Designated Critical Habitat; Johnson's Seagrass

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 940701-4201; I.D. 113093B]

Designated Critical Habitat; Johnson's Seagrass

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to designate critical habitat for Johnson's

seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). Because the subject matter of this proposed rule is

closely related to a proposal published on September 15, 1993 (58 FR

48326), to list Johnson's seagrass as a threatened species, NMFS is

announcing a public hearing to consider both proposed rules. NMFS is

also reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to list

Johnson's

seagrass. The hearing will be held September 20, 1994, in Vero Beach,

FL.

Johnson's seagrass is found on the east coast of Florida from

Sebastian Inlet to central Biscayne Bay. Within this range, five areas

in proximity to Sebastian Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, St. Lucie Inlet,

Jupiter Inlet and Lake Worth Inlet are proposed for critical habitat.

In addition, the proposed critical habitat designation identifies those

physical and biological features of the habitat that are essential to

the conservation of the species and that may require special management

consideration or protection. The economic and other impacts resulting

from this critical habitat designation, over and above those arising

from the listing of the species under the ESA, are expected to be

minimal. The designation of proposed critical habitat provides explicit

notice to Federal agencies and the public that these areas and features

are vital to the conservation of the species.

DATES: Comments on both proposed rules must be received by October 13,

1994. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994,

at 7:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and requests for the environmental assessment

on the proposed designation of critical habitat and the status review

for listing Johnson's seagrass to Dr. William W. Fox, Jr., Director,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

The public hearing will be held in the Commission Chambers of the

Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero

Beach, FL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret C. Lorenz, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 301/713-2322, or Colleen Coogan, Southeast

Region, NMFS, 813/893-3366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NMFS published a proposed rule to list Johnson's seagrass as a

threatened species on September 15, 1993 (58 FR 48326). Critical

habitat was not proposed for designation at that time because the

analysis of impacts of the proposed designation, as required by section

4(b)(2) of the ESA, had not been completed.

NMFS has now completed an environmental assessment (EA), pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to evaluate both the

environmental and economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat

designation (See ADDRESSES).

The proposed designation identifies those physical and biological

features of the habitat that are essential to the conservation of the

species and that may require special management consideration or

protection. The direct economic and other impacts resulting from

designating critical habitat, over and above those that result from

listing the species, are expected to be minimal.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i)

the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species

* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I)

Essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require

special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific

areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon

a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species.'' Areas outside the current range of a

species can only be designated if a designation limited to the species'

present distribution would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of

the species. The term conservation, as defined in section 3(3) of the

ESA, means ``* * * to use and the use of all methods and procedures

which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened

species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this

Act are no longer necessary.''

The criteria to be considered in designating critical habitat are

specified under 50 CFR 424.12. When designating critical habitat, NMFS

considers physical and biological features that are essential to the

conservation of the species and that may require special management

consideration or protection, including but not limited to the

following: (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for

normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals or other

nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)

sites for breeding, reproduction or rearing of offspring; and,

generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of the species.

In addition, NMFS must list the known physical and biological

features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area(s)

that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may

require special management considerations or protection. These

essential features may include, but are not limited to, food resources,

water quality or quantity and vegetation and sediment types and

stability.

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

The economic, environmental and other impacts of a designation must

also be evaluated and considered. NMFS must identify present and future

activities that may adversely modify the proposed critical habitat or

be affected by a designation. An area may be excluded from a critical

habitat designation if NMFS determines that the overall benefits of

exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion

will result in the extinction of the species.

The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental

impacts that specifically result from designating critical habitat,

above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the

species. These incremental impacts are expected to be minimal (See

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat section). In general, the

designation of critical habitat duplicates and reinforces the

substantive protection resulting from the listing itself.

Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the

taking prohibitions under section 9 and associated regulations. With

respect to fish and wildlife, ``taking'' as defined in the ESA includes

harm to a listed species. Harm can occur through destruction or

modification of habitat (whether or not designated as critical) that

significantly impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding

or sheltering.

With respect to plants, section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful for

any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction to ``remove and reduce to

possession any such species from areas under Federal jurisdiction;

maliciously damage or destroy any such species on any such area; or

remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other

area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any state or in

the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law.''

