22938 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
Date certain Federal assist- Community Effective date authorization/cancellation of Current effective ance no longer State and location No. sale of flood insurance in community map date available in spe- cial flood hazard areas
Region III Pennsylvania: Bern, township of, Berks County...... 421050 March 25, 1974, Emerg., November 19, ...... do ...... Do. 1980, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Heidelberg, township of, Berks County 421069 March 7, 1977, Emerg., May 3, 1990, Reg...... do ...... Do. May 21, 2001, Susp. Leesport, borough of, Berks County.... 420138 December 26, 1973, Emerg., May 16, ...... do ...... Do. 1977, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Marion, township of, Berks County...... 421079 October 28, 1975, Emerg., January 2, ...... do ...... Do. 1981, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Muhlenberg, township of, Berks Coun- 420144 March 9, 1973, Emerg., September 1, ...... do ...... Do. ty. 1977, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Ontelaunee, township of, Berks County 420966 September 5, 1973, Emerg., June 1, 1977, ...... do ...... Do. Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Spring, township of, Berks County ...... 421108 June 27, 1974, Emerg., April 18, 1983, ...... do ...... Do. Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Tulpehocken, township of, Berks 421115 April 19, 1978, Emerg., August 4, 1988, ...... do ...... Do. County. Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Wyomissing, borough of, Berks County 421375 August 28, 1974, Emerg., April 18, 1983, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Region V Illinois: Winnebago, unincorporated areas .. 170720 February 16, 1973, Emerg., November 19, 1980, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Region VII Kansas: Augusta, city of, Butler County ...... 200038 June 25, 1975, Emerg., August 15, 1980, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Region VIII Colorado: Durango, city of, La Plata County ...... 080099 April 30, 1974, Emerg., January 17, 1979, ...... do ...... Do. Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. La Plata County, unincorporated areas 080097 December 12, 1974, Emerg., December ...... do ...... Do. 15, 1981, Reg. May 21, 2001, Susp. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp—Suspension.
Dated: April 25, 2001. as amended for the Great Lakes breeding received, as well as supporting Margaret E. Lawless, population of the piping plover. The documentation used in the preparation Acting Executive Associate Director for Great Lakes breeding population of the of this final rule, will be available for Mitigation. piping plover is listed as an endangered public inspection, by appointment, [FR Doc. 01–11363 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am] species under the Act. A total of during normal business hours at the BILLING CODE 6718–05–U approximately 325 km (201 mi) of Great U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bishop Lakes shoreline (extending 500 m (1640 Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 ft) inland) in 26 counties in Minnesota, Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111. Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, is Laura J. Ragan at the above address Fish and Wildlife Service designated as critical habitat for the (telephone 612/713–5157; facsimile Great Lakes population of the piping 612/713–5292). TTY users may contact 50 CFR Part 17 plover. The total length of designated us through the Federal Relay Service at shoreline is divided among 35 separate 1–800–877–8339. RIN 1018–AG14 critical habitat units. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7 of the Act requires Federal Endangered and Threatened Wildlife agencies to ensure that actions they Background and Plants; Final Determination of authorize, fund, or carry out are not Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes The piping plover (Charadrius likely to destroy or adversely modify melodus), named for its melodic mating Breeding Population of the Piping critical habitat. As required by section 4 Plover call, is a small, pale-colored North of the Act, we considered economic and American shorebird. It weighs 43–63 other relevant impacts prior to making AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, grams (1.5–2.5 ounces) and is 17–18 Interior. a final decision on what areas to centimeters (cm) (6–7 inches (in.)) long designate as critical habitat. ACTION: Final rule. (Haig 1992). Its light, sand-colored EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is plumage blends in well with the sandy SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and effective June 6, 2001. beach, its primary habitat. Plumage and Wildlife Service (Service), designate ADDRESSES: The complete leg color help distinguish this bird from critical habitat pursuant to the administrative record for this rule, other plover species. During the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, including comments and materials breeding season, the legs are bright
VerDate 11
orange, and the short, stout bill is Michigan and, recently, at one site in exclosure fencing have all contributed orange with a black tip. There are two northern Wisconsin. to the improving status of the Great single dark bands, one around the neck Piping plovers are migratory birds. Lakes piping plover. and one across the forehead between the They leave the breeding grounds Great Lakes piping plovers nest on eyes. The female’s neck band is often between late July and early September shoreline and island sandy beaches with incomplete and is usually thinner than and head for their wintering grounds, sparse vegetation and the presence of the male’s (Haig 1992). In winter, the where they spend more than eight small stones (greater than 1 cm (0.4 in.)) bill turns black, the legs fade to pale months of the year. Although the called cobble. Piping plovers spend 3 to orange, and the black plumage bands on breeding ranges of the three piping 4 months a year on the breeding the head and neck are lost. Chicks have plover populations are separate, their grounds. Nesting in the Great Lakes speckled gray, buff, and brown down, wintering ranges overlap and extend region begins in early to mid-May. black beaks, pale orange legs, and a along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from Plovers lay 3 to 4 eggs in a small white collar around the neck. Juveniles North Carolina to Mexico and into the depression they scrape in the sand resemble wintering adults and obtain West Indies and Bahamas. Resightings among the cobblestones and are, their adult plumage the spring after they of color-banded birds from the Great therefore, very difficult to see. Both fledge (USFWS 1994). Lakes breeding population have sexes are involved in incubating the Dominant plants within Great Lakes occurred along the coastlines of North eggs, which hatch in about 28 days. piping plover habitat include marram and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Young plovers can walk almost as soon grass (Ammophila brevigulata), beach Louisiana, and Texas. as they hatch, but remain vulnerable to wormwood (Artemesia campestris), Pre-settlement populations of piping predation and disturbance for another silverweed (Potentilla anserina), Lake plovers in the Great Lakes are estimated 21–30 days until they are able to fly. Huron tansy (Tanacetum huronense), at 492–682 breeding pairs (Russell Nesting piping plovers are highly pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri), 1983), although these estimates may be susceptible to disturbance by people beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus var. high (F. Cuthbert, professor, University and pets on the beach. Human of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pers. disturbance disrupts adult birds’ care of glaber), sea rocket (Cakile edentula), comm., 2000). In recent decades, piping their nests and young and may inhibit sedges (Carex spp.), goldenrods (Solidago plover populations have declined incubation of eggs (USFWS 1994). spp.), sand cherry (Prunus pumila), drastically, especially in the Great Furthermore, adults may leave the nest bearberry (Arctostaphylus uva-ursi), Lakes, coinciding with industrial to lure away an intruder, leaving the creeping juniper (Juniper horizontalis), development, urbanization, and eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and increased recreational pressures. In and exposure to weather. Ultimately, willow (Salix spp.). 1973, the piping plover was placed on disturbance may lead to the The breeding range of the piping the National Audubon Society’s Blue abandonment of nests (USFWS 1994). plover extends throughout the northern List of threatened species. By that time, As a result of disturbance and other Great Plains, the Great Lakes, and the piping plovers had been extirpated from natural and human-caused factors such Atlantic Coast in the United States and beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New as high water levels, flooding, eroding Canada. Based on this distribution, York, Pennsylvania, and Ontario, and beaches, and beach-front commercial, three breeding populations of piping only a few birds were continuing to nest recreational, and residential plovers have been described: the in Wisconsin (Russell, 1983). By 1977, development, reproduction of Great Northern Great Plains population, the the Great Lakes breeding population had Lakes piping plovers has been severely Great Lakes population, and the Atlantic decreased to 31 nesting pairs (Lambert affected, resulting in perilously low Coast population. and Ratcliff 1981) and by the time the numbers of nesting plovers (USFWS The northern Great Plains breeding species was listed under the Endangered 1994). range extends from southern Alberta, Species Act in 1985, the Great Lakes This rule applies only to the breeding northern Saskatchewan, and southern breeding population had dwindled to range of the Great Lakes population in Manitoba, south to eastern Montana, the only 17 breeding pairs, and the breeding the United States. Dakotas, southeastern Colorado, Iowa, areas had been reduced from sites in Previous Federal Actions Minnesota, and Nebraska, and east to eight States to only portions of northern Lake of the Woods in north-central Michigan. On December 30, 1982, we published Minnesota. The majority of the United Since the species was listed, the Great a notice of review in the Federal States pairs in this population are in the Lakes breeding population has gradually Register (47 FR 58454) that identified Dakotas, Nebraska, and Montana increased and expanded its range within vertebrate animal taxa being considered (USFWS 1994). Occasionally, Great Michigan and into Wisconsin. In 1999, for addition to the List of Threatened Plains birds nest in Oklahoma and 31 pairs of piping plovers nested on the and Endangered Wildlife. We included Kansas. On the Atlantic coast, piping Great Lakes shoreline of northern the piping plover in that review list as plovers nest from Newfoundland, Michigan and 1 pair nested in northern a Category 2 Candidate species, southeastern Quebec, and New Wisconsin (Stucker and Cuthbert, 1999). indicating that we believed the species Brunswick to North Carolina. Sixty- In 2000, 30 pairs were documented, all might warrant listing as threatened or eight percent of all nesting pairs breed in northern Michigan (Stucker et al. endangered, but that we had insufficient in Massachusetts, New York, New 2000). The slow population increase data to support a proposal to list at that Jersey, and Virginia (USFWS 1999). In over the past 15 years has been aided by time. Subsequent review of additional the Great Lakes watershed, piping intense State, Tribal, Federal, and data indicated that the piping plover plovers formerly nested throughout private conservation actions directed at warranted listing, and in November, much of the north-central United States the protection of the piping plover. 1984, we published a proposed rule in and south-central Canada on beaches in Activities such as habitat surveys, beach the Federal Register (49 FR 44712) to Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, restoration, public education, habitat list the piping plover as endangered in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, protection and enhancement, and the the Great Lakes watershed and as Wisconsin, and in Ontario, Canada. protection of nests from predators and threatened along the Atlantic Coast, the Currently they are limited to northern disturbance through the use of predator Northern Great Plains, and elsewhere in
VerDate 11
their range. The proposed listing was 1997. During November and December Critical Habitat based on the decline of the species and 1999, and January 2000, we began Critical habitat is defined in section 3 the existing threats, including habitat negotiating a schedule for piping plover of the Act as (i) the specific areas within destruction, disturbance by humans and critical habitat decisions with the geographical area occupied by a pets, high levels of predation, and Defenders. On February 7, 2000, before species, at the time it is listed in contaminants. the settlement negotiations were accordance with the Act, on which are After a review of the best scientific concluded, the United States District found those physical or biological data available and all comments Court for the District of Columbia issued features (I) essential to the conservation received in response to the proposed an order directing us to publish a of the species and (II) that may require rule, we published the final rule (50 FR proposed critical habitat designation for special management consideration or 50726) on December 11, 1985, listing nesting and wintering areas of the Great protections; and (ii) specific areas the piping plover as endangered in the Lakes population of the piping plover outside the geographic area occupied by Great Lakes watershed (Illinois, Indiana, by June 30, 2000, and for nesting and a species at the time it is listed, upon Michigan, northeastern Minnesota, New wintering areas of the Northern Great York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, a determination that such areas are Plains piping plover population by May and Ontario, Canada) and as threatened essential for the conservation of the 31, 2001. A subsequent order, after along the Atlantic coast (Quebec, species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use Newfoundland, Maritime Provinces, requesting the court to reconsider its of all methods and procedures that are and States from Maine to Florida), and original order relating to final critical necessary to bring an endangered or a in the Northern Great Plains region habitat designation, directs us to finalize threatened species to the point at which (Iowa, northwestern Minnesota, the critical habitat designations for the listing under the Act is no longer Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Great Lakes population by April 30, necessary. South Dakota, Alberta, Manitoba, and 2001, and for the Northern Great Plains Critical habitat receives protection Saskatchewan). All piping plovers on population by March 15, 2002. For under section 7 of the Act through the migratory routes outside of the Great biological and practical reasons, we prohibition against destruction or Lakes watershed or on their wintering chose to propose critical habitat for the adverse modification of critical habitat grounds are considered threatened. We Great Lakes breeding birds and for all with regard to actions carried out, did not designate critical habitat for the wintering birds in two separate rules funded, or authorized by a Federal species at that time. published concurrently. agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are After 1986, we focused our efforts on On July 6, 2000, we published a likely to result in the destruction or recovery by forming two recovery teams, proposed determination for the adverse modification of proposed the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains designation of critical habitat for the Piping Plover Recovery Team and the critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 Great Lakes breeding population of the CFR 402.02, we define destruction or Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery piping plover (65 FR 41812). A total of Team. In 1988 the Great Lakes and adverse modification as ‘‘. . . the direct approximately 305 km (189 mi) or indirect alteration that appreciably Northern Great Plains (USFWS 1988b) (extending 1 km (0.6 mi) inland) was and Atlantic Coast (USFWS 1988a) diminishes the value of critical habitat proposed as critical habitat for this for both the survival and recovery of a Recovery Plans were published. In 1994, piping plover population in 27 counties the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains listed species. Such alterations include, in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, but are not limited to, alterations Recovery Team began to revise the Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Recovery plan for these two populations adversely modifying any of those and New York. The comment period (USFWS 1994). The 1994 draft included physical or biological features that were was open until September 5, 2000. updated information on the species and the basis for determining the habitat to During this 60-day comment period, we was distributed for public comment. be critical.’’ Aside from the added held seven public hearings (Ashland, Subsequently, we decided that the protection that may be provided under recovery of these two inland Wisconsin, on July 17; Green Bay, section 7, the Act does not provide other populations would benefit from separate Wisconsin, on July 18; Newberry, forms of protection to lands designated recovery plans. Individual recovery Michigan, on July 19; Traverse City, as critical habitat. Critical habitat plans for the Great Lakes and Northern Michigan, on July 20; Indiana Dunes, designation would not afford any Great Plains populations are presently Indiana, on July 24; Cleveland, Ohio, on additional protections under the Act under development. July 25; and Watertown, New York, on against activities on private or other The final listing rule for the piping July 27). On September 19, 2000, we non-Federal lands that do not involve a plover indicated that designation of published a document (65 FR 56530) Federal nexus because the requirement critical habitat was not determinable. announcing the reopening of the for consultation under section 7 of the Thus, designation was deferred. No comment period on the proposal to Act does not apply to activities on these further action was subsequently taken to designate critical habitat for the Great types of lands. designate critical habitat for piping Lakes breeding population of the piping In order to be included in a critical plovers. On December 4, 1996, plover and a notice of the availability of habitat designation, the habitat must Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) filed a the draft economic analysis on the first be ‘‘essential to the conservation of suit (Defenders of Wildlife and Piping proposed determination. Our intention the species.’’ Critical habitat Plover v. Babbitt, Case No. 96CV02965) was for this comment period to be designations identify, based on the best against the Department of the Interior reopened for 60 days, but the document scientific and commercial data and the Service over the lack of stated that the comment period closed available, habitat areas that provide designated critical habitat for the Great on October 19, 2000, or 30 days. essential life cycle needs of the species Lakes population of the piping plover. Therefore, on September 28, 2000, we (i.e., areas on which are found the Defenders filed a similar suit (Defenders published a document (65 FR 58258) primary constituent elements, as of Wildlife and Piping Plover v. Babbitt, correcting the closing date of the defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Case No. 97CV000777) for the Northern reopened comment period to November Within the geographic area occupied Great Plains piping plover population in 20, 2000. by the species, we will designate only
