Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby

SUMMARY: We, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose designation

of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). The

species is now classified as endangered throughout its entire range. We

recently determined, however, that north of Orange County, California,

more populations exist than were known at the time of the listing, that

the threats to those populations are less severe than previously

believed, and that the tidewater goby has a greater ability than was

known in 1994 to recolonize habitats from which it is temporarily

absent. Based on this new information, we recently proposed removal of

the northern populations of tidewater goby from protection under the

Act. We also determined that the Orange and San Diego, California,

Counties population of tidewater gobies constitutes a distinct

population segment (DPS) that is genetically distinct and that

continues to be threatened by habitat loss and degradation, predation

by non-native species, and extreme weather and streamflow conditions.

Therefore, we proposed that this DPS be retained as an endangered

species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This

proposed critical habitat designation for the tidewater goby

encompasses areas within that proposed DPS. Section 4 of the Act

requires us to consider economic and other impacts of specifying any

particular area as critical habitat. We solicit data and comments from

the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on the

economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this

proposal to incorporate or address new information received during the

comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until

October 4, 1999. Public hearing requests must be received by September

17, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and other materials concerning this

proposal to Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments

and materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen Knowles at the above address;

telephone 760/431-9440, facsimile 760/431-5902.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is a small, elongate,

grey-brown fish not exceeding 50 millimeters (mm) (2 inches (in.))

standard length and is characterized by large, dusky pectoral fins and

a ventral sucker-like disk formed by the complete fusion of the pelvic

fins. The tidewater goby is a short-lived species, apparently having an

annual life cycle (Irwin and Soltz 1984, Swift et al. 1997). The

tidewater goby is the only member of the monotypic genus Eucyclogobius,

and is in the family Gobiidae. It was first described in 1857 by Girard

as Gobius newberryi. Based on Girard's specimens, Gill (1862) erected

the genus Eucyclogobius for this distinctive species. The majority of

scientists have accepted this classification (e.g., Bailey et al. 1970,

Miller and Lea 1972, Hubbs et al. 1979, Robins et al. 1991, Eschmeyer

et al. 1983). A few older works including Ginsburg (1945) placed the

tidewater goby and the eight related eastern Pacific species into the

genus Lepidogobius. This classification includes the currently

recognized genera Lepidogobius, Clevelandia, Ilypnus, Quietula, and

Eucyclogobius. Birdsong et al. (1988) coined the informal Chasmichthys

species group, recognizing the phyletic relationship of the eastern

Pacific group with species in the northwestern Pacific.

Crabtree's (1985) allozyme work on tidewater gobies from 12

localities throughout the range shows fixed allelic differences at the

extreme northern (Lake Earl, Humboldt Bay) and southern (Canada de Agua

Caliente, Winchester Canyon, and San Onofre Lagoon) ends of the range.

The northern and southern populations are genetically distinct from

each other and from the central populations sampled. The more centrally

distributed populations are relatively similar to each other (Brush

Creek, Estero Americano, Corcoran Lagoon, Arroyo de Corral, Morro Bay,

Santa Ynez River, and Jalama Creek). Crabtree's results indicated that

there is a low level of gene flow (movement of individuals) among the

northern, central, and southern parts of the range. However, Lafferty

et al. (in prep.) point out that Crabtree's sites were widely

distributed geographically, and may not be indicative of gene flow on

more local levels. Lafferty's work is discussed in more detail below.

David Jacobs (University of California, Los Angeles, Department of

Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, in litt., 1998) recently

began an analysis of mitochondrial genetic material from tidewater goby

populations ranging from Humboldt to San Diego Counties. Preliminary

results indicate that the San Diego gobies have long been separated

from other gobies along the coast. These southernmost populations

likely began diverging from the remainder of the gobies in excess of

100,000 years ago.

The tidewater goby is endemic to California, and is unique in that

it is restricted to coastal brackish water habitats. Historically, the

species ranged from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte

County) near the Oregon border to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern San

Diego County). Within the range of the tidewater goby, shallow,

brackish water conditions occur in two relatively distinct situations:

(1) The upper edge of tidal bays, such as Tomales, Bolinas, and San

Francisco Bays near the entrance of freshwater tributaries, and (2) the

coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of small to large coastal rivers,

streams, or seasonally wet canyons, along most of the length of

California. Few well authenticated records of this species are known

from marine environments outside of enclosed coastal lagoons and

estuaries (Swift et al. 1989).

The tidewater goby is often found in waters of relatively low

salinities (around 10 parts per thousand (ppt)) in the uppermost

brackish zone of larger estuaries and coastal lagoons. The fish can

tolerate a wide range of salinities, however, (Swift et al. 1989, 1997;

Worcester 1992, Worcester and Lea 1996), and is frequently found

throughout lagoons. Tidewater gobies regularly range upstream into

fresh water, and downstream into water of up to 28 ppt salinity

(Worcester 1992, Swenson 1995). Specimens have also been collected at

salinities as high as 42 ppt (Swift et al. 1989). The species'

tolerance of high salinities (up to 60 ppt for varying time periods)

likely enables it to withstand exposure to the marine environment,

allowing it to colonize or re-establish in lagoons and estuaries

following flood events (Swift et al. 1989; Worcester and Lea 1996;

Lafferty et al. in prep.).

