Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 95)
DOCID: fr19my09-12 FR Doc E9-11245
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17
RIN ID: RIN 1018-AV46
FWS ID: [FWS-R2-ES-2008-0055; 92210-1117-0000-FY09-B4]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr19my09-12
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Wintering Population of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas
DATES: This final rule becomes effective on June 18, 2009.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate revised critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in 18 specific units in Texas under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 139,029 acres (56,263 hectares) fall within the boundaries of the revised critical habitat designation. The revised critical habitat is located in Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, Aransas, Calhoun, Matagorda, and Brazoria Counties, Texas. Other previously designated critical habitat for the wintering piping plover in Texas or elsewhere in the United States remains unaffected.
SUMMARY:
Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the development and designation of revised critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in Texas in this final rule. For more information on the biology and ecology of the wintering population of the piping plover, refer to the final listing rule we published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50726). For information on piping plover wintering critical habitat, refer to the final rule designating critical habitat for the wintering populations of the piping plover we published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36038), and the proposed rule to designate revised critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in Texas we published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29294). We made available the associated draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for the proposed rule to designate revised critical habitat via publication in the Federal Register on, December 9, 2008 (73 FR 74675).
Previous Federal Actions
We listed the piping plover as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed and threatened elsewhere within its range on December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50726). All piping plovers on migratory routes outside of the Great Lakes watershed or on their wintering grounds are listed as threatened under the Act due to the difficulty of knowing where they bred or were hatched.
On July 10, 2001, we designated 142 areas along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (66 FR 36038). This designation included approximately 1,798 miles (mi) (2,892 kilometers (km)) of mapped shoreline and approximately 165,211 acres (ac) (66,881 hectares (ha)) of mapped areas along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and along margins of interior bays, inlets, and lagoons.
In February 2003, Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance challenged the designation of four critical habitat units on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. A November 1, 2004, court opinion vacated and remanded these units for reconsideration (Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior (344 F. Supp. 2d108 (D.D.C. 2004)). On June 12, 2006, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 33703) to amend the Service's critical habitat designation in North Carolina. We revised that proposal on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28084), and published a final designation on October 21, 2008 (73 FR 62816).
The Texas General Land Office (GLO) filed suit on March 20, 2006, challenging our designation of 19 units of critical habitat along the Texas coast (Units 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 33). In a July 26, 2006, stipulated settlement agreement and court order, the court vacated and remanded the designation for reconsideration (Texas General Land Office v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., No. 06CV00032 (S.D. Tex.). This rule addresses only the courtvacated and remanded units (the 19 units referenced above). It also addresses minor edits to the regulatory language found in 50 CFR 17.95(b). All other areas remain as designated in the July 10, 2001, final critical habitat rule (66 FR 36038), including Texas Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, and 37.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the piping plover during two comment periods. The first comment period, associated with the publication of the proposed rule (73 FR 29294), opened on May 20, 2008, and closed on July 21, 2008. We also requested comments on the associated draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment during a second comment period, which opened December 9, 2008, and closed on January 8, 2009 (73 FR 74675). We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. We coordinated with the Texas General Land Office and also maintained project by project contact with other Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties working in the South Texas coastal area as they needed assistance in determining presence of piping plover habitat and critical habitat. Additionally Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties could respond to the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during the comment periods.
During the first comment period, we received five sets of comments
addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During the second
comment period, we received a single set of comments, from the GLO, on
the draft economic analysis and environmental assessment. Comments were
grouped into general issues relating to the proposed critical habitat
designation for the wintering piping plover, and are addressed in the [[Page 23477]]
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received a response from one of the
five peer reviewers. The peer reviewer generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat
rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments:
(1) Comment: Designating critical habitat may not radically change
the protection for the plover as it already has protection from take
under section 7 of the Act. Also, designating critical habitat may not
change the economic impacts from piping plover habitat protection since
occupied habitat is still protected, also by section 7, regardless of critical habitat designation.
Our Response: We have noted these comments and addressed them in
the economic analysis and environmental assessment for this rule. The
economic impact (cost) in the areas we are designating as critical
habitat is substantially lower than costs resulting from listing the
species. However, the economic analysis anticipates that some impacts
of the designation will be incurred, particularly from avoidance of
stockpiling materials on sandflats and avoidance of discharging
freshwater on tidal flats. The impacts of critical habitat designation
are further discussed in the Economic Analysis section under Exclusions, below.
(2) Comment: The peer reviewer generally approved of the methods
used to map critical habitat, but expressed concerns at the use of mean
lower low water (MLLW) as the lower boundary for critical habitat,
because during extreme low tides plovers feed in the exposed flats. He
recommended adding a buffer to the MLLW boundary to capture the areas
exposed during extreme low tides when piping plovers are present.
Our Response: The extreme low tides expose areas classified by our National Wetland Inventory (NWI) as subtidal with rooted vascular vegetation, usually seagrass. We are aware the plovers feed on organisms found on and around seagrass on the rare occasions when the seagrass is exposed during extreme low tides. Wintering piping plovers are active during daylight hours and spend the majority of that time foraging (Johnson and Baldassarre 1988, pp. 216217). However, seagrass beds are usually submerged and unavailable to the plovers for foraging, so we do not consider them to be features essential to the conservation of the species (primary constituent elements).
A critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside
the designated area is unimportant. Since we are aware that, when
exposed, these areas provide food to the wintering plovers, we will
focus on individual section 7 consultation jeopardy analyses to consider impacts to the species in these areas.
(3) Comment: The peer reviewer questioned the use of 2005 National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery and asked us to specify the Geographic Positioning System (GPS) unit used.
Our Response: The 2005 NAIP aerial photography was the most recent
imagery available to us that covered all of the area we were
considering for this revised designation of critical habitat. When
using aerial photography in a Geographic Information System (GIS), the
2dimensional photographs are applied to a 3dimensional system that
accounts for the curvature of the Earth. When that is done, each aerial
photograph becomes distorted, with some parts of the photograph
distorted more than others. We have no information on how GPS was used
to generate the NAIP photographs. However, we used a Trimble GeoXT GPS
unit with TerraSync version 3.01 software to measure the level of
distortion in order to be certain that we are not including built
structures in the units we are designating. See the Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section, under Critical Habitat, below for additional discussion on our use of GPS.
(4) Comment: The peer reviewer commented on the dynamic nature of
the coast and occurrence of hurricanes that might make it imprudent to
designate critical habitat boundaries so precisely. Also, there was
concern with the use of NWI dataset, which is about 15 years old.
However, the reviewer believed these concerns might be ameliorated if
occupied habitat is adequately protected under existing Endangered Species Act regulations.
Conversely, the GLO expressed interest in us establishing boundaries more precisely, commenting that more precise boundaries should limit the need for buffers. Also, they expressed concern that corrections of the gulfside MLLW data using Unit TX3 might have led to a false 184foot (ft) (56meter (m)) average that was too generalized and that this overgeneralization was then applied to all lower unit boundaries. Also, the GLO questions what was used to define boundaries, if the vegetation line was not used to delineate the landward limit.
Our Response: In Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2004), the Court found that PCEs must be present in any occupied habitat, in order for us to designate that habitat. We are designating only occupied habitat for the piping plover wintering population in Texas. We have not included additional unoccupied coastal areas in the designation at this time because we cannot predict when and where a dynamic coastline shift may occur, and whether this will result in new or different areas that will develop the PCEs, or if these areas may support plovers.
In our proposed designation, we created the lines which make up the polygons delineating areas containing the essential features by using an unadjusted high level of precision for calculating the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (UTMs). In preparing this final designation, we realized that this was an artificial level of precision, because the aerial photographs we used in generating boundaries have some distortions (see our response to Comment 3 above), and because of other GISprocessing reasons (see Methods section under Critical Habitat). In other words, the data used did not actually have the degree of detail to provide accurate and consistent information to that level of precision. It was our desire to eliminate an unintentionally confusing and potentially inaccurate degree of precision in our calculations. To better reflect the degree of reasonable precision available from the existing data and techniques, we decided to smooth the lines defining the critical habitat polygons using a known and wellpublished algorithm with a 10meter tolerance. We therefore recalculated the UTM coordinates using the resulting smoothed polygons. Using the smoothed polygons allowed us to determine the most accurate and reasonably precise delineation of the polygons, using the best available science.
We have effected this change in this final designation, and in so
doing we have also responded to the comments of both the peer reviewer and the GLO by
[[Page 23478]]
using the most appropriate scale and reasonable level of precision, by
smoothing the edges of the polygons of critical habitat slightly to
avoid implying a false level of precision. We believe this provides the
most accurate boundaries we can, using the best scientific information
available. In the Methods section (under Critical Habitat), we describe
our use of a polygon smoothing algorithm; it added and deleted slivers
of area in all of the units and subunits. This resulted in a slight
addition of area overall, although some units lost a small amount of area while others gained a small amount.
We chose to use the NWI maps and data in bayside areas because it allowed us to identify the types of habitat used by the plover and map those habitat types. We used this methodology only for bayside areas because those areas did not change appreciably over time. The Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below explains how we adjusted for areas where changes did occur.
In order to determine the MLLW, we used digitized data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the gulf coast in the area of Unit TX3. It is important to include wetted beach areas exposed at low tides in our designation because they are heavily used by wintering plovers for foraging. We considered using Light Detection and Ranging imagery to map the MLLW; however, recent imagery that maps coastal areas that are under water was not available for much of the portion of the Texas coast where we are designating critical habitat. Therefore, the NOAA digitized data was the best scientific information available for use in determining the MLLW.
Using the NOAA digitized MLLW presented problems because, for most of the coastline we were mapping, erosion and accretion from storm events had shifted the beach and MLLW from what was digitized by NOAA. The exception was with the MLLW for Unit TX3. The NOAAdefined MLLW for that unit runs approximately parallel to the shoreline, following the contours of the gulf floor. The metadata provided for the NOAA defined MLLW did not provide the year when the MLLW was defined. However, based on the alignment of the MLLW approximately parallel to the shoreline in Unit TX3, the MLLW may have been defined more recently for that area of the coast than for the other areas where we are designating critical habitat. We chose to measure the distance from the shoreline to the NOAAdefined MLLW every 328 ft (100 m) for over 30 miles (48 kilometers) in Unit TX3 because that provided the most accurate way to estimate the MLLW available. We then calculated the average of the shoreline to MLLW distance, which was 184 ft (56 m), and applied that calculation to the other units.
