department of the interior...36038 federal register/vol. 66, no. 132/tuesday, july 10, 2001/rules...

Tuesday,

July 10, 2001

Part II

Department of theInteriorFish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife andPlants; Final Determinations of CriticalHabitat for Wintering Piping Plovers;Final Rule

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 11:26 Jul 09, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10JYR2.SGM pfrm06 PsN: 10JYR2

36038 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG13

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Final Determination ofCritical Habitat for Wintering PipingPlovers

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and WildlifeService (Service), designate 137 areasalong the coasts of North Carolina,South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, andTexas as critical habitat for thewintering population of the pipingplover (Charadrius melodus). Thisincludes approximately 2,891.7kilometers (km) (1,798.3 miles (mi)) ofmapped shoreline and approximately66,881 hectares (ha) (165,211 acres (ac))of mapped area along the Gulf andAtlantic coasts and along margins ofinterior bays, inlets, and lagoons.

The population of piping plovers thatbreeds in the Great Lakes States is listedas endangered, while all other pipingplovers are threatened species under theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act). All piping plovers areconsidered threatened species under theAct when on their wintering grounds.Critical habitat identifies specific areasthat are essential to the conservation ofa listed species, and that may requirespecial management considerations orprotection. The primary constituentelements for the piping plover winteringhabitat are those habitat componentsthat are essential for the primarybiological needs of foraging, sheltering,and roosting, and only those areascontaining these primary constituentelements within the designatedboundaries are considered criticalhabitat. The primary constituentelements are found in coastal areas thatsupport intertidal beaches and flats(between annual low tide and annualhigh tide) and associated dune systemsand flats above annual high tide.Section 7 of the Act requires Federalagencies to ensure that actions theyauthorize, fund, or carry out are notlikely to adversely modify designatedcritical habitat. As required by section 4of the Act, we considered economic andother relevant impacts prior to makinga final decision on what areas todesignate as critical habitat.DATES: This final rule is effective August9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The completeadministrative record for this rule is onfile at the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Ecological Services FieldOffice, TAMUCC, Box 338, 6300 OceanDrive, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78412.You may view the complete file for thisrule, by appointment, during normalbusiness hours at the above address.Copies of the final economic analysisand information regarding this criticalhabitat designation are available on theInternet at http://plover.fws.gov.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Allan Strand, Acting Field Supervisor,at the above address (telephone 361/994–9005; facsimile 361/994–8262;email [email protected]).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DescriptionThe piping plover (Charadrius

melodus), named for its melodic matingcall, is a small, pale-colored NorthAmerican shorebird. It weighs 43–63grams (1.5–2.25 ounces) and is 17–18centimeters (cm) (about 8 inches) long(Haig 1992). Its light sand-coloredplumage blends in well with beachesand sand flats, part of its primaryhabitat. During the breeding season, thelegs are bright orange, and the shortstout bill is orange with a black tip.There are two single dark bands, onearound the neck and one across theforehead between the eyes. Plumage andleg color help distinguish this bird fromother plovers. In winter, the bill turnsblack, the legs remain orange but pale,and the black plumage bands on thehead and neck are lost. Chicks havespeckled gray, buff, and brown down, ablack beak, orange legs, and a whitecollar around the neck. Juvenilesresemble wintering adults and obtaintheir adult plumage the spring after theyfledge (Prater et al. 1977).

Range and BiologyPiping plovers breed in three discrete

areas of North America: The NorthernGreat Plains, the Great Lakes, and theAtlantic Coast. The Northern GreatPlains population historically bred fromAlberta to Ontario, Canada, south toKansas and Colorado. While Great Lakesbreeding sites once ranged throughoutthe Great Lakes region, recent nestingrecords are limited to Michigan andWisconsin. Atlantic Coast breeding sitesare found from Newfoundland, Canada,south to North Carolina. Generally,piping plovers favor open sand, gravel,or cobble beaches for breeding. Breedingsites are generally found on islands, lakeshores, coastal shorelines, and rivermargins.

Piping plovers winter in coastal areasof the United States from North Carolinato Texas. They also winter along thecoast of eastern Mexico and onCaribbean islands from Barbados toCuba and the Bahamas (Haig 1992). Theinternational piping plover wintercensuses of 1991 and 1996 located only63 percent and 42 percent of theestimated number of breeding birds,respectively (Haig and Plissner 1993,Plissner and Haig 1997). Of the birdslocated on the United States winteringgrounds during these two censuses, 89percent were found on the Gulf Coastand 8 percent were found on theAtlantic Coast. Information fromobservation of color-banded pipingplovers indicates that the winter rangesof the breeding populations overlap to asignificant degree. Therefore, the sourcebreeding population of a givenwintering individual cannot bedetermined in the field unless it hasbeen banded or otherwise marked.

Piping plovers begin arriving on thewintering grounds in July, with somelate-nesting birds arriving in September.A few individuals can be found on thewintering grounds throughout the year,but sightings are rare in late May, June,and early July. Migration is poorlyunderstood, but most piping ploversprobably migrate non-stop from interiorbreeding areas to wintering grounds(Haig 1992). However, concentrations ofspring and fall migrants have beenobserved along the Atlantic Coast(USFWS 1996).

Behavioral observations of pipingplovers on the wintering groundssuggest that they spend the majority oftheir time foraging (Nicholls andBaldassarre 1990b; Drake 1999a, 1999b).Primary prey for wintering ploversincludes polychaete marine worms,various crustaceans, insects, andoccasionally bivalve mollusks (Nicholls1989; Zonick and Ryan 1995), that theypeck from on top or just beneath thesurface. Foraging usually takes place onmoist or wet sand, mud, or fine shell. Insome cases, this substrate may becovered by a mat of blue-green algae.When not foraging, plovers can be foundroosting, preening, bathing, inaggressive encounters (with other pipingplovers and other species), and movingamong available habitat locations(Zonick and Ryan 1996).

The habitats used by wintering birdsinclude beaches, mud flats, sand flats,algal flats, and washover passes (areaswhere breaks in the sand dunes resultin an inlet). Individual plovers tend toreturn to the same wintering sites yearafter year (Nicholls and Baldassarre1990b, Drake 1999a). Wintering ploversare dependent on a mosaic of habitat


36039Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

patches, and move among these patchesdepending on local weather and tidalconditions. One study by Drake (1999a)monitored the movement of 48 pipingplovers in south Texas, for one season.She found, using 95% of thedocumented locations, that these birdshad a mean home range of 1,262 ha(3,117 ac). Drake (1999) also noted thatthe mean linear distance moved perindividual bird was 3,294 m (2 mi) forthe fall through the spring of 1997–1998.

In late February, piping plovers beginleaving the wintering grounds to migrateback to breeding sites. Northwardmigration peaks in late March, and bylate May most birds have left thewintering grounds (Eubanks 1994).

Population StatusIn recent decades, piping plover

populations have declined drastically,especially in the Great Lakes area. In theearly 1900s, uncontrolled hunting drovethem nearly to extinction. Protectivelegislation helped them to recover by1925, and populations reached a high inthe 1930s (USFWS 1994). Thesenumbers soon plummeted, and numberscontinued to decline in the 1940s and1950s as shoreline developmentexpanded, resulting in the loss of ploverbreeding habitat. River flow alteration,channelization, and reservoirconstruction have also led to loss ofbreeding habitat.

In 1973, the piping plover was placedon the National Audubon Society’s BlueList of threatened species. By that time,the Great Lakes population of pipingplovers had been extirpated fromshoreline beaches in Illinois, Indiana,Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania,Minnesota, and Ontario, Canada, andonly a few birds continued to nest inWisconsin (Russell 1983) and Michigan.The Canadian Committee on the Statusof Endangered Wildlife in Canadadesignated the piping plover as‘‘Threatened’’ in 1978 and elevated thespecies’’ status to ‘‘Endangered’’ in 1985(Canadian Wildlife Service 1989). At thetime the species was listed under theAct in 1985, the Great Lakes populationnumbered only 17 known breedingpairs, and the breeding areas had beenreduced from sites in eight States toonly northern Michigan (Stucker andCuthbert, unpublished data). In recentyears, the Great Lakes population hasgradually increased and expanded to thesouth and west as a result of intensiveconservation measures. Recent increasesin the Atlantic Coast breedingpopulation have also been attributed tointensive management of nestingbeaches. While overall the AtlanticCoast population is increasing, increases

are regionally variable with some areasexperiencing declining populations.Breeding census results show a markeddecline of the population breeding inthe Northern Great Plains of the UnitedStates (Plissner and Haig 1997).

Overall winter habitat loss is difficultto document; however, a variety ofhuman-caused disturbance factors havebeen noted that may affect ploversurvival or utilization of winteringhabitat (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a,Haig and Plissner 1993). These factorsinclude recreational activities(motorized and pedestrian), inlet andshoreline stabilization, dredging ofinlets that can affect spit (a small pointof land, especially sand, running intowater) formation, beach maintenanceand renourishment (renourishing thebeach with sand that has been lost toerosion), and pollution (e.g., oil spills)(USFWS 1996). The peer-reviewed,revised recovery plan for the Atlanticpiping plover population recognizes theneed to protect wintering habitat fromdirect and indirect impacts of shorelinestabilization, navigation projects, anddevelopment. Adult survivorship overthe wintering period plays a significantrole in maintaining current populationsand in accomplishing increases inpopulation levels required to achieverecovery.

Previous Federal ActionsOn December 30, 1982, we published

a Notice of Review in the FederalRegister (47 FR 58454) that identifiedvertebrate animal taxa being consideredfor addition to the List of Threatenedand Endangered Wildlife. The noticeincluded the piping plover as a Category2 Candidate species, indicating that webelieved the species might warrantlisting as threatened or endangered, butthat we had insufficient data to supporta listing at that time. Subsequent reviewof additional data indicated that thepiping plover warranted listing, and inNovember 1984, we published aproposal to list the piping plover asendangered (Great Lakes breedingpopulation) and threatened (all otherpiping plovers, including all birds onnon-breeding areas) in the FederalRegister (49 FR 44712).

The proposed listing was based on thedecline of the species and themagnitude of existing threats, includinghabitat destruction, disturbance byhumans and pets, high levels ofpredation, and contaminants. OnDecember 11, 1985, we published thefinal rule (50 FR 50720), listing thepiping plover as endangered in theGreat Lakes watershed (Illinois, Indiana,Michigan, northeastern Minnesota, NewYork, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,

and Ontario, Canada) and as threatenedelsewhere within its range. The listingincludes piping plovers breeding inCanada, with their status under the Actdetermined by whether they breed inthe watershed of the Great Lakes(endangered) or elsewhere (threatened).All piping plovers on migratory routesoutside of the Great Lakes watershed oron their wintering grounds areconsidered threatened. We did notdesignate critical habitat for the speciesat that time.

In 1986, two U.S. recovery teams wereappointed to develop recovery plans forthe piping plovers breeding in theAtlantic Coast States and those breedingin the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plainsregion. We published those plans in1988 (USFWS 1988a, 1988b). In 1994,we began to revise the plan for the GreatLakes/Northern Great Plains plovers bydeveloping and distributing for publiccomment a draft that included updatedinformation on the species. Morerecently, we decided that the recoveryof these two regional populations wouldbenefit from separate recovery plansthat would direct separate recoveryprograms. Separate recovery plans forthe Great Lakes and Northern GreatPlains piping plovers are presentlyunder development. The recovery planfor the Atlantic Coast-breeding ploverswas revised in 1996 (USFWS 1996). Weexchange observers and coordinaterecovery activities with two Canadianrecovery teams, with a strong focus onprotection of the wintering habitatshared by piping plovers breeding inboth countries.

In December 1996, Defenders ofWildlife (Defenders) filed a lawsuitagainst the Department of the Interiorand the Service for failing to designatecritical habitat for the Great Lakespopulation of the piping plover.Defenders filed a second, similarlawsuit for the Northern Great Plainspiping plover population in 1997. Theselawsuits were subsequently combined(Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. BruceBabbitt et al., Consolidated Cases CivilNo. 1:96–CV–02695AER and Civil No.1:97–CV00777AER). In February 2000,the court issued an order directing us topublish a proposed critical habitatdesignation for the Great Lakespopulation of the piping plover by June30, 2000. Publication of a proposal fornesting areas of the Northern GreatPlains population of piping plover byMay 31, 2001, was also ordered. Sincewe cannot distinguish the Great Lakesand Great Plains birds on theirwintering grounds, we felt it wasappropriate to propose critical habitatfor all U.S.-wintering piping ploverscollectively. Further, we determined



that the appropriate course of actionwould be to propose critical habitat forall U.S.-wintering piping plovers on thesame schedule required, under courtorder, for the Great Lakes breedingpopulation. A subsequent order, afterrequesting the court to reconsider itsoriginal order relating to final criticalhabitat designation, directed us tofinalize the critical habitat designationsfor the Great Lakes population by April30, 2001, and for the Northern GreatPlains population by March 15, 2002.On May 7, 2001, we published a noticein the Federal Register (66 FR 22983)announcing a 60-day delay, until June29, 2001, in making our finaldetermination of critical habitat for thewintering piping plover. The noticeexplained that we needed additionaltime to complete our analyses requiredunder section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

We published our proposeddesignation of critical habitat forwintering piping plovers in the FederalRegister on July 6, 2000 (65 FR 41782),and requested comments on theproposal by September 5, 2000. We held10 public hearings and 10 publicmeetings on the proposed rule inWilmington, North Carolina, on July 17,2000; Savannah, Georgia, on July 19,2000; Tallahassee, Florida, on July 21,2000; Fort Myers, Florida, on July 24,2000; Mobile, Alabama, on July 26,2000; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July27, 2000; Galveston, Texas, on July 31,2000; Corpus Christi, Texas, on August2, 2000; McAllen, Texas, on August 4,2000; and South Padre Island, Texas, onNovember 14, 2000. We held additionalpublic meetings in Morehead City,North Carolina, on August 16, 2000; inManteo, North Carolina, on August 17,2000; Marco Island, Florida, on October10, 2000; and Rio Hondo, Texas, onAugust 23, 2000.

On August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52691), wepublished a notice in the FederalRegister extending the public commentperiod to October 30, 2000, andannounced the availability of the drafteconomic analysis. On October 27, 2000(65 FR 64414), we again published anotice in the Federal Register extendingthe public comment period until(November 24), 2000, and providednotice of a tenth public hearing on theproposed rule. On February 22, 2001 (66FR 11134), we reopened the commentperiod until March 1, 2001, to allow foradditional comments to be incorporatedinto the record and allow for us to baseour final decision on the best scientificand commercial information available.

Summary of Comments andRecommendations

As mentioned above, we requested allinterested parties to submit commentsor information that might bear on thedesignation of critical habitat forwintering piping plovers (65 FR 41782).We contacted all appropriate State andFederal agencies, Tribes, countygovernments, scientific organizations,and other interested parties and invitedthem to comment. In addition, wepublished newspaper notices invitingpublic comment and announcing thepublic hearings in the followingnewspapers—Wilmington Morning Starin North Carolina; Charleston Post andCourier in South Carolina; SavannahMorning News in Georgia; Florida TimesUnion, Tallahassee Democrat, FortMyers News Press, Key West Free Press,St. Petersburg Times, Panama City NewsHerald, and Pensacola News Journal inFlorida; Mobile Register, Alabama;Biloxi The Sun Herald, Mississippi;New Orleans Times Picayune and BatonRouge The Advocate in Louisiana; andthe Houston Chronicle, Galveston DailyNews, Port Arthur News, Texas CitySun, Brownsville Herald, Corpus ChristiCaller-Times, The Monitor (distributedfrom Rio Grande City to South PadreIsland), and the Facts (Brazosport) inTexas.

We held 10 public hearings on theproposed rule (see ‘‘Previous FederalAction’’ section above for dates andlocations). Transcripts of these hearingsare available for inspection (seeADDRESSES section).

We received a total of 6,013comments (counting both written andoral comments) from individuals,agencies, and organizations, plus onepetition containing 537 signatures. Ofthese comments, 5,800 commenters andthe petition were specific to thedesignation proposed for Marco Island,Florida. Of the Marco Island comments,44 commenters and 537 signatories tothe petition favored the designation asproposed, 5,736 opposed designation onMarco Island, and 20 supported arevised designation or only providedinformation relative to the proposal.There were 213 commenters who werenot specific to Marco Island. Of those,85 favored the designation, 94 opposedit, and 34 did not state a position butprovided information.

We reviewed all comments receivedfor substantive issues and new dataregarding critical habitat and winteringpiping plovers. Some commentsresulted in changes between theproposed and final designations, andthose comments are discussed in the‘‘Summary of Changes From theProposed Rule’’ section of this

document. We address the rest of thesubstantive comments in the followingsummary. For readers’ convenience wehave assigned comments to major issuecategories. Repeated or very similarcomments are combined into singlecomments and responses.

Issue A: General Biological Comments

A number of commenters touched onbiological issues surrounding the pipingplover.

Comment 1: The Service’s SoutheastRegion Home Page cites habitat loss dueto navigation, dredging, and shorelinestabilization and replenishment projectsas major contributors to the species’decline. That statement is unsupportedin the literature. Piping plovers areextremely mobile and thrive in achanging environment. The citedactivities do not adversely impactwintering piping plovers.

Our Response: We disagree with thestatement made by the commenter. Thecommenter is referring to our website athttp://plover.fws.gov, that describes thelife history and threats of the pipingplover throughout its range. Dredgingprojects and shoreline manipulations inwintering areas can have an effect onthe bird’s food base, and result inpermanent habitat loss and directdisturbance of individual birds. Wealready consult with Federal agenciesthat fund or carry out projects involvingdredging, beach nourishment, and othershoreline stabilization activities, mostnotably with the Army Corps ofEngineers, because of the effect of suchprojects on piping plover habitat. Thepurpose of many shoreline stabilizationprojects is the prevention of overwashprocesses (the method by whichsediment (sand) is transported across abarrier island) that form inlets andperpetuate sand and mud flats. As sandand mud flats are identified as criticalhabitat for the plover, there is aconnection between these activities andthe formation and maintenance ofhabitat for the plover. Zonick’s (2000)dissertation similarly highlights theimportance of preserving ‘‘washoverpass’’ habitat in Texas. Zonick (2000)found that washover passes are used bypiping plovers both as feeding androosting areas. Washover areas arecreated by the flow of water through theprimary dune line with deposition ofsand on the barrier flats, marsh, or intothe lagoon, depending on the stormmagnitude and the width of the beach.Additionally, the peer-reviewed revisedrecovery plan for the Atlantic pipingplover population recognizes the needto protect wintering habitat from directand indirect impacts of shorelinestabilization, navigation projects, and



development. In general, through ourconsultations with other Federalagencies, we have found that theseactivities can be timed and designed tominimize effects on piping plovers.

Comment 2: Army Corps of Engineersprojects are designed to avoid andminimize impacts to listed species and,where feasible, features to promotespecies conservation are included inprojects. Corps of Engineers dredgedmaterial disposal benefits plovers byproviding foraging habitat. Thesebenefits should have been discussed inthe proposal.

Our Response: We stated in theproposed rule that ‘‘Several of thesecomponents (sparse vegetation, little orno topographic relief) are mimicked inartificial habitat types used lesscommonly by piping plovers (e.g.,dredge spoil sites).’’ Nicholls (1989)documented that piping plovers wereobserved on spoil areas 6 percent of thetime and on sandflats 27 percent of thetime. Her survey coverage included2,705 km (1,680 mi) of coastline alongportions of nine states from Virginia toTexas. Spoil sites do not seem to be thepreferred habitat for the piping plover,although when more suitable habitat islacking, spoil sites do create somehabitat for these birds. We appreciatethe Corps’ efforts to promote speciesconservation through design featuremodification of projects.

Comment 3: Project delays related tothe critical habitat designation forwintering piping plovers, when addedto already-narrow windows imposed byprotection of other threatened andendangered species such as sea turtles,seabeach amaranth, and beach mice,may affect the Corps of Engineers’ability to conduct mission-relatedactivities.

Our Response: Since the species waslisted in 1986, the Corps of Engineershas been subject to the consultationrequirements of the Act, includinganalyzing the potential effects on thespecies habitat. Timing of projects hasbeen considered in consultationsconducted under the jeopardy standardsince listing, and, in general, we havefound that projects can be timed anddesigned to minimize effects on pipingplovers.

Comment 4: The causes for pipingplover declines are unclear, but it islikely any declines are a result of threatsto breeding areas rather than winteringhabitat. Threats to wintering habitat arenot discussed, nor are any declines inhabitat acreage documented.Accordingly, how can the designationpossibly benefit wintering pipingplovers?

Our Response: Historically, ploverswere decimated by unregulated hunting.The major present-day threats arelargely on breeding areas, but winteringhabitats are also essential to theconservation of this species. Adultsurvivorship over the wintering periodplays a significant role in maintainingcurrent populations and inaccomplishing increases in populationlevels required to achieve recovery. Inthe face of current and foreseeablecontinued coastal development andincreased recreational use, less suitablehabitat may be available each year forpiping plover recovery. Therefore, wehave designated the areas that haveconsistent plover use and best meet thebiological needs of the species. Theamount of wintering habitat included inthis designation appears sufficient tosupport future recovered populations,and the existence of this habitat isessential to the conservation of thisspecies. In addition, the designationbenefits species conservation by alertingpublic and private entities to theimportance of wintering habitat.

Comment 5: Comments were receivedthat questioned the relative use of aspecific area compared to the overallpopulation abundance. Of the 50percent of piping plovers accounted forin the 1996 census, only 8 percent weredocumented on the Atlantic Coast. Howcan the Atlantic Coast be consideredessential to the species’ conservation?

Our Response: We have determinedthat most sites with consistentoccurrence of piping plovers should bedesignated as critical habitat in order toprovide for the recovery of the species.There are an estimated 32 pairsremaining of the endangered GreatLakes breeding population of pipingplovers. Current data shows thatAtlantic Coast sites are even moreimportant to the Great Lakes pipingplovers than those on the Gulf Coast. Ofthe 39 individuals from the Great Lakespopulation sighted on the winteringground between 1993 and spring of2000, 26 (67%) were in South Carolina,Georgia, or the Atlantic Coast of Florida(Wemmer 2000). Thus, we consider theAtlantic Coast to be essential to therecovery of the piping plover.

Comment 6: In basing the criticalhabitat designation on observationaldata, the proposal is biased toward areasmost frequently visited by bird watchersand other beach users. Meanwhile,many areas with restricted access butlikely containing excellent habitat werenot proposed. Given that situation andthe fact that 50 percent of winteringplovers are unaccounted for, how canthe Service say the proposed areas areessential for this species?

Our Response: We believe the effect ofobservational bias is minimal becauseornithologists and birders are persistentabout seeking out birds. Data wereceived from state biologistsdocumented surveys of the entirecoastlines in many states. Somegeographic data provided from the 1991and 1996 International Censuses showthat a large area of the coastline is notused by the birds. Only sites whereplovers have been observed wereincluded in the critical habitatdesignation.

Comment 7: One-hundred-forty-sevenareas are proposed as critical habitat.How could failure to designate any oneof these areas lead to extinction of thepiping plover?

Our Response: The criterion forcritical habitat designations is notwhether the sites are essential toprevent extinction; it is whether thesites are essential to the conservation ofthe species and may require specialmanagement consideration orprotection. Conservation means the useof all methods and procedures that arenecessary to bring an endangered orthreatened species to the point at whichlisting under the Act is no longernecessary (i.e., recovered). Subsection4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to excludeareas from critical habitat designationwhere the benefits of exclusionoutweigh the benefits of designation,provided the exclusion will not result inthe extinction of the species.

There are an estimated 32 pairsremaining of the endangered GreatLakes breeding population of pipingplovers and data show that thispopulation uses both the Atlantic andGulf Coasts (USFWS 1999; Wemmer2000). Therefore, identification ofessential habitat should not rule out anysites where piping plovers consistentlyover-winter, since these sites may beused by the highly endangered GreatLakes population. We have determinedthat most sites with consistentoccurrence of piping plovers should bedesignated as critical habitat in order toprovide for the recovery of the species.

Comment 8: The Service shoulddefine ‘‘wintering.’’ Does thedesignation include migrating pipingplovers?

Our Response: We define ‘‘wintering’’as areas used by birds during the non-breeding season. Piping plovers beginarriving on the wintering grounds inJuly, with some late-nesting birdsarriving in September. A fewindividuals can be found on thewintering grounds throughout the year,but sightings are rare in late May, June,and early July.



This designation did not distinguishmigrating birds; however, some areasdesignated as wintering habitat are alsoused by migrating and breeding birds inNorth Carolina and South Carolina.Migration is poorly understood, but itappears that inland birds may fly non-stop to Gulf coast sites (Haig 1992). It isbelieved that the Atlantic populationfollows a narrow strip along the Atlanticcoast during spring and fall migrationwith some crossover to Gulf Coastwintering areas (USFWS 1996).

Comment 9: The internationalcensuses provide only a snapshot ofmid-winter distribution and abundance,but tell little about seasonal variation inhabitat use and plover movements.While many plovers appear relativelysedentary, observations at certain sitesin North Carolina (McConnaughy et al.1990) and Texas (Eubanks 1994) havereported large numbers during or priorto migration. These staging andmigratory stopover areas may beparticularly critical for migratoryshorebirds (Myers 1983; Skagen andKnopf 1993) and should be included ascritical habitat.

Our Response: As stated above,migration is poorly understood, but itappears that inland birds may fly non-stop to Gulf Coast sites (Haig 1992).Based on McConnaughy’s study, someareas are used as staging or stopoverareas, and we have included those areasin the designation when we have surveydata to support consistent piping ploveruse. It is believed that the Atlanticpopulation follows a narrow strip alongthe Atlantic coast during spring and fallmigration from the Gulf coast (USFWS1996). The sites that McConnaughey etal. (1990) documented in North Carolinaas having relatively high numbers ofplovers observed during migration arewithin the designated critical habitatunits. The sites identified by Eubanks(1994) in Texas are not consistentlyused and were not included in thedesignation.

Comment 10: The Louisiana coast isremote and not subject to extensivehuman presence. Further, there is nodocumentation that Louisiana supportsa significant portion of the winteringplover population. Designation of over 1million acres can only be consideredexcessive.

Our Response: We agree that humandevelopment is not as great a threatalong Louisiana’s coasts as it is in otherareas within the plover’s winteringrange. We disagree however, that thereis no documentation that Louisianasupports a significant portion of thewintering plover population. TheInternational Piping Plover Surveyshave consistently identified Louisiana

as having the second highest numbers ofwintering piping plovers after Texas.Since publication of the proposed rulewe were able to conduct surveys in theremote deltas of Louisiana, where accessis difficult. Based on the results of thesesurveys, we refined our critical habitatdesignation to the maximum extentpossible to include only those areashaving documented use by pipingplovers. This has resulted in lessacreage being designated in Louisiana.

Comment 11: No data were presentedto show that piping plovers exhibit sitefidelity and cannot simply move toother areas if an area is destroyed.

Our Response: Johnson andBaldassarre (1988) found relatively highsite fidelity for plovers wintering in theMobile Bay area in Alabama. Therevised recovery plan for the pipingplover Atlantic coast population notedseveral reports of banded birdsreturning year after year to the samewintering sites on both the Atlantic andGulf coasts (S. Bogert, pers. comm.1988; T. Below, National AudubonSociety, pers. comm. 1988; T. Eubanks,pers. comm. 1989; Zonick and Ryan1993; J. Fussell, pers. comm. 1995).Wemmer (2000) presents information onintra- and inter-year site fidelity forGreat Lakes plovers, which documentsone bird that has been observed during9 of 11 winters since 1988 at MarcoIsland, Florida.

Comment 12: Comments have beenreceived expressing concerns with thesize of designated areas. Most think thatthe designated areas are too large; a fewthink that the units are not largeenough, thereby not allowing forchanges that occur during knowndynamic coastal processes.

Our Response: As described in the‘‘Methods’’ section of this rule, in theproposed rule, a single buffer distancewas set for all units in all states (500 m(1,640 ft)). This buffering methodologyresulted in areas of water (deeper thanmean lower low water (MLLW)) andareas of dense vegetation being includedin the designation, which are notutilized by piping plovers. MLLW isdefined as the average of the lower lowwater height of each tidal day observedover the National Tidal Datum Epoch. Inthe final rule, we abandoned thismethodology for a more precise meansof defining the areas that contain thephysical and biological featuresessential to the wintering piping plover.This change in methodology results insmaller units of designated criticalhabitat than that of the proposed rule.We also removed developed areas frommapped units where possible. (See ourresponse to comments under ‘‘Issue G:

Mapping and Primary ConstituentElements.’’).

In order to capture the dynamicnature of the coastal habitat and theintertidal areas used by the pipingplover, we have textually describedeach unit as including the areaextending out from the landwardboundaries to the MLLW. Designatingspecific locations for critical habitat forthe piping plovers is difficult becausethe coastal areas they use are constantlychanging due to storm surges, floodevents, and other natural geo-physicalalterations of beaches and shorelines.Thus, to best insure that areasconsidered essential to the pipingplover will remain in the designationover time, our textual unit descriptionswill constitute the definitivedetermination as to whether an area iswithin the critical habitat boundary.Our textual unit descriptions describethe geography of the area usingreference points, include the areas fromthe landward boundaries to the MLLW,which encompasses intertidal areas thatare essential foraging areas for pipingplovers, and may describe other areaswithin the unit that are utilized by thepiping plover and contain the primaryconstituent elements (e.g., upland areasused for roosting and wind tidal flatsused for foraging).

Comment 13: Requests have beenmade to modify specific units in orderto avoid areas where existing and futureprojects are planned or may occur.

Our Response: Critical habitat isdesignated on the basis of scientificdata, but areas may be excluded on thebasis of economic impact or any otherrelevant impact if the Secretarydetermines that the benefits of exclusionoutweigh the benefits of specifying suchareas as critical habitat. We may notexclude areas if such exclusion willresult in the extinction of the species.While the final Economic Analysisidentifies some impacts following thiscritical habitat designation, thisconsultation activity is largelyattributable to the listing. This is basedon the fact that all the designatedcritical habitat units have documenteduse by piping plovers and plannedprojects are currently subject to theregulatory provisions of section 7(a)(2)and section 9 of the Act due to thelisting of the piping plover. See the‘‘Economic Analysis’’ and the‘‘Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of the Act’’sections of this rule.

Comment 14: Many commenters haveasked why we do not designate areasthat are not heavily used andinaccessible by man, therefore moreideal for piping plovers.



Our Response: We have designatedareas with consistent documentation ofpiping plover use. This includes bothareas heavily used and inaccessible byman. Many inaccessible areas do nothave the primary constituent elementsneeded by plovers. Piping ploverschoose areas that meet their physicaland biological needs. Plovers exhibit acertain amount of site fidelity and wereusing many of these places before theybecame developed.

Comment 15: Commenter states thatliterature (Nicholls Baldassarre 1990b)seems to suggest that people and off-road vehicles preclude piping ploversfrom occupying wintering sites. Thereare beaches where piping plovers andbeach users successfully cohabit.Studies cited in the recovery plan donot provide conclusive scientific dataon whether or not human-causedimpacts influence wintering pipingplovers.

Our Response: Section 4 of the Actrequires us to base our critical habitatdesignations on the best availablescientific information. We note thatthere are several studies documentingthe effects of human presence on thebehavior of birds. Bird species vary intheir response to human disturbances(pedestrian and vehicular) (Rodgers andSmith 1997). On the breeding groundspiping plovers elicit a significantlyhigher response to humans than topotential predators or non-predatorspecies (Flemming et al. 1988). Rodgersand Smith (1997) documented thatshorebirds are more easily flushed thanother species of coastal birds. This maybe because shorebirds on the winteringgrounds are migrant species that rarelyinteract with humans. Elliott and Teas(1996) evaluated direct and indirectmeasures of the effects of humandisturbance on piping plovers in Texas.Piping plovers (breeding and wintering)not encountered by humans spend moretime foraging and less time in activenonforaging behavior (Elliott and Teas1996; Burger 1991). Zonick and Ryan(1996) documented in Texas that beachvehicular density and piping ploverabundance were negatively associated.On the breeding grounds, the effects ofpeople have caused increased shifts inhabitat use and decreased foraging timewith more time devoted to alertness(Burger 1991; Staine and Burger 1994).

Increased human disturbanceincreases energy expenditure by birdsand reduces their food intake (Belangerand Bedard 1990). Whether this isenough to affect their maintenance of fatreserves for long-range migration or tomaintain adequate body temperaturesunder cooler winter conditions isunknown. If the level of disturbance ishigh enough, piping plovers may be

forced to move to less optimal habitat(Elliott and Teas 1996). We do not knowwhat effect foraging in marginal areashas on the piping plover’s ability tosurvive the winter, and successfullyreach the breeding grounds, or onreproductive success once on thebreeding grounds. Studies on thebreeding grounds that may apply on thewintering grounds show that pipingplovers that have diverse habitatsavailable for foraging can more easilycope with space competition andhuman disturbances than those withfewer habitats (Burger 1994).

Since the piping plover was listed in1986, no beach closures have occurreddue to the presence of piping plovers intheir wintering range, although in thebreeding range (e.g., Plymouth,Massachusetts), partial beach closureshave occurred to protect chicks andadult piping plovers prior to the chicksfledging. Additionally, as stated in ourresponse to B.18, we believe that theeffect of normal human presence onpiping plovers in their wintering habitatdoes not have serious consequences atthe population level, and we do notexpect this designation to affectrecreational beach use.

Comment 16: Several commenterssuggested that certain units (YentBayou, Marco Island, Unit TX–34 (SanLuis Pass), and Rollover Bay andsurrounding areas) are not essential tothe conservation of the species andshould not be designated as criticalhabitat.

Our Response: As required under theAct, we designated critical habitatessential for the conservation of thespecies based on the best scientific dataavailable. We identified areasthroughout a broad geographic coveragealong the coast that contained theprimary constituent elements and whereoccurrence data indicated a consistentuse by piping plovers. The essentialfeatures found on the designated areasmay require special managementconsideration or protection to ensuretheir contribution to the species’recovery. We believe that the designatedareas are sufficient, and are needed tosupport piping plovers when recovered.We have addressed these areasspecifically in ‘‘Issue B: Site-specificBiological Comments.’’

Comment 17: One commenterquestioned the need to designate criticalhabitat in areas where the piping ploverdoes not breed.

Our Response: This designation is forwintering habitat only. Piping ploversspend up to 10 months (83 percent oftheir lifetime) of each year on thewintering grounds. It is, therefore,important to insure their biological and

physical needs are met on the winteringgrounds. See also response to A.4.

Comment 18: Several commentersrequested that vast areas of open sandybeaches, open water, and heavilyvegetated dunes not be designatedcritical habitat and questioned why thedesignation includes areas up to 100meters offshore.

Our Response: We disagree with thestatement that ‘‘vast’’ areas of opensandy beaches have been designated ascritical habitat. Areas with documentedpiping plover use have been designated.These areas are used by piping ploversbecause they contain the primaryconstituent elements and are essential tothe conservation of the species. Theprimary constituent elements are foundin geologically dynamic coastal areasthat support intertidal beaches and flatsand associated dune systems and flatsabove annual high tide (i.e., sandybeaches). Because areas used by pipingplovers are ephemeral habitats, we mustconsider their changing nature overtime. As explained in the ‘‘Methods’’section, we abandoned the bufferingmethodology used in the proposed ruleand the revised textual unit descriptionsare now the definitive source ofdetermining unit boundaries. Thischange has resulted in critical habitatunits that are significantly scaled downin size from what was presented in theproposed rule. We also believe that wehave captured the ephemeral nature ofthe habitat within these unitdescriptions, by including areas toMLLW.

Comment 19: While there may besome sites within the piping plover’srange that are very remote or logisticallydifficult to survey, only sites withdocumented occurrence of the speciesshould be designated as critical habitat.

Our Response: Since the initialproposal, we obtained data on pipingplover occurrences in critical habitatareas where the primary constituentelements were present but where wehad no piping plover occurrence databecause the areas were logisticallydifficult to survey. We havesubsequently refined our designation toinclude only those areas that contain theprimary constituent elements essentialfor the conservation of the species andfor that we have known piping ploveroccurrences. See the ‘‘Summary ofChanges From the Proposed Rule’’section and our response to A.10.

Issue B: Site-specific BiologicalComments

A number of commenters spoke tospecific geographical areas of thedesignation.

Comment 1: Several commenters haverecommended the inclusion of



additional areas in the critical habitatdesignation and have submitted datasupporting consistent use of these areasby piping plovers. The areas that fallunder these criteria in South Carolinainclude Port Royal Mud Flats, BeaufortCounty. Areas in Florida include DogIsland, Franklin County; Big HickoryIsland, Lee County; north tip of AnnaMaria Island, Manatee County; highmarsh and salt pans inland of BuncheBeach, Lee County (adjacent to Unit FL–25); Cape Haze/Gasparilla Sound StateBuffer Preserve, Charlotte County; andnortheast end of Spanish Harbor Keys‘‘Horseshoe Pit,’’ Monroe County. InAlabama, Gulf State Park wasrecommended for inclusion.

Our Response: We appreciatereceiving the additional information.We will continue to monitor and collectnew information and may revise thecritical habitat designation in the futureif sufficient new information supports achange. Areas outside the criticalhabitat designation will continue to besubject to conservation actions that maybe implemented under section 7(a)(1)and to the regulatory protectionsafforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardystandard and the section 9 takeprohibition (see response to E.5).Should new information becomeavailable to support the need todesignate critical habitat in other areas,we will consider amending thisdesignation.

Comment 2: Other areas have beenrecommended for inclusion, based onpresence of primary constituentelements; however, no significant dataon plover occurrence was presented bycommenters. Such areas recommendedin North Carolina include expansion ofunits 6 and 7 to include all of thenorthern and southern Core Banks area.South Carolina areas are Fripp Island(habitat has been riprapped), MorseCreek, and St. Phillips Island, Beaufort.The areas in Florida include the Southtip of Amelia Island, Nassau County;high marsh and salt pans of CharlotteHarbor State Buffer Preserve, CharlotteCounty; Passage Key National WildlifeRefuge, Manatee County; north end ofLongboat Key, Sarasota County; Ft.Pickens, Santa Rosa County; LittleSabine, Santa Rosa County;Choctawhatchee Bay, Okaloosa County;Cape St. George, Franklin County; St.Marks National Wildlife Refuge, PineyIsland, Wakulla County; AucillaWildlife Management Area,Steinhatchee Area, Taylor County;Cedar Key and area, Levy and DixieCounties; Chassahowitzka NationalWildlife Refuge, Homosassa Island,Citrus County; Siesta and Casey Keys,Sarasota County; Mouth of Peace River,

Charlotte County; Pine Island and PineIsland National Wildlife Refuge, MoundKey, Carl Johnson Park, Lovers KeyState Recreation Area, and DelnorWiggins Pass, Lee County; Rookery BayNational Estuarine Sanctuary and KiceIsland, Collier County; north end of KeyLargo and other Keys in general, Monroeand Dade Counties; Hobe SoundNational Wildlife Refuge and BlowingRocks Preserve, near Jupiter Inlet,Martin County; Hutchinson Island,south of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County;Sebastian Inlet State Park, PelicanIsland National Wildlife Refuge, IndianRiver County; Spessard Holland CountyPark, Brevard County; CanaveralNational Seashore, Brevard and VolusiaCounties; Anastasia State RecreationArea, St Augustine Beach to Ft.Matanzas Inlet, St. Johns County;Midnight Pass, Sarasota County; SandKey, Pinellas County; St. Andrews StateRecreation Area, Bay County; and PortCharlotte Beach State Recreation Area,Charlotte County. One area, SandIsland, was requested for inclusion inMississippi. In Alabama, the areaknown as Alabama (also known asFlorida) Point and Bon Secour NationalWildlife Refuge were suggested forinclusion.

Our Response: No data were providedto support the designation of the aboveareas as critical habitat. Many of thesesites have been monitored as part ofpiping plover and other shorebirdsurveys. No consistent use by pipingplovers was recorded.

Comment 3: One commenter notedthat observations of piping ploversoccurred in the following areas duringthe international censuses, but that theareas were not included in thedesignated units in Texas—Rachel Site,east of Whites Point, Nueces Bay,Nueces County, 1991; Tule Lake,Nueces County, 1996; Redfish Bay area,Nueces County, 1991, 1996; AransasPass/Port Aransas causeway, NuecesCounty, 1991, 1996; Aransas NationalWildlife Refuge, Calhoun and AransasCounties, 1991; Aransas Bay/St CharlesBay reefs, Aransas County, 1991;Copano Bay bridge, Aransas County,1991; Texas Point to McFaddin NationalWildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, 1996and Christmas Bird Counts.

Our Response: We appreciatereceiving the additional information.For the following reasons we did notinclude these areas in the designation.The Rachel Site, east of Whites Pt. inNueces County was not surveyed in1996, nor is there indication of anysurveys taken that show piping plovershave been seen at this site. The area hasthe potential habitat for piping plovers,but there has been no data reported to

support designation of critical habitat.Six piping plovers were found in St.Charles Bay in 1991, but the site was notvisited in 1996, and we did not includethe area in the designation based upona lack of documentation of consistentuse. Although piping plovers werepresent on the margins of spoil islandsat the Aransas National Wildlife Refugein Calhoun and Aransas Counties in1991, none were found at either siteduring the 1996 census, therefore wedid not include this area in thedesignation because we lackeddocumentation of consistent use. Onlyone bird was found in both the 1991 and1996 censuses on the Port Aransascauseway. This area was not includeddue to these low numbers, plus the factthat much of the area is made up ofemergent marsh or mangroves and theprimary constituent elements are notpresent for the piping plover. There areno data to support the presence ofpiping plover at the Copano Bay bridgesite, and there is not much habitatavailable for the bird except in extremelow tide events. The Texas Pt. toMcFaddin National Wildlife Refuge inJefferson County is a very highly erosivenarrow stretch of beach, and it is likelythat very few birds would be present.The area of Tule Lake in Nueces Countywas not censussed in 1991, but 8 birdswere found in 1996. This site is highlydeveloped all around, and wedetermined that the characteristics ofthis area do not provide for the long-term essential needs of the pipingplover. Redfish Bay in Nueces Countysupported 83 birds in 1991 and 20 birdswere seen in 1996. Thus, this site couldhave been proposed for critical habitatdesignation. However, in order toinclude areas in this final rule, wewould have to include them in ourproposed designation and allow thepublic an opportunity to comment ontheir inclusion. As we stated in ourresponse to Comment B.1 above, wemay revise the critical habitatdesignation in the future if sufficientnew information supports a change.Furthermore, areas outside the criticalhabitat designation will continue to besubject to conservation actions that maybe implemented under section 7(a)(1)and to the regulatory protectionsafforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardystandard and the section 9 takeprohibition.

