Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population
of the Piping Plover
[Federal Register: July 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 130)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41812-41835]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jy00-34]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG14
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population
of the Piping Plover
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate
37 units along the Great Lakes shoreline of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York as
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). We propose to designate critical habitat on fewer
than 305 km (189 mi) in 27 counties within these States. Within these
areas, only the specific locations that have or could develop the
physical and biological features required by piping plovers (primary
constituent elements) would be considered critical habitat.
The primary constituent elements for the piping plover are those
habitat components that are essential for foraging, sheltering,
reproduction, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, roosting,
nesting, and dispersal.
This proposed rule, if made final, would result in additional
review requirements under section 7 of the Act. Federal agencies may
not fund, authorize, or carry out an action that would destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Section 4 of the Act requires us to
consider economic and other impacts of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. We solicit data and comments from the public on
all aspects of this proposal, including potential economic and other
impacts of the designation.
DATES: Comments: We will consider comments received by September 5,
2000.
Public Hearings: We have scheduled seven public hearings for this
proposal. See Hearings section for hearing dates and addresses.
We will hold public informational open houses at the same locations
prior to each public hearing. The informational open houses will start
at 6 pm. The public hearings will start at 7 pm and end at 9 pm.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and other materials concerning this
proposal to: Piping Plover Comments, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling,
MN 55111 or by e-mail to PIPINGPLOVERCOMMENT@FWS.GOV or by facsimile to
612-713-5292.
The complete file for this proposed rule, including comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address and at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field
Office, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Ragan; (612) 713-5350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The piping plover (Charadrius melodus), named for its melodic
mating call, is a small, pale-colored North American shorebird. It
weighs 43-63 grams (1.5-2.5 ounces) and is 17-18 centimeters (cm) (6-7
inches (in.)) long (Haig 1992). Its light, sand-colored plumage blends
in well with its primary sandy beach habitat. Plumage and leg color
help distinguish this bird from other plover species. During the
breeding season, the legs are bright orange, and the short, stout bill
is orange with a black tip. There are two single dark bands, one around
the neck and one across the forehead between the eyes. The female's
neck band is often incomplete and is usually thinner than the male's
(Haig 1992). In winter, the bill turns black, the legs fade to pale
orange, and the black plumage band on the head and neck is lost. Chicks
have speckled gray, buff, and brown down, black beaks, pale orange
legs, and a white collar around the neck. Juveniles resemble wintering
adults and obtain their adult plumage the spring after they fledge
(Service 1994).
The breeding range of the piping plover extends throughout the
northern Great Plains, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic Coast in the
United States and Canada. Based on this distribution, three breeding
populations of piping plovers have been described: the Northern Great
Plains population, the Great Lakes population, and the Atlantic Coast
population.
The northern Great Plains breeding range includes southern Alberta,
northern Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba; south to eastern Montana,
the Dakotas, southeastern Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska; and
east to Lake of the Woods in north-central Minnesota. The majority of
the United States pairs are in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Montana
(Service 1994). Occasionally, Great Plains birds nest in Oklahoma and
Kansas. On the Atlantic coast, piping plovers breed from Newfoundland,
southeastern Quebec, and New Brunswick to North Carolina, with 68
percent of all the nesting pairs breeding in Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey, and Virginia (Service 1999).
In the Great Lakes watershed, piping plovers formerly nested
throughout much of the region in the north-central United States and
south-central Canada, but are currently limited to northern Michigan
and one site in northern Wisconsin. Piping plovers nest on shoreline
and island sandy beaches with
[[Page 41813]]
sparse vegetation and the presence of small stones (greater than 1 cm
(0.4 in.)) called cobble. Their nests are concealed by the cobble and
are, therefore, very difficult to see. Piping plovers spend
approximately 3-4 months a year on the breeding grounds. Nesting in the
Great Lakes region begins in early to mid-May. Plovers lay 3-4 eggs in
a small depression they scrape in the sand among the cobblestones, and
both sexes incubate the eggs for about 28 days. Young plovers can walk
almost as soon as they hatch, but remain vulnerable to predation and
disturbance for another 21-30 days until they are able to fly.
Nesting piping plovers are highly susceptible to disturbance by
people and pets on the beach. Human disturbance disrupts adult birds'
care of their nests and young and may inhibit incubation of eggs.
Furthermore, adults may leave the nest to lure away an intruder,
leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators and exposure to
weather. Also, disturbance may lead to the abandonment of nests. As a
result of this disturbance and other natural and human-caused factors
such as high water levels, flooding, eroding beaches, and beach-front
commercial and recreational development, reproduction of Great Lakes
piping plovers has been severely affected, resulting in perilously low
numbers of nesting plovers (Service 1994).
Piping plovers are migratory birds. They leave the breeding grounds
between late July and early September and head for their wintering
grounds, where they spend more than 8 months of the year. Although the
breeding ranges of the three piping plover populations are separate,
their wintering ranges overlap and extend along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts from southern North Carolina to Mexico and into the West Indies
and Bahamas. Resightings of color-banded birds from the Great Lakes
breeding population have occurred along the coastlines of North and
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas.
Historically, the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover nested on beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin, and in Ontario, Canada.
Although piping plovers were never abundant, prior to European
settlement, populations in the Great Lakes were estimated at 492-682
breeding pairs (Russell 1983).
In recent decades, piping plover populations have declined
drastically, especially in the Great Lakes. In the early 1900s,
uncontrolled hunting throughout their range drove them nearly to
extinction. Protective legislation helped them to recover by 1925, and
populations reached a 20th Century high in the 1930s (Service 1994).
These numbers soon plummeted, though, as recreational and commercial
use of beaches increased. Piping plover numbers continued to decline in
the 1940s and 1950s as shoreline development expanded, resulting in the
loss of their breeding habitat.
In 1973, the piping plover was placed on the National Audubon
Society's Blue List of threatened species. By that time, piping plovers
had been extirpated from shoreline beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Ontario, and only a few birds were
continuing to nest in Wisconsin (Russell, 1983). By 1979, the Great
Lakes breeding population had decreased to 38 pairs. At the time the
species was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1985, the Great
Lakes breeding population numbered only 17 breeding pairs, and the
breeding areas had been reduced from sites in eight States to northern
Michigan.
In recent years, the Great Lakes breeding population has gradually
increased and expanded south and west within the Great Lakes watershed.
In 1999, 32 pairs of piping plovers nested on the Great Lakes shoreline
within the United States, but only one of these pairs was outside of
northern Michigan (Stucker and Cuthbert, unpublished data). This
population increase is being aided by intense State, tribal, Federal,
and private conservation actions directed at the protection of the
piping plover. Activities such as habitat surveys, beach restoration,
public education, habitat protection and enhancement, and the
protection of nests from predators and disturbance through the use of
predator exclosure fencing have all contributed to the improving status
of the Great Lakes piping plover. This proposal applies only to the
breeding range of the Great Lakes population in the United States.
Previous Federal Actions
On December 30, 1982, we published a notice of review in the
Federal Register (47 FR 58454) that identified vertebrate animal taxa
being considered for addition to the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife. The notice included the piping plover as a Category 2
Candidate species, indicating that we believed the species might
warrant listing as threatened or endangered, but that we had
insufficient data to support a proposal to list at that time.
Subsequent review of additional data indicated that the piping plover
warranted listing, and in November, 1984, we published a proposal in
the Federal Register (49 FR 44712) to list the piping plover as
endangered in the Great Lakes watershed and as threatened along the
Atlantic Coast, the Northern Great Plains, and elsewhere in their
range. The proposed listing was based on the decline of the species and
the existing threats, including habitat destruction, disturbance by
humans and pets, high levels of predation, and contaminants. On
December 11, 1985, we published the final rule (50 FR 50726), listing
the piping plover as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed (Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, northeastern Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario) and as threatened along the
Atlantic coast (Quebec, Newfoundland, Maritime Provinces, and States
from Maine to Florida), in the Northern Great Plains region (Iowa,
northwestern Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan), and on migratory routes and on
their wintering grounds. All piping plovers on migratory routes outside
of the Great Lakes watershed or on their wintering grounds are
considered threatened. The Service did not designate critical habitat
for the species at that time.