VerDate 11
areas currently known to be essential. designation of critical habitat may not required to base critical habitat Essential areas should already have the include all of the habitat areas that may determinations on the best scientific features and habitat characteristics that eventually be determined to be and commercial data available. We also are necessary to sustain the species necessary for the recovery of the are required to consider those physical (primary constituent elements). We will species. For these reasons, it should be and biological features that are essential not speculate about what areas might be understood that critical habitat to the conservation of the species and found to be essential if better designations do not signal that habitat that may require special management information became available, or what outside the designation is unimportant considerations and protection. Such other areas may become essential over or may not be required for recovery. features include, but are not limited to: time. If the information available at the Areas outside the critical habitat space for individual and population time of designation does not show that designation will continue to be subject growth, and for normal behavior; food, an area provides essential life cycle to conservation actions that may be water, air, light, minerals, or other needs of the species, then the area implemented under section 7(a)(1) and nutritional or physiological should not be included in the critical to the regulatory protections afforded by requirements; cover or shelter; sites for habitat designation. Within the the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard breeding, reproduction, and rearing of geographic area occupied by the species, and the section 9 take prohibition, as offspring; and habitats that are protected we will not designate areas that do not determined on the basis of the best from disturbance or are representative of now have the primary constituent available information at the time of the the historical geographical and elements, as defined at 50 CFR action. Federally funded or assisted ecological distributions of a species. 424.12(b), that provide essential life projects affecting listed species outside The primary constituent elements for cycle needs of the species. their designated critical habitat areas the Great Lakes breeding population of Our regulations state that, ‘‘The may still result in jeopardy findings in the piping plover are those habitat Secretary shall designate as critical some cases. Similarly, critical habitat components that are essential for habitat areas outside the geographic area designations made on the basis of the successful foraging, nesting, rearing of presently occupied by the species only best available information at the time of young, intra-specific communication, when a designation limited to its designation will not control the genetic exchange, roosting, dispersal, or present range would be inadequate to direction and substance of future sheltering. ensure the conservation of the species’’ recovery plans, habitat conservation The primary constituent elements (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, unless plans, or other species conservation required to sustain the Great Lakes the best scientific and commercial data planning efforts if new information breeding population of the piping demonstrates that the conservation available to these planning efforts calls plover are found on Great Lakes islands needs of the species require designation for a different outcome. and mainland shorelines that support of critical habitat outside of occupied open, sparsely vegetated sandy habitats, areas, we will not designate critical Methods such as sand spits or sand beaches, that habitat in areas outside the geographic In determining areas that are essential are associated with wide, unforested area occupied by the species. However, to conserve the Great Lakes breeding systems of dunes and inter-dune if unoccupied areas are essential to the population of the piping plover, the best wetlands. In order for habitat to be recovery of the species, they may be scientific and commercial data available physically and biologically suitable for designated as critical habitat. included information solicited from piping plovers, it must have a total The Service’s policy on Information knowledgeable biologists and available shoreline length of at least 0.2 km (0.12 Standards Under the Endangered information pertaining to habitat mi) of gently sloping, sparsely vegetated Species Act, published in the Federal requirements of the species. In an effort (less than 50 percent herbaceous and Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), to map areas essential to the low woody cover) sand beach with a provides criteria, establishes conservation of the species, we used total beach area of at least 2 hectares procedures, and provides guidance to data of known piping plover breeding (ha) (5 acres (ac)). ensure that decisions made by the locations, records of historical nesting Appropriately sized sites must also Service represent the best scientific and sites, International Census data, and have areas of at least 50 meters (m) (164 commercial data available. It requires those areas that were identified in the feet (ft)) in length where (1) the beach Service biologists, to the extent 1988 recovery plan and 1994 draft width is more than 7 m (23 ft), (2) there consistent with the Act and with the use recovery plan as essential for the is protective cover for nests and chicks, of the best scientific and commercial recovery of the population. We have and (3) the distance to the treeline (from data available, to use primary and chosen the 35 critical habitat units in the normal high water line to where the original sources of information as the order to protect adequate habitat to meet forest begins) is more than 50 m (164 ft). basis for recommendations to designate the recovery criteria, contained in the Beach width is defined as the distance critical habitat. When determining recovery plan and draft recovery plan, from the normal high water line to the which areas are critical habitat, a of 100 breeding pairs in Michigan and foredune (a low barrier dune ridge primary source of information should be 50 breeding pairs in the other Great immediately inland from the beach) the listing package for the species. Lakes States combined. In addition, edge, or to the sand/vegetation Additional information may be obtained information provided in comments on boundary in areas where the foredune is from a recovery plan, articles in peer- the proposed designation and draft absent. The beach width may be reviewed journals, conservation plans economic analysis were evaluated and narrower than 7 m (23 ft) if appropriate developed by States and counties, taken into consideration in the sand and cobble areas of at least 7 m (23 scientific status surveys and studies, development of this final designation. ft) exist between the dune and the and biological assessments or other treeline. unpublished materials (i.e. gray Primary Constituent Elements Protective cover for nests and chicks literature). In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) consists of small patches of herbaceous Habitat is often dynamic, and species of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR vegetation, cobble (stones larger than 1 may move from one area to another over 424.12, in determining which areas to cm (0.4 inches (in)) diameter), gravel time. Furthermore, we recognize that propose as critical habitat, we are (stones smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in)
VerDate 11
diameter), or debris such as driftwood, occupied habitat in the Great Lakes has Critical habitat designation is effective wrack, root masses, or dead shrubs. declined from historical occupation of year-round, even if the primary These areas must have a low level of more than 70 sites in eight States to constituent elements are temporarily disturbance from human activities and approximately 32 sites in two States obscured by snow, ice, or other from domestic animals. As the nesting (Wemmer 2000). The currently occupied temporary features. season progresses, the level of sites and recently occupied (since 1985) In defining critical habitat boundaries, disturbance tolerated by piping plovers sites in Michigan may have the capacity it was not possible to exclude all increases. A lower level of disturbance to support an estimated 56 to 136 existing human-made features and is required at the beginning of the breeding pairs (Wemmer 2000). Because structures, such as buildings, roads, nesting period during nest site selection, of this severe reduction in range and marinas, piers, parking lots, bridges, egg laying, and incubation. Beach numbers of piping plovers, we have boat ramps, lighthouses, and other such activities that may be associated with a determined it is essential to the human-made features, within the area high level of disturbance include, but conservation of this species to include designated. These features do not are not limited to, walking pets off all currently occupied habitat and all contain most or all of the primary leash, loud noise, driving all terrain recently occupied habitat that still constituent elements and thus are not vehicles (ATVs), or activities that contains the primary constituent considered to be critical habitat despite significantly increase the level of people elements in this critical habitat their being within the geographic using the beach. The level of designation. boundaries. Federal actions limited to disturbance is relative to the proximity As we proceed with recovery efforts, those features, therefore, would not to the nest, intensity, and frequency of expansion of the present small trigger a section 7 consultation, unless these and other similar activities. population will require more habitat they affect the species and/or primary The dynamic ecological processes that than is currently occupied by piping constituent elements within a critical create and maintain piping plover plovers along the Great Lakes (Wemmer habitat unit. habitat are also important primary 2000, USFWS 1988b, 1994). In an effort In summary, in determining areas that constituent elements. These geologically to protect sufficient habitat to allow for are essential to the conservation of the dynamic lakeside regions are controlled the expansion of the species, our second Great Lakes breeding population of the by processes of erosion, accretion, plant step was to evaluate the essential habitat piping plover, we used the best succession, and lake-level fluctuations. areas outlined in the Recovery Plan that scientific and commercial information The integrity of the habitat depends are documented as historical piping available to us. The critical habitat areas upon regular sediment transport plover habitat. In addition to evaluating described below constitute our best processes, as well as episodic, high- those areas identified by the Recovery assessment of areas needed for the magnitude storm events. By their Plan as essential habitat, we solicited species’ conservation and recovery. nature, Great Lakes shorelines are in a information from habitat experts on Critical Habitat Designation constant state of change; habitat features areas that contain the primary may disappear, or be created nearby. constituent elements and that would At this time, the critical habitat units The critical habitat boundaries reflect provide suitable piping plover nesting discussed below are our best appraisal these natural processes and the dynamic habitat. Based upon consultation with of areas needed for the conservation of character of Great Lakes shorelines. Great Lakes piping plover habitat the Great Lakes breeding population of experts, we determined which the piping plover. Very little suitable Criteria Used To Identify Critical historically occupied sites contain the piping plover habitat remains in the Habitat primary constituent elements and are Great Lakes region, and all the areas All of the designated critical habitat suitable for supporting nesting piping identified here are essential for the areas are considered essential to the plovers. We designated historically recovery of the species because these conservation of the Great Lakes breeding occupied habitat in the Great Lakes areas represent the habitat necessary to population of the piping plover as watershed (in the United States) that achieve the recovery goal of 100 described in the approved 1988 still contain the primary constituent breeding pairs in Michigan and 50 Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes and elements. breeding pairs in the other Great Lakes Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Much known historical habitat in the States combined. Critical habitat (Plan) and the 1994 Draft Revised Great Lakes region has been destroyed designations may be subsequently Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes or altered in such ways that it can no revised if new information becomes Piping Plover. The designation longer support piping plovers (Wemmer available after this final rule is encompasses those areas considered 2000, USFWS 1988b). As a result, published. Any additional areas of necessary to achieve the recovery goals suitable habitat areas that are currently/ critical habitat will be designated, or of 150 breeding pairs (USFWS 1988b, recently occupied, or that were other changes made to this designation, 1994) for this population. documented to be historically occupied, only after a formal proposal and To identify critical habitat units, we are not sufficient to meet the opportunity for public comment. first examined those sites identified as conservation goals outlined in the The approximate length of proposed ‘‘essential habitat’’ in the approved approved Recovery Plan and draft critical habitat shoreline identified by Recovery Plan and draft revised revised Recovery Plan. Thus, as a final land ownership is shown in Table 1. Recovery Plan. We began by evaluating step, we evaluated those essential Critical habitat includes Great Lakes those essential habitat areas that are habitat areas identified in the Recovery piping plover habitat throughout the currently (at least once during the past Plan where occupation has not been species’ breeding range in the United 5 years) or were recently (in the last 5 documented, but habitat features similar States. Lands proposed as critical to 15 years) occupied by piping plovers to currently occupied sites occur. To habitat are under private, State, in the Great Lakes. Through site visits reach the minimum amount of habitat municipal, Tribal, and Federal and consultation with local habitat sufficient to meet the recovery plan ownership, with Federal lands experts, we determined which of these goals, we designated those areas that are including lands managed by the sites still contain the primary known to contain the primary National Park Service, U.S. Forest constituent elements. Piping plover constituent elements as critical habitat. Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army
VerDate 11
Corp of Engineers, and by us. Estimates reflect the total area within critical habitat unit boundaries.
TABLE 1.—KILOMETERS OF GREAT LAKES SHORELINE PROPOSED AS CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE PIPING PLOVER IN EACH GREAT LAKES STATE SUMMARIZED BY FEDERAL, STATE, MUNICIPAL, PRIVATE AND OTHER OWNERSHIP
Ownership km shoreline (% within each State) Federal State Municipal Private Other Total
Michigan ...... 40.9 (18.3) 107.9 (48.1) 6.9 (3.1) 66.1 (29.1) 1.6 TNC (0.7) 223.4 Minnesota ...... 0 0.2 (100) 0 0 0 0.2 Wisconsin ...... 18.1 (40.0) 8.7 (19.2) 4.4 (9.7) 9.0 (19.9) 5.1 Tribal (11.2) 45.3 Illinois ...... 0 4.7 (46.1) 1.3 (12.7) 4.2 (41.2) 0 10.2 Indiana ...... 2.9 (36.7) 5.0 (63.3) 0 0 0 7.9 Ohio ...... 0 2.0 (50) 0 2.0 (50) 0 4.0 Pennsylvania ...... 0 6.0 (100) 0 0 0 6.0 New York ...... 0 12.4 (45.3) 0 14.6 (53.3) 0.4 TNC (1.5) 27.4
Total (% of) ...... 61.9 (19.1) 146.9 (45.2) 12.6 (3.9) 95.9 (29.5) 7.1 (2.2) 324.4
Critical habitat has been designated in primary constituent elements may vary occasionally nest. A brief description of 35 units in the Great Lakes region. All depending on the extent of the open each unit and reasons for designating it critical habitat unit boundaries extend dune system. This area is needed to as critical habitat are presented below 500 meters (1640 feet) inland from the provide foraging habitat as well as and in Table 2. More detailed normal high water line, although the incorporate cobble pans between the descriptions are included with the inland edge of the area that contains the dunes where piping plovers maps.
TABLE 2.—LOCATION, OWNERSHIP, PIPING PLOVER USE, AND ESTIMATED LENGTH OF CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS WITHIN MAPPED CONSERVATION UNITS IN THE U.S. GREAT LAKES REGION
USGS 7.5′ quad Est. Habit unit Location name County map(s) Land ownership 1 Plover use 2 length 1:24,000 scale (km)
Whitefish Point to Grand Marais—
MI–1 ...... Whitefish Point ...... Chippewa ...... Whitefish Point (1951) Federal (USFWS), pri- Recent past, transient 2.5 vate. Vermilion/ Luce ...... Vermilion (1951) ...... Private ...... Current ...... 2.3 Weatherhogs Beach. Crisp Point ...... Luce ...... Betsy Lake North Municipal private ...... Recent past ...... 1.0 (1968). Little Lake Harbor ...... Luce ...... Betsy Lake North Private ...... Recent past ...... 1.6 (1968). Deer Park ...... Luce ...... Muskallonge Lake State, private ...... Recent past ...... 2.8 East (1968); Muskallonge Lake West (1968). Grand Marais Inner Alger ...... Grand Marais (1968) Multiple private, mu- Current ...... 2.9 Harbor and Lone- nicipal. some Point. Grand Marais Supe- Alger ...... Grand Marais (1968) Multiple private, Fed- Current ...... 1.2 rior Beach. eral (NPS). MI–2 ...... Point Aux Chenes ...... Mackinac ...... Pointe Aux Chenes Federal (USFS), pri- Current ...... 2.0 (1964, photorevised vate. 1975). MI–3 ...... Port Inland ...... Schoolcraft Hughes Point (1972) .. Private/State ...... Current ...... 3.0 Mackinac.
Waugoshance Point to beach west of McCort Hill—
MI–4 ...... Waugoshance Point Emmet ...... Big Stone Bay (1964, State ...... Current ...... 5.0 Temperance and photoinspected Crane Islands. 1975), Waugoshance Is- land (provisional 1982). Sturgeon Bay ...... Emmet ...... Bliss (1982) ...... State ...... Current ...... 3.9 Bliss Township Park .. Emmet ...... Bliss (1982) ...... Municipal ...... Current ...... 1.1 Sturgeon Bay Point .... Emmet ...... Bliss (1982) Cross Vil- Multiple private ...... Current ...... 2.4 lage (1982).
VerDate 11
TABLE 2.—LOCATION, OWNERSHIP, PIPING PLOVER USE, AND ESTIMATED LENGTH OF CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS WITHIN MAPPED CONSERVATION UNITS IN THE U.S. GREAT LAKES REGION—Continued
USGS 7.5′ quad Est. Habit unit Location name County map(s) Land ownership 1 Plover use 2 length 1:24,000 scale (km)
Cross Village Beach .. Emmet ...... Cross Village (1982) .. Municipal, multiple pri- Current ...... 1.3 vate. Beach West McCort Emmet ...... Cross Village (1982) .. Multiple private ...... Current ...... 1.4 Hill.
Sevenmile Point to Thorneswift Nature Preserve—
MI–5 ...... Sevenmile Point ...... Emmet ...... Forest Beach (1983 Multiple private ...... Suitable ...... 0.5 provisional). Thorneswift Nature Emmet ...... Forest Beach (1983 Multiple private ...... Current ...... 0.4 Preserve. provisional). MI–6 ...... Petoskey State Park .. Emmet ...... Harbor Springs (1983 State, private ...... Historical ...... 2.0 provisional). MI–7 ...... North Point ...... Charlevoix ...... Ironton (1983), Municipal ...... Suitable ...... 1.1 Charlevoix (1983). MI–8 ...... Fisherman’s Island Charlevoix ...... Charlevoix (1983) ...... State ...... Current ...... 1.3 State Park.
Indian Point to McCauley’s Point, Beaver Island—
MI–9 ...... Donegal Bay-Beaver Charlevoix ...... Garden Island West Multiple private ...... Current ...... 2.0 Island. (1980), Beaver Is- land North (1986). McCauley’s Point- Charlevoix ...... Beaver Island North State ...... Recent past ...... 0.6 Beaver Island. (1986). MI–10 ...... Greenes Bay-Beaver Charlevoix ...... Beaver Island North State/private ...... Recent past ...... 0.8 Island. (1986). MI–11 ...... High Island ...... Charlevoix ...... High Island (1986) ..... State ...... Current ...... 1.8
Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove—
MI–12 ...... Cathead Bay ...... Leelanau ...... Northport (provisional State/private ...... Current ...... 2.6 1983). Cathead Point to Leelanau ...... Northport/Northport Private ...... Suitable ...... 2.5 Christmas Cove. NW (provisional 1983). MI–13 ...... South Fox Island ...... Leelanau ...... South Fox Island (pro- State ...... Historical ...... 6.0 visional 1986). MI–14 ...... North Manitou ...... Leelanau ...... North Manitou Island Federal (NPS) ...... Current ...... 3.3 (provisional 1983). MI–15 ...... Crystal Run to Empire Leelanau ...... Glen Arbor (1983), Municipal, Federal ..... Suitable ...... 18.6 Beach. Glen Haven (1983), Empire (1983).
Esch Road to Sutter Road and Point Betsie—
MI–16 ...... Platte Bay and Platte Benzie ...... Empire (1983), Beulah Federal (NPS) ...... Suitable/current ...... 13.8 River Point and (provisional 1983). beach. Point Betsie ...... Benzie ...... Frankfort (1983) ...... Federal (USCG) TNC Historical ...... 4.8 managed, private. MI–17 ...... Nordhouse Dunes to Mason ...... Manistee NW (provi- Federal (USFS), State Transient, historical .... 13.4 Ludington. sional 1982), Ham- lin Lake (1982). MI–18 ...... Muskegon State Park Muskegon ...... Muskegon West State ...... Historical ...... 2.5 (1972, photoinspected 1980). MI–19 ...... Lake Superior State Chippewa ...... Albany Island (1964, State ...... Historical ...... 3.0 Forest, St. Vital photoinspected Point. 1976), DeTour Vil- lage (1964).
Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point—
MI–20 ...... Lighthouse Point ...... Cheboygan .... Cheboygan (1982) ..... State ...... Recent past ...... 1.4 Grass Bay ...... Cheboygan .... Cordwood Point TNC preserve ...... Historical transient ..... 1.6 (1982).
VerDate 11
TABLE 2.—LOCATION, OWNERSHIP, PIPING PLOVER USE, AND ESTIMATED LENGTH OF CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS WITHIN MAPPED CONSERVATION UNITS IN THE U.S. GREAT LAKES REGION—Continued
USGS 7.5′ quad Est. Habit unit Location name County map(s) Land ownership 1 Plover use 2 length 1:24,000 scale (km)
MI–21 ...... PH Hoeft State Park .. Pesque Isle .... Roger’s City (1971), State ...... Suitable ...... 3.7 Moltke (1971). MI–22 ...... Thompson’s Harbor ... Presque Isle ... Thompson’s Harbor State, private ...... Suitable ...... 2.8 (1971). MI–23 ...... Tawas Point State Iosco ...... East Tawas (1989) .... State ...... Suitable, transient ...... 2.0 Park. MN/WI–1 ...... Duluth Harbor ...... St. Louis ...... West Duluth (1953, State, private ...... Recent past ...... 0.6 photorevised 1969). WI–1 ...... Wisconsin Point ...... Douglas ...... Parkland (1954, Municipal, Federal Historical ...... 4.0 photorevised 1975), (USACE). Superior (1954, photorevised 1983). WI–2 ...... Long Island- Ashland ...... Cedar (1964, Federal (NPS) tribal Current ...... 25.3 Chequamegon Pt. photorevised 1975), (Bad River), private. Chequamegon Point (1964, photorevised 1975), Long Island (1964). WI–3 ...... Western Michigan Is- Ashland ...... Michigan Island Federal (NPS) ...... Suitable ...... 6.5 land. (1963). WI–4 ...... Seagull Bar ...... Marinette ...... Marinette East (1963, State, municipal ...... Suitable ...... 1.5 photorevised 1969). WI–5 ...... Point Beach State Manitowoc ...... Two Rivers (1978) ..... State ...... Suitable ...... 8.0 Forest. IL–1 ...... Illinois Beach State Lake ...... Zion, Ill. (1993), Wau- Municipal, State, pri- Historical ...... 10.2 Park to Waukegan kegan (1993). vate. Beach. IN–1 ...... Indiana Dunes Na- Porter ...... Ogden Dunes (1991), Federal (NPS), State Historical, transient .... 7.9 tional Lakeshore/In- Dunes Acres (1991). diana Dunes State Park. OH–1 ...... Sheldon Marsh ...... Erie ...... Huron (1969), San- State, private ...... Transient ...... 3.2 dusky (1969, photorevised 1975). OH–2 ...... Headlands Dunes ...... Lake ...... Mentor (1963, revised State ...... Historical/suitable ...... 0.8 1992). PA–1 ...... Presque Isle State Erie ...... Erie North (1957, re- State ...... Historical, transient .... 6.0 Park. vised 1969 and 1975, photoinspected 1977). NY–1 ...... Salmon River to Stony Oswego, Jef- Pulaski (1956), State, multiple private Historical ...... 27.4 Point. ferson. Ellisburg (1958), Henderson (1959). 1 USACE = U.S. Army Corp of Engineers;NPS = National Park Service;TNC = The Nature Conservancy;USFS = U.S. Forest Service;USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;USCG = U.S. Coast Guard. 2 Current = used for nesting since 1995; recent past = used for nesting since 1985; historical = used for nesting prior to 1985; transient = re- cent (since 1990) sightings of piping plovers; suitable = no known record of use but habitat appears suitable for nesting and is within the historic range of piping plover.
Michigan km (22.4 mi) are privately owned, and Unit MI–2: Pointe Aux Chenes approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) are part Unit MI–1: Whitefish Point to Grand of Whitefish Point National Wildlife This unit encompasses approximately Marais Refuge. This unit also includes a small 1.7 km (1.1 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Mackinac County on the This unit encompasses approximately area of municipal property at Crisp Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It 83.5 km (50 mi) of Lake Superior Point. This unit extends from just includes areas that are currently shoreline in Chippewa, Luce, and Alger southwest of Whitefish Point, around occupied by piping plovers. The Counties on the Upper Peninsula of and including the Point, and westward majority of the unit (1.1 km (0.7 mi)) is Michigan. It includes long stretches of to the Pictured Rocks National within the Hiawatha National Forest habitat that have been recently used by Lakeshore property boundary, excluding and is being considered for a Research piping plovers in addition to areas the area from the junction of Highway and Natural Area. The rest of the unit currently used by plovers. 58 and Morris Road to the breakwall Approximately 47 km (29.2 mi) are part north of the harbor near the former (approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi)) is of Muskallonge State Park and Lake Coast Guard station in Grand Marais. privately owned land. This unit extends Superior State Forest, approximately 36 from the mouth of the Pointe Aux
VerDate 11
Chenes river to the Hiawatha National Park. This unit extends from the mouth plovers. The entire designated area is Forest property boundary. of Tannery Creek to Mononaqua Beach. part of the Beaver Islands State Wildlife Research Area. This unit includes all Unit MI–3: Port Inland to Hughes Point Unit MI–7: North Point Lake Michigan shoreline within T39N This unit encompasses approximately This unit encompasses approximately R11W section 32 and T38N R11W 3 km (1.8 mi) of Lake Michigan 1.1 km (0.7 mi) of Lake Michigan section 5 on the western side of the shoreline in western Mackinac and shoreline in Charlevoix County, island and within T39N R11W section eastern Schoolcraft Counties on the Michigan. It includes areas of suitable 27 on the northeastern corner of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It piping plover nesting habitat. The entire island. includes areas that are currently designated area is a city park owned by the city of Charlevoix. It includes all Unit MI–12: Cathead Bay to Christmas occupied by piping plovers. Cove Approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the Lake Michigan shoreline within T34N designated shoreline is owned by Port R8W section 14. This unit encompasses approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi) of Lake Michigan Inland Stone and Dolomite Quarry and Unit MI–8: Fisherman’s Island State shoreline in Leelanau County, the remaining 2.2 km (1.4 mi) are part Park of the Lake Superior State Forest. This Michigan. It includes areas that are unit extends from the westernmost This unit encompasses approximately currently occupied by piping plovers breakwall at the Port Inland Gaging 1.3 km (0.8 miles) of Lake Michigan and areas of suitable piping plover Station to the mouth of Swan Creek. shoreline in Charlevoix County, nesting habitat. Approximately 1.9 km Michigan. It includes areas that are (1.2 mi) are part of Leelanau State Park, Unit MI–4: Waugoshance Point to currently occupied by piping plovers. and the remaining 3.2 km (2.0 mi) are McCort Hill Beach The entire designated area is within privately owned land. This unit extends This unit encompasses approximately Fisherman’s Island State Park. This unit from the northwest end of Cathead Bay 32 km (19.2 mi) of Lake Michigan extends from the junction of the line southward to just north of Christmas shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan, separating T34N R8W section 31 and Cove, excluding lands of the Magic and includes Temperance and T33N R8W section 6 from the Lake Carpet Woods Association HCP. Michigan shore to the Fisherman’s Waugoshance islands. It includes areas Unit MI–13: South Fox Island that are currently occupied by piping Island State Park property boundary at This unit encompasses approximately plovers and supports about half of the the end of Lakeshore Drive, including 6 km (3.8 mi) of Lake Michigan current Great Lakes piping plover Fisherman Island. shoreline on South Fox Island in population. Approximately 8.5 km (5.3 Unit MI–9: Indian Point to McCauley’s Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes mi) are privately owned and 1 km (0.6 Point, Beaver Island areas that were historically occupied by mi) is municipal land (Bliss Township This unit encompasses approximately piping plovers. The entire designated beach and Cross Village beach). The 5 km (3.1 mi) of Lake Michigan area is part of the Beaver Island State remaining 22.5 km (14 mi) are part of shoreline on Beaver Island in Wildlife Research Area. This unit Wilderness State Park. This unit extends Charlevoix County, Michigan. It includes all Lake Michigan shoreline from the junction of the northeast corner includes areas that are currently within T34N R13W sections 15, 16, and of T39N R5W section 28 and the Lake occupied, as well as areas that have 21 on the south end of the island and Michigan shoreline in Wilderness State been recently used by piping plovers. within T35N R13W section 30 on the Park, including Waugoshance and Approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) are north end of the island. Temperance Islands, to the southwest privately owned and 0.6 km (0.4 mi) is boundary of T37N R6W section 5 south part of Beaver Islands State Wildlife Unit MI–14: North and South Manitou of Cross Village. Research Area. This unit extends from Islands Unit MI–5: Sevenmile Point to Indian Point southward to the junction This unit encompasses approximately Thornswift Nature Preserve of the dividing line of T39 N R10W and 3.3 km (2.1 mi) of Lake Michigan T38N R10W and the Lake Michigan shoreline on North Manitou Island in This unit encompasses approximately shoreline. Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes 7 km (4.3 mi) of Lake Michigan areas that are currently occupied by shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan. Unit MI–10: Greenes Bay, Beaver Island piping plovers. The entire designated It includes areas of suitable piping This unit encompasses approximately area is part of Sleeping Bear Dunes plover nesting habitat and areas that are 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Lake Michigan National Lakeshore. This unit includes currently occupied by piping plovers. shoreline on Beaver Island in Dimmick’s Point and Donner’s Point on The entire designated area is under Charlevoix County, Michigan. It the southern end of North Manitou private ownership. It extends from the includes areas that have been recently Island. junction of the Lake Michigan shoreline used by piping plovers. Approximately Unit MI–15: Crystal Run to Empire and the northwest boundary of T36N 0.3 km (0.2 mi) is part of the Beaver Beach R6W section 30 to the junction of the Islands State Wildlife Research Area shoreline and the southeast corner of and the remaining 0.5 km (0.3 mi) is This unit encompasses approximately T35N R6W section 9. privately owned land. This unit 18.6 km (11.6 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Leelanau County, Unit MI–6: Petoskey State Park encompasses Greenes Bay on the western side of Beaver Island. Michigan. It includes areas of suitable This unit encompasses approximately piping plover nesting habitat. 2 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Michigan Unit MI–11: High Island Approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) are shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan. This unit encompasses approximately municipal beach in Glen Arbor It includes areas of historical piping 1.8 km (1.1 mi) of Lake Michigan Township, and the remaining 13.8 km plover habitat. Approximately 0.7 km shoreline on High Island in Charlevoix (8.6 mi) are part of Sleeping Bear Dunes (0.4 mi) is privately owned land and 1.3 County, Michigan. It includes areas that National Lakeshore. This unit extends km (0.8 mi) are part of Petoskey State are currently occupied by piping from Crystal Run to the southern
VerDate 11
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore State Forest. This unit extends from the plover nesting has not been documented property boundary. Lake Superior State Forest boundary to on this island, it contains viable piping the mouth of Joe Straw Creek. plover habitat. A portion of the 0.6 km Unit MI–16: Esch Road to Sutter Road (0.4 mi) of island shoreline on Interstate and Point Betsie Unit MI–20: Lighthouse Point to Island is in Minnesota, and a portion is Cordwood Point This unit encompasses approximately in Wisconsin. Approximately 0.2 km 18.6 km (11.6 mi) of Lake Michigan This unit encompasses approximately (0.1 mi) of Interstate Island shoreline is shoreline in Benzie County, Michigan. It 5.2 km (3.3 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline owned by the State of Minnesota and is includes areas that are currently in Cheboygan County, Michigan. It a State Wildlife Management Area and occupied by piping plovers, areas that includes areas that were historically bird sanctuary. The remaining 0.4 km were historically occupied, and areas of occupied by piping plovers and (0.2 mi) of Interstate Island shoreline is suitable piping plover nesting habitat. currently serve as foraging areas. in Wisconsin and is private land owned The majority of the unit (13.8 km (8.6 Approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) are part of by C. Rice Coal and Burlington Northern mi)) is part of Sleeping Bear Dunes Cheboygan State Park, and Railroad. This unit is comprised of National Lakeshore, 3.8 km (2.4 mi) are approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) are Nature Interstate Island. private land, and the remaining 1.0 km Conservancy property. The remaining Wisconsin (0.6 mi) is U.S. Coast Guard land that is 0.6 km (0.4 mi) is privately owned land. managed by The Nature Conservancy, a This unit extends from the junction of Unit WI–1: Wisconsin Point the Lake Huron shoreline and the private conservation organization. This This unit encompasses approximately western boundary of T38N R1W section unit extends from Esch Road to the 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of Lake Superior 22 near Lighthouse Point to just west of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore shoreline in Douglas County, Cordwood Point. property boundary at Sutter Road. The Wisconsin. It includes areas that were unit then continues from the Point Unit MI–21: P.H. Hoeft State Park historically occupied by piping plovers. Betsie Natural Area northern property This unit encompasses approximately Approximately 0.4 km (0.2 mi) of the boundary south to include all shoreline unit is Army Corps of Engineers land. within T26N R16W section 4. 3.7 km (2.3 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline in Presque Isle County, Michigan. It The rest of the designated area is Unit MI–17: Nordhouse Dunes and includes areas of suitable piping plover municipal land belonging to the city of Ludington State Park nesting habitat. The entire designated Superior. This unit extends from the area is part of P.H. Hoeft State Park. mouth of Dutchman Creek to the This unit encompasses approximately Douglas and St. Louis County line. 13.4 km (8.3 mi) of Lake Michigan This unit includes Lake Huron shoreline shoreline in Mason County, Michigan. It within T35N R5E section 6 Unit WI–2: Long Island/Chequamegon includes areas that were historically northwestward to the junction of Nagel Point Road and Forty Mile Road. occupied by piping plovers. At least one This unit encompasses approximately pair of piping plovers were sighted in Unit MI–22: Thompson’s Harbor State 25.3 km (15.7 mi) of Lake Superior the area in 1999, but no nests were Park shoreline in Ashland County, found. Approximately 7.4 km (4.6 mi) This unit encompasses approximately Wisconsin. It includes areas currently are part of the Manistee National Forest/ 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline occupied by piping plovers. Nesting Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area, and in Presque Isle County, Michigan. It occurred in this unit in 1998 and 1999. the remaining 6.0 km (3.7 mi) are part includes areas of suitable piping plover Approximately 11.2 km (6.9 mi) are part of Ludington State Park. This unit nesting habitat. Most of this designated of the Apostle Islands National extends from the mouth of Cooper Creek area is within Thompson’s Harbor State Lakeshore, approximately 9.0 km (5.6 to the mouth of the Big Sable River. Park with a small portion of privately mi) are private land, and the remaining Unit MI–18: Muskegon State Park owned land. This unit extends along the 5.1 km (3.2 mi) are Tribal lands belonging to the Bad River Band of Lake This unit encompasses approximately Lake Huron shoreline from Black Point to Grand Lake Outlet. Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians. 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of Lake Michigan This unit extends from the base of shoreline in Muskegon County, Unit MI–23: Tawas Point State Park Chequamegon Point (where it meets the Michigan. It includes areas that were This unit encompasses approximately mainland) to Chequamegon Point Light. historically occupied by piping plovers. 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline In the early 1950s, several pairs of Unit WI–3: Western Michigan Island in Iosco County, Michigan. It includes piping plovers were reported nesting in Beach and Dunes areas used for foraging by transient this unit, but the last known nesting was This unit encompasses approximately piping plovers and suitable nesting in 1953. The entire designated area is 6.5 km (4 mi) of Lake Superior shoreline habitat. The entire designated area is part of Muskegon State Park. This unit on Michigan Island in Ashland County, part of Tawas Point State Park. This unit extends from the north breakwall of the Wisconsin. It includes areas of suitable extends from the Tawas Sate Park canal joining Muskegon Lake and Lake piping plover nesting habitat. The entire boundary on the east side of Tawas Michigan to the northern Muskegon designated area is part of the Apostle Point including all shoreline within State Park property boundary at the Island National Lakeshore. This unit T22N R8E section 34 and offshore sand shoreline. includes all Lake Superior shoreline on spits. Michigan Island within T51N R1W Unit MI–19: Lake Superior State Forest- Minnesota/Wisconsin sections 28, 20, and 21. St. Vital Point This unit encompasses approximately Unit MN/WI–1: Interstate Island Unit WI–4: Seagull Bar 3.0 km (1.9 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline This unit encompasses approximately This unit encompasses approximately in Chippewa County, Michigan. It 0.6 km (0.4 mi) of Lake Superior 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of Lake Michigan includes areas that were historically shoreline on Interstate Island in St. shoreline in Marinette County, occupied by piping plovers. The entire Louis County, Minnesota and Douglas Wisconsin. It includes areas of suitable designated area is within Lake Superior County, Wisconsin. Although piping piping plover nesting habitat. About one
VerDate 11
half of the unit is State owned and the foraging areas for transient piping authorize, or carry out do not destroy or other half is municipal property owned plovers and suitable nesting habitat. adversely modify critical habitat to the by the city of Marinette. This unit Approximately 1.2 km (0.7 mi) are part extent that the action appreciably extends from the end of Leonard Street of Sheldon Marsh State Nature Preserve, diminishes the value of the critical at Red Arrow Park to the south end of and the remaining 2.0 km (1.2 mi) are habitat for the survival and recovery of Seagull Bar including nearshore sand privately owned land. This unit extends the species. Individuals, organizations, bars. from the mouth of Sawmill Creek to the States, Tribes, local governments, and western property boundary of Sheldon other non-Federal entities are affected Unit WI–5: Point Beach State Forest Marsh State Natural Area. by the designation of critical habitat This unit encompasses approximately only if their actions occur on Federal Unit OH–2: Headland Dunes 8 km (5 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline lands, require a Federal permit, license, in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. It This unit encompasses approximately or other authorization, or involve includes areas of suitable piping plover 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Lake Erie shoreline Federal funding. nesting habitat. The entire designated in Lake County, Ohio. It includes Section 7(a) of the Act requires all area is part of the Point Beach State historical nesting habitat and areas of Federal agencies to evaluate their Forest. This unit extends from the suitable piping plover nesting habitat. actions with respect to any species that southwest property boundary of Point The entire designated area is part of is proposed or listed as endangered or Beach State Forest to Rawley Point. Headland Dunes State Nature Preserve. threatened and with respect to its This unit extends from the eastern Illinois proposed or designated critical habitat. boundary line of Headland Dunes Regulations implementing this Unit IL–1: Illinois Beach State Park and Nature Preserve to the western interagency cooperation provision of the Nature Preserve to Waukegan Beach boundary of the Nature Preserve and Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. This unit encompasses approximately Headland Dunes State Park. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 10.2 km (6.3 mi) of Lake Michigan Pennsylvania Federal agencies to confer with us on shoreline in Lake County, Illinois. It any action that is likely to jeopardize includes areas that were historically Unit PA–1: Gull Point Natural Area, the continued existence of a proposed occupied by piping plovers. Presque Isle State Park species or result in destruction or Approximately 4.7 km (2.9 mi) are part This unit encompasses approximately adverse modification of proposed of the Illinois Beach State Park and 6.0 km (3.7 mi) of Lake Erie shoreline critical habitat. Conference reports Nature Preserve, approximately 1.3 km in Erie County, Pennsylvania. It provide conservation recommendations (0.8 mi) are municipal property (Zion includes foraging areas for transient to assist the agency in eliminating municipal park and Waukegan piping plovers and areas that were conflicts that may be caused by the municipal beach), and the remaining 4.2 historically used for nesting. The entire proposed action. The conservation km (2.6 mi) are privately owned. This unit is part of the Presque Isle State recommendations in a conference report unit extends from 17th Street and the Park. This unit extends from the are advisory. If a species is listed or Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois lighthouse north of Peninsula Drive on critical habitat is designated, section Beach State Park southward to the the north side of Presque Isle to the 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to northernWaukegan Beach breakwall at southern terminus of the hiking trail on ensure that activities they authorize, North Beach Park, excluding the public the southeast side of Gull Point. It fund, or carry out are not likely to beach and campground to just south of includes any new beach habitat that jeopardize the continued existence of the Illinois Beach State Park Lodge and may accrete along the present shoreline the species or to destroy or adversely Conference Center. portion of the unit. modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its Indiana New York critical habitat, the responsible Federal Unit IN–1: Indiana Dunes National Unit NY–1: Salmon River to Stony Point agency (action agency) must consult with us. Through this consultation we Lakeshore and Indiana Dunes State This unit encompasses approximately Park Beaches would ensure that the permitted actions 27.4 km (17 mi) of Lake Ontario do not destroy or adversely modify This unit encompasses approximately shoreline in Jefferson and Oswego critical habitat. 7.9 km (4.9 mi) of Lake Michigan Counties, New York. It includes areas When we issue a biological opinion shoreline in Porter County, Indiana. It that were historically occupied by concluding that a Federal action is includes areas that were historically piping plovers. Approximately 12.4 km likely to result in the destruction or occupied by piping plovers. 5 km (3.1 (7.7 mi) are State land (New York State adverse modification of critical habitat, mi) are part of Indiana Dunes State Park Department of Environmental we also provide reasonable and prudent and the remaining 2.9 km (1.8 mi) are Conservation (DEC) Wildlife alternatives to the project, if any are part of Indiana Dunes National Management Area/ New York DEC identifiable. Reasonable and prudent Lakeshore. This unit extends from the Unique Area and New York State Park), alternatives are defined at 50 CFR western boundary of the Cowels Bog/ approximately 14.6 km (9.1 mi) are 402.02 as alternative actions identified Dune Acres Unit, east of the Port of privately owned, and the remaining 0.4 during consultation that can be Indiana and the NIPSCO Baily km (0.2 mi) belong to The Nature implemented in a manner consistent Generating Station and along the Conservancy. This unit extends from the with the intended purpose of the action, Indiana Dunes State Park to Kemil Road mouth of the Salmon River to the that are consistent with the scope of the at Beverly Shores. Eldorado Road. Federal agency’s legal authority and Ohio Effects of Critical Habitat Designation jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that we Unit OH–1: Sheldon Marsh Section 7 Consultation believe would avoid destruction or This unit encompasses approximately Section 7(a) of the Act requires all adverse modification of critical habitat. 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of Lake Erie shoreline Federal agencies, including the Service, Reasonable and prudent alternatives can in Erie County, Ohio. It includes to ensure that actions they fund, vary from slight project modifications to
VerDate 11
extensive redesign or relocation of the actions that may affect a listed species. may be voluntary by governmental and project. Costs associated with Section 7 prohibits actions funded, private land managers. Most closures implementing a reasonable and prudent authorized, or carried out by Federal would end prior to the time the public alternative are similarly variable. agencies from jeopardizing the would frequent these beaches. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require continued existence of a listed species This section serves in part as a general Federal agencies to reinitiate or destroying or adversely modifying the guide to clarify activities that may affect consultation on previously reviewed listed species’ critical habitat. Actions or destroy or adversely modify critical actions in instances where critical likely to ‘‘jeopardize the continued habitat. However, specific Federal habitat is subsequently designated and existence’’ of a species are those that actions should be reviewed by the the Federal agency has retained would appreciably reduce the action agency. If the agency determines discretionary involvement or control likelihood of the species’ survival and the activity may affect critical habitat, over the action or such discretionary recovery. Actions likely to ‘‘destroy or they will consult with us under section involvement or control is authorized by adversely modify’’ critical habitat are 7 of the Act. We will work with the law. Consequently, some Federal those that would appreciably reduce the agencies and affected public early in the agencies may request reinitiation of value of critical habitat for the survival consultation process to avoid or consultation with us on actions for and recovery of the listed species. minimize potential conflicts and, which formal consultation has been Common to both definitions is an whenever possible, find a solution that completed, if those actions may affect appreciable detrimental effect on both protects listed species and their habitat designated critical habitat. Further, survival and recovery of a listed species. while allowing the action to go forward some Federal agencies may have Given the similarity of these definitions, in a manner consistent with its intended conferenced with us on proposed actions likely to destroy or adversely purpose. critical habitat. We may adopt the modify critical habitat would almost Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) formal conference report as the always result in jeopardy to the species biological opinion when critical habitat concerned when the area of the Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows is designated, if no significant new proposed action is occupied by the us to exclude areas from critical habitat information or changes in the action species. In those cases, it is highly designation where the benefits of alter the content of the opinion (see 50 unlikely that additional modifications to exclusion outweigh the benefits of CFR 402.10(d)). the action would be required as a result designation, provided the exclusion will Activities on Federal lands that may of designating critical habitat. However, not result in the extinction of the affect the piping plover or its critical critical habitat may provide benefits species. For the following reasons, we habitat will require section 7 toward recovery when designated in believe that in most instances the consultation. Activities on private, State areas unoccupied by the species. benefits of excluding areas covered by or Tribal lands requiring a permit from Designation of critical habitat could approved Habitat Conservation Plans the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army affect Federal agency activities. Federal (HCPs) from critical habitat designations Corps) under section 404 of the Clean agencies already consult with us on will outweigh the benefits of including Water Act, or some other Federal action, activities that may affect the species to them. including funding (e.g from the Federal ensure that their actions do not (1) Benefits of Inclusion Highway Administration, jeopardize the continued existence of Environmental Protection Agency, or the species. These actions include, but The benefits of including HCP lands Federal Emergency Management are not limited to: (1) Marina and boat in critical habitat are normally small. Agency) will also continue to be subject launch construction and maintenance; The principal benefit of any designated to the section 7 consultation process. (2) harbor dredging and dredge spoil critical habitat is that Federal activities Federal actions not affecting listed placement and disposal; (3) fill of in such habitat that may affect it require species or critical habitat and actions on interdunal wetlands for residence, consultation under section 7 of the Act. non-Federal lands that are not federally driveway, or other construction; (4) Such consultation would ensure that funded or permitted do not require waste-water discharge from adequate protection is provided to avoid section 7 consultation. communities; (5) all-terrain vehicular adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us activity on beaches or the construction Where HCPs are in place, our to evaluate briefly in any proposed or of facilities that increase such activity; experience indicates that this benefit is final regulation that designates critical (6) beach stabilization activities that small or non-existent. Currently habitat those activities involving a impede natural overwash processes approved and permitted HCPs are Federal action that may adversely including beach nourishment, planting already designed to ensure the long- modify such habitat or may be affected of vegetation, and construction and term survival of covered species within by such designation. Activities that may maintenance of seawalls, breakwaters, the plan area. Where we have an destroy or adversely modify critical and other off-shore stabilizing devices; approved HCP, lands that we ordinarily habitat include those that alter the (7) sale, exchange, or lease of Federal would define as critical habitat for the primary constituent elements to the land that contains suitable habitat that covered species will normally be extent that the value of critical habitat is likely to result in the habitat being protected in reserves and other for both the survival and recovery of the destroyed or appreciably degraded; (8) conservation lands by the terms of the Great Lakes breeding population of the oil and other hazardous material spills HCP and its implementation piping plover is appreciably and cleanup; and (9) stormwater and agreements. The HCP and diminished. We note that such activities wastewater discharge from implementation agreements include may also jeopardize the continued communities. Additionally, public management measures and protections existence of the species. access may be temporarily or seasonally for conservation lands that are crafted to To properly portray the effects of restricted on beaches under Federal protect, restore, and enhance their value critical habitat designation, we must ownership or jurisdiction to reduce as habitat for covered species. first compare the section 7 requirements disturbance so that piping plovers in In addition, a 10(a)(1)(B) permit for actions that may affect critical search of suitable nesting sites could issued by us as a result of an HCP habitat with the requirements for utilize them. Some of these closures application must itself undergo
VerDate 11
consultation. While this consultation innovative solutions to conserve species the stage for more effective conservation may not look specifically at the issue of while allowing for development. The actions in the future. adverse modification of critical habitat, educational benefits of critical habitat, In general, we believe the benefits of it will look at the very similar concept including informing the public of areas critical habitat designation to be small of jeopardy to the listed species in the that are important for the long-term in areas covered by approved HCPs. We plan area. Since HCPs, particularly large survival and conservation of the species, also believe that the benefits of regional HCPs, address land use within are essentially the same as those that excluding HCPs from designation are the plan boundaries, habitat issues would occur from the public notice and significant. Weighing the small benefits within the plan boundaries will have comment procedures required to of inclusion against the benefits of been thoroughly addressed in the HCP establish an HCP, as well as the public exclusion, including the benefits of and the consultation on the HCP. Our participation that occurs in the relieving property owners of an experience is also that, under most development of many regional HCPs. additional layer of approvals and circumstances, consultations under the For these reasons, then, we believe that regulation, together with the jeopardy standard will reach the same designation of critical habitat has little encouragement of conservation result as consultations under the benefit in areas covered by HCPs. partnerships, would generally result in adverse modification standard. HCPs being excluded from critical (2) Benefits of Exclusion Implementing regulations (50 CFR Part habitat designation under Section 402) define ‘‘jeopardize the continued The benefits of excluding HCPs from 4(b)(2) of the Act. existence of’’ and ‘‘destruction or being designated as critical habitat may Not all HCPs are alike with regard to adverse modification of’’ in virtually be more significant. During two public species coverage and design. Within this identical terms. Jeopardize the comment periods on our critical habitat general analytical framework, we need continued existence of means to engage policy, we received several comments to individually evaluate completed and in an action ‘‘that reasonably would be about the additional regulatory and legally operative HCPs in the range of expected to reduce appreciably the economic burden of designating critical the Great Lakes breeding population of likelihood of both the survival and habitat. These include the need for the piping plover to determine whether recovery of a listed species.’’ additional consultation with the Service the benefits of excluding these Destruction or adverse modification and the need for additional surveys and particular areas outweigh the benefits of means an ‘‘alteration that appreciably information gathering to complete these including them. diminishes the value of critical habitat consultations. HCP applicants have also Presently, one approved HCP exists for both the survival and recovery of a stated that they are concerned that third for the piping plover in the Great Lakes listed species.’’ Common to both parties may challenge HCPs on the basis region. The Magic Carpet Woods definitions is an appreciable detrimental that they result in adverse modification Association HCP covers approximately effect on both survival and recovery of or destruction of critical habitat, should 792 meters (2,600 feet) of shoreline a listed species, in the case of critical critical habitat be designated within the within the proposed Cathead Bay habitat by reducing the value of the HCP boundaries. critical habitat unit in Leelanau County, habitat so designated. Thus, actions The benefits of excluding HCPs Michigan. This plan addresses the satisfying the standard for adverse include relieving landowners, piping plover as a covered species and modification are nearly always found to communities and counties of any provides conservation management and also jeopardize the species concerned, additional minor regulatory review that protection for the species. We evaluated and the existence of a critical habitat might be imposed by critical habitat. this plan and determined that the designation does not materially affect Many HCPs, particularly large regional conservation management measures and the outcome of consultation. Additional HCPs, take many years to develop and, protection afforded the piping plover measures to protect the habitat from upon completion, become regional are sufficient to assure its conservation adverse modification are not likely to be conservation plans that are consistent on the involved lands. Consequently, required. with the recovery of covered species. we have determined that the benefits of Further, HCPs typically provide for Many of these regional plans benefit excluding this area outweigh the greater conservation benefits to a many species, both listed and unlisted. benefits of inclusion, and have excluded covered species than section 7 Imposing an additional regulatory the area covered by the HCP from the consultations because HCPs assure the review after HCP completion may fixed critical habitat designation. long term protection and management of jeopardize conservation efforts and In the event that future HCPs covering a covered species and its habitat, and partnerships in many areas and could be the Great Lakes breeding population of funding for such management through viewed as a disincentive to those the piping plover are developed within the standards found in the 5-Point developing HCPs. Excluding HCPs the boundaries of designated critical Policy for HCPs (64 FR 35242) and the provides us with an opportunity to habitat, we will work with applicants to HCP No Surprises regulation (63 FR streamline regulatory compliance and ensure that the HCPs provide for 8859). Such assurances are typically not confirms regulatory assurances for HCP protection and management of habitat provided by section 7 consultations participants. areas essential for the conservation of which, in contrast to HCPs, often do not A related benefit of excluding HCPs is the piping plover by either directing commit the project proponent to long that it would encourage the continued development and habitat modification term special management or protections. development of partnerships with HCP to nonessential areas or appropriately Thus, a consultation typically does not participants, including States, local modifying activities within essential accord the lands it covers the extensive governments, conservation habitat areas so that such activities will benefits an HCP provides. organizations, and private landowners, not adversely modify the primary The development and implementation that together can implement constituent elements. The HCP of HCPs provide other important conservation actions we would be development process provides an conservation benefits, including the unable to accomplish alone. By opportunity for more intensive data development of biological information excluding areas covered by HCPs from collection and analysis regarding the to guide conservation efforts and assist critical habitat designation, we preserve use of particular habitat areas by the in species recovery and the creation of these partnerships, and, we believe, set piping plover. The process also enables
