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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: September 21, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 184)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57136-57159]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se00-24]

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

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
fw1rvfs@fws.gov. 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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation