Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population of the Piping Plover

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 7, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 88)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22938-22969]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07my01-14]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG14

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Determination of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding
Population of the Piping Plover

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,
as amended for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover. The Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover is
listed as an endangered species under the Act. A total of approximately
325 km (201 mi) of Great Lakes shoreline (extending 500 m (1640 ft)
inland) in 26 counties in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, is designated as critical
habitat for the Great Lakes population of the piping plover. The total
length of designated shoreline is divided among 35 separate critical
habitat units.
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. As required by section 4 of the Act,
we considered economic and other relevant impacts prior to making a
final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective June 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule, including
comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation
used in the preparation of this final rule, will be available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building,
1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Ragan at the above address
(telephone 612/713-5157; facsimile 612/713-5292). TTY users may contact
us through the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

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 the sandy beach, its primary habitat. Plumage and leg
color help distinguish this bird from other plover species. During the
breeding season, the legs are bright

[[Page 22939]]

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 bands on the
head and neck are 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 (USFWS 1994).
Dominant plants within Great Lakes piping plover habitat 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 (Arctostaphylus uva-ursi), creeping juniper (Juniper
horizontalis), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and willow (Salix spp.).
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 extends from 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 in this population are in the
Dakotas, Nebraska, and Montana (USFWS 1994). Occasionally, Great Plains
birds nest in Oklahoma and Kansas. On the Atlantic coast, piping
plovers nest from Newfoundland, southeastern Quebec, and New Brunswick
to North Carolina. Sixty-eight percent of all nesting pairs breed in
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia (USFWS 1999). In the
Great Lakes watershed, piping plovers formerly nested throughout much
of the north-central United States and south-central Canada on beaches
in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New
York, Wisconsin, and in Ontario, Canada. Currently they are limited to
northern Michigan and, recently, at one site in northern Wisconsin.
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 eight 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 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.
Pre-settlement populations of piping plovers in the Great Lakes are
estimated at 492-682 breeding pairs (Russell 1983), although these
estimates may be high (F. Cuthbert, professor, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, pers. comm., 2000). In recent decades, piping plover
populations have declined drastically, especially in the Great Lakes,
coinciding with industrial development, urbanization, and increased
recreational pressures. 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 beaches in Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ontario, and only a few
birds were continuing to nest in Wisconsin (Russell, 1983). By 1977,
the Great Lakes breeding population had decreased to 31 nesting pairs
(Lambert and Ratcliff 1981) and by the time the species was listed
under the Endangered Species Act in 1985, the Great Lakes breeding
population had dwindled to only 17 breeding pairs, and the breeding
areas had been reduced from sites in eight States to only portions of
northern Michigan.
Since the species was listed, the Great Lakes breeding population
has gradually increased and expanded its range within Michigan and into
Wisconsin. In 1999, 31 pairs of piping plovers nested on the Great
Lakes shoreline of northern Michigan and 1 pair nested in northern
Wisconsin (Stucker and Cuthbert, 1999). In 2000, 30 pairs were
documented, all in northern Michigan (Stucker et al. 2000). The slow
population increase over the past 15 years has been 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.
Great Lakes piping plovers nest on shoreline and island sandy
beaches with sparse vegetation and the presence of small stones
(greater than 1 cm (0.4 in.)) called cobble. Piping plovers spend 3 to
4 months a year on the breeding grounds. Nesting in the Great Lakes
region begins in early to mid-May. Plovers lay 3 to 4 eggs in a small
depression they scrape in the sand among the cobblestones and are,
therefore, very difficult to see. Both sexes are involved in incubating
the eggs, which hatch in 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 (USFWS
1994). Furthermore, adults may leave the nest to lure away an intruder,
leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators and exposure to
weather. Ultimately, disturbance may lead to the abandonment of nests
(USFWS 1994). As a result of disturbance and other natural and human-
caused factors such as high water levels, flooding, eroding beaches,
and beach-front commercial, recreational, and residential development,
reproduction of Great Lakes piping plovers has been severely affected,
resulting in perilously low numbers of nesting plovers (USFWS 1994).
This rule 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. We included the piping plover in that review list 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 proposed rule
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

[[Page 22940]]

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.
After a review of the best scientific data available and all
comments received in response to the proposed rule, we published the
final rule (50 FR 50726) on December 11, 1985, listing the piping
plover as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, northeastern Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada) and as threatened along the Atlantic
coast (Quebec, Newfoundland, Maritime Provinces, and States from Maine
to Florida), and in the Northern Great Plains region (Iowa,
northwestern Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan). All piping plovers on migratory
routes outside of the Great Lakes watershed or on their wintering
grounds are considered threatened. We did not designate critical
habitat for the species at that time.
After 1986, we focused our efforts on recovery by forming two
recovery teams, the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains Piping Plover
Recovery Team and the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team. In
1988 the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains (USFWS 1988b) and
Atlantic Coast (USFWS 1988a) Recovery Plans were published. In 1994,
the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains Recovery Team began to revise the
Recovery plan for these two populations (USFWS 1994). The 1994 draft
included updated information on the species and was distributed for
public comment. Subsequently, we decided that the recovery of these two
inland populations would benefit from separate recovery plans.
Individual 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 designated critical habitat
for the Great Lakes population of the piping plover. Defenders filed a
similar suit (Defenders of Wildlife and Piping 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
population of the piping plover by June 30, 2000, and for nesting and
wintering areas of the Northern Great Plains piping plover population
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
published concurrently.
On July 6, 2000, we published a proposed determination for the
designation of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population
of the piping plover (65 FR 41812). A total of approximately 305 km
(189 mi) (extending 1 km (0.6 mi) inland) was proposed as critical
habitat for this piping plover population in 27 counties in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New
York. The comment period was open until September 5, 2000. During this
60-day comment period, we held seven public hearings (Ashland,
Wisconsin, on July 17; Green Bay, Wisconsin, on July 18; Newberry,
Michigan, on July 19; Traverse City, Michigan, on July 20; Indiana
Dunes, Indiana, on July 24; Cleveland, Ohio, on July 25; and Watertown,
New York, on July 27). On September 19, 2000, we published a document
(65 FR 56530) announcing the reopening of the comment period on the
proposal to designate critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover and a notice of the availability of the
draft economic analysis on the proposed determination. Our intention
was for this comment period to be reopened for 60 days, but the
document stated that the comment period closed on October 19, 2000, or
30 days. Therefore, on September 28, 2000, we published a document (65
FR 58258) correcting the closing date of the reopened comment period to
November 20, 2000.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
consideration or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to
the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR
402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``. . . the
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' Aside from
the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does
not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical
habitat. Critical habitat designation would not afford any additional
protections under the Act against activities on private or other non-
Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus because the
requirement for consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply
to activities on these types of lands.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, based on the best scientific
and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential
life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will
designate only

[[Page 22941]]

areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas should already
have the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to
sustain the species (primary constituent elements). We will not
speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better
information became available, or what other areas may become essential
over time. If the information available at the time of designation does
not show that an area provides essential life cycle needs of the
species, then the area should not be included in the critical habitat
designation. Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we
will not designate areas that do not now have the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species.
Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Accordingly, unless the best scientific and commercial data
demonstrates that the conservation needs of the species require
designation of critical habitat outside of occupied areas, we will not
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species. However, if unoccupied areas are essential to
the recovery of the species, they may be designated as critical
habitat.
The Service's policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides
guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the
best scientific and commercial data available. It requires Service
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical
habitat, a primary source of information should be the listing package
for the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery
plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, and
biological assessments or other unpublished materials (i.e. gray
literature).
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, it should be understood that critical
habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation
is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the
critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis
of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally
funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the
basis of the best available information at the time of designation will
not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.

Methods

In determining areas that are essential to conserve the Great Lakes
breeding population of the piping plover, the best scientific and
commercial data available included information solicited from
knowledgeable biologists and 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 1994 draft recovery plan as essential for the
recovery of the population. We have chosen the 35 critical habitat
units in order to protect adequate habitat to meet the recovery
criteria, contained in the recovery plan and draft recovery plan, of
100 breeding pairs in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs in the other Great
Lakes States combined. In addition, information provided in comments on
the proposed designation and draft economic analysis were evaluated and
taken into consideration in the development of this final designation.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the
best scientific and commercial data available. We also are required 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 features include, but are not
limited to: space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical
and ecological distributions of a species.
The primary constituent elements for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover are those habitat components that are
essential for successful foraging, nesting, rearing of young, intra-
specific communication, genetic exchange, roosting, dispersal, or
sheltering.
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 open, sparsely vegetated
sandy habitats, such as sand spits or sand beaches, that are 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)).
Appropriately sized sites must also have areas of at least 50
meters (m) (164 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 (164 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 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 (0.4 inches
(in)) diameter), gravel (stones smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in)

[[Page 22942]]

diameter), or debris such as driftwood, wrack, root masses, or dead
shrubs. These areas must have a low level of disturbance from human
activities and from domestic animals. As the nesting season progresses,
the level of disturbance tolerated by piping plovers increases. A lower
level of disturbance is required at the beginning of the nesting period
during nest site selection, egg laying, and incubation. Beach
activities that may be associated with a high level of disturbance
include, but are not limited to, walking pets off leash, loud noise,
driving all terrain vehicles (ATVs), or activities that significantly
increase the level of people using the beach. The level of disturbance
is relative to the proximity to the nest, intensity, and frequency of
these and other similar activities.
The dynamic ecological processes that create and maintain piping
plover habitat are also important primary constituent elements. These
geologically dynamic lakeside regions are controlled by processes of
erosion, accretion, plant succession, and lake-level fluctuations. The
integrity of the habitat depends upon regular sediment transport
processes, as well as episodic, high-magnitude storm events. By their
nature, Great Lakes shorelines are in a constant state of change;
habitat features may disappear, or be created nearby. The critical
habitat boundaries reflect these natural processes and the dynamic
character of Great Lakes shorelines.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

