, authorized, or 
carried out by Federal agencies. We will evaluate this impact through 
our economic analysis (required under section 4 of the Act; see 
Economic Analysis section of this rule).

[[Page 57145]]



Table 2.--Impacts of Riverside Fairy Shrimp Listing and Critical Habitat
                               Designation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Additional
                                   Activities            activities
  Categories of activities    potentially affected  potentially affected
                               by species listing    by critical habitat
                                    only \1\           designation \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities            Activities such as    None in occupied
 Potentially Affected \3\.     those affecting       habitat. In
                               waters of the         unoccupied habitat
                               United States by      containing vernal
                               the Army Corps of     pools, no
                               Engineers under       additional
                               section 404 of the    consultation would
                               Clean Water Act;      be required since
                               road construction     the Corps already
                               and maintenance,      initiates
                               right-of-way          consultations in
                               designation, and      these areas. In
                               regulation of         unoccupied habitat
                               agricultural          not containing
                               activities;           vernal pools, no
                               regulation of         additional types of
                               airport improvement   activities will be
                               activities under      affected, but
                               Federal Aviation      consultation,
                               Administration        previously not
                               jurisdiction;         required due to
                               military training     listing, will be
                               and maneuvers on      required on these
                               Marine Corps Base     activities.
                               Camp Pendleton and
                               Marine Corps Air
                               Station, Miramar
                               and other
                               applicable DOD
                               lands; construction
                               of roads and fences
                               along the
                               international
                               border with Mexico
                               and associated
                               immigration
                               enforcement
                               activities by the
                               Immigration and
                               Naturalization
                               Service;
                               construction of
                               communication sites
                               licensed by the
                               Federal
                               Communications
                               Commission, and;
                               activities funded
                               by any Federal
                               agency.
Private or other non-Federal  Activities such as    None in occupied
 Activities Potentially        removing or           habitat. In
 Affected \4\.                 destroying            unoccupied habitat
                               Riverside fairy       containing vernal
                               shrimp habitat (as    pools, no
                               defined in the        additional
                               primary constituent   consultation would
                               elements              be required since
                               discussion),          the Corps already
                               whether by            initiates
                               mechanical,           consultations in
                               chemical, or other    these areas. In
                               means (e.g.,          unoccupied habitat
                               grading,              not containing
                               overgrazing,          vernal pools, no
                               construction, road    additional types of
                               building, herbicide   activities will be
                               application, etc.)    affected, but
                               and appreciably       consultation,
                               decreasing habitat    previously not
                               value or quality      required due to
                               through indirect      listing, will be
                               effects (e.g., edge   required on these
                               effects, invasion     activities.
                               of exotic plants or
                               animals, or
                               fragmentation that
                               require a Federal
                               action (permit,
                               authorization, or
                               funding)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents the activities potentially affected by
  listing the Riverside fairy shrimp as an endangered species (August 3,
  1993; 58 FR 41384) under the Endangered Species Act.
\2\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the
  critical habitat designation in addition to those activities
  potentially affected by listing the species.
\3\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\4\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that
  may need Federal authorization or funding.

    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to 
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the Riverside fairy shrimp since the listing in 1993. The prohibition 
against adverse modification of critical habitat is not expected to 
impose any additional restrictions to those that currently exist in 
occupied areas of proposed critical habitat. Because of the potential 
for impacts on other Federal agency activities, we will continue to 
review this proposed action for any inconsistencies with other Federal 
agency actions.
    (c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
Federal agencies are currently required to ensure that their activities 
do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and, as 
discussed above, we do not anticipate that the adverse modification 
prohibition (resulting from critical habitat designation) will have any 
incremental effects in areas of occupied habitat. Designation of 
critical habitat in areas that are not known to be occupied by this 
species will also not likely result in an increased regulatory burden 
since the Corps already requires review of projects involving vernal 
pools since vernal pools typically contain listed species for which the 
Corps must consult with us under section 7. In those limited cases 
where activities occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside 
fairy shrimp and other listed species are not found at the time of the 
action, section 7 consultation with the Service may be necessary for 
actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
    (d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The 
proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat 
contained in the Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    In the economic analysis (required under section 4 of the Act), we 
will determine whether designation of critical habitat will have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. As 
discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review above, this rule is not 
expected to result in any restrictions in addition to those currently 
in existence for areas of occupied critical habitat. As indicated on 
Table 1 (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation section), we 
proposed property owned by Federal, State, and local governments and 
private property and identify the types of Federal actions or 
authorized activities that are of potential concern (Table 2). If these 
activities sponsored by Federal agencies within the proposed critical 
habitat areas are carried out by small entities (as defined by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act) through contract, grant, permit, or other 
Federal authorization. As discussed above, these actions are currently 
required to comply with the listing protections of the Act,