In 1986, we appointed two recovery teams to develop recovery plans
for the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains breeding
populations. The recovery plans that resulted from their efforts were
published in 1988 (Service 1988a, Service 1988b). In 1994, we began to
revise the plan for the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains populations
by developing and distributing for public comment a draft that included
updated information on the species. More recently, we decided that the
recovery of these two inland populations would benefit from separate
recovery plans that would direct separate recovery programs. Separate
recovery plans for the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains
populations are presently under development.
The final listing rule for the piping plover indicated that
designation of critical habitat was not determinable. Thus, designation
was deferred. No further action was subsequently taken to designate
critical habitat for piping plovers. On December 4, 1996, Defenders of
Wildlife (Defenders) filed a suit (Defenders of Wildlife and Piping
Plover v. Babbitt, Case No. 96CV02965) against the Department of the
Interior and the Service over the lack of designation of critical
habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover.
Defenders filed a similar suit (Defenders of Wildlife and Piping
[[Page 41814]]
Plover v. Babbitt, Case No. 97CV000777) for the Northern Great Plains
piping plover population in 1997. During November and December 1999 and
January 2000, we began negotiating a schedule for piping plover
critical habitat decisions with Defenders. On February 7, 2000, before
the settlement negotiations were concluded, the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia issued an order directing us to
publish a proposed critical habitat designation for nesting and
wintering areas of the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover by June 30, 2000, and for nesting and wintering areas of the
Northern Great Plains piping plover by May 31, 2001. A subsequent
order, after requesting the court to reconsider its original order
relating to final critical habitat designation, directs us to finalize
the critical habitat designations for the Great Lakes population by
April 30, 2001, and for the Northern Great Plains population by March
15, 2002. For biological and practical reasons, we chose to propose
critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding birds and for all
wintering birds in two separate rules to be published concurrently.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and, (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon determination that
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary. Thus, critical
habitat areas should provide sufficient habitat to support the species
at the population level and geographic distribution that is necessary
for recovery. Proposed critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover includes areas that currently support
the species, and also areas that are not currently used by the species
but that contain habitat essential for the recovery of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when we determine that
benefits of excluding those areas outweigh the benefits of including
them, providing the exclusion would not result in the extinction of the
species.
Designation of critical habitat helps focus conservation activities
for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the physical and
biological features that are essential for the conservation of that
species. Designation of critical habitat alerts the public, as well as
land-managing agencies, to the importance of these areas.
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure, in
consultation with us, that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out do not adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 also
requires Federal agencies to confer with us on actions that are likely
to result in the adverse modification or destruction of proposed
critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat affects actions on
private lands only when the actions are authorized, funded, or carried
out by a Federal agency.
Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery
of a listed species. Designation does not establish a preserve area
where human activities are prohibited, create a management plan,
establish numerical population goals, or prescribe specific management
practices (inside or outside of critical habitat). Specific management
recommendations for areas designated as critical habitat are most
appropriately addressed in the Recovery Plan, site-specific management
plans, through section 7 consultation on Federal activities, and
section 10 incidental take permits.
All of the proposed critical habitat areas are considered essential
to the conservation of the Great Lakes breeding population of the
piping plover as described in the approved 1988 Recovery Plan for the
Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover (Plan) and the 1994
Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover. The proposed
designation encompasses those areas considered necessary to achieve the
recovery goals for this population, and includes Great Lakes shoreline
and island beaches that currently support piping plovers, that
historically supported and are still capable of supporting piping
plovers, and areas that have the potential to support piping plovers in
the future. Not all of the primary constituent elements may be present
in all of the areas proposed for designation, but given the dynamic
character of shoreline processes, areas currently lacking some of the
constituent elements could develop them in the future. Over a period of
a few years, these sites may be affected by changes in local water
levels, weather, and other external forces, which may in turn change
the suitability of such sites for piping plovers.
We considered, and are proposing, a portion of the Bad River Indian
Reservation because we believe some shoreline areas on Tribal lands may
be essential to the conservation of Great Lakes piping plover. However,
the short amount of time provided under the schedule dictated by the
court to propose critical habitat prevented us from doing more than
initiating coordination with the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior
Tribe of the Chippewa Indians. Subsequent to this proposal, we will
continue coordinating with the Bad River Band before making a final
determination as to whether any Tribal lands should be included as
critical habitat for the Great Lakes piping plover. We will consider
whether these Tribal lands require special management considerations or
protection; we may also exclude some or all of these lands from
critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of excluding
them outweigh the benefits of designating these areas as critical
habitat, as provided under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This
consultation will take place under the auspices of the Secretarial
Order 3206 and the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, which
require us to coordinate with federally recognized Tribes on a
Government-to-Government basis.
Methods
In determining areas that are essential to conserve the Great Lakes
breeding population of the piping plover, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available. We solicited information from
knowledgeable biologists and reviewed the available information
pertaining to habitat requirements of the species. In an effort to map
areas essential to the conservation of the species, we used data of
known piping plover breeding locations, records of historical nesting
sites, International Census data, and those areas that were identified
in the 1988 recovery plan and 1999 draft recovery plan as essential for
the recovery of the species. We have chosen the 37 critical habitat
units in order to protect adequate habitat to meet the recovery
criteria, contained in the Plan and draft Plan, of 100 breeding pairs
in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs
[[Page 41815]]
in the other Great Lakes States combined.
We did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all
currently developed sites consisting of buildings, marinas, paved
areas, boat ramps, and similar structures. These areas do not contain
primary constituent elements essential for piping plover conservation,
and are not critical habitat even though they are within the mapped
boundaries. Designating specific locations for critical habitat for the
piping plovers is difficult because the beach areas they use are
constantly changing due to storm surges, flood events, and other
natural geo-physical alterations of beaches and shorelines. Areas
lakeward of the beach and covered by water (e.g., lakes) will not
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, and are not
critical habitat. Because of the dynamics of beach areas, however,
areas now covered by water may in the future become land, and will then
under this designation become critical habitat if they fall within the
mapped boundaries.
The critical habitat units are larger complexes of habitat that
contain areas that currently have the primary constituent elements
necessary for piping plovers and other areas that may develop these
primary constituent elements. During section 7 consultation, we will
determine whether an action may affect the primary constituent elements
or the ability of the areas to develop them.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base critical habitat determinations
on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider
those physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations and protection. Such requirements include but are not
limited to (1) space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)
sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and (5)
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historical geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat
provide some or all of those habitat components essential for the
biological needs of the piping plover or have the capacity to develop
these habitat components. These components are also called primary
constituent elements.
The primary constituent elements for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover are those habitat components that are
essential for the biological needs of foraging, sheltering,
reproduction, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, roosting,
nesting, and dispersal. Proposed critical habitat for the Great Lakes
breeding population of piping plovers includes sites that: (1) Are
currently or recently (at least once during the past 5 years) used for
breeding, (2) were documented to have been occupied historically and
still have most or all of the primary constituent elements, or (3) are
not documented to have been occupied historically but are deemed
potential breeding habitat because their characteristics are suitable
for breeding by piping plovers.
The primary constituent elements required to sustain the Great
Lakes breeding population of the piping plover are found on Great Lakes
islands and mainland shorelines that support, or have the potential to
support, open, sparsely vegetated sandy habitats--sand spits or sand
beaches associated with wide, unforested systems of dunes and inter-
dune wetlands. In order for habitat to be physically and biologically
suitable for piping plovers, it must have a total shoreline length of
at least 0.2 km (0.12 mi) of gently sloping, sparsely vegetated (less
than 50 percent herbaceous and low woody cover) sand beach with a total
beach area of at least 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)) and a low level
of disturbance from human activities and from domestic animals. These
appropriately sized sites must also have areas of at least 50-100
meters (m) (165-330 feet (ft)) in length where (1) the beach width is
more than 7 m (23 ft), (2) there is protective cover for nests and
chicks, and (3) the distance to the treeline (from the normal high
water line to where the forest begins) is more than 50 m (165 ft).