Tidewater gobies are usually collected in water less than 1 meter

(m) (3 feet (ft)) deep; many localities have no area

[[Page 42251]]

deeper than this (Wang 1982, Irvin and Soltz 1984; Swenson 1995).

However, it has been found in waters over 1 m in depth (Worcester 1992,

Lafferty and Altstatt 1995; Swift et al. 1997; Smith 1998). In lagoons

and estuaries with deeper water, the failure to collect gobies may be

due to the inadequacy of the sampling methods, rather than the lack of

gobies (Worcester 1992, Lafferty 1997, Smith 1998).

Tidewater gobies often migrate upstream into tributaries up to 2.0

kilometers (km) (1.2 miles) (mi) from the estuary. However, in San

Antonio Creek and the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County,

tidewater gobies are often collected 5-8 km (3-5 mi) upstream of the

tidal or lagoonal areas, sometimes in beaver-impounded sections of

streams (Swift et al. 1989). The fish move upstream in summer and fall,

as sub-adults and adults. There is little evidence of reproduction in

these upper areas (Swift et al. 1997).

Populations originally inhabiting tidal areas, such as those found

in San Francisco Bay, rarely were studied before they disappeared, and

none remain to adequately study the use of truly tidal conditions by

this species. Several of the lagoonal habitats have been converted by

human activities into tidal harbors and bays, such as Humboldt Bay,

Elkhorn Slough, Morro Bay and Santa Margarita River, among others

(Swift et al. 1989, 1993). Populations recently present in these

artificially created tidal situations have disappeared in the last 5 to

10 years. The only tidal system in which tidewater gobies remain is

Humboldt Bay (Swift et al. 1989).

The life history of tidewater gobies is keyed to the annual cycles

of the coastal lagoons and estuaries (Swift et al. 1989, 1994; Swenson

1994, 1995). Water in estuaries, lagoons and bays is at its lowest

salinity during the winter and spring as a result of precipitation and

runoff. During this time, high runoff causes the sandbars at the mouths

of the lagoons to breach, allowing mixing of the relatively fresh

estuarine and lagoon waters with seawater. This annual building and

breaching of the sandbars is part of the normal dynamics of the systems

in which the tidewater goby has evolved (Zedler 1982, Lafferty and

Alstatt 1995, Heasly et al. 1997). The time of sandbar closure varies

greatly among systems and years, and typically occurs from spring to

late summer. Summer salinity in the lagoon depends upon the amount of

freshwater inflow at the time of sandbar formation (Zedler 1982, Heasly

et al. 1997).

Males begin digging breeding burrows 75 to 100 mm (3-4 in.) deep,

usually in relatively unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand averaging 0.5

mm (0.02 in.) in diameter, in April or May (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson

1994, 1995). Swenson (1995) demonstrated that tidewater gobies prefer

this substrate in the laboratory, but also found tidewater gobies

digging breeding burrows in mud in the wild (Swenson 1994). Inter-

burrow distances range from about 5 to 275 centimeters (cm) (2 to 110

in) (Swenson 1995). Females lay about 100 to000 eggs per clutch,

averaging 400 eggs/clutch, with clutch size depending on the size of

both the female and the male. Females can lay more than one clutch of

eggs over their lifespan, with captive females spawning 6-12 times

(Swenson 1995). Spawning frequency in wild females probably varies due

to fluctuations in food supply and other environmental conditions. Male

gobies remain in the burrow to guard the eggs that are attached to sand

grains in the walls of the burrow. Males also spawn more than once per

season (Swenson 1995), and have been observed guarding multiple

clutches in the same burrow (Swift et al. 1989, Swenson 1995). Males

frequently go at least for a few weeks without feeding, and this

probably contributes to mid-summer mortality (Swift et al. 1989;

Swenson 1994, 1995).

Reproduction peaks during spring to mid-summer, late April or May

to July, and can continue into November or December depending on the

seasonal temperature and rainfall. Reproduction sometimes increases

slightly in the fall (Swift et al. 1989). Reproduction takes place from

15-20 degrees Celsius ( deg.C) (60-65 degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F)) and

at salinities of 0-25 ppt (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995).

Typically, winter rains and cold weather interrupt spawning, but in

some warm years reproduction may occur throughout the year (Goldberg

1977, Wang 1984). Goldberg (1977) showed by histological analysis that

females have the potential to lay eggs all year in southern California,

but this rarely has been documented. Length-frequency data from

southern and central California (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995)

and age data analysis from otoliths from central California populations

(Swift et al. 1997) indicate that tidewater gobies are an annual

species and typically live one year or less.

Tidewater goby eggs hatch in 7-10 days at temperatures of 15-18

deg.C (60-65 deg.F) at lengths of 4-7 mm (0.2 in.). The newly hatched

larvae are planktonic (float in water column) for one to a few days and

once they reach 8-18 mm (0.3-0.8 in.) in length, become substrate

oriented. All larger size classes are substrate oriented and, although

little habitat segregation by size has been noted (Swift et al. 1989,

Swenson 1995), Worcester (1992) did find that larval gobies in Pico

Creek Lagoon tended to use the deeper portion of the lagoon.

Individuals collected in marshes appear to be larger (43-45 mm (1.7-1.8

in.) standard length) than those collected in open areas of lagoons

(32-35 mm (1.3-1.4 in.) standard length) (Swenson 1995).

Studies of the tidewater goby's feeding habits suggest that it is a

generalist. At all sizes examined, tidewater gobies feed on small

invertebrates, usually mysids, amphipods, ostracods, snails, and

aquatic insect larvae, particularly dipterans (Irwin and Soltz 1984;

Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995). The food items of the smallest

tidewater gobies (4-8 mm (0.2-0.3 in.)) have not been examined, but

they probably feed on unicellular phytoplankton or zooplankton similar

to many other early stage larval fishes (Swenson and McCray 1996).

Tidewater gobies are preyed upon by native species such as prickly

sculpin (Cottus asper), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), starry

flounder (Platichthys californicus) (Swift et al. 1997), and possibly

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Swift et al. 1989). However, tidewater

gobies were found in stomachs of only 6 percent of nearly 120 of the

latter three species examined, and comprised less than 20 percent by

volume of the prey. Predation by the native Sacramento perch

(Archoplites interruptus) and tule perch (Hysterocarpus traski) may

have prevented tidewater gobies from inhabiting the San Francisco Bay

delta (Swift et al. 1989), although direct documentation to support

this hypothesis is lacking.

Non-native African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) also prey upon

tidewater gobies (Lafferty and Page 1997), although this is probably

not a significant source of mortality due to the limited distribution

of this species in tidewater goby habitats. The frogs are killed by the

higher salinities that occur when the lagoons are breached (Glenn

Greenwald, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs.). Several non-

native fish species also prey on tidewater gobies. The shimofuri goby

(Tridentiger bifasciatus), which has become established in the San

Francisco Bay region (Matern and Fleming 1995), may compete with the

smaller tidewater goby, based on dietary overlap (Swenson 1995) and

foraging and reproductive behavioral alterations in captivity.

Shimofuri gobies eat juvenile tidewater gobies in captivity, but

[[Page 42252]]

usually were unable to catch subadult and adult tidewater gobies

(Swenson and Matern 1995). Evidence of predation or competition in the

wild is lacking (Swenson 1998). Some authors hypothesize that

competition occurs between tidewater gobies and yellowfin

(Acanthogobius flavimanus) and chameleon (Tridentiger trigonocephalus)

gobies. Although Wang (1984) found that yellowfin gobies do prey on

tidewater gobies, no data were presented indicating the extent of such

interactions, nor has there been any further documentation of such

competitive or predatory interactions with either species. Shapovalov

and Taft (1954) documented the non-native striped bass (Morone

saxatilis) preying on tidewater gobies in Waddell Creek Lagoon, but

stated that striped bass were found only infrequently in the areas

inhabited by the goby. Sunfishes and black bass (centrarchids) have

been introduced in or near coastal lagoons and may prey heavily on

tidewater gobies under some conditions. Predation by young-of-the-year

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) on tidewater gobies was

documented in one system (Santa Ynez River), where tidewater gobies

accounted for 61 percent of the prey volume of 55 percent (10 of 18) of

the juvenile bass sampled (Swift et al. 1997). Although tidewater

gobies disappeared soon after centrarchids were introduced at several

localities, direct evidence that the introductions led to the

extirpations is lacking (Swift et al. 1989, 1994; Rathbun et al. 1991).

In at least one location, tidewater gobies have re-established

naturally.

Lafferty et al. (in prep.) monitored persistence of 17 tidewater

goby populations in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties during and

after the heavy winter flows of 1995. All 17 populations persisted

after the high flows and no significant changes in population sizes

were detected. In addition, gobies apparently colonized Canada Honda,

approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the closest known population, during or

after the flooding (Swift et al. 1997). Lafferty et al. (in prep.)

proposed that flood events such as those that occurred in 1995 act as

mechanisms of dispersal by washing gobies out into the ocean's littoral

zone where they are carried by longshore currents to other estuaries

down the coast. As Swenson (in prep.) points out, Lafferty's work

suggests that populations at the northern ends of population clusters

are more likely than southern populations to serve as source

populations. Lafferty et al. (in prep.) estimated the extirpation and

recolonization rates for 37 populations in southern California, based

on over 250 presence-absence records, found a high rate of

recolonization. The results suggest that there is more gene flow among

populations within geographic clusters (e.g., northern California, San

Francisco Bay, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo and south) than previously

believed. They also found a positive association between tidewater goby

presence and wet years, suggesting that flooding may contribute to

recolonization of sites from which gobies have temporarily disappeared.

Lagoons in which tidewater gobies are found range in size from less

than 0.10 hectare (ha) (0.25 acres (ac)) of surface area to about 800

ha (2000 ac). Most lagoons with tidewater goby populations are in the

range of 0.5-5.0 ha (1.25-12.5 ac). Surveys of tidewater goby

localities and historical records indicate that size, configuration,

location, and access by humans are all related to persistence of

populations (Swift et al. 1989, 1994). Watered surface areas smaller

than about 2 ha (5 ac) generally have histories of extinction,

extirpation, or population reduction to very low levels, although some

as small as 0.35 ha (0.86 ac) have been identified as having permanent

tidewater goby populations (Swift et al. 1997, Lafferty 1997, Heasly et

al. 1997). As evidenced by the Canada Honda colonization (Swift et al.

1997), relatively long distances are not obstacles to colonization or

re-establishment. Many of the small lagoons with histories of

intermittent populations are within 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi) of larger

lagoons that can act as sources of colonizing gobies.

The largest localities have not proven to be the best for the

species, as evidenced by the loss of tidewater gobies from San

Francisco and Morro Bays and the Santa Margarita River estuary. Today,

the most stable and largest populations are in lagoons and estuaries of

intermediate sizes, 2-50 ha (5-125 ac) that have remained relatively

unaffected by human activities, although some systems that are heavily

affected or altered also have relatively large, stable populations

(e.g., Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County, Santa Clara River, Ventura

County, Santa Ynez River, Santa Barbara County, Pismo Creek, and San

Luis Obispo County). In many cases, these probably have provided the

colonists for the smaller ephemeral sites (Swift et al.1997; Lafferty

et al. in prep.).

Previous Federal Action

We first classified the tidewater goby as a Category 2 candidate

species in 1982 (47 FR 58454). It was reclassified as a Category 1

candidate in 1991 (56 FR 58804) based on status and threat information

in Swift et al. (1989). At that time, Category 2 candidates were those

taxa for which information in our possession indicated that proposing

to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for

which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not

currently available to support a listing proposal. Category 1 candidate

species, now referred to as candidate species, were those taxa for

which we had on file, substantial information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as threatened

or endangered. On October 24, 1990, we received a petition from Dr.

Camm Swift, Associate Curator of Fishes at the Los Angeles Museum of

Natural History, to list the tidewater goby as endangered. Our finding

that the requested action may be warranted was published on March 22,

1991 (56 FR 12146). A proposal to list the tidewater goby as an

endangered species was published on December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58770). On

March 7, 1994, the tidewater goby was listed as a federally endangered

species (59 FR 5494). At that time, we did not designate critical

habitat, explaining that:

In the case of the tidewater goby, critical habitat is not

presently determinable. A final designation of critical habitat

requires detailed information on the possible economic effects of

such a designation. The Service does not currently have sufficient

information needed to perform the economic analysis (59 FR 5495).

On September 18, 1998, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in California against the

United States Department of the Interior et al. for failure to

designate critical habitat for the tidewater goby. On April 5, 1999,

Judge Carlos R. Moreno ordered that the ``Service publish a proposed

critical habitat designation for the tidewater goby in 120 days''

(Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Department of

the Interior et al. CV 98-7596).

The processing of this proposed critical habitat designation does

not conform with our current Listing Priority Guidance (LPG) for FY

1998/1999. That guidance gives the highest priority (Tier 1) to

processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority

[[Page 42253]]

(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species

to the lists, processing new listing proposals, processing

administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited

number of proposed and final rules to delist or reclassify species; and

third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed and final rules

designating critical habitat. Our Pacific Region is currently working

on Tier 1 and 2 actions; however, we are undertaking this Tier 3 action

in order to comply with the above-mentioned court order.

On June 24, 1999, we proposed, based on our re-evaluation of the

species status throughout its range, to delist the northern populations

of the tidewater goby, and to retain the tidewater goby populations in

Orange and San Diego Counties as endangered (64 FR 33816). We

determined that north of Orange County, more populations exist than

were known at the time of the listing, that threats to those

populations are less severe than previously believed, and that the

tidewater goby has a greater ability to recolonize habitats from which

it is temporarily absent than was known in 1994. We determined that the

Orange and San Diego Counties populations of tidewater gobies are

genetically distinct, and represent a DPS. We further determined that

this DPS, comprised of gobies from only six localities, continues to be

threatened by habitat loss and degradation, predation by nonnative

species, and extreme weather and streamflow conditions. Therefore, we

proposed that populations north of Orange County be removed from the

List of Endangered and Threatened Animals, and that the southern DPS of

tidewater gobies be retained as an endangered species on the list.