[[Page 57146]]

and the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to have any 
additional effects on these activities in areas of critical habitat 
occupied by the species. Designation of critical habitat in areas that 
are not known to be occupied by this species will also not likely 
result in an increased regulatory burden since the Corps already 
requires review of projects involving vernal pools since vernal pools 
typically contain listed species for which the Corps must consult with 
us under section 7. For actions on non-Federal property that do not 
have a Federal connection (such as funding or authorization), the 
current restrictions concerning take of the species remain in effect, 
and this rule will have no additional restrictions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. As discussed above, we anticipate that the designation of 
critical habitat will not have any additional effects on these 
activities in areas of critical habitat occupied by the species. 
Designation of critical habitat in areas that are not known to be 
occupied by this species will also not likely result in an increased 
regulatory burden because the Corps already requires review of projects 
involving vernal pools since vernal pools typically contain listed 
species for which the Corps must consult with us under section 7. In 
those limited cases where activities occur on designated critical 
habitat where Riverside fairy shrimp and other listed species are not 
found at the time of the action, section 7 consultation with the 
Service may be necessary for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies. Additionally, designation of critical habitat in 
areas that are not known to be occupied by this species will also not 
likely result in an increased regulatory burden since the Corps 
requires review of projects requiring permits in all vernal pools, 
whether it is known that Riverside fairy shrimp are present or not.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small 
governments will be affected only to the extent that any programs 
having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities must 
ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical 
habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are currently 
subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing protections of 
the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated in areas of 
occupied proposed critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat in 
areas that are not known to be occupied by this species will also not 
likely result in an increased regulatory burden because the Corps 
already requires review of projects involving vernal pools since vernal 
pools typically contain listed species for which the Corps must consult 
with us under section 7. In those limited cases where activities occur 
on designated critical habitat where Riverside fairy shrimp and other 
listed species are not found at the time of the action, section 7 
consultation with the Service may be necessary for actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or 
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take 
of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Due to current public knowledge of the 
species protection, the prohibition against take of the species both 
within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact that critical 
habitat provides no incremental restrictions in areas of occupied 
critical habitat, we do not anticipate that property values will be 
affected by the critical habitat designation. Designation of critical 
habitat in areas that are not known to be occupied by this species will 
also not likely result in an increased regulatory burden because the 
Corps already requires review of projects involving vernal pools since 
vernal pools typically contain listed species for which the Corps must 
consult with us under section 7. In those limited cases where 
activities occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside fairy 
shrimp and other listed species are not found at the time of the 
action, section 7 consultation with the Service may be necessary for 
actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies. 
Additionally, critical habitat designation does not preclude 
development of habitat conservation plans and issuance of incidental 
take permits. Landowners in areas that are included in the designated 
critical habitat will continue to have opportunity to utilize their 
property in ways consistent with the survival and recovery of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. This proposed rule will not ``take'' private 
property and will not alter the value of private property. Critical 
habitat designation is only applicable to Federal lands and to private 
lands if a Federal nexus exists.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, the Service requested information from and coordinated 
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State 
resource agencies in California. We will continue to coordinate any 
future designation of critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp 
with the appropriate State agencies. The designation of critical 
habitat in areas currently occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp 
imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in place and, 
therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local governments 
and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these 
governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements 
of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are 
specifically identified. While making this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

[[Page 57147]]

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act, and plan public hearings on the proposed 
designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of the Riverside fairy shrimp.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with 
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    We determined that there are no Tribal lands that are essential for 
the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp because they do not 
support populations or suitable habitat. Therefore, we are not 
proposing to designate critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp 
on Tribal lands.