Beach width is defined as the distance from the normal high water line
to the foredune (a low barrier dune ridge immediately inland from the
beach) edge, or to the sand/vegetation boundary in areas where the
foredune is absent. The beach width may be narrower than 7 m (23 ft) if
appropriate sand and cobble areas at least 7 m (23 ft) exist between
the dune and the treeline. Protective cover for nests and chicks
consists of small patches of herbaceous vegetation, cobble (stones
larger than 1 cm (0.39 inches (in)) diameter), gravel (stones smaller
than 1 cm (0.39 in) diameter), or debris such as driftwood, wrack, root
masses, or dead shrubs.
Dominant plants within these areas include marram grass (Ammophila
brevigulata), beach wormwood (Artemesia campestris), silverweed
(Potentilla anserina), Lake Huron tansy (Tanacetum huronense),
pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri), beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus
var. glaber), sea rocket (Cakile edentula), sedges (Carex spp.),
goldenrods (Solidago spp.), sand cherry (Prunus pumila), bearberry
(Actostaphylus uva-ursi), creeping juniper (Juniper horizontalis),
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and willow (Salix spp.).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
At this time, the proposed critical habitat areas contained within
the critical habitat units discussed below constitute our best
evaluation of areas needed for the conservation of the Great Lakes
breeding population of the piping plover. Very little suitable piping
plover habitat remains in the Great Lakes region. Therefore, areas that
were historically occupied by piping plover and that still contain
suitable habitat or potentially could contain suitable habitat, as well
as areas that are not known to have been historically occupied but have
potential piping plover habitat, are necessary for the recovery of the
species. Proposed critical habitat may be revised should new
information become available prior to the final rule. Critical habitat
subsequently may be revised if new information becomes available after
the final rule. Any subsequent areas of critical habitat will be
designated only after a formal proposal and opportunity for public
comment.
The approximate length of proposed critical habitat shoreline by
land ownership is shown in Table 1. Lands proposed as critical habitat
are under private, Federal, State, municipal, and tribal ownership.
Estimates reflect the total area within critical habitat unit
boundaries, without regard to the presence of primary constituent
elements. The area actually proposed for designation by this proposal
is therefore less than that indicated in Table 1.
[[Page 41816]]
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 (percentage within each State)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Municipal Private Other Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan........................................................ 36.6 (16.9) 103.6 (47.9) 6.1 (2.8) 64 (29.6) 6 TNC (2.8) 216.3
Minnesota....................................................... 0 1.4 (50.0) 1.0 (35.7) 0.4 (14.3) 0 2.8
Wisconsin....................................................... 11.0 (33.8) 11.0 (33.8) 5.5 (16.9) 0 5 tribal 32.5
(15.4)
Illinois........................................................ 0 4.7 (46.3) 1.25 (12.3) 4.2 (41.3) 0 10.15
Indiana......................................................... 5.5 (52.4) 5.0 (47.6) 0 0 0 10.5
Ohio............................................................ 0 2.0 (50) 0 2.0 (50) 0 4.0
Pennsylvania.................................................... 0.4 (26.7) 1.1 (73.3) 0 0 0 1.5
New York........................................................ 0 12.4 (45.3) 0 14.6 (53.3) 0.4 TNC (1.5) 27.4
Total (percentage of)....................................... 53.5 (17.5) 141.2 (46.3) 13.85 (4.5) 85.2 (27.9) 11.4 (3.7) 305.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no numerical estimate of the extent of the piping plover's
historical range in the Great Lakes, but Russell (1983) indicates that
several areas where piping plovers once nested are no longer suitable.
Much historically occupied habitat has been destroyed by activities
such as marina development, construction of seawalls, and the increased
use of recreation areas. Additionally, lake level fluctuations and
winter storms periodically alter the quantity and quality of available
breeding habitat, making some areas no longer suitable for nesting
while potentially creating new areas of suitable habitat. Because of
the loss of historical habitat and the dynamic nature of the Great
Lakes shoreline, some areas for which there are no historical records
of piping plovers but which are potential nesting habitat are being
proposed for designation. Without these potential habitat areas, there
would not be enough nesting habitat to meet the recovery criteria
outlined in the Revised Recovery Plan for Piping Plovers (1994).
Lands proposed as critical habitat have been divided into 37
critical habitat units that contain, or have the potential to develop,
areas with the primary constituent elements for the piping plover in
the Great Lakes region. All critical habitat unit boundaries extend 1
km (0.62 miles) inland from the normal high water line, although the
area that contains the primary constituent elements may vary depending
on the extent of the open dune system. This area is needed to provide
foraging habitat as well as cobble pans between the dunes where piping
plovers occasionally nest. A brief description of each critical habitat
unit for the piping plover is given below and in Table 2.
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.
Habitat Location name County map(s) 1:24,000 Land ownership 1 Plover use 2 length
unit scale (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-1 Whitefish Point to Grand Marais
Whitefish Point. Chippewa........ Whitefish Point Federal Recent past, 2.5
(1951). (Service), transient.
private.
Vermilion/ Luce............ Vermilion (1951) Private......... Current......... 2.3
Weatherhogs
Beach.
Crisp Point..... Luce............ Betsy Lake North Municipal, Recent past..... 1.0
(1968). private.
Little Lake Luce............ Betsy Lake North Private......... Recent past..... 1.6
Harbor. (1968).
Deer Park....... Luce............ Muskallonge Lake State, private.. Recent past..... 2.8
East (1968).
Muskallonge Lake
West (1968).
Grand Marais Alger........... Grand Marais Multiple Current......... 2.9
Inner Harbor 1968. private,
and Lonesome municipal.
Point.
Grand Marais Alger........... Grand Marais Multiple Current......... 1.2
Superior Beach. 1968. private,
Federal (NPS).
MI-2....... Point Aux Chenes Mackinac Pointe Aux Federal (USFS), Current......... 1.7
Chenes (1964, private.
photorevised
1975).
MI-3....... Port Inland..... Schoolcraft..... Hughes Point Private/State... Current......... 3.0
Mackinac........ (1972).
MI-4 Waugoshance Point to beach west of McCort Hill--
Waugoshance Emmet........... Big Stone Bay State........... Current......... 5.0
Point, (1964,
Temperance and photoinspected
Crane Islands. 1975).
Waugoshance
Island
(provisional
1982).
Sturgeon Bay.... Emmet........... Bliss (1982).... State........... Current......... 3.9
Bliss Township Emmet........... Bliss (1982).... Municipal....... Current......... 1.1
Park.
[[Page 41817]]
Sturgeon Bay Emmet........... Bliss (1982).... Multiple private Current......... 2.4
Point. Cross Village
(1982).
Cross Village Emmet........... Cross Village Municipal, Current......... 1.3
Beach. (1982). multiple
private.
beach west Emmet........... Cross Village Multiple private Current......... 1.4
McCort Hill. (1982).
MI-5 Sevenmile Point to Thorneswift Nature Preserve--
Sevenmile Point. Emmet........... Forest Beach Multiple private Potential....... 0.5
(1983
provisional).
Thorneswift Emmet........... Forest Beach Multiple private Current......... 0.4
Nature Preserve. (1983
provisional).
MI-6 Petoskey State Emmet........... Harbor Springs State, private.. Historical...... 2.0
Park. (1983
provisional).
MI-7 North Point..... Charlevoix...... Ironton (1983).. Municipal....... Potential....... 1.1
Charlevoix
(1983).
MI-8 Fisherman's Charlevoix...... Charlevoix State........... Current......... 1.3
Island State (1983).
Park.
MI-9 Indian Point to McCauley's Point, Beaver Island--
Donegal Bay- Charlevoix...... Garden Island Multiple private Current......... 2.0
Beaver Island. West (1980).
Beaver Island
North (1986).
McCauley's Point- Charlevoix...... Beaver Island State........... Recent past..... 0.6
Beaver Island. North (1986).
MI-10 Greenes Bay- Charlevoix...... Beaver Island State/private... Recent past..... 0.8
Beaver Island. North (1986).
MI-11 High Island..... Charlevoix...... High Island State........... Current......... 1.8
(1986).
MI-12 Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove--
Cathead Bay..... Leelanau........ Northport State........... Current......... 3.4
(provisional
1983).