Other Federal involvement with the tidewater goby following the

initial listing has included section 7 consultations, permitting of

breaching and other activities in lagoons through the Clean Water Act,

section 404 process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and

contributed funding to conduct research and surveys. Measures to reduce

impacts to tidewater goby habitat and reduce or eliminate the potential

for take of individuals have included adjusting the timing of projects

to avoid disruption to breeding activities, the use of silt fencing to

reduce sediment loads and as barricades around project sites,

installing cofferdams above and below project sites, removal and

translocation of animals found within the exclosures prior to necessary

dewatering of project sites, minimizing project impacted area, and

requiring qualified biologists to oversee all activities.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the

specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the

time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those

physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of

the species and (II) that may require special management considerations

or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are

necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the

point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

Because the best available information led us to conclude that the

northern tidewater goby populations are no longer endangered and were

thus proposed for delisting, we also have concluded that the

designation of critical habitat for those Northern populations is not

appropriate. We then evaluated benefits to the tidewater goby that

could result from critical habitat designation in the southern portion

of its range, Orange and San Diego Counties. Tidewater gobies and their

habitats in Orange and San Diego Counties are described in detail in

the March 7, 1994, final rule listing the species as endangered (59 FR

5494). All of the areas currently thought to be inhabited by the

southern DPS of the tidewater goby are owned and controlled by the

Federal government. The other areas we evaluated for possible

designation are either owned and controlled by the Federal government

or are non-Federal lands with a Federal nexus (by virtue of regulation

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act).

The possible benefits of critical habitat designation include

initiating the section 7 consultation requirement in areas currently

unoccupied by the goby. Another possible benefit to the tidewater goby

stemming from the designation of critical habitat is ensuring that

important habitat and habitat features essential to the tidewater goby

are identified for the purposes of Federal agency planning and

identifying precise areas where section 7 consultation will be required

for unoccupied sites.

To our knowledge, the tidewater goby is not currently threatened by

take, collection, or intentional acts of vandalism, and we have no

evidence that these threats would be precipitated by designating

critical habitat. Thus, the apparent benefits to designating critical

habitat are not counterbalanced by any risks, and we find that

designating critical habitat for the tidewater goby is prudent.

Proposed Designation--Occupied Habitat

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for habitat

occupied by the species, critical habitat is defined as specific areas

that contain those physical or biological features that are essential

to the conservation of the species and that may require special

management considerations or protection. The habitat features (primary

constituent elements) that provide for the physiological, behavioral,

and ecological requirements essential for the conservation of the

species are described at 50 CFR 424.12, and include, but are not

limited to, the following:

Space for individual and population growth, and for normal

behavior;

Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

Cover or shelter;

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

Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative

of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

The primary constituent habitat elements for the tidewater goby

were determined from studies on their habitat requirements and

population biology (Lafferty et al. in prep.; Manion 1993; Swensen

1994, 1995, 1998; Swift 1989) and include habitat components that are

essential to the biological needs of foraging, nest construction,

spawning, sheltering, and dispersal. The primary constituent elements

for the tidewater goby are coastal lagoons and estuary systems

supported by a natural hydrological regime and an environment free from

exotic predatory fishes. These elements are discussed in detail below.

Coastal lagoons and estuaries with natural hydrology generally

provide several specific habitat elements that gobies require. For

instance, aquatic systems supported by a natural hydrological regime

are often characterized by a combination of slightly different habitat

types: freshwater creek, brackish lagoon, and coastal salt marsh. This

habitat heterogeneity generally ensures that some streamflow continues

and deep pockets of permanent water remain as

[[Page 42254]]

refugia during times of drought; provides for a variety of substrate

types, of which sand and coarse silt are necessary for construction of

burrows; and provides for structural complexity of the stream channel,

which supports various types of aquatic and emergent vegetation. This

structural complexity and presence of vegetation may ensure that all

gobies are not washed out to sea during flood events (Swensen 1995).

Lastly, lagoons and estuaries with a natural hydrological regime and

corresponding habitat complexity generally provide for the diversity of

prey species (e.g., aquatic invertebrates including aquatic insect

larvae, ostracods, crustaceans, and snails) that gobies require.

The second constituent element of tidewater goby habitat is a

system that is free from exotic species. Exotic fishes can devastate

tidewater goby populations through competition and predation.

Largemouth bass, black bass, sunfishes, stripped bass, shimofuri

gobies, and yellowfin gobies have all been suspected of preying on

tidewater gobies. African clawed frogs are another exotic species that

have been found to prey on tidewater gobies. Keeping exotic species out

of occupied goby habitats, and eliminating them from potential

reestablishment sites will be crucial to the conservation of the goby.