Comment 4: One commenterrequested to see the data upon whichYent Bayou (unit FL–10) was chosen ascritical habitat for piping plover becausetheir data do not support such adesignation. Yent Bayou is a good site



for many shorebirds, but not for pipingplover.

Our Response: We do not agree withthe commenter. The 1996 InternationalCensus documented 11 birds; Sprandelet al. (1997) documented 12 during thewinter of 1993–94; Climo (1998) visitedYent Bayou 21 times between 1993 and1996 and saw an average of 5.1 pipingplovers per visit.

Comment 5: At a public workshop,the Service failed to present scientificdata supporting the inclusion of anyportion of Marco Island in a criticalhabitat designation. There is no peer-reviewed published scientific literatureto indicate that Florida or Marco Islandbeaches are essential to plover recovery.

Our Response: Although we did notpresent data at the workshop,designation of unit FL–27 at MarcoIsland was based on ampledocumentation that shoals at the northend of the island are regularly used bypiping plovers. Individuals withexpertise in plover biology wrote thepiping plover recovery plans. Therevised Atlantic Coast and Great Lakespopulations recovery plans were peer-reviewed and they specifically mentionMarco Island as essential forconservation of the plover. We have alsoreviewed available information from the1991 and 1996 International Censuses(including field reports and notes) andthe often-substantial data from localbirders and ornithologists. Otherpublications used to evaluate Floridahabitat included a ‘‘Winter ShorebirdSurvey’’ published by the Florida Gameand Fresh Water Fish Commission(Sprandel et al. 1997), a thesis titled ‘‘Alandscape-level analysis of pipingplover (Charadrius melodus) winterhabitat’’ by Lisa Climo (1998), and athesis titled ‘‘Distribution and otherecological aspects of piping plovers(Charadrius melodus) wintering alongthe Atlantic and Gulf Coasts’ by JaniceNicholls (1989). While it would alwaysbe desirable to have more data, thecritical habitat designations are basedon the best scientific data available.

Comment 6: Marco Island is unlikeother beaches proposed to be designatedas critical habitat in that it is completelydeveloped.

Our Response: With the reduction ofthe FL–27 (Marco Island) unit’s sizefrom the proposed rule, much of thehighly developed areas are no longerincluded in the designation. We believethe new boundaries fully cover the areasregularly used by piping plovers andallow for the movement of sand barsand tidal flats. In general, if the primaryconstituent elements are present and wemake a determination that the area isessential for the conservation of the

species, the degree of development isirrelevant to critical habitatdesignations, except to the extent thatthere might be economic or otherimpacts that could outweigh thebenefits of designating critical habitat.The final Economic Analysis did notidentify economic impacts at MarcoIsland that suggested that this areashould be excluded.

Comment 7: Marco Island is thenorthernmost of the Ten ThousandIslands. Virtually all of the other islandscannot be developed, so they wouldmake ideal plover habitat withoutinterfering with human use of beacheson Marco Island. Why was Marco Island(unit FL–27) proposed for designation ascritical habitat, while other populatedareas, such as Naples, Florida, were notnor were isolated beaches, such as atKeewaydin Island or the 50 miles of theGulf coast south of Marco Island?

Our Response: The entire coastline ofLee and Collier Counties, includingMarco Island and the Ten ThousandIslands, has been surveyed forshorebirds for many years. Naples lacksan inlet like Big Marco Pass, and theTen Thousand Islands generally lackbeaches or mud flats suitable for thesebirds. We have been provided reports ofpiping plovers using several sites nearMarco Island, but do not have evidenceof regular, repeated use that wouldindicate that they are essential to theconservation of the species. There isample evidence that the critical habitatunits designated in this rule areregularly used by piping plovers, andthat other areas, including the coastsouth of Marco Island, are not.

Comment 8: Designating Marco Islandbeachfront as critical habitat willencourage the Service to createconditions favorable to the plover. Thiswill encourage the plover to becomeestablished in an artificially created areain contrast to its long-term interest ofusing areas of lesser human presence.

Our Response: While the proposedrule included Marco Island’s developedbeachfront, nearly all of that developedbeachfront has been excluded from thefinal rule based on data received duringthe comment period showing thatpiping plovers do not use that part ofthe beach. With regard to artificiallycreated habitat, designation will notautomatically require creation ofwintering habitat for piping plovers.However, if it is possible to improvewintering habitat constituent elementsas part of a Federal project, we willlikely recommend such an action.

Comment 9: Piping plover habitat atMarco Island consisting of the intertidalarea is ephemeral, has undergonesignificant changes over the last decade

as a result of coastal processes and will,consistent with prior history, eventuallydegrade to the point where foraginghabitat for the plover may no longerexist.

Our Response: Almost all pipingplover wintering habitats are dynamic,consisting of beaches and flats thaterode, accrete, or change position overtime. We have included in our textualunit descriptions, the definitive legalsource on unit boundaries, areas to theMLLW to insure that this critical habitatdesignation adequately captures theshifting primary constituent elements ofcritical habitat.

Comment 10: The scientific literaturehas shown that, on the winteringgrounds, piping plovers generally arerestricted to sand flats and intertidalareas, not beaches such as on themajority of Marco Island. The proposedcritical habitat unit FL–27 at MarcoIsland includes large areas, mostlybeaches, that are not used by winteringpiping plovers. The unit should bereduced in size to cover only the sandflats and intertidal areas at Sand DollarIsland and Tigertail Beach at the northend of the island.

Our Response: The comment refers tothe heavily developed portion of MarcoIsland’s beach south of Tigertail Beach,that we now know is used little, if at all,by piping plovers. This area wasremoved from the FL–27 critical habitatunit.

Comment 11: One commenter notedthat the boundaries of unit FL–27 atMarco Island extend far beyond theboundaries of a Critical Wildlife Areadesignated by the Florida Fish andWildlife Conservation Commission toconserve shorebirds, especially breedingones. Two other commenters provideddata on piping plover use of the MarcoIsland area and aerial photographs.

Our Response: We used the surveyinformation and aerial photographs inadjusting the boundaries of the FL–27critical habitat map unit. The southernboundary is now at the southern limitof sandbar formation since 1952. Thissouthern boundary coincides with thesouthern boundary of the CriticalWildlife Area. The revised northernborder of the critical habitat map unitincludes isolated sand bars that areforming from just north of Sand DollarIsland to Coconut Island, but excludesHideway Beach. The landwardboundary does not extend inland fromthe vegetation line because this part ofthe island appears to be accreting. Theseaward boundary extends only farenough to cover areas with sandbars.We believe the new boundaries fullycover the areas regularly used by piping



plovers and for the expected movementof sand bars and tidal flats.

Comment 12: A few commentersstated that the NC–10 unit needs toreflect the continuity of habitat at thissite. The narrative does a good job ofdescribing the site, which includes thesandy shoal islands within the inlet. Butthe designated areas on the map leaveout the sandy shoal islands within theinlet. The map should be drawn as onecontiguous unit.

Our Response: The sandy shoalislands referred to are northeast of theinlet. Trying to include all sandy shoalsvisible would have made NC–10extremely large. We believe that NC–10as described in the unit description issufficient for conservation of the speciesin this area. Piping plovers still haveprotection under the Act whether theyare within critical habitat or not.

Comment 13: What effect will thefinal designation have on vehicularaccess to areas that already allow beachdriving within critical habitat units?

Our Response: Only actions involvinga Federal agency are regulated bycritical habitat. On non-Federal lands,beach driving is not regulated under theAct unless take of a listed animal isinvolved. Take of a listed animal couldbe authorized by an incidental takepermit (ITP) from the Service. An ITPwould be required regardless of criticalhabitat if take is involved. The issuanceof the ITP is a Federal action and thedecision to issue the ITP will include anevaluation of the effects to criticalhabitat. In most cases, measures to avoidand minimize harm would beincorporated in a habitat conservationplan that includes driving.

For lands under Federal control(National Park Service, Air Force, etc.)the managing agency is responsible forensuring that their actions do notjeopardize the continued existence of, ordestroy or adversely modify criticalhabitat, of listed species. Often times,the managing agency is able to controlimpacts to listed species from beachdriving by redesigning routes and beachaccess points, and by temporarilyclosing off specific areas during criticalseasons.

Comment 14: The critical habitatdesignations for North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Georgia, and Florida areconservative overall, as fairly discretesites were selected. However, it seems amore comprehensive approach wastaken for the selection of sites along amajority of the Gulf Coast from Alabamato Texas.

Our Response: Based on commentsreceived, we have refined our criticalhabitat designation to the maximumextent possible to include only those

areas that have documented consistentuse by piping plovers and removed allareas that do not have consistent usedocumentation. This was done in orderto ensure consistency in the designationof critical habitat units for all States.The configuration of habitat units differsacross the wintering range as a result ofbasic differences in beach morphologythroughout the South Atlantic and Gulfof Mexico.

Comment 15: It would be more cost-effective for the Service to designate allcritical habitat for the Perdido Key andChoctawhatchee beach mice as criticalhabitat for the piping plover, since thosespecies are already being monitored.

Our Response: Designating criticalhabitat for piping plovers based on theexistence of critical habitat andmonitoring for another listed speciesdoes not meet our requirements under50 CFR 424.12(b). In this case, criticalhabitat must be based upon aconsideration of the physical andbiological features essential to theconservation of the piping plover.

Comment 16: One landowner inLouisiana voiced concern that his/herproperty was within proposed criticalhabitat boundaries even though it doesnot contain piping plover habitat.

Our Response: We recognize that notall parcels of land within the initiallyproposed critical habitat designationcontain the habitat componentsessential to piping plover conservation.Since the initial proposal, we haverefined our critical habitat maps toexclude, to the maximum extentpossible, those specific areas that arenot currently believed to contain theconstituent elements of piping ploverhabitat. Areas that do not contain theprimary constituent elements, but areincluded in the textual unitdescriptions, are not, by definition,considered critical habitat.

Comment 17: Coastal land loss inLouisiana is more important thandevelopment in affecting critical habitat;the Service should shift its focus tofighting coastal land loss.

Our Response: We agree that coastalland loss is a major factor affectingpiping plover wintering habitat. Werepresent the Department of the Interioron the Louisiana Coastal WetlandsConservation and Restoration TaskForce. That Task Force overseesplanning, evaluation, funding, andimplementation of projects fundedunder the Coastal Wetlands Planning,Protection and Restoration Act. Theprojects approved to date by the TaskForce are expected to protect and restorenearly 95,000 net acres of coastalwetlands in Louisiana. That, however,does not relieve us of our obligation to

designate critical habitat for the pipingplover.

Comment 18: The designation ofpiping plover critical habitat on GrandIsle, Louisiana, could adversely impactthe economy by curtailing recreationaluses and limiting development of homesand businesses on the island.

Our Response: We have refined ourcritical habitat unit description sincethe initial proposal to include onlythose areas of Grand Isle that containthe primary constituent elements. OnGrand Isle, that habitat is found seawardof the hurricane protection levees. Wedo not anticipate the development ofhomes or business in that area. Webelieve that the effect of normal humanpresence on piping plovers in theirwintering habitat does not have seriousconsequences at the population level,and we do not expect this designationto affect recreational beach use.

Comment 19: Uninhabited barrierislands near Grand Isle, Louisiana,provide ideal habitat for piping plovers.The Service should work with localagencies to restore those islands ratherthan designate critical habitat on GrandIsle.

Our Response: We agree that some ofthose islands contain piping ploverhabitat; however, we are required todesignate critical habitat based on thebiological or physical constituentelements essential to the conservation ofthe species. The portions of thoseislands (including Grand Isle) that metthose criteria and where survey dataindicated consistent use by pipingplovers were included in criticalhabitat.

Comment 20: Beach maintenanceactivities conducted by the HarrisonCounty Development Commission(HCDC), Mississippi, are important inthe overall protection of the seawall andU.S. Highway 90, and in maintainingsufficient habitat for piping plovers.HCDC supports the critical habitatdesignation provided it would notprohibit them from carrying out theirmandate to maintain the beach inHarrison County, Mississippi.

Our Response: We agree that beachmaintenance activities are important forthe protection of seawalls, highways,and piping plovers. In general, we havefound that beach nourishment activitiescan be timed and designed to minimizeeffects on piping plovers. We do notexpect this designation to affect thosebeach maintenance activities.

Comment 21: At TX–12 (adjacent toNaval Air Station), the polygonprovided by the Service for the criticalhabitat area appears to include a smallpart of the airfield.



Our Response: It was impossible tomap all sites exactly within the timeconstraints directed by the court topublish the proposed designation. Onlythose areas within the textual unitdescriptions that contain the essentialelements necessary to support thepiping plover are considered criticalhabitat.

Comment 22: We recommend thatonly land portions of South Bay beincluded in Texas Unit 1 and that theinterior of the Boca Chica peninsula beexcluded. Designation of the entire bayarea as critical habitat seems excessive.

Our Response: Only those landportions in South Bay that have thepiping plover primary constituentelements are considered critical habitat.If portions of the land masses that havebeen designated change, either due tonatural events such as gradual accretionor erosion or storm events, or man-madecauses such as the placement of dredgematerial, then these changing areas willbe considered critical habitat when theprimary constituent elements arepresent. The Boca Chica peninsula is anever-changing land mass with accretionand erosion rates that cannot be fixed ona map. Therefore, only those areas onthe peninsula that contain the primaryconstituent elements (i.e., support thepiping plover for roosting and feeding)will be considered critical habitat.

Comment 23: We recommendincluding less of the interior area ofSouth Padre Island (TX unit 3). Knownuse of these islands by piping ploversappears to be concentrated on the beachareas and exposed flats of both islands.The inclusion of interior areas appearsto be inconsistent with the shore areasdesignated elsewhere along the coast.

Our Response: There are areas of theinterior of South Padre Island wherepiping plovers have been sighted. Weincluded interior areas that are not sand,mud, or algal flats, because pipingplovers use flats for foraging andsparsely vegetated areas for roostingpurposes, and these areas are alsoneeded for roosting during storms andstrong winds.

Comment 24: We recommendincluding less of the interior area of SanJose Island (TX Unit 18). Known use ofthese islands by piping plovers appearsto be concentrated on the beach areasand exposed flats of both islands. Theinclusion of interior areas appears to beinconsistent with the shore areasdesignated elsewhere along the coast.

Our Response: San Jose Island iscomposed of a variety of habitats thatsupport the piping plover. Althoughthere are portions that do not contain allof the primary constituent elementsneeded by the plover, aerial

photographs indicate that piping ploverhabitat is present on San Jose Island.Most of the designated inland areas onSan Jose Island (TX 15 and TX18) arerelict hurricane washover passes,known to be preferred piping ploverhabitat. Thus, it is suitable baysidehabitat that is somewhat lacking in thisportion of the Texas Coast, and we haveincluded it in the designation. See ourresponse to B. 23 above for a discussionon the importance of interior habitat.

Comment 25: It appears that potentialhabitat in south and east sides ofGalveston Bay has not been included,and should be.

Our Response: No specific sites weresuggested. However, potential pipingplover habitat exists on the south andeast sides of Galveston Bay, as well asalong the shorelines, flats, beaches, anddisposal areas throughout Galveston andother Texas bays. Although pipingplovers are occasionally seen at many ofthese sites, we have not designated areasunless they have consistent pipingplover use. Five sites on the upperTexas Coast (TX–36, TX–35, TX–34,TX–31, and TX–27) have accounted forwell over 90 percent of sightings duringthe previous three International PipingPlover Winter Censuses and these areasare included in the final designation.

Comment 26: The piping plovers thatoccur on the Sunset Lake Park area andother natural resources and public usevalues are already protected by anexisting conservation easement. TheSunset Lake Park is already uniquelyprotected and preserved as a park underthis easement and the park usedesignation by the City. The Act andMigratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) andthe Sunset Lake Conservation Easementalready provide adequate protectionwhile enabling other compatible parkrecreational uses. Critical habitatdesignation will not help focusconservation activities for the species atSunset Lake anymore than is alreadyavailable for this public park operatedunder the existing easement.

Our Response: The conservationeasement for Sunset Lake protects thebody of the lake and the improvementsto the natural wildlife habitat andsightseeing amendments. The areaoutside of the lake proper where pipingplovers have recently been sighted is inthe highway right-of-way adjacent to thelake. Highway reconstruction orimprovements may cause direct orindirect impacts to this importanthabitat. The highway right-of-way isoutside of the conservation easement. Inaddition, the easement does not provideadequate special management for thepiping plover which can only beadequately provided by a legally

operative plan that addresses themaintenance and improvement of theprimary constituent elements importantto the species, and manages for the long-term conservation of the species (i.e.,implements conservation managementstrategies and provides for periodicmonitoring). Therefore, the existingspecial management is insufficient tosatisfy the requirements of thedefinition of critical habitat.Additionally, the publicity andheightened awareness of a rare bird’spresence should help to support SunsetLake’s Conservation Plan by bringingadditional bird-watchers and wildlifeenthusiasts to the area, potentiallycreating an increase in economic valueof the Sunset Lake.

It is also important to note that acritical habitat designation has no effecton situations where a Federal agency isnot involved. For example, only privateactions that involve Federal funding ora Federal permit, and where the Federalagency determines that the proposedaction may affect a listed species or itscritical habitat require consultation.

The protection of the piping ploverunder the MBTA does not in any wayobviate our duties under the Act withrespect to designating critical habitat.

Comment 27: Nothing in the dataindicates that piping plovers wererecorded from the vegetated portions ofUnit TX–34. Data supporting thedesignation of vegetated areas withinthe critical habitat proposal does notexist. We request the Service toreconsider its proposed designation ofUnit TX–34.

Our Response: TX–34 (San Luis Passflats and contiguous beach) isconsidered one of five important pipingplover aggregation sites on the upperTexas Coast. Past winter surveys havefound upwards of 20 wintering birdsthere. Curt Zonick’s (1993) studyentitled ‘‘Ecology and Conservation ofWintering Piping Plovers and SnowyPlovers,’’ ranked San Luis Pass secondof eight important Texas sites in densityand fourth in population (average of33.7 piping plovers). Sparsely vegetatedareas as described in the ‘‘PrimaryConstituent Elements’’ section of thisrule are used by the piping plover asroosting habitat in this unit.

Comment 28: Based on the habitatassessment performed on October 12,2000, a review of 1995 and 1997 coloraerial photographs, and U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadranglemaps, most of Unit TX–34 does notcontain the primary constituentelements essential for the conservationof wintering piping plovers. At least 17percent (250 ac) of the unit is vegetatedand does not provide foraging, roosting,



or resting habitat. Additionally, themajority of the beach within theproposed unit is very narrow and doesnot provide optimum habitat. Themajority of the unit north of Highway3005 consists of open water and shouldnot be considered a primary constituentelement of critical habitat.

Our Response: See our response toComment B.27 above. Only those areaswithin the unit boundary, as describedin the regulatory section of this rule,that provide the primary constituentelements for the piping plover areconsidered critical habitat. The criticalhabitat boundaries, as described in theregulatory section of this rule, stoplandward where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where constituent elementsno longer occur.

Comment 29: The biologicalinformation obtained for Unit TX–34does not provide sufficient informationsupporting the designation of criticalhabitat for piping plover. Only 2 percentof the piping plover sightings during the1991 and 1996 Texas mid-wintersurveys were recorded from the SanLuis Pass area.

Our Response: While piping plovercounts during winter survey periodshave indeed been low, it should benoted that winter censuses haveoccurred for the most part duringextreme low tidal events when bothbeach and tidal pass counts along theentire upper Texas Coast were very low.Other informal counts at this site,including a 1992 Service field study onfile at our Clear Lake Field Office, andCurt Zonick’s definitive 1991–93 study(see our response to Comment B.27above) show clearly that this site isconsistently used.

Comment 30: Since the northern Gulfbeaches of Unit TX–34 are very narrow,and since Zonick and Ryan (1996)demonstrated a positive correlationbetween beach width and piping ploverdensities, these areas should not beincluded in the critical habitat proposal.

Our Response: Only those beachesshown to be consistently used by pipingplovers, according to previous winteringbird censuses, are included in thedesignation.

Comment 31: A very commendablejob has been done in setting asidecritical habitat areas along the long coastof Texas, but we note what appears tobe the significant omission of any areanear the mouth of the Sabine River atthe Texas-Louisiana State Line. Thereshould be some appropriate beach anddune area between the BolivarPeninsula and the Sabine River. Whilethe west bank of the Sabine ismarshland, we understand that there is

a good area for plovers at or near SeaRim State Park where, for example,plovers were found in both 1997 and1998.

Our Response: While potential habitatexists along this extensive beach area,and while piping plovers areoccasionally seen along this stretch ofbeach, winter counts and other studieshave failed to show consistent use here.

Comment 32: Several commentersrequested that Rollover Bay and thesurrounding area not be designated ascritical habitat for the piping plover.They feel that Rollover Bay isinconsistent with the Service’s criteriafor critical habitat. Rollover Bay andPass is a major recreational area for thecitizens of Texas and other States toenjoy fishing, boating, crabbing, andwading. Thousands of visitors come toRollover Bay and Pass annually. TheIntracoastal Waterway also crossesRollover Bay. From time to time, theArmy Corps of Engineers dredges sandfrom the waterway to renourish thebeaches of Bolivar Peninsula, in order tokeep the waterway open. This is donenormally during the winter months. Atthis time the Texas General Lands Office(TGLO) and Galveston County areplanning to dredge sand from RolloverBay to renourish the beaches at Gilchristand Caplin. This project will be one ofthe first major nourishment projects inTexas history. This project is vital to theabove two communities. The BolivarPeninsula Beaches are used during thewinter months for citizens to drive andwalk along hunting sea shells. This isalso vital to the economy of theircommunities. Eight miles west ofRollover Bay there are 37 miles ofbeaches, and between High Island andSabine Pass, thousands of acres ofwetlands, and wildlife refuges that canbe designated as critical habitat for thepiping plover. They would not bedisturbed by the public there becausethere is no highway for the public to getthere. Highway 87 has been closed offand on for the past 18 years andcompletely for the last 11. We urge theService to designate that area as criticalhabitat for the wintering piping plovers.

Our Response: We acknowledge thatthe Rollover Bay and surrounding areaare heavily used recreation areas andcurrently the site of important beachhabitat restoration activities. The 1991coast wide survey by Texas Parks andWildlife (Performance Report, ProjectNo. 9.1 Piping Plover and Snowy PloverWinter Habitat Status Survey (Mitchell,Zonick, and Withers)) identified theRollover Bay flats as holding a moderatewinter population of piping plovers, anaverage of 12 birds (11, 14, and 12) for3 survey trips. The average of 1990

through 1996 Audubon Christmas BirdCount circles that included the RolloverBay area was 13 birds. The 1991, 1996,and 2001 International Piping PloverCensuses found very low numbers ofbirds along the beaches between BolivarFlats and High Island, but these surveyswere done by driving and did not coverthe Rollover Bay area. In summary, theRollover Bay site (TX–37) holds amoderate but consistent winteringpiping plover population. It is the onlysite shown to consistently holdwintering birds along the Texas coasteast of Bolivar Flats (TX–36), andshould be rated probably the sixth mostimportant upper Texas coast winteringsite. It should be noted that past section7 consultations involving beachrestoration in general, and this site inparticular, have supported beachrestoration activities as improving thequality of piping plover habitat in thelong term by preserving and protectingeroding beach habitat. We have notpreviously found that normal beachrecreation activities would significantlyaffect piping plovers or their habitat inthese types of areas, and we do notanticipate that normal recreation wouldbe restricted as a result of thisdesignation.

Comment 33: Commenters note thatsome areas of the Gulf coast were notproposed despite the fact that they arenot developed and that they have all ofthe primary constituent elements ofcritical habitat. For example, the areabetween Rollover Pass, Texas, and theLouisiana/Texas state line appears tomeet the requirements for piping ploverwintering habitat. Similarly, the Gulf ofMexico shoreline on the last few milesof the western end of the Ft. Morganpeninsula, the shoreline of the BonSecour National Wildlife Refuge’sPerdue Unit, and other stretches ofshoreline along the peninsula appear tomeet the requirements for criticalhabitat. They question why these andsimilar shoreline areas have not beenincluded in the proposed critical habitatdesignation. They assert that wherecensus data are inadequate to proveconsistent use by the wintering pipingplover, the habitat in question containsthe physical and biological featuresessential to the species, and the Serviceshould include the area in thedesignation of critical habitat.

Our Response: We, and mostornithologists, assume that areasconsistently holding aggregations of thisspecies are essential to the conservationof the piping plovers. Therefore, thisdesignation was primarily based onareas of consistent use that contain oneor more of the primary constituentelements. We did not consider it in the



best long-term conservation interests ofthe piping plover to designate criticalhabitat where it is only infrequentlyknown to occur. However, should newinformation become available to supportthe need to designate critical habitat inother areas, we will consider amendingthis designation.

Comment 34: Commenters requestthat the Service take underconsideration the designation ofportions of Long Island, Texas, locatedin Cameron County, Texas, as criticalhabitat for the piping plover. They feelthat their close proximity to the currentdesignated area and the physical andbiological features of their islandwarrant serious consideration.

Our Response: While potential habitatexists along this extensive area, andwhile piping plovers are occasionallyseen, survey counts and other studieshave failed to show consistentpopulations here and we have not beenable to conclude that these areas areessential to the conservation of thespecies.

Comment 35: The burden should beplaced on the Service to prove to theland owners that their property ispiping plover habitat and then negotiatewith them the protection of the area.Almost the entire island from Gulf toBay, including upland areas in themiddle of South Padre Island, wasdesignated as critical habitat. That is notfair or correct.

Our Response: The South PadreIsland community encouragesprotection of wildlife areas. We do notexpect any additional burdens placedon landowners, or the need fornegotiation for protection of the area.Only private activities with Federalsponsorship that may affect the pipingplover or its critical habitat require theFederal agency to consult with us.Although the piping plover’s feedinghabitat is located on mud, sand, andalgal flats, upland areas with sparsevegetation offer the birds roostinghabitat which is also important for itssurvival.

Comment 36: The spoil island area inIngleside Cove was not included forconsideration. It meets the criteria listedin the Federal Register for winteringpiping plovers: intertidal beaches andflats, sand and/or mud flats with no orvery sparse emergent vegetation. Pipingplovers have been sighted in the spoilisland area in Ingleside Cove WildlifeSanctuary for many years, and it ispossible that they may winter on theuninhabited spoil islands that borderthe Cove. Is the area around InglesideCove considered designated criticalhabitat for wintering piping plovers?These plovers have been sighted inIngleside Cove Wildlife Sanctuary for

many years, and commenters have feltthat they may winter on the uninhabitedspoil islands that abut the Cove.

Our Response: We have not collectedany data that indicate piping ploversuse this area, and since the proposeddesignation was based on knownscientific surveys for consistent usageby the birds, we did not propose thatarea as critical habitat. We will,however, attempt to survey this site inthe future.

Comment 37: The Cayo del Grulloarm of Baffin Bay and the tidal flatsalong Highway 48 from Highway 100 towhere it intersects at Highway 48 wereleft out of the critical habitatdesignation. Plovers can be seen feedingnear Vattman Creek near Kaufer-HubertMemorial Park.

Our Response: Based on surveysperformed in these areas, piping ploversdo not use the areas consistently, andsince the proposed designation wasbased on consistent use from knownscientific surveys, we did not proposethese areas for designation.

Comment 38: One commenter asked ifthe flats in Alazan Bay are used bypiping plovers.

Our Response: We have not locatedany data to indicate that piping ploversuse this area, and because the proposeddesignation was based on knownscientific surveys for consistent use bythe birds, we did not designate this areaas critical habitat.

Comment 39: One commenter askedabout Powderhorn Lake in CalhounCounty. The Service owns the WhitmireUnit of Aransas National WildlifeRefuge. Those flats are used by lots ofshorebirds.

Our Response: We have not locatedany data to indicate that piping ploversuse this area, and because the proposeddesignation was based on knownscientific surveys for consistent use bythe birds, we did not designate this areaas critical habitat.

Comment 40: Many residents of PadreIsland oppose making the area of Pt.Aransas down to Pt. Mansfield nestinggrounds for this or any bird species.

Our Response: This rule is issued todesignate critical habitat for thewintering population of piping plovers,not nesting piping plovers, as thesebirds nest in the northern parts of theUnited States and Canada.

Issue C: National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) Compliance

Some commenters expressed concernabout our alleged failure to comply withNEPA.

Comment 1: The Service did notadequately comply with therequirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). The

decision to forego preparation of anEnvironmental Assessment (EA) and anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)is based on reasons published in theFederal Register in 1983. Much hashappened since 1983, and an EIS isrequired to properly analyze the fullrange of impacts of the designation,including social and economic effects.Contrary to species listings, where onlythe status of the species can beconsidered, critical habitat designationrequires consideration of the economicand other relevant impacts of thedesignation. The commenters believesuch considerations should be subject toa formal public process such as NEPA.

Our Response: The commenter iscorrect that we determined, for thereasons stated in a Federal Registernotice published on October 25, 1983(48 FR 49244), that neither an EA noran EIS is required for actions takenunder section 4(a) of the Act, includingdesignation of critical habitat. Webelieve that the reasons for thisdetermination remain valid despite thepassing of nearly 18 years since ouroriginal determination. In addition, theeconomic impacts of the designationwere analyzed in the Final EconomicAnalysis and considered in making thisfinal determination. Finally, the publicinvolvement and notificationrequirements under both theEndangered Species Act andAdministrative Procedure Act provideample opportunity for publicinvolvement in the process.

Comment 2: Council onEnvironmental Quality Regulations (50CFR 1502.21) state that no material maybe incorporated by reference unless it isreasonably available for inspection bypotentially interested parties within thetime allowed for comment. The FederalRegister document (48 FR 49244)referenced in the Service’sdetermination that an EA or EIS is notnecessary is not reasonably available.

Our Response: That document, aswell as any other informationsupporting this designation, is availableby following the instructions providedunder the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section in both the proposedand final rules. We believe this easily-reachable source meets the requirementson the availability of supportinginformation.

Comment 3: According to a decisionin Catron County Board ofCommissioners v. United States Fishand Wildlife Service, 75 F3d 1429 (10thCir. 1996) and Oregon NaturalResources Council v. Lyns, 882 F2d1417 (9th Cir. 1989), the Service mustprepare an EA on critical habitat



designation. In Catron County, the courtnoted that the Acts’ procedures do notdisplace the NEPA requirements whencritical habitat is proposed. The Serviceshould follow Catron County, ratherthan Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d1495 (9th Cir. 1995), because the pipingplover wintering critical habitatincludes state and private lands, not justFederal land.

Our Response: The Serviceacknowledges that the Tenth CircuitCourt of Appeals determined in CatronCounty that NEPA requirements applyto designation of critical habitat.However the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals held in Douglas County v.Babbitt that NEPA does not apply to theService’s designation of critical habitatbecause Congress intended that theAct’s critical habitat proceduresdisplace the NEPA procedures, NEPA isinapplicable to actions that do notchange the physical environment, andthe application of both NEPA and theAct’s requirements would frustrate bothstatutes. The Ninth Circuit did not limitits decision to cases involving onlyFederal lands, holding instead that thepublic notice provisions andopportunities for comment under theAct’s provisions were adequate to servethe NEPA function. Our current practiceis to require NEPA compliance fordesignation of critical habitat onlywhere the critical habitat designation islocated within the Tenth Circuit (thestates of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska,New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, andWyoming). That is not the case here.The decision in Oregon NaturalResources Council v. Lyng dealt with aU.S. Forest Service timber sale and isnot applicable to the critical habitatdesignation issue.

Comment 4: While there may be someoverlap between the requirements of theESA and NEPA, NEPA requires Federalagencies to look at the short- and long-term effects of their actions, as well ascumulative effects, which the ESA doesnot. The public and other Federalagencies have raised legitimate concernsthat can only be properly analyzedthrough the NEPA process.

Our Response: We disagree that NEPAis required for this action. We believewe have fully considered the relevantimpacts of designation, as required bythe ESA, and have found that theseimpacts are too insignificant to warranta detailed analysis under NEPA.

Issue D: Legal IssuesNumerous commenters raised issues

pertaining to compliance with the Actor with other laws and regulations(excluding NEPA issues).

Comment 1: Critical habitat mayconflict with the public policy of the

State of Texas, that stresses the need foropen access to beaches for use by thepublic. Is this proposal subject to reviewby the Texas Coastal ManagementProgram? There is potential for conflictbetween the designation and the TexasOpen Beaches Act.

Our Response: The designation ofcritical habitat is not a listed activity inthe Coastal Management Plan for Texas,and therefore is not subject toconsistency review. The CoastalCoordination Council does have theopportunity to look at impacts tofederally listed species and their criticalhabitat when reviewing permitapplications and other projects.

Comment 2: In Texas, a mineralowner has unquestioned right to use asmuch of the surface as may be necessaryto explore for oil, gas, and otherminerals. The Federal Governmentshould not pass laws that usurp Statelaws without providing justcompensation to those affected.

Our Response: As stated in theproposed and final rules, we do notexpect critical habitat designation toresult in restrictions beyond those thatresulted from the species’ listing. We,therefore, see no conflict with existingState laws governing mineralexploration.

Comment 3: The court order does notrequire the Service to designatewintering habitat for the piping plover,only that critical habitat be designatedfor the Great Lakes and Great Plainspopulations.

Our Response: The commenter iscorrect in that the court ordered us todesignate critical habitat for the GreatLakes and Great Plains populations ofpiping plover. As discussed throughoutthis rule, critical habitat includes thoseareas essential to a species’conservation. Piping plovers spend upto 10 months a year on the winteringgrounds. Wintering grounds provide foran essential part of the species’ lifecycle. Without adequate conservation ofwintering habitat, recovery of thespecies would be limited.

Comment 4: For the proposed rule,the Service drew broad boundaries andthen excluded areas (e.g., buildings)within those areas. The only way toexclude areas from critical habitat isthrough 4(b)(2) of the Act, that requiresan affirmative determination that thebenefits of excluding an area outweighthe benefits of including it as criticalhabitat. No such cost-benefit analysiswas provided in the proposal.

Our Response: Areas designated ascritical habitat must meet the legaldefinition of critical habitat provided inthis final rule. One prong of thedefinition is that an area must containthe physical or biological features

essential to the conservation of thespecies concerned. Human-madestructures do not contain such featuresand therefore do not meet the definitionof critical habitat.

Comment 5: Critical habitatdesignation will provide opportunitiesfor third parties to sue in order to stopactivities like recreational use of thebeach. In Palila v. Hawaii Department ofLand and Natural Resources, 639 F. 2d.495 (9th Cir. 1981), the court issued amandatory injunction to eliminate theState’s use of critical habitat in a waythat was preventing the use of thehabitat by the palila.

Our Response: The primary authorityfor third parties to sue to enjoinactivities that harm endangered andthreatened species is found in thecitizen suit provision of the Act, 16U.S.C. 1540(g)(1), that authorizesanyone to file suit to enjoin violationsof the Act. Section 9 of the Act, 16U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B) makes it unlawfulfor any person to ‘‘take’’ an endangeredor threatened species. The Service’sregulations define ‘‘take’’ as includingactions that are likely to lead to thedeath or injury of threatened orendangered wildlife. Palila v. HawaiiDepartment of Land and NaturalResources was a citizen suit brought toenjoin the State of Hawaii from ‘‘taking’’an endangered species by allowing goatsto destroy the species’ habitat. Neithersection 7 consultation nor thedesignation of critical habitat were thebasis of the suit. We do not expect thatthe designation of critical habitat for thewintering population of piping ploverwill increase the possibility of thirdparty suits to enjoin use of beaches forrecreational purposes.

Comment 6: In Bennett v. Spear, 520U.S. 154, 169, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (1997), theSupreme Court cautioned that therequirement that the Service use thebest scientific information availableserves to ‘‘ensure that the Act is notimplemented haphazardly, on the basisof speculation or surmise.’’ Althoughthe cited case involved section 7consultation, the same caution shouldbe exercised in actions under section 4,such as designating over 1,600 miles ofshoreline based on inconclusive orunavailable data.

Our Response: We disagree that thecritical habitat designation is based oninconclusive or unavailable data. TheAct requires that our decisions be basedon the best scientific and commercialinformation available. All areas chosenhave documented consistent use bypiping plovers and are limited to areaswithin the designated units thatcurrently contain the principal



biological and physical featuresessential to the piping plover. Inaddition, an estimated 32 pairs remainof the endangered Great Lakes breedingpopulation of piping plovers. Data showthat this population uses both theAtlantic and Gulf Coasts (USFWS 1999;Wemmer 2000). Additional areas arelikely used by Great Lakes pipingplovers, as most birds have not beenaccounted for in winter. Therefore,identification of essential habitat shouldnot rule out any sites where pipingplovers consistently over-winter untilthe wintering distribution of the GreatLakes population can be moreaccurately defined (USFWS 1999).Based on these numbers, as well asother supporting site data, we haveconcluded that most sites withconsistent occurrence of piping ploversshould be designated as critical habitatin order to provide for the recovery ofthe species.

Comment 7: Commenters called intoquestion our conclusion that thedesignation will not have significanttakings implications under the FifthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution.They claim the Service needs to addresstakings implications as per the SupremeCourt’s rulings in such cases as Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Commission,505 U.S. 1003 (1992); Penn CentralTransportation Company v. City of NewYork, 438 U.S. 104 (1978);.Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon260 U.S. 393 (1922); and Dolan v. Cityof Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); Nollanv. California Coastal Commission, 483U.S. 825 (1987).

Our Response: As discussed in ourresponses to economic comments, theeconomic analysis found thatdesignation of critical habitat wouldhave no significant economic effectabove that already imposed by listing.The primary effect of critical habitatdesignation on private property is toidentify areas important for theconservation of the species. In addition,if a Federal action occurs on thoseprivate lands, such as issuance of aClean Water Act section 404 permit, theFederal action agency would berequired to consult with us pursuant tosection 7 of the Act if that action mayaffect the piping plover, regardless ofwhether that habitat is officiallydesignated critical habitat. If such aFederal nexus exists, we will work withthe landowner and the appropriateFederal agency to ensure that thelandowner’s project can be completedwithout jeopardizing the species oradversely modifying critical habitat.Therefore, we do not believe thatdesignation of critical habitat will causea property owner to be deprived of such

a substantial use of the property as toamount to a Fifth Amendment taking.

Comment 8: Failure to properlyconsider the effects of the designationthrough a Takings ImplicationAssessment violates Executive Order12630.

Our Response: Executive Order 12630requires that Federal actions that mayaffect the value or use of privateproperty be accompanied by a takingsimplication assessment. For the reasonsdiscussed above, we have compliedwith the requirements of the ExecutiveOrder.

Comment 9: The RegulatoryFlexibility Act requires that agenciesconsider the effects of their actions onsmall businesses, small non-profitenterprises, and small localgovernments. If the action is expected tobe significant, an initial regulatoryflexibility analysis must be publishedwith the proposed rule. If, as the Servicedid here, the agency certifies that theproposed rulemaking is not expected tobe significant, it must publish with thecertification a statement providing afactual basis for such a conclusion.

Our Response: The RegulatoryPlanning and Review section of theproposed rule (65 FR 41794) discussedour reasons for determining that thisaction will not have significanteconomic effects on the small entitieslisted by the commenter. We believethis constitutes a statement providingthe factual basis for our determination.

Issue E: Section 7 Consultation IssuesA number of commenters, particularly

Federal agencies, expressed concerns orhad questions regarding the effects ofdesignation on the section 7consultation process.

Comment 1: An unclear andambiguous definition of whatconstitutes adverse modification ofcritical habitat will result in varyinginterpretations under section 7. TheService needs to more clearly defineadverse modification and allow reviewby Federal agencies in order to assessthe impact of designation on agencyprograms.

Our Response: Section 4(b)(8) of theAct requires that we provide, in anyproposed or final rule to designatecritical habitat, a ‘‘* * * briefdescription and evaluation of thoseactivities * * * which * * * mayadversely modify [critical] habitat, ormay be modified by such designation.’’In the proposed rule, in the sectiontitled ‘‘Effects of Critical HabitatDesignation’’ (65 FR 41792), weprovided a relatively detaileddiscussion of the types of programs thathave typically undergone section 7consultation since the species was listed

under the Act. We identified the actionagencies and programs conducting suchactions, and stated our belief thatactions likely to adversely modifycritical habitat would likely alsojeopardize the continued existence ofthe species. We then provided adiscussion of the types of activities thatwe foresee may adversely modifycritical habitat.

We acknowledge the commenter’simplication that specific standardsshould be given to properly advisecitizens and Federal agencies as to whatprograms may be affected by criticalhabitat designation, but find suchspecificity impossible given the widevariety of projects and ecologicalconditions occurring throughout thedesignation area. In addition, the factthat we expect few or no restrictions tobe imposed through the consultationprocess beyond those that have existedsince the species was listed reinforcesour belief that our discussion wasadequate to meet the requirements ofsection 4(b)(8) of the Act.

Comment 2: The Service hasrepresented that no additional impactswill result from critical habitatdesignation beyond those already inplace through the listing of the speciesand required consultation under section7 of the Act. This is premised on theargument that the prohibition ofjeopardy for listed species is nearlyidentical to the prohibition againstadverse modification of critical habitat.In addition, the commenter cites 64 FR31871–31872 as an example where theService has previously acknowledgedthat the adverse modification standard(for projects affecting critical habitat) isnot identical to the jeopardy standard(for projects affecting listed species).Finally, the Service requires that ananalysis for a critical habitatconsultation be conductedindependently from an analysis underthe jeopardy standard.