Cathead Point to Leelanau........ Northport/ Private......... Potential....... 2.5
Christmas Cove. Northport NW
(provisional
1983).
MI-13 South Fox Island Leelanau........ South Fox Island State........... Historical...... 1.0
(provisional
1986).
MI-14 North Manitou... Leelanau........ North Manitou Federal (NPS)... Current......... 3.3
Island
(provisional
1983).
MI-15 Crystal Run to Leelanau........ Glen Arbor Municipal, Potential....... 14.3
Empire Beach. (1983). Federal.
Glen Haven
(1983) Empire
(1983).
MI-16 Esch Road to Sutter Road and Point Betsie--
Platte Bay...... Benzie.......... Empire (1983) Federal (NPS)... Potential....... 7.0
Beulah
(provisional
1983).
Platte River Benzie.......... Beulah Federal (NPS)... Current......... 5.5
Point and beach. (provisional
1983).
Point Betsie.... Benzie.......... Frankfort (1983) Federal (USCG) Historical...... 1.0
TNC managed.
MI-17 Nordhouse Dunes Mason........... Manistee NW Federal (USFS), Transient, 13.4
to Ludington. (provisional State. historical.
1982).
Hamlin Lake
(1982).
MI-18 Muskegon State Muskegon........ Muskegon West State........... Historical...... 2.5
Park. (1972
photoinspected
1980).
MI-19 Lake Superior Chippewa........ Albany Island State........... Historical...... 3.0
State Forest- (1964
St. Vital Point. photoinspected
1976) DeTour
Village (1964).
MI-20 Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point--
Lighthouse Point Cheboygan....... Cheboygan (1982) State........... Recent past..... 1.4
Grass Bay....... Cheboygan....... Cordwood Point TNC preserve.... Historical, 1.6
(1982). transient.
MI-21 PH Hoeft State Presque Isle.... Roger's City State........... Potential....... 3.7
Park. (1971).
Moltke (1971)...
MI-22 Thompson's Presque Isle.... Thompson's State forest.... Potential....... 2.8
Harbor. Harbor (1971).
MI-23 Tawas Point Iosco........... East Tawas State........... Transient....... 2.0
State Park. (1989).
MN-1 Duluth Harbor... St. Louis....... West Duluth Municipal, Recent past..... 2.8
(1953, State, and
photorevised private.
1969).
[[Page 41818]]
WI-1 Wisconsin Point. Douglas......... Parkland (1954, Municipal....... Historical...... 4.0
photorevised
1975).
Superior (1954,
photorevised
1983).
WI-2 Long Island- Ashland......... Cedar (1964, Federal (NPS), Current......... 5.0
Chequamegon Pt. photorevised tribal (Bad
1975). River).
Chequamegon
Point.
................ ................ (1964,
photorevised
1975).
Long Island
(1964).
WI-3 Western Michigan Ashland......... Michigan Island Federal (NPS)... Potential....... 6.5
Island. (1963).
WI-4 Seagull Bar..... Marinette....... Marinette East Municipal....... Potential....... 1.5
(1963,
photorevised
1969).
WI-5 Peshtigo Point.. Marinette....... Peshtigo Harbor State........... Potential....... 2.8
(1974).
WI-6 Pensaukee....... Oconto.......... Pensaukee (1974) Federal (ACOE).. Historical...... 0.5
WI-7 Point Beach Manitowoc....... Two Rivers State........... Potential....... 8.0
State Forest. (1978).
IL-1 Illinois Beach Lake............ Zion, Ill. Municipal, Historical...... 10.2
State Park to (1993). State, private.
Waukegan Beach. Waukegan (1993).
IN-1 Indiana Dunes Porter.......... Ogden Dunes Federal (NPS), Historical, 10.5
National (1991). State. transient.
Lakeshore/ Dune Acres
Indiana Dunes (1991).
State Park.
OH-1 Sheldon Marsh... Erie............ Huron (1969).... State........... Transient....... 1.2
Sandusky (1969,
photorevised
1975).
OH-2 Headlands Dunes. Lake............ Mentor (1963, State........... Potential....... 0.8
revised 1992).
PA-1 Presque Isle Erie............ Erie North State, Federal Historical, 1.5
State Park. (1957, revised (USCG). transient.
1969 and 1975,
photoinspected
1977).
NY-1 Salmon River to Oswego.......... Pulaski (1956).. State, multiple Historical...... 27.4
Stony Point. Jefferson....... Ellisburg (1958) private.
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 (49 km).
Recent past = used for nesting since 1985 (11.8 km).
Historical = used for nesting prior to 1985 (65 km).
Transient = Recent (since 1990) sightings of piping plovers (18 km).
Potential = no known record of use but habitat appears suitable for nesting (52 km).
Michigan
Unit MI-1: Whitefish Point to Grand Marais
This unit encompasses approximately 83.5 km (50 mi) of Lake
Superior shoreline in Chippewa, Luce, and Alger Counties on the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. It includes long stretches of habitat that have
been recently used by piping plovers in addition to areas currently
used by plovers. Approximately 47 km (29.2 mi) are part of Muskallonge
State Park and Lake Superior State Forest, approximately 36 km (22.4
mi) are privately owned, and approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) are part of
Whitefish Point National Wildlife Refuge. This unit also includes a
small area of municipal property at Crisp Point. This unit extends from
the junction of the southern boundary of T50N R5W section 6 to the
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore property boundary.
Unit MI-2: Pointe Aux Chenes
This unit encompasses approximately 2 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline in Mackinac County on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It
includes areas that are currently occupied by piping plovers. The
majority of the unit (1.1 km (0.7 mi)) is within the Hiawatha National
Forest and is being considered for a Research and Natural Area. The
rest of the unit (approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi)) is privately owned
land. This unit extends from the mouth of the Pointe Aux Chenes river
to the Hiawatha National Forest property boundary.
Unit MI-3: Port Inland to Hughes Point
This unit encompasses approximately 3 km (1.8 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline in western Mackinac and eastern Schoolcraft Counties on the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It includes areas that are currently
occupied by piping plovers. Approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the
proposed shoreline is owned by Port Inland Stone and Dolomite Quarry
and the remaining 2.2 km (1.4 mi) are part of the Lake Superior State
Forest. This unit extends from the westernmost breakwall at the Port
Inland Gaging Station to the mouth of Swan Creek.
[[Page 41819]]
Unit MI-4: Waugoshance Point to McCort Hill Beach
This unit encompasses approximately 32 km (19.2 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan, and includes Temperance
and Waugoshance islands. It includes areas that are currently occupied
by piping plovers and supports about half of the current Great Lakes
piping plover population. Approximately 8.5 km (5.3 mi) are privately
owned and 1 km (0.6 mi) is municipal land (Bliss Township beach and
Cross Village beach). The remaining 22.5 km (14 mi) are part of
Wilderness State Park. This unit extends from the junction of the
northeast corner of T39N R5W section 28 and the Lake Michigan shoreline
to the southwest boundary of T37N R6W section 5.
Unit MI-5: Sevenmile Point to Thornswift Nature Preserve
This unit encompasses approximately 7 km (4.3 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan. It includes areas of potential
piping plover nesting habitat and areas that are currently occupied by
piping plovers. The entire proposed area is under private ownership. It
extends from the junction of the Lake Michigan shoreline and the
northwest boundary of T36N R5W section 30 to the junction of the
shoreline and the southwest corner of T35N R5W section 9.
Unit MI-6: Petoskey State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 2 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan. It includes areas of historical
piping plover habitat. Approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) is privately owned
land and 1.3 km (0.8 mi) are part of Petoskey State Park. This unit
extends from the mouth of Tannery Creek to Mononaqua Beach.
Unit MI-7: North Point
This unit encompasses approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Charlevoix County, Michigan. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed area is a
city park owned by the city of Charlevoix. It includes all Lake
Michigan shoreline within T34N R8W section 14.
Unit MI-8: Fisherman's Island State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 1.3 km (0.8 miles) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Charlevoix County, Michigan. It includes areas
that are currently occupied by piping plovers. The entire proposed area
is within Fisherman's Island State Park. This unit extends from the
junction of the line separating T34N R8W section 31 and T33N R8W
section 6 from the Lake Michigan shore to the Fisherman's Island State
Park property boundary at the end of Lakeshore Drive.