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 authors of this notice are the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office staff (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 ``Fairy shrimp, 
Riverside'' under ``CRUSTACEANS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------                      population where                     When         Critical
                                                       Historic range       endangered or       Status        listed        habitat       Special  rules
          Common name              Scientific name                           threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
          Crustaceans
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Fairy shrimp, Riverside........  Streptocephalus     U.S.A. (CA).......  Entire............  E                     608  17.95(h)         NA
                                  woottoni.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec. 17.95 add critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) under paragraph (h) 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.

* * * * *
    (h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
    RIVERSIDE FAIRY SHRIMP (Streptocephalus woottoni)
    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Angeles, Orange, 
Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, California, on the maps 
below.
    2. Critical habitat includes vernal pools, vernal pool complexes, 
and ephemeral ponds and depressions indicated on the maps below and 
their associated watersheds and hydrologic regime.
    3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp are those habitat components that are essential 
for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, reproduction, 
and dispersal.
    The primary constituent elements are found in those areas that 
support vernal pools or other ephemeral ponds and depressions, and 
their associated watersheds. The primary constituent elements are: 
small to large pools with moderate to deep depths that hold water for 
sufficient lengths of time necessary for incubation and reproduction, 
but not necessarily every year; entire watershed(s) and other 
hydrologic features that support pool basins and their related pool 
complexes; flat or gently sloping topography; and any soil type with a 
clay component and/or an impermeable surface or subsurface layer known 
to support vernal pool habitat. All proposed critical habitat areas 
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements for Riverside 
fairy shrimp.
    4. Existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, 
railroads, urban development, and other features not containing primary 
constituent elements, are not considered critical habitat. In addition, 
critical habitat does not include non-Federal lands covered by a 
Habitat Conservation Plan, in which the Riverside fairy shrimp is a 
covered species, with an executed implementation agreement under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act on or before September 21, 2000.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U

[[Page 57148]]

    Map Unit 1: Goleta and Transverse Management Area, Ventura and Los 
Angeles Counties, California.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.000


[[Page 57149]]


    Unit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Mint Canyon, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 368000,3815000; 
368500,3815000; 368500,3814500; 368250,3814500; 368250,3813750; 
368000,3813750; 368000,3813500; 367250,3813500; 367250,3814250; 
367500,3814250; 367500,3814500; 367750,3814500; 367750,3814750; 
368000,3814750; 368000,3815000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.001


[[Page 57150]]


    Unit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Simi Valley West, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 329000,3793250: 
329500,3793250; 329500,3792750; 329000,3792750; 329000,3793250. Note: 
Map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.002


[[Page 57151]]


    Map Unit 2: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area, Los Angeles 
and Orange Counties, California.
    Unit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Venice, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 366750,3757750; 
367250,3757750; 367250,3757250; 367500,3757250; 367500,3756250; 
367250,3756250; 367250,3756500; 367000,3756500; 367000,3757250; 
366750,3757250; 366750,3757750.
    Unit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Venice, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 367750,3755500; 
368000,3755500; 368000,3755250; 367750,3755250; 367750, 3755500.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.003


[[Page 57152]]


    Unit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map El Toro, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 435750,3726750; 
436750,3726750; 436750,3726500; 436500,3726500; 436500,3726250; 
435750,3726250; 435750,3726750.
    Unit 2d: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map El Toro, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 440500,3725750; 
441000,3725750; 441000,3725000; 440500,3725000; 440500,3725750.
    Unit 2e: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Santiago Peak, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 442500,3727000; 
443750,3727000; 443750,3726000; 442250,3726000; 442250,3726500; 
442500,3726500; 442500,3727000.
    Unit 2f: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Santiago Peak and 
Canada Gobernadora, the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates 
(E,N): 444500,3721000; 445000,3721000; 445000,3720000; 444000,3720000; 
444000,3720500; 444250,3720500; 444250,3720750; 444500,3720750; 
444500,3721000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.004


