[Federal Register: September 11, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57637-57717]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11se02-13]
[[Page 57637]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Northern Great Plains Breeding Population of the Piping
Plover; Final Rule
[[Page 57638]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AH96
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Northern Great Plains 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 for the northern Great Plains breeding population of
the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. The designation includes 19 critical
habitat units containing prairie alkali wetlands, inland and reservoir
lakes, totaling approximately 183,422 acres (ac) (74,228.4 hectares
(ha)) and portions of 4 rivers totaling approximately 1,207.5 river
miles (rm) (1,943.3 kilometers (km)) in the States of Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Critical habitat includes prairie alkali wetlands and surrounding
shoreline, including 200 feet (ft) (61 meters (m)) of uplands above the
high water mark; river channels and associated sandbars, and islands;
reservoirs and their sparsely vegetated shorelines, peninsulas, and
islands; and inland lakes and their sparsely vegetated shorelines and
peninsulas. Section 7 of the Endangered Species 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 Endangered Species Act, we considered economic and
other relevant impacts before making a final decision on what areas to
designate as critical habitat.
DATES: This designation becomes effective on October 11, 2002.
ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule, including
comments and materials received, as well as the supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, SD
57501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nell McPhillips, at the above address
(telephone 605-224-8693, extension 32; facsimile 605-224-9974).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Description
The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a small (approximately
6.7 to 7.1 inches (17 to 18 centimeters) long and 1.5 to 2.2 ounces (43
to 63 grams) in weight (Haig 1992)), migratory member of the shorebird
family (Charadriidae). It is one of six species of belted plovers in
North America. During the breeding season adults have single black
bands across both the forehead and breast, orange legs and bill, and
pale tan upper parts and are white below. The adults lose the black
bands and their bill becomes grayish-black during the winter. The
plumage of juveniles is similar to that of wintering adults.
Geographic Range
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. Three breeding populations of piping plovers
have been described--the northern Great Plains, Great Lakes population,
and Atlantic Coast populations.
Great Lakes piping plovers formerly nested throughout much of the
Great Lakes region in the north-central United States and in south-
central Canada, but currently nest only in northern Michigan and at two
sites in northern Wisconsin. On the Atlantic Coast, piping plovers nest
from Newfoundland, southeastern Quebec, and New Brunswick to North
Carolina. Sixty-eight percent of all Atlantic nesting pairs breed in
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia (Service 1999).
The northern Great Plains population's breeding range includes
southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba, south
to eastern Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, southeastern Colorado,
Iowa, Nebraska, and east to Lake of the Woods in north-central
Minnesota. Most of the United States' pairs are in the Dakotas,
Nebraska, and Montana (Service 1994). Fewer birds nest in Minnesota,
Iowa, and Colorado, with occasional nesting in Oklahoma and Kansas.
This rule refers only to the United States' portion of the northern
Great Plains population.
Historic data on the distribution of northern Great Plains piping
plovers are scarce, with regular surveying efforts beginning after
1980. More recent breeding records exist for most North Dakota counties
(Service and North Dakota Game and Fish Department 1997); Lake of the
Woods County, in Minnesota (Service 2000b); counties along the Missouri
River, as well as Codington, Day, and Miner Counties in South Dakota
(South Dakota Ornithologists' Union 1991); and counties along the
Missouri, Loup, Niobrara, Elkhorn, and Platte Rivers in Nebraska
(Ridgeway 1874, Moser 1942, Heinemann 1944, Ducey 1983, Dinan et al.
1993, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 1995, Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission 2001). Plovers were first reported in Montana in 1967 in
Phillips County and were observed in Sheridan and Valley Counties
during the 1970s (Carlson and Skaar 1976). Nesting was first observed
in Colorado in 1949 and a few reports of non-nesting birds occurred
during the 1950s and 1960s (Bailey and Niedrich 1965), but there are no
reports of nesting between 1949 and 1989 (Colorado Department of
Natural Resources 1994). In Iowa, nesting plovers were observed in
Pottawattamie and Harrison Counties during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s
(Stiles 1940, Brown 1971). Incidental records exist for Wyoming, as
well as Eddy County, New Mexico, in 1964 (Bailey and Niedrich 1965). A
record is reported for Douglas County, Kansas in 1909. (Ridgeway 1919).
The current breeding range of the northern Great Plains population
is similar to the previous records, with the following exceptions--
piping plovers have not been reported in Wyoming or New Mexico since
their initial records, and since 1996, Kansas has reported nesting
activity along the Kansas River due to newly available habitat after
scouring flows in 1993 (Busby et al. 1997). Additionally, in 1987 and
1988 piping plovers nested at Optima Reservoir, Oklahoma (these are the
only known nesting records for Oklahoma) (Boyd 1991). In North Dakota,
plovers nest at various prairie alkali wetlands in Benson, Burke,
Burleigh, Divide, Eddy, Emmons, Kidder, Logan, McHenry, McIntosh,
McLean, Mountrail, Pierce, Renville, Sheridan, Stutsman, Ward, and
Williams Counties, as well as sandbars and reservoir shorelines along
the Missouri River (Service and North Dakota Game and Fish Department
1997, K. Kreil, Service, pers. comm.). South Dakota nesting has
generally been limited to the Missouri River, primarily below the
Gavins Point and Fort Randall Dams and on Lake Oahe (C.D. Kruse, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, pers.
[[Page 57639]]
comm.). Occasionally plovers have nested on Lake Sharpe (Missouri
River), and have additionally been sighted on Lake Francis Case
(Missouri River) during the nesting season but nesting has not been
documented. In Colorado, nesting has been observed on various
reservoirs of the Arkansas River during the 1990s (Plissner and Haig
1997, Nelson unpubl. report). In Montana, plovers currently nest along
the Missouri River, on Duck Creek Bay, Bear Creek Bay, Skunk Coulee,
and the Big Dry Creek Arm of Fort Peck Reservoir, and alkali wetlands
and reservoirs in Phillips and Sheridan Counties (G. Pavelka, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, pers. comm., H. Pac, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks, pers. comm.).
In Nebraska, piping plovers can still be found on sandbars along
the Niobrara, Loup, and Platte Rivers, but habitat has been reduced on
the Platte River. Before Kingsley Dam became fully operational in 1941,
Platte River sandbar habitat dynamics had already been affected by
upstream impoundments and diversions (Peake et al. 1985). By 1938, 30
percent of the in channel habitats were woody vegetated increasing to
57 percent in 1957 and close to 70 percent in 1983 (Peake et al. 1985).
Williams (1978) found channel widths also changed from wide-open
channels to multiple narrow channels and attributed these changes to
flow reductions from upstream dams and water withdrawals. These changes
have resulted in degraded piping plover nesting habitat on the Central
Platte with better conditions occurring on the Lower Platte (Ziewitz et
al. 1992). Along the central reach of the Platte, this loss of habitat
has resulted in most plovers nesting on sand and gravel mining spoil
piles (Sidle and Kirsch 1993). However, since 1982 the Platte River
Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust, Inc., has been reclaiming river
habitat (sandbar restoration) on their property and on areas owned by
the National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and numerous
individual landowners (Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust
2002). Most nesting on the Platte River currently occurs on the lower
Platte, where encroachment is least advanced (Ziewitz et al. 1992).
Lake McConaughy in Nebraska also supports nesting plovers on its sandy
beaches (Peyton and Matteson 1999). In Iowa, Missouri River habitat has
been lost due to channelization below Sioux City, leaving piping
plovers to nest on industrial fly ash ponds in Woodbury and
Pottawattamie Counties (D. Howell, Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources,
pers. comm.). Plovers continue to nest in low numbers at Lake of the
Woods, Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1999).