Our Response: With regard to thecommenters’ contention that we havepreviously acknowledged the differencebetween jeopardy and adversemodification, the citation provided bythe commenter is from our Notice ofIntent To Clarify the Role of Habitat inSpecies Conservation (June 14, 1999; 64FR 31871–31874). On cited page 31872,we stated ‘‘According to ourinterpretation of the regulations, bydefinition, the adverse modification ofcritical habitat consultation standard isnearly identical to the jeopardyconsultation standard.’’ We also stated‘‘For almost all species, the adversemodification and jeopardy standards arethe same * * * It should be noted thatwhile the jeopardy and adverse



modification standards achieve similarresults, the context of the analyses differi.e., jeopardy analyses examine effects tothe species while the adversemodification analyses examine effects tothe habitat that supports the species.When addressing impacts to occupiedhabitat, effects to the habitat supportingthe species will result in parallel effectsto the species. If these effects rise to thelevel of adversely modifying designatedcritical habitat, then it is anticipatedthat these effects would also besufficient to result in a jeopardydetermination. We did acknowledgethat in cases where unoccupied habitatis involved there may be additionalconsultation requirements because ofcritical habitat designation. However,we consider all designated winteringpiping plover critical habitat units to be‘‘occupied’’ in the sense that, when theprimary constituent elements arepresent during the appropriate season,those features will be used by pipingplovers at least occasionally.

Finally, the commenter is correct thatour analysis of a project’s effects oncritical habitat and the analysis for theproject’s effects on the species areconducted independently (50 CFR 402).However, this has no bearing on ourposition that the results of the twoanalyses will essentially be the sameunder the jeopardy and adversemodification standards. This has beenborne out as, after many years ofconducting section 7 consultation, therehave been no instances in recent timeswhere a project was determinedunlikely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of a species while at the sametime deemed likely to destroy oradversely modify its critical habitat.

Comment 3: The final rule shouldinclude a clause that excludespreviously authorized Federal projectareas from the definition of primaryconstituent elements. Federal agenciesare legally obligated to conduct theseactions when an agreement between theagency and non-Federal sponsors exists.These types of projects should be‘‘grandfathered’’ from the critical habitatdesignation.

Our Response: Federal actions thathave already undergone section 7consultation on the effects of the actionon piping plovers, and that weredetermined unlikely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of the species, mustundergo further consultation on theprojects’ effects to critical habitat onlyin instances—(1) where the project hasnot already been completed, and (2)where the Federal agency still has thediscretion within its legal authority tomodify the project should it bedetermined likely to adversely modifycritical habitat. Where a project has

been completed, or where the actionagency has no discretion to modify theproject, no further consultation wouldbe necessary.

In cases where a previouslyconsulted-upon action could still bemodified within the agency’s legalauthority, and where that project mayaffect critical habitat, reinitiation ofconsultation is required (50 CFR402.16). However, given that such aproject would have already received anon-jeopardy biological opinion fromus, and since actions unlikely tojeopardize the continued existence ofthe species would also usually beunlikely to adversely modify criticalhabitat, the project would likely proceedwithout additional constraints.

The Service has only had onejeopardy opinion issued for the pipingplover wintering population since itslisting in 1986. The proposed projectwas in Texas and was not undertakenfor various reasons.

Comment 4: The Service should workwith affected Federal agencies andothers whose programs depend uponFederal funding or permits to developgeneral guidelines that can be used toexpedite the consultation process. Inthis way the effects of designation willbe minimized, especially if and whenthese guidelines are incorporated intoproject designs.

Our Response: We agree with thisrecommendation and are prepared towork with local interests in developingguidelines to guide and expedite thesection 7 consultation process. Weinvite interested agencies andindividuals to contact their local Serviceoffices to begin this programmaticconsultation approach.

Comment 5: Commenters have askedhow the final designation will affectFederal and non-Federal projectscurrently under consideration forauthorization within critical habitatunits.

Our Response: All landowners, publicand private, are responsible for makingsure their actions do not result in theunauthorized taking of a listed species,regardless of whether or not the activityoccurs within designated criticalhabitat. Take is defined as ‘‘harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,capture, collect, or attempt to engage inany such conduct.’’ Take is furtherdefined by regulation to include‘‘significant habitat modification ordegradation that actually kills or injureswildlife,’’ which was upheld by the U.S.Supreme Court in Sweet Home Chapterof Communities for a Great Oregon et al.v. Babbitt, 515 U.S. 687 (1995).

All Federal agencies are responsibleto ensure that the actions they fund,permit, or carry out do not result in

jeopardizing the continued existence ofa listed species, regardless of criticalhabitat designation. ‘‘Jeopardize thecontinued existence of’’ means toengage in an action that would beexpected, directly or indirectly, toreduce appreciably the likelihood ofboth the survival and recovery of alisted species in the wild by reducingthe reproduction, numbers, ordistribution of that species (50 CFR402.02). Because we designated onlyareas within the geographic rangeoccupied by the piping plover, anyactivity that would result in an adversemodification of the plover’s criticalhabitat would virtually always alsojeopardize the continued existence ofthe species. Federal agencies mustconsult pursuant to section 7 of the Acton all activities that will adversely affectthe plover both within and outsidedesignated critical habitat.

The consultation process will changeonly to the extent that BiologicalAssessments must consider the effect ofthe project on critical habitat. However,we already need to consider the effectof the project on habitat (in the absenceof critical habitat designation) based onthe listing of the piping plover.Therefore, we anticipate that theadditional workload burden created bycritical habitat will not result indifferent outcomes of the jeopardy andadverse modification standards.

Issue F: Public Involvement/Coordination

Several commenters expressedconcerns about the adequacy of theopportunity for public input and othercoordination issues.

Comment 1: All landowners withinthe area affected by the designationshould have been notified.

Our Response: Given the wide-ranging nature of this designation, thethousands of landowners involved, andthe amount of time available tocomplete the designation due to courtorder, contacting each individuallandowner within the proposed areawas not possible. However, we wentwell beyond the general notificationrequirements of the Act and theAdministrative Procedure Act. Thisincluded notification of all State andlocal governments; mailings to over 898interested parties; publication of noticesin 23 newspapers; issuance of pressreleases for each public hearing andcomment period reopening; and otherinformational materials. Given that wereceived over 6,000 letters of commenton the proposal, we believe that weadequately publicized the proposedaction. We regret any instances where



interested parties may have beenunaware of the proposed designation,but believe these instances are few.

Comment 2: The Service is attemptingto implement critical habitat withoutgiving landowners adequate time toreview the information.

Our Response: The initial publiccomment period on this action wasopen from July 6, 2000, throughSeptember 5, 2000 (60 days). When thedraft economic analysis of the proposalwas completed, we extended thecomment period until October 30, 2000(65 FR 52691), and again untilNovember 24, 2000 (65 FR 64414), fora total extension of 80 days. Finally, wereopened the comment period for 7additional days (66 FR 11134) to acceptfurther public comment on any and allaspects of the proposal and associatedeconomic analysis. The public thereforehad 147 days of open comment periodon the proposed rule, and 87 days ofopen comment period on the drafteconomic analysis. The Act requiresthat a minimum of 60 days be allowedfor comment on a critical habitatproposal. Thus, we exceeded thestatutory requirement.

Comment 3: Some commenters feltthat there were too few public hearingsheld, some questioned the geographicdistribution of the hearing sites, andsome were concerned that the hearingswere poorly publicized or that too shorta notice was given.

Our Response: The Act requires thatat least one public hearing be held ona proposed designation of criticalhabitat if requested within 45 days ofpublication of a proposed rule. Asdescribed previously, in anticipation ofthe public’s interest in the proposeddesignation we announced in theproposal that we would hold 9 publichearings. We added a tenth publichearing, that we announced in theFederal Register and local newspapers(for a complete discussion on the publichearings and our efforts at publicizingthem please see the beginning of this‘‘Summary of Comments andRecommendations’’ section). While wewould have preferred to conduct morepublic hearings, budgetary, workforce,and time constraints prohibited us fromdoing so. Nonetheless, we far exceededthe requirement that one public hearingbe held if requested. Further, given thelarge geographic distribution ofwintering piping plovers and theresulting large area proposed as criticalhabitat, we chose our hearing locationsto spread the sites as evenly as possiblethroughout the eight affected States.Once requested, four additional publicmeetings were held after the initialpublic meetings and hearings.

We disagree that the public hearingswere poorly publicized, as weconducted extensive outreach prior tothe hearing (see the discussion in F.1).We acknowledge, however, thatnotification of the Wilmington, NorthCarolina, and Savannah, Georgia,hearings was less than desired.Regulations (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3))require 15 days notification prior topublic hearings being held, but theWilmington and Savannah hearingswere publicized only 11 and 13 days,respectively, before they were held.While we regret this short notification,since only one hearing is required tomeet our statutory obligations under theAct, we did not violate our regulatoryrequirements.

Finally, it is important to note that apublic hearing is one part of the publicparticipation opportunities providedunder the Act and AdministrativeProcedure Act. Written commentsreceive equal consideration as oralcomments, and we far exceeded thepublic comment period requirements inallowing ample time for submission ofwritten comments. In addition, we wereordered by the court to complete theproposed and final designation in a 10-month period. Thus we could not haveextended the comment period anylonger and met the court deadline ofApril 30, 2001.

Comment 4: The proposed rule doesnot describe the type and level ofcoordination that has occurred withState wildlife agencies; their viewsshould have been included in theproposal.

Our Response: We have longrecognized the roles of States inmanagement of listed species and theirhabitats, and coordinate with States tothe extent practicable. The Act at(4)(b)(5)(A)(ii)) requires that States begiven notification of, and opportunity tocomment on, proposed listing actions.However, we generally coordinate withStates during the proposal developmentprocess, as we did here.

Our biologists coordinated with theappropriate State agencies from all eightaffected States in developing pipingplover distribution information alongthe coast by meeting with thempersonally and soliciting their inputprior to the proposed rule and/or duringthe comment periods. We incorporatedtheir input and expertise into theproposed and final rules.

Comment 5: Why were persons withknown experience in piping plovers notcontacted for information prior topublication of the proposed rule? As aresult of the Service’s failure to seeklocal expertise, important areas were leftout of the designation.

Our Response: It is our judgement thatinformation collected pre-proposal wassufficient for a thorough andcomprehensive designation to supportall three populations of piping ploverswhen recovered. Areas outside thecritical habitat designation willcontinue to be subject to conservationactions that may be implemented undersection 7(a)(1) and to the regulatoryprotections afforded by the section7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and thesection 9 take prohibitions, asdetermined on the basis of the bestavailable information at the time of theaction. In developing the proposed andfinal rules, we coordinated withbiologists in the appropriate Stateagencies from the eight affected States(see response to F.4).

Issue G: Mapping and PrimaryConstituent Elements

A number of commenters expressedconcerns about map quality, the broadextent of the designation, the definitionof the primary constituent elements, andother issues surrounding spatial aspectsof the designation.

Comment 1: The critical habitat unitsare non-specific in that they includelands that do not contain the primaryconstituent elements. This will result inunnecessary section 7 consultations andadd an unnecessary administrativeburden to government agencies andprivate entities included within themapped boundaries.

Our Response: While it would beideal if we could map only areas thatcurrently contain the primaryconstituent elements, there are threeprimary reasons why we were unable todo so. First, we are unaware of theexistence of sufficient data with whichto conduct the precise mappingrequested by the commenters. Second,even if the data were available, the largeextent of the species’ range wouldrender such fine-scale mappingimpractical, especially given workforceand time limitations. Most importantly,the coastal areas inhabited by the pipingplover are so highly dynamic that anymap of currently suitable habitat wouldrapidly become obsolete.

For the reasons cited above, wemapped the critical habitat boundarieson a relatively coarse scale, andidentified the areas within thoseboundaries that are essential to thespecies by describing those habitatfeatures (primary constituent elements)essential to the plover’s life-historyrequirements. In this way, criticalhabitat designation will accommodatethe dynamic nature of the habitat,changing through time as the primaryconstituent elements form in one areawhile disappearing in another. We



believe that this approach is the onlyscientifically credible way to ensure thatthe critical habitat designation iscompatible with the species’ habitats’naturally ephemeral character. Assuggested by one commenter, to ensurethat interested persons understand thatcritical habitat is found only in areaswhere the primary constituent elementsare present, our final critical habitatmaps are footnoted to that effect. Thisis consistent with our regulations at 50CFR 17.94(c), that indicate themanagement of critical habitat focusesonly on the biological or physicalconstituent elements within the definedarea of critical habitat.

Finally, as stated in both the proposedand final rules, section 7 consultationon piping plover critical habitat willonly be required when a proposedFederal action may affect the primaryconstituent elements. Thus, noconsultation will be necessary if thosehabitat features are not present, sinceconsultation is triggered by adetermination on the part of the Federalaction agency that their proposedactivity may affect piping plovers ortheir critical habitat. Our EcologicalServices Field Offices (see contactinformation under ‘‘Effects of CriticalHabitat Designation’’ section) willgladly work with Federal agencies andlandowners to help determine whetherpiping plover habitat occurs on theirproperty.

Comment 2: Including an area ascritical habitat because it may supportthe primary constituent elements in thefuture violates the criteria specified inregulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b). Thisapproach also circumvents therulemaking requirements under the Actand the Administrative Procedure Act.

Our Response: The referencedregulation speaks to the definition of theprimary constituent elements and liststhe types of life-history requirementsthat may be included in critical habitat.One of those life-history requirements is‘‘(1) Space for individual andpopulation growth, and for normalbehavior.’’ We believe the designationreflects this life-history requirement, inthat critical habitat units weredeveloped to take into account theshifting nature of primary constituentelements in coastal systems. That iscompatible with piping plovers’ normalbehavior of shifting use areas based ontide, weather, food supply, etc. (Drake1999a). Thus, we believe thedesignation accurately reflects the intentof 50 CFR 424.12(b).

We also dispute the contention thatthis approach violates the rulemakingrequirements of the Act orAdministrative Procedure Act. The

proposed rule and this final rule notifythe affected public of the boundaries ofthe critical habitat designation and ofthe fact that the essential physical andbiological features important to thepiping plover are dependent upon adynamic coastal system that changesthrough time. As explained above andthroughout the proposed and final rules,we can think of no other approachconsistent with the dynamic nature ofthe species’ habitat.

Comment 3: Regulations at 50 CFR17.94(c) state that the Service mustfocus on the biological or physicalelements within the critical habitat areathat are essential to the conservation ofthe species and that are known torequire special managementconsiderations or protection.Designation of such broad geographicalareas expands the ‘‘best availableinformation’’ requirement to rendermoot the fact that the data must be‘‘available’’ and the presence ofconstituent elements ‘‘known’’.

Our Response: Regulations at 50 CFR17.94(c) require that those constituentelements ‘‘known to require specialmanagement considerations orprotection’’ be listed with thedescription of critical habitat. As statedin our response to G.2, critical habitatunits were developed to take intoaccount the shifting nature of primaryconstituent elements. We believe wehave used the best information availableand made a biologically sounddesignation based on the ephemeralnature of piping plover habitat.

Comment 4: Additional explanationof what constitutes the primaryconstituent elements would aid thegeneral public in recognizing thespecies’ critical habitat.

Our Response: We believe the primaryconstituent elements were well-described in the proposed rule. Further,we received information from state andcounty biologists who have documentedthe use of salterns (also called salinas,salt flats, salt barrens, and salt pans) bypiping plovers in southwest Florida.They are bare sand flats in the center ofmangrove ecosystems that are foundabove mean high water and are onlyirregularly flushed with sea water(Myers and Ewel 1990). We have addedthe term ‘‘salterns’’ to the description ofprimary constituent elements.

Comment 5: Critical habitat unitsshould be mapped in sufficient detail toexclude developed areas. Merelyexcluding these areas verbally isinadequate.

Our Response: In the final rule weexcluded a number of larger developedareas from the mapped units. We didthis to the extent practicable given the

available information and time tocomplete the mapping effort. We couldnot exclude every structure, road, orother feature from the critical habitatboundaries. However, these areas arenot included by definition.

Comment 6: The designation shouldbe revised to exclude developed andother areas that do not currently containthe primary constituent elements. Byincluding non-habitat areas within thedesignation, the Service will not be ableto distinguish which areas are habitat,and merit protection, and those areasthat do not support plovers. This mayresult in adverse activities proceedingbecause the Service will not be able todistinguish between those areasadversely affected before thedesignation from those occurring afterthe designation.

Our Response: We believe we canassess whether an action area is habitatfor piping plovers, much as we havedone over the 15 years that the specieshas been listed. We will use aerialphotographs and local records todetermine the extent of development atthe time of this critical habitatdesignation. When an action agency iscontemplating an action, it is up to thatagency to determine whether or not thataction may affect a listed species or itscritical habitat. If the agency determinesits action may affect a listed species’habitat, it then initiates section 7consultation. We then evaluate theeffects of the action on the species or itscritical habitat.

Comment 7: The Service shouldclarify that not all human-madestructures are excluded from criticalhabitat. Some areas, such as renourishedbeaches, may benefit plovers if donecorrectly.

Our Response: We agree that not allhuman-made structures are excludedfrom critical habitat. Only those areas(whether human-made or natural)containing the primary constituentelements are considered critical habitat.We agree that beach renourishment is anexample of human-made habitat thatmay benefit piping plovers. Habitatrestoration and creation projectsincluding beach nourishment, barrierisland restoration, and islands createdusing dredged material may benefitplovers and such sites have beenincluded in the critical habitatdesignation.

Comment 8: Areas should not beexcluded from critical habitat merelybecause they are ‘‘developed sites.’’ Justbecause an area is already degradeddoes not preclude its designation if it isessential to the species’ recovery.

Our Response: The proposeddesignation constitutes our assessment



of the wintering habitat needed tosupport a recovered piping ploverpopulation. In arriving at thisdesignation we included areas that havedocumented consistent use. We mappedaround developments adjacent to ordirectly on the beaches and onlyexcluded developments that do notcontain any primary constituentelements. For example, Grand Isle is abarrier island in Louisiana that is highlydeveloped. Christmas bird count dataindicate consistent use by plovers. Weonly mapped from the hurricaneprotection levee gulfward. Thedeveloped areas are currently from thelevee landward.

Comment 9: One commentersuggested we add such terms as‘‘bridges, piers, and aids to navigation’’to the list of ‘‘developed sites.’’

Our Response: We elected not to listevery conceivable type of ‘‘developedsite’’ because such a list would beextensive and we would risk leaving outsome type of development. Thus webelieve that the appropriate course is toremain fairly general on this issue andallow the Federal action agencies theflexibility to determine which areas door do not contain the primaryconstituent elements.

Comment 10: In the text of the rule,the Service excludes areas from criticalhabitat that do not contain the primaryconstituent elements, but fails to do soin the language amending 50 CFR 17.95.

Our Response: This assertion isincorrect, as the discussion on non-inclusion of non-suitable areas is givenat the end of the regulatory section ofthe proposed rule (see 65 FR 41812),after the legal descriptions for the Texasunits. However, in order to make thislanguage more obvious and so that itclearly pertains to the entiredesignation, we have moved thisdiscussion to the beginning of theregulatory portion of this final rule.

Comment 11: Verbally excludingareas from critical habitat is counter toregulations at 50 CFR 17.94(a), thatrequire that critical habitat areas bedefined by surveyable landmarks foundon standard topographic maps of thearea.

Our Response: This commenter islikely referring to 50 CFR 17.94(b),which states that critical habitats aredescribed by reference to surveyablelandmarks found on standardtopographic maps of the area. As statedabove and elsewhere in this final rule,piping plover habitat is composed ofhighly dynamic areas that can changequite rapidly, and are thus by theirnature ephemeral. Thus, we defined thecritical habitat boundaries textuallyusing visual references found on Digital

Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQs)(i.e., digital aerial photography) andreference locations found on publishedmaps. For the piping plover designation,we believe that textual unitdescriptions, as described in the‘‘Methods’’ section of this rule, willprovide for a more precise means ofdefining the areas that contain thephysical and biological featuresessential to the wintering piping ploverand will allow the public to betterdetermine the critical habitatboundaries. The textual unitdescriptions allow us to capture thedynamic nature of the coastal habitat bydescribing each unit as including thearea extending out from the landwardboundaries to the MLLW. In this waywe can include in the designationintertidal areas that are essentialforaging areas for piping plovers. Ourtextual unit descriptions may alsodescribe important areas within the unitthat are utilized by the piping plover,such as wind-tidal flats, and areas thatcontain the primary constituentelements.

Comment 12: One commentersuggested that the critical habitatboundaries not be fixed, but rather beflexible so as to take into account theever-changing nature of the coastal areasand account for shifts in the locations ofimportant piping plover habitat features.

Our Response: As stated anddescribed in the ‘‘Methods’’ section ofthis final rule, we believe the neededflexibility is provided in the textual unitby unit descriptions that account for thedynamic nature of plover habitat. Theseunit descriptions are being published inthe regulatory section of this rule as thedefinitive source for determining thecritical habitat boundaries. Werecognize that important plover habitatmay form over time in areas outside thedesignated boundaries and if it isdetermined to be warranted, the criticalhabitat designation could be revisedthrough the rulemaking process in thefuture.

Comment 13: Some commentersexpressed concern that the UniversalTransverse Mercator System (UTM)coordinates published in the proposedrule resulted in boundaries that were inerror. The final rule should be writtento ensure that the UTM coordinates areconsistent with the written descriptionsof the critical habitat units.

Our Response: The coordinates wereported were generated by theGeographic Information System (GIS)software that was used to create theunits. A GIS is a mapping software thatlinks information about where thingsare with information about the area.Unlike a paper map, a GIS map can

combine many layers of information andtools to analyze that information. Thecoordinates printed in the FederalRegister were created from the text filesthat were generated from the GIS.During this process potential errors mayhave occurred due to the interpretiveprocess of the coordinates. One knownerror was the reporting of Floridacoordinates. We reported Floridacoordinates to be UTM coordinates,when in actuality they were the mapprojection coordinates used within theState of Florida (Albers projection).

Another error was identified after theunit coordinates were published. Thiserror occurred in the North Carolinadata. The datum of the source imageryDOQQs (i.e., digital aerial photography)we obtained was reported inaccurately.The imagery was reported as NorthAmerican Datum 1927 (NAD27), whenit was actually North American Datum1983 (NAD83). By utilizing the on-the-fly projection capability of the GISsoftware, the data was projected toNAD27 and all line work was digitized.This introduced an error in the data thatshifted the features up to 500 meters.We have resolved this problem in thisfinal rule. As noted within this rule, ourtextual unit descriptions are thedefinitive source for determining thelegal boundaries of the critical habitatdesignation. Thus, we will not bepublishing UTMs or Latitude Longitudecoordinates as part of this final rule.

Comment 14: Some commenterspointed out that there were variouserrors in the legal descriptions. Forexample, the legal description for unitFL–27, when plotted, did not match theFederal Register maps. As such,landowners within erroneouslydescribed units were not properlynotified of the designation, and criticalhabitat should therefore be re-proposed.

Our Response: See response to G.13.Due to an inadvertent error, the detailedmaps we made were not published inthe proposed rule; only the index mapswere published. However, verbal unitdescriptions were published, as well aswho to contact for more information.Detailed maps were available to thepublic on the web at http://southeast.fws.gov. Legal notices werepublished in major newspapersannouncing the public hearings andincluded contact information and thewebsite address. In addition, site-specific maps were available at thepublic hearings. Thus, we believe thatthe public had ample opportunity todetermine whether an area wasincluded in the designation, based onthe verbal unit descriptions, and tocomment on the proposal.



Comment 15: The maps in theproposed rule were of insufficient detailfor landowners to determine whethertheir property is within the criticalhabitat boundaries. The final mapsshould correct this.

Our Response: We acknowledge thatthere was a problem with the maps aspublished in the proposed rule.Through an inadvertent error, the moredetailed maps provided for publicationwere not included in the proposed rule.However, due to Federal Registerconstraints of page size, even moredetailed maps may not provide enoughresolution to allow some individuallandowners the ability to determinewhether their property is in or out of acritical habitat unit. Thus, the mapspublished in the Federal Register areintended for general guidance only,while the textual unit descriptionsshould be used for definitivedeterminations.

Comment 16: It is difficult todetermine from the maps publishedwith the proposed rule the exactboundaries of the critical habitat units.In some areas it appears that highwayswere used as boundaries, and it isdifficult to tell whether highway rights-of-way are within the critical habitatunits. The final rule should explicitlyexclude highway rights-of-way.

Our Response: We did not explicitlyexclude highway rights-of-way in thisfinal designation, because some rights-of-way containing the primaryconstituent elements may be essential topiping plover conservation. Unit mapboundary lines as printed in the FederalRegister cannot be used to determinewhether a project would be affecting thespecies or adversely modifying itscritical habitat. The textual unitdescriptions should be used fordefinitive determinations as to whetheran area is within the designated criticalhabitat boundary. Federal agencies willneed to determine whether actions theyfund, authorize, or carry out may affectwintering piping plovers or their criticalhabitat.

Comment 17: Only the 86 percent ofthe proposal that is public land shouldbe designated.

Our Response: In selecting areas topropose as critical habitat, we did notconsider land ownership per se, butrather selected areas based on whetheror not they were essential as indicatedby recorded consistent plover use orareas where the habitat conditionsindicated probable use by plovers. Areasfor which habitat conditions indicatedprobable plover use in Louisiana, wereconfirmed for occupancy this winter.

The Act does not allow exclusion ofareas based on land ownership unlesswe determine under section 4(b)(2) of

the Act that the benefits of excluding anarea from the designation outweigh thebenefits of including the area as criticalhabitat. See the Exclusions Under4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this rulefor a further discussion of this issue.

Comment 18: The proposed ruleincorrectly characterized Unit TX–34 ascomprising almost entirely State-ownedlands. In fact, the gulf beach is privatelyowned to the mean high-tide line, andthe proposed area includes upland areasthat are privately owned. Further, thearea on the southernmost end ofGalveston Island includes 300 acres ofprivately owned land, that wereinaccurately portrayed on the map. Themap of Unit TX–34 is woefullyoutdated.

Our Response: As described in theproposed rule, Unit TX–34 includes gulfbeach and sand flats that belong to theState of Texas, and of which 57% is inthe floodtide delta. The area isdescribed as only including the delta tothe northwest of the causeway, and thebeach to the northeast of the causeway.Both sides of the San Luis Passexperience extremely high levels oferosion averaging 10.2 m (33.8 ft) peryear on the Galveston Island side, and18 m (60.1 ft) per year on the Follet’sIsland side (Morton 1989). As a result,maps of this dynamic area are out ofdate before they are published. We havedescribed the area in narrative form, andmapped the area using aerialphotography dated 1995.

Comment 19: Latitude and longitudeinformation should be given to facilitateinclusion in the GIS of Federal, State,and local agencies.

Our Response: Because the sourcedata DOQQs imagery used to mapcritical habitat were projected, we choseto report the legal descriptions in theproposed rule in projected values andnot latitude and longitude. We believedthat this methodology will facilitateoverlaying the data in any GIS with thesource imagery. However, in this finalrule the definitive source fordetermining the precise legalboundaries of the designation are thetextual unit descriptions.

Issue H: Best Information/ScienceA number of commenters questioned

the accuracy of the information onwhich the proposal was based andwhether or not we used the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable.

Comment 1: The Service shouldfollow the scientific decision-makingprocess used for all Federal water andrelated land resource studies. Thisrequires six significant steps-(1) identifyand inventory problems andopportunities; (2) inventory and forecast

conditions; (3) formulate alternativeplans; (4) evaluate alternative plans; (5)compare alternative plans; (6) select aplan. The proposal does not explainhow the Service went through thisprocess.

Our Response: Please see our‘‘Methods’’ discussions in the proposedand final rules, that explain the processwe went through in arriving at this finaldesignation. Although the process doesnot precisely mirror the one suggestedby the commenter, we believe that ourapproach was a logical and rationalapproach to meeting the mandates of theAct. The Act requires that our decisionsbe based on the best scientific andcommercial information available, anddoes not require ‘‘reasonable scientificcertainty.’’

Comment 2: The proposal providesvery limited information on the criteriaand data used to determine the areasproposed as critical habitat. Forexample, there was no discussion of thedata upon which the Service relied inconcluding that the proposed areascontain the primary constituentelements, particularly in areas whereplovers have not been recorded. Moresupporting data should be provided.

Our Response: We refer you to the‘‘Methods’’ sections of the proposed andfinal rules. In those discussions, weprovide information on the dataconsidered throughout this process.While those discussions onlysummarize the data used, we welcomeinterested individuals to contact us ifthey wish to review the detailedsupporting information in our files.Additional survey data this winterconfirmed that all units are occupied.

The only areas included in theproposed rule that did not have surveydata showing that they are used byplovers were the Mississippi River andthe Wax Lake Outlet Deltas. Weincluded those areas because of the highprobability of use by plovers due to thebroad expanse of mudflats known toexist in the river deltas. Those areas areremote and difficult to access and thushad not been surveyed. We havesurveyed these areas since the proposedrule (Mississippi River Delta inDecember 2000, and the Wax LakeOutlet Delta during the FebruaryInternational Piping Plover Survey).Forty plovers were found on a few smalldredged material islands in theMississippi River Delta, none werefound in the Wax Lake Outlet Delta.Those areas of the Mississippi Deltawhere no plovers were observed werenot included and the entire Wax LakeOutlet Delta was likewise not includedin the final rule. Additionally, duringthe International Census in February



2001, 40 piping plovers were observedon the same dredged material islands inthe Mississippi River Delta. Althoughwe do not have data to document use ofthese areas from previous winteringseasons, based on studies indicating thatplovers exhibit a certain amount of sitefidelity (see our response to CommentA.11 above), and the large numbers ofplovers observed at these sites, we haveincluded these areas in the designationbecause of the virtual certainty that theyare consistently used. As we havestated, this designation is based on thebest scientific and commercialinformation available, as required by theAct. We welcome any additional data onthe piping plover and its habitat.

Comment 3: Critical habitat should bedesignated only in areas where thespecies is present. Some areas have beenproposed where there are no data toshow that the piping plover occursthere.

Our Response: In the proposed rule,we acknowledged that ‘‘In some areas,adequate census data are not availableto provide reliable presence or absenceinformation for the plover. These areasare in remote locations where censusesare logistically difficult. However, thephysical and biological featuresessential to piping plovers are known tobe at least sporadically present in thesedynamic areas, and our belief that theseareas support piping plovers whenessential habitat features are present isbiologically sound’’ (65 FR 41785).

The only areas included in theproposed rule that did not have data onpiping plover presence were theMississippi River and the Wax LakeOutlet Deltas. These areas weresurveyed twice since the proposed rule.For the final rule, we have includedthose areas that contain piping ploverhabitat and for which we haddocumented use by piping plovers. Seeresponse to H.2.

Comment 4: The Service shouldprovide the population data upon whichthis proposal is based. The Serviceshould also census each proposed areaand designate only those areas withhigh plover concentrations as criticalhabitat.

Our Response: As stated in theproposed rule, the data upon which thedesignation is based are available bycontacting our Corpus Christi, Texas,Ecological Services Field Office (seeADDRESSES section). Inclusion of all thesurvey data in the proposed or finalrules would be impracticable.

We agree that areas of high ploverconcentrations indicate that the areasare important to wintering pipingplovers. But areas with low, yetconsistent numbers are also important.This is true particularly for the

endangered Great Lakes population.This population has approximately 32pairs remaining, which winter inlocations throughout the southeast,thereby making each critical habitat unitimportant to the survival and recoveryof that endangered population. Ploveruse patterns may shift through time,both within and among seasons andyears.

Comment 5: The designation shouldbe delayed until plover activity isstudied in detail.

Our Response: In this case, the courtdetermined that we had failed to abideby the requirements of the Act fordesignating critical habitat whenprudent and determinable and orderedus to complete the critical habitatdetermination. We did so using the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable, as required by the Act(4(b)(2)). While it is always preferable tohave more information on virtuallyevery listed species, the Act does notallow for indefinite delays until suchinformation is acquired. Nonetheless,we will continue to use the bestinformation available as we continuethe species’ recovery process, and mayrevise the critical habitat designation inthe future if appropriate and necessary.

Comment 6: Has the Serviceconsidered less drastic alternatives suchas designating only preserved areas orless developed areas, and regulatingonly those activities that aretroublesome to the plover?

Our Response: As described in boththe proposed and final rules, the intentof the critical habitat designation is toinclude all areas believed essential forthe species’ conservation, whichincludes its recovery. It is our biologicalconclusion that merely designating‘‘preserved’’ areas or areas not subject tohabitat threats would not be sufficient toprovide for the species’ eventualrecovery. We did, however, avoid anumber of developed areas within therange of the plover, designating onlythose areas we believe necessary for thespecies’ conservation.

As to the regulatory effects of thedesignation, we will only formallyreview actions under section 7consultation when Federal actions arelikely to adversely affect the species orits habitat. In these cases werecommend that consultation beconducted regardless of whether thehabitat is officially designated ascritical. As indicated in the FinalEconomic Analysis, we believe thatlittle if any incremental regulatory oreconomic effects above the listing willresult from this designation.

Comment 7: Based on populationnumbers and the proposed acreage, theService has allotted 600 acres per bird.

Why does a 6-inch tall, 2-ounce birdneed so much habitat?

Our Response: The actual area ofcritical habitat, as defined by theprimary constituent elements, isconsiderably less than the coarseacreage included within the proposedboundaries. Critical habitat isdesignated to identify areas essential tothe conservation of the species,including identifying sufficient habitatto achieve recovery. Further, winteringpiping plovers do not simply ‘‘occupy’’a certain static location, but rather movethroughout an area as its needs (e.g.,foraging, roosting, refuge from highwinds or severe storms) change fromday to day and over time as a result ofthe tides, weather, and other factors.

Issue I: Definition of Critical Habitat

Numerous commenters expressedconcerns that the areas designated wereeither not essential to the conservationof the species, not in need of specialmanagement considerations orprotection, or otherwise inconsistentwith the statutory requirements forselecting areas to designate as criticalhabitat.

Comment 1: Why is critical habitatbeing designated in otherwise protectedareas, such as State lands, nationalseashores, refuges, or parks? Managersshould have the opportunity toimplement management actions thatwould avoid the additional regulatoryburden of critical habitat designation.

Our Response: As implied by thiscommenter, areas not in need of specialmanagement do not meet the definitionof critical habitat and are therefore notincluded in a critical habitatdesignation. We use the following threecriteria to determine if a managementplan provides adequate specialmanagement or protection: (1) A currentplan/agreement must be complete andprovide sufficient conservation benefitspecific to the species; (2) the plan mustprovide assurances that theconservation management strategies willbe implemented; and (3) the plan mustprovide assurances that theconservation management strategies willbe effective, i.e., provide for periodicmonitoring and revisions as necessary.If all of these criteria are met, then thelands covered under the plan would nolonger meet the definition of criticalhabitat.

Given the amount of time allowed toprepare the proposed designation, thewide distribution of wintering pipingplovers, and the myriad of landownersand land managers within the species’range, we were unable to do a



comprehensive evaluation of allmanagement plans that couldpotentially meet the criteria listedabove. Although we did identify areasthat have the potential for having amanagement plan, primarily Federallands, and evaluated those plans if onewas completed for the area. In theproposed rule we also solicitedinformation on reasons why any areashould or should not be consideredcritical habitat (65 FR 41793). Theensuing public comments includedseveral instances where commentersbelieved certain areas are currentlymanaged compatibly with the speciesand should therefore be excluded fromthe final designation. Those suggestionsare addressed under the ‘‘Site-specificComments’’ portion of this ‘‘Summaryof Comments and Recommendations’’section. We received no informationthat indicated that any of the publicland management plans met our threecriteria; therefore, no lands wereexcluded based on ‘‘not [being] in needof special management protection.’’ Wedid, however, exclude the Padre IslandNational Seashore based on section4(b)(2) of the Act. Please refer to the‘‘Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of the Act’’section of this rule.

We also note that we encouragemanagement plans compatible with theconservation of threatened andendangered species, and that criticalhabitat designation neither discouragessuch voluntary actions nor addssignificant regulatory burden.Management that does not adverselyaffect listed species or their criticalhabitat is not required to undergo formalsection 7 consultation.

Comment 2: The piping ploveralready receives substantial protections,such as under sections 7 and 9 of theAct. Why is additional protectionnecessary? The Service has repeatedlyclaimed that they expect no adverseeconomic impacts beyond thoseattributable to listing. If this is so, whynot abandon this designation? Whysubject landowners to uncertainty andadditional bureaucracy?

Our Response: We agree thatprotections afforded listed speciesunder sections 7 and 9 are substantial,and that critical habitat designationusually adds only marginal protectionsabove those already afforded listedspecies. Under section 7, Federalagencies are required to utilize theirauthorities to further the conservation ofspecies and the ecosystems upon whichthey depend. Federal agencies areprohibited from implementing actionslikely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of a species or to destroy oradversely modify a listed species’

designated critical habitat. Regulationsimplementing the requirements ofsection 7 (50 CFR 402.02) define‘‘jeopardize the continued existence’’ (ofa species) and ‘‘destruction or adversemodification’’ (of critical habitat) sosimilarly that the two prohibitions arenearly identical, thus resulting in littleadditional protection through criticalhabitat designation.

Section 9 of the Act also providessubstantial protection to listed speciesby prohibiting any person (as opposedto section 7 that involves only Federalagencies) from such activities as takinglisted species without proper permits, aswell as controlling transportation,selling, and importing or exportinglisted species. Critical habitat is notprotected under section 9, so no effecton strictly non-Federal activities areadded through critical habitatdesignation.

Despite the little additional regulatorybenefit critical habitat may providelisted species, section 4(a)(3) of the Actrequires that critical habitat bedesignated for species listed asthreatened or endangered unless suchdesignation would not be prudent.Further, we believe designation ofcritical habitat for wintering pipingplovers may be of some benefit. Acritical habitat designation benefitsspecies conservation by identifyingimportant areas and by describing thefeatures within those areas that areessential to conservation of the species,and alerting public and private entitiesto the areas’ importance. Although thedesignation of critical habitat does not,in and of itself, restrict human activitieswithin an area or mandate any specificmanagement or recovery actions, it doeshelp focus Federal, State, and privateconservation and management efforts insuch areas. Designating critical habitatmay also provide some educational orinformational benefits.

Comment 3: When the Service listedthe piping plover in the 1980’s it did notdesignate critical habitat because it wasbelieved unnecessary. Somecommenters questioned why we nowbelieve critical habitat designation isprudent.

Our Response: Section 4(a)(3) of theAct states that when a species is addedto the endangered species list, we mustdesignate critical habitat to themaximum extent prudent anddeterminable. The 1985 final listing rulefor the piping plover did not include acritical habitat designation, not becauseit was unnecessary, but because it wasnot determinable and so it was deferredfor one year. We did not make aprudency determination or designatecritical habitat by the end of that year.

Because of this omission, in December1996, Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders)filed a lawsuit against the Department ofthe Interior and the Service for failing todesignate critical habitat for the pipingplover. As a result of the lawsuit, thecourt ordered us to publish a proposedcritical habitat designation for thepiping plover in the breeding area in theGreat Lakes by June 30, 2000, with afinal rule by April 30, 2001. We werealso ordered to designate critical habitatfor the Great Plains population by May31, 2001, with a final rule by March 15,2002. We have no evidence ofvandalism or other threats that mayoccur based on disclosing the locationof this species. Thus, we determinedthat the appropriate course of actionwould be to propose critical habitat forall US wintering piping plovers on thesame schedule required, under courtorder, for the Great Lakes breedingpopulation.

Comment 4: The Service hasdisregarded the prohibitions in section3(5)(C) of the Act against designating theentire geographical area that could beoccupied by the piping plover.

Our Response: We did not designatethe entire geographical area that can beoccupied by wintering piping plovers.In fact, the censuses upon which webased our initial identification ofpotential critical habitat areas havedetected less than half the piping plovernumbers known from their breedingareas. One may infer that at least somepiping plovers winter in areas otherthan those designated as critical habitat.Areas that were not included in criticalhabitat include many sites whereplovers have been documented at leastonce, but records do not indicate aconsistent use. For example, in Floridawe did not include the South tip ofAmelia Island, Nassau County; highmarsh and salt pans of Charlotte HarborState Buffer Preserve, Charlotte County;and Passage Key National WildlifeRefuge, Manatee County. Additionalsites are listed in Comments B.2 andB.3. A piping plover may be observed atany given time at any location along theGulf and Atlantic coasts. We includedin this designation only the areasessential for the conservation andrecovery of the species as supported byconsistent use by piping plovers.

Comment 5: Critical habitat forwintering piping plovers is notdeterminable because their biologicalneeds are not sufficiently well known.Recovery plans for the speciesrecommend significant research onwintering plovers; without suchinformation it cannot be determinedwith reasonable scientific certaintywhich areas are essential to the species.



Our Response: We are required todesignate critical habitat for species atthe time they are listed under the Act tothe extent prudent and determinableunder section 4(a)(3). Regulationsimplementing the listing provisions ofthe Act state that critical habitat is notdeterminable when the biological needsof the species are not sufficiently wellknown to permit identification of anarea as critical habitat (50 CFR424.12(a)(2)(ii)). In cases where criticalhabitat is not determinable theregulations allow only a one-yearextension. At the end of the extensioncritical habitat must be designated basedon such data available at that time (50CFR 424.17(b)(2)).

It has been over 15 years since thepiping plover was listed under the Act,and a great deal of information hasbecome available since the listingoccurred. While we agree that moreinformation would be preferable, we donot believe further delays in making thisdesignation would be legally defensibleunder the statute and its regulations. Inaddition, the Act requires that ourdecisions be based on the best scientificand commercial information available,and does not require ‘‘reasonablescientific certainty.’’

Comment 6: A conclusion that areasidentified during population surveys areessential to the plover population isspeculative. Because a plover wassighted in an area does not make thearea essential to the species’conservation.

Our Response: We agree that the meresighting of one or more individuals of aspecies does not necessarily mean thearea of the sighting is essential to thespecies’ conservation. In fact, for mostspecies it is difficult to know withcertainty that a particular area isessential to its conservation. However,the Act clearly requires that we makesuch judgements based on the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable. The census data tell us thatplovers occur in an area, from which wecan infer that the animal derives someuseful life-history benefit. We believethese occurrence data constitute the bestavailable information upon which tobase this designation. We also note thatthe commenter did not suggest analternative approach to arriving at abiologically sound critical habitatdesignation. Other research has shownwhat type of habitat features arenecessary to provide for the life-cycleneeds of the species. Together, thisinformation suggests to us which areasare essential for the conservation of thespecies.