Unit MI-9: Indian Point to McCauley's Point, Beaver Island
This unit encompasses approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline on Beaver Island in Charlevoix County, Michigan. It includes
areas that are currently occupied, as well as areas that have been
recently used by piping plovers. Approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) are
privately owned and 0.6 km (0.4 mi) is part of Beaver Islands State
Wildlife Research Area. This unit extends from Indian Point to the
junction of the dividing line of T39 N R10W and T38N R10W and the Lake
Michigan shoreline.
Unit MI-10: Greenes Bay, Beaver Island
This unit encompasses approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline on Beaver Island in Charlevoix County, Michigan. It
includes areas that have been recently used by piping plovers.
Approximately 0.3 km (0.2 mi) is part of the Beaver Islands State
Wildlife Research Area and the remaining 0.5 km (0.3 mi) is privately
owned land. This unit extends from the junction of Lake Michigan and
the northwest corner of T38N R11W section 25 to the junction of the
Lake Michigan shoreline and the dividing line between T39N and T38N
R10W.
Unit MI-11: High Island
This unit encompasses approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline on High Island in Charlevoix County, Michigan. It
includes areas that are currently occupied by piping plovers. The
entire proposed area is part of the Beaver Islands State Wildlife
Research Area. This unit includes all Lake Michigan shoreline within
T39N R11W sections 5, 27, and 32.
Unit MI-12: Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove
This unit encompasses approximately 5.9 km (3.7 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes areas that
are currently occupied by piping plovers and areas of potential piping
plover nesting habitat. Approximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi) are part of
Leelanau State Park, and the remaining 4.0 km are privately owned land.
This unit extends from the intersection of the Lake Michigan shoreline
and the line between T32N R11W section 12 and T32N R10W section 7 to
the intersection of the shoreline with the southern boundary of T32N
R11W section 16 north of Christmas Cove (Northport NW quad).
Unit MI-13: South Fox Island
This unit encompasses approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline on South Fox Island in Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes
areas that were historically occupied by piping plovers. The entire
proposed area is part of the Beaver Island State Wildlife Research
Area. This unit includes all Lake Michigan shoreline within T34N R13W
sections 15, 16, and 21 and T35R13W section 30.
Unit MI-14: North Manitou Island
This unit encompasses approximately 3.3 km (2 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline on North Manitou Island in Leelanau County, Michigan. It
includes areas that are currently occupied by piping plovers. The
entire proposed area is part of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
This unit includes all Lake Michigan shoreline within T31N R14W
sections 22, 23, 27, and 28.
Unit MI-15: Crystal Run to Empire Beach
This unit encompasses approximately 14.3 km (8.9 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. Approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi)
are municipal beach, and the remaining 10.3 km (6.4 mi) are part of
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. This unit extends from Crystal
Run to the southern Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore property
boundary.
Unit MI-16: Esch Road to Sutter Road and Point Betsie
This unit encompasses approximately 13.5 km (8.4 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Benzie County, Michigan. It includes areas that
are currently occupied by piping plovers, areas that were historically
occupied, and areas of potential piping plover nesting habitat. The
majority of the unit (12.5 km (7.8 mi)) is part of Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore, and the remaining 1.0 km (0.6 mi) is U.S. Coast
Guard land that is managed by The Nature Conservancy, a private
conservation organization. This unit extends from Esch Road to T26N
R16W section 4.
Unit MI-17: Nordhouse Dunes and Ludington State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 13.4 km (8.3 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Mason County, Michigan. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. At least one pair of
piping plovers were sighted in
[[Page 41820]]
the area in 1999, but no nests were found. Approximately 7.4 km (4.6
mi) are part of the Manistee National Forest/ Nordhouse Dunes
Wilderness Area, and the remaining 6.0 km (3.7 mi) are part of
Ludington State Park. This unit extends from the mouth of Cooper Creek
to the mouth of the Big Sable River.
Unit MI-18: Muskegon State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Muskegon County, Michigan. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. In the early 1950s,
several pairs of piping plovers were reported nesting in this unit, but
the last known nesting was in 1953. The entire proposed area is part of
Muskegon State Park. This unit extends from the north breakwall of the
canal joining Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan to the northern Muskegon
State Park property boundary at the shoreline.
Unit MI-19: Lake Superior State Forest-St. Vital Point
This unit encompasses approximately 3.0 km (1.9 mi) of Lake Huron
shoreline in Chippewa County, Michigan. It includes areas that were
historically occupied by piping plovers. The entire proposed area is
within Lake Superior State Forest. This unit extends from the Lake
Superior State Forest boundary to the mouth of Joe Straw Creek.
Unit MI-20: Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point
This unit encompasses approximately 8.3 km (5.2 mi) of Lake Huron
shoreline in Cheboygan County, Michigan. It includes areas that were
historically occupied by piping plovers and currently serve as foraging
areas. Approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) are part of Cheboygan State Park,
and approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) are Nature Conservancy property. The
remaining 0.6 km (0.4 mi) is privately owned land. This unit extends
from the junction of the Lake Huron shoreline and the western boundary
of T38N R1W section 22 to just west of Cordwood Point (Cordwood Point
quad).
Unit MI-21: P.H. Hoeft State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi) of Lake Huron
shoreline in Presque Isle County, Michigan. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed area is
part of P.H. Hoeft State Park. This unit includes Lake Huron shoreline
from T35N R5E section 6 to the junction of Nagel Road and Forty Mile
Road.
Unit MI-22: Thompson's Harbor State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of Lake Huron
shoreline in Presque Isle County, Michigan. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. Most of this proposed area is
within Thompson's Harbor State Park with a small portion of privately
owned land. This unit extends along the Lake Huron shoreline from Black
Point to Grand Lake Outlet.
Unit MI-23: Tawas Point State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Huron
shoreline in Iosco County, Michigan. It includes areas used for
foraging by transient piping plovers and potential nesting habitat. The
entire proposed area is part of Tawas Point State Park. This unit
extends from the Tawas Sate Park boundary on the east side of Tawas
Point to T22N R8E section 34.
Minnesota
Unit MN-1: Duluth Harbor
This unit encompasses approximately 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of Lake
Superior mainland and island shoreline in St. Louis County, Minnesota,
including Erie Pier, Hearding Island, and Interstate Island. It
includes areas that have been recently occupied by piping plovers. The
approximate 1 km (0.6 mi) of shoreline at Erie Pier is owned by the
city of Duluth. The approximate 1.2 km (0.7 mi) of island shore line on
Hearding Island is a State Wildlife Management Area and bird sanctuary.
A portion of the 0.6 km (0.4 mi) of island shoreline on Interstate
Island is in Minnesota, and a portion is in Wisconsin. Approximately
0.2 km (0.1 mi) of Interstate Island shoreline is owned by the State of
Minnesota and is a State Wildlife Management Area and bird sanctuary.
The remaining 0.4 km (0.2 mi) of Interstate Island shoreline is in
Wisconsin and is private land owned by C. Rice Coal and Burlington
Northern Railroad. This unit includes the dredge spoil flats bounded by
the seawall northeast of the railroad tracks in Duluth as well as
Interstate and Hearding Islands.
Wisconsin
Unit WI-1: Wisconsin Point
This unit encompasses approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of Lake
Superior shoreline in Douglas County, Wisconsin. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. The entire proposed area
is municipal land belonging to the city of Superior. This unit extends
from the mouth of Dutchman Creek to the Douglas and St. Louis County
line.
Unit WI-2: Long Island/Chequamegon Point
This unit encompasses approximately 18 km (11.2 mi) of Lake
Superior shoreline in Ashland County, Wisconsin. It includes areas
currently occupied by piping plovers. Nesting occurred in this unit in
1998 and 1999. Approximately 13 km (8.1 mi) are part of the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore, and the remaining 5 km (3.1 mi) are Tribal
lands belonging to the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of
Chippewa Indians. This unit extends from the mouth of the Newago Creek
to Chequamegon Point Light.