Population Status
Historical piping plover population trend data are generally
nonexistent. However, Audubon and Wilson described plovers as a common
resident of the Atlantic coast during the 1800s (Bent 1929). On
September 21, 1804, the Lewis and Clark expedition was present in the
area of present day Lake Sharpe on the Missouri River, where William
Clark wrote, ``* * * we observed an immense number of plover of
Different kind Collecting and taking their flight southerly * * ''
(Moulton 1987). By 1900, the piping plover had been greatly reduced by
over-harvesting. With the Federal protection of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the plover recovered by the 1920s and was reported as
common (Bent 1929). Since then, plover populations again declined
throughout most of their range and have been extirpated from many
States. Breeding surveys in the early 1980s reported 2,137 to 2,684
adult plovers in the northern Great Plains/Prairie region, 28 adults in
the Great Lakes region, and 1,370 to 1,435 adults along the Atlantic
Coast (Haig and Oring 1985). In 1991 the first International Piping
Plover Census was carried out, with 2,032 adult piping plovers observed
in the United States' portion of the northern Great Plains (Haig and
Plissner 1993). In 1996, during the second International Census, 1,599
adult piping plovers were observed in the same area (Plissner and Haig
1997; numbers revised S. Haig pers. comm. 2002); a reduction of just
more than 21 percent from 1991. Part of this reduction was likely an
artifact of increased numbers of piping plovers nesting in Canada in
1996, due to high water levels in the United States (Plissner and Haig
1997). In 2001, during the third International Census, 1,981 adult
piping plovers were observed in the same area (S. Haig pers. comm.
2002). Between 1991 and 2001 there was a reduction of 2.5 percent in
the U.S. northern Great Plains population. Between 1996 and 2001 there
was a 23.9 percent increase in the population. Again the fluctuations
in numbers between 1996 and 2001 appear to reflect a relationship with
the birds in prairie Canada, but this time the relationship was
inverse. Prairie Canada birds may have temporarily dispersed to recent
unusually good habitat conditions in the United States northern Great
Plains--particularly on the Missouri River.
Current estimates of piping plover survival rates are limited. Root
et al. (1992) estimated a mean annual survival rate of 0.664 for adults
in the northern Great Plains population from 1984 to 1990 using
recapture and re-sighting data from plovers in North Dakota. Larson et
al. (2000) reevaluated survival from this study, including some
additional years of banding and resights. The new mean local annual
survival rate was 0.737 for adults (Larson et al. 2000). Most plover
mortality was thought to occur during migration or on wintering grounds
(Root et al. 1992); however, a recent study on Padre Island, Texas,
showed overwintering survival can be very high (Drake 1999).
Ryan et al. (1993) developed a random population growth model using
empirical, demographic data, which showed the northern Great Plains
plover population was declining 7 percent annually. They also used the
simulation model to predict reproductive and survival rates necessary
to stabilize and increase the population. Ryan et al. (1993) stated
that if adult (0.66) and immature (0.60) survival rates were held
constant, a 31 percent increase, from 0.86 to 1.13 chicks fledged per
pair, was needed to stabilize the population. Annual population
increases of 1 and 2 percent required 1.16 and 1.19 chicks per pair,
respectively. Such growth would result in the northern Great Plains
population reaching the level needed for recovery and delisting from
the Endangered Species Act in 53 and 30 years respectively. One- and 5-
year delays in the initiation of 1 percent population growth caused 13-
and 67-year delays respectively in reaching recovery. Model (Ryan et
al. 1993) results suggested that the northern Great Plains population
is declining substantially. However, using more recent survival
estimates (Larson et al. (2000)) in the random population growth model
has shown that the feasibility of recovering the northern Great Plains
population may be more likely than previously determined (Ryan et al.
1993, Plissner and Haig 2000). Larson (Larson, University of Missouri-
Columbia pers. comm.) recommends based on his research (Larson et al.
2000) that reproductive rates 1.25 fledglings per pair per year is now
necessary to stabilize the population.