[[Page 57153]]


    Unit 2g: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Canada Gobernadora, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 442000,3713000; 
442500,3713000; 442500,3712500; 442750,3712500; 442750,3712000; 
442000,3712000; 442000,3713000.
    Unit 2h: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Canada Gobernadora, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 442000,3711000; 
442500,3711000; 442500,3710250; 442750,3710250; 442750,3709750; 
443000,3709750; 443000,3709500; 442500,3709500; 442500,3709750; 
442000,3709750; 442000,3711000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.005


[[Page 57154]]


    Map Unit 3: Riverside Management Area, Riverside County, 
California.
    Unit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Murrieta, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 478750,3718500; 
479500,3718500; 479500,3718250; 479750,3718250; 479750,3717750; 
478750,3717750; 478750,3718500.
    Unit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Wildomar and Murrieta, 
the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 
476250,3711500; 477000,3711500; 477000,3711250; 477250,3711250; 
477250,3710750; 478000,3710750; 478000,3710500; 478250,3710500; 
478250,3710250; 478500,3710250; 478500,3710000; 478750,3710000; 
478750,3709750; 479250,3709750; 479250,3709500; 479500,3709500; 
479500,3709250; 479250,3709250; 479250,3709000; 479500,3709000; 
479500,3708500; 479250,3708500; 479250,3708250; 479000,3708250; 
479000,3708500; 478750,3708500; 478750,3708750; 478250,3708750; 
478250,3709000; 477500,3709000; 477500,3709250; 476750,3709250; 
476750,3709000; 476500,3709000; 476500,3708500; 475750,3708500; 
475750,3708000; 475000,3708000; 475000,3707000; 474000,3707000; 
474000,3706750; 472000,3706750; 472000,3708250; 472500,3708250; 
472500,3708500; 472750,3708500; 472750,3709250; 473000,3709250; 
473000,3710500; 473250,3710500; 473250,3710750; 474000,3710750; 
474000,3710500; 474250,3710500; 474250,3710250; 474500,3710250; 
474500,3710000; 474750,3710000; 474750,3709750; 475000,3709750; 
475000,3710000; 475500,3710000; 475500,3710250; 475750,3710250; 
475750,3711250; 476250,3711250; 476250,3711500. Excluding lands bounded 
by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 475000,3709500; 475000,3709000; 
475250,3709000; 475250,3709250; 475500,3709250; 475500,3709500; 
475000,3709500; and bounded by (E,N): 473500,3709000; 473500,3708750; 
474250,3708750; 474250,3709000; 473500,3709000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.006


[[Page 57155]]