Comment 7: Critical habitat shouldinclude only the minimum amount of

habitat needed to avoid short-termjeopardy or habitat in need ofimmediate intervention.

Our Response: We disagree. The Actrequires that areas designated as criticalhabitat be essential to the conservationof the species. The term ‘‘conservation’’is defined as ‘‘* * * the use of allmethods and procedures necessary tobring any [listed] species to the point atwhich measures provided pursuant tothis Act are no longer necessary * * *’’(i.e., the species is recovered andeligible for removal from the list ofthreatened and endangered species).Since the stated purpose of the Actincludes ‘‘* * * to provide a programfor the conservation of such endangeredspecies and threatened species * * *’’,it is clear that Congress intended theprovisions of the Act to be used for suchconservation purposes rather than asstop-gap measures to prevent extinction.

Comment 8: The proposal contains686 miles of privately owned shoreline.The Service justifies this by stating thatshoreline development poses the biggestthreat to plover habitat, especially alongthe Texas Coast. However, theregulatory basis for designation shouldbe the evaluation of the habitat ratherthan the potential for development.

Our Response: As discussed above,the critical habitat designation is basedon an evaluation of habitat and thesurvey data on piping plovers. Thiscritical habitat designation for thewintering population of the pipingplover includes areas that we knowcurrently support the species. Areasdescribed in the approved recoveryplans (USFWS 1988, 1996) as essentialto the conservation of the winteringpopulation of the piping plover arebeing designated as critical habitat, ifrecent data support consistent use andthe habitat remains suitable.

Comment 9: The Service designatedareas that are inhabited by people andwhere plovers and people co-exist.Therefore critical habitat is unnecessary.

Our Response: We agree that pipingplovers and people can co-exist inwintering areas. However, as explainedin this final rule, critical habitat is notconsidered to be an optional process,and the fact that people use areas usedby plovers does not provide sufficientjustification for not designating criticalhabitat. We believe that the effect onplovers of normal human presence intheir wintering habitat does not haveserious consequences to the plover atthe population level. See our responseto Issue A.15 above.

Issue J: Effects of DesignationThese comments involve issues

related to the effects of designation on

land management and habitat-modifyingactivities within the designated areas.

Comment 1: How will the proposeddesignation impact the future of PackeryChannel? Will it have a minimal effectas discussed, or will it cause thePackery Channel opening to be shutdown completely?

Our Response: We completed aBiological Opinion (BO) on August 1,1994, for U.S. Army Corps of EngineersPermit Number 18344(01) FishTrackers/Reopen Packery ChannelAssociation. The BO included a‘‘finding of not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of the threatenedand endangered populations of thepiping plover’’ based on the projectdesign included in Permit 18344(01).Refer to Comment E.3 for thecircumstances requiring Federal actionsthat have already undergone section 7consultation to reinitiate thatconsultation.

Comment 2: Is it necessary to obtaina permit and contract an environmentalconsultant at the private landowner’sexpense, because the property that he/she wishes to build a house on is on thebeachfront, upland area, or sand dune?

Our Response: Prior to procuring aconsultant, we suggest that you contactthe Service representative in yourparticular State (see the contact list inthe ‘‘Effects of Critical HabitatDesignation’’ section of this rule for thename and phone number of the personto contact). As discussed in commentE.5, all landowners, public and private,are responsible for making sure theiractions do not result in theunauthorized taking of a listed species,regardless of whether or not the activityoccurs within designated criticalhabitat. Take is defined as ‘‘harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,capture, collect, or attempt to engage inany such conduct.’’ Take is furtherdefined by regulation to include‘‘significant habitat modification ordegradation that actually kills or injureswildlife.’’ This definition was upheld bythe U.S. Supreme Court in Sweet HomeChapter of Communities for a GreatOregon et al. v. Babbitt, 515 U.S. 687(1995).

All Federal agencies are responsibleto ensure that the actions they fund,permit, or carry out do not result injeopardizing the continued existence ofa listed species, regardless of criticalhabitat designation. ‘‘Jeopardize thecontinued existence of’’ means toengage in an action that would beexpected, directly or indirectly, toreduce appreciably the likelihood ofboth the survival and recovery of alisted species in the wild by reducingthe reproduction, numbers, or



distribution of that species (50 CFR402.02). Because we designated onlyareas within the geographic rangeoccupied by the piping plover, anyactivity that would result in an adversemodification of the plover’s criticalhabitat would virtually always alsojeopardize the continued existence ofthe species. Federal agencies mustconsult pursuant to section 7 of the Acton all activities that will adversely affectthe plover both within and outsidedesignated critical habitat.

Issue K: Economic CommentsNumerous persons commented on the

expected economic effects of thedesignation and on the draft economicanalysis.

Comment 1: The designation ofcritical habitat on Padre Island NationalSeashore would restrict the ability toexplore and develop mineral operationsand cause a sizable economic impact ifindeed these restrictions are upheld.

Our Response: As discussed in the‘‘Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of the Act’’section of this rule, we considered theeffects on exploration and developmentof mineral operations that would resultfrom including Padre Island NationalSeashore in the final designation. Basedon our analysis under section 4(b)(2),we concluded that the benefits ofexcluding Padre Island NationalSeashore were greater than the benefitsof including, and therefore, we haveexcluded that area from the finaldesignation.

Comment 2: Some commenters statedthat the DEA was inadequate because itis based on the faulty assumption thatthe designation will not result in anygreater burden than under the‘‘baseline’’ of the listing of the plover.Relatedly, some commenters believedthat we should have quantified the costof designating the plover as anendangered species in our baselinecalculations.

Our Response: The economic analysisdoes determine that there is a slightadditional burden due to thedesignation of critical habitat forwintering piping plover and theeconomists attempted to quantify thesecosts in their analysis. See the‘‘Economics Analysis’’ section of thisrule.

While listing effects can be significantin some cases due to the prohibition on‘‘taking’’ a listed species, Congressspecifically directed the Service to baseits listing decisions strictly on biologicalconsiderations. Economic effects causedby listing the wintering population ofthe piping plover as a federallyprotected threatened species, and byother statutes, are the baseline againstwhich we evaluated, under section

4(b)(2) of the Act, the effects of thecritical habitat designation.

Comment 3: Some commenters statedthat they believed that the economicanalysis should be completed before therule is formally proposed.

Our Response: Given the nature ofthis rulemaking, we were unable tocomplete the economic analysis at thetime we formally proposed this rule tothe public. Both the proposed rule dateand final rule date were established asa result of court rulings, that allowedless time than generally preferred by usto conduct a rulemaking. As a result,although we began the economicanalysis before the rule was formallyproposed, we were not able to completeit until later. Once we completed theeconomic analysis, we published in theFederal Register a Notice of Availability(65 FR 52691, August 30, 2000) andgave the public 90 days to comment onthe analysis, along with other aspects ofthe rule. We have considered thesecomments and have produced a revisedeconomic analysis, that we havesubmitted to OMB for review as part ofthis rulemaking package.

Comment 4: Some commentersbelieved that our economic analysisfocused too narrowly on either currentor near-term planned activities at theexpense of longer-term plannedactivities.

Our Response: The revised analysisused a ten-year time horizon to identifylikely current and planned activitiesthat may be affected by critical habitatdesignation. We limited our analysis toa ten-year horizon because theestimation of future impacts becomesextremely speculative beyond thatpoint. As stated in the analysis, ourapproach for estimating the potentialeffects of critical habitat designationfollowed four basic steps. First, theanalysis identified land uses andactivities likely to be affected by criticalhabitat designation. Second, theanalysis looked at Federal nexuses thatmay allow certain land uses andactivities conducted on critical habitatto be consulted on under section 7 ofthe Act. Third, out of the activitieslikely to occur on critical habitat havinga Federal nexus, the analysis consideredthe likelihood that the Service wouldconsult with the Federal agency undersection 7 of the Act because suchactivities have the potential to adverselyaffect the plover or its critical habitat.Under this consideration, the analysisconsidered the likelihood that criticalhabitat designation would imposeadditional effects beyond listing,including effects on section 7consultations and potential mitigation.Finally, the analysis also considered thepotential for any further indirect effects

resulting from the designation. Whilewe believe the analysis did a crediblejob in identifying both current andplanned future land use activitieswithin proposed critical habitat, we alsobelieve that to speculate about long-term, future activities on particularunits, that are different than thosecurrently being conducted orenvisioned, adds little information ofvalue to the decision-making process.

Comment 5: We received manycomments concerning the impact thatdredging and the disposal of dredgedmaterials, along with beachnourishment, would have on criticalhabitat.

Our Response: Our revised economicanalysis addresses this issue in greaterspecificity. In summary, we do notbelieve that beach nourishmentactivities, along with dredging anddisposal activities, are likely to beimpacted by this critical habitatdesignation. In the vast majority of caseswe support beach nourishmentactivities as they benefit the winteringplover by providing them increasedforaging habitat. Dredging and disposalactivities have also not beensignificantly impacted by the presenceof the plover, and we see no reason whycritical habitat designation would alterthis scenario.

Comment 6: We received severalcomments from citizens concernedspecifically about the impact thatcritical habitat designation would haveon Texas Gulf Coast activities including:(1) The exploration, development, andproduction of oil and gas reserves; (2)recreational use of coastal areas; (3) real-estate development projects forresidential and commercial use; and (4)transportation of commodities on theGulf Intracoastal Waterway. Oneeconomic study submitted by acommenter suggested that criticalhabitat designation could result in atotal net present value cost over 30 yearsof $261 to $979 million to the LagunaMadre Environs economy.

Our Response: We believe that theabove mentioned economic studysubmitted by BNP PetroleumCorporation overstates the effects thatmay result from this designation. Theeconomic costs developed by thestudy’s authors depend on two mainassumptions. First, the authors assumethat the critical habitat being designatedfor the wintering plover, contrary to ourdescriptions, consists of large areas ofunoccupied territory lacking thenecessary primary constituent elementsneeded to support the plover. As aresult, the authors believe that delayswill occur to future activities as project



proponents will need to enter intoconsultations with the Service, that willenviably lead to delays causingeconomic effects.

Regarding the first assumption,critical habitat, by definition, onlyincludes those areas containing theprimary constituent elements identifiedin the rule. We believe that all of theseareas are currently occupied by thewintering plover and that Federalagencies are already required to ensurethat the activities they authorize, fund,or carry out are not likely to jeopardizethe continued existence of the plover.Federal agencies already must notify usof activities that may adversely affectthe plover. Because we are onlydesignating areas occupied by theplover and because any activities thatmay adversely modify critical habitatwould also likely jeopardize thecontinued existence of the species, wedo not believe that critical habitatdesignation will have any appreciableeconomic effect above current effectsresulting from the listing of the ploverin 1985.

The BNP study estimates impacts tothe natural gas industry, whichconstitutes the majority of their study’seffects, based on the key assumptionthat critical habitat designation couldresult in project delays between sixmonths and two years arising fromsection 7 consultations. In a review ofpiping plover section 7 consultations inthe Gulf Coast Sates where criticalhabitat is being designated, very fewinvolved oil and gas exploration andproduction activities. Mostly this isbecause existing oil and gas productionactivity takes place offshore and is noton the beaches or flats occupied byplover and as a result these activitieswere not likely to adversely affect thespecies. Also, in many instances whereoil and gas production activities affectthe areas occupied by the plover, suchas pipeline crossings and gatheringstations for near shore production,either the environmental impacts to theplover were not significant enough towarrant a formal consultation or theactivity lacked a Federal nexus.Although the permitting process for oiland gas exploration and productionactivities is complex and involves amyriad of Federal, State, and localrequirements, a formal consultation isnormally completed within 135 days.We therefore disagree with the study’sauthors that section 7 consultations canlead to significant project delays for theindustry.

Also, as noted in the BNP study,future production in the Gulf Coast islikely to occur in very deep water(14,000 to 18,000 feet), well away from

critical habitat areas. This makes ithighly unlikely critical habitat wouldhave any effect. Due to the distancefuture production areas are from theshoreline, products will most likely bebarged into existing ports withoffloading facilities because it will beuneconomical or technologicallyinfeasible to connect deepwaterplatforms to the existing infrastructureof near-shore pipelines. As a result,critical habitat areas are highly unlikelyto be affected by future industryactivities. In addition, we do not believethat the oil and gas industry will beaffected by any significant increase insection 7 consultations because of thisrulemaking, and we disagree with thefindings in their study.

That being said, the economicanalysis prepared for the Service findsthat the designation of critical habitatfor the piping plover may result inadditional section 7 consultation costsbecause future consultations wouldneed to address critical habitat issues, inaddition to the effects on the species,and would therefore require more time.Additionally, we acknowledge thatsome Federal agencies may initiateconsultation more often than before,because critical habitat has increasedtheir awareness of the species. Eventhough consideration of critical habitatis not likely to impose further projectmodifications beyond those required bythe listing of the plover, projectproponents may nonetheless incur costsabove and beyond those attributable tothe listing of the plover as a threatenedspecies. These costs might include thevalue of time spent in conductingsection 7 consultations beyond thoseassociated with the listing, and/ordelays in implementing oil and gasactivities. Refer to the ‘‘ExclusionsUnder 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of thisrule for our analysis under section4(b)(2) of the Act.

Similarly, we do not believe that thisrule will have a significant effect on theother three factors: (1) Recreational useof coastal areas; (2) real-estatedevelopment projects for residential andcommercial use; and (3) transportationof commodities on the Gulf IntracoastalWaterway. First, we do not believe thatrecreational use of coastal areas will beaffected because no such effects havebeen experienced since the plover waslisted in 1985, combined with the factthat we are only designating occupiedcritical habitat. Furthermore, the ploversspend the wintering season foraging androosting and then migrate north in thesummer where they breed. Breedingareas in the north may experiencepartial or temporary closures during thebreeding season to protect ground level

nests but such effects are not expectedto occur in the wintering areas affectedby this rule because of the fact that thebirds are mobile and not nesting duringthe wintering season. Furthermore, in arecent study that looked at the effect ofbeach closures in breeding areas, nosignificant economic effects wereidentified due to the availability ofnearby beaches (Unsworth, et al., AnEconomic Analysis of Piping PloverRecovery Activities in the AtlanticCoast, 1998).

Our revised economic analysis alsoconsidered in greater detail the effectthe rule could have on real-estatedevelopment projects. Using aconservative assumption that criticalhabitat designation could result in oneto two and one-half percent of forgonefuture lot development due to projectmodifications resulting from criticalhabitat designation, the analysis foundthat total costs to developers over a ten-year time frame could range from about$1.5 million to $4.5 million. Thisrepresents less than one percent of thetotal estimated value of future plannedhousing in southern Texas.Furthermore, the revised analysis foundno evidence to support the claim thatthe section 7 consultation process hasresulted in significant time delayestimates as argued by the commenter.

Finally, the revised economic analysisalso further considered the effect therule could have on commoditytransportation within the GulfIntracoastal Waterway. The commenterwas specifically concerned that thedesignation of critical habitat couldresult in the closure of the waterwaybecause the Service could requiredisposal of dredged materials to bedisposed further from the beach areas,which could become cost prohibitive.This scenario, however, is highlyunlikely as dredging and disposaloperations in the area have taken placecontinually since the plover wasoriginally listed as an endangeredspecies in 1985. Because this area isoccupied by the plover, any effects ondredging and disposal activities in thefuture would occur regardless of criticalhabitat designation. However, with asingle, unique exception that isaddressed in the revised analysis,dredging and disposal activities havenot been negatively impacted by thepresence of the plover and consequentlyare not expected to be further impactedby critical habitat.

Comment 7: We received manycomments from citizens of MarcoIsland, Florida concerned over theimpact that critical habitat would haveon their recreational beach-use activities



as well as spillover effects to their localhousing values.

Our Response: As mentionedpreviously, we do not believe thatrecreational use of coastal areas will besignificantly affected becauserecreational impacts since listing havebeen minimal and only habitat that iscurrently occupied by the winteringplover is being designated. Again, whilebeach closures, or more commonlybeach restrictions, have occurred toprotect the piping plover, these closuresoccur during breeding season in thesummer. Plovers typically migrate northin the spring and summer seasons tobreed and occupy areas outside ofwintering habitat, which this ruleaddresses. Furthermore, in a recentstudy that looked at the possible effectsof beach closures in breeding areas, nosignificant economic effects wereidentified due to the availability ofnearby beaches (Unsworth, et al., AnEconomic Analysis of Piping PloverRecovery Activities in the AtlanticCoast, 1998).

Comment 8: Many commentersexpressed concern that the designationincludes unoccupied habitat that doesnot contain the primary constituentelements necessary to support theplovers and that the DEA overlookedthis effect.

Our Response: The determination ofwhether or not proposed critical habitatis within the geographic range occupiedby the plovers is part of the biologicaldecision-making process and liesbeyond the scope of an economicanalysis. For a discussion of thebiological justification of why webelieve the area being designated iswithin the geographical area occupiedby the plover, see our responses to IssueA.

Comment 9: The EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) indicated thatour economic analysis should evaluateExecutive Order 12898, Federal Actionsto Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations.

Our Response: Executive Order 12898requires that each Federal agency makeachieving environmental justice part ofits mission by identifying andaddressing, as appropriate,disproportionately high and adversehuman health or environmental effectsof its programs, policies, and activitieson minorities and low-incomepopulations. We do not believe that thedesignation of critical habitat forendangered and threatened speciesresults in any changes to human healthor environmental effects on surroundinghuman populations, regardless of theirsocioeconomic characterization. Assuch, we do not believe that Executive

Order 12898 applies to critical habitatdesignations.

Issue L: Critical Habitat and HabitatConservation Plans (HCPs)

In the proposed rule we requestedinput on alternative approaches toissuing any future incidental takepermits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of theAct, and how that process may beinfluenced by critical habitatdesignation. Five alternatives wereprovided:

(1) Retain critical habitat designationwithin the HCP boundaries and use thesection 7 consultation process on theissuance of the incidental take permit toensure that any take we authorize willnot destroy or adversely modify criticalhabitat;

(2) Revise the critical habitatdesignation upon approval of the HCPand issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B)permit to retain only preserve areas, onthe premise that they encompass areasessential for the conservation of thespecies within the HCP area and requirespecial management and protection inthe future. Assuming that we conclude,at the time an HCP is approved and theassociated incidental take permit isissued, that the plan protects those areasessential to the conservation of thepiping plover, we would revise thecritical habitat designation to excludeareas outside the reserves, preserves, orother conservation lands establishedunder the plan. Consistent with ourlisting program priorities, we wouldpublish a proposed rule in the FederalRegister to revise the critical habitatboundaries;

(3) As in (2) above, retain onlypreserve lands within the critical habitatdesignation, on the premise that theyencompass areas essential forconservation of the species within theHCP area and require specialmanagement and protection in thefuture. However, under this approach,the exclusion of areas outside thepreserve lands from critical habitatwould occur automatically uponissuance of the incidental take permit.The public would be notified and havethe opportunity to comment on theboundaries of the preserve lands and therevision of designated critical habitatduring the public review and commentprocess for HCP approval andpermitting;

(4) Remove designated critical habitatentirely from within the boundaries ofan HCP when the plan is approved(including preserve lands), on thepremise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments to conserve thespecies and no further specialmanagement or protection is required.Consistent with our listing program

priorities, we would publish a proposedrule in the Federal Register to revise thecritical habitat boundaries; or

(5) Remove designated critical habitatentirely from within the boundaries ofHCPs when the plans are approved(including preserve lands), on thepremise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments to conserve thespecies and no additional specialmanagement or protection is required.This exclusion from critical habitatwould occur automatically uponissuance of the incidental take permit.The public would be notified and havethe opportunity to comment on therevision of designated critical habitatduring the public notification processfor HCP approval and permitting.

Comment 1: All who commented onthis issue favor alternative 1, to retaincritical habitat within any future HCPboundaries and use the section 7consultation process to evaluate theeffects of the HCP on critical habitat.Most commenters believed thatalternatives 3 through 5 are illegal underthe Act, and that alternative 2 wouldlikely be illegal as well.

Our Response: We recognize thatcritical habitat is only one of manyconservation tools for federally listedspecies. HCPs are one of the mostimportant tools for reconciling land usewith the conservation of listed specieson non-Federal lands. Section 4(b)(2) ofthe Act allows us to exclude areas fromcritical habitat designation where thebenefits of exclusion outweigh thebenefits of designation, provided theexclusion will not result in theextinction of the species. We believethat in most instances the benefits ofexcluding HCPs from critical habitatdesignations will outweigh the benefitsof including them. A detailed rationalefor this determination can be found inthe ‘‘Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of theAct’’ section of this final rule.

We anticipate that any future HCPs inthe range of wintering piping ploverswill include it as a covered species andprovide for its long-term conservation.We expect that HCPs undertaken bylocal jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities)and other parties will identify, protect,and provide appropriate managementfor those specific lands within theboundaries of the plans that areessential for the long-term conservationof the species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of theAct states that HCPs must meet issuancecriteria, including minimizing andmitigating any take of the listed speciescovered by the permit to the extentpracticable, and that the taking must notappreciably reduce the likelihood of thesurvival and recovery of the species inthe wild. We fully expect that our future



analyses of HCPs and section 10(a)(1)(B)permits under section 7 will show thatcovered activities carried out inaccordance with the provisions of theHCP and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits willnot result in the destruction or adversemodification of critical habitatdesignated for the piping plover.

In the event that future HCPs coveringwintering piping plovers are developedwithin the boundaries of designatedcritical habitat, we will work withapplicants to ensure that the HCPsprovide for protection and managementof habitat areas essential for theconservation of the piping plover byeither directing development andhabitat modification to nonessentialareas or appropriately modifyingactivities within essential habitat areasso that such activities will not adverselymodify the primary constituentelements. The HCP developmentprocess provides an opportunity formore intensive data collection andanalysis regarding the use of particularhabitat areas by the piping plover. Wewill provide technical assistance andwork closely with applicants throughoutthe development of future HCPs toidentify lands essential for the long-termconservation of the species andappropriate management of those lands.If the piping plover is a covered speciesunder future HCPs, the plans shouldprovide for the long term conservationof the species. The take minimizationand mitigation measures providedunder these HCPs are expected toadequately protect the essential habitatlands designated as critical habitat inthis rule, such that the value of theselands for the survival and recovery ofthe piping plover is not appreciablydiminished through direct or indirectalterations. If an HCP that addresses thepiping plover as a covered species isultimately approved, we may reassessthe relevant critical habitat boundariesin light of the protection andmanagement provided by the HCP. Wemay seek to undertake this review whenthe HCP is approved, but fundingconstraints may influence the timing ofsuch a review. However, an HCP canproceed without a concurrentamendment to the critical habitatdesignation should all involved partiesagree.

Issue M: Other CommentsComment 1: The Service was ordered

to designate critical habitat for pipingplovers breeding in the Great Lakes andGreat Plains states. How is the Serviceaddressing the Atlantic Coast breedingpopulation that might breed or winter inGreat Lakes/Great Plains winteringlocations?

Our Response: The wintering range ofpiping plovers from all three breedingpopulations overlaps the documentedbreeding range of the Atlantic Coastpopulation in North Carolina and at onesite in northern South Carolina. Thedesignation of critical habitat forwintering and migrating piping ploversin this final rule, however, reflects theknown distribution and habitatrequirements of piping plovers duringthe non-breeding portion of their life-cycle, but provides the protectionoffered by critical habitat year-round.Outside of their breeding range, pipingplovers are protected as a threatenedspecies regardless of their originatingbreeding population, and this criticalhabitat designation encompasseswintering habitat essential to theconservation of piping plovers from allthree breeding populations.

Comment 2: In order to comply withthe Act the Service must designatecritical habitat for breeding andmigratory piping plovers on the AtlanticCoast.

Our Response: We are currentlyrequired to complete a significantnumber of listing-related actions,pursuant to court orders and judiciallyapproved settlement agreements.Complying with these court orders andsettlement agreements will require theService to spend nearly all of its listingand critical habitat funding for fiscalyear 2001, and a substantial amount infiscal year 2002. We are currentlyworking to prioritize our critical habitatworkload within the Act’s listing budgetallocated by Congress. The priority fordesignating critical habitat for theAtlantic Coast breeding population ofpiping plovers relative to other speciesand pending litigation has not yet beendetermined. The other two peerreviewers did not respond.

Peer ReviewIn accordance with our policy

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR34270), we solicited independent expertopinions from five persons who arefamiliar with this species to peer-reviewthe proposed critical habitatdesignation. Three of these expertsprovided us with a written responsegenerally supporting the designationand providing additional information,that we have incorporated into the ruleas appropriate.

One of the reviewers stated her viewthat only sites with recorded plover useshould be designated, and that thedesignation could be subsequentlyrevised as new sites become known.However, she also stated her support fordesignating larger areas when at leastsome of these larger units have records

of plover use. This is generally theapproach we took. We sincerelyappreciate the responses of these peerreviewers, and believe their input hasprovided a great deal of support for thisdesignation.

Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined in section

3(5)(A) of the Act as: (i) The specificareas within the geographic areaoccupied by a species, at the time it islisted in accordance with the Act, onwhich are found those physical orbiological features (I) essential to theconservation of the species and (II) thatmay require special managementconsiderations or protection; and (ii)specific areas outside the geographicarea occupied by a species at the timeit is listed, upon determination thatsuch areas are essential for theconservation of the species.‘‘Conservation’’ means the use of allmethods and procedures that arenecessary to bring an endangered orthreatened species to the point at whichlisting under the Act is no longernecessary. Thus, critical habitat areasshould provide sufficient habitat tosupport the species at the populationlevel and geographic distribution thatare necessary for recovery.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires thatwe base critical habitat proposals uponthe best scientific and commercial dataavailable, after taking into considerationthe economic impact, and any otherrelevant impact, of specifying anyparticular area as critical habitat. Wemay exclude areas from critical habitatdesignation when the benefits ofexcluding those areas outweigh thebenefits of including the areas withinthe critical habitat, providing theexclusion will not result in theextinction of the species.

In order to be included in a criticalhabitat designation, the habitat mustfirst be ‘‘essential to the conservation ofthe species.’’ Critical habitatdesignations identify, to the extentknown using the best scientific andcommercial data available, habitat areasthat provide essential life-cycle needs ofthe species (i.e., areas on which arefound the primary constituent elements,as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Section 4 requires that we designatecritical habitat at the time of listing andbased on what we know at the time ofthe designation. We are required to baseour designations on what, at the time ofdesignation, we believe to be essentialto the species and in need of specialmanagement considerations orprotection.

Our regulations state that, ‘‘TheSecretary shall designate as critical



habitat areas outside the geographic areapresently occupied by the species onlywhen a designation limited to itspresent range would be inadequate toensure the conservation of the species.’’(50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, wewill not designate critical habitat inareas outside the geographic areaoccupied by the species, unless the bestavailable scientific and commercial datademonstrate that the conservation needsof the species can not be met by adesignation that is limited to areasoccupied by the species.

The Service’s Policy on InformationStandards Under the EndangeredSpecies Act, published in the FederalRegister on July 1, 1994 (Vol. 59, p.34271), provides criteria, establishesprocedures, and provides guidance toensure that decisions made by theService represent the best scientific andcommercial data available. It requiresService biologists, to the extentconsistent with the Act and with the useof the best scientific and commercialdata available, to use primary andoriginal sources of information as thebasis for recommendations to designatecritical habitat. When determiningwhich areas are critical habitat, aprimary source of information should bethe listing package for the species.Additional information may be obtainedfrom a recovery plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plansdeveloped by states and counties,scientific status surveys and studies,and biological assessments or otherunpublished materials (i.e., grayliterature).

Habitat is often dynamic, and speciesmay move from one area to another overtime. Furthermore, we recognize thatdesignation of critical habitat may notinclude all of the habitat areas that mayeventually be determined to benecessary for the recovery of thespecies. For these reasons, all shouldunderstand that critical habitatdesignations do not signal that habitatoutside the designation is unimportantor may not be required for recovery.Areas outside the critical habitatdesignation will continue to be subjectto conservation actions that may beimplemented under section 7(a)(1) andto the regulatory protections afforded bythe section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standardand the section 9 take prohibition, asdetermined on the basis of the bestavailable information at the time of theaction. We specifically anticipate thatfederally funded or assisted projectsaffecting listed species outside theirdesignated critical habitat areas maystill result in jeopardy findings in somecases. Similarly, critical habitatdesignations made on the basis of the

best available information at the time ofdesignation will not control thedirection and substance of futurerecovery plans, habitat conservationplans, or other species conservationplanning efforts if new informationavailable to these planning efforts callsfor a different outcome.

This critical habitat designation forthe wintering population of the pipingplover includes areas that we knowcurrently support the species. Areasdescribed in the approved recoveryplans (USFWS 1988, 1996) as essentialto the conservation of the winteringpopulation of the piping plover arebeing designated as critical habitat, ifrecent data support consistent use andthe habitat remains suitable. However,the recovery plans did not include themost recent comprehensive wintersurvey data and, therefore, the plans didnot identify all possible areas essentialto the survival and recovery of thespecies. Thus, we identified additionalareas essential to the species’conservation, based upon unpublisheddata collected by state agencies,Christmas bird counts, individualbirders, master’s theses (Nicholls 1989,Climo 1998) and published data(Sprandel et al. 1997).

Designation of critical habitat canhelp focus conservation activities for alisted species by identifying areas thatcontain the physical and biologicalfeatures that are essential for theconservation of that species.Designation of critical habitat alerts thepublic as well as land-managingagencies to the importance of theseareas.

Critical habitat receives protectionunder section 7 of the Act through theprohibition against destruction oradverse modification of critical habitatby actions carried out, funded, orauthorized by a Federal agency. Asidefrom the protection that may beprovided under section 7, the Act doesnot provide other forms of protection tolands designated as critical habitat.Because consultation under section 7 ofthe Act does not apply to activities onprivate or other non-Federal land thatdo not involve a Federal action, criticalhabitat designation would not affordany protection under the Act from suchactivities on these lands.

Designating critical habitat does not,in itself, lead to the recovery of a listedspecies. The designation does notestablish a reserve, create a managementplan, establish numerical populationgoals, prescribe specific managementpractices (inside or outside of criticalhabitat), or directly affect areas notdesignated as critical habitat. Specificmanagement recommendations for areas

designated as critical habitat are mostappropriately addressed in recovery andmanagement plans, and through section7 consultation.

Primary Constituent ElementsIn accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR424.12, in determining which areas topropose as critical habitat, we arerequired to base critical habitatdeterminations on the best scientificand commercial data available and toconsider those physical and biologicalfeatures that are essential to theconservation of the species and that mayrequire special managementconsiderations and protection. Suchrequirements include, but are notlimited to, space for individual andpopulation growth, and for normalbehavior; food, water, air, light,minerals, or other nutritional orphysiological requirements; cover orshelter; and habitats that are protectedfrom disturbance or are representative ofthe historic geographical and ecologicaldistributions of a species.

Behavioral observations of pipingplovers on the wintering groundssuggest that they spend the majority oftheir time foraging (Nicholls andBaldassarre 1990b; Drake 1999a, 1999b).Primary prey for wintering ploversincludes polychaete marine worms,various crustaceans, insects, andoccasionally bivalve mollusks (Nicholls1989; Zonick and Ryan 1995), whichthey peck from on top or just beneaththe surface of moist or wet sand, mud,or fine shell. In some cases, thissubstrate may be covered by a mat ofblue-green algae. When not foraging,plovers undertake various maintenanceactivities including roosting, preening,bathing, aggressive encounters (withother piping plovers and other species),and moving among available habitatlocations (Zonick and Ryan 1996). Thehabitats used by wintering birds includebeaches, mud flats, sand flats, algal flats,and washover passes (areas wherebreaks in the sand dunes result in aninlet). Individual plovers tend to returnto the same wintering sites year afteryear (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b,Drake 1999a). Wintering plovers aredependent on a mosaic of habitatpatches, and move among these patchesdepending on local weather and tidalconditions (Drake 1999b).

Based upon the behavioralcharacteristics of wintering pipingplovers, we have determined that theprimary constituent elements essentialfor the conservation of wintering pipingplovers are those habitat componentsthat support foraging, roosting, andsheltering and the physical features



necessary for maintaining the naturalprocesses that support these habitatcomponents. The primary constituentelements are found in geologicallydynamic coastal areas that supportintertidal beaches and flats (betweenannual low tide and annual high tide)and associated dune systems and flatsabove annual high tide.

Important components (primaryconstituent elements) of intertidal flatsinclude sand and/or mud flats with noor very sparse emergent vegetation. Insome cases, these flats may be coveredor partially covered by a mat of blue-green algae. Adjacent unvegetated orsparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algalflats above high tide are also important,especially for roosting piping plovers.Such sites may have debris, detritus(decaying organic matter), or micro-topographic relief (less than 50 cmabove substrate surface) offering refugefrom high winds and cold weather.Important components of the beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algaefor feeding of prey, sparsely vegetatedbackbeach (beach area above mean hightide seaward of the dune line, or incases where no dunes exist, seaward ofa delineating feature such as avegetation line, structure, or road) forroosting and refuge during storms, spits(a small point of land, especially sand,running into water) for feeding androosting, salterns (bare sand flats in thecenter of mangrove ecosystems that arefound above mean high water and areonly irregularly flushed with sea water(Myers and Ewel 1990)) (biologists havedocumented use of salterns by pipingplovers in southwest Florida) andwashover areas for feeding and roosting.Washover areas are broad, unvegetatedzones with little or no topographicrelief, that are formed and maintainedby the action of hurricanes, storm surge,or other extreme wave action. Several ofthese components (sparse vegetation,little or no topographic relief) aremimicked in artificial habitat types usedless commonly by piping plovers, butthat are considered critical habitat (e.g.,dredge spoil sites).

These habitat components are a resultof the dynamic geological processes thatdominate coastal landforms throughoutthe wintering range of piping plovers.These geologically dynamic coastalregions are controlled by processes oferosion, accretion, succession, and sea-level change. The integrity of the habitatcomponents depends upon daily tidalevents and regular sediment transportprocesses, as well as episodic, high-magnitude storm events; these processesare associated with the formation andmovement of barrier islands, inlets, andother coastal landforms. By their nature,

these features are in a constant state ofchange; they may disappear, only to bereplaced nearby as coastal processes acton these habitats. Given that pipingplovers evolved in this dynamic system,and that they are dependent upon theseever-changing features for theircontinued survival and eventualrecovery, our critical habitat boundariesincorporate sites that experience thesenatural processes and include sites thatmay lose and later develop appropriatehabitat components.

In most areas, wintering pipingplovers are dependent on a mosaic ofsites distributed throughout thelandscape. The annual, daily, and evenhourly availability of the habitat patchesis dependent on local weather and tidalconditions. For example, a single pipingplover may leave a site if it becomesinundated by a high tide or storm event,or if high winds or cold temperaturesmake the site unsuitable for foraging orroosting. This bird will move to otherpatches within the landscape mosaicthat might provide refuge frominclement weather conditions, or thatsimply provide a roosting site untilconditions become favorable to resumeforaging.

MethodsIn determining areas that are essential

to conserve the wintering population ofpiping plover, we solicited informationfrom knowledgeable biologists andreviewed the available informationpertaining to habitat requirements of thespecies. We used areas identified inapproved recovery plans and currentdraft recovery plans to initially suggestimportant areas essential for therecovery of the species. These areaswere then further evaluated using site-specific data, such as documented birdobservations. To map areas essential tothe conservation of the species, we usedGIS (described in our response tocomment G.3) and data on knownpiping plover wintering locations,digital aerial photographs and regionalshoreline-defining electronic files.Sources of data providing theselocations include two internationalpiping plover censuses (conducted byState and Federal biologists and localbirders) carried out in January of 1991and 1996, published reports (a completelist of all references cited in this finalrule are available upon request from theCorpus Christi Ecological Services FieldOffice, see ADDRESSES section),Christmas bird counts, and other datafrom surveys focusing on shorebirddistribution and abundance.

We have included those areas alongthe coast for which occurrence dataindicate a consistent use (observations

over more than one wintering season) bypiping plovers within this designation.The only areas included in the proposedrule that did not have survey datashowing that they are used by ploverswere the Mississippi River and the WaxLake Outlet Deltas. We included thoseareas in the proposed rule because ofthe high probability of use by ploversdue to the broad expanse of mudflatsknown to exist in the river deltas.However, adequate census data were notavailable to provide reliable presence orabsence information for the plover untilrecently (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand Louisiana Department of Wildlifeand Fisheries unpublished data, 2001),because these areas are remote anddifficult to access and thus had not beensurveyed. Since the proposed rule, wehave surveyed these areas (MississippiRiver Delta in December 2000; and theWax Lake Outlet Delta during theFebruary International Piping PloverSurvey). Forty plovers were found on afew small dredged material islands inthe Mississippi River Delta, none werefound in the Wax Lake Outlet Delta.Those areas of the Mississippi Deltawhere no plovers were observed werenot included (portions of LA–6) and theentire Wax Lake Outlet Delta (portionsof Unit LA–2) was also not included inthe final rule. This has resulted in lessacreage being designated in Louisiana.Additionally, during the InternationalCensus in February 2001, 40 pipingplovers were observed on the samedredged material islands in theMississippi River Delta. Although we donot have data to document use of theseareas over more than one winteringseason, based on studies indicating thatplovers exhibit a certain amount of sitefidelity (see our response to CommentA.11 above.), and the large numbers ofplovers observed at these sites, weconsider it virtually certain that theseareas are consistently used and haveincluded them in the designation andconsider these areas essential to theconservation of the species.

For the proposed rule, units andshorelines were mapped at variablescales (zoom factors) and with lessdetail. For the final rule, all units andshoreline were mapped at 1:5000 orlarger (greater zoom) scale. In additionto the standardized mapping scale, theunits and shoreline were mapped moreprecisely. This change in mappingtechnique and detail resulted in anincrease in reported total mappedshoreline kilometers and miles for somestates. This also resulted in increases inreported mapped shoreline distances byownership for some states. It alsoaffected the reported total and



ownership acreages, in some casesresulting in an apparent increased areawhile in others the result was anapparent decrease in area. However, theareas included in the critical habitatdesignation are the same areas that weverbally described in the unit-by-unitdescriptions in the proposed rule,except for areas which we omitted inthe final designation (as describedbelow in the ‘‘Summary of ChangesFrom the Proposed Rule’’ section).

In the proposed rule, a single bufferdistance was set for all units in all states(500 m (1,640 ft)). Since thismethodology resulted in areas of water(deeper than MLLW) and areas of densevegetation being included in thedesignation, which are not utilized bypiping plovers, we abandoned thismethodology for a more precise meansof defining the areas that contain thephysical and biological featuresessential to the wintering piping plover.This change in methodology results insmaller units of designated criticalhabitat than that of the proposed rule.In order to capture the dynamic natureof the coastal habitat, and the intertidalareas used by the piping plover, wehave textually described each unit asincluding the area extending out fromthe landward boundaries to the MLLW.MLLW, as defined in our response tocomment A.12, is the mean of the lowerlow water height of each tidal dayobserved over the National Tidal DatumEpoch. While, MLLW is publishedinformation that can be determinedthrough nautical charts, it is notcurrently available in a GIS version.

Designating specific locations forcritical habitat for the piping plovers isdifficult because the coastal areas theyuse are constantly changing due to

storm surges, flood events, and othernatural geo-physical alterations ofbeaches and shorelines. Thus, to bestinsure that areas considered essential tothe piping plover are included in thisdesignation, our textual unitdescriptions will constitute thedefinitive determination as to whetheran area is within the critical habitatboundary. Our textual unit descriptionsdescribe the geography of the area usingreference points, including the areasfrom the landward boundaries to theMLLW (which encompasses intertidalareas that are essential foraging areas forpiping plovers) and describes areaswithin the unit that are utilized by thepiping plover and contain the primaryconstituent elements (e.g., upland areasused for roosting and wind tidal flatsused for foraging).

For the proposed rule, ownership wasassigned to three classes within a unit(Federal, State, and private). Federallands were those federally owned; Statelands and waters were those Stateowned; and private were all non-Federalor non-State owned lands. For this finalrule, we have 3 classes (Federal, State,and other) for mapped shoreline and 3classes (Federal, State, and other) formapped unit area. Assignment is asfollows: Federal—federally ownedlands, State—State owned lands, andOther—non-Federal or non-State ownedlands. In the proposed rule, there wereerrors in the values reported in Table 2for Alabama and Texas, which we havecorrected.

In the final rule, to the maximumextent practicable, we mapped criticalhabitat in sufficient detail to excludecurrently developed sites. However, wewere unable to exclude all buildings,marinas, paved areas, boat ramps,

exposed oil and gas pipelines, andsimilar structures. These areas do notcontain primary constituent elementsessential for piping plover conservationand are not considered critical habitateven though they are within the mappedcritical habitat unit boundaries. TheService will continue to explore ways inwhich to identify areas within mappedcritical habitat boundaries that are notconsidered critical habitat because theydo not contain the primary constituentelements essential for piping ploverconservation.

Critical Habitat Designation/LandOwnership

The critical habitat areas containedwithin the conservation units describedbelow constitute our best evaluation ofareas needed for the conservation of thewintering piping plover. We may revisecritical habitat through a rulemakingprocess if new information becomesavailable in the future.

We calculated linear distances ofcritical habitat shoreline (in kilometersand miles) by ownership for each State(Table 1). In addition, State-level valuesof area in hectares and acres werecalculated for the critical habitat unitsby ownership (Table 2). Ownership forboth the shoreline and units werebroken into three classes (Federal—Federally owned lands, State—Stateowned lands, and Other—non-Federalor non-State mapped lands).Assignment of ownership was based onexisting digital State-level managed/protected lands geodataset (GIS data set)where possible. If no existing digitaldata were available, ownership wasassigned based on other data sources.