A population viability model, developed by Plissner and Haig
(2000), used the metapopulation viability analysis package, VORTEX.
Plissner and Haig (2000) found in the northern Great Plains and Great
Lakes populations, if the adult and immature survival rates were held
constant, it would require a 36 percent higher mean fecundity, or an
increase from 1.25 to 1.7 chicks fledged per pair, to reach a
significant
[[Page 57640]]
probability of persisting for the next 100 years.
Ecology
Piping plover breeding habitat consists of open, sparsely vegetated
areas with alkali or unconsolidated substrates. Piping plovers
primarily breed in four habitat types in the northern Great Plains--
alkali lakes and wetlands, inland lakes (Lake of the Woods),
reservoirs, and rivers. Based on the first two International Piping
Plover Censuses, most breeding occurs along alkali lakes and wetlands,
with 59.6 percent and 78 percent of breeding adults observed on those
sites in 1991 (Haig and Plissner 1993) and 1996 (Plissner and Haig
1997), respectively. However, that percentage dropped to 34 percent in
the 2001 International Census (S. Haig pers.com. 2002). For these
alkali lakes and wetlands, nesting sites are generally wide, gravelly,
salt-encrusted beaches with minimal vegetation (Prindiville, Gaines and
Ryan 1988).
Piping plovers use barren to sparsely vegetated islands, beaches,
and peninsulas at inland lake habitats (Nordstrom and Ryan 1996), such
as Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Sandbars and reservoir shorelines with
similar features are the preferred nesting habitats of piping plovers
along riverine systems (Schwalbach 1988, Kruse 1993). In 1991,
approximately 38 percent of the population was observed on reservoirs,
river shores, and sandbars. In 1996, 15.1 percent was observed at those
areas; this was a high-water year and much of the habitat along rivers
was inundated, likely forcing birds to nest elsewhere. These data
suggest that habitat use by piping plovers is dynamic and that the
habitat necessary to support the northern Great Plains population is
diverse.
Although the preference of piping plovers for open areas has been
repeatedly noted in the literature, quantitative data on habitat
characteristics, evidence of habitat selection, and information on the
relative quality of inland habitats remain scarce. A survey of the
research literature suggests that this lack of quantitative and
qualitative data is a result of the dynamic nature of the habitat,
climate, and hydrologic cycles of the northern Great Plains. Several
studies have suggested that beach width may affect habitat use by
piping plovers breeding on inland lakes. Whyte (1985) recorded minimum
nest-to-water distances of 131.2 ft (40 m) in Saskatchewan and
suggested that beaches less than 65.6 to 98.4 ft wide (20 to 30 m wide)
were not likely to be used by piping plovers. However, in Alberta,
Weseloh and Weseloh (1983) calculated a mean beach width of only 38.4
ft (11.7 m) at nest sites. However, they noted that these seemed to be
the widest beaches available. Prindiville, Gaines, and Ryan (1988)
reported mean beach width to be larger in occupied territories (x =
108.3 ft (33 m)) than in unoccupied sites (x = 44.6 ft (13.6 m)) in
North Dakota. It is important to note that piping plovers in the Great
Lakes region have nested on beaches much narrower than those reported
by the above authors; therefore, narrower beaches may still provide
suitable nesting habitat and primary constituent elements (L. Wemmer,
pers. comm.). The amount and distribution of beach vegetation affect
piping plover habitat selection and reproductive success. Prindiville,
Gaines, and Ryan (1988) found no difference in vegetative cover between
territories (x = 3.4 percent) and unoccupied sites (x = 3.8 percent).
However, vegetation was more clumped in territories than in unoccupied
sites. Furthermore, territories in which nests were successful had
either less vegetation or more clumped vegetation than territories with
unsuccessful nests (Prindiville 1986).