Unit WI-3: Western Michigan Island Beach and Dunes
This unit encompasses approximately 6.5 km (4 mi) of Lake Superior
shoreline on Michigan Island in Ashland County, Wisconsin. It includes
areas of potential piping plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed
area is part of the Apostle Island National Lakeshore. This unit
includes all Lake Superior shoreline on Michigan Island within T51N R1W
sections 28, 20, and 21.
Unit WI-4: Seagull Bar
This unit encompasses approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Marinette County, Wisconsin. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed area is
municipal land. This unit extends from the end of Leonard Street at Red
Arrow Park to the south end of Seagull Bar including nearshore sand
bars.
Unit WI-5: Peshtigo Point
This unit encompasses approximately 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Marinette County, Wisconsin. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed area is
part of the Peshtigo Harbor State Wildlife Area. This unit extends from
Peshtigo Point to the mouth of the Peshtigo River.
Unit WI-6: Pensaukee Dredge Spoil Island
This unit encompasses less than 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of Lake Michigan
island shoreline in Oconto County, Wisconsin. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. The island is a U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers dredge spoil island. This unit includes the island
just south of the mouth of the Pensaukee River in T27N, R21E section
14.
[[Page 41821]]
Unit WI-7: Point Beach State Forest
This unit encompasses approximately 8 km (5 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. It includes areas of
potential piping plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed area is
part of the Point Beach State Forest. This unit extends from the
southwest property boundary of Point Beach State Forest to Rawley
Point.
Illinois
Unit IL-1: Illinois Beach State Park / Nature Preserve to Waukegan
Beach
This unit encompasses approximately 10.2 km (6.3 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Lake County, Illinois. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. Approximately 4.7 km (2.9
mi) are part of the Illinois Beach State Park and Nature Preserve,
approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) are municipal property (Zion municipal
park and Waukegan municipal beach), and the remaining 4.2 km (2.6 mi)
are privately owned. This unit extends from 17th Street and the Lake
Michigan shoreline in Illinois Beach State Park to the Waukegan Beach
breakwall at North Beach Park.
Indiana
Unit IN-1: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Indiana Dunes State
Park Beaches
This unit encompasses approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Porter County, Indiana. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. Approximately 5 km (3.1
mi) are part of Indiana Dunes State Park and the remaining 5.5 km (3.4
mi) are part of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. This unit extends
from the Burns Harbor eastern breakwall along the Indiana Dunes State
Park to Kemil Road at Beverly Shores.
Ohio
Unit OH-1: Sheldon Marsh
This unit encompasses approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of Lake Erie
shoreline in Erie County, Ohio. It includes areas that are used by
transient piping plovers and potential nesting habitat. Approximately
1.2 km (0.7 mi) are part of Sheldon Marsh State Nature Preserve, and
the remaining 2.0 km (1.2 mi) are privately owned land. This unit
extends from the mouth of Sawmill Creek to the western property
boundary of Sheldon Marsh State Natural Area.
Unit OH-2: Headland Dunes
This unit encompasses approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Lake Erie
shoreline in Lake County, Ohio. It includes areas of potential piping
plover nesting habitat. The entire proposed area is part of Headland
Dunes State Nature Preserve. This unit extends from the eastern
boundary line of Headland Dunes Nature Preserve to the western boundary
of the Nature Preserve and Headland Dunes State Park.
Pennsylvania
Unit PA-1: Gull Point Natural Area, Presque Isle State Park
This unit encompasses approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of Lake Erie
shoreline in Erie County, Pennsylvania. It includes foraging areas for
transient piping plovers and areas that were historically occupied.
Approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi) are part of the Presque Isle State Park,
and the remaining 0.4 km (0.2 mi) is U.S. Coast Guard property. This
unit extends from the lighthouse north of Peninsula Drive on the north
side of Presque Isle to the breakwall south of the Coast Guard Station
on Thompson Bay. It includes any new beach habitat that may accrete
along the present shoreline portion of the unit.
New York
Unit NY-1: Salmon River to Stony Point
This unit encompasses approximately 27.4 km (17 mi) of Lake Ontario
shoreline in Jefferson and Oswego Counties, New York. It includes areas
that were historically occupied by piping plovers. Approximately 12.4
km (7.7 mi) are State land (New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Wildlife Management Area/ New York DEC Unique Area
and New York State Park), approximately 14.6 km (9.1 mi) are privately
owned, and the remaining 0.4 km (0.2 mi) belong to The Nature
Conservancy. This unit extends from the mouth of the Salmon River to
the Eldorado Road.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a) of the Act requires all Federal agencies to ensure
that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Individuals,
organizations, States, tribes, local governments, and other non-Federal
entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if
their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit,
license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires all Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its proposed or designated
critical habitat. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action
that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat. If a species is listed or critical habitat is
designated, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must consult with us.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a Federal action
is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives
to the project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that we believe would avoid resulting in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
[[Page 41822]]
We may issue a formal conference report on proposed critical
habitat if requested by a Federal agency. Formal conference reports on
proposed critical habitat contain a biological opinion that is prepared
according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were
already designated. Conference reports, required for species proposed
for listing as threatened or endangered, or for proposed critical
habitat designations, provide conservation recommendations to assist
the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the agency's
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference
report are advisory. We may adopt the formal conference report as the
biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no
significant new information or changes in the Federal action alter the
content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly in any
proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those
activities that may adversely modify such habitat or may be affected by
such designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat include those that alter the primary constituent
elements to the extent that the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery of the Great Lakes breeding population of the
piping plover is appreciably diminished. In the case of occupied
habitat, such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of
the Great Lakes population of piping plovers. In the case of unoccupied
habitat, such activities may alter the ability of an area to develop
the primary constituent elements.
An activity will likely not adversely modify critical habitat
within a designated critical habitat unit if the specific area does not
contain any primary constituent elements. For example, existing areas
such as parking lots, paved roads, and various kinds of human-built
structures within critical habitat unit boundaries would not furnish
habitat or biological features for piping plovers. Furthermore, some
activities would not be restricted by critical habitat designation
because they would have no adverse effect on the primary constituent
elements or the ability of an area to develop those elements.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of
these definitions, the effects of destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat would almost always be reflected in the effects on
the species itself when the area of the proposed action is occupied by
the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in areas
occupied by the piping plover is not likely to result in regulatory
protection of the species above that already in place due solely to the
presence of the listed species. However, designation of critical
habitat in areas that are not known to be occupied by this species may
result in additional consultations between us and other Federal
agencies; these additional consultations may affect Federal actions
beyond those that are already affected by the listing of the piping
plover as endangered.
Federally funded, permitted, or authorized activities that could
adversely affect critical habitat of the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover include, but are not limited to the
following: (1) Marina and boat launch construction and maintenance; (2)
harbor dredging and dredge spoil placement and disposal; (3) fill of
interdunal wetlands for residence, driveway, or other construction; (4)
waste-water discharge from communities; (5) all-terrain vehicular
activity on beaches or the construction of facilities that increase
such activity; (6) beach stabilization activities that impede natural
overwash processes including beach nourishment, planting of vegetation,
and construction and maintenance of seawalls, breakwaters, and other
off-shore stabilizing devices; and (7) sale, exchange, or lease of
Federal land that contains suitable habitat that is likely to result in
the habitat being destroyed or appreciably degraded. Additionally,
public access may be temporarily or seasonally restricted on beaches
having a Federal nexus in order to determine which areas may be
utilized for nesting. These beaches could be closed to assess the use
by piping plovers in the spring months. Some of these closures may be
voluntary by governmental and private land managers. Most closures
would end prior to the time the public would frequent these beaches.
Designation of critical habitat for piping plovers breeding in the
Great Lakes notifies the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other permitting
agencies, and the public that the Clean Water Act section 404
nationwide permits and other Federal authorizations for activities
within these designated critical habitat areas must comply with section
7 consultation requirements. For each section 7 consultation, we will
review the direct and indirect effects of the proposed projects on
piping plovers and their critical habitat.