TABLE 1.—APPROXIMATE SHORELINE DISTANCES OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR WINTERING PIPING PLOVER BYSTATE (ROWS) AND OWNERSHIP (COLUMNS) IN KILOMETERS (MILES)

Federal State Other Total

NC .................................................................................... 1,24.9(77.4) 44.9(27.8) 33.5(20.8) 203.3(126.0)SC .................................................................................... 25.2(15.6) 31.6(19.6) 43.9(27.2) 100.7(62.4)GA .................................................................................... 52.3(32.4) 42.7(26.5) 39.7(24.6) 134.7(83.5)FL ..................................................................................... 109.0(67.6) 193.2(119.8) 38.6(23.9) 340.8(211.3 )AL ..................................................................................... 16.1(10.1) 21.8(13.6) 38.5(24.0) 76.4(47.7)MS .................................................................................... 98.2(61.4) 0.0(0.0) 105.9(66.2) 204.1(127.6 )LA ..................................................................................... 143.2(89.5) 236.1(147.6) 168.6(105.4) 547.9(342.5)TX .................................................................................... 88.2(54.7) 38.8(24.1) 1,156.8(718.5) 1,283.8(797.3)

Total .......................................................................... 657.1(408.7) 609.1(379.0) 1,625.5(1,010.6) 2,891.7(1,798.3)

TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE LAND AREA OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR WINTERING PIPING PLOVER BYSTATE (ROWS) AND OWNERSHIP (COLUMNS) IN HECTARES (ACRES)

Federal 1 State 1 Other 1 Total

NC .................................................................................... 5,614(13,866) 2,062(5,093) 938(2,318) 8,614(21,277)SC .................................................................................... 388(958) 663(1,639) 1,222(3,018) 2,273(5,615)GA .................................................................................... 1,734(4,285) 1,437(3,551) 1,333(3,294) 4,504(11,130)



TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE LAND AREA OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR WINTERING PIPING PLOVER BYSTATE (ROWS) AND OWNERSHIP (COLUMNS) IN HECTARES (ACRES)—Continued

Federal 1 State 1 Other 1 Total

FL ..................................................................................... 5,135(12,683) 5,070(12,524) 858(2,121) 11,063(27,328)AL ..................................................................................... 294(726) 292(722) 600(1,481) 1,186(2,929)MS .................................................................................... 2,376(5,870) 0.0(0.0) 1,479(3,655) 3,855(9,525)LA ..................................................................................... 3,042(7,515) 3,246(8,019) 3,812(9,416) 10,100(24,950)TX .................................................................................... 1,934(4,777) 2,604(6,432) 20,748(51,248) 25,285(62,454)

Total .......................................................................... 20,517(50,680) 15,374(37,980) 30,990(76,551) 66,881(165,211)

1 Approximate land mass values that do not include intertidal areas.

We have divided the lands designatedas critical habitat into 142 criticalhabitat conservation units that containareas with the primary constituentelements for the piping plover in thewintering range of the species. Theseunits are found in all eight States wherepiping plovers winter. Below, wedescribe each unit in terms of itslocation, approximate size, andownership. Due to data limitations(resolution & availability) intertidalzone (area between high and low tide)could not be mapped; therefore, the sizeof each unit is considered approximate.These unit descriptions can be found inthe regulatory section at the end of thisrule, and are the definitive source fordetermining the critical habitatboundaries.

North Carolina (Maps Were DigitizedUsing 1993 DOQQs, Except NC–3 (1993DRG)

Unit NC–1: Oregon Inlet. 404 ha (997ac) in Dare County. This unit extendsfrom the southern portion of BodieIsland to the northern portion of PeaIsland. It includes all land south of theOregon Inlet Marina and Fishing Centerto 0.50 km (0.31 mile) south of thejunction of Highway 12 and SR 1257.This unit includes lands from MLLW onthe Pamlico Sound across (andincluding all land) to MLLW on AtlanticOcean shoreline. Any emergentsandbars south and west of Oregon Inletare included.

Unit NC–2: Cape Hatteras Point. 465ha (1149 ac) in Dare County. Themajority of the unit is within CapeHatteras National Seashore. This unitextends south from the Cape HatterasLighthouse to the point of Cape Hatterasand then extends west 6.4 km (4.0 mi)along Hatteras Cove shoreline. The unitincludes lands from the MLLW on theAtlantic Ocean and stops landwardwhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere constituent elements no longeroccur.

Unit NC–3: Clam Shoals. 28 ha (70 ac)in Dare County. The entire unit is

owned by the State. This unit includesseveral islands in Pamlico Soundknown as Bird Islands. This unitincludes lands on all islands to theMLLW.

Unit NC–4: Hatteras Inlet. 516 ha(1273 ac) in Dare and Hyde Counties.The majority of the unit is surroundedby Cape Hatteras National Seashore, butis privately owned. This unit extendswest from the end of Highway 12 on thewestern portion of Hatteras Island to1.25 km (0.78 mi) southwest of the ferryterminal at the end of Highway 12 onOcracoke Island. It includes all landswhere constituent elements occur fromMLLW on the Atlantic Ocean across toMLLW on Pamlico Sound. All emergentsandbars within Hatteras Inlet betweenHatteras Island and Ocracoke Island arealso included.

Unit NC–5: Ocracoke Island. 80 ha(197 ac) in Hyde County. The majorityof this unit is within Cape HatterasNational Seashore. It includes thewestern portion of Ocracoke Islandbeginning 3.5 km (2.2 mi) west of thejunction of Highway 12 and the localroad (no name) extending west toOcracoke Inlet. It includes all land fromMLLW on the Atlantic Ocean across toMLLW on Pamlico Sound. All emergentsandbars within Ocracoke Inlet are alsoincluded.

Unit NC–6: Portsmouth Island-CapeLookout. 3187 ha (7873 ac) in CarteretCounty. The entire unit is within CapeLookout National Seashore. This unitincludes all land to MLLW on AtlanticOcean to MLLW on Pamlico Sound,from Ocracoke Inlet extending west tothe western end of Pilontary Islands.This unit includes the islands of Casey,Sheep, Evergreen, Portsmouth,Whalebone, Kathryne Jane, and MerkleHammock. This unit also extends westfrom the eastern side of Old Drum Inletto 1.6 km (1.0 mi) west of New DrumInlet and includes all lands from MLLWon Atlantic Ocean to MLLW on CoreSound.

Unit NC–7: South Core Banks. 552 ha(1364 ac) in Carteret County. The entireunit is within Cape Lookout National

Seashore. This unit extends south fromCape Lookout Lighthouse, along CapeLookout, to Cape Point and northwest tothe northwestern peninsula. All landsfrom MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean,Onslow Bay, and Lookout Bight up towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andthe constituent elements no longeroccur are included.

Unit NC–8: Shackleford Banks. 716 ha(1769 ac) in Carteret County. The entireunit is within Cape Lookout NationalSeashore. This unit is in two parts: (1)The eastern end of Shackleford Banksfrom MLLW of Barden Inlet extendingwest 2.4 km (1.5 mi), includingDiamond City Hills, Great Marsh Island,and Blinds Hammock; and, (2) Thewestern end of Shackleford Banks fromMLLW extending east 3.2 km (2.0 mi)from Beaufort Inlet. The unit includesall land from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand any emergent sandbars withinBeaufort Inlet. This unit is bordered byOnslow Bay, Shackleford Slue, andBack Sound.

Unit NC–9: Rachel Carson. 445 ha(1100 ac) in Carteret County. The entireunit is within the Rachel CarsonNational Estuarine Research Reserve.This unit includes islands south ofBeaufort including Horse Island, CarrotIsland, and Lennox Point. This unitincludes entire islands to MLLW.

Unit NC–10: Bogue Inlet. 143 ha (354ac) in Carteret and Onslow Counties.The majority of the unit is privatelyowned, with the remainder fallingwithin Hammocks Beach State Park.This unit includes contiguous landsouth, west, and north of Bogue Courtto MLLW line of Bogue Inlet on thewestern end of Bogue Banks. It includesthe sandy shoals north and adjacent toBogue Banks and the land on AtlanticOcean side to MLLW. This unit alsoextends 1.3 km (0.8 mi) west fromMLLW of Bogue Inlet on the easternportion of Bear Island.



Unit NC–11: Topsail. 451 ha (1114 ac)in Pender County and Hanover County.The entire area is privately owned. Thisunit extends southwest from 1.0 km(0.65 mi) northeast of MLLW of NewTopsail Inlet on Topsail Island to 0.53km (0.33 mi) southwest of MLLW ofRich Inlet on Figure Eight Island. Itincludes both Rich Inlet and NewTopsail Inlet and the former Old TopsailInlet. All land, including emergentsandbars, from MLLW on AtlanticOcean and sound side to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur. InTopsail Sound, the unit stops as theentrance to tidal creeks become narrowand channelized.

Unit NC–12: Figure Eight Island. 134ha (331 ac) in New Hanover County.The majority of the unit is privatelyowned. This unit extends south fromthe western end of Beach Road onFigure Eight Island to the northern endof Highway 74 on Wrightsville Beach.The unit includes Mason Inlet and thesand and mudflats northwest of the inletfrom MLLW on Atlantic Ocean to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit NC–13: Masonboro. 61 ha (150ac) in New Hanover County. The entireunit is within the North CarolinaNational Estuarine Research Reserve.This unit extends 1.1 km (0.70 mi) southfrom the MLLW of Masonboro Inlet onMasonboro Island. This unit includes alllands along the Atlantic Ocean,Masonboro Inlet, and Masonboro Soundfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit NC–14: Carolina Beach Inlet. 374ha (924 ac) in New Hanover County.The majority of the unit is within MyrtleGrove Sound on Masonboro Island andis owned by the North Carolina NationalEstuarine Research Reserve. It extends1.80 km (1.12 mi) west along the southshoreline of Wolf Island from the mouthof the Altamaja sound. This unitextends south from 3.2 km (2.0 mi)north of MLLW at Carolina Beach Inleton Masonboro Island to 1.1 km (0.70 mi)south of MLLW at Carolina Beach Inleton Carolina Beach. It includes land fromMLLW on Atlantic Ocean across andincluding lands to MLLW on thewestern side of Masonboro Island,excluding existing dredge spoil piles.Emergent sand bars within CarolinaBeach Inlet are also included.

Unit NC–15: Ft. Fisher. 790 ha (1951ac) in New Hanover and BrunswickCounties. This unit is within Ft. FisherState Recreation Area and Zeke’s Island

Estuarine Reserve. This unit extendssouth from Ft. Fisher Islands (from therocks), south of the ferry terminal, toapproximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south ofMLLW at Corn Cake Inlet on SmithIsland. It includes all land (includingZeke’s Island) from MLLW on AtlanticOcean across to MLLW on the easternside of the Cape Fear River.

Unit NC–16: Lockwood Folly Inlet. 36ha (90 ac) in Brunswick County. Theentire unit is on Oak Island (formerlyknown as the Town of Long Beach) andis privately owned. This unit extendsfrom the end of West Beach Drive, westto MLLW at Lockwood Folly Inlet,including emergent sandbars south andadjacent to the island. This unitincludes land from MLLW on AtlanticOcean across to MLLW adjacent to theEastern Channel and the IntracoastalWaterway.

Unit NC–17: Shallotte Inlet. 120 ha(296 ac) in Brunswick County.The entireunit is privately owned. This unitbegins just west of Skimmer Court onthe western end of Holden Beach. Itincludes land south of SR 1116, towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur to the MLLW along theAtlantic Ocean. It includes thecontiguous shoreline from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur along the Atlantic Ocean,Shallotte Inlet, and IntracoastalWaterway stopping north of SkimmerCourt Road. The unnamed island andemergent sandbars to MLLW withinShallotte Inlet are also included.

Unit NC–18: Mad Inlet. 112 ha (278ac) in Brunswick County. The entireunit is privately owned. This unitextends west 1.2 km (0.75 mi) from theend of Main Street (SR 1177) on westernSunset Beach to the eastern portion ofBird Island and includes the marshareas north of western Sunset Beachshoreline. The shoreline area begins atMLLW on the Atlantic Ocean andcontinues landward to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

South Carolina (Maps Were DigitizedUsing 1994 DOQQs)

Unit SC–1: Waites Island-North. 75 ha(186 ac) in Horry County. This unitincludes the northern tip of WaitesIsland from the MLLW at Little RiverInlet and runs west along the AtlanticOcean shoreline 2.0 km (1.25 mi) andincludes land from the MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where the

constituent elements no longer occur.The unit continues north and west ofLittle River Inlet stopping at SheepheadCreek, including land from MLLW todense vegetation line. The majority ofthe unit is privately owned.

Unit SC–2: Waites Island-South. 58 ha(142 ac) in Horry County.This unitincludes the southern tip of WaitesIsland from the MLLW at Hog Inlet andruns east along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline 0.80 km (0.50 mi) andincludes MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur. Itcontinues north and west of the Hoginlet, stopping at the first majortributary. Critical habitat includes fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur. Emergingsandbars within Hog Inlet and adjacentto the tip if eastern Cherry Grove Beachare also included from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The majority of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit SC–3: Murrells Inlet/HuntingtonBeach. 135 ha (334 ac) in GeorgetownCounty. The majority of the unit iswithin Huntington Beach State Park.This unit extends from the southern tipof Garden City Beach, just south of thegroins (a rigid structure or structuresbuilt out from a shore to protect theshore from erosion or to trap sand) northof Murrells Inlet from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurstopping perpendicular with thesouthern end of Inlet Point Drive. Itincludes from MLLW south of MurrellsInlet to the northern edge of NorthLitchfield Beach approximately 4.5 km(3.0 mi). The unit includes the MLLWfrom the Atlantic Ocean up to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The lagoon at the north end ofHuntington Beach State Park is alsoincluded.

Unit SC–4: Litchfield. 11 ha (28 ac) inGeorgetown County. This unit includesthe southern tip of Litchfield Beachbeginning 0.50 km (0.30 mi) north ofMidway Inlet and stopping at theMLLW at Midway Inlet. It includes fromthe MLLW on the Atlantic Oceanshoreline across and including land tothe MLLW on the back bayside. Thisunit is mostly privately owned.



Unit SC–5: North Inlet. 99 ha (245 ac)in Georgetown County. The majority ofthe unit is within Tom Yawley WildlifeCenter Heritage Preserve. This unitextends from MLLW to 1.0 km (.62 mi)north of North Inlet on Debidue Beach.It includes shoreline on the AtlanticOcean from MLLW to the MLLW on thewestern side of the peninsula. This unitalso includes from the MLLW south ofNorth Inlet 1.6 km (1.0 mi). It includesthe shoreline on the Atlantic Oceanfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur. It includesshoreline running south and west of theinlet from the MLLW stopping at theMLLW at the first large tributary (noname).

Unit SC–6: North Santee Bay Inlet.305 ha (753 ac) in Georgetown County.The majority of the unit is within theTom Yawley Wildlife Center HeritagePreserve and the Santee-Delta WildlifeManagement Area. This unit is at theNorth Santee Bay inlet and includeslands of South Island, Santee Point,Cedar Island, and all of North SanteeSandbar. This unit includes from MLLWat North Santee Bay Inlet running northalong the Atlantic Ocean side of SouthIsland 7.2 km (4.5 mi), stopping 0.60 km(0.4 mi) north of an unnamed inlet. Itincludes areas from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.This unit includes the eastern side ofCedar Island adjacent to the NorthSantee Bay Inlet from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.All of North Santee Sandbar to MLLWis included.

Unit SC–7: Cape Romain. 315 ha (777ac) in Charleston County.The majorityof the unit is within Cape RomainNational Wildlife Refuge. This unitincludes the MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur onthe southern and southeastern most 1.9km (1.2 mi) portion of Cape Island, thesouthernmost portion of LighthouseIsland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur,all of Lighthouse Island South toMLLW, and the southern side of the fareastern tip of Raccoon Key from MLLWto where densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit SC–8: Bull Island. 134 ha (332ac) in Charleston County. The majorityof the unit is within Cape RomainNational Wildlife Refuge and landowned by the South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources. Thisunit includes from Schooner Creek onnorth and south of the river to north ofPrice’s Inlet on the southern portion ofBull Island along the Atlantic Ocean 1.6km (1.0 mi) and south of Price’s Inlet onthe northeast tip of Capers IslandHeritage Preserve 1.4 km (.86 mi) alongthe Atlantic Ocean. All areas begin atMLLW and extend to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit SC–9: Stono Inlet. 495 ha (1223ac) in Charleston County.Most of thisunit is privately owned. It includes theeastern end of Kiawah Island(approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi)) fromMLLW on Atlantic Ocean running northto MLLW on first large tributaryconnecting east of Bass Creek runningnortheast into Stono River. It includesMLLW up to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur along StonoInlet and River. All of Bird Key-StonoHeritage Preserve and all of SkimmerFlats to MLLW are included. The Golfcourse and densely vegetated areas arenot included.

Unit SC–10: Seabrook Island. 117 ha(290 ac) in Charleston County.This unitruns from just 0.16 km (0.10 mi) northof Captain Sams Inlet to the southwestapproximately 3.4 km (2.1 mi) along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline. It includesland areas from the MLLW on theAtlantic Ocean to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.Most of this unit is privately owned.

Unit SC–11: Deveaux Bank. 130 ha(322 ac) in Charleston County. Theentire unit is within Deveaux BankHeritage Preserve. This unit includes allof Deveaux Island to the MLLW and isState-owned.

Unit SC–12: Otter Island. 68 ha (169ac) in Colleton County.The majority ofthe unit is within St. Helena SoundHeritage Preserve. This unit includesthe southern portion of Otter Island tothe eastern mouth of Otter Creek. Itincludes the MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The entire unit is State-owned.

Unit SC–13: Harbor Island. 50 ha (122ac) in Beaufort County. The majority ofthe unit is State-owned. This unitextends from the northeastern tip of

Harbor Island and includes all of HarborSpit. It begins at the shoreline east ofCedar Reef Drive running south,stopping at the mouth of Johnson Creek.It includes the MLLW on the AtlanticOcean and St. Helena Sound to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.All of Harber Spit to MLLW is included.

Unit SC–14: Caper’s Island. 238 ha(589 ac) in Beaufort County. Most of thisunit is privately owned. This unitincludes the southern-most 4.5 km (2.8mi) along the Atlantic Coast shoreline ofLittle Caper’s Island beginning at MLLWon south side of the inlet (un-named). Itincludes the MLLW on the AtlanticOcean shoreline to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit SC–15: Hilton Head. 43 ha (106ac) in Beaufort County. The majority ofthis unit is State-owned. This unitincludes the northeastern tip (AtlanticOcean side) of Hilton Head Island andall of Joiner Bank. It begins at theshoreline east of northern Planters Rowand ends at the shoreline east of DonaxRoad. It includes the MLLW of PortRoyal Sound and the Atlantic Ocean towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur. All of Joiner Bank toMLLW is included.

Georgia (Maps Were Digitized Using1993–94 DOQQs)

Unit GA–1: Tybee Island. 37 ha (91ac) in Chatham County. The majority ofthe unit is privately owned. This unitextends along the northern tip of TybeeIsland starting from 0.8 km (0.5 mi)northeast from the intersection of CrabCreek and Highway 80 to 0.7 km (0.41mi) northeast from the intersection ofHighway 80 and Horse Pen Creek. Theunit includes MLLW on Savannah Riverand Atlantic Ocean to where denselyvegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit GA–2: Little Tybee Island. 719ha (1776 ac) in Chatham County. Themajority of the unit is within LittleTybee Island State Heritage Preserve.This unit extends just south of the firstinlet to Wassaw Sound along theAtlantic Ocean coastline, extendingnorth along the sound 1.7 km (1.1 mi).It includes habitat from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–3: North Wassaw Island. 108ha (267 ac) in Chatham County. The



entire unit is within Wassaw NationalWildlife Refuge. This unit includes thenorth-east tip of Wassaw Sound, 1.6 km(1.0 mi) along the inlet side andextending south along the AtlanticOcean shoreline for 1.6 km (1.0 mi). Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–4: South Wassaw Island. 61ha (151 ac) in Chatham County. Theentire unit is within Wassaw NationalWildlife Refuge. This unit extends fromthe last southern 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) onAtlantic Ocean side, around thesouthern tip of Wassaw Island, up tomouth of Odingsell River. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–5: Ossabaw Island. 434 ha(1072 ac) in Chatham County. entireunit is within Ossabaw Island StateHeritage Preserve. This unit includesthe northeastern tip from the mouth ofthe Bradley River east and 12 km (7.5mi) south along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline to a point 0.4 km (0.25 mi)past the south-center inlet. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–6: St. Catherine’s Island Bar.54 ha (135 ac) in Liberty County. Theentire unit is State owned and locatedeast-northeast of St. Catherine’s Island.This unit includes the entire St.Catherine’s Island Bar to MLLW.

Unit GA–7: McQueen’s Inlet. 215 ha(532 ac) in Liberty County. The majorityof the unit is private land along theeastern-central coastline on St.Catherine’s Island. This unit extendsfrom McQueen’s Inlet northapproximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) andsouth approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi). Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–8: St. Catherine’s Island. 60ha (147 ac) in Liberty County. Themajority of the unit is private land onthe southern tip of St. Catherine’sIsland. This unit starts 1.2 km (0.75 mi)north of Sapelo Sound (along AtlanticOcean shoreline) and stops inland atBrunsen Creek. It includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit GA–9: Blackbeard Island. 129 ha(319 ac) in McIntosh County. The entireunit is within the Blackbeard IslandNational Wildlife Refuge. This unit

includes the northeastern portion of theisland beginning just east of the mouthof the confluence of McCloy Creek andBlackbeard Creek and continuing eastand running south along the AtlanticOcean shoreline for 1.4 km (.90 mi). Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–10: Sapelo Island. 85 ha (210ac) in McIntosh County. The entire unitis State-owned and within SapeloIsland. The unit extends south ofCabretta Tip approximately 0.2 km (0.13mi) and north of Cabretta Tip 1.6 km(1.0 mi). It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–11: Wolf Island. 238 ha (590ac) in McIntosh County. The majority ofthe unit is within Wolf Island NationalWildlife Refuge and private lands justnorth of the Refuge. This unit includesthe southeastern tip of Queen’s islandadjacent to the Doboy Sound andincludes the eastern shoreline of WolfIsland. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–12: Egg Island Bar. 61 ha(151 ac) in McIntosh County. This unitis State owned and includes all of EggIsland Bar to the MLLW.

Unit GA–13: Little St. Simon’s Island.609 ha (1505 ac) in Glynn County. Themajority of the unit is private land onLittle St. Simon’s Island. This unitincludes the entire eastern coastlinealong Little St. Simon’s Island. It begins1.1 km (.70 mi) west of the northeast tipof Little St. Simon’s Island and runs eastand then south along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline stopping at the minortributary (no name) on the southeast tipof Little St. Simon’s Island north ofHampton Creek. It includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur. All of PelicanSpit to MLLW is included when thissand bar is emergent.

Unit GA–14: Sea/St. Simon’s Island.191 ha (471 ac) in Glynn County. Themajority of the unit is private land onthe south tip of Sea Island and on theeast beach of St. Simons Island. Thisunit extends north of Gould’s Inlet (SeaIsland) 2.5 km (1.54 mi) starting justsouth of the groin and extends south ofGould’s Inlet (St. Simons Island) 1.6 km(1.0 mi). It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins and

where the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–15: Jekyll Island. 49 ha (121ac) in Glynn County. The majority of theunit is within State lands on JekyllIsland. This unit includes the southernregion of Jekyll Island beginning at themouth of Beach Creek, running towardsthe tip of Jekyll Island and includes theshoreline running north along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline 1.9 km (1.20mi) from the southern tip of JekyllIsland. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–16: Cumberland Island. 1454ha (3591 ac) in Camden County. Themajority of the unit is along CumberlandIsland Wilderness Area and CumberlandIsland National Seashore. This unitincludes the majority of the easternAtlantic Ocean shoreline of CumberlandIsland. It begins .50 km (.31 mi) northof the inlet at Long Point, continuessouth along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline stopping 1.8 km (1.1 mi) westof the southern tip of CumberlandIsland National Seashore. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Florida (Maps Were Digitized Using1994–95 DOQQs)

Unit FL–1: Big Lagoon. 8 ha (19 ac)in Escambia County. The majority of theunit is within Big Lagoon StateRecreation Area. This unit includes thepeninsula and emerging sand andmudflats between 0.33 km (0.21 mi)west of the lookout tower along theshoreline and 0.24 km (0.15 mi) east ofthe lookout tower along the shoreline.Land along the shoreline from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur. All emerging sandbars toMLLW are included.

Unit FL–2: Big Sabine. 182 ha (450 ac)in Escambia County. The majority of theunit is owned by the University of WestFlorida. This unit includes areasadjacent to Santa Rosa Sound of BigSabine Point and adjacent embaymentbetween 8.0 km (5.0 mi) and 11.6 (7.2mi) east of the Bob Sike’s Bridge. Itbegins 0.10 km (.06 mi) north of SR 399to MLLW on the Santa Rosa Sound.

Unit FL–3: Navarre Beach. 48 ha (118ac) in Escambia and Santa RosaCounties. The majority of the unit isowned by Eglin Air Force Base andSanta Rosa Island Authority. This unitincludes lands on Santa Rosa IslandSound side, between 0.09 and 0.76 mi



east of the eastern end of SR 399 toMLLW on Santa Rosa Sound side.

Unit FL–4: Marifarms in Bay County.Excluded. The proposed rule includedthis unit, but it was deleted for lack ofevidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

Unit FL–5: Shell/Crooked Islands.1789 ha (4419 ac) in Bay County.Themajority of the unit is within TyndallAir Force Base and St. Andrews StateRecreation Area. This unit includes allof Shell Island, Crooked Island West,and Crooked Island East from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–6: Upper St. Joe Peninsula.182 ha (449 ac) in Gulf County.Themajority of the unit is within St. JosephState Park. This unit includes thenorthern portion of the peninsula fromthe tip to 8.0 km (5.0 mi) south alongthe Gulf of Mexico from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–7: Cape San Blas. 158 ha (390ac) in Gulf County.The entire unit iswithin Eglin Air Force Base. This unitincludes the area known as the Capebetween the eastern boundary of Eglinand mile marker 2.1, including thepeninsula and all emerging sandbars. Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–8: St. Vincent Island. 146 ha(361 ac) in Franklin County.Themajority of the unit is within St. VincentNational Wildlife Refuge. This unitincludes the western tip of St. VincentIsland that is adjacent to Indian Pass(0.80 km (0.50 mi) east of tip alongIndian Pass, and 1.9 km (1.2 mi) fromtip southeast along Gulf of Mexico). Theunit also includes St. Vincent Pointfrom the inlet at Sheepshead Bayou east1.6 km (1.0 mi) to include emergingoysters shoals and sand bars andextends south 0.21 km (0.13 mi) of St.Vincent Point. The unit includes thesoutheastern tip of St. Vincent Islandextending north 1.4 km (0.90 mi) andsouth and west 2.1 km (1.3 mi). Thewestern tip of Little St. George Island0.80 km (0.50 mi) from West Pass isincluded (state owned lands). Allsections of this unit include land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–9: East St. George Island.1433 ha (3540 ac) in Franklin County.The majority of the unit is within St.

George State Park. This unit begins 5.3km (3.3 mi) east of the bridge andextends to East Pass. Shell Point,Rattlesnake Cove, Goose Island, EastCove, Gap Point, and Marsh Island areincluded. This unit includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur on the Gulf ofMexico, East Pass and St. George Sound.

Unit FL–10: Yent Bayou. 153 ha (378ac) in Franklin County. The majority ofthe unit is State owned. This unit isadjacent to the area known as RoyalBluff. It includes the St. George Soundshoreline between 5.9 km (3.7 mi) and9.5 km (5.9mi) east of SR 65. It includesfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures such asSR 65, not used by the piping plover,begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–11: Carabelle Beach. 56 ha(139 ac) in Franklin County. The areawithin this unit is privately owned. Thisunit is the peninsula created by BoggyJordan Bayou. It includes St. GeorgeSound shoreline (south of US 98) 1.6 km(1.0 mi) southwest along US 98 from theCarrabelle River Bridge and extends 1.9km (1.2 mi) east along the St. GeorgeSound shoreline. It includes fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures such asUS 98, not used by the piping plover,begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–12: Lanark Reef. 260 ha (643ac) in Franklin County. The entire unitis State owned. This unit includes theentire island and emerging sandbars toMLLW.

Unit FL–13: Phipps Preserve. 42 ha(104 ac) in Franklin County. This unitincludes all of Phipps Preserve (ownedby The Nature Conservancy) and anyemerging sandbars from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–14: Hagens Cove. 486 ha(1200 ac) in Taylor County. Themajority of the unit is within Big BendWildlife Management Area. This unitincludes all of Hagens Cove and extendsfrom MLLW on north side of SpongePoint to MLLW on south side of PineyPoint. The eastern boundary of this unitends (0.20 mi) west of SR 361. Itincludes from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–15: Anclote Key and NorthAnclote Bar. 146 ha (360 ac) in Pascoand Pinellas Counties. The majority ofthe unit is within Anclote Key State

Preserve. This unit includes all of NorthAnclote Bar to the MLLW and the north,south and western sides of Anclote Keyfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–16: Three Rooker Bar Island.76 ha (188 ac) in Pinellas County. Themajority of the unit is within PinellasCounty Aquatic Preserve. This unitincludes all the islands and emergingsandbars of this complex to MLLW.

Unit FL–17: North HoneymoonIsland. 45 ha (112 ac) in PinellasCounty. The majority of the unit iswithin Honeymoon Island StateRecreation Area. This unit includesfrom Pelican Cove north to the farnorthern tip of Honeymoon Island. Itincludes the western shoreline fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur or the MLLWon the eastern shoreline.

Unit FL–18: South HoneymoonIsland. 28 ha (70 ac) in PinellasCounty.The majority of the unit isprivate land. This unit includes thesouthern end (southern-most 0.32 km(0.20 mi) on western side) ofHoneymoon Island and encompassesthe far southeastern tip and includesany emerging islands or sandbars toHurricane Pass. It includes from MLLWto where densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–19: Caladesi Island. 120 ha(296 ac) in Pinellas County.The majorityof the unit is within Caladesi IslandState Park. This unit extends fromHurricane Pass to Dunedin Pass on theGulf of Mexico side. It includes fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–20: Shell Key and MulletKey. 190 ha (470 ac) in Pinellas County.The majority of the unit is within FortDesoto Park. This unit includes theShell Key island complex. It alsoincludes the northwest portion ofMullet Key including the westernshorelines from Bunces Pass extendingsouth, stopping 1.4 km (.86 mi) north ofFt. Desoto County Park pier. It includesfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures, notused by the piping plover, begin andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–21: Egmont Key. 153 ha (377ac) Hillsborough County. The majorityof the unit is within Egmont Key



National Wildlife Refuge. This unitincludes the entire island to MLLW.

Unit FL–22: Cayo Costa. 175 ha (432ac) in Lee County. The majority of theunit, including its northern andsouthern boundaries, is within CayoCosta State Park, and nearly all of theremaining area is in the Cayo CostaFlorida Conservation and RecreationLands (CARL) acquisition project. Thisunit begins at the northern limit ofsandy beaches at the northern end of theisland, extends through Murdock Point,which at present has a sandbar andlagoon system, and ends at the formerentrance to Murdock Bayou. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–23: North Captiva Island. 36ha (88 ac) in Lee County.The unit iswithin the Cayo Costa CARL landpurchase project. This unit includes thewestern shoreline extending from 0.80km (0.50 mi) south of Captiva Pass toapproximately Foster Bay. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–24: Captiva Island andSanibel Island in Lee County. Excluded.The proposed rule included this unit,but it was deleted for lack of evidenceof regular use by piping plovers.

Unit FL–25: Bunche Beach. 187 ha(461 ac) in Lee County. This unit ismostly within a CARL Estero Bayacquisition project. Bunche Beach (alsospelled Bunch) lies along San CarlosBay, on the mainland between SanibelIsland and Estero Island (Fort MyersBeach), extending east from the SanibelCauseway past the end of John MorrisRoad to a canal serving a residentialsubdivision. The unit also includes thewestern tip of Estero Island (BodwitchPoint, also spelled Bowditch Point),including Bowditch Regional Park,operated by Lee County and, on thesouthwest side of the island facing theGulf, the beach south nearly to thenorthwesterly intersection of EsteroBoulevard and Carlos Circle. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur or, along thedeveloped portion of Estero Island.

Unit FL–26: Estero Island. 86 ha (211ac) in Lee County. The majority of theunit is privately owned. The unitconsists of approximately the southernthird of the island’s Gulf-facingshoreline starting near AvenidaPescadora to near Redfish Road. Theunit excludes south-facing shoreline at

the south end of the island that faces BigCarlos Pass rather than the Gulf. Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat (includinggrass or lawns) or developed structures,not used by the piping plover, begin andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–27: Marco Island. 245 ha (606ac) in Collier County. Most of the unitis at the Tigertail Beach County Park.The unit’s northern border is on thenorth side of Big Marco Pass, includingCoconut Island and all emerging sandbars. On the south side of Big MarcoPass, the boundary starts at the northboundary of Tigertail Beach CountyPark and extends to just south of thefourth condominium tower south of theCounty Park. The placement of thesouthern boundary assures that the unitincludes all of Sand Dollar Island, thechangeable sandbar off Tigertail Beach.The western boundary includes all thesand bars in Big Marco Pass butexcludes Hideaway Beach. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur.

Unit FL–28: Marquesas Keys. 2,937 ha(7,256 ac) in Monroe County. The unitcomprises the roughly circular atoll thatencloses Mooney Harbor, including GullKeys and Mooney Harbor Key. Theentire unit is within Key West NationalWildlife Refuge. It includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–29: Boca Grande/Woman/Ballast Keys. 56 ha (138 ac) in MonroeCounty. These Keys are east of theMarquesas Keys and west of Key West.Boca Grande and Woman Keys arewithin Key West National WildlifeRefuge. Ballast Key is privately owned.This unit consists only of sandy beachesand flats between the MLLW and towhere densely vegetated habitat ordeveloped structures, not used by thepiping plover, begin and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–30: Bahia Honda/Ohio Keys.372 ha (918 ac) in Monroe County. Thisunit comprises Bahia Honda Key(including a small island off itssouthwest shore), which is almostentirely owned by Bahia Honda StatePark, plus Ohio Key, which is privatelyowned. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–31: Lower Matecumbe Key.19 ha (48 ac) in Monroe County. Part ofthe unit is at Anne’s Beach park, anIslamorada village park. The remainingparts are at Sunset Drive (LowerMatecumbe Beach) and at Costa BravoDrive (Port Antiqua HomeownersBeach) on the Florida Bay side of theisland. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–32: Sandy Key/Carl RossKey. 67 ha (165 ac) in Monroe County.This unit consists of two adjoiningislands in Florida Bay, roughly south ofFlamingo in Everglades National Park.The entire area is owned and managedby the National Park Service. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur.

Unit FL–33: St. Lucie Inlet. 114 ha(282 ac) in Martin County. The unitincludes a small area south of the jettyon the north shore of St. Lucie Inlet,from the jetty west 0.42 km (0.26 mi).While the two sides of the inlet areprivately owned, the great majority ofthe unit is on public land in the SaintLucie Inlet State Preserve, administeredby Jonathan Dickinson State Park. Itbegins on the sandy shoreline south ofSaint Lucie Inlet and extends along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline 2.6 km (1.6mi). It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur. The unit doesnot include sandbars within the inlet.

Unit FL–34: Ponce de Leon Inlet. 68ha (168 ac) in Volusia County. Themajority of the unit is within SmyrnaDunes Park and Lighthouse Point Park.This unit includes shoreline extendingfrom the jetty north of Ponce de LeonInlet west to the Halifax River and Inletjunction. It includes shoreline south ofPonce de Leon Inlet from the inlet andHalifax River junction, extending eastand south along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline 1.2 km (.70 mi). It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur.

Unit FL–35: Nassau Sound-Huguenot.950 ha (2347 ac) in Duval County. Themajority of the unit is within Big TalbotIsland State Park, Little Talbot Island



State Park, and the Timucuan Ecologicaland Historical Preserve. This unitincludes all emergent shoals andshoreline east of Nassau River bridgeand extends to the inlet of the St. John’sRiver. Amelia Island and the northern2.7 km (1.7 mi) shoreline along TalbotIsland are not included. It includes landfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat (including grass or lawns) ordeveloped structures, not used by thepiping plover, begin and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–36: Tiger Islands. 53 ha (130ac) in Nassau County. This unit isprivately owned. This unit extends fromthe mouth of Tiger Creek and runs northalong Tiger Island 0.8 km (0.5 mi) andsouth along Little Tiger Island 1.4 km(0.9 mi). It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur. Emergingsandbars to MLLW are also included.

Alabama (Maps Were Digitized Using1992 DOQQs)

Unit AL–1: Isle Aux Herbes. 227 ha(561 ac) in Mobile County. This unitincludes the entire Isle Aux Herbesisland where primary constituentelements occur to MLLW and is State-owned.

Unit AL–2: Dauphin, Little Dauphin,and Pelican Islands. 880 ha (2,174 ac) inMobile County. This unit includes all ofDauphin Island where primaryconstituent elements occur from St.Stephens Street approximately 17.6 km(10.9 mi) west to the western tip of theisland to MLLW and all of LittleDauphin and Pelican Islands to MLLW.The area is mostly privately owned butincludes State and Federal lands.

Unit AL–3: Fort Morgan. 67 ha (166ac) in Baldwin County. This areaincludes Mobile Bay and Gulf of Mexicoshorelines within Bon Secour NationalWildlife Refuge, Fort Morgan Unit. Thisunit extends from the west side of thepier on the northwest point of thepeninsula, following the shorelineapproximately 2.8 km (1.74 mi)southwest around the tip of thepeninsula, then east to the terminus ofthe beach access road and is boundedon the seaward side by MLLW and onthe landward side to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The area is State-owned but is leased bythe Federal Government.

Mississippi (Maps Were Digitized Using1992 and 1997 DOQQs)

Unit MS–1: Lakeshore through Bay St.Louis. 41 ha (101 ac) in HancockCounty. This unit extends from thenorth side of Bryan Bayou outlet andincludes the shore of the MississippiSound following the shoreline northeastapproximately 15.0 km (9.3 mi) andending at the southeast side of the BayWaveland Yacht Club. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Gulfside of South and North BeachBoulevard and the seaward boundary isMLLW. The shoreline of this unit isprivately owned.

Unit MS–2: Henderson Point. 34 ha(84 ac) in Harrison County. This unitextends from 0.2 km (0.12 mi) west ofthe intersection of 3rd Avenue andFront Street and includes the shore ofthe Mississippi Sound following theshoreline northeast approximately 4.4km (2.7 mi) to the west side of PassChristian Harbor. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Gulfside of U.S. Highway 90 and theseaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–3: Pass Christian. 77 ha (190ac) in Harrison County. This unitextends from the east side of PassChristian Harbor and includes the shoreof the Mississippi Sound following theshoreline northeast approximately 10.5km (6.5 mi) to the west side of LongBeach Pier and Harbor. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Gulfside of U.S. Highway 90 and theseaward boundary is MLLW and theseaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–4: Long Beach. 38 ha (94 ac)in Harrison County. This unit extendsfrom the east side of Long Beach Pierand Harbor and includes the shore ofthe Mississippi Sound following theshoreline northeast approximately 4.4km (2.7 mi) to the west side of GulfportHarbor. The landward boundary of thisunit follows the Gulf side of U.S.Highway 90 and the seaward boundaryis MLLW. The shoreline of this unit isprivately owned.

Unit MS–5: Gulfport. 39 ha (96 ac) inHarrison County. This unit extends fromthe east side of Gulfport Harbor andincludes the shore of the MississippiSound following the shoreline northeastapproximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) to thewest side of the groin at the southernterminus of Courthouse Road,Mississippi City, MS. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Gulfside of U.S. Highway 90 and theseaward boundary is MLLW. The

shoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–6: Mississippi City. 62 ha(153 ac) in Harrison County. This unitextends from the east side of the groinat the southern terminus of CourthouseRoad, Mississippi City, MS, andincludes the shore of the MississippiSound following the shoreline northeastapproximately 7.9 km (4.9 mi) to thewest side of President Casino. Thelandward boundary of this unit followsthe Gulf side of U.S. Highway 90 andthe seaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–7: Beauvoir in HarrisonCounty. Excluded. The proposed ruleincluded this unit, but it was deleted forlack of evidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

Unit MS–8: Biloxi West in HarrisonCounty. Excluded. The proposed ruleincluded this unit, but it was deleted forlack of evidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

Unit MS–9: Biloxi East in HarrisonCounty. Excluded. The proposed ruleincluded this unit, but it was deleted forlack of evidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

Unit MS–10: Ocean Springs West. 11ha (27 ac) in Jackson County. This unitextends from U.S. 90 and includes theshore of Biloxi Bay following theshoreline southeast approximately 1.9km (1.2 mi) to the Ocean Springs Harborinlet. The landward boundary of thisunit follows the Bay side of Front BeachDrive and the seaward boundary isMLLW. The shoreline of this unit isprivately owned.

Unit MS–11: Ocean Springs East. 7 ha(17 ac) in Jackson County. This unitextends from the east side of WeeksBayou and includes the shore of BiloxiBay following the shoreline southeastapproximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi) toHalstead Bayou. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Bayside of East Beach Drive and theseaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–12: Deer Island. 194 ha (479ac) in Harrison County. This unitincludes all of Deer Island, whereprimary constituent elements occur tothe MLWW . Deer Island is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–13: Round Island. 27 ha (67ac) in Jackson County. This unitincludes all of Round Island to theMLWW and is privately owned

Unit MS–14: Mississippi BarrierIslands. 3,168 ha (7,828 ac) in Harrisonand Jackson Counties. This unitincludes all of Cat, East and West Ship,Horn, Spoil, and Petit Bois Islands



where primary constituent elementsoccur to MLLW. Cat Island is privatelyowned, and the remaining islands arepart of the Gulf Islands NationalSeashore.

Unit MS–15: North and SouthRigolets. 159 ha (393 ac) in JacksonCounty, MS, and 12 ha (30 ac) in MobileCounty, AL. This unit extends from thesouthwestern tip of South RigoletsIsland and includes the shore of PointAux Chenes Bay, the Mississippi Sound,and Grand Bay following the shorelineeast around the western tip, then northto the south side of South RigoletsBayou; then from the north side ofSouth Rigolets Bayou (the southeasterncorner of North Rigolets Island) north tothe northeastern most point of NorthRigolets Island. This shoreline isbounded on the seaward side by MLLWand on the landward side to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.Approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) are inMississippi and 2.9 km (1.8 mi) are inAlabama. Almost half the Mississippishoreline length is in the Grand BayNational Wildlife Refuge.