Substrate composition also may affect habitat selection by piping
plovers and influence nest success. Cairns (1977) found 31 of 38 nests
in Nova Scotia on mixed sand and gravel and stated that those nests
were less conspicuous than those on sand alone. Whyte (1985) reported
that piping plovers were more likely to establish nests on gravel than
was expected by chance alone. In North Dakota, gravel was generally
more evenly distributed and in greater concentration on piping plover
territories than at unoccupied sites (Prindiville 1986).
Piping plovers nesting on the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara, Loup
Rivers, and other rivers, use reservoir shorelines and large dry,
barren sandbars in wide, open channel beds. Along these rivers, plovers
often nest near endangered interior least terns (Sterna antillarum).
Vegetative cover on nesting islands is usually less than 25 percent
(Ziewitz et al. 1992). Twenty-eight Platte River sandbars, occupied by
nesting piping plovers, averaged 938 ft (286 m) in length and 180 ft
(55 m) in width (Faanes 1983). Vegetative cover on those sandbars
averaged 25.4 percent. Armbruster (1986) estimated the optimum range
for vegetative cover on nesting habitat from 0-10 percent, and
Schwalbach (1988) found that 89 percent of the plovers nested in areas
of less than 5 percent vegetative cover. On the Missouri River,
Schwalbach (1988) found that the average vegetation height ranged from
2 to 11 in (6 to 29 cm) and the majority of the plovers (63 percent)
nested in areas where vegetation was less than 4 in (10 cm).
Average elevation of nests (least terns and piping plovers) above
river level ranges from 7.4 in (19 cm) below Gavins Point Dam to 12 in
(30 cm) below Garrison Dam (Schwalbach 1988, Dirks 1990). Schwalbach
(1988) and Ziewitz et al. (1992) suggested that birds select a higher
nest site, away from the water's edge, when available. For nesting,
piping plovers evidently seek habitats with wide horizontal visibility,
protection from terrestrial predators, isolation from human
disturbance, low likelihood of inundation, and nearby feeding habitat.
Open, wet, sandy areas provide feeding habitat for plovers on river
systems and throughout most of the species' nesting range. Piping
plovers feed primarily on exposed substrates by pecking for
invertebrates at or just below the surface (Cairns 1977, Whyte 1985).
In Saskatchewan, Whyte (1985) noted that adults concentrated foraging
efforts within 16.4 ft (5 m) of the water's edge. He found broods also
fed most often near the shore, but their use of upland beach habitats
was greater than that of adults. Cairns (1977) reported that chicks
tended to feed on firmer sand at greater distances from the shoreline
than adults. At Lake of the Woods, Minnesota, and on Long Island-
Chequamegon Point, Wisconsin, adult piping plovers seemed to prefer
shoreline or beach pool edges (wet sand) over open beach (dry sand) as
feeding sites although time spent foraging at these sites may be
influenced by changing habitat conditions and prey availability (Wiens
1986, S. Matteson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, pers.
comm.). Studies suggest that forage areas include the nesting island
itself, as well as adjacent sandbar flats (Cairns 1977, Whyte 1985,
Corn and Armbruster 1993). Spring/fen areas on the peripheries of some
alkali lakes also are important feeding sites for plover chicks
(Rabenberg et al. 1993).
Upland areas surrounding wetlands, such as the spring/fen areas,
also have been noted in the scientific literature to be important to
maximizing the effective period of time wetlands can provide critical
functions (i.e., water quality, flood control, groundwater recharge,
nutrient recycling, primary productivity, and wildlife habitat) within
the agricultural landscape (Gleason and Eulis 1998). This is
particularly important when considering wetlands within the
agricultural landscape in the northern
[[Page 57641]]
Great Plains. In addition appropriate upland widths are based on
several variables, including--existing wetland functions, values, and
sensitivity to disturbance; land-use impacts; and desired upland
functions (Castelle et al. 1992). Critical functions to consider for
piping plovers nesting on wetlands in the northern Great Plains include
water quality, invertebrate abundance, and the lifespan of the wetland.