Relationship to Incidental Take Permits Issued Under Section 10
One habitat conservation planning effort is currently in progress
within the range of the Great Lakes breeding population of piping
plovers. The Magic Carpet Woods Association applied to the Service for
an Incidental Take Permit for the piping plover. Incidental take is a
potential indirect result of the applicant's proposed residential
development along a 0.8 km (0.5 mi) section of Lake Michigan beach in
Leelanau County, Michigan. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) submitted
with the application will likely avoid or minimize incidental take of
piping plovers. The proposed development falls within proposed piping
plover critical habitat; however, no construction is proposed on the
beach portion of the property. We will continue to work with the
applicant so as to prevent the project from adversely modifying or
destroying proposed critical habitat. The beach on this property
currently does not constitute piping plover nesting habitat, but likely
provides foraging habitat and potential nesting habitat.
In the event that additional HCPs covering the Great Lakes piping
plover are developed in the future within the proposed critical
habitat, we will work with applicants to ensure the HCPs provide for
protection and management of habitat areas essential for the
conservation of the piping plover, while directing development and
habitat modification to nonessential areas of lower habitat value. The
HCP development process provides an opportunity for more intensive data
collection and analysis regarding the use of particular habitat areas
by the piping plover. The process also enables us to conduct detailed
evaluations of the importance of such lands to the long-term survival
of the species. We fully
[[Page 41823]]
expect that HCPs undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g., townships,
counties) and other parties will identify, protect, and provide
appropriate management for lands that are essential for the long-term
conservation of the species. We believe that our analyses of future
HCPs and future permits under section 7 will show that activities
carried out in accordance with the provisions of the HCPs and permits
will not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
We will provide technical assistance and work closely with
applicants throughout the development of HCPs to identify appropriate
conservation management and lands essential for the long-term
conservation of the piping plover and assure that they do not adversely
modify or destroy the critical habitat. We are soliciting comments on
whether future approval of HCPs and issuance of section 10(a)(1)(b)
permits for the piping plover should trigger revisions of designated
critical habitat to exclude lands within HCP areas, and, if so, by what
mechanism (see Public Comments Solicited section).
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
as critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct
an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as
critical habitat prior to a final determination. When completed, we
will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis with a
notice in the Federal Register, and we will reopen the comment period
for 30 days at that time to accept comment on the economic analysis or
further comments on the proposed rule.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal will be
as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
1. The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of
piping plovers as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat;
2. Specific information on the amount and distribution of piping
plover nesting habitat in the Great Lakes region, and what nesting
habitat is essential to the conservation of the Great Lakes breeding
population of the species and why;
3. Specific information on the amount and distribution of Great
Lakes breeding piping plovers;
4. Land use practices and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
5. Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on
small entities or families;
6. Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of piping plover, such
as those derived from non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping,
birdwatching, enhanced watershed protection, ``existence values,'' and
reductions in administrative costs; and
7. The advisability of designating as critical habitat sites that
are not documented to have occupied historically but are deemed
potential breeding habitat because their characteristics are suitable
for breeding by piping plovers.
Additionally, we are seeking comments on critical habitat
designation relative to future HCPs. Future conservation planning
efforts may occur within the range of the piping plover in areas we are
proposing as critical habitat. We invite comments on the
appropriateness of the following alternative approaches we are
considering regarding critical habitat designations within the
boundaries of future approved HCPs upon issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B)
permits for the piping plover.
(1) Retain critical habitat designation within the HCP boundaries
and use the section 7 consultation process on the issuance of the
incidental take permit to ensure that any take we authorize will not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat;
(2) Revise the critical habitat designation upon approval of the
HCP and issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to retain only
preserve areas, on the premise that they encompass areas essential for
the conservation of the species within the HCP area and require special
management and protection in the future. Assuming that we conclude, at
the time an HCP is approved and the associated incidental take permit
is issued, that the plan protects those areas essential to the
conservation of the piping plover, we would revise the critical habitat
designation to exclude areas outside the reserves, preserves, or other
conservation lands established under the plan. Consistent with our
listing program priorities, we would publish a proposed rule in the
Federal Register to revise the critical habitat boundaries;
(3) As in (2) above, retain only preserve lands within the critical
habitat designation, on the premise that they encompass areas essential
for conservation of the species within the HCP area and require special
management and protection in the future. However, under this approach,
the exclusion of areas outside the preserve lands from critical habitat
would occur automatically upon issuance of the incidental take permit.
The public would be notified and have the opportunity to comment on the
boundaries of the preserve lands and the revision of designated
critical habitat during the public review and comment process for HCP
approval and permitting;
(4) Remove designated critical habitat entirely from within the
boundaries of an HCP when the plan is approved (including preserve
lands), on the premise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments
to conserve the species and no further special management or protection
is required. Consistent with our listing program priorities, we would
publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise the critical
habitat boundaries; or
(5) Remove designated critical habitat entirely from within the
boundaries of HCPs when the plans are approved (including preserve
lands), on the premise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments
to conserve the species and no additional special management or
protection is required. This exclusion from critical habitat would
occur automatically upon issuance of the incidental take permit. The
public would be notified and have the opportunity to comment on the
revision of designated critical habitat during the public notification
process for HCP approval and permitting.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours.
[[Page 41824]]
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address
from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable
by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking
record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us
to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. All
comments, including written and e-mail, must be received by September
5, 2000.
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose
of such review is to ensure listing and critical habitat decisions are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will
send these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these
peer reviewers to comment, during the comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of
critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the rule in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the rule? What else could we do to make the proposed rule
easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 12866.
(a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity,
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The Great Lakes
breeding population of piping plover was listed as an endangered
species in 1985. In fiscal years 1992 through 1999, we conducted only
one formal section 7 consultation with other Federal agencies to ensure
that their actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the
piping plover.
Approximately 255 km (159 mi) of the areas encompassing proposed
critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of piping
plovers are currently unoccupied by piping plovers. The remaining 49 km
(30 mi) of the total designated critical habitat area are currently
occupied by piping plovers. Under the Act, critical habitat may not be
adversely modified or destroyed by a Federal agency action; critical
habitat does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons unless
they are conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored or
permitted by a Federal agency (see Table 3 below). Section 7 requires
Federal agencies to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species.
The designation of currently occupied areas as critical habitat
does not have any incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be
conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive
Federal authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons that do not have
a Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not restricted by the
designation of critical habitat (however, they continue to be bound by
the provisions of the Act concerning ``take'' of the species).
Designation of unoccupied areas as critical habitat may have
impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies
or non-Federal persons that receive Federal authorization or funding,
but we expect little additional impact from designating these areas as
critical habitat. We will evaluate this impact through our economic
analysis (see Economic Analysis section of this rule).
(b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
piping plovers since the listing in 1985. The prohibition against
adverse modification of critical habitat is not expected to impose any
additional restrictions to those that currently exist in occupied areas
of proposed critical habitat. Additional restrictions may be imposed in
unoccupied areas proposed as critical habitat; we will evaluate this
possibility through our economic analysis. Because of the potential for
impacts on other Federal agency activities, we will continue to review
this proposed action for any inconsistencies with other Federal agency
actions.
(c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
Federal agencies are currently required to ensure that their activities
do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and, as
discussed above, we do not anticipate that the adverse modification
prohibition (resulting from critical habitat designation) will have any
additional effects in areas of occupied habitat. The critical habitat
designation may have some additional effects on the unoccupied areas of
proposed critical habitat. We will review the effects of this proposed
action on Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal
authorization or funding in the area of critical habitat with unknown
occupancy.
(d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The
proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat
contained in the Endangered Species Act.