All of the designated 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 Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover. The
designation encompasses those areas considered necessary to achieve the
recovery goals of 150 breeding pairs (USFWS 1988b, 1994) for this
population.
To identify critical habitat units, we first examined those sites
identified as ``essential habitat'' in the approved Recovery Plan and
draft revised Recovery Plan. We began by evaluating those essential
habitat areas that are currently (at least once during the past 5
years) or were recently (in the last 5 to 15 years) occupied by piping
plovers in the Great Lakes. Through site visits and consultation with
local habitat experts, we determined which of these sites still contain
the primary constituent elements. Piping plover occupied habitat in the
Great Lakes has declined from historical occupation of more than 70
sites in eight States to approximately 32 sites in two States (Wemmer
2000). The currently occupied sites and recently occupied (since 1985)
sites in Michigan may have the capacity to support an estimated 56 to
136 breeding pairs (Wemmer 2000). Because of this severe reduction in
range and numbers of piping plovers, we have determined it is essential
to the conservation of this species to include all currently occupied
habitat and all recently occupied habitat that still contains the
primary constituent elements in this critical habitat designation.
As we proceed with recovery efforts, expansion of the present small
population will require more habitat than is currently occupied by
piping plovers along the Great Lakes (Wemmer 2000, USFWS 1988b, 1994).
In an effort to protect sufficient habitat to allow for the expansion
of the species, our second step was to evaluate the essential habitat
areas outlined in the Recovery Plan that are documented as historical
piping plover habitat. In addition to evaluating those areas identified
by the Recovery Plan as essential habitat, we solicited information
from habitat experts on areas that contain the primary constituent
elements and that would provide suitable piping plover nesting habitat.
Based upon consultation with Great Lakes piping plover habitat experts,
we determined which historically occupied sites contain the primary
constituent elements and are suitable for supporting nesting piping
plovers. We designated historically occupied habitat in the Great Lakes
watershed (in the United States) that still contain the primary
constituent elements.
Much known historical habitat in the Great Lakes region has been
destroyed or altered in such ways that it can no longer support piping
plovers (Wemmer 2000, USFWS 1988b). As a result, suitable habitat areas
that are currently/recently occupied, or that were documented to be
historically occupied, are not sufficient to meet the conservation
goals outlined in the approved Recovery Plan and draft revised Recovery
Plan. Thus, as a final step, we evaluated those essential habitat areas
identified in the Recovery Plan where occupation has not been
documented, but habitat features similar to currently occupied sites
occur. To reach the minimum amount of habitat sufficient to meet the
recovery plan goals, we designated those areas that are known to
contain the primary constituent elements as critical habitat. Critical
habitat designation is effective year-round, even if the primary
constituent elements are temporarily obscured by snow, ice, or other
temporary features.
In defining critical habitat boundaries, it was not possible to
exclude all existing human-made features and structures, such as
buildings, roads, marinas, piers, parking lots, bridges, boat ramps,
lighthouses, and other such human-made features, within the area
designated. These features do not contain most or all of the primary
constituent elements and thus are not considered to be critical habitat
despite their being within the geographic boundaries. Federal actions
limited to those features, therefore, would not trigger a section 7
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent
elements within a critical habitat unit.
In summary, in determining areas that are essential to the
conservation of the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover, we used the best scientific and commercial information
available to us. The critical habitat areas described below constitute
our best assessment of areas needed for the species' conservation and
recovery.

Critical Habitat Designation

At this time, the critical habitat units discussed below are our
best appraisal 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, and all the areas
identified here are essential for the recovery of the species because
these areas represent the habitat necessary to achieve the recovery
goal of 100 breeding pairs in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs in the
other Great Lakes States combined. Critical habitat designations may be
subsequently revised if new information becomes available after this
final rule is published. Any additional areas of critical habitat will
be designated, or other changes made to this designation, only after a
formal proposal and opportunity for public comment.
The approximate length of proposed critical habitat shoreline
identified by land ownership is shown in Table 1. Critical habitat
includes Great Lakes piping plover habitat throughout the species'
breeding range in the United States. Lands proposed as critical habitat
are under private, State, municipal, Tribal, and Federal ownership,
with Federal lands including lands managed by the National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army

[[Page 22943]]

Corp of Engineers, and by us. Estimates reflect the total area within
critical habitat unit boundaries.

Table 1.--Kilometers of Great Lakes Shoreline Proposed as Critical Habitat Units for the Piping Plover in Each Great Lakes State Summarized by Federal, State,
Municipal, Private and Other Ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership km shoreline (% within each State)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Municipal Private Other Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan.......................... 40.9 (18.3) 107.9 (48.1) 6.9 (3.1) 66.1 (29.1) 1.6 TNC (0.7) 223.4
Minnesota......................... 0 0.2 (100) 0 0 0 0.2
Wisconsin......................... 18.1 (40.0) 8.7 (19.2) 4.4 (9.7) 9.0 (19.9) 5.1 Tribal (11.2) 45.3
Illinois.......................... 0 4.7 (46.1) 1.3 (12.7) 4.2 (41.2) 0 10.2
Indiana........................... 2.9 (36.7) 5.0 (63.3) 0 0 0 7.9
Ohio.............................. 0 2.0 (50) 0 2.0 (50) 0 4.0
Pennsylvania...................... 0 6.0 (100) 0 0 0 6.0
New York.......................... 0 12.4 (45.3) 0 14.6 (53.3) 0.4 TNC (1.5) 27.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (% of).................. 61.9 (19.1) 146.9 (45.2) 12.6 (3.9) 95.9 (29.5) 7.1 (2.2) 324.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical habitat has been designated in 35 units in the Great Lakes
region. All critical habitat unit boundaries extend 500 meters (1640
feet) inland from the normal high water line, although the inland edge
of 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 incorporate cobble pans between the
dunes where piping plovers occasionally nest. A brief description of
each unit and reasons for designating it as critical habitat are
presented below and in Table 2. More detailed descriptions are included
with the maps.

Table 2.--Location, Ownership, Piping Plover Use, and Estimated Length of Critical Habitat Areas Within Mapped Conservation Units in the U.S. Great
Lakes Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGS 7.5' quad Est.
Habit unit Location name County map(s) 1:24,000 Land ownership \1\ Plover use \2\ length
scale (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitefish Point to Grand Marais--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-1............................. Whitefish Point..... Chippewa............ Whitefish Point Federal (USFWS), Recent past, 2.5
(1951). private. transient.
Vermilion/ Luce................ Vermilion (1951).... Private............ Current............ 2.3
Weatherhogs Beach.
Crisp Point......... Luce................ Betsy Lake North Municipal private.. Recent past........ 1.0
(1968).
Little Lake Harbor.. Luce................ Betsy Lake North Private............ Recent past........ 1.6
(1968).
Deer Park........... Luce................ Muskallonge Lake State, private..... Recent past........ 2.8
East (1968);
Muskallonge Lake
West (1968).
Grand Marais Inner Alger............... Grand Marais (1968). Multiple private, Current............ 2.9
Harbor and Lonesome municipal.
Point.
Grand Marais Alger............... Grand Marais (1968). Multiple private, Current............ 1.2
Superior Beach. Federal (NPS).
MI-2............................. Point Aux Chenes.... Mackinac............ Pointe Aux Chenes Federal (USFS), Current............ 2.0
(1964, photorevised private.
1975).
MI-3............................. Port Inland......... Schoolcraft Mackinac Hughes Point (1972). Private/State...... Current............ 3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waugoshance Point to beach west of McCort Hill--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-4............................. Waugoshance Point Emmet............... Big Stone Bay (1964, State.............. Current............ 5.0
Temperance and photoinspected
Crane Islands. 1975), Waugoshance
Island (provisional
1982).
Sturgeon Bay........ Emmet............... Bliss (1982)........ State.............. Current............ 3.9
Bliss Township Park. Emmet............... Bliss (1982)........ Municipal.......... Current............ 1.1
Sturgeon Bay Point.. Emmet............... Bliss (1982) Cross Multiple private... Current............ 2.4
Village (1982).

[[Page 22944]]

Cross Village Beach. Emmet............... Cross Village (1982) Municipal, multiple Current............ 1.3
private.
Beach West McCort Emmet............... Cross Village (1982) Multiple private... Current............ 1.4
Hill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sevenmile Point to Thorneswift Nature Preserve--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-5............................. Sevenmile Point..... Emmet............... Forest Beach (1983 Multiple private... Suitable........... 0.5
provisional).
Thorneswift Nature Emmet............... Forest Beach (1983 Multiple private... Current............ 0.4
Preserve. provisional).
MI-6............................. Petoskey State Park. Emmet............... Harbor Springs (1983 State, private..... Historical......... 2.0
provisional).
MI-7............................. North Point......... Charlevoix.......... Ironton (1983), Municipal.......... Suitable........... 1.1
Charlevoix (1983).
MI-8............................. Fisherman's Island Charlevoix.......... Charlevoix (1983)... State.............. Current............ 1.3
State Park.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Point to McCauley's Point, Beaver Island--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-9............................. Donegal Bay-Beaver Charlevoix.......... Garden Island West Multiple private... Current............ 2.0
Island. (1980), Beaver
Island North (1986).
McCauley's Point- Charlevoix.......... Beaver Island North State.............. Recent past........ 0.6
Beaver Island. (1986).
MI-10............................ Greenes Bay-Beaver Charlevoix.......... Beaver Island North State/private...... Recent past........ 0.8
Island. (1986).
MI-11............................ High Island......... Charlevoix.......... High Island (1986).. State.............. Current............ 1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-12............................ Cathead Bay......... Leelanau............ Northport State/private...... Current............ 2.6
(provisional 1983).
Cathead Point to Leelanau............ Northport/Northport Private............ Suitable........... 2.5
Christmas Cove. NW (provisional
1983).
MI-13............................ South Fox Island.... Leelanau............ South Fox Island State.............. Historical......... 6.0
(provisional 1986).
MI-14............................ North Manitou....... Leelanau............ North Manitou Island Federal (NPS)...... Current............ 3.3
(provisional 1983).
MI-15............................ Crystal Run to Leelanau............ Glen Arbor (1983), Municipal, Federal. Suitable........... 18.6
Empire Beach. Glen Haven (1983),
Empire (1983).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Esch Road to Sutter Road and Point Betsie--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-16............................ Platte Bay and Benzie.............. Empire (1983), Federal (NPS)...... Suitable/current... 13.8
Platte River Point Beulah (provisional
and beach. 1983).
Point Betsie........ Benzie.............. Frankfort (1983).... Federal (USCG) TNC Historical......... 4.8
managed, private.
MI-17............................ Nordhouse Dunes to Mason............... Manistee NW Federal (USFS), Transient, 13.4
Ludington. (provisional 1982), State. historical.
Hamlin Lake (1982).
MI-18............................ Muskegon State Park. Muskegon............ Muskegon West (1972, State.............. Historical......... 2.5
photoinspected
1980).
MI-19............................ Lake Superior State Chippewa............ Albany Island (1964, State.............. Historical......... 3.0
Forest, St. Vital photoinspected
Point. 1976), DeTour
Village (1964).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI-20............................ Lighthouse Point.... Cheboygan........... Cheboygan (1982).... State.............. Recent past........ 1.4
Grass Bay........... Cheboygan........... Cordwood Point TNC preserve....... Historical 1.6
(1982). transient.