Louisiana (Maps Were Digitized Using1998 DOQQs)

Unit LA–1: Texas/Louisiana border toCheniere au Tigre. 2,650 ha (6,548 ac) inCameron and Vermilion Parishes. Thisunit extends from the east side of SabinePass (Texas/Louisiana border) andincludes the shore of the Gulf of Mexicofrom the MLLW following the shorelineeast 25.7 km (16.0 mi) to the west endof Constance Beach [approximately 2km (1.2 mi) east of the intersection ofParish Road 528 and the beach]; itextends from the east end of the townof Holly Beach [0.25 km (0.16 mi) eastof the intersection of BaritarickBoulevard and the beach] following theshoreline approximately 97 km (60.3mi) east to the eastern boundary line ofRockefeller Wildlife Refuge [3.4 km (2.1mi) east of Rollover Bayou]; and itextends from the east side of FreshwaterBayou Canal following the shorelineeast for approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) to1.3 km (0.81 mi) east of where theboundary of Paul J. Rainey WildlifeSanctuary (National Audubon Society)meets the shoreline. All three sectionsof this unit include the land from theseaward boundary of MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The shoreline in this unit is both stateand privately owned.

Unit LA–2: Atchafalaya River Delta.921 ha (2,276 ac) in St. Mary Parish, LA.This unit is located in the eastern

portion of the State-owned AtchafalayaDelta Wildlife Management Area(WMA) and includes all exposed landand islands where primary constituentelements occur east and southeast of themain navigation channel of theAtchafalaya River to the MLLW. Theislands located south and southeast ofthe deltaic splay, Donna, T-Pat, andSkimmer Islands and the un-named birdisland, are also included in this unit.This unit includes the entire islandswhere primary constituent elementsoccur to the MLLW.

Unit LA–3: Point Au Fer Island. 195ha (482 ac) in Terrebonne Parish. Thisunit includes the entire small island atthe northwest tip of Point Au Fer Islandto MLLW, then extends from thenorthwest tip of Point Au Fer Islandfollowing the shoreline southeastapproximately 7.7 km (4.8 mi) to thepoint where the un-named oil and gascanal extending southeast from LocustBayou meets the shoreline [0.8 km (0.5mi) southeast from Locust Bayou]. Thisshoreline is bounded on the seawardside by MLLW and on the landwardside to where densely vegetated habitat,not used by the piping plover, beginsand where the constituent elements nolonger occur. This entire unit isprivately owned.

Unit LA–4: Isles Dernieres. 795 ha(1,964 ac) in Terrebonne Parish. Thisunit includes the State-owned IslesDernieres chain, including Raccoon,Whiskey, Trinity and East Islands. Thisunit includes the entire islands whereprimary constituent elements occur tothe MLLW.

Unit LA–5: Timbalier Island to EastGrand Terre Island. 2,321 ha (5,735 ac)in Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, andPlaquemines Parishes. This unitincludes: all of Timbalier Island whereprimary constituent elements occur tothe MLLW, all of Belle Pass West [the‘‘peninsula’’ extending north/northwestapproximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) from thewest side of Belle Pass] where primaryconstituent elements occur to MLLW;the Gulf shoreline extendingapproximately 11 km (6.8 mi) east fromthe east side of Belle Pass bounded onthe seaward side by MLLW and on thelandward side to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur;all of Elmers Island peninsula whereprimary constituent elements occur toMLLW and the Gulf shoreline fromElmers Island to approximately 0.9 km(0.56 mi) west of Bayou Thunder VonTranc bounded on the seaward side byMLLW and on the landward side towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins and

where the constituent elements nolonger occur; the Gulf shoreline ofGrand Isle from the Gulf side of thehurricane protection levee to MLLW;and all of East Grand Terre Island whereprimary constituent elements occur tothe MLLW.

Unit LA–6: Mississippi River Delta.105 ha (259 ac) in Plaquemines Parish,LA. This unit is part of the State-ownedPass a Loutre Wildlife ManagementArea and includes un-named sand(spoil) islands off South Pass of theMississippi River near Port Eads. Theentire islands to MLLW are included inthis unit.

Unit LA–7: Breton Islands andChandeleur Island Chain. 3,116 ha(7,700 ac) in Plaquemines and St.Bernard Parishes, LA. This unitincludes Breton, Grand Gosier, andCurlew Islands and the ChandeleurIsland chain. Those islands are part ofthe Breton National Wildlife Refuge orare state owned. The entire islandswhere primary constituent elementsoccur to MLLW are included in thisunit.

Texas (Maps Were Digitized Using 1995and 1996 DOQQs and National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA) Medium Resolution DigitalVector Shoreline)

Unit TX–1: South Bay and BocaChica. 2,920 ha (7,217 ac) in CameronCounty. The boundaries of the unit are:starting at the Loma Ochoa, followingthe Brownsville Ship Channel to thenortheast out into the Gulf of Mexico toMLLW, then south along a linedescribing MLLW to the mouth of theRio Grande, proceeding up the RioGrande to Loma de Las Vacas, then fromthat point along a straight line north toLoma Ochoa. The unit does not includedensely vegetated habitat within thoseboundaries. It includes wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds, and includes the tidalflats area known as South Bay. Beacheswithin the unit reach from the mouth ofthe Rio Grande northward to BrazosSantiago Pass, south of South PadreIsland. The southern and westernboundaries follow the change in habitatfrom wind tidal flat, preferred by thepiping plover, to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The upland areas extend to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand include areas used for roosting bythe piping plover. Portions of this unitare owned and managed by the LowerRio Grande Valley National Wildlife



Refuge, the South Bay Coastal Preserve,Boca Chica State Park, and privatecitizens.

Unit TX–2: Queen Isabella Causeway.2 ha (6 ac) in Cameron County. The areaextends along the Laguna Madre west ofthe city of South Padre Island. Thesouthern boundary is the Queen IsabellaState Fishing Pier, and the northernboundary is at the shoreline due west ofthe end of Sunny Isles Street. TheQueen Isabella causeway bisects thisshore but is not included within criticalhabitat. The eastern boundary is thewhere developed areas and/or densevegetation begins, and the westernboundary is MLLW. This unit containslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–3: Padre Island. 10,924 ha(26,983 ac) in Cameron, Willacy,Kenedy, and Kleberg Counties. This unitconsists of four subunits:

(1) The southern boundary of thissubunit is at Andy Bowie County Parkin South Padre Island, and the northernboundary is the south boundary ofPAIS. The eastern boundary is MLLW inthe Gulf of Mexico, and the westernboundary is MLLW in the LagunaMadre. Areas of dense vegetation are notincluded in critical habitat. This subunitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

(2) The boundaries of this subunitextend from Rincon de la Soledad to thesoutheast point of Mesquite Rincon,continue from that point west to theLaguna Madre shoreline at itsintersection with the King Ranchboundary, and from that point to Rinconde la Soledad. This subunit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

(3) This subunit is within the LagunaMadre and extends from the westernboundary of PAIS to the GulfIntercoastal Waterway. Its northernboundary is a line extending westwardfrom the northwest corner of PAIS, andits southern boundary is a lineextending westward from the southernboundary of PAIS. This subunitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

(4) This subunit extends along thegulf shore of Padre Island from thenorthern boundary of PIAS at the shore,north to the Nueces-Kleberg county line.The inland boundary is where densevegetation begins, and the seawardboundary is MLLW. This subunitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Portions of this unit are owned andmanaged by TGLO, and private citizenswith a significant portion being ownedand managed by The NatureConservancy on South Padre Island.

Unit TX–4: Lower Laguna MadreMainland. 4,980 ha (12,307 ac) inCameron and Willacy Counties. Thesouthern boundary is an east-west lineat the northern tip of Barclay Island, andthe southern boundary is an east-westline 0.9 km (0.5 mi) south of theboundary of the City of Port Mansfield;the western boundary is the line wheredense vegetation begins, and the easternboundary is the Gulf IntercoastalWaterway. The unit includes baysideflats that are exposed during low tideregimes and wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. Portions of this unit are withinthe Laguna Atascosa National WildlifeRefuge, are TGLO-owned, or areprivately owned. Beaches and interiorwetlands may or may not be used eachyear because of varying water levels,storm events, or changes in beachcharacteristics and tidal regime. Waterstages vary in this area withmeteorological conditions. The uplandareas extend to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur and includeupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover.

Unit TX–5: Upper Laguna Madre. 436ha (1,076 ac) in Kleberg County. Thesouthern boundary is the northernboundary of PAIS, and the northernboundary is the Kleberg/Nueces Countyline. The eastern boundary is the linewhere dense vegetation begins, and thewestern boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes a series of small flats along thebayside of Padre Island in the UpperLaguna Madre. It includes wind tidalflats and sparsely-vegtated upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.These boundaries receive heavy use bylarge numbers of shorebirds, includingpiping plovers. The upland areas extendto where densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur, and include upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.

Unit TX–6: Mollie Beattie CoastalHabitat. 241 ha (596 ac) in NuecesCounty. This unit will be described astwo subunits:

(1) Subunit is bounded on the northby Beach Access Road 3, on the east bythe inland boundary of critical habitatUnit TX–7, on the south by Zahn road,and on the west by Zahn Road.

(2) The subunit is bounded on thenorth by Corpus Christi Pass, on the eastby US 361, on the south by the north

side of Packery Channel, and on thewest by the Gulf Intercoastal Watersay.

Some of the uplands are privatelyowned and the remaining are ownedand managed by the TGLO. This unitincludes two hurricane washover passesknown as Newport and Corpus ChristiPasses, and wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. The upland areas extend towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur and include upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.

Unit TX–7: Newport Pass/CorpusChristi Pass Beach. 42 ha (104 ac) inNueces County. This unit is along astretch of Gulf beach 8.5 km (5.3 mi)long. It is bounded on the north by FishPass, on the east by MLLW, on the southby St. Bartholomew Avenue, and on thewest by a line marking the beginning ofdense vegetation. Portions of the unitare managed by the Texas Parks andWildlife Department as part of MustangIsland State Park. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–8: Mustang Island Beach. 97ha (239 ac) in Nueces County. This is astretch of Gulf beach extending fromFish Pass to the Horace Caldwell Pier onHoliday Beach within the City of PortAransas, TX. The landward boundary isbeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulf-ward boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–9: Fish Pass Lagoons. 130 ha(323 ac) in Nueces County. This unitencompasses flats facing Corpus ChristiBay that extend 1.0 km (0.6 mi) oneither side of Fish Pass. The inlandboundary is the line indicatingbeginning of dense vegetation, and thebayside boundary is MLLW. It includesinterior lagoons and wind tidal flats thatare infrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. This unit includes upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.

Unit TX–10: Shamrock Island andAdjacent Mustang Island Flats. 87 ha(216 ac) in Nueces County. This unitencompasses Shamrock Island, anunnamed small sand flat to the north ofWilson’s Cut, and a lagoon complex thatextends 3.5 km (2.2 mi) to the southwestof Wilson’s Cut. Critical habitat includesland to the line marking the beginningof dense vegetation down to MLLW.This unit includes lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–11: Blind Oso. 2 ha (5 ac) inNueces County. This unit is the flats ofthe Blind Oso, part of Oso Bay, from



Hans and Pat Suter Wildlife Refuge(owned and managed by the City ofCorpus Christi) northeast to CorpusChristi Bay and then southeast along theedge of Texas A&M University—CorpusChristi. The landward boundariesextend to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins, and extends out from thelandward boundaries to MLLW. Thisunit includes lands known as wind tidalflats that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–12: Adjacent to Naval AirStation-Corpus Christi. 2 ha (6 ac) inNueces County. This unit is along theshore of Oso Bay on flats bordered byNaval Air Station-Corpus Christi andTexas Spur 3 to a point 2.5 km (1.5 mi)south of the bridge between Ward Islandand the Naval Air Station. Thelandward boundary is the line wheredense vegetation begins, and theboundary in the Bay is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–13: Sunset Lake. 176 ha (435ac) in San Patricio County. This unit istriangle shaped, with State Highway 181as the northwest boundary, and thelimits of the City of Portland as thenortheast boundary. The shore onCorpus Christi Bay is the third side ofthe triangle, with the actual boundarybeing MLLW off this shore. This unit isa large basin with a series of tidalponds, sand spits and wind tidal flats.This unit is owned and managed by theCity of Portland within a system of cityparks. Some of the described area fallswithin the jurisdiction of the TGLO. Itincludes two city park units referred toas Indian Point and Sunset Lake. Muchof the unit is a recent acquisition by thecity, and management considerations forthe park include the area’s importanceas a site for wintering and residentshorebirds. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–14: East Flats. 194 ha (481ac) in Nueces County. This unit isbordered on the north by dredgeplacement areas bordering the CorpusChristi Ship Channel, on the west byMLLW in Corpus Christi Bay, on theeast by the limits of the City of PortAransas, and on the south by an east-west line at the sourthern-most point ofPelone Island. It is also bisected by anavigation channel, which is notincluded in the critical habitat. Aportion of this unit at the west end fallswithin State-owned (TGLO) intertidallands. The remainder of the unit isprivately owned. The upland areasextend to where densely vegetated

habitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur, includingupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–15: North Pass. 447 ha (1,106ac) in Aransas County. The unit isbounded on north by North Pass, on thenorthwest by the line indicating MLLW,on the southwest by the northeast sideof Lydia Ann Island, on the south by aline running due east from the northeastside of Lydia Ann Island, and on thesoutheast by the landward boundary ofUnit. This unit is a remnant of ahurricane washover on the privatelyowned San Jose Island. The uplandareas extend to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur, includingupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–16: San Jose Beach. 187 ha(463 ac) in Aransas County. This unitoccupies a 33 km (20 mi) stretch ofbeach from the North Jetty of AransasPass at the south, to the confluence ofVinson Slough and Cedar Bayou at thenorth end of San Jose Island. The inlandboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of densely vegetated habitat,and the gulf-ward boundary is MLLW.This unit includes lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–17: Allyn’s Bight. 5 ha (14ac) in Aransas County. This unitincludes shoreline of San Jose Island onAransas Bay from Allyn’s Bight to BlindPass, the channel between San JoseIsland and Mud Island. The inlandboundary is where the line of densevegetation begins, and the bay-wardboundary is MLLW. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–18: Cedar Bayou/VinsonSlough. 3,051 ha (7,539 ac) in AransasCounty. Beginning at the confluence ofVinson Slough and Cedar Bayou, thisunit’s boundary follows the shore ofSpalding Cove to Long Reef, thencontinues along a line extending (2.5mi) southwest of Long Reef to the shoreof San Jose Island, then along the shoreof the island to the landward boundaryof Unit TX–16. The unit boundariesextend landward to the line indicatingthe beginning of dense vegetation. Thisunit is a remnant of a hurricanewashover area, and includes the highly

dynamic area of Cedar Bayou, the passthat separates San Jose Island andMatagorda Island. This area includes asmall section of Matagorda IslandNational Wildlife Refuge with much ofthe remaining areas occurring on theprivately owned island of San Jose. Theupland areas extend to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand include upland areas used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–19: Matagorda Island Beach.395 ha (976 ac) in Calhoun County. Thisstretch of beach along the Gulf ofMexico on Matagorda Island extends adistance of 60 km (36 mi) from CedarBayou on the southwest (where it abutsTX–18), to Pass Cavallo on thenortheast. The inland boundary is theline indicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulf-ward boundaryis MLLW. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. The unit falls entirely within theboundary of the Matagorda IslandNational Wildlife Refuge.

Unit TX–20: Ayers Point. 397 ha (982ac) in Calhoun County. This unit is anunnamed lake on Matagorda Islandbetween Shell Reef Bayou and BigBrundrett Lake, with San Antonio Bayto the north. The unit boundary extendslandward from the lake to the linewhere dense vegetation begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur and includes upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.This unit includes marsh and flats atAyers Point on Matagorda IslandNational Wildlife Refuge. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–21: Panther Point to PringleLake. 863 ha (2,133 ac) in CalhounCounty. This unit represents a narrowband of bayside habitats on MatagordaIsland from Panther Point to thenortheast end of Pringle Lake. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating where dense vegetationbegins, and the bayward boundary isMLLW. The unit is entirely withinMatagorda Island National WildlifeRefuge. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–22: Decros Point. 450 ha(1,114 ac) at the Matagorda/CalhounCounty line. This unit includes about7.0 km (4.3 mi) of beach habitat aroundthe island at the western tip ofMatagorda Peninsula between the



natural opening to Matagorda Bay andthe Matagorda Ship Channel. Theupland boundary is the line wheredense vegetation begins, and theseaward boundary is MLLW. Theadjacent upland is privately owned.This unit includes lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–23: West MatagordaPeninsula Beach. 311 ha (769 ac) ofshoreline in Matagorda County. Thisunit extends 40 km (24 mi) along theGulf of Mexico from the jetties at theMatagorda Ship Channel to the oldColorado River channel. The inlandboundary is the line indicating wheredense vegetation begins, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–24: West Matagorda Bay/Western Peninsula Flats. 756 ha (1,868ac) in Matagorda County. This unitextends along the bayside of MatagordaPeninsula from 7.5 southwest of GreensBayou to 2.5 km (1.6 mi) northwest ofGreens Bayou. The landward boundaryis the line indicating the beginning ofdense vegetation, and the baysideboundary is MLLW. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–25: West Matagorda Bay/Eastern Peninsula Flats. 232 ha (575 ac)in Matagorda County. This unit followsthe bayside of Matagorda Peninsulafrom Maverick Slough southwest for 5km (3 mi). The unit begins at MaverickSlough to the northeast and extends 5km (3 mi) to the southwest, enclosing aseries of flats along Matagorda Bay. Theupland areas extend to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand include upland areas used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–26: Colorado River DiversionDelta. 5 ha (13 ac) in Matagorda County.This unit consists follows the shore ofthe extreme eastern northeast corner ofWest Matagorda Bay from Culver Cut toDog Island Reef. The southeasterntidally emergent portion of Dog IslandReef is included within the unit. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the bayside boundary isMLLW. The upland areas includesupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that are

infrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–27: East Matagorda Bay/Matagorda Peninsula Beach West. 295(728 ac) of shoreline in MatagordaCounty. This unit extends along Gulfbeach on the Matagorda Peninsula fromthe mouth of the Colorado Rivernortheast along the peninsula 23 km (14mi) to a point on the beach oppositeEidelbach Flats. The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–28: East Matagorda Bay/Matagorda Peninsula Beach East. 129 ha(321 ac) in Matagorda County. This unitextends along the Gulf beach on thenortheast end of Matagorda Peninsulafrom a point 0.8 km (0.5mi) southwestof FM 457 southwest 10 km (6 mi.) tothe southwest side of Brown Cedar Cut.This unit abuts with Unit TX–29 to thenorth. The landward boundary is theline indicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–29: Brown Cedar Cut. 119 ha(294 ac) in Matagorda County. This unitextends 2 km (1.2 m.) both southwestand northeast of the main channel ofBrown Cedar Cut along the bayside ofMatagorda Peninsula in East MatagordaBay, and abuts unit TX–28 to thesoutheast. The landward boundary isthe line indicating the beginning ofdense vegetation, and the baysideboundary is MLLW. The easternboundary of TX–29 follows the changein habitat from mud flats preferred bythe piping plover, to slightly vegetateddune system adjacent to TX–28. Thisunit includes upland areas used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–30: Northeast Corner EastMatagorda Bay. 120 ha (297 ac) inMatagorda County. This is a unitbounded on the north by the GulfIntercoastal Waterway, on the east bythe northeast limit of Matagorda bay upthe line where dense vegetation begins,on the south by the boundary of UnitTX–28, and on the west by MLLW. It isa system of flats associated with tidalchannels. This unit includes uplandareas used for roosting by the pipingplover and lands known as wind tidalflats that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–31: San Bernard NWR Beach.166 ha (410 ac) in Matagorda and

Brazoria Counties. This is a unitcomposed of Gulf beach, 8.0 km (5.0mi), and extends from the mouth of theSan Bernard River to a point along thebeach 14.0 km (8.7 mi) to the southwest.The landward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–32: Gulf Beach BetweenBrazos and San Bernard Rivers. 108 ha(269 ac) of shoreline in Brazoria County.This unit is a segment of Gulf beachbetween the Brazos River and the SanBernard River. This unit borders an areaknown as Wolf Island. The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–33: Bryan Beach andAdjacent Beach. 157 ha (388 ac) inBrazoria County. The boundariesenclose a length of Gulf beach betweenthe mouth of the Brazos River and FM1495. The landward boundary is theline indicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. A portion of this area is ownedand managed by the Texas Parks andWildlife Department. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–34: San Luis Pass. 110 ha(272 ac) near the Brazoria/GalvestonCounty line. This unit extends along theGulf side of Galveston Island from SanLuis Pass to the cite of the former townof Red Fish Cove (USGS 1:24,000 map,San Luis Pass, Texas; 1963,photorevision 1974). The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW.Approximately 57 percent of the unitincludes flats in the floodtide delta thatare State-owned and managed by theTGLO. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–35: Big Reef. 47 ha (117 ac)in Galveston County. This unit consistsof beach and sand flats on the north,west, and east shore of Big Reef, downto MLLW. South Jetty is not included.The area is currently managed by theCity of Galveston. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–36: Bolivar Flats. 160 ha (395ac) in Galveston County. This unitextends from the jetties on thesouthwest end of the Bolivar Peninsula



to a point on the Gulf beach 1 km (0.6mi) north of Beacon Bayou. It includes5.0 km (3 mi) of Gulf shoreline. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. The area is leased from TGLOby Houston Audubon Society andmanaged for its important avianresources. The upland areas are used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–37: Rollover Pass. 6 ha (16ac) in Galveston County. This unitconsists of Rollover Bay on the baysideof Bolivar Peninsula. The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thebayside boundary is MLLW. It includesflats on State-owned land managed bythe TGLO. This unit captures theintertidal complex of the bay, and isbounded by the towns of Gilchrist to theeast and the Gulf beach of the BolivarPeninsula to the south. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Effects of Critical Habitat DesignationSection 7(a)(2) of the Act requires

Federal agencies, including the Service,to ensure that actions they fund,authorize, or carry out do not destroy oradversely modify critical habitat to theextent that the action appreciablydiminishes the value of the criticalhabitat for the survival and recovery ofthe species. For wintering pipingplovers, we will conduct ourdestruction and adverse modificationanalyses over the entire critical habitatdesignation and on a unit basis, whereappropriate. A consultation focuses onthe entire critical habitat areadesignated unless the critical habitatrule identifies another basis for analysis,such as discrete units and/or groups ofunits necessary for different life-cyclephases, units representing distinctivehabitat characteristics or gene pools, orunits fulfilling essential geographicdistribution requirements. In the case ofthe piping plover, we cannot alwayscurrently identify the breedingpopulation origin of birds on the winterrange. As we continue to collectinformation on banded birds, futureadditional information may allow us toanalyze jeopardy and adversemodification on the basis of theidentified population origin andindividual units or groups of units. Thatis, some designated critical habitat unitsmay fulfill essential geographicdistribution requirements for theendangered Great Lakes breeding

population of piping plover andtherefore the adverse modificationanalysis may be appropriate at the unitor groups of units level. To beconsidered ‘‘destruction or adversemodification,’’ a modification of criticalhabitat must be of such magnitude thatthe effect appreciably reduces the valueof the critical habitat for the survivaland recovery of the listed species.Individuals, organizations, States, localgovernments, and other non-Federalentities are affected by the designationof critical habitat only if their actionsoccur on Federal lands, require aFederal permit, license, or otherauthorization, or involve Federalfunding.

Section 7(a) of the Act requiresFederal agencies to evaluate theiractions with respect to any species thatis proposed or listed as endangered orthreatened and with respect to itscritical habitat, if any is designated orproposed. Regulations implementingthis interagency cooperation provisionof the Act are codified at 50 CFR part402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federalagencies to ensure that activities theyauthorize, fund, or carry out are notlikely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of such a species or to destroyor adversely modify its critical habitat.If a Federal action may affect a listedspecies or its critical habitat, theresponsible Federal agency must enterinto consultation with us. Through thisconsultation, we would advise theagencies whether the permitted actionswould likely jeopardize the continuedexistence of the species or adverselymodify critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinionconcluding that a project is likely toresult in the destruction or adversemodification of critical habitat, we alsoprovide reasonable and prudentalternatives to the project, if any areidentifiable. Reasonable and prudentalternatives are defined at 50 CFR402.02 as alternative actions identifiedduring consultation that can beimplemented in a manner consistentwith the intended purpose of the action,that are consistent with the scope of theFederal agency’s legal authority andjurisdiction, that are economically andtechnologically feasible, and that theService believes would avoid thelikelihood of jeopardizing the continuedexistence of listed species or thedestruction or adverse modification ofcritical habitat. Reasonable and prudentalternatives can vary from slight projectmodifications to extensive redesign orrelocation of the project. Costsassociated with implementing areasonable and prudent alternative aresimilarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 requireFederal agencies to reinitiateconsultation on previously reviewedactions in instances where criticalhabitat is subsequently designated andthe Federal agency has retaineddiscretionary involvement or controlover the action or such discretionaryinvolvement or control is authorized bylaw. Consequently, some Federalagencies may request reinitiation ofconsultation with us on actions forwhich formal consultation has beencompleted, if those actions may affectdesignated critical habitat.

Activities on private or State landsrequiring a permit from a Federalagency, such as a permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE) undersection 404 of the Clean Water Act or asection 10(a)(1)(B) permit from theService, or some other Federal action,including funding (e.g., from the FederalHighway Administration (FHA),Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), or Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)), will alsobe subject to the section 7 consultationprocess. Federal actions not affectinglisted species or critical habitat, andactions on non-Federal lands that arenot federally funded, authorized, orpermitted do not require section 7consultation.

Critical habitat does not includeexisting developed sites consisting ofbuildings, marinas, paved areas, boatramps, exposed oil and gas pipelinesand similar structures. Since existingdeveloped sites, such as those describedabove, do not contain the primaryconstituent elements, they are notincluded in the definition of criticalhabitat for the piping plover.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires usto briefly evaluate and describe in anyproposed or final regulation thatdesignates critical habitat thoseactivities involving a Federal action thatmay destroy or adversely modify suchhabitat, or that may be affected by suchdesignation. Activities that may destroyor adversely modify critical habitatinclude those that alter the primaryconstituent elements to an extent thatthe value of critical habitat for both thesurvival and recovery of the winteringpiping plover is appreciably reduced.We note that such activities would alsolikely jeopardize the continuedexistence of the species, and that anyreasonable and prudent alternatives toremove jeopardy would be similar tothose removing adverse modification.Thus, critical habitat designation isunlikely to appreciably affect theoutcomes of section 7 consultations.However, we note that some Federalagencies may initiate consultation more



often than before because critical habitathas increased their awareness of thespecies.

Federal activities that have undergoneprevious section 7 consultation on theeffects of the action on wintering pipingplover habitat are listed below. Theaction agencies involved in theseconsultations have included the COE,U.S. Coast Guard, and other Departmentof Defense agencies, National ParkService, FHA, Minerals ManagementService, Bureau of Land Management,and Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission.

(1) Dredging and dredge spoilplacement;

(2) Seismic exploration;(3) Construction and installation of

facilities, pipelines, and roadsassociated with oil and gasdevelopment;

(4) Oil and other hazardous materialspills and cleanup;

(5) Construction of dwellings, roads,marinas, and other structures, andassociated activities including staging ofequipment and materials;

(6) Beach nourishment, cleaning, andstabilization (e.g., construction andmaintenance of jetties and groins,planting of vegetation, and placement ofdune fences);

(7) Certain types and levels ofrecreational activities, such as vehicularactivity that impact the substrate,resulting in reduced prey or disturbanceto the species;

(8) Stormwater and wastewaterdischarge from communities;

(9) Sale, exchange, or lease of Federalland that contains suitable habitat andthat may result in the habitat beingaltered or degraded;

(10) Marsh and coastal restoration,particularly restoration of barrier islandsand other barrier shorelines;

(11) Military missions; and(12) Bridge or culvert construction,

reconstruction, and stabilization.With this designation of critical

habitat for wintering piping plovers, wenotify the COE, other permittingagencies, and the public that CleanWater Act section 404 nationwidepermits and other authorizations foractivities within these designatedcritical habitat areas must comply withsection 7 consultation requirements forcritical habitat. For each section 7consultation, we already review thedirect and indirect effects of theproposed projects on piping plovers,and will continue to do so for thedesignated critical habitat.

Activities that may destroy oradversely modify critical habitat arethose that alter the primary constituentelements (defined above) to an extent

that the value of critical habitat for boththe survival and recovery of the pipingplover is appreciably reduced. Theseactivities may destroy or adverselymodify critical habitat by:

(1) Significantly and detrimentallyaltering the hydrology of tidal flats;

(2) Significantly and detrimentallyaltering inputs of sediment andnutrients necessary for the maintenanceof geomorphic and biologic processesthat insure appropriately configured andproductive systems;

(3) Introducing significant amounts ofemergent vegetation (either throughactions such as marsh restoration onnaturally unvegetated sites, or throughchanges in hydrology such as severerutting or changes in storm orwastewater discharges);

(4) Significantly and detrimentallyaltering the topography of a site (suchalteration may affect the hydrology of anarea or may render an area unsuitablefor roosting);

(5) Reducing the value of a site bysignificantly disturbing plovers fromactivities such as foraging and roosting(including levels of human presencesignificantly greater than those currentlyexperienced);

(6) Significantly and detrimentallyaltering water quality, that may lead todecreased diversity or productivity ofprey organisms or may have directdetrimental effects on piping plovers (asin the case of an oil spill); and

(7) Impeding natural processes thatcreate and maintain washover passesand sparsely vegetated intertidal feedinghabitats.

Requests for copies of the regulationson listed wildlife and inquiries aboutprohibitions and permits may beaddressed to the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque,New Mexico 87103–1306 for Texas, andto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200,Atlanta, Georgia 30345 for all otherStates. If you have questions regardingwhether specific activities willconstitute adverse modification ofcritical habitat, the following Fish andWildlife Service personnel may becontacted:Alabama: Darren LeBlanc (334/441–

5181)Florida: Northwest FL: Patty Kelly (850/

769–0552, extension 228), North FL:Candace Martino (904/232–2580,extension 129), South FL: DaveMartin (561/562–3909 extension 230)

Georgia: Robert Brooks (912/265–9336,extension 25)

Louisiana: Debbie Fuller (337/291–3124)

Mississippi: Linda LaClaire (601/321–1126)

North Carolina: David Rabon (919/856–4520 extension 16)

South Carolina: Paula Sisson (843/727–4707, extension 18)

Texas: Loretta Pressly (361/994–9005,extension 228)

Summary of Changes From theProposed Rule

For the proposed rule, shoreline wasmapped at variable scales (zoom factors)and with less detail. For the final rule,all shoreline was mapped at 1:5000 orlarger (greater zoom) scale. In additionto the standardized mapping scale, theshoreline was mapped more precisely.This change in mapping technique anddetail resulted in an increase in reportedtotal mapped shoreline kilometers andmiles for some States. This also resultedin increases in reported mappedshoreline distances by ownership forsome States.

In the proposed rule, a single bufferdistance was set for all units in allStates. For the final rule, thismethodology was not used (see‘‘Methods’’ section).

We have excluded Padre IslandNational Seashore from the proposedcritical habitat designation, based upona determination under section 4(b)(2) ofthe Act that the benefits of excludingthe Seashore outweigh the benefits of itsinclusion. Please refer to the‘‘Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of the Act’’section of this rule for furtherexplanation of this analysis.

Unit-Specific Changes

Below are descriptions of unit-specific changes. The changes statedbelow do not include those attributed toour more fine-scale mapping from theproposed rule. Based on the verbal unitdescriptions provided in the proposedrule, we feel that the public had ampleopportunity to comment on the unitareas below as we have finalized themin this rule.

North Carolina

NC–3 Clam Shoals

For the proposed rule, the DigitalOrthophoto Quarter Quad (DOQQ)image for this unit was not available, sowe estimated its location using a NCAtlas and Gazetteer. For the final rulewe used a 1:100K Digital Raster Graphic(DRG) image. The correct version islocated slightly outside of the bounds ofthe proposed map. This unit is entirelyState-owned and its inclusion issupported by State biologists. This unitconsists of small uninhabited islandsthat are relatively inaccessible byhumans and used primarily by birds.



NC–5 Ocracoke Island

We removed the eastern 3.7 km (2.3mi) of this unit when information wasreceived orally during the commentperiod from Service biologists familiarwith the area. Their observations andknowledge attest that piping ploversconcentrate within one mile of theOcracoke Inlet.

Georgia

GA–14 Sea/St. Simon’s Island

We reduced this unit byapproximately 360 m (1,200 ft) on thenorthern shoreline to exclude anexisting seawall and groin.

Florida

FL–4 Marifarms

We deleted this unit based upon alack of evidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

FL–7 Cape San Blas

We removed 1 mile of shoreline dueto specific site data provided by EglinAir Force Base that documents no useof the western (mile markers 2.1–3.0)shoreline by piping plovers, yetconsistent use on their remaining 2miles of shoreline between 1 milemarkers 0.0 and 2.0.

FL–12 Lanark Reef

Due to a mapping error, weinadvertently omitted the constituentelements on the eastern end of LanarkReef. This unit extends outside of thearea designated in the proposed rule by0.45 km (0.28 mi) to capture emergingsandbars adjacent to Lanark Reef. Thisunit is entirely State-owned, and itsinclusion is supported by Statebiologists. This unit consists of smalluninhabited islands that are relativelyinaccessible by humans and usedprimarily by birds.

FL–24 Captiva Island and Sanibel Island

We deleted this unit based on lack ofevidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

FL–26 Estero Island

We reduced this unit by 2.0 km (1.25mi) after a meeting during the opencomment period with State biologistswho confirmed that piping plovers usethe areas from the lagoon east to theinlet and not further to the west. Weremoved the area west of the lagoonlocated on Estero Island based on a lackof use by piping plovers.

FL–27 Marco Island

This area was reduced significantly.We received sufficient informationduring the comment period to document

and confirm consistent piping ploveruse of Tigertail Beach County Park andSand Dollar Island and its associatedsand bars within Big Marco Pass. Nodata were supplied that documented theuse of Hideaway beach or the privatebeach south of Tigertail Beach CountyPark. Thus these areas were removedfrom the designation based on a lack ofuse by piping plovers.

FL–35 Nassau Sound-HuguenotThird Bird Island and the shoreline of

Big Talbot Island were inadvertentlyomitted in the proposed rule map of FL–35. Data received prior to the proposedrule documented consistent use at thesesites. The unit description in theproposed rule appropriately describedthis unit to include these areas.

FL–36 Tiger IslandsThis unit was reduced by 2.6 km (1.6

mi) after we received data during thecomment period that better defined thelocation used by piping plovers.

Alabama

Unit AL–2: Dauphin, Little Dauphin,and Pelican Islands

We removed the eastern end ofDauphin Island, from St. StephensStreet to the eastern tip, due to lack ofevidence of consistent use of thisportion of the island by piping plovers.

Mississippi

Unit MS–7: BeauvoirWe deleted this unit based on a lack

of evidence of regular use by pipingplovers.

Unit MS–8: Biloxi WestWe deleted this unit based on a lack


Unit MS–9: Biloxi EastWe deleted this unit based on a lack


Louisiana

Unit LA–1: Texas/Louisiana border toCheniere au Tigre

We excluded three areas along theshoreline in the proposed unit based ona lack of evidence of regular use bypiping plovers. Those areas includedthe shoreline between the west side ofConstance Beach to the east side ofHolly Beach, the shoreline from theeastern boundary of the RockefellerWildlife Refuge to the Freshwater BayouCanal, and the shoreline from the westborder of the Paul J. Rainey WildlifeSanctuary east to the Vermilion parishline.

Unit LA–2: Atchafalaya River DeltaWe excluded the Wax Lake Outlet

Deltas lobe and the western portion ofthe Atchafalaya River Delta based on alack of evidence of use by pipingplovers.

Unit LA–3: Point Au Fer IslandWe excluded the shoreline from the

point where the un-named oil and gascanal extending southeast from LocustBayou meets the shoreline to thewestern side of East Bay Junop based ona lack of evidence of use by pipingplovers.

Unit LA–5: Timbalier Island to EastGrand Terre Island

The shoreline of East TimbalierIsland, the shoreline from BayChampagne to the west side of ElmersIsland, the area between the hurricaneprotection levee and the baysideshoreline of Grand Isle, and theshoreline of Grand Terre Island wereexcluded due to lack of evidence of useby piping plovers.

Unit LA–6: Mississippi River DeltaWe reduced this unit by 261,247 ha

(645,280 ac) after the Service and theLouisiana Department of Wildlife andFisheries surveyed for piping plovers inthis area during December 2000. Pipingplovers were located only on the sandislands off the South Pass of theMississippi River during that surveyeffort. Plovers were documented usingthe same islands during the February2001 International Piping PloverSurvey. Thus, this unit consists only ofthose islands.

Economic AnalysisSection 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that

we designate critical habitat on the basisof the best scientific and commercialinformation available and that weconsider the economic and otherrelevant impacts of designating aparticular area as critical habitat. Theeconomic impacts to be considered in acritical habitat designation are theincremental effects of the designationover and above the economic impactsattributable to listing of the species.

We may exclude areas from criticalhabitat upon a determination that thebenefits of such exclusions outweigh thebenefits of specifying those areas ascritical habitat; however, we cannotexclude areas from critical habitat whenthe exclusion will result in theextinction of the species. We utilizedthe economic analysis, and took intoconsideration all comments andinformation submitted during the publichearings and comment period, todetermine whether areas should be



excluded from the final critical habitatdesignation.

An analysis of the economic effects ofthe proposed wintering plover criticalhabitat designation was prepared(Industrial Economics, Incorporated,2001) and made available for publicreview (65 FR 52691; August 30, 2000).The economic analysis reflected theassumption that some additionalimpacts may be experienced as a resultof critical habitat designation. Theanalysis uses a sampling of case studiesprovided by commenters as well asinterviews with stakeholders withprojects that had the requisite Federalnexus for our analysis. Estimates of thecost of an individual consultation weredeveloped from a review and analysis ofhistorical section 7 files from a numberof Service field offices around thecountry. These files addressedconsultations conducted for bothlistings and critical habitat designations.Cost figures were based on an averagelevel of effort for consultations of low,medium, or high complexity, multipliedby the appropriate labor rates for stafffrom the Service and other Federalagencies. Thus, the cost estimatesincluded the potential impact from allexpected future consultations in thearea proposed to be designated ascritical habitat.

Economic effects caused by listing thewintering population of the pipingplover as a federally protectedthreatened species, and by otherstatutes, are the baseline against whichwe evaluated the effects of the criticalhabitat designation. The final analysis,which reviewed and incorporatedpublic comments, concluded that therewould be some impacts as discussedbelow in the ‘‘Exclusions Under 4(b)(2)of the Act’’ section of the rule, but thatthey would not be significant beyondthose already imposed by listing thewintering plover population as athreatened species.

The economic analysis revealed sixactivities that may be affected by thedesignation of wintering critical habitatfor the piping plover because they occurwithin or near critical habitat areas.These activities are: (1) housing andcommercial shoreline development; (2)dredging and disposal of dredgedmaterials; (3) beach nourishment; (4) oiland gas exploration, (5) recreationalvisitation of shoreline, and (6) waterwayoperations. Additionally highwayconstruction and disaster relief werealso identified as activities that could bepotentially affected due to thedesignation of some units.

Economic effects of critical habitatdesignation are only those effects thatresult from the designation. Since the

listing of the wintering population ofthe piping plover as threatened in 1985,we have consulted on the abovementioned activities at one time oranother. While the economic analysisconsidered the effect that critical habitatdesignation could have on theseactivities, any costs associated withthese activities within critical habitatwould most likely occur as a result ofthe listing, due to the occupied status ofcritical habitat. However, the analysisrecognizes that, even in cases whereconsultations would be expected in theabsence of critical habitat, there arescenarios that could involve additionalconsultation costs. For example, (1)some consultations that have alreadybeen ‘‘completed’’ may need to bereinitiated to address critical habitat ifthe project is not completed; and (2)consultations taking place after criticalhabitat designation may take longerbecause critical habitat issues will needto be addressed.

Exclusions Under 4(b)(2) of the ActA draft analysis of the economic

effects of the proposed wintering pipingplover critical habitat designation wasprepared and made available for publicreview (August 30, 2000; 65 FR 52691).We concluded in the final analysis, thatincluded review and incorporation ofpublic comments, that no significanteconomic impacts are expected fromcritical habitat designation above andbeyond those already imposed by thelisting of wintering piping plovers. Acopy of the final economic analysis isincluded in our administrative recordand may be obtained by contacting theCorpus Christi Ecological Services FieldOffice (see ADDRESSES section).

Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allowsus to exclude areas from critical habitatdesignation where the benefits ofexclusion outweigh the benefits ofdesignation, provided the exclusion willnot result in the extinction of thespecies. For the following reasons, webelieve that in most instances thebenefits of excluding HabitatConservation Plans (HCPs) from criticalhabitat designations will outweigh thebenefits of including them.

(1) Benefits of InclusionThe benefits of including HCP lands

in critical habitat are normally small.The principal benefit of any designatedcritical habitat is that Federal activitiesin such habitat that may affect it requireconsultation under section 7 of the Act.Such consultation would ensure thatadequate protection is provided to avoidadverse modification of critical habitat.Where HCPs are in place, ourexperience indicates that this benefit is

small or non-existent. Currentlyapproved and permitted HCPs arealready designed to ensure the long-term survival of covered species withinthe plan area. Where we have anapproved HCP, lands that we ordinarilywould define as critical habitat for thecovered species will normally beprotected in reserves and otherconservation lands by the terms of theHCP and its implementationagreements. The HCP andimplementation agreements includemanagement measures and protectionsfor conservation lands that are crafted toprotect, restore, and enhance their valueas habitat for covered species.