The primary constituent elements are found in all of the six areas

occupied by the tidewater goby. These areas are San Onofre Creek, Las

Flores Creek, Hidden Creek, Aliso Creek, French Creek, and Cockleburr

Creek, all of which are on the Marine Corps base, Camp Pendleton. In

each of the areas, however, all of these habitat elements are, to

varying degrees, degraded or imperiled by a combination of human-caused

and natural factors (see analysis in the June 24, 1999 proposed rule to

delist the northern population; 64 FR 33816), and therefore require

special management considerations or protection. The six areas

currently occupied by the proposed southern DPS of the tidewater goby

are proposed for designation as critical habitat.

Proposed Designation--Unoccupied Habitat

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, areas outside the

geographical area occupied by the species may meet the definition of

critical habitat upon determination that they are essential for the

conservation of the species. We identified the unoccupied lagoons and

estuaries where gobies occurred in the past and evaluated those that

might be essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed

southern DPS of the tidewater goby is in danger of becoming extinct

because of habitat conversion over the last few decades (i.e., altered

hydrology), which has resulted in habitat loss and local extinctions.

The six remaining occupied habitat areas, discussed above, represent a

remnant of the former range that once extended from Aliso Creek, Orange

County in the north to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County in the

south. Even the remaining populations are threatened by human-caused

habitat alteration, predation by non-native species, and occasional

extreme streamflow conditions (see analysis in 64 FR 33816). Because of

these threats, the recent proposal to delist the tidewater goby over

much of its range retained the endangered status of the southern DPS.

The long-term survival of tidewater gobies in Orange and San Diego

Counties depends upon the presence of enough habitat areas to support

the natural pattern of local extinctions and recolonizations (Swift

1989, Lafferty et al. in prep.) that characterize its population

biology. The removal of threats and the colonization of gobies to

additional areas that are currently unoccupied will be necessary.

To determine which unoccupied areas are essential and should be

designated as critical habitat, we evaluated which unoccupied areas

could provide the primary constituent elements and support tidewater

gobies in the future, and, by virtue of their geographical

distribution, provide for a network of habitat areas supporting gobies

and acting as sources of recolonization for other nearby habitat areas.

The essential unoccupied areas that are restorable, or contain

restorable areas, and are most likely to promote recolonization of

adjacent habitat areas, are Aliso Creek, Orange County, and four

estuaries in San Diego County: San Mateo Creek, the Santa Margarita

River, Buena Vista Lagoon, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. These areas are

proposed as critical habitat for the tidewater goby.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

At this time, the proposed critical habitat areas discussed below

constitute our best evaluation of areas needed for the conservation of

the tidewater goby. We used the best scientific information available,

and took into consideration the proposal to delist the northern

populations of the species. We emphasized areas that are essential to

the conservation of this species because they provide for the

demographic interchange necessary to maintain the viability of the

southern DPS. Proposed critical habitat may be revised should new

information become available prior to the final rule, and existing

critical habitat may be revised if new information becomes available

after the final rule.

The following general areas are proposed as critical habitat (see

legal descriptions for exact habitat boundaries):

1. Aliso Creek (Orange County) and its associated lagoon and marsh

from the Pacific Ocean to approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) upstream;

2. San Mateo Creek, its associated lagoon and marsh, from the

Pacific Ocean to approximately 1.3 km (0.9 mi) upstream;

3. San Onofre Creek, its associated lagoon and marsh, from the

Pacific Ocean to approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream;

4. approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) of Las Flores Creek, and its

associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;

5. approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Hidden Creek, and its

associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;

6. approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) of Aliso Creek and its associated

lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;

7. approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) of French Creek, and its

associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;

8. approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) of Cockleburr Creek and its

associated lagoon and marsh, from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5;

9. the Santa Margarita River, from the Pacific Ocean to a point

approximately 5.0 km (3.1 mi) upstream;

10. Buena Vista Lagoon, its associated marsh and creek, from the

Pacific Ocean to a point approximately 3.4 km (2.1 mi) upstream; and

11. Agua Hedionda Lagoon, its associated marsh and creek, from the

Pacific Ocean to a point approximately 3.7 km 92.3 mi) upstream.

Each area includes the current 50-year flood plain.

Although the majority of land being proposed for designation is

under Federal administration and management, some estuary and riparian

systems are on State, county, city, and private lands. The Aliso Creek

segment, Orange County, is owned by the County of Orange, the City of

South Laguna, and private interests. Buena Vista Lagoon is owned by the

California Department of Fish and Game, the City of Carlsbad, and the

City of Oceanside. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is owned by the San Diego Gas

and Electric Company, which leases to the City of Carlsbad, and

[[Page 42255]]

public and private interests. The segments on San Mateo Creek, San

Onofre Creek, Las Flores Creek, Hidden Creek, Aliso Creek, French

Creek, Cockleburr Creek, and the Santa Margarita River are owned by the

Marine Corps base, Camp Pendleton. Many activities carried out on

private, Tribal, State, and Federal lands have Federal involvement, and

would be subject to section 7. However, on private lands where no

Federal involvement exists, a critical habitat designation has no

regulatory impact.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving

listed species are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if

any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us

on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed or critical habitat

is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with us.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require

Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to

result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical

habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to

reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances

where critical habitat is subsequently designated. Consequently, some

Federal agencies may request conferencing with us on actions for which

formal consultation has been completed. Conference reports provide

conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating

conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation

recommendations in a conference report are advisory.