[[Page 22945]]

MI-21............................ PH Hoeft State Park. Pesque Isle......... Roger's City (1971), State.............. Suitable........... 3.7
Moltke (1971).
MI-22............................ Thompson's Harbor... Presque Isle........ Thompson's Harbor State, private..... Suitable........... 2.8
(1971).
MI-23............................ Tawas Point State Iosco............... East Tawas (1989)... State.............. Suitable, transient 2.0
Park.
MN/WI-1.......................... Duluth Harbor....... St. Louis........... West Duluth (1953, State, private..... Recent past........ 0.6
photorevised 1969).
WI-1............................. Wisconsin Point..... Douglas............. Parkland (1954, Municipal, Federal Historical......... 4.0
photorevised 1975), (USACE).
Superior (1954,
photorevised 1983).
WI-2............................. Long Island- Ashland............. Cedar (1964, Federal (NPS) Current............ 25.3
Chequamegon Pt. photorevised 1975), tribal (Bad
Chequamegon Point River), private.
(1964, photorevised
1975), Long Island
(1964).
WI-3............................. Western Michigan Ashland............. Michigan Island Federal (NPS)...... Suitable........... 6.5
Island. (1963).
WI-4............................. Seagull Bar......... Marinette........... Marinette East State, municipal... Suitable........... 1.5
(1963, photorevised
1969).
WI-5............................. Point Beach State Manitowoc........... Two Rivers (1978)... State.............. Suitable........... 8.0
Forest.
IL-1............................. Illinois Beach State Lake................ Zion, Ill. (1993), Municipal, State, Historical......... 10.2
Park to Waukegan Waukegan (1993). private.
Beach.
IN-1............................. Indiana Dunes Porter.............. Ogden Dunes (1991), Federal (NPS), Historical, 7.9
National Lakeshore/ Dunes Acres (1991). State. transient.
Indiana Dunes State
Park.
OH-1............................. Sheldon Marsh....... Erie................ Huron (1969), State, private..... Transient.......... 3.2
Sandusky (1969,
photorevised 1975).
OH-2............................. Headlands Dunes..... Lake................ Mentor (1963, State.............. Historical/suitable 0.8
revised 1992).
PA-1............................. Presque Isle State Erie................ Erie North (1957, State.............. Historical, 6.0
Park. revised 1969 and transient.
1975,
photoinspected
1977).
NY-1............................. Salmon River to Oswego, Jefferson... Pulaski (1956), State, multiple Historical......... 27.4
Stony Point. 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; recent past = used for nesting since 1985; historical = used for nesting prior to 1985; transient = recent
(since 1990) sightings of piping plovers; suitable = no known record of use but habitat appears suitable for nesting and is within the historic range
of piping plover.

Michigan

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
just southwest of Whitefish Point, around and including the Point, and
westward to the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore property boundary,
excluding the area from the junction of Highway 58 and Morris Road to
the breakwall north of the harbor near the former Coast Guard station
in Grand Marais.

Unit MI-2: Pointe Aux Chenes

This unit encompasses approximately 1.7 km (1.1 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

[[Page 22946]]

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
designated 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.

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
in Wilderness State Park, including Waugoshance and Temperance Islands,
to the southwest boundary of T37N R6W section 5 south of Cross Village.

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 suitable
piping plover nesting habitat and areas that are currently occupied by
piping plovers. The entire designated area is under private ownership.
It extends from the junction of the Lake Michigan shoreline and the
northwest boundary of T36N R6W section 30 to the junction of the
shoreline and the southeast corner of T35N R6W 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
suitable piping plover nesting habitat. The entire designated 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 designated
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, including
Fisherman Island.

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 southward
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 encompasses Greenes Bay on the western side of
Beaver Island.

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 designated area is part of the Beaver Islands State Wildlife
Research Area. This unit includes all Lake Michigan shoreline within
T39N R11W section 32 and T38N R11W section 5 on the western side of the
island and within T39N R11W section 27 on the northeastern corner of
the island.

Unit MI-12: Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove

This unit encompasses approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes areas that
are currently occupied by piping plovers and areas of suitable piping
plover nesting habitat. Approximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi) are part of
Leelanau State Park, and the remaining 3.2 km (2.0 mi) are privately
owned land. This unit extends from the northwest end of Cathead Bay
southward to just north of Christmas Cove, excluding lands of the Magic
Carpet Woods Association HCP.

Unit MI-13: South Fox Island

This unit encompasses approximately 6 km (3.8 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
designated 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 on the south end of the island and within T35N
R13W section 30 on the north end of the island.

Unit MI-14: North and South Manitou Islands

This unit encompasses approximately 3.3 km (2.1 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 designated area is part of Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore. This unit includes Dimmick's Point and Donner's
Point on the southern end of North Manitou Island.

Unit MI-15: Crystal Run to Empire Beach

This unit encompasses approximately 18.6 km (11.6 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Leelanau County, Michigan. It includes areas of
suitable piping plover nesting habitat. Approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi)
are municipal beach in Glen Arbor Township, and the remaining 13.8 km
(8.6 mi) are part of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. This unit
extends from Crystal Run to the southern

[[Page 22947]]

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore property boundary.

Unit MI-16: Esch Road to Sutter Road and Point Betsie

This unit encompasses approximately 18.6 km (11.6 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 suitable piping plover nesting habitat. The
majority of the unit (13.8 km (8.6 mi)) is part of Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore, 3.8 km (2.4 mi) are private land, 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 the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore property
boundary at Sutter Road. The unit then continues from the Point Betsie
Natural Area northern property boundary south to include all shoreline
within 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 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 designated 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 designated 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 5.2 km (3.3 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 near Lighthouse Point to just west of Cordwood
Point.

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
suitable piping plover nesting habitat. The entire designated area is
part of P.H. Hoeft State Park. This unit includes Lake Huron shoreline
within T35N R5E section 6 northwestward 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
suitable piping plover nesting habitat. Most of this designated 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 suitable nesting habitat. The
entire designated area is part of Tawas Point State Park. This unit
extends from the Tawas Sate Park boundary on the east side of Tawas
Point including all shoreline within T22N R8E section 34 and offshore
sand spits.

Minnesota/Wisconsin

Unit MN/WI-1: Interstate Island

This unit encompasses approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) of Lake
Superior shoreline on Interstate Island in St. Louis County, Minnesota
and Douglas County, Wisconsin. Although piping plover nesting has not
been documented on this island, it contains viable piping plover
habitat. 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 is comprised of Interstate
Island.

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. Approximately 0.4 km (0.2
mi) of the unit is Army Corps of Engineers land. The rest of the
designated 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 25.3 km (15.7 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 11.2 km (6.9 mi) are part of the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore, approximately 9.0 km (5.6 mi) are private
land, and the remaining 5.1 km (3.2 mi) are Tribal lands belonging to
the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians. This
unit extends from the base of Chequamegon Point (where it meets the
mainland) 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 suitable piping plover nesting habitat. The entire designated
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
suitable piping plover nesting habitat. About one

[[Page 22948]]

half of the unit is State owned and the other half is municipal
property owned by the city of Marinette. 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: Point Beach State Forest

This unit encompasses approximately 8 km (5 mi) of Lake Michigan
shoreline in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. It includes areas of suitable
piping plover nesting habitat. The entire designated 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 and 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 southward to the
northernWaukegan Beach breakwall at North Beach Park, excluding the
public beach and campground to just south of the Illinois Beach State
Park Lodge and Conference Center.

Indiana

Unit IN-1: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Indiana Dunes State
Park Beaches

This unit encompasses approximately 7.9 km (4.9 mi) of Lake
Michigan shoreline in Porter County, Indiana. It includes areas that
were historically occupied by piping plovers. 5 km (3.1 mi) are part of
Indiana Dunes State Park and the remaining 2.9 km (1.8 mi) are part of
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. This unit extends from the western
boundary of the Cowels Bog/Dune Acres Unit, east of the Port of Indiana
and the NIPSCO Baily Generating Station and 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 foraging areas for
transient piping plovers and suitable 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 historical nesting habitat
and areas of suitable piping plover nesting habitat. The entire
designated 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 6.0 km (3.7 mi) of Lake Erie
shoreline in Erie County, Pennsylvania. It includes foraging areas for
transient piping plovers and areas that were historically used for
nesting. The entire unit is part of the Presque Isle State Park. This
unit extends from the lighthouse north of Peninsula Drive on the north
side of Presque Isle to the southern terminus of the hiking trail on
the southeast side of Gull Point. 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, including
the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out
do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that
the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for
the survival and recovery of the species. 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. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a
conference report are advisory. 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 (action agency) must consult with us. Through this
consultation we would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat.
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 destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to

[[Page 22949]]

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 with us on actions for which formal consultation has been
completed, if those actions may affect designated critical habitat.
Further, some Federal agencies may have conferenced with us on proposed
critical habitat. We may adopt the formal conference report as the
biological opinion when critical habitat is designated, if no
significant new information or changes in the action alter the content
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the piping plover or
its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on
private, State or Tribal lands requiring a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, or some other Federal action, including funding (e.g from the
Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, or
Federal Emergency Management Agency) will also continue to be subject
to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands
that are not federally funded or permitted do not require section 7
consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly in any
proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those
activities involving a Federal action 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. We
note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence
of the species.
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, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species
concerned when the area of the proposed action is occupied by the
species. In those cases, it is highly unlikely that additional
modifications to the action would be required as a result of
designating critical habitat. However, critical habitat may provide
benefits toward recovery when designated in areas unoccupied by the
species.
Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency
activities. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities that
may affect the species to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of the species. These actions include, but are
not limited to: (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; (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; (8) oil and other hazardous material spills and cleanup; and
(9) stormwater and wastewater discharge from communities. Additionally,
public access may be temporarily or seasonally restricted on beaches
under Federal ownership or jurisdiction to reduce disturbance so that
piping plovers in search of suitable nesting sites could utilize them.
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.
This section serves in part as a general guide to clarify
activities that may affect or destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. However, specific Federal actions should be reviewed by the
action agency. If the agency determines the activity may affect
critical habitat, they will consult with us under section 7 of the Act.
We will work with the agencies and affected public early in the
consultation process to avoid or minimize potential conflicts and,
whenever possible, find a solution that protects listed species and
their habitat while allowing the action to go forward in a manner
consistent with its intended purpose.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude areas from
critical habitat designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in
the extinction of the species. For the following reasons, we believe
that in most instances the benefits of excluding areas covered by
approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) from critical habitat
designations will outweigh the benefits of including them.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

The benefits of including HCP lands in critical habitat are
normally small. The principal benefit of any designated critical
habitat is that Federal activities in such habitat that may affect it
require consultation under section 7 of the Act. Such consultation
would ensure that adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat. Where HCPs are in place, our
experience indicates that this benefit is small or non-existent.
Currently approved and permitted HCPs are already designed to ensure
the long-term survival of covered species within the plan area. Where
we have an approved HCP, lands that we ordinarily would define as
critical habitat for the covered species will normally be protected in
reserves and other conservation lands by the terms of the HCP and its
implementation agreements. The HCP and implementation agreements
include management measures and protections for conservation lands that
are crafted to protect, restore, and enhance their value as habitat for
covered species.
In addition, a 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued by us as a result of an
HCP application must itself undergo