Although this provision does not prohibit takings, such as harm or

harassment of a species of fish or wildlife, it does provide protection

for plants in areas under Federal jurisdiction and under state laws. As

with the takings prohibition for fish and wildlife, these protections

are triggered when a species is listed. Therefore, generally, the

critical habitat designation will duplicate these protections. This is

particularly true with respect to acts that ``remove, cut, dig up or

damage or destroy listed plants in knowing violation of any law or

regulation of any state.''

Impacts attributable to listing also include those resulting from

the responsibility of all Federal agencies under section 7 to ensure

that their actions are not likely to jeopardize endangered or

threatened species. An action could be likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a listed species through the destruction or

adverse modification of its habitat, whether or not that habitat has

been designated as critical.

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

The designation of critical habitat does not, in itself, restrict

state or private activities within the area. A critical habitat

designation contributes to conservation of the species primarily by

identifying critically important areas and describing the features

within the areas that are essential to the species, thus alerting

public and private entities to the importance of the area. Under the

ESA, the only direct impact of a critical habitat designation is

through the provisions of section 7. Section 7 applies only to actions

with Federal involvement and does not affect state or private

activities unless there is Federal involvement.

Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat

would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely

modify the designated critical habitat. Activities that adversely

modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that ``appreciably

diminish the value of critical habitat for both the survival and

recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). However, if no critical

habitat has been designated, Federal agencies still must ensure that

their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as

those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival

and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Using these definitions,

activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat also are

likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the protection provided by

a critical habitat designation usually only duplicates the protection

provided under the section 7 jeopardy provision. Critical habitat may

provide additional benefits to a species where areas outside of the

species' current range have been designated. In these cases, it is

expected that Federal agencies would consult on actions occurring in

these areas for which they would otherwise not need to consult.

A designation of critical habitat provides a clearer indication to

the Federal agencies as to when consultation under section 7 is

required, particularly in cases where the action would not result in

direct mortality or injury to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an

action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is

not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the

essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which

activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section

7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the

designated area). For example, disposal of waste material in water

adjacent to a critical habitat area may affect an essential feature of

the designated habitat (water quality) and would be subject to the

provisions of section 7 of the ESA.

A critical habitat designation also assists Federal agencies in

planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance,

those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7

consultations. This is particularly true in cases where there are

alternative areas that would provide for the conservation of the

species. With a designation of critical habitat, potential conflicts

between projects and endangered or threatened species can be identified

and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning process.

Another indirect benefit of designating critical habitat is that it

helps focus Federal, state and private conservation and management

efforts in those areas. Recovery efforts may address special

considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation

regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The

economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the

time of proposal, and, therefore, are not considered in the critical

habitat designation process. Other Federal, state and local laws or

regulations, such as zoning or wetlands protection, may also provide

special protection for critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

Developing a proposal for critical habitat designation involves

three main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species

are evaluated and essential habitat areas and features are identified.

If there are alternative areas that would provide for the conservation

of the species, these alternatives are also identified. Second, the

need for special management considerations or protection of the area(s)

or features is evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other

impacts of designating these essential areas as ``critical habitat''

are evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the

need for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the

proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for

comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments

on the proposal and impacts assessment, should be published within 1

year of the proposal. Section 4 (a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to

the maximum extent prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical

habitat concurrently with a determination that a species is endangered

or threatened. Final critical habitat designations may be revised,

using the same process, as new data become available.

A description of the essential habitat, need for special management

considerations, and impacts of designating critical habitat for

Johnson's seagrass, as well as the proposed action, are described in

the following sections.

Essential Habitat of Johnson's Seagrass

The biology of Johnson's seagrass is discussed in the proposed rule

to list the species as threatened (58 FR 48326, September 15, 1993) and

includes information on the status of the species, its life history

characteristics and habitat requirements, as well as projects,

activities and other factors affecting the species. The current status

of Johnson's seagrass is presented in the EA prepared for this critical

habitat designation.

The physical habitat that supports Johnson's seagrass includes both

shallow intertidal as well as deeper subtidal zones. The species

prospers and is able to colonize and maintain stable populations either

in water that is clear and deep (2-5 m) or in water that is shallow and

turbid. In tidal channels, it inhabits coarse sand substrates.