VerDate 11
us to conduct detailed evaluations of the closing date of the reopened comment ‘‘Summary of Changes from Proposed importance of such lands to the long period to November 20, 2000. Rule’’ section of this document. term survival of the species. Comments received from July 6 to Issue 1: Biological Justification and We will provide technical assistance November 20, 2000, were entered into Methodology and work closely with applicants the administrative record. throughout the development of future We contacted all appropriate State The following comments and HCPs to identify lands essential for the and Federal agencies, Tribes, County responses involve issues related to the long-term conservation of the piping governments, elected officials, and other biological basis for the designation. plover and appropriate management for interested parties and invited them to (1A) Comment: The broad scale of the those lands. The take minimization and comment. In addition, we invited public proposed critical habitat includes areas mitigation measures provided under comments through the publication of that do not contain the primary these HCPs are expected to protect the notices in newspapers in Minnesota, constituent elements for the Great Lakes essential habitat lands designated as Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, piping plover. critical habitat in this rule. If an HCP Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. In Response: We recognize that not all that addresses the piping plover as a these notices and the proposed rule, we parcels of land within designated covered species is ultimately approved, announced the dates and times of seven critical habitat units will contain the the Service will reassess the critical public hearings to be held on the habitat components essential to piping habitat boundaries in light of the HCP. proposed rule. Their dates and locations plover conservation. We are required to The Service will seek to undertake this are specified above in the section designate critical habitat based on the review when the HCP is approved, but ‘‘Previous Federal Actions’’. Transcripts best available information and to funding constraints may influence the of these hearings are available for describe critical habitat (50 CFR timing of such a review. inspection (see addresses section). We 424.12(c)) with specific limits using Should additional information posted copies of the proposed rule and reference points and specific definable become available that changes our draft economic analysis on our internet boundaries. In preparation of the final analysis of the benefits of excluding any site (http://midwest.fws.gov/). determination, we used information of these (or other) areas compared to the We requested three ornithologists and gathered during the public comment benefits of including them in the critical conservation biologists, who have period to more accurately define the habitat designation, we may revise this familiarity with the piping plover and written critical habitat boundaries. final designation accordingly. its habitat requirements, to peer review Despite our efforts to exclude areas that Similarly, if new information the proposed critical habitat do not contain the primary constituent indicates any of these areas should not designation. All three responded by the elements for the piping plover from be included in the critical habitat close of the comment period. They critical habitat unit boundaries, it is not designation because they no longer meet provided valuable information about the practicable to develop unit boundaries the definition of critical habitat, we may biology, status, and historical range of revise this final critical habitat the species, and suggested removing and provide maps and legal descriptions designation. If, consistent with available some areas from the critical habitat that exclude all developed areas such as funding and program priorities, we elect designation that no longer meet the towns, housing developments, or other to revise this designation, we will do so criteria of piping plover critical habitat developed lands unlikely to provide for through a subsequent rulemaking. and provided data on other areas that the piping plover. Because of the time If you have questions regarding may deserve critical habitat designation constraints imposed by the Court, and whether specific activities will at a later date. These comments are the absence of detailed Geographic constitute adverse modification of addressed in this section, and relevant Information System (GIS) coverage we critical habitat, or requests for copies of data provided by the reviewers have defined the critical habitat unit the regulations on listed wildlife and been incorporated throughout the rule. boundaries as specifically as practicable inquiries about prohibitions and permits We received a total of 140 written and but, due to the mapping scale, some contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 36 oral comments during the 2 public areas not essential to the conservation of Service (see addresses section). comment periods. Several people the piping plover were included within submitted comments more than once. In the boundaries of proposed critical Summary of Comments and total, oral and written comments were habitat. However, developed areas such Recommendations received from 7 Federal agencies, 14 as buildings, marinas, paved areas, boat In the July 6, 2000, proposed rule (65 State agencies, 5 Tribal representatives, ramps, piers, bridges, lighthouses, and FR 41812), we requested all interested 3 elected officials, 10 local governments, similar human-made structures are not parties to submit comments on the 31 private organizations, and 97 private being designated as critical habitat. specifics of the proposal including individuals. Comments were received (1B) Comment: Designating critical information, policy, treatments of HCPs, from residents in 13 States, with habitat for the piping plover will result and proposed critical habitat boundaries Michigan sources submitting the most of in such high public animosity that the as provided in the proposed rule. The any one State. All comments received designation will cause more harm to the first comment period closed on were reviewed for substantive issues species than benefit. September 5, 2000. The comment period and new data regarding critical habitat Response: Public support is a vital was reopened for 30 days, from and the biology and status of the Great asset in the protection of endangered September 19 to October 20, 2000 (65 Lakes breeding population of the piping species and their habitat, but, by law we FR 56530), to allow for additional plover, and economic information. We must designate essential areas as critical comments on the proposed rule and address all relevant comments received habitat even if it will cause public comments on the draft economic during the comment periods and public backlash due to misconceptions about analysis of the proposed critical habitat. hearing testimonies in the following its impacts. In an effort to clear up Since our intention was to reopen the summary of issues. Comments of a misunderstandings about critical habitat comment period for 60 days, we similar nature are grouped into a single and to increase public support for published a correction on September 28, issue. Comments that we incorporated piping plovers, we are increasing our 2000 (65 FR 58258), correcting the into this final rule are discussed in the education and outreach programs.
VerDate 11
(1C) Comment: One person provides that areas outside the designation, provided the exclusion will commented that there is a lack of data geographic area currently occupied by not result in the extinction of the to support the proposed measures and the species may meet the definition of species. We believe that in most no data to support that designating critical habitat upon a determination instances the benefits of excluding HCPs critical habitat will result in an that they are essential for the from critical habitat designations will increased piping plover population. conservation of the species. Our outweigh the benefits of including them. Response: In accordance with section regulations also provide for the For this designation, we find that the 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at designation of areas outside the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which geographical area currently occupied if benefits of designation for the one areas to designate as critical habitat, we we find that a designation limited to its legally operative HCP issued for the are basing this critical habitat present range would be inadequate to piping plover in the Great Lakes. determination on the best scientific and ensure the conservation of the species We anticipate that future HCPs in the commercial data available at the time of (50 CFR 424.12(e)). range of the Great Lakes breeding designation. The designation indicates In 2000, there were about 30 breeding population of piping plovers will the areas that we believe are essential to pairs of piping plovers in the Great include it as a covered species and the conservation of the species. Lakes area, all of which occur in provide for its long term conservation. Designation of critical habitat is only Michigan (Stucker et al. 2000). The We expect that HCPs undertaken by one tool to use towards the recovery of Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains local jurisdictions (e.g. counties, cities) the piping plover, and we will continue Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS and other parties will identify, protect, to work with other Federal agencies, 1988b) establishes a recovery goal of 150 and provide appropriate management State and local agencies, Tribes, the breeding pairs in the Great Lakes for those specific lands within the scientific community, local landowners, watershed. This number is considered a boundaries of the plans that are and the public to eliminate and reduce minimum for the recovery of the species essential for the long term conservation the range of threats that endanger this and eventual removal from the of the species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the species. protections of Act. Of these 150 Act sates that HCPs must meet issuance (1D) Comment: Inland lakes are breeding pairs, at least 100 are to be in criteria, including minimizing and mentioned in the 1988 Recovery Plan as Michigan and at least 50 in other Great mitigating any take of the listed species potential breeding habitat around the Lakes States. In order to achieve this covered by the permit to the extent Great Lakes. Were smaller, inland lakes recovery goal, additional habitat areas practicable, and that the taking must not considered for designation? are needed beyond those currently appreciably reduce the likelihood of the Response: Inland lake records of occupied by the species. We have survival and recovery of the species in piping plovers in the Great Lakes are designated currently unoccupied areas the wild. We fully expect that our future very few and from long ago. Cottrille as critical habitat on the basis of analyses of HCPs and section 10(a)(1)(B) (1957) cites four records of piping historical piping plover occurrences and permits under section 7 will show that plovers at three inland locations in the existence of most or all of the covered activities carried out in Michigan between 1938 and 1954, but primary constituent elements at other accordance with the provisions of the no such sightings have been made in sites lacking historical occurrences. HCP and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits will recent years. Additionally, there are no Additionally, all of the currently not result in the destruction or adverse inland lakes in the Great Lakes area that unoccupied areas designated as critical modification of critical habitat are presently known to contain the habitat are included as essential habitat designated for the piping plover. primary constituent elements for this in the draft revised Recovery Plan In the event that future HCPs covering population of piping plovers. (USFWS 1994). the Great Lakes breeding population of (1E) Comment: There is no mention of the piping plover are developed within migratory sites or habitat needs during Issue 2: Policy and Regulations the boundaries of designated critical migration. The following comments and habitat, we will work with applicants to Response: Areas used by piping responses involve issues related to ensure that the HCPs provide for plovers on migratory routes are likely public involvement in the designation protection and management of habitat very important for survival to the next process and compliance with the Act areas essential for the conservation of breeding season. Extraordinarily little is and other laws, regulations, and the piping plover by either directing known, however, about important stop- policies. development and habitat modification over sites and habitat needs of the (2A) Comment: Several commenters to nonessential areas or appropriately piping plover during migration. Because were supportive of the policy that lands modifying activities within essential so little is known about where essential covered by approved HCPs that provide habitat areas so that such activities will migratory stop-over sites are located, we incidental take authorization for the not adversely modify the primary did not designate migratory habitat in piping plover should be excluded from constituent elements. The HCP this rule. Important migratory sites may critical habitat. Other commenters development process provides an be added to the critical habitat believe that critical habitat designation opportunity for more intensive data designation (by following the complete should occur within the boundaries of collection and analysis regarding the proposal process and soliciting public such HCPs. use of particular habitat areas by the comments) when we have a better Response: We recognize that critical piping plover. We will provide understanding of migratory habitat habitat is only one of many conservation technical assistance and work closely requirements. tools for federally listed species. HCPs with applicants throughout the (1F) Comment: Why is unoccupied are one of the most important tools for development of future HCPs to identify habitat being designated as critical reconciling land use with the lands essential for the long term habitat? conservation of listed species on non- conservation of the species and Response: The inclusion of Federal lands. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act appropriate management of those lands. unoccupied areas in this critical habitat allows us to exclude areas from critical If the piping plover is a covered species designation is in accordance with habitat designation where the benefits of under future HCPs, the plans should section 3(5)(A) of the Act, which exclusion outweigh the benefits of provide for the long term conservation
VerDate 11