[[Page 22950]]

consultation. While this consultation may not look specifically at the
issue of adverse modification of critical habitat, it will look at the
very similar concept of jeopardy to the listed species in the plan
area. Since HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs, address land use
within the plan boundaries, habitat issues within the plan boundaries
will have been thoroughly addressed in the HCP and the consultation on
the HCP. Our experience is also that, under most circumstances,
consultations under the jeopardy standard will reach the same result as
consultations under the adverse modification standard. Implementing
regulations (50 CFR Part 402) define ``jeopardize the continued
existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification of'' in
virtually identical terms. Jeopardize the continued existence of means
to engage in an action ``that reasonably would be expected to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a
listed species.'' Destruction or adverse modification means an
``alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' Common to
both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on both survival
and recovery of a listed species, in the case of critical habitat by
reducing the value of the habitat so designated. Thus, actions
satisfying the standard for adverse modification are nearly always
found to also jeopardize the species concerned, and the existence of a
critical habitat designation does not materially affect the outcome of
consultation. Additional measures to protect the habitat from adverse
modification are not likely to be required.
Further, HCPs typically provide for greater conservation benefits
to a covered species than section 7 consultations because HCPs assure
the long term protection and management of a covered species and its
habitat, and funding for such management through the standards found in
the 5-Point Policy for HCPs (64 FR 35242) and the HCP No Surprises
regulation (63 FR 8859). Such assurances are typically not provided by
section 7 consultations which, in contrast to HCPs, often do not commit
the project proponent to long term special management or protections.
Thus, a consultation typically does not accord the lands it covers the
extensive benefits an HCP provides.
The development and implementation of HCPs provide other important
conservation benefits, including the development of biological
information to guide conservation efforts and assist in species
recovery and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species
while allowing for development. The educational benefits of critical
habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important for
the long-term survival and conservation of the species, are essentially
the same as those that would occur from the public notice and comment
procedures required to establish an HCP, as well as the public
participation that occurs in the development of many regional HCPs. For
these reasons, then, we believe that designation of critical habitat
has little benefit in areas covered by HCPs.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

The benefits of excluding HCPs from being designated as critical
habitat may be more significant. During two public comment periods on
our critical habitat policy, we received several comments about the
additional regulatory and economic burden of designating critical
habitat. These include the need for additional consultation with the
Service and the need for additional surveys and information gathering
to complete these consultations. HCP applicants have also stated that
they are concerned that third parties may challenge HCPs on the basis
that they result in adverse modification or destruction of critical
habitat, should critical habitat be designated within the HCP
boundaries.
The benefits of excluding HCPs include relieving landowners,
communities and counties of any additional minor regulatory review that
might be imposed by critical habitat. Many HCPs, particularly large
regional HCPs, take many years to develop and, upon completion, become
regional conservation plans that are consistent with the recovery of
covered species. Many of these regional plans benefit many species,
both listed and unlisted. Imposing an additional regulatory review
after HCP completion may jeopardize conservation efforts and
partnerships in many areas and could be viewed as a disincentive to
those developing HCPs. Excluding HCPs provides us with an opportunity
to streamline regulatory compliance and confirms regulatory assurances
for HCP participants.
A related benefit of excluding HCPs is that it would encourage the
continued development of partnerships with HCP participants, including
States, local governments, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, that together can implement conservation actions we would
be unable to accomplish alone. By excluding areas covered by HCPs from
critical habitat designation, we preserve these partnerships, and, we
believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in the
future.
In general, we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation
to be small in areas covered by approved HCPs. We also believe that the
benefits of excluding HCPs from designation are significant. Weighing
the small benefits of inclusion against the benefits of exclusion,
including the benefits of relieving property owners of an additional
layer of approvals and regulation, together with the encouragement of
conservation partnerships, would generally result in HCPs being
excluded from critical habitat designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Not all HCPs are alike with regard to species coverage and design.
Within this general analytical framework, we need to individually
evaluate completed and legally operative HCPs in the range of the Great
Lakes breeding population of the piping plover to determine whether the
benefits of excluding these particular areas outweigh the benefits of
including them.
Presently, one approved HCP exists for the piping plover in the
Great Lakes region. The Magic Carpet Woods Association HCP covers
approximately 792 meters (2,600 feet) of shoreline within the proposed
Cathead Bay critical habitat unit in Leelanau County, Michigan. This
plan addresses the piping plover as a covered species and provides
conservation management and protection for the species. We evaluated
this plan and determined that the conservation management measures and
protection afforded the piping plover are sufficient to assure its
conservation on the involved lands. Consequently, we have determined
that the benefits of excluding this area outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, and have excluded the area covered by the HCP from the fixed
critical habitat designation.
In the event that future HCPs covering the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover are developed within the boundaries of
designated critical habitat, we will work with applicants to ensure
that the HCPs provide for protection and management of habitat areas
essential for the conservation of the piping plover by either directing
development and habitat modification to nonessential areas or
appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent
elements. 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

[[Page 22951]]

us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of such lands to
the long term survival of the species.
We will provide technical assistance and work closely with
applicants throughout the development of future HCPs to identify lands
essential for the long-term conservation of the piping plover and
appropriate management for those lands. The take minimization and
mitigation measures provided under these HCPs are expected to protect
the essential habitat lands designated as critical habitat in this
rule. If an HCP that addresses the piping plover as a covered species
is ultimately approved, the Service will reassess the critical habitat
boundaries in light of the HCP. The Service will seek to undertake this
review when the HCP is approved, but funding constraints may influence
the timing of such a review.
Should additional information become available that changes our
analysis of the benefits of excluding any of these (or other) areas
compared to the benefits of including them in the critical habitat
designation, we may revise this final designation accordingly.
Similarly, if new information indicates any of these areas should
not be included in the critical habitat designation because they no
longer meet the definition of critical habitat, we may revise this
final critical habitat designation. If, consistent with available
funding and program priorities, we elect to revise this designation, we
will do so through a subsequent rulemaking.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, or requests for
copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and inquiries about
prohibitions and permits contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see addresses section).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the July 6, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR 41812), we requested all
interested parties to submit comments on the specifics of the proposal
including information, policy, treatments of HCPs, and proposed
critical habitat boundaries as provided in the proposed rule. The first
comment period closed on September 5, 2000. The comment period was
reopened for 30 days, from September 19 to October 20, 2000 (65 FR
56530), to allow for additional comments on the proposed rule and
comments on the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical
habitat. Since our intention was to reopen the comment period for 60
days, we published a correction on September 28, 2000 (65 FR 58258),
correcting the closing date of the reopened comment period to November
20, 2000. Comments received from July 6 to November 20, 2000, were
entered into the administrative record.
We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes,
County governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comments
through the publication of notices in newspapers in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New
York. In these notices and the proposed rule, we announced the dates
and times of seven public hearings to be held on the proposed rule.
Their dates and locations are specified above in the section ``Previous
Federal Actions''. Transcripts of these hearings are available for
inspection (see addresses section). We posted copies of the proposed
rule and draft economic analysis on our internet site (http://
midwest.fws.gov/).
We requested three ornithologists and conservation biologists, who
have familiarity with the piping plover and its habitat requirements,
to peer review the proposed critical habitat designation. All three
responded by the close of the comment period. They provided valuable
information about the biology, status, and historical range of the
species, and suggested removing some areas from the critical habitat
designation that no longer meet the criteria of piping plover critical
habitat and provided data on other areas that may deserve critical
habitat designation at a later date. These comments are addressed in
this section, and relevant data provided by the reviewers have been
incorporated throughout the rule.
We received a total of 140 written and 36 oral comments during the
2 public comment periods. Several people submitted comments more than
once. In total, oral and written comments were received from 7 Federal
agencies, 14 State agencies, 5 Tribal representatives, 3 elected
officials, 10 local governments, 31 private organizations, and 97
private individuals. Comments were received from residents in 13
States, with Michigan sources submitting the most of any one State. All
comments received were reviewed for substantive issues and new data
regarding critical habitat and the biology and status of the Great
Lakes breeding population of the piping plover, and economic
information. We address all relevant comments received during the
comment periods and public hearing testimonies in the following summary
of issues. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into a single
issue. Comments that we incorporated into this final rule are discussed
in the ``Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule'' section of this
document.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

The following comments and responses involve issues related to the
biological basis for the designation.
(1A) Comment: The broad scale of the proposed critical habitat
includes areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements for
the Great Lakes piping plover.
Response: We recognize that not all parcels of land within
designated critical habitat units will contain the habitat components
essential to piping plover conservation. We are required to designate
critical habitat based on the best available information and to
describe critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(c)) with specific limits using
reference points and specific definable boundaries. In preparation of
the final determination, we used information gathered during the public
comment period to more accurately define the written critical habitat
boundaries. Despite our efforts to exclude areas that do not contain
the primary constituent elements for the piping plover from critical
habitat unit boundaries, it is not practicable to develop unit
boundaries and provide maps and legal descriptions that exclude all
developed areas such as towns, housing developments, or other developed
lands unlikely to provide for the piping plover. Because of the time
constraints imposed by the Court, and the absence of detailed
Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage we defined the critical
habitat unit boundaries as specifically as practicable but, due to the
mapping scale, some areas not essential to the conservation of the
piping plover were included within the boundaries of proposed critical
habitat. However, developed areas such as buildings, marinas, paved
areas, boat ramps, piers, bridges, lighthouses, and similar human-made
structures are not being designated as critical habitat.
(1B) Comment: Designating critical habitat for the piping plover
will result in such high public animosity that the designation will
cause more harm to the species than benefit.
Response: Public support is a vital asset in the protection of
endangered species and their habitat, but, by law we must designate
essential areas as critical habitat even if it will cause public
backlash due to misconceptions about its impacts. In an effort to clear
up misunderstandings about critical habitat and to increase public
support for piping plovers, we are increasing our education and
outreach programs.

[[Page 22952]]

(1C) Comment: One person commented that there is a lack of data to
support the proposed measures and no data to support that designating
critical habitat will result in an increased piping plover population.
Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate
as critical habitat, we are basing this critical habitat determination
on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of
designation. The designation indicates the areas that we believe are
essential to the conservation of the species. Designation of critical
habitat is only one tool to use towards the recovery of the piping
plover, and we will continue to work with other Federal agencies, State
and local agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, local landowners,
and the public to eliminate and reduce the range of threats that
endanger this species.
(1D) Comment: Inland lakes are mentioned in the 1988 Recovery Plan
as potential breeding habitat around the Great Lakes. Were smaller,
inland lakes considered for designation?
Response: Inland lake records of piping plovers in the Great Lakes
are very few and from long ago. Cottrille (1957) cites four records of
piping plovers at three inland locations in Michigan between 1938 and
1954, but no such sightings have been made in recent years.
Additionally, there are no inland lakes in the Great Lakes area that
are presently known to contain the primary constituent elements for
this population of piping plovers.
(1E) Comment: There is no mention of migratory sites or habitat
needs during migration.
Response: Areas used by piping plovers on migratory routes are
likely very important for survival to the next breeding season.
Extraordinarily little is known, however, about important stop-over
sites and habitat needs of the piping plover during migration. Because
so little is known about where essential migratory stop-over sites are
located, we did not designate migratory habitat in this rule. Important
migratory sites may be added to the critical habitat designation (by
following the complete proposal process and soliciting public comments)
when we have a better understanding of migratory habitat requirements.
(1F) Comment: Why is unoccupied habitat being designated as
critical habitat?
Response: The inclusion of unoccupied areas in this critical
habitat designation is in accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Act,
which provides that areas outside the geographic area currently
occupied by the species may meet the definition of critical habitat
upon a determination that they are essential for the conservation of
the species. Our regulations also provide for the designation of areas
outside the geographical area currently occupied if we find that a
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(e)).
In 2000, there were about 30 breeding pairs of piping plovers in
the Great Lakes area, all of which occur in Michigan (Stucker et al.
2000). The Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery
Plan (USFWS 1988b) establishes a recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs in
the Great Lakes watershed. This number is considered a minimum for the
recovery of the species and eventual removal from the protections of
Act. Of these 150 breeding pairs, at least 100 are to be in Michigan
and at least 50 in other Great Lakes States. In order to achieve this
recovery goal, additional habitat areas are needed beyond those
currently occupied by the species. We have designated currently
unoccupied areas as critical habitat on the basis of historical piping
plover occurrences and the existence of most or all of the primary
constituent elements at other sites lacking historical occurrences.
Additionally, all of the currently unoccupied areas designated as
critical habitat are included as essential habitat in the draft revised
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994).