We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal

agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain

a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if

critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference

report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is

designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). We may also

prepare a formal conference report to address the effects on proposed

critical habitat from issuance of an incidental take permit, under

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Activities on Federal lands that may affect the tidewater goby or

its critical habitat will continue to require section 7 consultation.

Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal

agency, such as a permit from the ACOE under section 404 of the Clean

Water Act, will also continue to be subject to the section 7

consultation process. Federal actions not affecting the species, as

well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or

permitted do not require section 7 consultation.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed

or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities

involving a Federal action that may adversely modify such habitat or

that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy

or adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the

primary constituent elements to an extent that the value of critical

habitat for both the survival and recovery of the tidewater goby is

appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize

the continued existence of the species. Activities that, when carried

out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:

(1) Activities such as water diversion or impoundment, groundwater

pumping, artificial lagoon breaching to protect urban or agricultural

areas from inundation, or any other activity that alters water quality

or quantity to an extent that water quality becomes unsuitable to

support gobies, or any activity that significantly affects the natural

hydrologic function of the lagoon system;

(2) Activities such as coastal development, sand and gravel mining,

channelization, dredging, impoundment, or construction of flood control

structures, that alter watershed characteristics or appreciably alter

stream channel and or lagoon morphology; and

(3) Activities which could lead to the introduction of exotic

species, especially exotic fishes, into occupied or potential goby

habitat.

If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will

constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field

Supervisor, Carlsbad Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and

inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th

Ave, Portland, OR 97232 (telephone 503-231-2063, facsimile 503-231-

6243).

Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency

activities. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in

areas currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do

not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. These actions

include, but are not limited to:

(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the ACOE under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act;

(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and

channelization by Federal agencies;

(3) Road construction, right of way designation, or regulation of

agricultural activities by Federal agencies; and

(4) Some military maneuvers on the Marine Corps base, Camp

Pendleton.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical

habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information

available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of

designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas

from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such

exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical

habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such

exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct

an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as

critical habitat prior to a final determination. When completed,

[[Page 42256]]

we will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis with a

notice in the Federal Register, and we will open a 30-day comment

period at that time.

Public Comments Solicited

It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal

will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments

concerning:

(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined

to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including

whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the

species due to designation;

(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of

tidewater goby habitat, and what habitat is essential to the

conservation of the species and why;

(3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the

subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the

proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on

small entities or families; and,

(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical

habitat for the tidewater goby, such as those derived from non-

consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced

watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention,

``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate

and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose

of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on

scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send

these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following

publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer

reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific

assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of

critical habitat.

We will consider all comments and information received during the

60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a

final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this

proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made at least 15

days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will schedule

public hearings on this proposal if any are requested, and announce the

dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal Register and

local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/

notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to

make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions

such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly

stated? (2) Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that

interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the notice

(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)

aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the

Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the notice? What else could we do to make the notice

easier to understand?

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this action has been

submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget. A 60-day

comment period is opened with the publication of this rule. Following

issuance of this proposed rule, we will prepare an economic analysis to

determine the economic consequences of designating the proposed areas

as critical habitat. If our economic analysis reveals that the economic

impacts of designating any area as critical habitat outweigh the

benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from

consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of

the species. In the economic analysis, we will address any possible

inconsistencies with other agencies' actions and any effects on

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of their recipients. This proposed rule does not raise

novel legal or policy issues.

Other Rulemaking Determinations

In the economic analysis, we will determine the economic and other

impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation in compliance

with:

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

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

804(2))

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

4. Taking Personal Property Rights (Executive Order 12630)

5. Federalism (Executive Order 12612)

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Service has

determined that this proposed rule is consistent with sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of the Order. The proposed rule and final rule will be reviewed

by the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office. We will make

every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no

drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures,

reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is

minimized.

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

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements

for which the Office of Management and Budget approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and/or an

Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. A notice outlining the

Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This rule does not

constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,

``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal

Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2: We understand that recognized

Federal Tribes must be related to on a Government-to-Government basis.

The 1997 Secretarial Order on Native Americans and the Endangered

Species Act clearly states that Tribal lands should not be designated

unless absolutely necessary for the conservation of the species.

According to the Secretarial Order, ``Critical habitat

[[Page 42257]]

shall not be designated in an area that may impact Tribal trust

resources unless it is determined essential to conserve a listed

species. In designating critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate

and document the extent to which the conservation needs of a listed

species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other lands.''