Based on published reports and discussions with seagrass experts,

the distributional range of Johnson's seagrass is limited to the east

coast of Florida from central Biscayne Bay (25 deg.45' N. lat.) to

Sebastian Inlet (27 deg.50' N. lat.). There have been no reports of

healthy populations of this species outside the presently known range.

Although the species occurs throughout the Indian River Lagoon and Lake

Worth, the five specific areas proposed for critical habitat encompass

the largest known contiguous populations of Johnson's seagrass. While a

population within Biscayne Bay has been confirmed by literature and

observation, it is discontinuous from the other areas where the species

is found, and the area has not been studied or delineated.

The species is patchily distributed within its range. The

dimensions of patches range from a few square centimeters to

approximately 327 square meters. The survival of the species likely

depends on maintaining its existing viable populations, especially the

areas where the larger patches are found. The Sebastian Inlet

population is believed to be the northern limit of its distribution and

includes the largest known patch of Johnson's seagrass. The other areas

proposed for critical habitat designation represent the core range of

the species.

Spread of the species into new areas is limited by its reproductive

potential. Johnson's seagrass possesses only female flowers; thus

vegetative propagation, most likely through asexual branching, appears

to be its only means of reproduction and dispersal. If an established

community is disturbed, regrowth and reestablishment is extremely

unlikely. If extirpated from an area, it is doubtful that the species

would be capable of repopulation. This species' method of reproduction

impedes its ability to increase distribution as establishment of new

vegetation requires considerable stability in environmental conditions

and protection from human-induced disturbances.

Based on the best available information, the essential features of

the areas proposed for critical habitat designation include adequate

(1) water quality; (2) salinity levels; (3) water transparency; (4) and

stable, unconsolidated sediments that are free from physical

disturbance.

Need for Special Management Consideration or Protection

NMFS has determined that the essential areas and features described

in the previous section are at risk and may require special management

consideration or protection. Special management may be required because

of the following activities: (1) Vessel traffic and the resulting

propeller dredging and anchor mooring; (2) maintenance dredging; (3)

dock and marina construction; (4) water pollution; and (5) land use

practices.

Activities associated with recreational boat traffic account for

the majority of human use associated with the proposed critical habitat

areas. The destruction of the benthic community due to boating

activities, propeller dredging, anchor mooring and dock and marina

construction was observed at all sites during a study by NMFS from

1990-1992. These activities severely disrupt the benthic habitat,

breaching root systems and severing rhizomes and significantly reducing

the viability of the benthic community. Propeller dredging and anchor

mooring in shallow areas is a major disturbance to even the most robust

seagrasses. This destruction is expected to worsen with the predicted

increase in boating activity (Pat Rose, Florida Department of Natural

Resources, personal communication). Trampling of seagrass beds, a

secondary effect of recreational boating, also contributes to

disturbing seagrass habitat. Populations of Johnson's seagrass

inhabiting shallow water close to inlets where vessel traffic is

concentrated will be most affected.

The constant sedimentation patterns in and around inlets require

frequent maintenance dredging, which could either directly remove

essential seagrass habitat or indirectly affect it by redistributing

sediments, burying plants and destabilizing the bottom structure.

Altering benthic topography or burying the plants may remove them from

the photic zone.

Decreased water transparency caused by suspended sediments, water

color and chlorophylls could have significant detrimental effects on

the distribution and abundance of the deeper water populations of

Johnson's seagrass. Evidence from a distribution survey in Hobe and

Jupiter Sounds indicates that the abundance of this seagrass diminishes

in the more turbid interior portion of the lagoon where reduced

photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) limits photosynthesis.

Other areas of concern include seagrass beds located in proximity

to rivers and canal mouths where low salinity, highly colored water is

discharged. Freshwater discharge into areas adjacent to seagrass beds

may provoke physiological stress upon the plants by reducing the

salinity levels. Additionally, colored waters released into these areas

reduce the amount of sunlight necessary for photosynthesis by rapidly

attenuating shorter wavelengths of PAR.