Issue 2: Policy and Regulations

The following comments and responses involve issues related to
public involvement in the designation process and compliance with the
Act and other laws, regulations, and policies.
(2A) Comment: Several commenters were supportive of the policy that
lands covered by approved HCPs that provide incidental take
authorization for the piping plover should be excluded from critical
habitat. Other commenters believe that critical habitat designation
should occur within the boundaries of such HCPs.
Response: We recognize that critical habitat is only one of many
conservation tools for federally listed species. HCPs are one of the
most important tools for reconciling land use with the conservation of
listed species on non-Federal lands. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows
us to exclude areas from critical habitat designation where the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, provided
the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. We
believe that in most instances the benefits of excluding HCPs from
critical habitat designations will outweigh the benefits of including
them. For this designation, we find that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation for the one legally operative HCP
issued for the piping plover in the Great Lakes.
We anticipate that future HCPs in the range of the Great Lakes
breeding population of piping plovers will include it as a covered
species and provide for its long term conservation. We expect that HCPs
undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g. counties, cities) and other
parties will identify, protect, and provide appropriate management for
those specific lands within the boundaries of the plans that are
essential for the long term conservation of the species. Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act sates that HCPs must meet issuance criteria,
including minimizing and mitigating any take of the listed species
covered by the permit to the extent practicable, and that the taking
must not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery
of the species in the wild. We fully expect that our future analyses of
HCPs and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits under section 7 will show that
covered activities carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
HCP and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits will not result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for the piping
plover.
In the event that future HCPs covering the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover are developed within the boundaries of
designated critical habitat, we will work with applicants to ensure
that the HCPs provide for protection and management of habitat areas
essential for the conservation of the piping plover by either directing
development and habitat modification to nonessential areas or
appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent
elements. 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. We will provide technical
assistance and work closely with applicants throughout the development
of future HCPs to identify lands essential for the long term
conservation of the species and appropriate management of those lands.
If the piping plover is a covered species under future HCPs, the plans
should provide for the long term conservation

[[Page 22953]]

of the species. The take minimization and mitigation measures provided
under these HCPs are expected to adequately protect the essential
habitat lands designated as critical habitat in this rule, such that
the value of these lands for the survival and recovery of the Great
Lakes breeding population of the piping plover is not appreciably
diminished through direct or indirect alterations. If an HCP that
addresses the piping plover as a covered species is ultimately
approved, the Service will reassess the relevant critical habitat
boundaries in light of the protection and management provided by the
HCP. The Service will seek to undertake this review when the HCP is
approved, but funding constraints may influence the timing of such a
review. However, an HCP can proceed without a concurrent amendment to
the critical habitat designation should all involved parties agree.
(2B) Comment: Specific lands should be excluded using the exemption
afforded pursuant to 4(b)(2) of the Act. The biological benefits of
critical habitat are outweighed by the benefits of exclusion.
Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 require us
to consider the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude any
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical
habitat, unless that exclusion will lead to extinction of the species.
As discussed in this final rule, we have determined that no significant
adverse economic effects will result from this critical habitat
designation. Consequently, none of the proposed lands have been
excluded from the designation based on economic impacts. As discussed
in the response to the comment above, we have excluded the one legally
operative HCP from the designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act based on other relevant impacts.
(2C) Comment: We received three written requests to extend the
comment period for the proposed designation and draft economic
analysis.
Our Response: Following the publication of the proposed critical
habitat designation on July 6, 2000, we opened a 60 day public comment
period which closed on September 5, 2000, held seven public hearings
during July, and conducted outreach notifying elected officials, local
jurisdictions, interest groups, and property owners. We conducted much
of this outreach through legal notices in regional newspapers,
telephone calls, letters and news releases mailed to affected elected
officials, local jurisdictions, and interest groups, and publication of
the proposed determination and associated materials on our internet
site. We published a document in the Federal Register on September 19,
2000, announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and
reopening the comment period until October 19, 2000. On September 28,
2000, in order to fulfill our intention that the comment period be
reopened for 60 days, we published a document correcting the closing
date of the comment period, to November 20, 2000. Because of the court-
ordered ten month time frame for completing the designation, we were
not able to extend or open an additional public comment period beyond
the four and one-half months we provided.
(2D) Comment: We received two requests to hold additional public
hearings on the proposed designation.
Our Response: We are required to hold one public hearing on a
proposed action, if it is requested. Due to the short time between
proposal and the court-ordered deadline for publication of the final
rule, we chose to announce public hearings at the time the proposal was
published. We published notification of the hearings in the Federal
Register as part of the proposal, published legal notices in regional
newspapers, posted information on our internet site, and issued news
releases about the hearings. During the month of July, 2000, we held
seven public hearings throughout the Great Lakes States affected by the
proposed critical habitat designation. Additional public hearings were
requested in locations near one of the seven hearings. Because of the
court-ordered deadline and the broad coverage of the original public
hearings, we chose not to hold additional public hearings.
(2E) Comment: One commenter suggested that we post the hearing
transcripts and all of the comments received during the public comment
period on the internet.
Response: We have not posted copies of hearing transcripts and the
comments received on a proposed action on the internet in the past. The
volume of public comments received on some proposals is very large,
thus it is not practicable to post them on the internet at this time.
The hearing transcripts and comments on the proposal to designate
critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover are available during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service offices at: Bishop Henry Whipple Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111; and 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite
101, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. Call our Ecological Services office
in Fort Snelling at 612-713-5350 for more information on how to view
the transcripts and comments.
(2F) Comment: Alternatives to designating critical habitat were not
considered.
Response: By law, according to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we are
required to designate critical habitat ``to the maximum extent
prudent'' for all listed species. Furthermore, in the case of the
piping plover, we were ordered by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia to designate critical habitat for the Great
Lakes breeding population of this species. Other conservation actions
are important to the recovery of the piping plover and will be carried
out as part of the recovery process, but they are not legal
alternatives to designating critical habitat.
(2G) Comment: A few commenters recommended that we postpone issuing
a final determination until a more specific and defensible critical
habitat proposal can be written and an accurate and quantitative
economic analysis be conducted.
Response: We are required to use the best available information in
designating critical habitat. We are under a court order to complete
the designation of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover by April 30, 2001. We did solicit new
biological data and public participation during the comment periods on
the proposed rule and draft economic analysis. These comments have been
taken into consideration in the development of the final economic
analysis and this final determination. Furthermore, we will continue to
monitor and collect new information and may revise the critical habitat
designation in the future if new information indicates a change is
needed, given our available funding and priorities.
(2H) Comment: The maps presented in the proposed rule are difficult
to interpret and therefore will be difficult to use in planning
efforts.
Response: The maps published in the Federal Register are provided
for reference purposes to guide Federal agencies and other interested
parties in identifying the general boundaries within which the critical
habitat is located. While the verbal descriptions of each critical
habitat unit are meant to provide a more precise reference for actual
boundaries, we recognize the value to the public and resource managers
of more detailed maps. Due to

[[Page 22954]]

the time constraints of the court ordered deadline and our limited
Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities, we have not been able
to produce more detailed maps to match our verbal descriptions. We have
made it a priority to complete more detailed GIS maps of the designated
areas and make these maps available for public use.

Issue 3: Economic and Other Relevant Impacts

(3A) Comment: Designation of critical habitat will cause private
property values to decline and will negatively affect businesses.
Response: The economic analysis indicates that designation of
critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population on the piping
plover will not have a significant economic impact. The economic
analysis does acknowledge that the designation of critical habitat may
have some effect on private property values. We believe that this
short-term effect would occur from market uncertainty and public
misperception of the impacts of the critical habitat designation on
private land use. We also believe that this short-term effect on
property values would diminish over time as the uncertainty and
misperceptions are dispelled. We did not find supporting evidence
during the preparation of the economic analysis to estimate or document
this potential short-term effect on property values. The economic
analysis determined that there will be an insignificant impact to
businesses.
(3B) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about a quick
response to emergency maintenance activities, specifically emergency
erosion control and environmental clean-up, and questioned whether
emergency activities are exempt from consultation under section 7 of
the Act.
Response: Emergency activities are not exempt from consultation
under section 7 of the Act. However, the regulations at 50 CFR 402.05
allow for informal consultation where emergency circumstances mandate
the need to consult in an expedited manner. Formal consultation must be
initiated as soon as possible after the emergency is under control. In
addition, programmatic consultations can be conducted prior to an
emergency to address response activities which can be reasonably
anticipated.
(3C) Comment: Some commenters voiced concern that they were not
directly contacted for their opinions on the economic impacts of
critical habitat designations or why their specific land parcels were
not addressed.
Response: We did not feel it was necessary to contact every
potential stakeholder in order for us to develop a draft economic
analysis. Especially in light of the limited resources and time
available to us, we believe that we were adequately able to understand
the issues of concern to local communities based on public comments
submitted on the proposed rule, on transcripts from public hearings,
and from detailed discussions among our staff and with representatives
from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, as
well as some landowners. When the draft economic analysis was
completed, we reopened the comment period to request public comment, in
particular on the adequacy of the economic analysis.
(3D) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the impact
critical habitat will have on future development projects and the
maintenance of existing structures.
Response: The designation of critical habitat does not necessarily
restrict further development. Within critical habitat boundaries,
Federal agencies must make special efforts to protect the important
characteristics of these areas, therefore, if a proposed development
project with a Federal nexus were to affect critical habitat of the
piping plover, consultation under section 7 of the Act would be
required. Because the Great Lakes population of the piping plover is
listed as an endangered species under the Act, section 7 consultations
would be required for development projects in areas with piping
plovers, even if these areas are not designated critical habitat.
Existing human-made structures, such as buildings, parking lots,
and boat ramps are not critical habitat, therefore, many maintenance
projects on such structures will not affect critical habitat. Only
those projects with a Federal nexus that modify the primary constituent
elements to such a degree as to cause the habitat to be unsuitable for
breeding piping plovers will be affected.
We understand the importance of beach nourishment and dredging for
maintaining beach areas and harbors in the Great Lakes. Additionally,
these activities, if conducted in an appropriate manner, may be
beneficial to nesting piping plovers. These activities, however, do
alter the habitat, and thus will likely require consultation. For these
types of ongoing activities, programmatic consultations can be
conducted to reduce the time necessary for annual consultations.
In those cases where consultation is required, we will work
cooperatively with Federal agencies to see that necessary work can
proceed in concert with the requirements of the Act to conserve the
piping plover and its habitat. In cases where critical habitat has been
designated for areas occupied by the piping plover, consultations would
likely have been required, regardless of the designation of critical
habitat.
(3E) Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern about the
impact on recreational activities, tourism, and the possibility of
restricted beach access within designated critical habitat.
Response: Most recreational activities on the majority of beaches
within critical habitat will not be impacted by critical habitat
designation. Since non-Federal activities are not affected by critical
habitat designation, beach use would only be affected if a Federal
agency funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that will result in
a level of human use that precludes successful piping plover breeding.
In those cases, we will work with the Federal agency involved to
protect potential breeding habitat while having as minimal an effect as
possible on people's enjoyment of the areas. On non-Federal lands,
recreational beach activities such as walking, jogging, sunning,
swimming, and picnicking will not be affected by the critical habitat
designation.
The recovery of piping plovers in the Great Lakes area can be
consistent with recreational and other economic activities. According
to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation, wildlife observation is one of the fastest
growing outdoor activities. The presence of piping plovers on
Michigan's beaches should continue to attract bird watchers who are
excited to view this rare species in its natural habitat.