of the species. The take minimization news releases mailed to affected elected and 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East and mitigation measures provided officials, local jurisdictions, and interest Lansing, Michigan 48823. Call our under these HCPs are expected to groups, and publication of the proposed Ecological Services office in Fort adequately protect the essential habitat determination and associated materials Snelling at 612–713–5350 for more lands designated as critical habitat in on our internet site. We published a information on how to view the this rule, such that the value of these document in the Federal Register on transcripts and comments. lands for the survival and recovery of September 19, 2000, announcing the (2F) Comment: Alternatives to the Great Lakes breeding population of availability of the draft economic designating critical habitat were not the piping plover is not appreciably analysis and reopening the comment considered. diminished through direct or indirect period until October 19, 2000. On Response: By law, according to alterations. If an HCP that addresses the September 28, 2000, in order to fulfill section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we are piping plover as a covered species is our intention that the comment period required to designate critical habitat ‘‘to ultimately approved, the Service will be reopened for 60 days, we published the maximum extent prudent’’ for all reassess the relevant critical habitat a document correcting the closing date listed species. Furthermore, in the case boundaries in light of the protection and of the comment period, to November 20, of the piping plover, we were ordered management provided by the HCP. The 2000. Because of the court-ordered ten by the United States District Court for Service will seek to undertake this month time frame for completing the the District of Columbia to designate review when the HCP is approved, but designation, we were not able to extend critical habitat for the Great Lakes funding constraints may influence the or open an additional public comment breeding population of this species. timing of such a review. However, an period beyond the four and one-half Other conservation actions are HCP can proceed without a concurrent months we provided. important to the recovery of the piping amendment to the critical habitat (2D) Comment: We received two plover and will be carried out as part of designation should all involved parties requests to hold additional public the recovery process, but they are not agree. hearings on the proposed designation. legal alternatives to designating critical (2B) Comment: Specific lands should Our Response: We are required to habitat. be excluded using the exemption hold one public hearing on a proposed (2G) Comment: A few commenters afforded pursuant to 4(b)(2) of the Act. action, if it is requested. Due to the short recommended that we postpone issuing The biological benefits of critical habitat time between proposal and the court- a final determination until a more are outweighed by the benefits of ordered deadline for publication of the specific and defensible critical habitat exclusion. final rule, we chose to announce public proposal can be written and an accurate Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act hearings at the time the proposal was and quantitative economic analysis be and 50 CFR 424.19 require us to published. We published notification of conducted. consider the economic impact, and any the hearings in the Federal Register as Response: We are required to use the other relevant impact, of specifying any part of the proposal, published legal best available information in particular area as critical habitat. We notices in regional newspapers, posted designating critical habitat. We are may exclude any area from critical information on our internet site, and under a court order to complete the habitat if we determine that the benefits issued news releases about the hearings. designation of critical habitat for the of exclusion outweigh the benefits of During the month of July, 2000, we held Great Lakes breeding population of the designating the area as critical habitat, seven public hearings throughout the piping plover by April 30, 2001. We did unless that exclusion will lead to Great Lakes States affected by the solicit new biological data and public extinction of the species. As discussed proposed critical habitat designation. participation during the comment in this final rule, we have determined Additional public hearings were periods on the proposed rule and draft that no significant adverse economic requested in locations near one of the economic analysis. These comments effects will result from this critical seven hearings. Because of the court- have been taken into consideration in habitat designation. Consequently, none ordered deadline and the broad the development of the final economic of the proposed lands have been coverage of the original public hearings, analysis and this final determination. excluded from the designation based on we chose not to hold additional public Furthermore, we will continue to economic impacts. As discussed in the hearings. monitor and collect new information response to the comment above, we (2E) Comment: One commenter and may revise the critical habitat have excluded the one legally operative suggested that we post the hearing designation in the future if new HCP from the designation pursuant to transcripts and all of the comments information indicates a change is section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on other received during the public comment needed, given our available funding and relevant impacts. period on the internet. priorities. (2C) Comment: We received three Response: We have not posted copies (2H) Comment: The maps presented written requests to extend the comment of hearing transcripts and the comments in the proposed rule are difficult to period for the proposed designation and received on a proposed action on the interpret and therefore will be difficult draft economic analysis. internet in the past. The volume of to use in planning efforts. Our Response: Following the public comments received on some Response: The maps published in the publication of the proposed critical proposals is very large, thus it is not Federal Register are provided for habitat designation on July 6, 2000, we practicable to post them on the internet reference purposes to guide Federal opened a 60 day public comment period at this time. The hearing transcripts and agencies and other interested parties in which closed on September 5, 2000, comments on the proposal to designate identifying the general boundaries held seven public hearings during July, critical habitat for the Great Lakes within which the critical habitat is and conducted outreach notifying breeding population of the piping located. While the verbal descriptions of elected officials, local jurisdictions, plover are available during normal each critical habitat unit are meant to interest groups, and property owners. business hours at the U.S. Fish and provide a more precise reference for We conducted much of this outreach Wildlife Service offices at: Bishop actual boundaries, we recognize the through legal notices in regional Henry Whipple Building, 1 Federal value to the public and resource newspapers, telephone calls, letters and Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111; managers of more detailed maps. Due to
VerDate 11
the time constraints of the court ordered Response: We did not feel it was necessary work can proceed in concert deadline and our limited Geographic necessary to contact every potential with the requirements of the Act to Information System (GIS) capabilities, stakeholder in order for us to develop a conserve the piping plover and its we have not been able to produce more draft economic analysis. Especially in habitat. In cases where critical habitat detailed maps to match our verbal light of the limited resources and time has been designated for areas occupied descriptions. We have made it a priority available to us, we believe that we were by the piping plover, consultations to complete more detailed GIS maps of adequately able to understand the issues would likely have been required, the designated areas and make these of concern to local communities based regardless of the designation of critical maps available for public use. on public comments submitted on the habitat. proposed rule, on transcripts from (3E) Comment: A number of Issue 3: Economic and Other Relevant public hearings, and from detailed commenters expressed concern about Impacts discussions among our staff and with the impact on recreational activities, (3A) Comment: Designation of critical representatives from other Federal, tourism, and the possibility of restricted habitat will cause private property State, Tribal, and local government beach access within designated critical values to decline and will negatively agencies, as well as some landowners. habitat. affect businesses. When the draft economic analysis was Response: Most recreational activities Response: The economic analysis completed, we reopened the comment on the majority of beaches within indicates that designation of critical period to request public comment, in critical habitat will not be impacted by habitat for the Great Lakes breeding particular on the adequacy of the critical habitat designation. Since non- population on the piping plover will not economic analysis. Federal activities are not affected by have a significant economic impact. The (3D) Comment: Several commenters critical habitat designation, beach use economic analysis does acknowledge expressed concern about the impact would only be affected if a Federal that the designation of critical habitat critical habitat will have on future agency funds, authorizes, or carries out may have some effect on private development projects and the an action that will result in a level of property values. We believe that this maintenance of existing structures. human use that precludes successful short-term effect would occur from Response: The designation of critical piping plover breeding. In those cases, market uncertainty and public habitat does not necessarily restrict we will work with the Federal agency misperception of the impacts of the further development. Within critical involved to protect potential breeding critical habitat designation on private habitat boundaries, Federal agencies habitat while having as minimal an must make special efforts to protect the land use. We also believe that this short- effect as possible on people’s enjoyment important characteristics of these areas, term effect on property values would of the areas. On non-Federal lands, therefore, if a proposed development diminish over time as the uncertainty recreational beach activities such as project with a Federal nexus were to and misperceptions are dispelled. We walking, jogging, sunning, swimming, affect critical habitat of the piping did not find supporting evidence during and picnicking will not be affected by plover, consultation under section 7 of the preparation of the economic analysis the critical habitat designation. the Act would be required. Because the to estimate or document this potential The recovery of piping plovers in the Great Lakes population of the piping short-term effect on property values. Great Lakes area can be consistent with plover is listed as an endangered species The economic analysis determined that recreational and other economic under the Act, section 7 consultations there will be an insignificant impact to activities. According to the 1996 would be required for development National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, businesses. projects in areas with piping plovers, (3B) Comment: Several commenters and Wildlife Associated Recreation, even if these areas are not designated wildlife observation is one of the fastest expressed concern about a quick critical habitat. response to emergency maintenance growing outdoor activities. The Existing human-made structures, such presence of piping plovers on activities, specifically emergency as buildings, parking lots, and boat erosion control and environmental Michigan’s beaches should continue to ramps are not critical habitat, therefore, attract bird watchers who are excited to clean-up, and questioned whether many maintenance projects on such emergency activities are exempt from view this rare species in its natural structures will not affect critical habitat. habitat. consultation under section 7 of the Act. Only those projects with a Federal Response: Emergency activities are nexus that modify the primary Issue 4: Site Specific Issues not exempt from consultation under constituent elements to such a degree as The following comments and section 7 of the Act. However, the to cause the habitat to be unsuitable for responses involve issues related to the regulations at 50 CFR 402.05 allow for breeding piping plovers will be affected. inclusion or exclusion of specific areas, informal consultation where emergency We understand the importance of or our methods for selecting appropriate circumstances mandate the need to beach nourishment and dredging for areas for designation as critical habitat. consult in an expedited manner. Formal maintaining beach areas and harbors in (4A) Comment: Several comments consultation must be initiated as soon as the Great Lakes. Additionally, these pointed out errors in mileages, possible after the emergency is under activities, if conducted in an locations, or descriptions of critical control. In addition, programmatic appropriate manner, may be beneficial habitat units in the proposed rule. consultations can be conducted prior to to nesting piping plovers. These Response: Corrections have been an emergency to address response activities, however, do alter the habitat, made in the final rule to reflect these activities which can be reasonably and thus will likely require comments, where appropriate. anticipated. consultation. For these types of ongoing (4B) Comment: A number of (3C) Comment: Some commenters activities, programmatic consultations commenters identified specific areas voiced concern that they were not can be conducted to reduce the time that they thought should not be directly contacted for their opinions on necessary for annual consultations. designated as critical habitat. the economic impacts of critical habitat In those cases where consultation is Response: Where site specific designations or why their specific land required, we will work cooperatively documentation was submitted to us parcels were not addressed. with Federal agencies to see that providing a rationale as to why an area
VerDate 11
should not be designated as critical the proposed rule indicates that some of be considered in the proposal to habitat, we evaluated that information the requested lands contain suitable designate critical habitat for the Great in accordance with the definition of nesting habitat and may be essential to Plains piping plover, to be published on critical habitat pursuant to section 3 of the conservation of the species. For or before May 31, 2001. the Act and made a determination as to example, we received a comment from (5C) Comment: Many commenters whether modifications to the proposal the National Park Service requesting suggested additional protection for were appropriate. Based on the that a portion of Sleeping Bear Dunes piping plovers, beyond the designation comments we received, we excluded National Lakeshore on South Manitou of critical habitat. lands from the final designation that we Island, Michigan be included in the determined to be nonessential to the designation because it is an important Response: Other conservation actions, conservation of the piping plover (i.e., piping plover foraging area. We will besides the designation of critical areas that did not contain the primary continue to investigate potential piping habitat, are crucial to the recovery and constituent elements) or that were plover critical habitat and may revise survival of the piping plover. These located within an approved HCP for the the critical habitat designation in the other actions, including public piping plover (refer to the ‘‘Summary of future if new information supports a education, predator control, law Changes from Proposed Rule’’ section change, and as available funding and enforcement, and monitoring are for specific areas that were excluded). other priorities allow. The data on addressed in the 1988 and 1994 None of the proposed lands have been additional sites that were provided to us Recovery Plans for Piping Plovers excluded from the final designation during the comment period will be Breeding in the Great Lakes and based on economic impacts. We important in any future revisions to Northern Great Plains. We are currently included in the final designation those designated critical habitat. revising these recovery plans and the lands that we still consider essential to public will be provided the opportunity Issue 5: Other Relevant Issues the recovery of the Great Lakes breeding to comment on the draft revised plan. (5A) Comment: Two people population of piping plovers. (5D) Comment: One commenter stated (4C) Comment: Multiple commenters commented that we should also that the effect of critical habitat should recommended adding specific lands to designate critical habitat for piping include situations that are not funded, critical habitat or further investigating plovers that breed along the north authorized, or carried out by a Federal additional areas for suitable habitat. Atlantic coast. Response: During the Federal rule- Response: We are currently required agency. making process for designating critical to complete a significant number of Response: Once designated, critical habitat, we may, based upon listing-related actions, pursuant to court habitat has only one regulatory impact: information received during the public orders and judicially approved under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, Federal comment period, remove proposed settlement agreements. Complying with agencies must, in consultation with the critical habitat lands from a final these court orders and settlement Service, ensure that any action they designation and refine proposed agreements will require the Service to authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely boundaries. However, according to spend nearly all of its listing and critical to result in the destruction or adverse section 4(b)(4) of the Act, we may not habitat funding for fiscal year 2001, and modification of critical habitat. By law, add new critical habitat units without a substantial amount in fiscal year 2002. the effect of critical habitat does not first proposing these lands in the We are currently working to prioritize extend to situations that do not involve Federal Register and providing a public our critical habitat workload within the a Federal nexus. comment period. Therefore, potential ESA listing budget allocated by critical habitat units that were not Congress. The priority for designating Summary of Changes From Proposed included in the proposal for the Great critical habitat for the Atlantic Coast Rule Lakes population of the piping plover breeding population of piping plovers Based on a review of public are not designated as critical habitat in relative to other species and pending comments received on the proposed this final determination. litigation has not yet been determined. Some of the lands recommended for (5B) Comment: Piping plovers that determination of critical habitat for the addition to critical habitat were not nest at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota Great Lakes breeding population of the included in the proposal because we represent an important genetic link piping plover, we re-evaluated our earlier concluded that these lands were between the Great Lakes and Great proposed designation of critical habitat not essential for the conservation of the Plains populations. Piping plovers at for the piping plover. This re-evaluation species or did not meet the definition of Lake of the Woods should be considered resulted in the following changes that piping plover critical habitat. After part of the endangered Great Lakes are reflected in this final determination. reassessing the requested additional breeding population instead of part of Removal of Proposed Units lands on South Fox Island in Michigan, the threatened Great Plains breeding we continue to believe that these lands, population. Based on comments received on the at this time, do not meet the definition Response: We agree that the piping proposal and site visits following the of critical habitat because they do not plovers that nest at Lake of the Woods, publication of the proposal, we removed contain the primary constituent Minnesota represent an important link three sites—Pensaukee Harbor and elements required by piping plovers. between the Great Lakes and Great Peshtigo Point, Wisconsin and Erie Pier/ Several of the other requested sites Plains populations. Piping plovers that Hearding Island, Minnesota— from this were excluded from the proposed nest at Lake of the Woods are final critical habitat designation. We designation because information on considered part of the Great Plains determined that these sites do not have, current habitat suitability was not population because current data and are unlikely to develop, the features available. These sites will require suggested that they are more closely and habitat characteristics that are further investigation to determine associated with plovers in nearby necessary to sustain the species and whether they are essential to the Manitoba, Canada (Haig and Oring, thus we no longer consider these areas conservation of the species. Data 1988). Proposed critical habitat for to be essential for the conservation of gathered following the publication of piping plovers at Lake of the Woods will the species.