We agree with the GLO that using a single number to estimate the MLLW is generalizing the MLLW. However, the average was calculated from 90 measurements from the shoreline to the NOAAdefined MLLW in TX3, and we were unable to identify a better alternative. We used NOAA tidal station and bathymetric (ocean water depth) data to confirm that the 184ft (56m) distance from shore provided a reasonable estimate of the MLLW. See the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below for additional discussion. We continue to believe that this method utilizes the best scientific information available to us in making this critical habitat designation.
The vegetation line in the NAIP photographs was used to delineate
the landward limit in all but a few cases. We have added an explanation
to the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section (under
Critical Habitat) below of how we mapped the landward limit when the vegetation line was not used.
(5) Comment: The peer reviewer asked what distance was used to
determine whether a unit was valuable to piping plovers due to the
particular unit's proximity to other wintering piping plover occurrences.
Our Response: In this revised designation of critical habitat, we
did not include areas that were in the original designation that were
too small or too fragmented (i.e., separated from a larger area) to be
of utility. In determining whether to include such areas in our revised
designation, we also considered whether an area was occupied by the
plover at least 2 years between 1997 and 2007, to compare more recent
census data to the areas originally occupied at time of listing. We
have modified our Methods section (under Critical Habitat) to reflect
our use of these criteria. We did not use plover dispersal capability
as a criterion for including the small or separated areas in the
revised designation, and we did not use a specific size or distance to define them.
(6) Comment: The peer reviewer notes that piping plovers are highly
mobile and may use different sites, depending on daily and seasonal
tide conditions, and surveys need to be done more frequently to be
really knowledgeable of site usage. The reviewer cautions against
excluding Unit TX17 due to lack of plover sightings there since 1997,
and recommends we include all sites that have been occupied over the
decades, so that we do not exclude a site because of potentially inadequate surveys.
Our Response: We deleted TX17 as a critical habitat unit, because it has been reduced in size from 14 ac (6 ha) to less than 3 ac (1 ha) since the original designation. The best available science does not support the conclusion that this unit is still used by plovers, due to its small size and the lack of plovers documented there since 1997. (7) Comment: What criteria explicitly define current occupancy?
Our Response: We define current occupancy as one or more wintering plovers being documented to be present in a unit two or more years from 1997 to 2007. We relied on international piping plover wintering survey data, peerreviewed articles with survey data, Masters thesis results, Christmas Bird Count data, survey data obtained from Federal project reports, and data from local biologists. If there was a question as to whether a piping plover was reported from an area two or more times between 1997 and 2007, Ecological Services field office biologists made a site visit during the wintering season at the appropriate tidal range to confirm presence.
Further, all revised critical habitat units in Texas are within areas that we have determined were occupied at the time of listing, and that contain the PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement needed to support life history functions essential for the conservation of the species where it winters. All units which we designate as critical habitat have occurrence data that indicate a consistent use. That is, occupancy has been documented over two or more wintering seasons, which is the same criterion used in the original 2001 designation. Comments from States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.''
Comments received from the Texas GLO regarding the proposal to revise
critical habitat designation for the wintering piping plover are addressed below.
(1) Comment: The GLO questioned whether we provided sufficient
justification for designating the additional areas of vacated critical
habitat (in addition to the areas that were not vacated), to show that
habitat is essential to the conservation of the piping plover. [[Page 23479]]
Our Response: We believe the proposed rule justifies designating the vacated critical habitat areas, because they contain features essential to the conservation of the plovers. These areas are used by wintering plovers that are endangered on their breeding grounds in the Great Lakes region and are, thus, in danger of extinction. These endangered individuals spend up to 10 months of the year on the wintering grounds, thus emphasizing the importance of sufficient and suitable wintering habitat (Drake et al. 2001, p. 260). Because piping plovers spend most of the annual cycle on nonbreeding areas, they would be negatively affected by loss of those sites, emphasizing the importance of conserving nonbreeding areas for this species. While on their wintering grounds in Texas, plovers are dependent on a mosaic of habitat patches, and move among these patches (Drake et al. 2001, pp. 262264). The areas we are designating were occupied by the species at least twice in the last 10 years, and they contain the primary constituent elements for wintering plovers as required by our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12. Thus, we have determined that these areas have features which are essential to the conservation of the species. (2) Comment: The GLO believes oil and gas exploration, including seismic survey, and production would be limited due to restrictions imposed by the Service due to critical habitat. They cited an example of a 2006 letter where the Service recommended that seismic crews stay out of critical habitat and a buffer of 1,000 feet around it.