Issue 4: Site Specific Issues

The following comments and responses involve issues related to the
inclusion or exclusion of specific areas, or our methods for selecting
appropriate areas for designation as critical habitat.
(4A) Comment: Several comments pointed out errors in mileages,
locations, or descriptions of critical habitat units in the proposed
rule.
Response: Corrections have been made in the final rule to reflect
these comments, where appropriate.
(4B) Comment: A number of commenters identified specific areas that
they thought should not be designated as critical habitat.
Response: Where site specific documentation was submitted to us
providing a rationale as to why an area

[[Page 22955]]

should not be designated as critical habitat, we evaluated that
information in accordance with the definition of critical habitat
pursuant to section 3 of the Act and made a determination as to whether
modifications to the proposal were appropriate. Based on the comments
we received, we excluded lands from the final designation that we
determined to be nonessential to the conservation of the piping plover
(i.e., areas that did not contain the primary constituent elements) or
that were located within an approved HCP for the piping plover (refer
to the ``Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule'' section for specific
areas that were excluded). None of the proposed lands have been
excluded from the final designation based on economic impacts. We
included in the final designation those lands that we still consider
essential to the recovery of the Great Lakes breeding population of
piping plovers.
(4C) Comment: Multiple commenters recommended adding specific lands
to critical habitat or further investigating additional areas for
suitable habitat.
Response: During the Federal rule-making process for designating
critical habitat, we may, based upon information received during the
public comment period, remove proposed critical habitat lands from a
final designation and refine proposed boundaries. However, according to
section 4(b)(4) of the Act, we may not add new critical habitat units
without first proposing these lands in the Federal Register and
providing a public comment period. Therefore, potential critical
habitat units that were not included in the proposal for the Great
Lakes population of the piping plover are not designated as critical
habitat in this final determination.
Some of the lands recommended for addition to critical habitat were
not included in the proposal because we earlier concluded that these
lands were not essential for the conservation of the species or did not
meet the definition of piping plover critical habitat. After
reassessing the requested additional lands on South Fox Island in
Michigan, we continue to believe that these lands, at this time, do not
meet the definition of critical habitat because they do not contain the
primary constituent elements required by piping plovers.
Several of the other requested sites were excluded from the
proposed designation because information on current habitat suitability
was not available. These sites will require further investigation to
determine whether they are essential to the conservation of the
species. Data gathered following the publication of the proposed rule
indicates that some of the requested lands contain suitable nesting
habitat and may be essential to the conservation of the species. For
example, we received a comment from the National Park Service
requesting that a portion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on
South Manitou Island, Michigan be included in the designation because
it is an important piping plover foraging area. We will continue to
investigate potential piping plover critical habitat and may revise the
critical habitat designation in the future if new information supports
a change, and as available funding and other priorities allow. The data
on additional sites that were provided to us during the comment period
will be important in any future revisions to designated critical
habitat.

Issue 5: Other Relevant Issues

(5A) Comment: Two people commented that we should also designate
critical habitat for piping plovers that breed along the north Atlantic
coast.
Response: We are currently required to complete a significant
number of listing-related actions, pursuant to court orders and
judicially approved settlement agreements. Complying with these court
orders and settlement agreements will require the Service to spend
nearly all of its listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year
2001, and a substantial amount in fiscal year 2002. We are currently
working to prioritize our critical habitat workload within the ESA
listing budget allocated by Congress. The priority for designating
critical habitat for the Atlantic Coast breeding population of piping
plovers relative to other species and pending litigation has not yet
been determined.
(5B) Comment: Piping plovers that nest at Lake of the Woods,
Minnesota represent an important genetic link between the Great Lakes
and Great Plains populations. Piping plovers at Lake of the Woods
should be considered part of the endangered Great Lakes breeding
population instead of part of the threatened Great Plains breeding
population.
Response: We agree that the piping plovers that nest at Lake of the
Woods, Minnesota represent an important link between the Great Lakes
and Great Plains populations. Piping plovers that nest at Lake of the
Woods are considered part of the Great Plains population because
current data suggested that they are more closely associated with
plovers in nearby Manitoba, Canada (Haig and Oring, 1988). Proposed
critical habitat for piping plovers at Lake of the Woods will be
considered in the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Great
Plains piping plover, to be published on or before May 31, 2001.
(5C) Comment: Many commenters suggested additional protection for
piping plovers, beyond the designation of critical habitat.
Response: Other conservation actions, besides the designation of
critical habitat, are crucial to the recovery and survival of the
piping plover. These other actions, including public education,
predator control, law enforcement, and monitoring are addressed in the
1988 and 1994 Recovery Plans for Piping Plovers Breeding in the Great
Lakes and Northern Great Plains. We are currently revising these
recovery plans and the public will be provided the opportunity to
comment on the draft revised plan.
(5D) Comment: One commenter stated that the effect of critical
habitat should include situations that are not funded, authorized, or
carried out by a Federal agency.
Response: Once designated, critical habitat has only one regulatory
impact: under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, Federal agencies must, in
consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. By law, the effect of
critical habitat does not extend to situations that do not involve a
Federal nexus.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

Based on a review of public comments received on the proposed
determination of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover, we re-evaluated our proposed
designation of critical habitat for the piping plover. This re-
evaluation resulted in the following changes that are reflected in this
final determination.

Removal of Proposed Units

Based on comments received on the proposal and site visits
following the publication of the proposal, we removed three sites--
Pensaukee Harbor and Peshtigo Point, Wisconsin and Erie Pier/Hearding
Island, Minnesota-- from this final critical habitat designation. We
determined that these sites do not have, and are unlikely to develop,
the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to sustain
the species and thus we no longer consider these areas to be essential
for the conservation of the species.

[[Page 22956]]

Change in Extent of Inland Boundary

The proposed 1 km (0.6 mi.) inland boundary was intended to
incorporate dune blow-out areas and extensive dune-wetland systems.
These inland areas provide important foraging habitat, as well as
cobble pans between the dunes where plovers occasionally nest. Data
gathered during the public comment period indicate that the majority of
the dune systems within designated critical habitat do not extend
further than 500 m (1,640 ft) inland from the normal high water line.
Therefore, in this final determination, the inland boundary for all
critical habitat units was changed from the proposed 1 km (0.6 mi) to
500 m (1,640 ft) inland from normal high water line.

Errors in Unit Descriptions

Several comments pointed out corrections or clarifications to unit
descriptions. We applied this corrected information to the final rule
and adjusted the verbal descriptions of 10 units; White Fish Point to
Grand Marais (MI-1), Seven Mile Point to Thornswift Nature Preserve
(MI-5), Petoskey Sate Park (MI-6), Greenes Bay-Beaver Island (MI-10),
High Island (MI-11), South Fox Island (MI-13), Esch Road to Sutter Road
and Point Betsie (MI-16), Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point (MI-20),
Thompson's Harbor (MI-22), and Illinois Beach State Park/Waukegan Beach
(IL-1). None of the changes resulted in any significant alteration of
the units.

Refined Unit Boundaries

The boundaries of several of the units were refined to better
reflect the areas that are essential to the conservation of the Great
Lakes breeding population of the piping plover. The southeastern
boundary of the unit at Long Island-Chequamegon Point, Wisconsin (WI-2)
was moved northwestward approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) to the base of
Chequamegon Point at the southern boundary of T48N R3W, section 1. This
change was the result of discussions with the Bad River Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. The revised boundary excludes areas that do not have the
required habitat features for nesting piping plovers and, therefore,
are not essential to the conservation of the species. Additionally, the
description of this unit given in the proposal, although inclusive of
the entire peninsula, only calculated the length of the peninsula, not
the perimeter shoreline of the peninsula. The calculation of the length
of this unit as presented in this final determination includes the
entire perimeter of the peninsula, and therefore appears to be larger,
when in actuality it has been reduced by approximately 5 km (3.1 mi).
The proposal states that the unit was 18 km (11.2 mi) long when,
consistent with the verbal description and calculating both sides of
the peninsula, it was actually 30.3 km (18.8 mi) long. Therefore, this
unit is being reduced from 30.3 km (18.8 mi) to 25.3 km (15.7 mi) in
this final determination.
The western boundary of the Indiana Dunes (IN-1) unit was moved
approximately 549 meters (1,800 feet) eastward to the western boundary
of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. This revised boundary excludes
lands owned by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)
that do not have the required habitat features for nesting piping
plovers and, therefore, are not essential to the conservation of the
species.
The southeastern boundary of the Pennsylvania unit (PA-1) at Gull
Point Natural Area/Presque Isle State Park was moved approximately 2.3
km (1.4 mi) north. The refined boundary excludes the public beach area
that does not have the required habitat features for nesting piping
plovers and, therefore, is not essential to the conservation of the
species. Additionally, the length of this unit was miscalculated in the
proposed rule. The proposal states that the unit was 1.5 km (0.9 mi)
long when, consistent with the verbal description, it was actually 8.3
km (5.1 mi) long. Therefore, this unit is being reduced from 8.3 km
(5.1 mi) to 6.0 km (3.7 mi) in this final determination.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

In our proposed determination of critical habitat for the Great
Lakes population of the piping plover, we asked for public comment on
the appropriate relationship between approved HCPs and designated
critical habitat. After considering the comments we received, we have
chosen to evaluate areas covered by an approved HCP for the piping
plover for exclusion under the benefits-balancing test found in section
4(b)(2) of the Act. This section allows us to exclude areas upon
determination that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the are in the critical habitat designation,
provided the exclusion would not result in the extinction of the
species. Our application of this balancing test to lands covered by
HCPs for the piping plover is described in detail in the preamble.
Presently, one approved HCP exists for the piping plover in the
Great Lakes region. The Magic Carpet Woods Association HCP covers
approximately 792 m (2,600 ft) of shoreline within the proposed Cathead
Bay critical habitat unit in Leelanau County, Michigan. This plan
addresses the piping plover as a covered species and provides
conservation management and protection for the species. We evaluated
this plan and determined that the conservation management measures and
protection afforded to the piping plover are sufficient to assure its
conservation on the involved lands. Among other features, the plan
requires residences be set back from the beach, biological monitoring,
the presence of a piping plover steward, containing garbage, and
restraining pets. Therefore, we have excluded the lands covered by the
Magic Carpet Woods Association HCP from the final determination of
critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. 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. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
The economic analysis must examine the incremental economic effects
of the critical habitat designation above those effects of the listing.
Economic effects are measured as changes in national income, regional
jobs, and household income. A draft analysis of the economic effects of
the critical habitat designation for the Great Lakes breeding
population of the piping plover was prepared (Industrial Economics,
Incorporated, 2000) and made available for public review (September 19
to November 20, 2000; 65 FR 56530 and 65 FR 58258). We also completed a
final economic analysis that incorporated public comments, information
gathered since the draft analysis, and changes to the critical habitat
designation. The analysis found that there would be an economic impact
from the designation that would vary on a situational level, and that
most of the impact would come in the form of new section 7
consultations in unoccupied habitat