[[Page 41825]]
Table 3.--Activities Potentially Impacted by Piping Plover Listing and
Critical Habitat Designation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Activities activities
Categories of activities potentially affected potentially affected
by species listing by critical habitat
only 1 designation 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Direct take and None in occupied
Potentially Affected 3. activities such as habitat. In
removing or unoccupied habitat,
destroying piping no additional types
plover breeding of activities will
habitat, whether by be affected, but
mechanical, consultation will
chemical, or other be required on
means (e.g., these activities in
construction, road additional areas.
building, boat
launch and marina
construction or
maintenance, beach
nourishment);
recreational
activities that
significantly deter
the use of suitable
habitat areas by
piping plovers or
alter habitat
through associated
maintenance
activities (e.g.,
off-road vehicle
parks, paved
walking paths);
sale, exchange, 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- Direct take and None in occupied
Federal Activities activities such as habitat. In
Potentially Affected 4. removing or unoccupied habitat,
destroying piping no additional types
plover habitat, of activities will
whether by be affected, but
mechanical, consultation will
chemical, or other be required on
means (e.g., these activities by
construction, road the Federal agency
building, boat that regulates that
launch and marina Federal action in
construction or additional areas.
maintenance, beach
nourishment) and
appreciably
decreasing habitat
value or quality
(e.g., increased
predation, invasion
of exotic species,
increased human
presence or
disturbance) that
require 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of
critical habitat will have a significant effect on a substantial number
of small entities. As discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review
above, this rule is not expected to result in any restrictions in
addition to those currently in existence for areas of occupied critical
habitat. However, we would expect additional restrictions in areas of
unoccupied habitat. As indicated on Table 1 (see Proposed Critical
Habitat Designation section), we designated property owned by Federal,
State, tribal, and local governments, and private property.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potentially adversely modifying
critical habitat are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, water delivery, and diversion by
Federal agencies;
(3) Sale, exchange, or lease of lands owned by a Federal agency;
(4) Road construction and maintenance and right-of-way designation;
(5) Funding of low-interest loans to facilitate the construction of
low-income housing by the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(6) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
(7) Promulgation of air and water quality standards under the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the cleanup of toxic waste and
superfund sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
(8) Issuance of Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(B) permits
by the Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(9) Activities funded, carried out, or authorized by any Federal
agency.
Many of these activities sponsored by Federal agencies within the
proposed critical habitat areas are carried out by small entities (as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act) through contract, grant,
permit, or other Federal authorization. As discussed above, these
actions are currently required to comply with the listing protections
of the Act, and the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated
to have any additional effects on these activities in areas of critical
habitat occupied by the species. We expect little additional effect for
the unoccupied areas of proposed critical habitat. In the economic
analysis, we will evaluate whether designation of critical habitat in
the unoccupied areas will have an effect on activities carried out by
small entities.
For actions on non-Federal property that do not have a Federal
connection (such as funding or authorization), the current restrictions
concerning take of the species remain in effect, and this rule will
have no additional restrictions.
[[Page 41826]]
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))
In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small
governments will be affected only to the extent that any of their
actions involving Federal funding or authorization must not destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat in areas where they have not
previously undergone consultation not to jeopardize the species.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment
is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ``take''
private property. Critical habitat designation is applicable only to
Federal lands and to private lands if a Federal nexus exists. We do not
designate private lands as critical habitat unless the areas are
essential to the conservation of a species.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, the Service requested information from and coordinated
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State
resource agencies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, as well as during the listing
process. We will continue to coordinate any future designation of
critical habitat for the Great Lakes piping plover with the appropriate
State agencies. The designation of critical habitat for the piping
plover imposes few additional restrictions to those currently in place
and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined and the primary constituent
elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. While making this definition and
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, doing so may assist these local governments in
long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and plan public hearings on the proposed
designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the Great Lakes breeding population of piping plover.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act is required.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and the Department of the Interior's
requirement at 512 DM 2, we understand that we must coordinate with
recognized Federal Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We
believe that certain Tribal lands are essential for the conservation of
the piping plover because they support essential populations and
habitat. Therefore, we are considering designating critical habitat for
the piping plover on Tribal lands. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat
according to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, we cannot exclude
such areas from critical habitat if doing so will result in the
extinction of the species. Due to the short amount of time allowed
under the court order for preparing this proposed rule, we have not yet
completed consultation with the affected Tribe, but we will do so
before making a final decision on critical habitat.
Public Hearings
We have scheduled seven public hearings at the following addresses
on the dates indicated.
1. Newberry, MI on July 19, 2000, at Newberry High School
Auditorium, 700 Newberry Avenue.
2. Traverse City, MI on July 20, 2000, at Grand Traverse Civic
Center, 1213 West Civic Center Drive.
3. Ashland, WI on July 17, 2000, at the Northern Great Lakes
Center, 29270 County Highway G.
4. Green Bay, WI on July 18, 2000, at Brown County Central Library,
515 Pine Street.
5. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, IN on July 24, 2000, at the
Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitors Center, just west of Beverly Shores on
Kemil Road between U.S. Highways 12 and 20.
6. Cleveland, OH on July 25, 2000, at The Great Lakes Science
Center, 601 Erieside Avenue.
7. Watertown, NY on July 27, 2000, at Dulles State Office Building,
317 Washington Street, 1st Floor Conference Room.
All comments that we receive at these hearings, both verbal and
written, will be considered prior to making our decision on critical
habitat designation. Copies of the transcripts from the hearings will
be available for review by scheduling an appointment during normal
business hours at the locations given above (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Fort Snelling Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
[[Page 41827]]
Author: The primary author of this notice is Laura J. Ragan (see
ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulations Promulgation
For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
part 17 as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Plover, piping'' under
``BIRDS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Plover, piping.................. Charadrius melodus. U.S.A. (Great Great Lakes E 211 17.95(b) NA
Lakes, northern watershed in States
Great Plains, of IL, IN, MI, MN,
Atlantic and Gulf NY, OH, PA, and WI
coasts, PR, VI), and Canada (Ont.).
Canada, Mexico,
Bahamas, West
Indies.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, add critical habitat for the Great Lakes piping
plover (Charadrius melodus) under paragraph (b) in the same
alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11 (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(b) Birds.
* * * * *
PIPING PLOVER (Charadrius melodus)--Great Lakes Breeding Population
1. Critical habitat units are depicted for St. Louis County,
Minnesota; Douglas, Ashland, Marinette, Oconto, and Manitowoc
Counties, Wisconsin; Lake County, Illinois; Porter County, Indiana;
Erie and Lake Counties, Ohio; Erie County, Pennsylvania; Oswego and
Jefferson Counties, New York; and Alger, Schoolcraft, Luce,
Mackinac, Chippewa, Iosco, Presque Isle, Cheboygan, Emmet,
Charlevoix, Leelanau, Benzie, Mason, and Muskegon Counties,
Michigan, on the maps below.
2. The primary constituent elements required to sustain the
Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover are found on
Great Lakes islands and mainland shorelines that support, or have
the potential to support, open, sparsely vegetated sandy habitats--
sand spits or sand beaches associated with wide, unforested systems
of dunes and inter-dune wetlands. In order for habitat to be
physically and biologically suitable for piping plovers, it must
have a total shoreline length of at least 0.2 kilometers (km) (0.12
miles (mi)) of gently sloping, sparsely vegetated (less than 50
percent herbaceous and low woody cover) sand beach with a total
beach area of at least 2 hectares (5 acres) and a low level of
disturbance from human activities and from domestic animals. These
appropriately sized sites must also have areas of at least 50-100
meters (m) (165-330 feet (ft)) in length where (1) the beach width
is more than 7 m (23 ft), (2) there is cover for nests and chicks,
and (3) the distance to the treeline (from the normal high water
line to where the forest begins) is more than 50 m (165 ft). Beach
width is defined as the distance from the normal high water line to
the foredune (a low barrier dune ridge immediately inland from the
beach) edge or sand/vegetation boundary in areas where the dune is
absent. The beach width may be narrower than 7 m (23 ft) if
appropriate sand and cobble areas of at least 7 m (23 ft) exist
between the dune and the treeline. Protective cover for nests and
chicks consists of small patches of herbaceous vegetation, cobble
(stones larger than 1 cm (0.39 inches (in)) diameter), gravel
(stones smaller than 1 cm (0.39 in) diameter), or debris such as
driftwood, wrack, root masses, or dead shrubs.
3. Critical habitat does not include existing developed sites
consisting of buildings, marinas, paved areas, boat ramps, and
similar structures.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.005
[[Page 41829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.006
[[Page 41830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.007
[[Page 41831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.008
[[Page 41832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.009
[[Page 41833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.010
[[Page 41834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.011
[[Page 41835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY00.012
Dated: June 28, 2000.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-16815 Filed 6-30-00; 9:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}