Our Response: The Service has not made such recommendations to stay
out of critical habitat when performing seismic work since 2006. On
August 27, 2008, the Corpus Christi Ecological Services Office issued a
memorandum that provides current guidance for conducting section 7
consultations for the wintering piping plover population in Texas. The
guidance recommends ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the
birds and their habitat, but it does not recommend avoidance of
critical habitat areas. We anticipate that activities (including oil
and gas exploration) could occur in critical habitat areas without
conflicting with endangered species prohibitions. The Service's section
7 handbook states: ``In evaluating project effects on critical habitat,
the Service must be satisfied that the constituent elements of the
critical habitat likely will not be altered or destroyed by proposed
activities to the extent that the survival and recovery of affected
species would be appreciably reduced. Modification or destruction of
designated critical habitat that does not reach this threshold is not
prohibited by section 7.'' The constituent elements for wintering
piping plover critical habitat are listed in the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) section under Critical Habitat below.
(3) Comment: The GLO questioned what authority the Service might
have to control future impacts in critical habitats in areas not covered by Federal permits/section 7.
Our Response: To the extent that a particular activity affecting
designated critical habitat does not involve a federal action, the
Service has no direct regulatory authority with respect to such
activities. The Service, is however, responsible for enforcing the
prohibitions on unauthorized taking of a listed species under section 9
of the Act. Take is defined in the Act as ``to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect [a listed species],
or attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' Where there is no federal
action to which section 7 would apply, the Service can authorize take
under section 10 of the Act. Section 10 provides authority to permit
the take of listed species by nonFederal entities such as private
landowners, cities, or counties. This is done through a permitting
process where project effects must be mitigated, including effects to habitat.
(4) Comment: The GLO commented that the Service did not list the
physical and biological features determined essential to the conservation of the piping plover.
Our Response: In our proposed rule we referenced the text of the
July 10, 2001, rule (66 FR 36038), which specifies the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. We
consider these physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species where it winters to be the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species, and which may
require special management considerations or protection. The PCEs are
listed below in the section Primary Constituent Elements. In this rule,
we are designating as critical habitat areas which contain one or more
of these eight features for this revised designation. We did not
designate any areas in this rule containing salterns, which are bare
sand flats in the center of mangrove ecosystems, because they do not
occur in Texas, although they occur in other States where the plover winters.
(5) Comment: The GLO inquired as to what information the Service
has that elevates normal recreational use to being a threat in 2008 when it was not considered a threat in 2001.
Our Response: We have observed more development on the South Texas
coast and increased beach usage by pedestrians and motorists over the
intervening 7 years. Increased beach use has produced conditions, such
as increased numbers of joggers, cyclists, and unleashed dogs near the
water's edge, that lead to additional disturbance to foraging and roosting piping plovers.
(6) Comment: The GLO observed that the Texas Open Beaches Act
controls access to the beaches, requiring local governments to address
access in Dune Protection and Beach Access Plans. There are concerns
that in areas where there is critical habitat for the plover, the
Service could impose beach driving closures or driving limitations
during the plover wintering season, which would yield an economic loss for local governments.
Our Response: The Service has not recommended the closure of
beaches in Texas due to the presence of wintering plovers, whether the beaches are in critical habitat areas or not. We may make
recommendations to minimize driving in cases where driving has the
potential to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. For
instance, when some oil and gas activities are planned that require the
use of heavy trucks, we have recommended that the trucks form a convoy
to limit tire rutting on beaches and to smooth over extensive ruts. We
have not limited recreational driving in wintering plover critical
habitat areas in the past, and we do not anticipate doing so in the future.
(7) Comment: The GLO asked how beach nourishment and cleaning might be detrimental to critical habitat in the long term.
Our Response: Critical habitat can be adversely modified by
movement of sand that changes beach elevation and causes vegetation to
encroach. Critical habitat could also be affected for one or more
seasons by beachcleaning vehicles making ruts, or beach nourishment
activities that bury the shoreline benthic zone under extra sand so
plover prey items are not as accessible. Cleaning activities that
remove sargassum and natural debris such as driftwood also remove part
of the prey base and objects behind which plovers take shelter when resting.
(8) Comment: The GLO suggested that, if the Service does designate
the proposed critical habitat, it would be wise to develop a general permit type of approach to potential piping plover
[[Page 23480]]
consultations. It would help to develop guidelines to allow legal activities to occur consistently and efficiently.
Our Response: We agree, and we will pursue developing a list of
best management practices for the critical habitat and programmatic
consultations for Clean Water Act permits often required for work in piping plover habitat.
(9) Comment: The GLO expressed concern that minimizing beach
driving, if it results in denied access, would conflict with the Texas
Open Beaches Act (OBA). Also specifying the size and location of driving lanes could conflict with the OBA.
Our Response: As we explain in our response to GLO comment 2, our
August 27, 2008, guidance does not recommend avoidance of critical
habitat areas. In critical habitat areas, in instances where there is a
federally permitted or funded activity that would involve creating
driving lanes, we may suggest reducing the size of driving lanes to
minimize effects to the plover, and would recommend that they not be in the intertidal zone where piping plovers feed.
(10) Comment: The GLO commented that there were not enough details
to determine if the proposed restrictions would increase the cost of
local government maintenance or conflict with the OBA. Also, local
governments' costs for training staff on plover protection and
preparation of annual reports are not eligible for reimbursement under
the State Beach Cleaning and Maintenance Assistance Program.