Also, continuing and increasing degradation of water quality due to

increased land use and water management threatens the welfare of

seagrass communities. Nutrient overenrichment caused by inorganic and

organic nitrogen and phosphorous loading via urban and agricultural

land run-off stimulates increased algal growth that may smother

Johnson's seagrass, shade rooted vegetation and diminish the oxygen

content of the water. Low oxygen conditions have a demonstrated

negative impact on seagrasses and associated communities.

Special consideration and protection for these and other habitat

features will be evaluated during the section 7 process and in

development and implementation of a recovery plan. If adequate

protection cannot be provided through consultation or through the

recovery planning process, separate management actions with binding

requirements may be considered.

Federal Activities that May Impact Essential Habitat and Features

A wide range of activities funded, authorized or carried out by

Federal agencies may affect the essential habitat requirements of

Johnson's seagrass. These include authorization by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers for beach nourishment, dredging and related activities

including construction of docks and marinas; actions by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to manage freshwater discharges into

waterways; regulation of vessel traffic by the U.S. Coast Guard;

authorization of oil and gas exploration by the Minerals Management

Service; management of national refuges and protected species by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; management of vessel traffic and other

activities by the U.S. Navy; authorization of state coastal zone

management plans by NOAA's National Ocean Service, and management of

commercial fishing and protected species by NMFS.

Expected Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat

Under section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies are required to ensure

that actions that they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or to result in

the destruction or adverse modification of listed species' critical

habitat. Also, takings of Johnson's seagrass will be prohibited under

the proposed regulations issued to list the species as threatened.

This designation will identify specific habitat areas that have

been determined to be essential for the conservation of Johnson's

seagrass and that may be in need of special management considerations

or protection. It will require Federal agencies to evaluate their

activities with respect to the critical habitat of this species and to

consult with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA before engaging in

any action that may affect the critical habitat.

However, if Johnson's seagrass is listed as proposed, Federal

agencies active within the range of the species will be required to

consult with NMFS if projects and activities they authorize, fund or

otherwise carry out may affect the species, regardless of whether

critical habitat is designated. Therefore, it is unlikely that

additional consultations will result from designating critical habitat

for Johnson's seagrass.

In addition, it is not likely that designation of critical habitat

for Johnson's seagrass will have any additional adverse economic

impacts on Federal, state or private activities beyond those that would

occur as a result of listing the species. As discussed in the section

on activities that may impact essential habitat and features, the

Federal activities that may affect critical habitat are the same

activities that may affect the species itself. For plants, this is

particularly true when analyzing the impacts of designating critical

habitat. For example, the activities that affect water quality, an

essential feature of critical habitat, also will be considered in terms

of how they affect the species itself.

Should this proposed designation of critical habitat be adopted,

Federal agencies will continue to engage in section 7 consultations to

determine if the actions they authorize, fund or carry out are likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of Johnson's seagrass; however,

with designation, they would also need to address explicitly impacts to

the species' critical habitat. This is not expected to affect

materially the scope of future consultations or result in greater

economic impacts, since the impacts to Johnson's seagrass habitat will

already be considered in section 7 consultations.

The economic costs to be considered in a critical habitat

designation are the incremental costs of designation above the economic

impacts attributable to listing or attributable to authorities other

that the ESA. NMFS has determined that there are no incremental net

costs for areas within the species' current distribution, and no areas

outside the current range are proposed for critical habitat

designation.

Proposed Critical Habitat

Based on available information, NMFS proposes to designate critical

habitat that is considered essential for the survival and recovery of

Johnson's seagrass and that may require special management

consideration or protection. The critical habitat designation proposed

by this rule includes the largest contiguous areas that are currently

utilized by Johnson's seagrass.

Although Johnson's seagrass is found throughout the Indian River

Lagoon, Lake Worth and in some areas of Biscayne Bay, NMFS is not

proposing to include these areas in the proposed designation until more

information is available and the areas are delineated, and it can be

determined that these areas meet the requirements for designation as

critical habitat. For the same reason, NMFS is not including in the

proposed designation any areas outside the species' currently known

geographical area. NMFS has concluded that, at this time, proper

management of the essential features of the areas in proximity to the

five inlets will be sufficient to provide for the survival and recovery

of this species. If the species is listed as proposed, Federal

activities in any area occupied by Johnson's seagrass would be subject

to the section 7 consultation process whether or not the area has been

designated as critical habitat. In addition, NMFS may reconsider this

evaluation and propose additional areas for critical habitat at any

time.