In addition, a section 10(a)(1)(B)permit issued by us as a result of anHCP application must itself undergoconsultation. While this consultationmay not look specifically at the issue ofadverse modification of critical habitat,it will look at the very similar conceptof jeopardy to the listed species in theplan area. Since HCPs, particularly largeregional HCPs, address land use withinthe plan boundaries, habitat issueswithin the plan boundaries will havebeen thoroughly addressed in the HCPand the consultation on the HCP. Ourexperience is also that, under mostcircumstances, consultations under thejeopardy standard will reach the sameresult as consultations under theadverse modification standard.Implementing regulations (50 CFR Part402) define ‘‘jeopardize the continuedexistence of’’ and ‘‘destruction oradverse modification of’’ in very similarterms. Jeopardize the continuedexistence of means to engage in anaction ‘‘that reasonably would beexpected * * * to reduce appreciablythe likelihood of both the survival andrecovery of a listed species.’’Destruction or adverse modificationmeans an ‘‘alteration that appreciablydiminishes the value of critical habitatfor both the survival and recovery of alisted species.’’ Common to bothdefinitions is an appreciable detrimentaleffect on both survival and recovery ofa listed species, in the case of criticalhabitat by reducing the value of thehabitat so designated. Thus, actionssatisfying the standard for adversemodification are nearly always found toalso jeopardize the species concerned,and the existence of a critical habitatdesignation does not materially affectthe outcome of consultation. Additionalmeasures to protect the habitat fromadverse modification are not likely to berequired.

The development and implementationof HCPs provide other importantconservation benefits, including thedevelopment of biological information



to guide conservation efforts and assistin species recovery and the creation ofinnovative solutions to conserve specieswhile allowing for development. Theeducational benefits of critical habitat,including informing the public of areasthat are important for the long-termsurvival and conservation of the species,are essentially the same as those thatwould occur from the public notice andcomment procedures required toestablish an HCP, as well as the publicparticipation that occurs in thedevelopment of many regional HCPs.For these reasons, then, we believe thatdesignation of critical habitat has littlebenefit in areas covered by HCPs.

(2) Benefits of ExclusionThe benefits of excluding HCPs from

being designated as critical habitat maybe more significant. During two publiccomment periods on our critical habitatpolicy, we received several commentsabout the additional regulatory andeconomic burden that may result fromcritical habitat designation. Theseinclude the need for additionalconsultation with us and the need foradditional surveys and informationgathering to complete theseconsultations. HCP applicants have alsostated that they are concerned that thirdparties may challenge HCPs on the basisthat they result in adverse modificationor destruction of critical habitat, shouldcritical habitat be designated within theHCP boundaries.

The benefits of excluding HCPsinclude relieving landowners,communities, and counties of anyadditional minor regulatory review thatmight be imposed by critical habitat.Many HCPs, particularly large regionalHCPs, take many years to develop and,upon completion, become regionalconservation plans that are consistentwith the conservation of coveredspecies. Many of these regional plansbenefit many species, both listed andunlisted. Imposing an additionalregulatory review after HCP completionmay jeopardize conservation efforts andpartnerships in many areas and could beviewed as a disincentive to thosedeveloping HCPs. Excluding HCPsprovides us with an opportunity tostreamline regulatory compliance andconfirms regulatory assurances for HCPparticipants.

A related benefit of excluding HCPs isthat it would encourage the continueddevelopment of partnerships with HCPparticipants, including States, localgovernments, conservationorganizations, and private landowners,that together can implementconservation actions we would beunable to accomplish alone. By

excluding areas covered by HCPs fromcritical habitat designation, we preservethese partnerships, and, we believe, setthe stage for more effective conservationactions in the future.

In general, we believe the benefits ofcritical habitat designation to be smallin areas covered by approved HCPs. Wealso believe that the benefits ofexcluding HCPs from designation aresignificant. Weighing the small benefitsof inclusion against the benefits ofexclusion, including the benefits ofrelieving property owners of anadditional layer of approvals andregulation, together with theencouragement of conservationpartnerships, would generally result inHCPs being excluded from criticalhabitat designation under section 4(b)(2)of the Act.

Not all HCPs are alike with regard tospecies coverage and design. Within thisgeneral analytical framework, we needto individually evaluate completed andlegally operative HCPs in the range ofwintering piping plovers to determinewhether the benefits of excluding theseparticular areas outweigh the benefits ofincluding them.

In the event that future HCPs coveringthe wintering piping plover aredeveloped within the boundaries ofdesignated critical habitat, we will workwith applicants to ensure that the HCPsprovide for protection and managementof habitat areas essential for theconservation of the piping plover byeither directing development andhabitat modification to nonessentialareas or appropriately modifyingactivities within essential habitat areasso that such activities will not adverselymodify the primary constituentelements. The HCP developmentprocess provides an opportunity formore intensive data collection andanalysis regarding the use of particularhabitat areas by the piping plover. Theprocess also enables us to conductdetailed evaluations of the importanceof such lands to the long-term survivalof the species.

We will provide technical assistanceand work closely with applicantsthroughout the development of futureHCPs to identify lands essential for thelong-term conservation of the pipingplover and appropriate management forthose lands. The take minimization andmitigation measures provided underthese HCPs are expected to protect theessential habitat lands designated ascritical habitat in this rule. If an HCPthat addresses the piping plover as acovered species is ultimately approved,we will reassess the critical habitatboundaries in light of the HCP. We willseek to undertake this review when the

HCP is approved, but fundingconstraints may influence the timing ofsuch a review.

During the comment period for theproposed designation of critical habitatfor the piping plover, BNP PetroleumCorporation submitted a detailedeconomic analysis, prepared by MiltonL. Holloway, Ph.D., ResourceEconomics, Inc., Austin, Texas. Theiranalysis concluded that the designationwill cause significant economic impactsbecause of large unoccupied areas beingincluded in the designation, resulting inadditional consultations with theService and delays in proposed projectscausing economic effects. They note asan example of such delays, oil and gasoperators within critical habitat and thePlan of Operations permit processcoordinated by the National ParkService, Padre Island National Seashore.The activities identified as beingaffected include (1) the exploration,development and production of oil andgas reserves, (2) recreational use ofcoastal areas, (3) real-estatedevelopment projects for residential andcommercial use, and (4) transportationof commodities on the Gulf IntracoastalWaterway. They conclude that alllandowners having potential habitat(upon initiation of a project) will needto go through the section 7 consultationprocess with the Service, thus, incurringadditional costs to determine if ploverhabitat is present. Due to theuncertainty of the outcome of suchconsultations, they conclude that allproperty will be devalued as a result ofthe designation. They cite the citizensuit provisions of section 11 of the Actas a means by which property ownersmay be the target of potential violationsof the Act, by opponents asserting thatany activity in the area will lead to‘‘take’’ of the species. They state thatthis potential for litigation will alsoresult in the devaluation of property.

In the final Economic Analysisprepared for the Service by IndustrialEconomics, Inc., Cambridge,Massachusetts, there is recognition thatthe designation of critical habitat for thepiping plover may result in additionalsection 7 consultation costs becausefuture consultations would need toaddress critical habitat issues, inaddition to the effects on the species,and would therefore require more time.Additionally, in the analysis and notedin this rule, we acknowledge that someFederal agencies may initiateconsultation more often than before,because critical habitat has increasedtheir awareness of the species. Eventhough consideration of critical habitatis not likely to impose further projectmodifications beyond those required by



the listing of the plover, projectproponents may nonetheless incur costsabove and beyond those attributable tothe listing of the plover as a threatenedspecies. These costs might include thevalue of time spent in conductingsection 7 consultations beyond thoseassociated with the listing, and/ordelays in implementing oil and gasactivities.

The Padre Island National Seashore(Seashore) has in place a GeneralManagement Plan/DevelopmentConcept Plan (USDI 1983) and a FinalOil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (USDI2000), collectively referred to as thePlans. These Plans provide as generalmanagement direction that ‘‘[n]aturalprocess will be allowed to shape thebarrier island with as little interferenceas possible.’’ We feel that achievingthese results will provide for theperpetuation of the primary constituentelements of the plover, since the pipingplovers habitat is dependent uponnatural processes that shape the coastalenvironment. Thus, we feel that theNational Park Service has in place Plansthat provide for adequate managementand conservation of the piping ploveron lands within the Seashore.

The operating standards in the Oiland Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for theSeashore include:

All proposed Plans of Operation will beevaluated for potential impacts to special-status species. If the evaluation indicates a‘‘may affect’’ situation (includes bothbeneficial and adverse impacts) on afederally-listed or proposed species, and theadverse impacts cannot be eliminated,consultation or conference with the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or NationalMarine Fisheries Service must be conducted.

Because Plans of Operation will beevaluated whether or not the activitiesoccur within critical habitat, and pipingplovers are present on the Seashore, wefind that including the Seashore incritical habitat would provide noadditional benefit to the species. Inaddition, we do not feel that adesignation of critical habitat wouldresult in any benefits from an increasedawareness of the species presence onthe part of Federal agencies andpossibly an increased number ofconsultations. This is due to the factthat the Seashore has Plans in placerequiring consultation with the Servicewhen any activities that may affect afederally listed species are proposedwithin the boundaries of the Seashore.

We also find that exclusion of theSeashore from critical habitat wouldavoid the additional costs that mayresult from time delays in addressing

critical habitat issues, in addition to theeffects on the species. These costs mightinclude the value of time spent inconducting section 7 consultationsbeyond those associated with the listing,and/or delays in implementing oil andgas activities.

Thus, based on the BNP PetroleumEconomic Analysis and the oneprepared for the Service, we find thatthe benefits of excluding the PadreIsland National Seashore outweigh thebenefits of its inclusion.

If you have questions regardingwhether specific activities willconstitute adverse modification ofcritical habitat, or requests for copies ofthe regulations on listed wildlife andinquiries about prohibitions andpermits, contact the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (see contactinformation under the ‘‘Effects ofCritical Habitat Designation’’ section ofthis final rule).

American Indian Tribal Rights,Federal—Tribal Trust Responsibilities,and the Endangered Species Act

In accordance with the President’smemorandum of April 29, 1994,‘‘Government-to-Government Relationswith Native American TribalGovernment’’ (59 FR 22951), ExecutiveOrder 13175, and the Department of theInterior’s requirement at 512 DM 2, wereadily acknowledge our responsibilityto communicate meaningfully withrecognized Federal Tribes on aGovernment-to-Government basis. Notribal lands were proposed fordesignation as critical habitat, and noeffects on tribal trust resources areanticipated from this designation.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735,October 4, 1993), we must determinewhether this proposed regulatory actionis ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject toOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) review and the requirements ofthe E.O. The E.O. defines ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ as one that is likelyto result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on theeconomy of $100 million or more oradversely affect in a material way theeconomy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, theenvironment, public health or safety, orState, local, or tribal governments orcommunities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency orotherwise interfere with an action takenor planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetaryimpact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights andobligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issuesarising out of legal mandates, thePresident’s priorities, or the principlesset forth in E.O. 12866.

(a) While this rule is not expected tohave an annual effect on the economyof $100 million or more, OMB hasdetermined that this final rule is a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underE.O. 12866 because it may raise novellegal or policy issues.

Under the Act, critical habitat maynot be adversely modified by a Federalagency action; the Act does not imposeany restrictions through critical habitatdesignation on non-Federal personsunless they are conducting activitiesfunded or otherwise sponsored,authorized, or permitted by a Federalagency. Section 7 requires Federalagencies to ensure that they do notjeopardize the continued existence ofthe species in addition to avoidingadversely modifying critical habitat. Insome instances, the designation ofcritical habitat could result in anincrease in section 7 consultationsconcerning Federal actions that mayadversely modify critical habitat, andthat may, in some instances, affect thirdparty actions that rely on or are relatedto the Federal action subject to theconsultation (i.e., Federal nexus).However, we do not believe this effectwill result from this rulemaking becausewe are only designating areas that arecurrently occupied by the winteringpopulation of the piping plover and,based upon our experience with theplover and its needs, we believe thatany Federal action or authorized actionthat could potentially cause adversemodification of designated criticalhabitat would also be considered as‘‘jeopardy’’ under the Act, that wouldresult in a section 7 consultationregardless of critical habitat designation.

(b) This rule will not createinconsistencies with other agencies’actions. As discussed above, Federalagencies have been required to ensurethat their actions do not jeopardize thecontinued existence of plover since thelisting in 1985. The prohibition againstadverse modification of critical habitatis not expected to impose anysubstantial additional restrictions tothose that currently exist. Because of thepotential for impacts on other Federalagencies activities, we will continue toreview this action for anyinconsistencies with other Federalagencies actions.

(c) This rule will not materially affectentitlements, grants, user fees, loanprograms, or the rights and obligationsof their recipients. Federal agencies are



currently required to ensure that theiractivities do not jeopardize thecontinued existence of the species, andas discussed above, we do not anticipate

that the adverse modificationprohibition (resulting from criticalhabitat designation) will have anysignificant incremental effects.

(d) OMB has determined that his rulemay raise novel legal or policy issuesand, as a result, this rule has undergoneOMB review.

Categories of activities Activities potentially affected by species listing only 1Additional activities potentially af-fected by critical habitat designa-

tion 2

Federal activities potentially af-fected 3.

Activities such as removing or destroying piping plover winteringhabitat, whether by mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g.,construction, road building, dredging and other navigation projects,boat launch and marina construction or maintenance, beach nour-ishment, erosion control); recreational activities that significantlydeter the use of suitable habitat areas by piping plovers or alterhabitat through associated maintenance activities; sale, exchange,or lease of Federal land that contains suitable habitat that may re-sult in the habitat being destroyed or appreciably degraded.

None.

Private and other non-federal activi-ties potentially affected 4.

Activities such as removing or destroying piping plover habitat,whether by mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., construc-tion, road building, dredging and other navigation projects, boatlaunch and marina construction or maintenance, beach nourish-ment, erosion control) and appreciably decreasing habitat value orquality (e.g., increased vehicular activity on sensitive habitats, in-creased predators, reduced water quality, modified hydrology) thatrequire a Federal action (permit, authorization, or funding).

None.

1 This column represents the activities potentially affected by listing the piping plover as a threatened species (December 11, 1985; 50 FR50720) under the Endangered Species Act.

2 This column represents the effects on activities resulting from critical habitat designation beyond the effects attributable to the listing of thespecies.

3 Activities initiated by a Federal agency.4 Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or funding.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by theSmall Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) anagency must prepare and make availablefor public comment a regulatoryflexibility analysis that describes theeffect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,small businesses, small organizations,and small government jurisdictions).

However, no regulatory flexibilityanalysis is required if the head of anagency certifies the rule will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

SBREFA amended the RegulatoryFlexibility Act to require Federalagencies to provide a statement of thefactual basis for certifying that a rulewill not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. In the economic analysis, wedetermined that designation of criticalhabitat will not have a significanteconomic effect on a substantial numberof small entities. Although small entitiesmay carry out activities withindesignated critical habitat, many ofthese activities lack a Federal nexus andtherefore their impacts on criticalhabitat do not need to be considered.For those actions requiring Federalfunding or authority, we believe that theincremental impacts attributable to thisrule are not significant for reasons

explained above and in the revisedeconomic analysis. Therefore, we arecertifying that the designation of criticalhabitat for the wintering population ofthe piping plover will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

Small Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

Our economic analysis demonstratedthat designation of critical habitat willnot cause (a) any effect on the economyof $100 million or more, (b) anyincreases in costs or prices forconsumers; individual industries;Federal, State, or local governmentagencies; or geographic regions, or (c)any significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, or the abilityof U.S.-based enterprises to competewith foreign-based enterprises.

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

In accordance with the UnfundedMandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 etseq.):

a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly oruniquely’’ affect small governments. ASmall Government Agency Plan is notrequired. Small governments will beaffected only to the extent that anyprograms involving Federal funds,permits, or other authorized activitiesmust ensure that their actions will notadversely affect the critical habitat.

b. This rule will not produce aFederal mandate on State, local, or tribalgovernments or the private sector of$100 million or greater in any year, i.e.,it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct. The designation of critical habitatimposes no obligations on State or localgovernments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order12630, this rule does not havesignificant takings implications, and atakings implication assessment is notrequired. This final rule will not ‘‘take’’private property. The designation ofcritical habitat affects only Federalagency actions. Federal actions onprivate lands could be affected bycritical habitat designation. However,we expect no regulatory effect from thisdesignation since all designated areasare considered occupied by the speciesand would be reviewed under both thejeopardy and adverse modificationstandards under section 7 of the Act.

The rule will not increase or decreasethe current restrictions on privateproperty concerning taking of the pipingplover as defined in section 9 of the Actand its implementing regulations (50CFR 17.31). Additionally, criticalhabitat designation does not precludedevelopment of habitat conservationplans and issuance of incidental takepermits. Landowners in areas that are



included in the designated criticalhabitat will continue to haveopportunity to utilize their property inways consistent with the survival of thepiping plover.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order13132, the rule does not have significantFederalism effects. A Federalismassessment is not required. In keepingwith Department of the Interior policy,the Service requested information fromand coordinated development of thiscritical habitat proposal withappropriate State resource agencies inNorth Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,Louisiana, and Texas. We will continueto coordinate any future designation ofcritical habitat for wintering pipingplovers with the appropriate Stateagencies. The designation of criticalhabitat for the piping plover is notexpected to result in any additionalrestrictions to those currently in placeand, therefore, no incremental impacton State and local governments andtheir activities are expected. Thedesignation may have some benefit tothese governments in that the areasessential to the conservation of thespecies are more clearly defined, andthe primary constituent elements of thehabitat necessary to the survival of thespecies are specifically identified. Whilemaking this definition andidentification does not alter where andwhat federally sponsored activities mayoccur, doing so may assist these localgovernments in long-range planning(rather than waiting for case-by-casesection 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order12988, the Department of the Interior’sOffice of the Solicitor determined that

this rule does not unduly burden thejudicial system and meets therequirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)of the Order. We made every effort toensure that this final determinationcontains no drafting errors, providesclear standards, simplifies procedures,reduces burden, and is clearly writtensuch that litigation risk is minimized.

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use(Executive Order 13211)

In accordance with Executive Order13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning RegulationsThat Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use,’’ the Service assertsthat this rule is not likely to have asignificant adverse effect on the supply,distribution or use of energy. While thisrule is not expected to have an annualeffect on the economy or $100 millionor more, OMB has determined that thisfinal rule is a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction’’ under Executive Order 12866because it may raise novel legal orpolicy issues. This rulemakingdesignates critical habitat for the pipingplover and such designation does notimpact the Nation’s energy resources.This rulemaking does not designate anyareas that have been identified as havingoil or gas reserves, whether inproduction or otherwise identified forfuture use.

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

This rule does not contain anyinformation collection requirements forwhich Office of Management andBudget approval under the PaperworkReduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy ActWe have determined that we do not

need to prepare an EnvironmentalAssessment or an Environmental ImpactStatement as defined by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 in

connection with regulations adoptedpursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. Wepublished a notice outlining our reasonsfor this determination in the FederalRegister on October 25, 1983 (48 FR49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references citedin this final rule are available uponrequest from the Corpus ChristiEcological Services Field Office (seeADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary authors of this final ruleinclude Ecological Services staff fromboth the Service’s Southwestern andSoutheastern Regional and FieldOffices.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,Exports, Imports, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements,Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17,subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of theCode of Federal Regulations as set forthbelow:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for‘‘Plover, piping’’ under ‘‘BIRDS’’ to readas follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatenedwildlife.

* * * * *(h) * * *

SpeciesHistoric range

Vertebrate popu-lation where endan-gered or threatened

Status When listed Criticalhabitat

SpecialrulesCommon name Scientific name

* * * * * * *BIRDS

* * * * * * *Plover, piping ........... Charadrius melodus U.S.A. (Great

Lakes, northernGreat Plains, At-lantic and Gulfcoasts, PR, VI),Canada, Mexico,Bahamas, WestIndies.

Great Lakes, water-shed in States ofIL, IN, MI, NM,NY, OH, PA, andWI and Canada(Ont.).

E 211 17.95(b) NA.

Do...... ...................... do...... ...................... do ............................ Entire, except thoseareas where listedas endangeredabove.

T 211 17.95(b) NA.



SpeciesHistoric range

Vertebrate popu-lation where endan-gered or threatened

Status When listed Criticalhabitat

SpecialrulesCommon name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

3. Amend § 17.95(b) by adding criticalhabitat for the piping plover(Charadrius melodus) in the samealphabetical order as this species occursin § 17.11(h), to read as follows:

§ 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.* * * * *

(b) Birds.* * * * *

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)Wintering Habitat

1. The primary constituent elementsessential for the conservation ofwintering piping plovers are thosehabitat components that supportforaging, roosting, and sheltering andthe physical features necessary formaintaining the natural processes thatsupport these habitat components. Theprimary constituent elements includeintertidal beaches and flats (betweenannual low tide and annual high tide)and associated dune systems and flatsabove annual high tide. Importantcomponents of intertidal flats includesand and/or mud flats with no or verysparse emergent vegetation. In somecases, these flats may be covered orpartially covered by a mat of blue-greenalgae. Adjacent non-or sparselyvegetated sand, mud, or algal flats abovehigh tide are also important, especiallyfor roosting piping plovers, and areprimary constituent elements of pipingplover wintering habitat. Such sites mayhave debris, detritus (decaying organicmatter), or micro-topographic relief (lessthan 50 cm above substrate surface)offering refuge from high winds andcold weather. Important components ofthe beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algae, sparsely vegetated backbeachand salterns (beach area above meanhigh tide seaward of the permanentdune line, or in cases where no dunesexist, seaward of a delineating featuresuch as a vegetation line, structure, orroad), spits, and washover areas.Washover areas are broad, unvegetatedzones, with little or no topographicrelief, that are formed and maintainedby the action of hurricanes, storm surge,or other extreme wave action.

2. Critical habitat does not includeexisting developed sites consisting ofbuildings, marinas, paved areas, boatramps, exposed oil and gas pipelinesand similar structures. Only those areascontaining these primary constituent

elements within the designatedboundaries are considered criticalhabitat.

3. Below, we describe each unit interms of its location, size, andownership. These textual unitdescriptions are the definitive source fordetermining the critical habitatboundaries. All distances and areasprovided here are approximated.General location maps by State areprovided at the end of each State’s unitdescriptions and are provided forgeneral guidance purposes only, and notas a definitive source for determiningcritical habitat boundaries.

North Carolina (Maps were digitizedusing 1993 DOQQs, except NC–3 (1993DRG)

Unit NC–1: Oregon Inlet. 404 ha (997 ac)in Dare County

This unit extends from the southernportion of Bodie Island to the northernportion of Pea Island. It includes allland south of the Oregon Inlet Marinaand Fishing Center to 0.50 km (0.31mile) south of the junction of Highway12 and SR 1257. This unit includeslands from MLLW on the PamlicoSound across (and including all land) toMLLW on Atlantic Ocean shoreline.Any emergent sandbars south and westof Oregon Inlet are included.

Unit NC–2: Cape Hatteras Point. 465 ha(1149 ac) in Dare County

The majority of the unit is withinCape Hatteras National Seashore. Thisunit extends south from the CapeHatteras Lighthouse to the point of CapeHatteras and then extends west 6.4 km(4.0 mi) along Hatteras Cove shoreline.The unit includes lands from the MLLWon the Atlantic Ocean and stopslandward where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where constituent elementsno longer occur.

Unit NC–3: Clam Shoals. 28 ha (70 ac)in Dare County

The entire unit is owned by the State.This unit includes several islands inPamlico Sound known as Bird Islands.This unit includes lands on all islandsto the MLLW.

Unit NC–4: Hatteras Inlet. 516 ha (1273ac) in Dare and Hyde Counties

The majority of the unit is surroundedby Cape Hatteras National Seashore, butis privately owned. This unit extendswest from the end of Highway 12 on thewestern portion of Hatteras Island to1.25 km (0.78 mi) southwest of the ferryterminal at the end of Highway 12 onOcracoke Island. It includes all landswhere constituent elements occur fromMLLW on the Atlantic Ocean across toMLLW on Pamlico Sound. All emergentsandbars within Hatteras Inlet betweenHatteras Island and Ocracoke Island arealso included.

Unit NC–5: Ocracoke Island. 80 ha (197ac) in Hyde County

The majority of this unit is withinCape Hatteras National Seashore. Itincludes the western portion ofOcracoke Island beginning 3.5 km (2.2mi) west of the junction of Highway 12and the local road (no name) extendingwest to Ocracoke Inlet. It includes allland from MLLW on the Atlantic Oceanacross to MLLW on Pamlico Sound. Allemergent sandbars within OcracokeInlet are also included.

Unit NC–6: Portsmouth Island-CapeLookout. 3187 ha (7873 ac) in CarteretCounty

The entire unit is within CapeLookout National Seashore. This unitincludes all land to MLLW on AtlanticOcean to MLLW on Pamlico Sound,from Ocracoke Inlet extending west tothe western end of Pilontary Islands.This unit includes the islands of Casey,Sheep, Evergreen, Portsmouth,Whalebone, Kathryne Jane, and MerkleHammock. This unit also extends westfrom the eastern side of Old Drum Inletto 1.6 km (1.0 mi) west of New DrumInlet and includes all lands from MLLWon Atlantic Ocean to MLLW on CoreSound.

Unit NC–7: South Core Banks. 552 ha(1364 ac) in Carteret County

The entire unit is within CapeLookout National Seashore. This unitextends south from Cape LookoutLighthouse, along Cape Lookout, toCape Point and northwest to thenorthwestern peninsula. All lands fromMLLW on the Atlantic Ocean, OnslowBay, and Lookout Bight up to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used by



the piping plover, begins and theconstituent elements no longer occur areincluded.

Unit NC–8: Shackleford Banks. 716 ha(1769 ac) in Carteret County

The entire unit is within CapeLookout National Seashore. This unit isin two parts: (1) The eastern end ofShackleford Banks from MLLW ofBarden Inlet extending west 2.4 km (1.5mi), including Diamond City Hills,Great Marsh Island, and BlindsHammock; and, (2) The western end ofShackleford Banks from MLLWextending east 3.2 km (2.0 mi) fromBeaufort Inlet. The unit includes allland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand any emergent sandbars withinBeaufort Inlet. This unit is bordered byOnslow Bay, Shackleford Slue, andBack Sound.

Unit NC–9: Rachel Carson. 445 ha (1100ac) in Carteret County

The entire unit is within the RachelCarson National Estuarine ResearchReserve. This unit includes islandssouth of Beaufort including HorseIsland, Carrot Island, and Lennox Point.This unit includes entire islands toMLLW.

Unit NC–10: Bogue Inlet. 143 ha (354ac) in Carteret and Onslow Counties

The majority of the unit is privatelyowned, with the remainder fallingwithin Hammocks Beach State Park.This unit includes contiguous landsouth, west, and north of Bogue Courtto MLLW line of Bogue Inlet on thewestern end of Bogue Banks. It includesthe sandy shoals north and adjacent toBogue Banks and the land on AtlanticOcean side to MLLW. This unit alsoextends 1.3 km (0.8 mi) west fromMLLW of Bogue Inlet on the easternportion of Bear Island.

Unit NC–11: Topsail. 451 ha (1114 ac)in Pender County and Hanover County

The entire area is privately owned.This unit extends southwest from 1.0km (0.65 mi) northeast of MLLW of NewTopsail Inlet on Topsail Island to 0.53km (0.33 mi) southwest of MLLW ofRich Inlet on Figure Eight Island. Itincludes both Rich Inlet and NewTopsail Inlet and the former Old TopsailInlet. All land, including emergentsandbars, from MLLW on Atlantic

Ocean and sound side to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur. InTopsail Sound, the unit stops as theentrance to tidal creeks become narrowand channelized.

Unit NC–12: Figure Eight Island. 134 ha(331 ac) in New Hanover County

The majority of the unit is privatelyowned. This unit extends south fromthe western end of Beach Road onFigure Eight Island to the northern endof Highway 74 on Wrightsville Beach.The unit includes Mason Inlet and thesand and mudflats northwest of the inletfrom MLLW on Atlantic Ocean to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit NC–13: Masonboro. 61 ha (150 ac)in New Hanover County

The entire unit is within the NorthCarolina National Estuarine ResearchReserve. This unit extends 1.1 km (0.70mi) south from the MLLW of MasonboroInlet on Masonboro Island. This unitincludes all lands along the AtlanticOcean, Masonboro Inlet, and MasonboroSound from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit NC–14: Carolina Beach Inlet. 374ha (924 ac) in New Hanover County

The majority of the unit is withinMyrtle Grove Sound on MasonboroIsland and is owned by the NorthCarolina National Estuarine ResearchReserve. It extends 1.80 km (1.12 mi)west along the south shoreline of WolfIsland from the mouth of the Altamajasound. This unit extends south from 3.2km (2.0 mi) north of MLLW at CarolinaBeach Inlet on Masonboro Island to 1.1km (0.70 mi) south of MLLW at CarolinaBeach Inlet on Carolina Beach. Itincludes land from MLLW on AtlanticOcean across and including lands toMLLW on the western side ofMasonboro Island, excluding existingdredge spoil piles. Emergent sand barswithin Carolina Beach Inlet are alsoincluded.

Unit NC–15: Ft. Fisher. 790 ha (1951 ac)in New Hanover and BrunswickCounties

This unit is within Ft. Fisher StateRecreation Area and Zeke’s IslandEstuarine Reserve. This unit extends

south from Ft. Fisher Islands (from therocks), south of the ferry terminal, toapproximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south ofMLLW at Corn Cake Inlet on SmithIsland. It includes all land (includingZeke’s Island) from MLLW on AtlanticOcean across to MLLW on the easternside of the Cape Fear River.

Unit NC–16: Lockwood Folly Inlet. 36ha (90 ac) in Brunswick County

The entire unit is on Oak Island(formerly known as the Town of LongBeach) and is privately owned. Thisunit extends from the end of West BeachDrive, west to MLLW at Lockwood FollyInlet, including emergent sandbarssouth and adjacent to the island. Thisunit is includes land from MLLW onAtlantic Ocean across to MLLWadjacent to the Eastern Channel and theIntracoastal Waterway.

Unit NC–17: Shallotte Inlet. 120 ha (296ac) in Brunswick County

The entire unit is privately owned.This unit begins just west of SkimmerCourt on the western end of HoldenBeach. It includes land south of SR1116, to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur to the MLLWalong the Atlantic Ocean. It includes thecontiguous shoreline from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur along the Atlantic Ocean,Shallotte Inlet, and IntracoastalWaterway stopping north of SkimmerCourt Road. The unnamed island andemergent sandbars to MLLW withinShallotte Inlet are also included.

Unit NC–18: Mad Inlet. 112 ha (278 ac)in Brunswick County

The entire unit is privately owned.This unit extends west 1.2 km (0.75 mi)from the end of Main Street (SR 1177)on western Sunset Beach to the easternportion of Bird Island and includes themarsh areas north of western SunsetBeach shoreline. The shoreline areabegins at MLLW on the Atlantic Oceanand continues landward to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



BILLING CODE 4310–55–C



South Carolina (Maps were digitizedusing 1994 DOQQs)

Unit SC–1: Waites Island-North. 75 ha(186 ac) in Horry County

This unit includes the northern tip ofWaites Island from the MLLW at LittleRiver Inlet and runs west along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline 2.0 km (1.25mi) and includes land from the MLLWto where densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur. The unit continues northand west of Little River Inlet stoppingat Sheephead Creek, including landfrom MLLW to dense vegetation line.The majority of the unit is privatelyowned.

Unit SC–2: Waites Island-South. 58 ha(142 ac) in Horry County

This unit includes the southern tip ofWaites Island from the MLLW at HogInlet and runs east along the AtlanticOcean shoreline 0.80 km (0.50 mi) andincludes MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur. Itcontinues north and west of the HogInlet, stopping at the first majortributary. Critical habitat includes fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur. Emergingsandbars within Hog Inlet and adjacentto the tip if eastern Cherry Grove Beachare also included from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The majority of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit SC–3: Murrells Inlet/HuntingtonBeach. 135 ha (334 ac) in GeorgetownCounty

The majority of the unit is withinHuntington Beach State Park. This unitextends from the southern tip of GardenCity Beach, just south of the groins (arigid structure or structures built outfrom a shore to protect the shore fromerosion or to trap sand) north ofMurrells Inlet from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurstopping perpendicular with thesouthern end of Inlet Point Drive. Itincludes from MLLW south of MurrellsInlet to the northern edge of NorthLitchfield Beach approximately 4.5 km(3.0 mi). The unit includes the MLLWfrom the Atlantic Ocean up to where

densely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The lagoon at the north end ofHuntington Beach State Park is alsoincluded.

Unit SC–4: Litchfield. 11 ha (28 ac) inGeorgetown County

This unit includes the southern tip ofLitchfield Beach beginning 0.50 km(0.30 mi) north of Midway Inlet andstopping at the MLLW at Midway Inlet.It includes from the MLLW on theAtlantic Ocean shoreline across andincluding land to the MLLW on the backbayside. This unit is mostly privatelyowned.

Unit SC–5: North Inlet. 99 ha (245 ac)in Georgetown County

The majority of the unit is withinTom Yawley Wildlife Center HeritagePreserve. This unit extends from MLLWto 1.0 km (.62 mi) north of North Inleton Debidue Beach. It includes shorelineon the Atlantic Ocean from MLLW tothe MLLW on the western side of thepeninsula. This unit also includes fromthe MLLW south of North Inlet 1.6 km(1.0 mi). It includes the shoreline on theAtlantic Ocean from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur. Itincludes shoreline running south andwest of the inlet from the MLLWstopping at the MLLW at the first largetributary (no name).

Unit SC–6: North Santee Bay Inlet. 305ha (753 ac) in Georgetown County

The majority of the unit is within theTom Yawley Wildlife Center HeritagePreserve and the Santee-Delta WildlifeManagement Area. This unit is at theNorth Santee Bay inlet and includeslands of South Island, Santee Point,Cedar Island, and all of North SanteeSandbar. This unit includes from MLLWat North Santee Bay Inlet running northalong the Atlantic Ocean side of SouthIsland 7.2 km (4.5 mi), stopping 0.60 km(0.4 mi) north of an unnamed inlet. Itincludes areas from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.This unit includes the eastern side ofCedar Island adjacent to the NorthSantee Bay Inlet from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.All of North Santee Sandbar to MLLWis included.

Unit SC–7: Cape Romain. 315 ha (777ac) in Charleston County

The majority of the unit is withinCape Romain National Wildlife Refuge.This unit includes the MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur onthe southern and southeastern most 1.9km (1.2 mi) portion of Cape Island, thesouthernmost portion of LighthouseIsland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur,all of Lighthouse Island South toMLLW, and the southern side of the fareastern tip of Raccoon Key from MLLWto where densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit SC–8: Bull Island. 134 ha (332 ac)in Charleston County

The majority of the unit is withinCape Romain National Wildlife Refugeand land owned by the South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources. Thisunit includes from Schooner Creek onnorth and south of the river to north ofPrice’s Inlet on the southern portion ofBull Island along the Atlantic Ocean 1.6km (1.0 mi) and south of Price’s Inlet onthe northeast tip of Capers IslandHeritage Preserve 1.4 km (.86 mi) alongthe Atlantic Ocean. All areas begin atMLLW and extend to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit SC–9: Stono Inlet. 495 ha (1223 ac)in Charleston County

Most of this unit is privately owned.It includes the eastern end of KiawahIsland (approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi))from MLLW on Atlantic Ocean runningnorth to MLLW on first large tributaryconnecting east of Bass Creek runningnortheast into Stono River. It includesMLLW up to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur along StonoInlet and River. All of Bird Key-StonoHeritage Preserve and all of SkimmerFlats to MLLW are included. The Golfcourse and densely vegetated areas arenot included.

Unit SC–10: Seabrook Island. 117 ha(290 ac) in Charleston County

This unit runs from just 0.16 km (0.10mi) north of Captain Sams Inlet to thesouthwest approximately 3.4 km (2.1mi) along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline.It includes land areas from the MLLWon the Atlantic Ocean to where densely



vegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.Most of this unit is privately owned.

Unit SC–11: Deveaux Bank. 130 ha (322ac) in Charleston County

The entire unit is within DeveauxBank Heritage Preserve. This unitincludes all of Deveaux Island to theMLLW and is State-owned.

Unit SC–12: Otter Island. 68 ha (169 ac)in Colleton County

The majority of the unit is within St.Helena Sound Heritage Preserve. Thisunit includes the southern portion ofOtter Island to the eastern mouth ofOtter Creek. It includes the MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur. The entire unit is State-owned.

Unit SC–13: Harbor Island. 50 ha (122ac) in Beaufort County

The majority of the unit is State-owned. This unit extends from thenortheastern tip of Harbor Island andincludes all of Harbor Spit. It begins atthe shoreline east of Cedar Reef Driverunning south, stopping at the mouth ofJohnson Creek. It includes the MLLW onthe Atlantic Ocean and St. HelenaSound to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur. All of HarberSpit to MLLW is included.

Unit SC–14: Caper’s Island. 238 ha (589ac) in Beaufort County

Most of this unit is privately owned.This unit includes the southern-most4.5 km (2.8 mi) along the Atlantic Coastshoreline of Little Caper’s Islandbeginning at MLLW on south side of the

inlet (un-named). It includes the MLLWon the Atlantic Ocean shoreline towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit SC–15: Hilton Head. 43 ha (106 ac)in Beaufort County

The majority of this unit is State-owned. This unit includes thenortheastern tip (Atlantic Ocean side) ofHilton Head Island and all of JoinerBank. It begins at the shoreline east ofnorthern Planters Row and ends at theshoreline east of Donax Road. Itincludes the MLLW of Port Royal Soundand the Atlantic Ocean to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.All of Joiner Bank to MLLW is included.




Georgia (Maps were digitized using1993–94 DOQQs)

Unit GA–1: Tybee Island. 37 ha (91 ac)in Chatham County

The majority of the unit is privatelyowned. This unit extends along thenorthern tip of Tybee Island startingfrom 0.8 km (0.5 mi) northeast from theintersection of Crab Creek and Highway80 to 0.7 km (0.41 mi) northeast fromthe intersection of Highway 80 andHorse Pen Creek. The unit includesMLLW on Savannah River and AtlanticOcean to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures, notused by the piping plover, begin andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–2: Little Tybee Island. 719 ha(1776 ac) in Chatham County

The majority of the unit is withinLittle Tybee Island State HeritagePreserve. This unit extends just south ofthe first inlet to Wassaw Sound alongthe Atlantic Ocean coastline, extendingnorth along the sound 1.7 km (1.1 mi).It includes habitat from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–3: North Wassaw Island. 108ha (267 ac) in Chatham County

The entire unit is within WassawNational Wildlife Refuge. This unitincludes the north-east tip of WassawSound, 1.6 km (1.0 mi) along the inletside and extending south along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline for 1.6 km (1.0mi). It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–4: South Wassaw Island. 61 ha(151 ac) in Chatham County

The entire unit is within WassawNational Wildlife Refuge. This unitextends from the last southern 1.6 km(1.0 mi.) on Atlantic Ocean side, aroundthe southern tip of Wassaw Island, upto mouth of Odingsell River. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–5: Ossabaw Island. 434 ha(1072 ac) in Chatham County

The entire unit is within OssabawIsland State Heritage Preserve. This unitincludes the northeastern tip from themouth of the Bradley River east and 12km (7.5 mi) south along the AtlanticOcean shoreline to a point 0.4 km (0.25mi) past the south-center inlet. It

includes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–6: St. Catherine’s Island Bar.54 ha (135 ac) in Liberty County

The entire unit is State owned andlocated east-northeast of St. Catherine’sIsland. This unit includes the entire St.Catherine’s Island Bar to MLLW.

Unit GA–7: McQueen’s Inlet. 215 ha(532 ac) in Liberty County

The majority of the unit is privateland along the eastern-central coastlineon St. Catherine’s Island. This unitextends from McQueen’s Inlet northapproximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) andsouth approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi). Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–8: St. Catherine’s Island. 60 ha(147 ac) in Liberty County

The majority of the unit is privateland on the southern tip of St.Catherine’s Island. This unit starts 1.2km (0.75 mi) north of Sapelo Sound(along Atlantic Ocean shoreline) andstops inland at Brunsen Creek. Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–9: Blackbeard Island. 129 ha(319 ac) in McIntosh County

The entire unit is within theBlackbeard Island National WildlifeRefuge. This unit includes thenortheastern portion of the islandbeginning just east of the mouth of theconfluence of McCloy Creek andBlackbeard Creek and continuing eastand running south along the AtlanticOcean shoreline for 1.4 km (.90 mi). Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–10: Sapelo Island. 85 ha (210ac) in McIntosh County

The entire unit is State-owned andwithin Sapelo Island. The unit extendssouth of Cabretta Tip approximately 0.2km (0.13 mi) and north of Cabretta Tip1.6 km (1.0 mi). It includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit GA–11: Wolf Island. 238 ha (590ac) in McIntosh County

The majority of the unit is withinWolf Island National Wildlife Refugeand private lands just north of theRefuge. This unit includes thesoutheastern tip of Queen’s islandadjacent to the Doboy Sound andincludes the eastern shoreline of WolfIsland. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit GA–12: Egg Island Bar. 61 ha (151ac) in McIntosh County

This unit is State owned and includesall of Egg Island Bar to the MLLW.

Unit GA–13: Little St. Simon’s Island.609 ha (1505 ac) in Glynn County

The majority of the unit is privateland on Little St. Simon’s Island. Thisunit includes the entire easterncoastline along Little St. Simon’s Island.It begins 1.1 km (.70 mi) west of thenortheast tip of Little St. Simon’s Islandand runs east and then south along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline stopping at theminor tributary (no name) on thesoutheast tip of Little St. Simon’s Islandnorth of Hampton Creek. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.All of Pelican Spit to MLLW is includedwhen this sand bar is emergent.