The proposed designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby

does not contain any Tribal lands or lands that we have identified as

impacting Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is

available upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this notice is Glen Knowles (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR

part 17 as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``goby, tidewater'' under

``FISHES'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

---------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

Fishes

* * * * * * *

Goby, tidewater................... Eucyclogobius U.S.A. (CA)......... ......do............ E 527 17.95(e) NA

newberryi.

* * * * * * *

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

3. In Sec. 17.95 add critical habitat for the tidewater goby

(Eucyclogobius newberrii) under paragraph (e) in the same alphabetical

order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) Fishes.

* * * * *

Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberrii)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Orange and San Diego

Counties, California, on the maps below.

2. Critical habitat includes the sections of streams indicated on

the maps below and their 50 year flood plain, including associated

lagoons and marsh.

3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include,

but are not limited to, those habitat components that are essential for

the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and reproduction.

These elements include the following: (1) Coastal lagoons and estuary

systems supported by a natural hydrological regime, which results in

sufficient streamflow, deep pockets of permanent water, sand and coarse

silt substrate, a variety of aquatic and emergent vegetation, and a

diversity of prey species; and (2) an environment free from exotic

fishes.

Map Unit 1: Orange County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Laguna Beach, California, and San Juan Capistrano, California. San

Bernardino Principal Meridian, California, T. 7 S., R 8 W., beginning

at a point on Aliso Creek in SW sec. 32 and at approximately

33 deg.30'46'' N latitude and 117 deg.44'37'' W longitude and

proceeding downstream (westerly) to the Pacific Ocean covering

approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi.), including the stream, its 50 year flood

plain, associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 2: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map San Clemente, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 9 S., R. 7 W., beginning at a point on San Mateo Creek

in NW sec. 14 and at approximately 33 deg.23'46'' N latitude and

117 deg.35'20'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (southerly) to

the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.3 km (0.9 mi.), including

the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 3: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map San Clemente, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 9 S., R. 7 W., beginning at a point on San Onofre Creek

in SE sec. 14 and at approximately 33 deg.23'05'' N latitude and

117 deg.34'30'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (southwesterly)

to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi.), including

the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 4: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 10 S., R. 6 W., beginning at a point on Las Flores Creek

in the middle of sec. 13 and at approximately 33 deg.17'32'' N latitude

and 117 deg.27'20'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (westerly) to

the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), including

the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 5: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Hidden Creek in

W sec. 30 and at approximately 33 deg.16'46'' N latitude and

117 deg.26'48'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (southwesterly)

to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), including

the stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 6: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Aliso Creek in

NE sec. 31

[[Page 42258]]

and at approximately 33 deg.16'13'' N latitude and 117 deg.26'19'' W

longitude and proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the Pacific

Ocean covering approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi.), including the stream,

its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 7: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on French Creek in

E sec. 31 and at approximately 33 deg.16'01'' N latitude and

117 deg.26'01'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi.), including the

stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 8: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Las Pulgas Canyon, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 11 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on Cockleburr Creek

in NE sec. 5 and at approximately 33 deg.15'16'' N latitude and

117 deg.25'21'' W longitude and proceeding downstream (westerly) to the

Pacific Ocean covering approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi.), including the

stream, its 50 year flood plain, and associated lagoons and marsh.

Map Unit 9: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle

map Oceanside, California. San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

California, T. 11 S., R. 5 W., beginning at a point on the Santa

Margarita River in NW sec. 2 and at approximately 33 deg.15'08'' N

latitude and 117 deg.22'38'' W longitude and proceeding downstream

(westerly) to the Pacific Ocean covering approximately 5.0 km (3.1

mi.), including the river's 50 year flood plain, associated lagoons and

marsh.

Map Unit 10: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5'

quadrangle map San Luis Rey, California. San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, California, T. 11 S., R. 4 W., beginning at a point on Buena

Vista Creek at the border of sec. 31 and 32 and at approximately

33 deg.10'48'' N latitude and 117 deg.19'49'' W longitude and

proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the Pacific Ocean covering

approximately 3.4 km (2.1 mi.), including Buena Vista Creek, its 50

year flood plain, Buena Vista Lagoon, and associated marsh.

Map Unit 11: San Diego County, California. From USGS 7.5'

quadrangle map San Luis Rey, California. San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, California, T. 12 S., R. 4 W., beginning at a point on Augua

Hedionda Creek in the middle of Section 9 and at approximately

33 deg.08'44'' N latitude and 117 deg.18'19'' W longitude and

proceeding downstream (southwesterly) to the Pacific Ocean covering

approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi.), including the creek, its 50 year flood

plain, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and associated marsh.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 42259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.004

[[Page 42260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.005

[[Page 42261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.006

[[Page 42262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU99.007

[[Page 42263]]

Dated: July 29, 1999.

Stephen C. Saunders,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-20034 Filed 7-30-99; 2:55 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C