The five areas proposed for critical habitat designation include

the intertidal and subtidal areas in proximity to five inlets on the

east coast of Florida. These areas are within 3 to 5 kilometers of the

inlet and experience regular tidal flushing with salinity greater than

15 ppt. Maps are provided for reference purposes to guide Federal

agencies and other interested parties in locating the general

boundaries of the proposed critical habitat. They do not constitute the

definition of the boundaries of critical habitat. Persons must refer to

the regulations at 50 CFR 226.91 for the actual boundaries of the

designated critical habitat.

Public Comments Solicited

NMFS is soliciting information, comments or recommendations on any

aspect of this proposal from all interested parties. NMFS will consider

all recommendations received before reaching a final decision. Because

the proposed rule for adding this species to the List of Threatened and

Endangered Species and designation of critical habitat are closely

related, NMFS will hold a public hearing to receive comments on both

rulings (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

Classification

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the General Counsel of

the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule,

if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities since it is primarily Federal

agencies that will be affected. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (NOAA) has determined

that the proposed designation is consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the approved Coastal Zone Management Program of the

State of Florida. This determination has been submitted for review by

the responsible state agency under section 3.7 of the Coastal Zone

Management Act.

NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 states that critical habitat

designations under the ESA are categorically excluded from the

requirement to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an

environmental impact statement. However, in order to evaluate more

clearly the impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation, NMFS

has prepared an EA. Copies of the assessment are available on request

(see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species.

Dated: July 25, 1994.

Gary C. Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

Subpart E--[Reserved]

2. A new subpart E is added to part 226 and reserved.

3. A new subpart F is added to part 226, consisting of Sec. 226.91,

to read as follows:

Subpart F--Critical Habitat for Marine Plants

Sec. 226.91 Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii).

(a) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, within the following

boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance of Sebastian Inlet,

follow the shoreline north to the tip of Mud Hole; cross the Indian

River at Mud Hole to the Intercoastal Waterway; follow the Intercoastal

Waterway south for 7.5 miles; cross the Indian River and follow the

shoreline north to the southwestern entrance of Sebastian Inlet

(Sebastian, Fla., 1970, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad.).

(b) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, within the following

boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance to Ft. Pierce Inlet,

follow the shoreline north to the North Beach Causeway and the A1A

Bridge; move west across the river at the causeway and bridge and

follow the shoreline south for 1.5 miles; cross the Indian River to the

shoreline of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve; follow

the shoreline north to the southwestern entrance of Ft. Pierce Inlet

(Fort Pierce, Fla., 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad.).

(c) A portion of the Indian River within the following boundary:

Beginning at the northwestern entrance of St. Lucie Inlet follow the

shoreline north to the A1A Bridge; cross the river at the bridge and

follow the shoreline south to the entrance of the Intercoastal Waterway

at St. Lucie State Park; follow the shoreline north to the southwestern

entrance of St. Lucie Inlet (Fort Pierce, Fla., 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5'

quad.).

(d) A portion of Jupiter Sound and Hobe Sound, Florida, within the

following boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance to Jupiter

Inlet, follow the shoreline north to the Highway 707 Bridge; cross Hobe

Sound at the bridge and follow the shoreline south; cross the Route 1

Bridge and follow the shoreline to the southwestern entrance of Jupiter

Inlet (Jupiter, Fla, 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad. and Hobe Sound, Fla.,

1967, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad.).

(e) A portion of Lake Worth, Florida, within the following

boundary: Beginning at the northwestern entrance to Lake Worth Inlet,

follow the shoreline north to the Riviera Beach bridge; cross Lake

Worth at the bridge and follow the shoreline south for 2.5 miles; cross

Lake Worth and follow the shoreline to the southwestern entrance of

Lake Worth Inlet (Riviera Beach, Fla., 1983, U.S.G.S. 7.5' quad).

4. Figures 9 through 13 are added in numerical order to the end of

part 226 to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 3510-22-W

TP04AU94.005

TP04AU94.006

TP04AU94.007

TP04AU94.008

TP04AU94.009

[FR Doc. 94-18975 Filed 8-3-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P