Our Response: As noted above, there are no restrictions due to
critical habitat alone, but rather recommendations in cases where
Federal funding or permitting exists. Municipalities have no
requirements to train staff, monitor piping plovers, or prepare annual
monitoring reports based on the designation of piping plover critical habitat.
(11) Comment: The GLO commented that there may be areas of conflict
between the OBA or private use and designated critical habitat such as:
Preventing fill in sand flats, preventing planting of vegetation in sand flats, and placing fences to exclude beach access.
Our Response: Designation of critical habitat does not prohibit or require any of these activities. If activities in critical habitat areas are federally funded or permitted, such as some filling or planting activities, they would require consultation under section 7, in order for the federal funding or permit to be issued. Our August 27, 2008, guidance on section 7 consultations on critical habitat recommends not filling in sandflats, but designation of critical habitat will likely affect such filling only if a federal action agency determines that the filling would result in a federal action destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Fencing is addressed in our economic analysis only with respect to minimizing the effects of residential development adjacent to designated critical habitat. Fencing would not prevent access to the beach, but only exclude access to it from the area under development. (12) Comment: The GLO commented that further details are needed on how the Service plans to define ``harassment'' under the Endangered Species Act, as it applies to recreational beach activities like vehicle driving, pedestrian usage, and pet restrictions.
Our Response: The Act prohibits ``harassment'' of listed species.
The Service's regulations define ``harassment'' as an intentional or
negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to
wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering. For example, harassment in the form
of disturbance from the increased use of vehicles, pedestrians, or pets
may include noise and increased activity that may flush a bird from the
habitat it uses to feed. The bird's inability to feed may lead to poor
body condition. Additionally, flushing a bird from an area where it is
sheltering may cause that bird to become more susceptible to predation.
If any of the activities of concern (vehicular use, pedestrian use, or
the presence of dogs on the beach) cause significant disruptions of
normal behavior patterns, then such actions could meet the definition of harassment.
(13) Comment: The GLO noted that some possible areas for exclusion
may be the Willacy County portion of Unit TX3A, the Kleberg County
portion of TX3D, Unit TX16, TX22, TX32, TX10(A), and also the
critical habitat in the Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat Community in Unit TX06.
Our Response: We have reviewed the areas identified above in the GLO's comment. We considered excluding areas based on specific protection plans being in place for the piping plover and its wintering habitat. We appreciate that the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and the OBA offer protection to the Willacy County portion of TX3A by discouraging future development. The GLOmanaged land in the Kleberg County portion of TX3D is also CBRA protected and GLO protected and managed, with deed restrictions to prevent additional development. Also, we understand that the nonprofit organization, The Nature Conservancy, is to buy this property from GLO and transfer it to the Padre Island National Seashore. Shamrock Island, Unit TX10(A), is owned by The Nature Conservancy. Units TX16, TX22, and TX32 also all have CBRA protection and limited access because of their remote locations without roads or connections to the mainland. These authorities may provide some habitat protection, but none of these plans specifically target piping plover protection for those areas. The Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat Community is in Unit TX06 and was not vacated and, therefore, was not reconsidered for designation in this rule. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the GLO, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Bend Bays and Estuary Program, Coastal Conservation Association, Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi Center for Coastal Studies, and the SaltwaterFisheries Enhancement Association for efforts in conservation of piping plover and other coastal resources at the 1100ac Mollie Beattie preserve.
Public Comments
In addition to the comments from the Texas General Land Office, we
received substantive comments from one individual and from two
organizations, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Gulf Coast
Bird Observatory. Comments are grouped into general issues relating to
the proposed critical habitat designation for the wintering piping plover and are addressed below.
(1) Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity supports
designation of critical habitat for the piping plover in Texas and
elsewhere and believes the current proposal should be expanded to
include additional currently unoccupied habitat so that plovers and
their habitats can move and adapt to changing climate conditions and rising sea levels.
Our Response: Climate conditions are discussed in the Environmental
Assessment for the rule. Climate change may cause changes in the
arrangement of suitable habitat patches. We also believe the Texas
coast may experience high rates of sealevel rise as well as increases
in the frequency and intensity of storms. However, the information
currently available on the effects of climate change does not make
sufficiently accurate estimates of the location and magnitude of the
effects, so we are unable to determine what additional areas would be needed, nor
[[Page 23481]]
where they would be located. We believe the critical habitat designated
includes the areas that meet the definition of occupied critical
habitat, and based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, we have determined that the addition of unoccupied areas in
Texas is not essential for the conservation of the species. This is
discussed further in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section below. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas we
may later (with the benefit of additional information) determine are
necessary for the recovery of the species. For this reason, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated
area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the species.
(2) Comment: The Service does not account for the destructive
nature of offroad vehicle (ORV) use in plover habitat, as these can
significantly reduce the overall abundance and diversity of benthic
food items for the birds. The commenter cites a study of the reduction
in abundance and diversity of benthic species conducted in Australia,
where the beach received an average of 727 vehicles per day.