To maintain water quality and maximize the effective period of time the
wetland maintains critical functions, available research suggests
upland buffers of 100 to 300 ft (30.5 to 91.4 m) (Castelle et al. 1992,
Lee et al. 1997, Gleason and Eulis 1998, D. Dewald pers. comm. 2000).
Conditions for nesting are highly variable in the Great Plains.
Therefore, local population estimates may not always give an accurate
description of the population as a whole, and success may depend on the
availability of alternative habitat types (Plissner and Haig 1997). In
addition to primary nesting habitat types, piping plovers also may use
sand pits and ash ponds, which often mimic natural habitats (Service
1988b, Corn and Ambruster 1993, Lackey 1994). These areas are only
suitable for a limited period of time after their initial creation, as
vegetation encroachment generally reduces habitat quality after a few
years (Sidle and Kirsch 1993).
Breeding site fidelity (rate at which adults return to the same
breeding sites in subsequent years) for piping plovers ranged from 4.5
percent in two studies combined in South Dakota (Schwalbach 1988, Dirks
1990) to 87.5 percent in Lake of the Woods, Minnesota (Haig and Oring
1987). Wiens (1986) found return patterns to specific breeding sites
did not seem to be influenced by previous reproductive success. In
Manitoba, Haig and Oring (1988) observed two patterns of return by
adults--(1) those that hatched chicks the year before returned to the
same breeding site but changed territories, and (2) adults that
experienced nest failure the year before generally changed sites.
Adults have been known to use breeding sites as far as 339.1 miles (mi)
(546 km) apart in consecutive years (Haig 1987). The varying rates of
site fidelity reported in these studies suggest that piping plovers
need a variety of available nest sites. Sites used in one year may not
be used in subsequent years; conversely, sites unoccupied by piping
plovers may be used in the future.
Similar observations of chick returns further show the need for
many nest areas in the Great Plains. The percentage of observed chicks
returning to natal sites has ranged from 4.7 percent in New York
(Wilcox 1959) to 1.3 to 50 percent in South Dakota (Schwalbach et al.
1993, Niver 2000) and 70 percent at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota (Haig
and Oring 1987). Chick dispersal (movement from natal sites to first
breeding site) is difficult to characterize and few banding studies
have been carried out in the Great Plains. But, long-range dispersal
distances (3.1 to 169.5 mi (5 to 273 km)) have been documented in
piping plovers (Haig and Oring 1988) and similar distances were
observed in two plovers on the Missouri River (R. Niver, Service, and
C.D. Kruse, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pers. comm.).
The nesting season typically begins in late March to early April
when plovers arrive on the breeding grounds. Breeding activities,
including courtship flights, nest bowl scraping, territorial
interactions, egg laying, incubating, and chick rearing, can be
observed throughout the summer. Nests are shallow scrapes and are often
lined with shell fragments, pebbles, or small sticks. Typical clutch
size is 3 to 4 eggs and incubation lasts 27 to 31 days. Chicks can feed
themselves after hatching (i.e., are precocial), and fledge at 18 to 25
days of age (Service 1988b). Fledging success varies by site and year.
For example, between 1986 and 1999 along the Missouri River, there were
0.06 to 1.61 fledged chicks/pair (G. Pavelka pers. comm.). Between 1982
and 1987 Haig and Oring (1987) reported fledge ratios between 0.3 to
2.1 or 0.4 to 3.0 fledged chicks/pair, depending on 1987 data, for Lake
of the Woods, Minnesota. In the United States Alkali Lake Core region,
which includes parts of northwest North Dakota and northeast Montana,
annual fledge ratios varied between 0.60 to 1.49 fledged chicks/pair
from 1994 to 2000 (J. Knetter, University of Wisconsin-Madison, pers.
comm.).