[[Page 22957]]

units. In the economic analysis, we estimate that, over the next ten
years, the total costs by landowners associated with consultation and
technical assistance attributable to this rulemaking will range between
$314,200 and $592,000. Our economic analysis also recognizes that there
may be costs from delays associated with reinitiating previously
completed consultations after the critical habitat designation is made
final. There may also be economic effects due to the reaction of the
real estate market to critical habitat designation, as real estate
values may be lowered due to a perceived increase in the regulatory
burden. However, we believe this impact will be minor and short-term.
We have determined that these economic impacts do not warrant excluding
any areas from the designation.
A copy of the final economic analysis is included in our
administrative record and may be obtained by contacting our office (see
ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

This document has been designated as significant and reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in accordance with Executive
Order 12866. OMB makes the final determination of significance 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 2000, 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 in the Great Lakes watershed. We have also issued one
section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for an entity that has
prepared an HCP involving piping plover habitat.
Approximately 236 km (146 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 89 km
(55 mi) of the total designated critical habitat are currently occupied
by piping plovers. Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely
modified or destroyed by a Federal agency action; it does not impose
any restrictions on non-Federal entities 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.

Table 3.--Activities Potentially Impacted by Piping Plover Listing and Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional activities
Activities potentially affected by species potentially affected by
Categories of activities listing only \1\ critical habitat
designation \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Potentially Direct take and activities such as Activities by Federal
Affected.\3\............................ removing or destroying piping plover agencies in any
breeding habitat, whether by mechanical, unoccupied critical
chemical, or other means (e.g., habitat areas.
construction, road 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-Federal Direct take and activities such as Funding, authorization, or
Activities Potentially Affected.\4\..... removing or destroying piping plover permitting actions by
habitat, whether by mechanical, chemical, Federal Agencies in any
or other means (e.g., construction, road unoccupied critical
building, boat launch and marina habitat areas.
construction or 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.

Based upon our experience with the species and its needs, we
conclude that any Federal action or authorized action that could
potentially cause adverse modification of designated occupied critical
habitat would currently be considered ``jeopardy'' under the Act.
Accordingly, the designation of areas within the geographic range
occupied by the piping plover will not likely 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.
The designation of areas outside the geographic range already occupied
by the species may have incremental impacts on what activities may or
may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that
receive Federal authorization or funding. However, our analysis did not
identify any significant incremental effects. Non-Federal persons that
do not have a Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not
restricted by the designation of critical habitat, although they
continue to be bound by the provisions of the Act concerning ``take''
of the species.
(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

[[Page 22958]]

since the listing in 1985. The prohibition against adverse modification
of critical habitat is not expected to impose any substantial
additional restrictions to those that currently exist. Because of the
potential for impacts on other Federal agency activities, we will
continue to review this 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
significant incremental effects in areas of occupied habitat. The
critical habitat designation may have some additional effects on the
unoccupied areas of proposed critical habitat, but we expect these to
be minor.
(d) OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or
policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review.

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

In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of
critical habitat will not have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities. As discussed under Regulatory Planning and
Review above, this designation of critical habitat for the Great Lakes
breeding population of the piping plover is not expected to have a
significant economic impact. As indicated on Table 1 (see 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 potential concerns 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.
Some of these activities sponsored by Federal agencies within the
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
largely required to comply with the listing protections of the Act, and
the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to have
significant additional effects on these activities in areas of critical
habitat occupied by the species. Designation of critical habitat in
areas that are unoccupied by this species will not likely result in
significant additional effects because only actions involving a Federal
nexus will be affected.
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 final
determination will have no additional restrictions.

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

In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of
critical habitat will not 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. Refer to the final economic analysis for a discussion of
the effects of this determination.

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 to avoid jeopardizing the species.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment
is not required. This determination will not ``take'' private property
and will not alter the long-term value of private property. As
discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only
Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or decrease the
current restrictions on private property concerning take of the piping
plover. Due to current public knowledge of the species protection, the
prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of the
designated areas, and the fact that critical habitat provides no
incremental restrictions, we do not anticipate that property values
will be affected by the critical habitat designation. While real estate
market values may temporarily decline following designation, due to the
perception that critical habitat designation may impose additional
regulatory burdens on land use, we expect any such impacts to be short
term. Additionally, critical habitat designation does not preclude
development of HCPs and issuance of incidental take permits. Landowners
in areas that are included in the designated critical habitat will
continue to have the opportunity to utilize their property in ways
consistent with the conservation of the piping plover.

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

[[Page 22959]]

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 for the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This definition and identification 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. The determination 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 an Environmental Assessment and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as
amended. A notice outlining our reason for this determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
This final determination does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

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
Government'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's requirement at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully 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. We coordinated
with the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in
determining which Tribal lands constitute critical habitat, and have
included that area in the critical habitat designation.

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).

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
record keeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter
B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 first entry for ``Plover, piping''
under ``BIRDS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic Range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Birds

* * * * * * *
Plover, piping................... Charadrius melodus.. U.S.A. Great Lakes Great Lakes E 211 17.95(b) NA
northern Great watershed in
Plains, Atlantic States of IL, IN,
and Gulf coasts, MI, MN, NY, OH,
PR, VI), Canada, PA, and WI and
Mexico, Bahamas, Canada (Ont.)..
West Indies.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Amend Sec. 17.95(b) by adding 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, and Manitowoc Counties,
Wisconsin; Lake County, Illinois; Porter County, Indiana; Erie and Lake
Counties, Ohio; Erie County, Pennsylvania; Oswego and

[[Page 22960]]

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. i. 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 open, sparsely
vegetated sandy habitats, such as sand spits or sand beaches, that are
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. As the
nesting season progresses, the level of disturbance tolerated by piping
plovers increases. A lower level of disturbance is required at the
beginning of the nesting period during nest site selection, egg laying,
and incubation. Beach activities that may be associated with a high
level of disturbance include, but are not limited to, walking pets off
leash, loud noise, driving ATVs, or significantly increased human
presence. The level of disturbance is relative to the proximity to the
nest, intensity, and frequency of these and other similar activities.
ii. Appropriately sized sites must also have areas of at least 50
meters (m) (164 feet (ft)) in length where the beach width is more than
7 m (23 ft), there is protective cover for nests and chicks, and the
distance to the treeline (from the normal high water line to where the
forest begins) is more than 50 m (164 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 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 (0.4
inches (in)) diameter), gravel (stones smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in)
diameter), or debris such as driftwood, wrack, root masses, or dead
shrubs.
iii. The dynamic ecological processes that create and maintain
piping plover habitat are also important primary constituent elements.
These geologically dynamic lakeside regions are controlled by processes
of erosion, accretion, plant succession, and lake-level fluctuations.
The integrity of the habitat components depends upon regular sediment
transport processes, as well as episodic, high-magnitude storm events.
By their nature, Great Lakes shorelines are in a constant state of
change; habitat features may disappear, or be created nearby. The
critical habitat boundaries reflect these natural processes and the
dynamic character of Great Lakes shorelines.
3. Critical habitat does not include existing features and
structures, such as buildings, marinas, paved areas, boat ramps, piers,
bridges, lighthouses, and similar structures not containing one or more
of the primary constituent elements.

Note: Maps follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 22961]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.001

[[Page 22962]]

Map of Units MN/WI-1, WI-1, WI-2, and WI-3

MN/WI-1: St Louis County, Minnesota. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map West Duluth, Minnesota (1953, photorevised 1969).
Lands 500 m (1640 feet) inland from normal high water line on
Interstate Island in T49N R14W S10
WI-1: Douglas County, Wisconsin. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Parkland, Wisconsin (1954, photorevised 1975) and Superior,
Wisconsin (1954, photorevised 1983). Lands 500 meters (1640 feet)
inland from normal high water line from the mouth of Dutchman Creek
west-northwestward along the Lake Superior shoreline to the
breakwall forming the Superior Front Channel opening to Lake
Superior at the Douglas and St. Louis County line.
WI-2: Ashland County, Wisconsin. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Cedar, Wisconsin (1964, photorevised 1975); Chequamegon Point,
Wisconsin (1964, photorevised 1975); and Long Island, Wisconsin
(1964). Lands 500 meters (1640 feet) inland from normal high water
line from the southern boundary of T48N R3W, section 1 northwestward
along the Lake Superior shoreline to Chequamegon Point Light.
WI-3: Ashland County, Wisconsin. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Michigan Island, Wisconsin (1963). Lands 500 meters (1640 feet)
inland from normal high water line on Michigan Island within T51N
R1W sections 28, 20, and 21.

Note: Map follows:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.002

[[Page 22963]]

Map of Units WI-4 and WI-5

WI-4: Marinette County, Wisconsin. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Marinette East, Wisconsin (1963, photorevised 1969). Lands 500 m
(1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the end of Leonard
Street at Red Arrow Park in T30N R24E section 9 south-southeastward
to the south end of Seagull Bar including nearshore sand bars.
WI-5: Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Two Rivers, Wisconsin (1978). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line from the southwest property boundary of Point
Beach State Forest near Neshotah Park in the city of Twin Rivers
(T20N R25E section 31) northwestward along the Lake Michigan
shoreline to the south boundary of section 9, T20N R25E, at Rawley
Point.

Note: Map follows:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.003

[[Page 22964]]

Map of Units IL-1 and IN-1

IL-1: Lake County, Illinois. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps
Zion, Illinois (1993) and Waukegan, Illinois (1993). Lands 500 m
(1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from 17th Street and
the Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois Beach State Park T46N R12E
section 14 (Zion, Ill. quad) southward along the Lake Michigan
shoreline (excluding the portion of Lake Michigan shoreline from
dividing line of T46N R12E sections 23 and 26 to 500 m (1,640 ft)
south of the Illinois Beach State Park Lodge and Conference Center)
to the Waukegan Beach breakwall at North Beach Park T45N R12E
section 22 (Waukegan quad).
IN-1: Porter County, Indiana. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps
Ogden Dunes, Indiana (1991) and Dune Acres, Indiana (1991). Lands
500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the western
boundary of the Cowels Bog/Dune Acres Unit, (located east of the
Port of Indiana and the NIPSCO Baily Generating Station) east-
northeastward along the Indiana Dunes State Park to Kemil Road at
Beverly Shores.