Our Response: We do not have evidence that South Texas beaches are
receiving these levels of use, and data are not available regarding
effects on benthic species for Texas beaches used by piping plovers.
Our decision to designate critical habitat must be based on the best
available data and the conclusions we can draw from it. We are aware of
possible effects, and we review projects or situations on a caseby
case basis for data and indications of diminished or damaged food sources that might harm wintering plovers.
(3) Comment: The proposal to exclude National Wildlife Refuge lands is inappropriate.
Our Response: We considered whether to propose to exclude National
Wildlife Refuge lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and have
determined that we will not exclude them. The Refuge lands are included in the critical habitat designation.
(4) Comment: The Service needs to explain the difference in the
size of the units designated in 2009 versus the same units described back in 2001.
Our Response: The units changed in size with removal of areas that
do not contain PCE's, based on National Wetlands Inventory data, and
they also changed in size due to shifts in coastal habitat patches
since the 2001 mapping. This is explained in greater detail below in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section.
(5) Comment: The Gulf Coast Bird Observatory is completing a 1year
study of the piping plover on the upper Texas coast that includes
critical habitat Units TX27, TX28, TX31, TX32, and TX33. The Gulf
Coast Bird Observatory submitted piping plover sighting data and
believes resizing some of these critical habitat units may affect the
birds. Additionally, they are concerned that the Service may delete TX
29, TX30, TX34, TX35, TX36, TX37 based on maps from http:// criticalhabitat.fws.gov.
Our Response: We appreciate the plover sighting survey data and
information from onsite field investigations showing bird usage and
human threats. Units TX29, TX30, TX34, TX35, TX36, and TX37
remain as critical habitat and were not vacated by the settlement
agreement, so they are not a subject of this revised designation. We
reviewed the map viewer version of the map for the plover at http://
criticalhabitat.fws.gov, and found the currently designated units in
Texas to be correct as they were mapped for the original 2001
designation. The 19 units that were vacated by the court do not show.
Following this revised designation, the map at http://
criticalhabitat.fws.gov will be updated to reflect this designation. Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
(1) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA must analyze and
calculate all of the benefits of designating critical habitat. Since
critical habitat contributes to the survival and recovery of the
species, the economic analysis needs to consider the benefits of these contributions.
Our Response: The Service considers the designation of critical
habitat to be of high benefit to the species by affording opportunities
for conservation. In general, we may only exclude areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat when the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of designation, and the effect of the exclusion would not
result in extinction of the species. The Secretary must consider
economic and other relevant impacts as part of the final decision
making process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Act also states
that its purpose is to conserve threatened and endangered species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend. The noneconomic related
benefits of designation are appropriately considered in the balancing portion of a 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
(2) Comment: One commenter states that previous economic analyses
have overestimated the costs of the designation of critical habitat by
ascribing coextensive costs to critical habitat. The commenter goes on
to state that the Service must separate out all costs in the economic
analysis that are attributable to listing alone, required by biological
opinions, habitat conservation plans, state laws, or other regulatory
measures, and that the costs associated with critical habitat must be considered alone.
Our Response: This economic analysis considers the costs associated
with critical habitat separate from those likely to occur under the
baseline, to the extent possible. Specifically, the economic analysis
employs ``without critical habitat'' and ``with critical habitat''
scenarios. The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already accorded the
piping plover; for example, under the Federal listing and other
Federal, State, and local regulations. The ``with critical habitat''
scenario includes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species (since all of the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat are considered incremental). The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent
the designation of critical habitat for the piping plover. These
impacts are summarized in the Executive Summary under ``Summary of Incremental Impacts and Exhibit ES4.''
(3) Comment: One public commenter states that higher exploration
and development costs associated with oil and gas operations in coastal
and marine environments, combined with time delays, regulatory
uncertainty, and stigma associated with critical habitat could result
in industry avoidance of critical habitat areas. Thus, critical habitat
represents a functional condemnation of the State's mineral estate.
Our Response: Section 3.6.3 of the FEA acknowledges that increased
impact minimization costs for oil and gas activities could lead to some
voluntary avoidance of critical habitat areas by industry due to
perceived limitations. However, these are not real limitations except
in the very unlikely event that there is a federal action that would
adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat. So the likelihood of
this potential avoidance behavior is not known. The economic impacts of
avoiding critical habitat areas could vary from no impacts, if a known [[Page 23482]]
resource can be tapped without directional drilling from outside the
critical habitat, to appreciable impacts (i.e., $125,000 to $520,000
per year), if the resource can only be accessed from within critical
habitat areas, or if data that would have been gathered during a
seismic survey fails to locate a resource that otherwise would have
been found. The FEA assumes that restrictions on proposed drilling
activities within critical habitat areas will result in use of
suboptimal drilling locations that require directional drilling to
access the resource. The FEA assumes that seismic exploration
activities would be modified to avoid impacts related to driving in habitat areas.
(4) Comment: One commenter states that the assumption made in the
DEA that the geographic distribution of seismic survey and drilling
effort in the past is indicative of future activities is invalid based
upon current trends. First, there is a trend towards unconventional
reservoirs, such as shales, which are currently the focus of much
activity within the oil and gas sector in the midcontinental U.S.
