[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18975]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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