VerDate 11
Change in Extent of Inland Boundary determination includes the entire plover is described in detail in the The proposed 1 km (0.6 mi.) inland perimeter of the peninsula, and preamble. Presently, one approved HCP exists boundary was intended to incorporate therefore appears to be larger, when in for the piping plover in the Great Lakes dune blow-out areas and extensive actuality it has been reduced by region. The Magic Carpet Woods dune-wetland systems. These inland approximately 5 km (3.1 mi). The Association HCP covers approximately areas provide important foraging proposal states that the unit was 18 km 792 m (2,600 ft) of shoreline within the habitat, as well as cobble pans between (11.2 mi) long when, consistent with the verbal description and calculating both proposed Cathead Bay critical habitat the dunes where plovers occasionally unit in Leelanau County, Michigan. This nest. Data gathered during the public sides of the peninsula, it was actually 30.3 km (18.8 mi) long. Therefore, this plan addresses the piping plover as a comment period indicate that the covered species and provides majority of the dune systems within unit is being reduced from 30.3 km (18.8 mi) to 25.3 km (15.7 mi) in this final conservation management and designated critical habitat do not extend protection for the species. We evaluated further than 500 m (1,640 ft) inland determination. The western boundary of the Indiana this plan and determined that the from the normal high water line. conservation management measures and Therefore, in this final determination, Dunes (IN–1) unit was moved approximately 549 meters (1,800 feet) protection afforded to the piping plover the inland boundary for all critical are sufficient to assure its conservation habitat units was changed from the eastward to the western boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. This on the involved lands. Among other proposed 1 km (0.6 mi) to 500 m (1,640 features, the plan requires residences be ft) inland from normal high water line. revised boundary excludes lands owned by the Northern Indiana Public Service set back from the beach, biological Errors in Unit Descriptions Company (NIPSCO) that do not have the monitoring, the presence of a piping plover steward, containing garbage, and Several comments pointed out required habitat features for nesting piping plovers and, therefore, are not restraining pets. Therefore, we have corrections or clarifications to unit excluded the lands covered by the descriptions. We applied this corrected essential to the conservation of the species. Magic Carpet Woods Association HCP information to the final rule and from the final determination of critical The southeastern boundary of the adjusted the verbal descriptions of 10 habitat for the Great Lakes breeding Pennsylvania unit (PA–1) at Gull Point units; White Fish Point to Grand Marais population of the piping plover. (MI–1), Seven Mile Point to Thornswift Natural Area/Presque Isle State Park Nature Preserve (MI–5), Petoskey Sate was moved approximately 2.3 km (1.4 Economic Analysis Park (MI–6), Greenes Bay-Beaver Island mi) north. The refined boundary Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us (MI–10), High Island (MI–11), South Fox excludes the public beach area that does to designate critical habitat on the basis Island (MI–13), Esch Road to Sutter not have the required habitat features of the best scientific and commercial Road and Point Betsie (MI–16), for nesting piping plovers and, data available and to consider the Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point therefore, is not essential to the economic and other relevant impacts of (MI–20), Thompson’s Harbor (MI–22), conservation of the species. designating a particular area as critical and Illinois Beach State Park/Waukegan Additionally, the length of this unit was habitat. We may exclude areas from Beach (IL–1). None of the changes miscalculated in the proposed rule. The critical habitat upon a determination resulted in any significant alteration of proposal states that the unit was 1.5 km that the benefits of such exclusions the units. (0.9 mi) long when, consistent with the outweigh the benefits of specifying such verbal description, it was actually 8.3 Refined Unit Boundaries areas as critical habitat. We cannot km (5.1 mi) long. Therefore, this unit is exclude such areas from critical habitat The boundaries of several of the units being reduced from 8.3 km (5.1 mi) to when such exclusion will result in the were refined to better reflect the areas 6.0 km (3.7 mi) in this final extinction of the species. that are essential to the conservation of determination. The economic analysis must examine the Great Lakes breeding population of the incremental economic effects of the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the the piping plover. The southeastern critical habitat designation above those Act boundary of the unit at Long Island- effects of the listing. Economic effects Chequamegon Point, Wisconsin (WI–2) In our proposed determination of are measured as changes in national was moved northwestward critical habitat for the Great Lakes income, regional jobs, and household approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) to the base population of the piping plover, we income. A draft analysis of the of Chequamegon Point at the southern asked for public comment on the economic effects of the critical habitat boundary of T48N R3W, section 1. This appropriate relationship between designation for the Great Lakes breeding change was the result of discussions approved HCPs and designated critical population of the piping plover was with the Bad River Band of Lake habitat. After considering the comments prepared (Industrial Economics, Superior Chippewa Indians and the we received, we have chosen to evaluate Incorporated, 2000) and made available Wisconsin Department of Natural areas covered by an approved HCP for for public review (September 19 to Resources. The revised boundary the piping plover for exclusion under November 20, 2000; 65 FR 56530 and 65 excludes areas that do not have the the benefits-balancing test found in FR 58258). We also completed a final required habitat features for nesting section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This section economic analysis that incorporated piping plovers and, therefore, are not allows us to exclude areas upon public comments, information gathered essential to the conservation of the determination that the benefits of since the draft analysis, and changes to species. Additionally, the description of excluding the area outweigh the benefits the critical habitat designation. The this unit given in the proposal, although of including the are in the critical analysis found that there would be an inclusive of the entire peninsula, only habitat designation, provided the economic impact from the designation calculated the length of the peninsula, exclusion would not result in the that would vary on a situational level, not the perimeter shoreline of the extinction of the species. Our and that most of the impact would come peninsula. The calculation of the length application of this balancing test to in the form of new section 7 of this unit as presented in this final lands covered by HCPs for the piping consultations in unoccupied habitat
VerDate 11
units. In the economic analysis, we and may be obtained by contacting our in the Great Lakes watershed. We have estimate that, over the next ten years, office (see ADDRESSES section). also issued one section 10(a)(1)(B) the total costs by landowners associated Required Determinations incidental take permit for an entity that with consultation and technical has prepared an HCP involving piping assistance attributable to this Regulatory Planning and Review plover habitat. rulemaking will range between $314,200 This document has been designated as Approximately 236 km (146 mi) of the and $592,000. Our economic analysis significant and reviewed by the Office of areas encompassing proposed critical also recognizes that there may be costs Management and Budget (OMB), in habitat for the Great Lakes breeding from delays associated with reinitiating accordance with Executive Order 12866. population of piping plovers are previously completed consultations OMB makes the final determination of currently unoccupied by piping plovers. significance under Executive Order after the critical habitat designation is The remaining 89 km (55 mi) of the total 12866. made final. There may also be economic designated critical habitat are currently effects due to the reaction of the real (a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more occupied by piping plovers. Under the estate market to critical habitat Act, critical habitat may not be designation, as real estate values may be or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or adversely modified or destroyed by a lowered due to a perceived increase in other units of government. The Great Federal agency action; it does not the regulatory burden. However, we Lakes breeding population of piping impose any restrictions on non-Federal believe this impact will be minor and plover was listed as an endangered entities unless they are conducting short-term. We have determined that species in 1985. In fiscal years 1992 activities funded or otherwise these economic impacts do not warrant through 2000, we conducted only one sponsored or permitted by a Federal excluding any areas from the formal section 7 consultation with other agency (see Table 3 below). Section 7 designation. Federal agencies to ensure that their requires Federal agencies to ensure that A copy of the final economic analysis actions would not jeopardize the they do not jeopardize the continued is included in our administrative record continued existence of the piping plover existence of the species.
TABLE 3.—ACTIVITIES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY PIPING PLOVER LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
Additional activities potentially Categories of activities Activities potentially affected by species listing only 1 affected by critical habitat designation 2
Federal Activities Potentially Direct take and activities such as removing or destroying piping plov- Activities by Federal agencies in Affected.3 ...... er breeding habitat, whether by mechanical, chemical, or other any unoccupied critical habitat means (e.g., construction, road building, boat launch and marina areas. construction or maintenance, beach nourishment); recreational ac- tivities that significantly deter the use of suitable habitat areas by piping plovers or alter habitat through associated maintenance ac- tivities (e.g., off-road vehicle parks, paved walking paths); sale, ex- change, or lease of Federal land that contains suitable habitat that may result in the habitat being destroyed or appreciably degraded (e.g., shoreline development, building of recreational facilities such as off-road vehicle parks, road building); activities that may result in increased human activity and disturbance. Private and other non-Federal Direct take and activities such as removing or destroying piping plov- Funding, authorization, or permit- Activities Potentially Affected.4 ...... er habitat, whether by mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., ting actions by Federal Agen- construction, road building, boat launch and marina construction or cies in any unoccupied critical maintenance, beach nourishment) and appreciably decreasing habitat areas. habitat value or quality (e.g., increased predation, invasion of ex- otic species, increased human presence or disturbance) that re- quire a Federal action (permit, authorization, or funding). 1 This column represents the activities potentially affected by listing the piping plover as an endangered species (December 11, 1985; 50 FR 50726) under the Endangered Species Act. 2 This column represents the activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to those activities potentially affected by listing the species. 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.
Based upon our experience with the Federal agencies or non-Federal persons have a Federal ‘‘sponsorship’’ of their species and its needs, we conclude that that receive Federal authorization or actions are not restricted by the any Federal action or authorized action funding. The designation of areas designation of critical habitat, although that could potentially cause adverse outside the geographic range already they continue to be bound by the modification of designated occupied occupied by the species may have provisions of the Act concerning ‘‘take’’ critical habitat would currently be incremental impacts on what activities of the species. considered ‘‘jeopardy’’ under the Act. may or may not be conducted by (b) This rule will not create Accordingly, the designation of areas Federal agencies or non-Federal persons inconsistencies with other agencies’ within the geographic range occupied that receive Federal authorization or actions. As discussed above, Federal by the piping plover will not likely have funding. However, our analysis did not agencies have been required to ensure any incremental impacts on what identify any significant incremental that their actions do not jeopardize the actions may or may not be conducted by effects. Non-Federal persons that do not continued existence of piping plovers
VerDate 11
since the listing in 1985. The (6) Hazard mitigation and post- (a) This rule will not ‘‘significantly or prohibition against adverse modification disaster repairs funded by the Federal uniquely’’ affect small governments. A of critical habitat is not expected to Emergency Management Agency; Small Government Agency Plan is not impose any substantial additional (7) Promulgation of air and water required. Small governments will be restrictions to those that currently exist. quality standards under the Clean Air affected only to the extent that any of Because of the potential for impacts on Act and the Clean Water Act and the their actions involving Federal funding other Federal agency activities, we will cleanup of toxic waste and superfund or authorization must not destroy or continue to review this action for any sites under the Resource Conservation adversely modify the critical habitat in inconsistencies with other Federal and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the areas where they have not previously agency actions. Comprehensive Environmental undergone consultation to avoid (c) This rule will not materially affect Response, Compensation, and Liability jeopardizing the species. entitlements, grants, user fees, loan Act by the U.S. Environmental (b) This rule will not produce a programs, or the rights and obligations Protection Agency; Federal mandate of $100 million or of their recipients. Federal agencies are (8) Issuance of Endangered Species greater in any year, that is, it is not a currently required to ensure that their Act section 10(a)(1)(B) permits by the ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under activities do not jeopardize the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. continued existence of the species, and, (9) Activities funded, carried out, or The designation of critical habitat as discussed above, we do not anticipate authorized by any Federal agency. imposes no obligations on State or local that the adverse modification Some of these activities sponsored by governments. Federal agencies within the critical prohibition (resulting from critical Takings habitat designation) will have any habitat areas are carried out by small significant incremental effects in areas entities (as defined by the Regulatory In accordance with Executive Order of occupied habitat. The critical habitat Flexibility Act) through contract, grant, 12630, this rule does not have designation may have some additional permit, or other Federal authorization. significant takings implications, and a effects on the unoccupied areas of As discussed above, these actions are takings implication assessment is not proposed critical habitat, but we expect largely required to comply with the required. This determination will not these to be minor. listing protections of the Act, and the ‘‘take’’ private property and will not (d) OMB has determined that this rule designation of critical habitat is not alter the long-term value of private may raise novel legal or policy issues anticipated to have significant property. As discussed above, the and, as a result, this rule has undergone additional effects on these activities in designation of critical habitat affects OMB review. areas of critical habitat occupied by the only Federal agency actions. The rule species. Designation of critical habitat in will not increase or decrease the current Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 areas that are unoccupied by this restrictions on private property et seq.) species will not likely result in concerning take of the piping plover. In the economic analysis, we significant additional effects because Due to current public knowledge of the determined that designation of critical only actions involving a Federal nexus species protection, the prohibition habitat will not have a significant effect will be affected. against take of the species both within on a substantial number of small For actions on non-Federal property and outside of the designated areas, and entities. As discussed under Regulatory that do not have a Federal connection the fact that critical habitat provides no Planning and Review above, this (such as funding or authorization), the incremental restrictions, we do not designation of critical habitat for the current restrictions concerning take of anticipate that property values will be Great Lakes breeding population of the the species remain in effect, and this affected by the critical habitat piping plover is not expected to have a final determination will have no designation. While real estate market significant economic impact. As additional restrictions. values may temporarily decline indicated on Table 1 (see Critical following designation, due to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement perception that critical habitat Habitat Designation section), we Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) designated property owned by Federal, designation may impose additional State, Tribal, and local governments and In the economic analysis, we regulatory burdens on land use, we private property. determined that designation of critical expect any such impacts to be short Within these areas, the types of habitat will not cause (a) any effect on term. Additionally, critical habitat Federal actions or authorized activities the economy of $100 million or more, designation does not preclude that we have identified as potential (b) any increases in costs or prices for development of HCPs and issuance of concerns are: consumers, individual industries, incidental take permits. Landowners in (1) Regulation of activities affecting Federal, State, or local government areas that are included in the designated waters of the United States by the U.S. agencies, or geographic regions, or (c) critical habitat will continue to have the Army Corps of Engineers under section any significant adverse effects on opportunity to utilize their property in 404 of the Clean Water Act; competition, employment, investment, ways consistent with the conservation (2) Regulation of water flows, water productivity, innovation, or the ability of the piping plover. delivery, and diversion by Federal of U.S.-based enterprises to compete Federalism agencies; with foreign-based enterprises. Refer to (3) Sale, exchange, or lease of lands the final economic analysis for a In accordance with Executive Order owned by a Federal agency; discussion of the effects of this 13132, the rule does not have significant (4) Road construction and determination. Federalism effects. A Federalism maintenance and right-of-way assessment is not required. In keeping designation; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 with Department of the Interior and (5) Funding of low-interest loans to U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) Department of Commerce policy, the facilitate the construction of low-income In accordance with the Unfunded Service requested information from and housing by the Department of Housing Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et coordinated development of this critical and Urban Development; seq.): habitat proposal with appropriate State
VerDate 11
resource agencies in Minnesota, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 coordinated with the Bad River Band of Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, as determining which Tribal lands This rule does not contain any well as during the listing process. We constitute critical habitat, and have information collection requirements for will continue to coordinate any future included that area in the critical habitat which Office of Management and designation of critical habitat for the designation. Great Lakes piping plover with the Budget approval under the Paperwork appropriate State agencies. The Reduction Act is required. References Cited designation of critical habitat for the National Environmental Policy Act A complete list of all references cited piping plover imposes few additional in this proposed rule is available upon restrictions to those currently in place We have determined that an request from the Fort Snelling Regional and, therefore, has little incremental Environmental Assessment and/or an Office (see ADDRESSES section). impact on State and local governments Environmental Impact Statement as and their activities. The designation defined by the National Environmental Author may have some benefit to these Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared The primary author of this notice is governments in that the areas essential in connection with regulations adopted Laura J. Ragan (see ADDRESSES section). to the conservation of the species are pursuant to section 4(a) of the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 more clearly defined, and the primary Endangered Species Act as amended. A constituent elements of the habitat notice outlining our reason for this Endangered and threatened species, necessary for the conservation of the determination was published in the Exports, Imports, Reporting and record species are specifically identified. This Federal Register on October 25, 1983 keeping requirements, Transportation. definition and identification may assist (48 FR 49244). This final determination Regulations Promulgation these local governments in long-range does not constitute a major Federal planning (rather than waiting for case- action significantly affecting the quality For the reasons given in the preamble, by-case section 7 consultations to of the human environment. we amend part 17, subchapter B of occur). Government-to-Government chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Civil Justice Reform Relationship With Tribes Regulations as set forth below: In accordance with Executive Order In accordance with the President’s PART 17—[AMENDED] 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has memorandum of April 29, 1994, determined that the rule does not ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 1. The authority citation for part 17 unduly burden the judicial system and with Native American Tribal continues to read as follows: meets the requirements of sections 3(a) Government’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We designate Order 13175, and the Department of the 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– critical habitat in accordance with the Interior’s requirement at 512 DM 2, we 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. provisions of the Act. The readily acknowledge our responsibility 2. In § 17.11(h) revise the first entry determination uses standard property to communicate meaningfully with for ‘‘Plover, piping’’ under ‘‘BIRDS’’ to descriptions and identifies the primary recognized Federal Tribes on a read as follows: constituent elements within the Government-to-Government basis. We designated areas to assist the public in believe that certain Tribal lands are § 17.11 Endangered and threatened understanding the habitat needs of the essential for the conservation of the wildlife. Great Lakes breeding population of piping plover because they support * * * * * piping plover. essential populations and habitat. We (h) * * *
Species Vertebrate population Historic Range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules
******* BIRDS
******* Plover, piping ..... Charadrius U.S.A. Great Lakes Great Lakes watershed E 211 17.95(b) NA melodus. northern Great Plains, in States of IL, IN, MI, Atlantic and Gulf MN, NY, OH, PA, and coasts, PR, VI), Can- WI and Canada ada, Mexico, Baha- (Ont.).. mas, West Indies.