Second, middepth, deepdepth, and ultradeep depth development have
not been fully explored. With these deeper depths to be evaluated it is
unrealistic to believe that there will be a ``constant rate of well
drilling over the next 20 years.'' Third, seismic imaging of the
transition zone (the shallow water area near shorelines) only began
recentlyprior to this development the transition zone was under
explored. Just because an area was surveyed several times between 1989
and 2007 does not mean that with continued improvements in seismic
imaging that it will not be resurveyed in the next 20 years.
Our Response: Section 3 of the FEA highlights that ``the primary
source of uncertainty in this analysis is the potential number and
location of future seismic survey efforts and drilling sites.'' As the
FEA and the commenter point out, and as confirmed by two academic
experts in this field, specific projections of the future location and
number of future seismic surveys and drilling sites are not available
for critical habitat areas. As such, past data for this area, covering
a 19year span, was used to project future rates of drilling activity
over the next 20 years. Although the drilling data suggests some
increase in activity in the past three years of the study period, it is
not clear that these years alone represent the likely future rate of
drilling, particularly when taking into account the changing economic
climate. As such, the analysis draws on data from a longer time period
to capture what may be a more representative sample of data. Similarly,
assumptions about the rate of seismic surveys draw from the past ten
years of data (19982007). In both cases, however, a high level of
uncertainty remains regarding the level of future surveying and
drilling activity in critical habitat areas. In response to these
public comments, Section 3.2 of the analysis has been revised to
specifically acknowledge that contributing factors to the uncertainty
surrounding the potential number and location of future seismic survey
efforts and drilling sites within critical habitat areas include
changes in the rate of oil and gas development activities, including exploration of new areas and depths.
(5) Comment: One commenter states that restrictions on and
modifications of the shot point and receiver arrays for seismic surveys
on or near the critical habitat designation will decrease fold and
negatively impact the data acquired, even to the point that it is
useless for evaluation of the subsurface. Further, gaps in an array
caused by the exclusion of areas within the array reduce data quality
not only within the excluded area but extend on each side for about the
width of the excluded area, depending upon the depth being imaged.
Therefore, the impacts to oil and gas exploration will affect areas
many times larger than the critical habitat designation alone, and
thereby will have an affect many times greater annually than the dollar amount estimated.
Our Response: As stated in section 3.3.4 of the FEA, the Service states that, in the future, it is more likely to recommend a series of project modifications for work within critical habitat than it is to recommend avoidance of the habitat areas altogether. The project modifications identified as likely to be recommended by the Service are summarized in Exhibit 37 of the FEA, and do not include avoiding surveying critical habitat areas. Therefore, the current estimates of likely impacts to surveying activities remain unchanged from the DEA. (6) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA attempts to marginalize the Gulf Coast by stating that the ``largest concentration of oil reserves in Texas are found in West Texas, while the largest deposits of natural gas are found in the northeastern part of the State. Neither of these concentrations lies near proposed critical habitat for the piping plovers''.
Our Response: Section 3.3.2 of the FEA intends to provide context
for understanding the importance of the Gulf Coast oil and gas
development by providing information on production in other parts of
Texas. The section FEA also states: ``The Gulf Coast Region, where
critical habitat for the plover is located, produces a significant
amount of oil and gas, with 15,484 active oil and 20,218 active gas
wells operating in the nine counties that contain critical habitat.
Gulf Coast wells comprise 22 percent and 10 percent of Texas wells, respectively''.
(7) Comment: One commenter states that the Texas General Land
Office has leased significant amounts of acreage in the past several
years that have not experienced extensive oil and gas activity in the
past 18 years. Exploration and development of these lands will likely
require access to areas proposed for critical habitat designation. The
commenter states that, in many cases, potential environmental impacts
are lessened by locating drilling and production equipment onshore for
wells that are directionally drilled to a location underlying state waters, eliminating the need for access channels.
Our Response: The extent to which future drilling in critical habitat areas may occur in order to access resources located in offshore state waters is not known. As stated in earlier, specific projections of the future location and number of future drilling sites are not available for critical habitat areas. As such, the FEA uses past drilling data for this area to project future rates of well drilling in critical habitat areas. To the extent that directionally drilling from critical habitat areas to offsite areas did not occur in the past, but will occur in the future, this activity would be underrepresented in our data and projections, and could result in an underestimate of the number of expected drilling sites in critical habitat. A caveat has been added to the analysis to this effect. (8) Comment: One commenter states that insufficient details were provided in the DEA to determine if the new proposed restrictions to beach maintenance activities (specifically, minimizing beach driving from August to March and specifications for the size and placement of driving lanes) will increase the cost of local government maintenance or conflict with the Texas Open Beaches Act.
Our Response: The FEA does not contemplate modification of beach
maintenance projects to minimize beach driving from August to March, as
there is no indication that the Service would recommend this
modification for these projects. While specifications for the size and
placement of driving lanes have been recommended as part of an [[Page 23483]]
ongoing consultation with the City of Corpus Christi on beach
maintenance activities, the City has not identified costs associated
with meeting this recommendation to date. As such, no additional costs
associated with modifying the size and placement of driving lanes are
quantified in the analysis. There has been no indication that these
restrictions would lead to a denial of beach access that would conflict with the Texas Open Beaches Act.