Unit GA–14: Sea/St. Simon’s Island. 191ha (471 ac) in Glynn County

The majority of the unit is privateland on the south tip of Sea Island andon the east beach of St. Simons Island.This unit extends north of Gould’s Inlet(Sea Island) 2.5 km (1.54 mi) startingjust south of the groin and extendssouth of Gould’s Inlet (St. SimonsIsland) 1.6 km (1.0 mi). It includes landfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit GA–15: Jekyll Island. 49 ha (121ac) in Glynn County

The majority of the unit is withinState lands on Jekyll Island. This unitincludes the southern region of JekyllIsland beginning at the mouth of BeachCreek, running towards the tip of JekyllIsland and includes the shorelinerunning north along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline 1.9 km (1.20 mi) from thesouthern tip of Jekyll Island. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the piping



plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit GA–16: Cumberland Island. 1454ha (3591 ac) in Camden County

The majority of the unit is alongCumberland Island Wilderness Area and

Cumberland Island National Seashore.This unit includes the majority of theeastern Atlantic Ocean shoreline ofCumberland Island. It begins .50 km (.31mi) north of the inlet at Long Point,continues south along the AtlanticOcean shoreline stopping 1.8 km (1.1

mi) west of the southern tip ofCumberland Island National Seashore. Itincludes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.




Florida (Maps were digitized using1994–95 DOQQs)

Unit FL–1: Big Lagoon. 8 ha (19 ac) inEscambia County

The majority of the unit is within BigLagoon State Recreation Area. This unitincludes the peninsula and emergingsand and mudflats between 0.33 km(0.21 mi) west of the lookout toweralong the shoreline and 0.24 km (0.15mi) east of the lookout tower along theshoreline. Land along the shoreline fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur. All emergingsandbars to MLLW are included.

Unit FL–2: Big Sabine. 182 ha (450 ac)in Escambia County

The majority of the unit is owned bythe University of West Florida. This unitincludes areas adjacent to Santa RosaSound of Big Sabine Point and adjacentembayment between 8.0 km (5.0 mi) and11.6 (7.2 mi) east of the Bob Sike’sBridge. It begins 0.10 km (.06 mi) northof SR 399 to MLLW on the Santa RosaSound.

Unit FL–3: Navarre Beach. 48 ha (118ac) in Escambia and Santa RosaCounties

The majority of the unit is owned byEglin Air Force Base and Santa RosaIsland Authority. This unit includeslands on Santa Rosa Island Sound side,between 0.09 and 0.76 mi east of theeastern end of SR 399 to MLLW onSanta Rosa Sound side.

Unit FL–5: Shell/Crooked Islands. 1789ha (4419 ac) in Bay County

The majority of the unit is withinTyndall Air Force Base and St. AndrewsState Recreation Area. This unitincludes all of Shell Island, CrookedIsland West, and Crooked Island Eastfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–6: Upper St. Joe Peninsula. 182ha (449 ac) in Gulf County

The majority of the unit is within St.Joseph State Park. This unit includes thenorthern portion of the peninsula fromthe tip to 8.0 km (5.0 mi) south alongthe Gulf of Mexico from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–7: Cape San Blas. 158 ha (390ac) in Gulf County

The entire unit is within Eglin AirForce Base. This unit includes the areaknown as the Cape between the easternboundary of Eglin and mile marker 2.1,including the peninsula and allemerging sandbars. It includes landfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–8: St. Vincent Island. 146 ha(361 ac) in Franklin County

The majority of the unit is within St.Vincent National Wildlife Refuge. Thisunit includes the western tip of St.Vincent Island that is adjacent to IndianPass (0.80 km (0.50 mi) east of tip alongIndian Pass, and 1.9 km (1.2 mi) fromtip southeast along Gulf of Mexico). Theunit also includes St. Vincent Pointfrom the inlet at Sheepshead Bayou east1.6 km (1.0 mi) to include emergingoysters shoals and sand bars andextends south 0.21 km (0.13 mi) of St.Vincent Point. The unit includes thesoutheastern tip of St. Vincent Islandextending north 1.4 km (0.90 mi) andsouth and west 2.1 km (1.3 mi). Thewestern tip of Little St. George Island0.80 km (0.50 mi) from West Pass isincluded (state owned lands). Allsections of this unit include land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–9: East St. George Island. 1433ha (3540 ac) in Franklin County

The majority of the unit is within St.George State Park. This unit begins 5.3km (3.3 mi) east of the bridge andextends to East Pass. Shell Point,Rattlesnake Cove, Goose Island, EastCove, Gap Point, and Marsh Island areincluded. This unit includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur on the Gulf ofMexico, East Pass and St. George Sound.

Unit FL–10: Yent Bayou. 153 ha (378 ac)in Franklin County

The majority of the unit is Stateowned. This unit is adjacent to the areaknown as Royal Bluff. It includes the St.George Sound shoreline between 5.9 km(3.7 mi) and 9.5 km (5.9mi) east of SR65. It includes from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat or developedstructures such as SR 65, not used bythe piping plover, begin and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–11: Carabelle Beach. 56 ha (139ac) in Franklin County

The area within this unit is privatelyowned. This unit is the peninsulacreated by Boggy Jordan Bayou. Itincludes St. George Sound shoreline(south of US 98) 1.6 km (1.0 mi)southwest along US 98 from theCarrabelle River Bridge and extends 1.9km (1.2 mi) east along the St. GeorgeSound shoreline. It includes fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures such asUS 98, not used by the piping plover,begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–12: Lanark Reef. 260 ha (643ac) in Franklin County

The entire unit is State owned. Thisunit includes the entire island andemerging sandbars to MLLW.

Unit FL–13: Phipps Preserve. 42 ha (104ac) in Franklin County

This unit includes all of PhippsPreserve (owned by The NatureConservancy) and any emergingsandbars from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–14: Hagens Cove. 486 ha (1200ac) in Taylor County

The majority of the unit is within BigBend Wildlife Management Area. Thisunit includes all of Hagens Cove andextends from MLLW on north side ofSponge Point to MLLW on south side ofPiney Point. The eastern boundary ofthis unit ends (0.20 mi) west of SR 361.It includes from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–15: Anclote Key and NorthAnclote Bar. 146 ha (360 ac) in Pascoand Pinellas Counties

The majority of the unit is withinAnclote Key State Preserve. This unitincludes all of North Anclote Bar to theMLLW and the north, south and westernsides of Anclote Key from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–16: Three Rooker Bar Island. 76ha (188 ac) in Pinellas County

The majority of the unit is withinPinellas County Aquatic Preserve. Thisunit includes all the islands andemerging sandbars of this complex toMLLW.



Unit FL–17: North Honeymoon Island.45 ha (112 ac) in Pinellas County

The majority of the unit is withinHoneymoon Island State RecreationArea. This unit includes from PelicanCove north to the far northern tip ofHoneymoon Island. It includes thewestern shoreline from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur orthe MLLW on the eastern shoreline.

Unit FL–18: South Honeymoon Island.28 ha (70 ac) in Pinellas County

The majority of the unit is privateland. This unit includes the southernend (southern-most 0.32 km (0.20 mi)on western side) of Honeymoon Islandand encompasses the far southeasterntip and includes any emerging islandsor sandbars to Hurricane Pass. Itincludes from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–19: Caladesi Island. 120 ha (296ac) in Pinellas County

The majority of the unit is withinCaladesi Island State Park. This unitextends from Hurricane Pass to DunedinPass on the Gulf of Mexico side. Itincludes from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–20: Shell Key and Mullet Key.190 ha (470 ac) in Pinellas County

The majority of the unit is within FortDesoto Park. This unit includes theShell Key island complex. It alsoincludes the northwest portion ofMullet Key including the westernshorelines from Bunces Pass extendingsouth, stopping 1.4 km (.86 mi) north ofFt. Desoto County Park pier. It includesfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures, notused by the piping plover, begin andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–21: Egmont Key. 153 ha (377ac) Hillsborough County

The majority of the unit is withinEgmont Key National Wildlife Refuge.This unit includes the entire island toMLLW.

Unit FL–22: Cayo Costa. 175 ha (432 ac)in Lee County

The majority of the unit, including itsnorthern and southern boundaries, iswithin Cayo Costa State Park, andnearly all of the remaining area is in theCayo Costa Florida Conservation andRecreation Lands (CARL) acquisition

project. This unit begins at the northernlimit of sandy beaches at the northernend of the island, extends throughMurdock Point, which at present has asandbar and lagoon system, and ends atthe former entrance to Murdock Bayou.It includes land from MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–23: North Captiva Island. 36 ha(88 ac) in Lee County

The unit is within the Cayo CostaCARL land purchase project. This unitincludes the western shorelineextending from 0.80 km (0.50 mi) southof Captiva Pass to approximately FosterBay. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–25: Bunche Beach. 187 ha (461ac) in Lee County

This unit is mostly within a CARLEstero Bay acquisition project. BuncheBeach (also spelled Bunch) lies alongSan Carlos Bay, on the mainlandbetween Sanibel Island and EsteroIsland (Fort Myers Beach), extendingeast from the Sanibel Causeway past theend of John Morris Road to a canalserving a residential subdivision. Theunit also includes the western tip ofEstero Island (Bodwitch Point, alsospelled Bowditch Point), includingBowditch Regional Park, operated byLee County and, on the southwest sideof the island facing the Gulf, the beachsouth nearly to the northwesterlyintersection of Estero Boulevard andCarlos Circle. It includes land fromMLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat or developed structures, notused by the piping plover, begin andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur or, along the developedportion of Estero Island.

Unit FL–26: Estero Island. 86 ha (211 ac)in Lee County

The majority of the unit is privatelyowned. The unit consists ofapproximately the southern third of theisland’s Gulf-facing shoreline startingnear Avenida Pescadora to near RedfishRoad. The unit excludes south-facingshoreline at the south end of the islandthat faces Big Carlos Pass rather than theGulf. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–27: Marco Island. 245 ha (606ac) in Collier County

Most of the unit is at the TigertailBeach County Park. The unit’s northernborder is on the north side of Big MarcoPass, including Coconut Island and allemerging sand bars. On the south sideof Big Marco Pass, the boundary startsat the north boundary of Tigertail BeachCounty Park and extends to just southof the fourth condominium tower southof the County Park. The placement ofthe southern boundary assures that theunit includes all of Sand Dollar Island,the changeable sandbar off TigertailBeach. The western boundary includesall the sand bars in Big Marco Pass butexcludes Hideaway Beach. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur.

Unit FL–28: Marquesas Keys. 2937 ha(7256 ac) in Monroe County

The unit comprises the roughlycircular atoll that encloses MooneyHarbor, including Gull Keys andMooney Harbor Key. The entire unit iswithin Key West National WildlifeRefuge. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur.

Unit FL–29: Boca Grande/Woman/Ballast Keys. 56 ha (138 ac) in MonroeCounty

These Keys are east of the MarquesasKeys and west of Key West. BocaGrande and Woman Keys are withinKey West National Wildlife Refuge.Ballast Key is privately owned. Thisunit consists only of sandy beaches andflats between the MLLW and to wheredensely vegetated habitat or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–30: Bahia Honda/Ohio Keys.372 ha (918 ac) in Monroe County

This unit comprises Bahia Honda Key(including a small island off itssouthwest shore), which is almostentirely owned by Bahia Honda StatePark, plus Ohio Key, which is privatelyowned. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.



Unit FL–31: Lower Matecumbe Key. 19ha (48 ac) in Monroe County

Part of the unit is at Anne’s Beachpark, an Islamorada village park. Theremaining parts are at Sunset Drive(Lower Matecumbe Beach) and at CostaBravo Drive (Port Antiqua HomeownersBeach) on the Florida Bay side of theisland. It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–32: Sandy Key/Carl Ross Key.67 ha (165 ac) in Monroe County

This unit consists of two adjoiningislands in Florida Bay, roughly south ofFlamingo in Everglades National Park.The entire area is owned and managedby the National Park Service. It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur.

Unit FL–33: St. Lucie Inlet. 114 ha (282ac) in Martin County

The unit includes a small area southof the jetty on the north shore of St.Lucie Inlet, from the jetty west 0.42 km

(0.26 mi). While the two sides of theinlet are privately owned, the greatmajority of the unit is on public land inthe Saint Lucie Inlet State Preserve,administered by Jonathan DickinsonState Park. It begins on the sandyshoreline south of Saint Lucie Inlet andextends along the Atlantic Oceanshoreline 2.6 km (1.6 mi). It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur. The unit does not includesandbars within the inlet.

Unit FL–34: Ponce de Leon Inlet. 68 ha(168 ac) in Volusia County

The majority of the unit is withinSmyrna Dunes Park and LighthousePoint Park. This unit includes shorelineextending from the jetty north of Poncede Leon Inlet west to the Halifax Riverand Inlet junction. It includes shorelinesouth of Ponce de Leon Inlet from theinlet and Halifax River junction,extending east and south along theAtlantic Ocean shoreline 1.2 km (.70mi). It includes land from MLLW towhere densely vegetated habitat(including grass or lawns) or developedstructures, not used by the pipingplover, begin and where the constituentelements no longer occur.

Unit FL–35: Nassau Sound-Huguenot.950 ha (2347 ac) in Duval County

The majority of the unit is within BigTalbot Island State Park, Little TalbotIsland State Park, and the TimucuanEcological and Historical Preserve. Thisunit includes all emergent shoals andshoreline east of Nassau River bridgeand extends to the inlet of the St. John’sRiver. Amelia Island and the northern2.7 km (1.7 mi) shoreline along TalbotIsland are not included. It includes landfrom MLLW to where densely vegetatedhabitat (including grass or lawns) ordeveloped structures, not used by thepiping plover, begin and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.

Unit FL–36: Tiger Islands. 53 ha (130 ac)in Nassau County

This unit is privately owned. Thisunit extends from the mouth of TigerCreek and runs north along Tiger Island0.8 km (0.5 mi) and south along LittleTiger Island 1.4 km (0.9 mi). It includesland from MLLW to where denselyvegetated habitat (including grass orlawns) or developed structures, not usedby the piping plover, begin and wherethe constituent elements no longeroccur. Emerging sandbars to MLLW arealso included.BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Alabama (Maps were digitized using1992 DOQQs)

Unit AL–1: Isle Aux Herbes. 227 ha (561ac) in Mobile County

This unit includes the entire Isle AuxHerbes island where primaryconstituent elements occur to MLLWand is State-owned.

Unit AL–2: Dauphin, Little Dauphin,and Pelican Islands. 880 ha (2,174 ac) inMobile County

This unit includes all of DauphinIsland where primary constituent

elements occur from St. Stephens Streetapproximately 17.6 km (10.9 mi) west tothe western tip of the island to MLLWand all of Little Dauphin and PelicanIslands to MLLW. The area is mostlyprivately owned but includes State andFederal lands.

Unit AL–3: Fort Morgan. 67 ha (166 ac)in Baldwin County

This area includes Mobile Bay andGulf of Mexico shorelines within BonSecour National Wildlife Refuge, FortMorgan Unit. This unit extends from the

west side of the pier on the northwestpoint of the peninsula, following theshoreline approximately 2.8 km (1.74mi) southwest around the tip of thepeninsula, then east to the terminus ofthe beach access road and is boundedon the seaward side by MLLW and onthe landward side to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The area is State-owned but is leased bythe Federal Government.



Mississippi (Maps were digitizedusing 1992 and 1997 DOQQs)

Unit MS–1: Lakeshore through Bay St.Louis. 41 ha (101 ac) in Hancock County

This unit extends from the north sideof Bryan Bayou outlet and includes theshore of the Mississippi Soundfollowing the shoreline northeastapproximately 15.0 km (9.3 mi) andending at the southeast side of the BayWaveland Yacht Club. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Gulfside of South and North BeachBoulevard and the seaward boundary isMLLW. The shoreline of this unit isprivately owned.

Unit MS–2: Henderson Point. 34 ha (84ac) in Harrison County

This unit extends from 0.2 km (0.12mi) west of the intersection of 3rdAvenue and Front Street and includesthe shore of the Mississippi Soundfollowing the shoreline northeastapproximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to thewest side of Pass Christian Harbor. Thelandward boundary of this unit followsthe Gulf side of U.S. Highway 90 andthe seaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–3: Pass Christian. 77 ha (190ac) in Harrison County

This unit extends from the east sideof Pass Christian Harbor and includesthe shore of the Mississippi Soundfollowing the shoreline northeastapproximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) to thewest side of Long Beach Pier andHarbor. The landward boundary of thisunit follows the Gulf side of U.S.Highway 90 and the seaward boundaryis MLLW. The shoreline of this unit isprivately owned.

Unit MS–4: Long Beach. 38 ha (94 ac)in Harrison County

This unit extends from the east sideof Long Beach Pier and Harbor andincludes the shore of the MississippiSound following the shoreline northeastapproximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to thewest side of Gulfport Harbor. Thelandward boundary of this unit follows

the Gulf side of U.S. Highway 90 andthe seaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–5: Gulfport. 39 ha (96 ac) inHarrison County

This unit extends from the east sideof Gulfport Harbor and includes theshore of the Mississippi Soundfollowing the shoreline northeastapproximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) to thewest side of the groin at the southernterminus of Courthouse Road,Mississippi City, MS. The landwardboundary of this unit follows the Gulfside of U.S. Highway 90 and theseaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–6: Mississippi City. 62 ha (153ac) in Harrison County

This unit extends from the east sideof the groin at the southern terminus ofCourthouse Road, Mississippi City, MS,and includes the shore of theMississippi Sound following theshoreline northeast approximately 7.9km (4.9 mi) to the west side of PresidentCasino. The landward boundary of thisunit follows the Gulf side of U.S.Highway 90 and the seaward boundaryis MLLW. The shoreline of this unit isprivately owned.

Unit MS–10: Ocean Springs West. 11 ha(27 ac) in Jackson County

This unit extends from U.S. 90 andincludes the shore of Biloxi Bayfollowing the shoreline southeastapproximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi) to theOcean Springs Harbor inlet. Thelandward boundary of this unit followsthe Bay side of Front Beach Drive andthe seaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–11: Ocean Springs East. 7 ha(17 ac) in Jackson County

This unit extends from the east sideof Weeks Bayou and includes the shoreof Biloxi Bay following the shorelinesoutheast approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi)to Halstead Bayou. The landward

boundary of this unit follows the Bayside of East Beach Drive and theseaward boundary is MLLW. Theshoreline of this unit is privatelyowned.

Unit MS–12: Deer Island. 194 ha (479ac) in Harrison County

This unit includes all of Deer Island,where primary constituent elementsoccur to the MLWW. Deer Island isprivately owned.

Unit MS–13: Round Island. 27 ha (67 ac)in Jackson County

This unit includes all of Round Islandto the MLWW and is privately owned

Unit MS–14: Mississippi Barrier Islands.3,168 ha (7,828 ac) in Harrison andJackson Counties.

This unit includes all of Cat, East andWest Ship, Horn, Spoil, and Petit BoisIslands where primary constituentelements occur to MLLW. Cat Island isprivately owned, and the remainingislands are part of the Gulf IslandsNational Seashore.

Unit MS–15: North and South Rigolets.159 ha (393 ac) in Jackson County, MS,and 12 ha (30 ac) in Mobile County, AL

This unit extends from thesouthwestern tip of South RigoletsIsland and includes the shore of PointAux Chenes Bay, the Mississippi Sound,and Grand Bay following the shorelineeast around the western tip, then northto the south side of South RigoletsBayou; then from the north side ofSouth Rigolets Bayou (the southeasterncorner of North Rigolets Island) north tothe northeastern most point of NorthRigolets Island. This shoreline isbounded on the seaward side by MLLWand on the landward side to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.Approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) are inMississippi and 2.9 km (1.8 mi) are inAlabama. Almost half the Mississippishoreline length is in the Grand BayNational Wildlife Refuge.BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Louisiana (Maps were digitized using1998 DOQQs)

Unit LA–1: Texas/Louisiana border toCheniere au Tigre. 2,650 ha (6,548 ac) inCameron and Vermilion Parishes

This unit extends from the east sideof Sabine Pass (Texas/Louisiana border)and includes the shore of the Gulf ofMexico from the MLLW following theshoreline east 25.7 km (16.0 mi) to thewest end of Constance Beach[approximately 2 km (1.2 mi) east of theintersection of Parish Road 528 and thebeach]; it extends from the east end ofthe town of Holly Beach [0.25 km (0.16mi) east of the intersection of BaritarickBoulevard and the beach] following theshoreline approximately 97 km (60.3mi) east to the eastern boundary line ofRockefeller Wildlife Refuge [3.4 km (2.1mi) east of Rollover Bayou]; and itextends from the east side of FreshwaterBayou Canal following the shorelineeast for approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) to1.3 km (0.81 mi) east of where theboundary of Paul J. Rainey WildlifeSanctuary (National Audubon Society)meets the shoreline. All three sectionsof this unit include the land from theseaward boundary of MLLW to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The shoreline in this unit is both stateand privately owned.

Unit LA–2: Atchafalaya River Delta. 921ha (2,276 ac) in St. Mary Parish, LA

This unit is located in the easternportion of the State-owned AtchafalayaDelta Wildlife Management Area(WMA) and includes all exposed landand islands where primary constituentelements occur east and southeast of themain navigation channel of theAtchafalaya River to the MLLW. Theislands located south and southeast of

the deltaic splay, Donna, T–Pat, andSkimmer Islands and the un-named birdisland, are also included in this unit.This unit includes the entire islandswhere primary constituent elementsoccur to the MLLW.

Unit LA–3: Point Au Fer Island. 195 ha(482 ac) in Terrebonne Parish.

This unit includes the entire smallisland at the northwest tip of Point AuFer Island to MLLW, then extends fromthe northwest tip of Point Au Fer Islandfollowing the shoreline southeastapproximately 7.7 km (4.8 mi) to thepoint where the un-named oil and gascanal extending southeast from LocustBayou meets the shoreline [0.8 km (0.5mi) southeast from Locust Bayou]. Thisshoreline is bounded on the seawardside by MLLW and on the landwardside to where densely vegetated habitat,not used by the piping plover, beginsand where the constituent elements nolonger occur. This entire unit isprivately owned.

Unit LA–4: Isles Dernieres. 795 ha(1,964 ac) in Terrebonne Parish

This unit includes the State-ownedIsles Dernieres chain, includingRaccoon, Whiskey, Trinity and EastIslands. This unit includes the entireislands where primary constituentelements occur to the MLLW.

Unit LA–5: Timbalier Island to EastGrand Terre Island. 2,321 ha (5,735 ac)in Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, andPlaquemines Parishes

This unit includes: all of TimbalierIsland where primary constituentelements occur to the MLLW, all ofBelle Pass West [the ‘‘peninsula’’extending north/northwestapproximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) from thewest side of Belle Pass] where primaryconstituent elements occur to MLLW;

the Gulf shoreline extendingapproximately 11 km (6.8 mi) east fromthe east side of Belle Pass bounded onthe seaward side by MLLW and on thelandward side to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur;all of Elmers Island peninsula whereprimary constituent elements occur toMLLW and the Gulf shoreline fromElmers Island to approximately 0.9 km(0.56 mi) west of Bayou Thunder VonTranc bounded on the seaward side byMLLW and on the landward side towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur; the Gulf shoreline ofGrand Isle from the Gulf side of thehurricane protection levee to MLLW;and all of East Grand Terre Island whereprimary constituent elements occur tothe MLLW.

Unit LA–6: Mississippi River Delta. 105ha (259 ac) in Plaquemines Parish, LA

This unit is part of the State-ownedPass a Loutre Wildlife ManagementArea and includes un-named sand(spoil) islands off South Pass of theMississippi River near Port Eads. Theentire islands to MLLW are included inthis unit.

Unit LA–7: Breton Islands andChandeleur Island Chain. 3,116 ha(7,700 ac) in Plaquemines and St.Bernard Parishes, LA

This unit includes Breton, GrandGosier, and Curlew Islands and theChandeleur Island chain. Those islandsare part of the Breton National WildlifeRefuge or are state owned. The entireislands where primary constituentelements occur to MLLW are includedin this unit.BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Texas (Maps were digitized using1995 and 1996 DOQQs and NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration’s (NOAA) MediumResolution Digital Vector Shoreline)

Unit TX–1: South Bay and Boca Chica.2,920 ha ( 7,217 ac) in Cameron County

The boundaries of the unit are:starting at the Loma Ochoa, followingthe Brownsville Ship Channel to thenortheast out into the Gulf of Mexico toMLLW, then south along a linedescribing MLLW to the mouth of theRio Grande, proceeding up the RioGrande to Loma de Las Vacas, then fromthat point along a straight line north toLoma Ochoa. The unit does not includedensely vegetated habitat within thoseboundaries. It includes wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds, and includes the tidalflats area known as South Bay. Beacheswithin the unit reach from the mouth ofthe Rio Grande northward to BrazosSantiago Pass, south of South PadreIsland. The southern and westernboundaries follow the change in habitatfrom wind tidal flat, preferred by thepiping plover, to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur.The upland areas extend to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand include areas used for roosting bythe piping plover. Portions of this unitare owned and managed by the LowerRio Grande Valley National WildlifeRefuge, the South Bay Coastal Preserve,Boca Chica State Park, and privatecitizens.

Unit TX–2: Queen Isabella Causeway. 2ha (6 ac) in Cameron County

The area extends along the LagunaMadre west of the city of South PadreIsland. The southern boundary is theQueen Isabella State Fishing Pier, andthe northern boundary is at theshoreline due west of the end of SunnyIsles Street. The Queen Isabellacauseway bisects this shore but is notincluded within critical habitat. Theeastern boundary is where developedareas and/or dense vegetation begins,and the western boundary is MLLW.This unit contains lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–3: Padre Island. 10,924 ha(26,983 ac) in Cameron, Willacy,Kenedy, and Kleberg Counties

This unit consists of four subunits:(1) The southern boundary of this

subunit is at Andy Bowie County Park

in South Padre Island, and the northernboundary is the south boundary ofPAIS. The eastern boundary is MLLW inthe Gulf of Mexico, and the westernboundary is MLLW in the LagunaMadre. Areas of dense vegetation are notincluded in critical habitat. This subunitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

(2) The boundaries of this subunitextend from Rincon de la Soledad to thesoutheast point of Mesquite Rincon,continue from that point west to theLaguna Madre shoreline at itsintersection with the King Ranchboundary, and from that point to Rinconde la Soledad. This subunit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

(3) This subunit is within the LagunaMadre and extends from the westernboundary of PAIS to the GulfIntercoastal Waterway. Its northernboundary is a line extending westwardfrom the northwest corner of PAIS, andits southern boundary is a lineextending westward from the southernboundary of PAIS. This subunitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

(4) This subunit extends along thegulf shore of Padre Island from thenorthern boundary of PIAS at the shore,north to the Nueces-Kleberg county line.The inland boundary is where densevegetation begins, and the seawardboundary is MLLW. This subunitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Portions of this unit are owned andmanaged by TGLO, and private citizenswith a significant portion being ownedand managed by The NatureConservancy on South Padre Island.

Unit TX–4: Lower Laguna MadreMainland. 4,980 ha (12,307 ac) inCameron and Willacy Counties

The southern boundary is an east-west line at the northern tip of BarclayIsland, and the southern boundary is aneast-west line 0.9 km (0.5 mi) south ofthe boundary of the City of PortMansfield; the western boundary is theline where dense vegetation begins, andthe eastern boundary is the GulfIntercoastal Waterway. The unitincludes bayside flats that are exposedduring low tide regimes and wind tidalflats that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds. Portions of this unit arewithin the Laguna Atascosa NationalWildlife Refuge, are TGLO-owned, orare privately owned. Beaches andinterior wetlands may or may not be

used each year because of varying waterlevels, storm events, or changes in beachcharacteristics and tidal regime. Waterstages vary in this area withmeteorological conditions. The uplandareas extend to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur and includeupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover.

Unit TX–5: Upper Laguna Madre. 436ha (1,076 ac) in Kleberg County

The southern boundary is thenorthern boundary of PAIS, and thenorthern boundary is the Kleberg/Nueces County line. The easternboundary is the line where densevegetation begins, and the westernboundary is MLLW. This unit includesa series of small flats along the baysideof Padre Island in the Upper LagunaMadre. It includes wind tidal flats andsparsely-vegtated upland areas used forroosting by the piping plover. Theseboundaries receive heavy use by largenumbers of shorebirds, including pipingplovers. The upland areas extend towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur, and include upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.

Unit TX–6: Mollie Beattie CoastalHabitat. 241 ha (596 ac) in NuecesCounty

This unit will be described as twosubunits:

(1) Subunit is bounded on the northby Beach Access Road 3, on the east bythe inland boundary of critical habitatUnit TX–7, on the south by Zahn road,and on the west by Zahn Road.

(2) The subunit is bounded on thenorth by Corpus Christi Pass, on the eastby US 361, on the south by the northside of Packery Channel, and on thewest by the Gulf Intercoastal Watersay.

Some of the uplands are privatelyowned and the remaining are ownedand managed by the TGLO. This unitincludes two hurricane washover passesknown as Newport and Corpus ChristiPasses, and wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. The upland areas extend towhere densely vegetated habitat, notused by the piping plover, begins andwhere the constituent elements nolonger occur and include upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.

Unit TX–7: Newport Pass/CorpusChristi Pass Beach. 42 ha (104 ac) inNueces County

This unit is along a stretch of Gulfbeach 8.5 km (5.3 mi) long. It is



bounded on the north by Fish Pass, onthe east by MLLW, on the south by St.Bartholomew Avenue, and on the westby a line marking the beginning of densevegetation. Portions of the unit aremanaged by the Texas Parks andWildlife Department as part of MustangIsland State Park. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–8: Mustang Island Beach. 97 ha(239 ac) in Nueces County

This is a stretch of Gulf beachextending from Fish Pass to the HoraceCaldwell Pier on Holiday Beach withinthe City of Port Aransas, TX. Thelandward boundary is beginning ofdense vegetation, and the gulf-wardboundary is MLLW. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–9: Fish Pass Lagoons. 130 ha(323 ac) in Nueces County

This unit encompasses flats facingCorpus Christi Bay that extend 1.0 km(0.6 mi) on either side of Fish Pass. Theinland boundary is the line indicatingbeginning of dense vegetation, and thebayside boundary is MLLW. It includesinterior lagoons and wind tidal flats thatare infrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. This unit includes upland areasused for roosting by the piping plover.

Unit TX–10: Shamrock Island andAdjacent Mustang Island Flats. 87 ha(216 ac) in Nueces County

This unit encompasses ShamrockIsland, an unnamed small sand flat tothe north of Wilson’s Cut, and a lagooncomplex that extends 3.5 km (2.2 mi) tothe southwest of Wilson’s Cut. Criticalhabitat includes land to the linemarking the beginning of densevegetation down to MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–11: Blind Oso. 2 ha (5 ac) inNueces County

This unit is the flats of the Blind Oso,part of Oso Bay, from Hans and PatSuter Wildlife Refuge (owned andmanaged by the City of Corpus Christi)northeast to Corpus Christi Bay andthen southeast along the edge of TexasA&M University—Corpus Christi. Thelandward boundaries extend to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins, and extendsout from the landward boundaries toMLLW. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–12: Adjacent to Naval AirStation-Corpus Christi. 2 ha (6 ac) inNueces County

This unit is along the shore of OsoBay on flats bordered by Naval AirStation-Corpus Christi and Texas Spur 3to a point 2.5 km (1.5 mi) south of thebridge between Ward Island and theNaval Air Station. The landwardboundary is the line where densevegetation begins, and the boundary inthe Bay is MLLW. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–13: Sunset Lake. 176 ha (435ac) in San Patricio County

This unit is triangle shaped, withState Highway 181 as the northwestboundary, and the limits of the City ofPortland as the northeast boundary. Theshore on Corpus Christi Bay is the thirdside of the triangle, with the actualboundary being MLLW off this shore.This unit is a large basin with a seriesof tidal ponds, sand spits and wind tidalflats. This unit is owned and managedby the City of Portland within a systemof city parks. Some of the described areafalls within the jurisdiction of theTGLO. It includes two city park unitsreferred to as Indian Point and SunsetLake. Much of the unit is a recentacquisition by the city, and managementconsiderations for the park include thearea’s importance as a site for winteringand resident shorebirds. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–14: East Flats. 194 ha (481 ac)in Nueces County

This unit is bordered on the north bydredge placement areas bordering theCorpus Christi Ship Channel, on thewest by MLLW in Corpus Christi Bay,on the east by the limits of the City ofPort Aransas, and on the south by aneast-west line at the sourthern-mostpoint of Pelone Island. It is also bisectedby a navigation channel, which is notincluded in the critical habitat. Aportion of this unit at the west end fallswithin State-owned (TGLO) intertidallands. The remainder of the unit isprivately owned. The upland areasextend to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur, includingupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–15: North Pass. 447 ha (1,106ac) in Aransas County

The unit is bounded on north byNorth Pass, on the northwest by the lineindicating MLLW, on the southwest bythe northeast side of Lydia Ann Island,on the south by a line running due eastfrom the northeast side of Lydia AnnIsland, and on the southeast by thelandward boundary of Unit. This unit isa remnant of a hurricane washover onthe privately owned San Jose Island.The upland areas extend to wheredensely vegetated habitat, not used bythe piping plover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occur,including upland areas used for roostingby the piping plover. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–16: San Jose Beach. 187 ha(463 ac) in Aransas County

This unit occupies a 33 km (20 mi)stretch of beach from the North Jetty ofAransas Pass at the south, to theconfluence of Vinson Slough and CedarBayou at the north end of San JoseIsland. The inland boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of denselyvegetated habitat, and the gulf-wardboundary is MLLW. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–17: Allyn’s Bight. 5 ha (14 ac)in Aransas County

This unit includes shoreline of SanJose Island on Aransas Bay from Allyn’sBight to Blind Pass, the channelbetween San Jose Island and MudIsland. The inland boundary is wherethe line of dense vegetation begins, andthe bay-ward boundary is MLLW. Thisunit includes lands known as wind tidalflats that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–18: Cedar Bayou/VinsonSlough. 3,051 ha (7,539 ac) in AransasCounty

Beginning at the confluence of VinsonSlough and Cedar Bayou, this unit’sboundary follows the shore of SpaldingCove to Long Reef, then continues alonga line extending (2.5 mi) southwest ofLong Reef to the shore of San JoseIsland, then along the shore of theisland to the landward boundary of UnitTX–16. The unit boundaries extendlandward to the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation. This unitis a remnant of a hurricane washoverarea, and includes the highly dynamicarea of Cedar Bayou, the pass thatseparates San Jose Island and MatagordaIsland. This area includes a small



section of Matagorda Island NationalWildlife Refuge with much of theremaining areas occurring on theprivately owned island of San Jose. Theupland areas extend to where denselyvegetated habitat, not used by the pipingplover, begins and where theconstituent elements no longer occurand include upland areas used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–19: Matagorda Island Beach.395 ha (976 ac) in Calhoun County

This stretch of beach along the Gulf ofMexico on Matagorda Island extends adistance of 60 km (36 mi) from CedarBayou on the southwest (where it abutsTX–18), to Pass Cavallo on thenortheast. The inland boundary is theline indicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulf-ward boundaryis MLLW. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds. The unit falls entirely within theboundary of the Matagorda IslandNational Wildlife Refuge.

Unit TX–20: Ayers Point. 397 ha (982ac) in Calhoun County

This unit is an unnamed lake onMatagorda Island between Shell ReefBayou and Big Brundrett Lake, with SanAntonio Bay to the north. The unitboundary extends landward from thelake to the line where dense vegetationbegins and where the constituentelements no longer occur and includesupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes marshand flats at Ayers Point on MatagordaIsland National Wildlife Refuge. Thisunit includes lands known as wind tidalflats that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–21: Panther Point to PringleLake. 863 ha (2,133 ac) in CalhounCounty

This unit represents a narrow band ofbayside habitats on Matagorda Islandfrom Panther Point to the northeast endof Pringle Lake. The landward boundaryis the line indicating where densevegetation begins, and the baywardboundary is MLLW. The unit is entirelywithin Matagorda Island NationalWildlife Refuge. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–22: Decros Point. 450 ha (1,114ac) at the Matagorda/Calhoun CountyLine

This unit includes about 7.0 km (4.3mi) of beach habitat around the islandat the western tip of MatagordaPeninsula between the natural openingto Matagorda Bay and the MatagordaShip Channel. The upland boundary isthe line where dense vegetation begins,and the seaward boundary is MLLW.The adjacent upland is privately owned.This unit includes lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–23: West Matagorda PeninsulaBeach. 311 ha (769 ac) of Shoreline inMatagorda County

This unit extends 40 km (24 mi) alongthe Gulf of Mexico from the jetties at theMatagorda Ship Channel to the oldColorado River channel. The inlandboundary is the line indicating wheredense vegetation begins, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–24: West Matagorda Bay/Western Peninsula Flats. 756 ha (1,868ac) in Matagorda County

This unit extends along the bayside ofMatagorda Peninsula from 7.5southwest of Greens Bayou to 2.5 km(1.6 mi) northwest of Greens Bayou. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the bayside boundary isMLLW. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–25: West Matagorda Bay/Eastern Peninsula Flats. 232 ha (575 ac)in Matagorda County

This unit follows the bayside ofMatagorda Peninsula from MaverickSlough southwest for 5 km (3 mi). Theunit begins at Maverick Slough to thenortheast and extends 5 km (3 mi) to thesouthwest, enclosing a series of flatsalong Matagorda Bay. The upland areasextend to where densely vegetatedhabitat, not used by the piping plover,begins and where the constituentelements no longer occur and includeupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–26: Colorado River DiversionDelta. 5 ha (13 ac) in Matagorda County

This unit follows the shore of theextreme eastern northeast corner ofWest Matagorda Bay from Culver Cut to

Dog Island Reef. The southeasterntidally emergent portion of Dog IslandReef is included within the unit. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the bayside boundary isMLLW. The upland areas includesupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–27: East Matagorda Bay/Matagorda Peninsula Beach West. 295(728 ac) of shoreline in MatagordaCounty

This unit extends along Gulf beach onthe Matagorda Peninsula from themouth of the Colorado River northeastalong the peninsula 23 km (14 mi) to apoint on the beach opposite EidelbachFlats. The landward boundary is theline indicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. This unit includes lands knownas wind tidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–28: East Matagorda Bay/Matagorda Peninsula Beach East. 129 ha(321 ac) in Matagorda County

This unit extends along the Gulfbeach on the northeast end of MatagordaPeninsula from a point 0.8 km (0.5 mi)southwest of FM 457 southwest 10 km(6 mi.) to the southwest side of BrownCedar Cut. This unit abuts with UnitTX–29 to the north. The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–29: Brown Cedar Cut. 119 ha(294 ac) in Matagorda County

This unit extends 2 km (1.2 mi.) bothsouthwest and northeast of the mainchannel of Brown Cedar Cut along thebayside of Matagorda Peninsula in EastMatagorda Bay, and abuts unit TX–28 tothe southeast. The landward boundaryis the line indicating the beginning ofdense vegetation, and the baysideboundary is MLLW. The easternboundary of TX–29 follows the changein habitat from mud flats preferred bythe piping plover, to slightly vegetateddune system adjacent to TX–28. Thisunit includes upland areas used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.



Unit TX–30: Northeast Corner EastMatagorda Bay. 120 ha (297 ac) inMatagorda County

This unit is bounded on the north bythe Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, on theeast by the northeast limit of Matagordabay up the line where dense vegetationbegins, on the south by the boundary ofUnit TX–28, and on the west by MLLW.It is a system of flats associated withtidal channels. This unit includesupland areas used for roosting by thepiping plover and lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.

Unit TX–31: San Bernard NWR Beach.166 ha (410 ac) in Matagorda andBrazoria Counties

This is a unit composed of Gulf beach,8.0 km (5.0 mi), and extends from themouth of the San Bernard River to apoint along the beach 14.0 km (8.7 mi)to the southwest. The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–32: Gulf Beach Between Brazosand San Bernard Rivers. 108 ha (269 ac)of shoreline in Brazoria County

This unit is a segment of Gulf beachbetween the Brazos River and the SanBernard River. This unit borders an areaknown as Wolf Island. The landwardboundary is the line indicating thebeginning of dense vegetation, and thegulfside boundary is MLLW. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flats

that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–33: Bryan Beach and AdjacentBeach. 157 ha (388 ac) in BrazoriaCounty

The boundaries enclose a length ofGulf beach between the mouth of theBrazos River and FM 1495. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. A portion of this area is ownedand managed by the Texas Parks andWildlife Department. This unit includeslands known as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–34: San Luis Pass. 110 ha (272ac) near the Brazoria/Galveston Countyline

This unit extends along the Gulf sideof Galveston Island from San Luis Passto the site of the former town of RedFish Cove (USGS 1:24,000 map, SanLuis Pass, Texas; 1963, photorevision1974). The landward boundary is theline indicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. Approximately 57 percent of theunit includes flats in the floodtide deltathat are State-owned and managed bythe TGLO. This unit includes landsknown as wind tidal flats that areinfrequently inundated by seasonalwinds.

Unit TX–35: Big Reef. 47 ha (117 ac) inGalveston County

This unit consists of beach and sandflats on the north, west, and east shoreof Big Reef, down to MLLW. South Jetty

is not included. The area is currentlymanaged by the City of Galveston. Thisunit includes lands known as wind tidalflats that are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–36: Bolivar Flats. 160 ha (395ac) in Galveston County

This unit extends from the jetties onthe southwest end of the BolivarPeninsula to a point on the Gulf beach1 km (0.6 mi) north of Beacon Bayou. Itincludes 5.0 km (3 mi) of Gulf shoreline.The landward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the gulfside boundary isMLLW. The area is leased from TGLOby Houston Audubon Society andmanaged for its important avianresources. The upland areas are used forroosting by the piping plover. This unitincludes lands known as wind tidal flatsthat are infrequently inundated byseasonal winds.

Unit TX–37: Rollover Pass. 6 ha (16 ac)in Galveston County

This unit consists of Rollover Bay onthe bayside of Bolivar Peninsula. Thelandward boundary is the lineindicating the beginning of densevegetation, and the bayside boundary isMLLW. It includes flats on State-ownedland managed by the TGLO. This unitcaptures the intertidal complex of thebay, and is bounded by the towns ofGilchrist to the east and the Gulf beachof the Bolivar Peninsula to the south.This unit includes lands known as windtidal flats that are infrequentlyinundated by seasonal winds.BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



* * * * * Dated: June 28, 2001.Joseph E. Doddridge,Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish andWildlife and Parks.[FR Doc. 01–16905 Filed 7–9–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–15–C


department of the interior...36038 federal register/vol. 66, no. 132/tuesday, july 10, 2001/rules...

Documents