    Map Unit 4: San Diego: North Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 
Diego, California.
    Unit 4a: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Clemente, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 446250,3701000; 
446750,3701000; 446750,3699500; 445750,3699500; 445750,3700000; 
446000,3700000; 446000,3700750; 446250,3700750; 446250,3701000.
    Unit 4b: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 454500,3687000; 
455000,3687000; 455000,3686500; 455250,3686500; 455250,3686250; 
455000,3686250; 455000,3686000; 454500,3686000; 454500,3686250; 
454250,3686250; 454250,3686750; 454500,3686750; 454500,3687000, 
excluding the Pacific Ocean.
    Unit 4c: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 455500,3685250; 
456000,3685250; 456000,3685000; 456250,3685000; 456250,3684750; 
456500,3684750; 456500,3684500; 456750,3684500; 456750,3684000; 
456250,3684000; 456250,3684250; 456000,3684250; 456000,3684500; 
455750,3684500; 455750,3684750; 455500,3684750; 455500,3685250, 
excluding the Pacific Ocean.
    Unit 4d: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 457000,3685250; 
458000,3685250; 458000,3685000; 458250,3685000; 458250,3684750; 
458000,3684750; 458000,3684500; 457000,3684500; 457000,3684750; 
456750,3684750; 456750,3685000; 457000,3685000; 457000,3685250.
    Unit 4e: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 458750,3685000; 
460000,3685000; 460000,3684000; 460750,3684000; 460750,3683250; 
461000,3683250; 461000,3682750; 460750,3682750; 460750,3681000; 
459750,3681000; 459750,3681500; 459500,3681500; 459500,3681250; 
459000,3681250; 459000,3681000; 459500,3681000; 459500,3680750; 
459750,3680750; 459750,3680500; 460000,3680500; 460000,3680750; 
460250,3680750; 460250,3680500; 460500,3680500; 460500,3680000; 
460250,3680000; 460250,3679750; 460500,3679750; 460500,3679000; 
459500,3679000; 459500,3679250; 459250,3679250; 459250,3679750; 
460000,3679750; 460000,3680250; 459500,3680250; 459500,3680000; 
458750,3680000; 458750,3680500; 459000,3680500; 459000,3680750; 
458250,3680750; 458250,3681250; 458000,3681250; 458000,3681500; 
457750,3681500; 457750,3682000; 457500,3682000; 457500,3682250; 
457250,3682250; 457250,3682500; 457000,3682500; 457000,3683250; 
457250,3683250; 457250,3683500; 457750,3683500; 457750,3683750; 
458000,3683750; 458000,3684000; 458250,3684000; 458250,3684250; 
458500,3684250; 458500,3684750; 458750,3684750; 458750,3685000. 
Excluding the Pacific Ocean and lands bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E,N): 459000,3683500; 459000,3683250; 458750,3683250; 
458750,3683000; 459750,3683000; 459750,3683250; 459500,3683250; 
459500,3683500; 459000,3683500.
    Unit 4f: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Oceanside and Las 
Pulgas Canyon, the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates 
(E,N): 462500,3681500; 464000,3681500; 464000,3680750; 464500,3680750; 
464500,3680250; 464000,3680250; 464000,3679000; 464500,3679000; 
464500,3678500; 464250,3678500; 464250,3677750; 463500,3677750; 
463500,3678000; 463250,3678000; 463250,3680000; 463000,3680000; 
463000,3680250; 462500,3680250; 462500,3681500.
    Unit 4g: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Oceanside and San Luis 
Rey, the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 
465500,3678250; 466500,3678250; 466500,3677500; 466250,3677500; 
466250,3677250; 466000,3677250; 466000,3677000; 465750,3677000; 
465750,3677250; 465500,3677250; 465500,3677500; 465250,3677500; 
465250,3677250; 464750,3677250; 464750,3677500; 464500,3677500; 
464500,3677750; 465000,3677750; 465000,3678000; 465500,3678000; 
465500,3678250.
    Unit 4h: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Oceanside and San Luis 
Rey, the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 
464250,3677000; 465250,3677000; 465250,3676750; 465750,3676750; 
465750,3676000; 466000,3676000; 466000,3675500; 465000,3675500; 
465000,3675750; 464750,3675750; 464750,3676250; 465000,3676250; 
465000,3676500; 464250,3676500; 464250,3677000.

[[Page 57156]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.007


[[Page 57157]]


    Unit 4i: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Encinitas, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 470250,3663500; 
470750,3663500; 470750,3662500; 470500,3662500; 470500,3662750; 
470250,3662750; 470250,3663500.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.008


[[Page 57158]]


    Map Unit 5: San Diego: Central Coastal Management Area, San Diego 
County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Poway, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 489500,3639000; 
490000,3639000; 490000,3638250; 489750,3638250; 489750,3638500; 
489500,3638500; 489500,3639000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.009


[[Page 57159]]


    Map Unit 6: San Diego: South Coastal Management Area, San Diego 
County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Otay Mesa, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 509250,3603000; 
510000,3603000; 510000,3602250; 509500,3602250; 509500,3602000; 
509250,3602000; 509250,3603000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE00.010


    Dated: September 15, 2000.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-24198 Filed 9-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C