(9) Comment: One commenter states that some threats to plover posed
by development activities may represent conflicts with the Open Beaches
Act or private use. These situations include: (1) preventing fill in
sandflats that are not intertidal; the Beach/Dune regulations
discourage, but do not prohibit fill in sand flats for the purpose of
land development; (2) Preventing planting of vegetation in sandflats
that are not intertidal; landowners who build in sandflats often
construct new vegetated sand dunes to protect against storm surge; (3)
Exclusion fencing that restricts beach access would potentially violate the Texas Open Beaches Act.
Our Response: To date, the Service has recommended avoidance of
dredge/fill activities during peak plover use, avoidance of planting
vegetation in flats habitat, and use of exclusion fencing as project
modifications for several planned development projects. However, none
of these projects have been constructed, for various reasons unrelated
to the plover. Chapter 4 of the economic analysis acknowledges that in
the future such requirements could conflict with some planned private
use, which would need to be modified to fit the plover needs. Costs
associated with implementing the Service's recommendations are summarized in Section 4.1.1.
(10) Comment: The GLO expressed the concern that the economic
impacts to oil and gas industries may be high, and that we should consider excluding areas on this basis.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. Wintering plovers in Texas include plovers that are federally endangered on their breeding grounds in the Great Lakes region, as well as plovers that are federally threatened on their breeding grounds in the northern Great Plains and along the Atlantic coast. Those in the Great Lakes region number only about 60 breeding pairs and, by being listed as endangered, are considered by the Service to be in danger of extinction. These endangered individuals spend up to 10 months of the year on the wintering grounds, thus emphasizing the importance of sufficient and suitable wintering habitat. Although they are listed as federally threatened on their wintering grounds, impacts to their wintering habitat can affect whether they return to the Great Lakes region to breed or their breeding success while there. Thus, destruction or adverse modification of wintering habitat essential to plovers that breed in the Great Lakes region may increase their risk of extinction, emphasizing the importance of conserving nonbreeding habitat and essential features for this species through designation of critical habitat. By designating critical habitat for wintering plovers in Texas, the areas designated will be provided some regulatory protections so the plovers are not forced to other areas that are not designated and may be suboptimal. In designating critical habitat, the Service must also consider the recovery needs of the species, such that the essential features and habitat that are identified, if managed, could provide for the conservation of the species.
Weighing the potential economic effects and other potential regulatory effects of designating critical habitat for the piping plover in Texas, against the unique needs of wintering grounds in Texas for those plovers whose breeding grounds are in the Great Lakes, we have determined not to exercise our discretion to exclude areas from the final designation.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat revised designation for the wintering population of the piping plover in Texas, we reviewed and considered public and peer reviewer comments on the May 8, 2008, proposed designation of critical habitat (73 FR 29294) and the December 9, 2008, draft economic analysis and environmental assessment (73 FR 74675). Our final designation includes 18 of the 19 vacated units, as put forward in the May 8, 2008, proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in Texas (Units TX3, TX4, TX7, TX8, TX9, TX10, TX14, TX15, TX16, TX18, TX19, TX22, TX23, TX27, TX28, TX31, TX32, and TX33), totaling approximately 138,881 ac (56,206 ha). We are not designating critical habitat for courtvacated Unit TX17, because it did not meet our occupancy criterion (plovers were not documented there over two wintering seasons between 1997 and 2007).
Also, in 50 CFR Sec. 17.95(b), ``Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Wintering Habitat,'' we are revising the text at paragraph 1 differently than proposed. In the May 8, 2008 proposed designation, we referred to mud flats as ``(between annual low tide and annual high tide)'', whereas in this final rule we describe the mud flats as ``(between mean lower low water line and annual high tide)'', as explained earlier in this preamble.
Moreover, we are not revising the text of the current 50 CFR Sec.
17.95(b), ``Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Wintering Habitat,''
paragraph 2 as proposed (which describes areas not included in the
critical habitat). Instead, we are maintaining the current CFR text for
that paragraph, which was set forth in the final rule of October 21,
2008 (73 FR 62839), pertaining to wintering habitat for piping plover
in North Carolina. We are doing this because we believe that the text
established in the North Carolina final rule is more representative of
the critical habitat areas that are excluded for all the States in the wintering habitat for piping plover.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical Habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical 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
(a) essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical 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, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided
[[Page 23484]]
under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures may
include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. However, even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may require special management consideration or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known and using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found those physical and biological features laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species). Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed only when we determine that those areas are essential for the conservation of the species and that designation limited to those areas occupied at the time of listing would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peerreviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas could result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species' conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species where it winters to be the
primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species,
and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(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) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
Data concerning the wintering population of the piping plover found along the Texas Gulf Coast indicate that wintering piping plovers are found on islands along the Texas Gulf Coast as well as on certain areas of the mainland. These islands, known as barrier islands, form barriers to the d
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Allan Strand, Field Supervisor, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 3619949005; facsimile 3619948262. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 8008778339.