*******
3. Amend § 17.95(b) by adding critical § 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife. 1. Critical habitat units are depicted habitat for the Great Lakes piping plover * * * * * for St. Louis County, Minnesota; (Charadrius melodus) under paragraph (b) Birds. Douglas, Ashland, Marinette, and (b) in the same alphabetical order as this * * * * * Manitowoc Counties, Wisconsin; Lake species occurs in § 17.11 (h) to read as PIPING PLOVER (Charadrius County, Illinois; Porter County, Indiana; follows: melodus)—Great Lakes Breeding Erie and Lake Counties, Ohio; Erie Population County, Pennsylvania; Oswego and
VerDate 11
Jefferson Counties, New York; and egg laying, and incubation. Beach diameter), gravel (stones smaller than 1 Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce, Mackinac, activities that may be associated with a cm (0.4 in) diameter), or debris such as Chippewa, Iosco, Presque Isle, high level of disturbance include, but driftwood, wrack, root masses, or dead Cheboygan, Emmet, Charlevoix, are not limited to, walking pets off shrubs. Leelanau, Benzie, Mason, and leash, loud noise, driving ATVs, or iii. The dynamic ecological processes Muskegon Counties, Michigan, on the significantly increased human presence. that create and maintain piping plover maps below. The level of disturbance is relative to habitat are also important primary 2. i. The primary constituent elements the proximity to the nest, intensity, and constituent elements. These geologically required to sustain the Great Lakes frequency of these and other similar dynamic lakeside regions are controlled breeding population of the piping activities. plover are found on Great Lakes islands ii. Appropriately sized sites must also by processes of erosion, accretion, plant and mainland shorelines that support have areas of at least 50 meters (m) (164 succession, and lake-level fluctuations. open, sparsely vegetated sandy habitats, feet (ft)) in length where the beach The integrity of the habitat components such as sand spits or sand beaches, that width is more than 7 m (23 ft), there is depends upon regular sediment are associated with wide, unforested protective cover for nests and chicks, transport processes, as well as episodic, systems of dunes and inter-dune and the distance to the treeline (from high-magnitude storm events. By their wetlands. In order for habitat to be the normal high water line to where the nature, Great Lakes shorelines are in a physically and biologically suitable for forest begins) is more than 50 m (164 ft). constant state of change; habitat features piping plovers, it must have a total Beach width is defined as the distance may disappear, or be created nearby. shoreline length of at least 0.2 km (0.12 from the normal high water line to the The critical habitat boundaries reflect mi) of gently sloping, sparsely vegetated foredune (a low barrier dune ridge these natural processes and the dynamic (less than 50 percent herbaceous and immediately inland from the beach) character of Great Lakes shorelines. low woody cover) sand beach with a edge, or to the sand/vegetation 3. Critical habitat does not include total beach area of at least 2 hectares boundary in areas where the foredune is existing features and structures, such as (ha) (5 acres (ac)) and a low level of absent. The beach width may be buildings, marinas, paved areas, boat disturbance from human activities and narrower than 7 m (23 ft) if appropriate ramps, piers, bridges, lighthouses, and from domestic animals. As the nesting sand and cobble areas of at least 7 m (23 similar structures not containing one or season progresses, the level of ft) exist between the dune and the more of the primary constituent disturbance tolerated by piping plovers treeline. Protective cover for nests and elements. increases. A lower level of disturbance chicks consists of small patches of Note: Maps follows: is required at the beginning of the herbaceous vegetation, cobble (stones nesting period during nest site selection, larger than 1 cm (0.4 inches (in)) BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
Map of Units MN/WI–1, WI–1, WI–2, 1983). Lands 500 meters (1640 feet) inland feet) inland from normal high water line from and WI–3 from normal high water line from the mouth the southern boundary of T48N R3W, section of Dutchman Creek west-northwestward 1 northwestward along the Lake Superior MN/WI–1: St Louis County, Minnesota. along the Lake Superior shoreline to the shoreline to Chequamegon Point Light. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map West breakwall forming the Superior Front WI–3: Ashland County, Wisconsin. From Duluth, Minnesota (1953, photorevised Channel opening to Lake Superior at the 1969). Lands 500 m (1640 feet) inland from Douglas and St. Louis County line. USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Michigan normal high water line on Interstate Island in WI–2: Ashland County, Wisconsin. From Island, Wisconsin (1963). Lands 500 meters T49N R14W S10 USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Cedar, (1640 feet) inland from normal high water WI–1: Douglas County, Wisconsin. From Wisconsin (1964, photorevised 1975); line on Michigan Island within T51N R1W USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Parkland, Chequamegon Point, Wisconsin (1964, sections 28, 20, and 21. Wisconsin (1954, photorevised 1975) and photorevised 1975); and Long Island, Superior, Wisconsin (1954, photorevised Wisconsin (1964). Lands 500 meters (1640 Note: Map follows:
VerDate 11
Map of Units WI–4 and WI–5 section 9 south-southeastward to the south the southwest property boundary of Point end of Seagull Bar including nearshore sand Beach State Forest near Neshotah Park in the WI–4: Marinette County, Wisconsin. From city of Twin Rivers (T20N R25E section 31) USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Marinette bars. northwestward along the Lake Michigan East, Wisconsin (1963, photorevised 1969). WI–5: Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. shoreline to the south boundary of section 9, Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Two T20N R25E, at Rawley Point. high water line from the end of Leonard Rivers, Wisconsin (1978). Lands 500 m (1640 Street at Red Arrow Park in T30N R24E ft) inland from normal high water line from Note: Map follows:
VerDate 11
Map of Units IL–1 and IN–1 (excluding the portion of Lake Michigan Indiana (1991) and Dune Acres, Indiana shoreline from dividing line of T46N R12E (1991). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from IL–1: Lake County, Illinois. From USGS sections 23 and 26 to 500 m (1,640 ft) south normal high water line from the western 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Zion, Illinois boundary of the Cowels Bog/Dune Acres (1993) and Waukegan, Illinois (1993). Lands of the Illinois Beach State Park Lodge and Unit, (located east of the Port of Indiana and 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high Conference Center) to the Waukegan Beach the NIPSCO Baily Generating Station) east- water line from 17th Street and the Lake breakwall at North Beach Park T45N R12E northeastward along the Indiana Dunes State Michigan shoreline in Illinois Beach State section 22 (Waukegan quad). Park to Kemil Road at Beverly Shores. Park T46N R12E section 14 (Zion, Ill. quad) IN–1: Porter County, Indiana. From USGS southward along the Lake Michigan shoreline 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Ogden Dunes, Note: Map follows:
Map of Units MI–1 through MI–23 58, Morris Road, and Veteran Road. The unit Bay, Michigan (1964, photoinspected 1975); then continues from the breakwall north of Waugoshance Island, Michigan (provisonal MI–1: Chippewa, Luce, and Alger the harbor, along the Lake Superior shoreline 1982); Bliss, Michigan (1982); Cross Village, Counties, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 of Grand Marais near the former Coast Guard Michigan (1982). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) quadrangle maps Whitefish Point, Michigan station (Grand Marais quad) westward along inland from normal high water line from the (1951); Vermilion, Michigan (1951); Betsy the Lake Superior shoreline to the Pictured junction of the northeast corner of T39N R5W Lake North, Michigan (1968); Muskallonge Rocks National Lakeshore property boundary section 28 (Big Stone Bay quad) and Lake Lake East, Michigan (1968); Muskallonge in T49N R14W section 1. Lake West, Michigan (1968); and Grand Michigan shoreline westward along the MI–2: Mackinac County, Michigan. From shoreline around and including Temperance Marais, Michigan (1968). Lands 500 m (1640 USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Pointe Aux ft) inland from normal high water line within and Waugoshance islands and any nearshore Chenes, Michigan (1964, photorevised 1975). sandbars (Waugoshance Island quad), along the junction of the southern boundary of Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal the southern side of Waugoshance Point T50N R5W section 6 (Whitefish Point quad) high water line from the mouth of the Pointe following the shoreline southeastward to Big and including the shore of Lake Superior Aux Chenes river following the Lake following the shoreline northeast to Michigan shoreline northwestward to the Sucker Creek, continuing southward and Whitefish Point, then following the Lake Hiawatha National Forest property boundary southwestward along Sturgeon Bay Point Superior shoreline westward around the at the junction of T41N R5W sections 23 and (Bliss quad) and continuing southward along point(Vermilion SE, Vermilion quads), 26. the Lake Michigan shoreline to the southwest crossing the Luce County line and continuing MI–3: Schoolcraft and Mackinac Counties, boundary of T37N R6W section 5. westward (Betsy Lake North, Betsy Lake Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle MI–5: Emmet County, Michigan. From Northwest) across the Alger County line map Hughes Point, Michigan (1972). Lands USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Forest Beach, (Grand Marais East) to Lonesome Point and 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high Michigan. Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from the East Bay of the Sucker River (Grand water line from the westernmost breakwall at normal high water line from the junction of Marais quad) and following the shoreline the Port Inland Gaging Station following the Lake Michigan shoreline and the northwest along the inner bay of Grand Marais Harbor Lake Michigan shoreline eastward along boundary of T36N R6W section 30 south- past Carpenter Creek and ending at the Hughes Point to the mouth of Swan Creek. southeastward along Lake Michigan shoreline north of the east end of the private MI–4: Emmet County, Michigan. From shoreline to the junction of the shoreline and road originating at the junction of Highway USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Big Stone the southeast corner of T35N R6W section 9.
VerDate 11
MI–6: Emmet County, Michigan. From Magic Carpet Woods Association HCP, shoreline along Big Sable Point (Hamlin Lake USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Harbor approximately 2,600 feet of frontage on quad) to the mouth of the Big Sable River Springs, Michigan. Lands 500 m (1640 ft) Cathead Bay within the east half of the T19N R18W section 19. inland from normal high water line from the southwest quarter and the west half of the MI–18: Muskegon County, Michigan. From mouth of Tannery Creek north along Lake southeast quarter of Section 14, T32N, R11W USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Muskegon Michigan shoreline of Little Traverse Bay in Leelanau Township—then following the West (1972, photoinspected 1980) and Dalton crossing the northern property boundary of shoreline southwestward and past Cathead (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from Petoskey State Park to include the shoreline Point in T32N R11W section 15 (Northport normal high water line from the north of Mononaqua Beach within T35N R5W quad) southwestward along the Lake breakwall of the canal joining Muskegon sections 22 and 21. Michigan shoreline to the intersection of the Lake and Lake Michigan (Muskegon West MI–7: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From shoreline with the southern boundary of quad) north along the Lake Michigan USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Ironton, T32N R11W section 16 north of Christmas shoreline to the northern Muskegon State Michigan (1983) and Charlevoix, Michigan Cove (Northport NW quad). Park property boundary at the shoreline (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from MI–13: Leelanau County, Michigan. From (Dalton quad). normal high water line within T34N R8W USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map South Fox MI–19: Chippewa County, Michigan. From section 14. Island (provisional 1986). Lands 500 m (1640 USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Albany MI–8: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From ft) inland from normal high water line within Island, Michigan (1964, photoinspected USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Charlevoix, T34N R13W sections 15, 16, and 21 and 1976) and DeTour Village, Michigan (1964). Michigan (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) T35R13W section 30. Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal inland from normal high water line from the MI–14: Leelanau County, Michigan. From high water line from the State Forest junction of the line separating T34N R8W USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map North boundary in T41N R3E section 11 (Albany section 31 and T33N R8W section 6 with the Manitou Island (provisional 1983). Lands 500 Island quad) and follows the Lake Huron Lake Michigan shore then extends m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water shoreline east south eastward around and southwestward along the shoreline and line within T31N R14W sections 22, 23, 27 including St. Vital Point and then north to including Fisherman’s Island to the and 28 on North Manitou Island. the mouth of Joe Straw Creek in T41N R3E Fisherman’s Island State Park property MI–15: Leelanau County, Michigan. From section 12(De Tour Village quad). boundary at the end of Lakeshore Drive USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Glen Arbor, MI–20: Cheboygan County, Michigan. where it meets the line between T33N R9W Michigan (1983); Glen Haven, Michigan From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps sections 12 and 1. (1983); and Empire, Michigan (1983). Lands Cheboygan, Michigan (1982) and Cordwood MI–9: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high Point, Michigan (1982). Lands 500 m (1640 USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Garden water line from Crystal Run in T29N R14W ft) inland from normal high water line from Island West, Michigan (1980) and Beaver section 14 (Glen Arbor quad) south- the junction of the Lake Huron shoreline and Island North (1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) southwestward and westward along the Lake the western boundary of T38N R1W section inland from normal high water line from Michigan shoreline, then west- Indian Point (Garden Island West quad) northwestward to Sleeping Bear Point (Glen 22 (Cheboygan quad) eastward along the Lake T39N R10W section 20 southward along the Haven quad) and southwestward and south Huron shoreline of Grass Bay, continuing to west Lake Michigan shoreline of Beaver to the southern Sleeping Bear Dunes National the western boundary of T38N R1E section Island including Donegal Bay and McCauley Lakeshore property boundary in T28N R15W 20 (Cordwood Point quad). Point and ending at the junction of the section 13 (Empire quad). MI–21: Presque Isle County, Michigan. dividing line of T39 N R10W and T38N MI–16: Benzie County, Michigan. From From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps R10W and the Lake Michigan shoreline USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Empire, Roger’s City, Michigan (1971) and Moltke, (Beaver Island North quad). Michigan (1983); Beulah, Michigan Michigan (1971). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) MI–10: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From (provisional 1983); and Frankfort, Michigan inland from normal high water line within USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Beaver (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from T35N R5E section 6 and T36N R5E section Island North (1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) normal high water line from Esch Road in 31 (Roger’s City quad) continuing inland from normal high water line from the T27N R15W section 1 (Empire quad) south- northwestward to the junction of Nagel Rd junction of Lake Michigan and the northwest southwestward along the shoreline of Lake and Forty Mile Road at the junction of T36N corner of T38N R11W section 25 southward Michigan at Platte Bay (Beulah quad), then R4E section 25 and T36N R5E section 30 along the Lake Michigan shoreline to the westward along the shoreline of Lake (Moltke quad). junction of the Lake Michigan shoreline and Michigan to Platte River Point (Frankfort MI–22: Presque Isle County, Michigan. the dividing line between T39N and T38N quad) continuing west-southwestward to the From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map R11W. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Thompson’s Harbor, Michigan (1971). Lands MI–11: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From property boundary at Sutter Road in T27N 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map High R16Wsection 26. Continuing from the water line from Black Point to Grand Lake Island(1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland junction of Lake Michigan shoreline and Outlet including shoreline within T34N R7E from normal high water line within T39N Point Betsie Natural Area property boundary sections 10, 11, 14, and 15. R11W sections 27 and 32 and T38N R11W in T27N R16W section 33 southward along MI–23: Iosco County, Michigan. From section 5. the Lake Michigan shoreline to include all USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map East Tawas, MI–12: Leelanau County, Michigan. From shoreline within T26N16W section 4. Michigan (1989). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Northport, MI–17: Mason County, Michigan. From inland from normal high water line from the Michigan (provisional 1983)and Northport USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Manistee Tawas Sate Park boundary at the U.S. Coast NW, Michigan (provisional 1983). Lands 500 NW, Michigan (provisional 1923) and Guard Station on the east side of Tawas Point m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water Hamlin Lake, Michigan (1982). Lands 500 m southward along the Lake Huron shoreline line from the intersection of the Lake (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line including offshore sand spits and along the Michigan shoreline and the line between from the mouth of Cooper Creek T20N R18W tip of the point and northeastward including T32N R11W section 12 and T32N R10W section 13 (Manistee NW quad) south- all shoreline in T22N R8E section 34. section 7—excluding lands covered by the southwestward following the Lake Michigan Note: Map follows:
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
Map of Units OH–1 and OH–2 to the western property boundary of Sheldon inland from normal high water line from the Marsh State Natural Area in T6N R23W eastern boundary line Headland Dunes OH–1: Erie County, Ohio. From USGS (Sandusky quad) at the point where the Nature Preserve westward along the Lake 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Huron, Ohio (1969) and Sandusky, Ohio (1969, Cedar Point causeway turns west and south Erie shoreline to the western boundary of the photorevised 1975). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) toward Sandusky. Nature Preserve and Headland Dunes State inland from normal high water line from the OH–2: Lake County, Ohio. From USGS Park. 1:24,000 quadrangle map Mentor, Ohio mouth of Sawmill Creek (Huron quad) Note: Map follows: northwestward along the Lake Erie shoreline (1963, revised 1992). Lands 500 m (1640 ft)
VerDate 11
Map of Unit PA–1 lighthouse north of Peninsula Drive on the Point (located at approximately 042 degrees north side of Presque Isle (located at 10′ 3.13″ N and 080 degrees 04″ 29.56″ W). PA–1: Erie County, Pennsylvania. From ′ ″ approximately 042 degrees 09 57.41 N and It includes any new beach habitat that may USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Erie North, ′ ″ 080 degrees 06 57.57 W) eastward along the accrete along the present shoreline portion of Pennsylvania (1957, revised 1969 and 1975, Lake Erie shoreline around the tip of Presque the unit. photoinspected 1977). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) Isle peninsula to the southern terminus of the inland from normal high water line from the hiking trail on the southeast side of Gull Note: Map follows:
VerDate 11
Map of Unit NY–1 (1958), and Henderson, New York (1959). County-Jefferson County line (Ellisburg quad) Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal and northward to the Eldorado Road NY–1: Oswego County, New York. From high water line from the mouth of the (Henderson quad). USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Pulaski, Salmon River (Pulaski quad) northward along New York (1956), Ellisburg, New York the Lake Ontario shoreline to the Oswego Note: Map follows:
* * * * * Dated: April 30, 2001. Joseph E. Doddridge, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 01–11205 Filed 5–2–01; 12:41 pm] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate 11