Note: Map follows:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.004

Map of Units MI-1 through MI-23

MI-1: Chippewa, Luce, and Alger Counties, Michigan. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle maps Whitefish Point, Michigan (1951);
Vermilion, Michigan (1951); Betsy Lake North, Michigan (1968);
Muskallonge Lake East, Michigan (1968); Muskallonge Lake West,
Michigan (1968); and Grand Marais, Michigan (1968). Lands 500 m
(1640 ft) inland from normal high water line within the junction of
the southern boundary of T50N R5W section 6 (Whitefish Point quad)
and including the shore of Lake Superior following the shoreline
northeast to Whitefish Point, then following the Lake Superior
shoreline westward around the point(Vermilion SE, Vermilion quads),
crossing the Luce County line and continuing westward (Betsy Lake
North, Betsy Lake Northwest) across the Alger County line (Grand
Marais East) to Lonesome Point and the East Bay of the Sucker River
(Grand Marais quad) and following the shoreline along the inner bay
of Grand Marais Harbor past Carpenter Creek and ending at the
shoreline north of the east end of the private road originating at
the junction of Highway 58, Morris Road, and Veteran Road. The unit
then continues from the breakwall north of the harbor, along the
Lake Superior shoreline of Grand Marais near the former Coast Guard
station (Grand Marais quad) westward along the Lake Superior
shoreline to the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore property boundary
in T49N R14W section 1.
MI-2: Mackinac County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Pointe Aux Chenes, Michigan (1964, photorevised 1975). Lands 500
m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the mouth of the
Pointe Aux Chenes river following the Lake Michigan shoreline
northwestward to the Hiawatha National Forest property boundary at
the junction of T41N R5W sections 23 and 26.
MI-3: Schoolcraft and Mackinac Counties, Michigan. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle map Hughes Point, Michigan (1972). Lands 500 m
(1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the westernmost
breakwall at the Port Inland Gaging Station following the Lake
Michigan shoreline eastward along Hughes Point to the mouth of Swan
Creek.
MI-4: Emmet County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps
Big Stone Bay, Michigan (1964, photoinspected 1975); Waugoshance
Island, Michigan (provisonal 1982); Bliss, Michigan (1982); Cross
Village, Michigan (1982). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal
high water line from the junction of the northeast corner of T39N
R5W section 28 (Big Stone Bay quad) and Lake Michigan shoreline
westward along the shoreline around and including Temperance and
Waugoshance islands and any nearshore sandbars (Waugoshance Island
quad), along the southern side of Waugoshance Point following the
shoreline southeastward to Big Sucker Creek, continuing southward
and southwestward along Sturgeon Bay Point (Bliss quad) and
continuing southward along the Lake Michigan shoreline to the
southwest boundary of T37N R6W section 5.
MI-5: Emmet County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Forest Beach, Michigan. Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal
high water line from the junction of Lake Michigan shoreline and the
northwest boundary of T36N R6W section 30 south-southeastward along
Lake Michigan shoreline to the junction of the shoreline and the
southeast corner of T35N R6W section 9.

[[Page 22965]]

MI-6: Emmet County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Harbor Springs, Michigan. Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal
high water line from the mouth of Tannery Creek north along Lake
Michigan shoreline of Little Traverse Bay crossing the northern
property boundary of Petoskey State Park to include the shoreline of
Mononaqua Beach within T35N R5W sections 22 and 21.
MI-7: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Ironton, Michigan (1983) and Charlevoix, Michigan (1983). Lands
500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line within T34N R8W
section 14.
MI-8: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Charlevoix, Michigan (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line from the junction of the line separating T34N
R8W section 31 and T33N R8W section 6 with the Lake Michigan shore
then extends southwestward along the shoreline and including
Fisherman's Island to the Fisherman's Island State Park property
boundary at the end of Lakeshore Drive where it meets the line
between T33N R9W sections 12 and 1.
MI-9: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Garden Island West, Michigan (1980) and Beaver Island North
(1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line
from Indian Point (Garden Island West quad) T39N R10W section 20
southward along the west Lake Michigan shoreline of Beaver Island
including Donegal Bay and McCauley Point and ending at the junction
of the dividing line of T39 N R10W and T38N R10W and the Lake
Michigan shoreline (Beaver Island North quad).
MI-10: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map Beaver Island North (1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft)
inland from normal high water line from the junction of Lake
Michigan and the northwest corner of T38N R11W section 25 southward
along the Lake Michigan shoreline to the junction of the Lake
Michigan shoreline and the dividing line between T39N and T38N R11W.
MI-11: Charlevoix County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map High Island(1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line within T39N R11W sections 27 and 32 and T38N
R11W section 5.
MI-12: Leelanau County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Northport, Michigan (provisional 1983)and Northport NW,
Michigan (provisional 1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line from the intersection of the Lake Michigan
shoreline and the line between T32N R11W section 12 and T32N R10W
section 7--excluding lands covered by the Magic Carpet Woods
Association HCP, approximately 2,600 feet of frontage on Cathead Bay
within the east half of the southwest quarter and the west half of
the southeast quarter of Section 14, T32N, R11W in Leelanau
Township--then following the shoreline southwestward and past
Cathead Point in T32N R11W section 15 (Northport quad) southwestward
along the Lake Michigan shoreline to the intersection of the
shoreline with the southern boundary of T32N R11W section 16 north
of Christmas Cove (Northport NW quad).
MI-13: Leelanau County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map South Fox Island (provisional 1986). Lands 500 m (1640 ft)
inland from normal high water line within T34N R13W sections 15, 16,
and 21 and T35R13W section 30.
MI-14: Leelanau County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map North Manitou Island (provisional 1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft)
inland from normal high water line within T31N R14W sections 22, 23,
27 and 28 on North Manitou Island.
MI-15: Leelanau County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Glen Arbor, Michigan (1983); Glen Haven, Michigan (1983); and
Empire, Michigan (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal
high water line from Crystal Run in T29N R14W section 14 (Glen Arbor
quad) south-southwestward and westward along the Lake Michigan
shoreline, then west-northwestward to Sleeping Bear Point (Glen
Haven quad) and southwestward and south to the southern Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore property boundary in T28N R15W section
13 (Empire quad).
MI-16: Benzie County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Empire, Michigan (1983); Beulah, Michigan (provisional 1983);
and Frankfort, Michigan (1983). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line from Esch Road in T27N R15W section 1 (Empire
quad) south-southwestward along the shoreline of Lake Michigan at
Platte Bay (Beulah quad), then westward along the shoreline of Lake
Michigan to Platte River Point (Frankfort quad) continuing west-
southwestward to the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore property
boundary at Sutter Road in T27N R16Wsection 26. Continuing from the
junction of Lake Michigan shoreline and Point Betsie Natural Area
property boundary in T27N R16W section 33 southward along the Lake
Michigan shoreline to include all shoreline within T26N16W section
4.
MI-17: Mason County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Manistee NW, Michigan (provisional 1923) and Hamlin Lake,
Michigan (1982). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water
line from the mouth of Cooper Creek T20N R18W section 13 (Manistee
NW quad) south-southwestward following the Lake Michigan shoreline
along Big Sable Point (Hamlin Lake quad) to the mouth of the Big
Sable River T19N R18W section 19.
MI-18: Muskegon County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Muskegon West (1972, photoinspected 1980) and Dalton (1983).
Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the
north breakwall of the canal joining Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan
(Muskegon West quad) north along the Lake Michigan shoreline to the
northern Muskegon State Park property boundary at the shoreline
(Dalton quad).
MI-19: Chippewa County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Albany Island, Michigan (1964, photoinspected 1976) and DeTour
Village, Michigan (1964). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal
high water line from the State Forest boundary in T41N R3E section
11 (Albany Island quad) and follows the Lake Huron shoreline east
south eastward around and including St. Vital Point and then north
to the mouth of Joe Straw Creek in T41N R3E section 12(De Tour
Village quad).
MI-20: Cheboygan County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Cheboygan, Michigan (1982) and Cordwood Point, Michigan (1982).
Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the
junction of the Lake Huron shoreline and the western boundary of
T38N R1W section 22 (Cheboygan quad) eastward along the Lake Huron
shoreline of Grass Bay, continuing to the western boundary of T38N
R1E section 20 (Cordwood Point quad).
MI-21: Presque Isle County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle maps Roger's City, Michigan (1971) and Moltke, Michigan
(1971). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line
within T35N R5E section 6 and T36N R5E section 31 (Roger's City
quad) continuing northwestward to the junction of Nagel Rd and Forty
Mile Road at the junction of T36N R4E section 25 and T36N R5E
section 30 (Moltke quad).
MI-22: Presque Isle County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map Thompson's Harbor, Michigan (1971). Lands 500 m (1640
ft) inland from normal high water line from Black Point to Grand
Lake Outlet including shoreline within T34N R7E sections 10, 11, 14,
and 15.
MI-23: Iosco County, Michigan. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
East Tawas, Michigan (1989). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line from the Tawas Sate Park boundary at the U.S.
Coast Guard Station on the east side of Tawas Point southward along
the Lake Huron shoreline including offshore sand spits and along the
tip of the point and northeastward including all shoreline in T22N
R8E section 34.

Note: Map follows:

[[Page 22966]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.005

[[Page 22967]]

Map of Units OH-1 and OH-2

OH-1: Erie County, Ohio. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps
Huron, Ohio (1969) and Sandusky, Ohio (1969, photorevised 1975).
Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high water line from the
mouth of Sawmill Creek (Huron quad) northwestward along the Lake
Erie shoreline to the western property boundary of Sheldon Marsh
State Natural Area in T6N R23W (Sandusky quad) at the point where
the Cedar Point causeway turns west and south toward Sandusky.
OH-2: Lake County, Ohio. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Mentor, Ohio (1963, revised 1992). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from
normal high water line from the eastern boundary line Headland Dunes
Nature Preserve westward along the Lake Erie shoreline to the
western boundary of the Nature Preserve and Headland Dunes State
Park.

Note: Map follows:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.006

[[Page 22968]]

Map of Unit PA-1

PA-1: Erie County, Pennsylvania. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Erie North, Pennsylvania (1957, revised 1969 and 1975,
photoinspected 1977). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal high
water line from the lighthouse north of Peninsula Drive on the north
side of Presque Isle (located at approximately 042 degrees 09'
57.41" N and 080 degrees 06'57.57" W) eastward along the Lake Erie
shoreline around the tip of Presque Isle peninsula to the southern
terminus of the hiking trail on the southeast side of Gull Point
(located at approximately 042 degrees 10' 3.13" N and 080 degrees
04" 29.56" W). It includes any new beach habitat that may accrete
along the present shoreline portion of the unit.

Note: Map follows:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.007

[[Page 22969]]

Map of Unit NY-1

NY-1: Oswego County, New York. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Pulaski, New York (1956), Ellisburg, New York (1958), and
Henderson, New York (1959). Lands 500 m (1640 ft) inland from normal
high water line from the mouth of the Salmon River (Pulaski quad)
northward along the Lake Ontario shoreline to the Oswego County-
Jefferson County line (Ellisburg quad) and northward to the Eldorado
Road (Henderson quad).

Note: Map follows:

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY01.008

* * * * *

Dated: April 30, 2001.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 01-11205 Filed 5-2-01; 12:41 pm]BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population of the Piping Plover

Local Navigation