Nest and chick predation, weather, human disturbance, and
hydrologic cycles influence fledging success. If nest loss occurs early
in the season, piping plovers will often renest. After later nest loss,
chick loss, or fledging chicks, plovers begin their southerly migration
from mid-July through early September. Piping plovers that breed in the
Great Plains generally winter along the Gulf Coast from Mexico to
Florida, but some occasionally winter along the southern Atlantic Coast
from North Carolina to Florida (Haig and Plissner 1993).
Previous Federal Actions
On December 30, 1982, we published a notice of review in the
Federal Register (47 FR 58454) identifying native vertebrate taxa being
considered for addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. We included the piping plover in that review list as a
category two 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 then. Subsequent review
of additional data showed that the piping plover warranted listing, and
in November 1984 we published a proposal in the Federal Register (49 FR
44712) to list the piping plover as endangered in the Great Lakes
watershed and as threatened along the Atlantic Coast, the northern
Great Plains, and elsewhere in their ranges. The proposed listing was
based on the decline of the species and 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, designating the Great
Lakes population (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, northeastern Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario) as endangered;
and listing piping plovers along the Atlantic coast (Quebec, New
foundland, Maritime Provinces, and States from Maine to Florida), and
in the northern Great Plains (Iowa, northwestern Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alberta, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan) as threatened. All piping plovers on migratory routes
outside of the Great Lakes watershed or on their wintering grounds are
considered threatened. The Service did not designate critical habitat
for the species at that time.
After 1986, we formed 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
(Service 1988b) and Atlantic Coast (Service 1988a) Recovery Plans were
published. In 1994 the Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains Recovery Team
began to revise the Recovery plan for the Great Lakes/Northern Great
Plains populations (Service 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. Separate
recovery plans for the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains
populations are presently under development.
The final listing rule for the piping plover indicated that
designation of critical habitat was not determinable.
[[Page 57642]]
Thus, designation was deferred. No further action was taken to
designate critical habitat for piping plovers. On December 4, 1996,
Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) filed a suit (Defenders of Wildlife
and Piping Plover v. Babbitt, Case No. 96CV02965) against the
Department of the Interior and the Service over the lack of designation
of critical habitat for the Great Lakes 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 with Defenders on a
schedule for piping plover critical habitat designation. On February 7,
2000, before the settlement negotiations were concluded, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order directing
us to publish a proposed critical habitat designation for nesting and
wintering areas of the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping
plover by June 30, 2000, and for nesting and wintering areas of the
northern Great Plains population of the piping plover by May 31, 2001.
A subsequent order, after we requested the court to reconsider its
original order relating to final critical habitat designation, directed
us to complete 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 documents; the Great Lakes
breeding birds final critical habitat was published on May 7, 2001 (66
FR 22938), and the final rule for wintering habitat was published on
July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36038).
On June 12, 2001, we published a proposed determination for the
designation of critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding
population of the piping plover (66 FR 31760). A total of approximately
196,576.5 ac (79,553.1 ha) and 1,338 rm (2,153 km) were proposed as
critical habitat for this piping plover population in 75 counties in
Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The
comment period was open until August 13, 2001. During this 60-day
comment period, we held five public meetings (Glasgow, Montana on July
10, 2001; Bismarck, North Dakota on July 12, 2001; Pierre, South Dakota
on July 16, 2001; Yankton, South Dakota on July 17, 2001; and Grand
Island, Nebraska on July 18, 2001). On July 6, 2001, we published a
notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 35880) announcing the
availability of the draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed
determination. On December 28, 2001, we published a notice in the
Federal Register (66 FR 67165) announcing the reopening of the comment
period and a notice of the availability of the draft Economic Analysis
on the proposed rule. This comment period was open until January 28,
2002. However, before that reopening the Service's web sites and
electronic mail were disconnected in response to a court order in an
unrelated lawsuit. In response to comments received during the
December-January comment period the Service sought relief from the
courts and the court took action extending the time for the final rule.
On March 21, 2002, we again published a notice in the Federal Register
(67 FR 13123) extending the comment period until May 20, 2002.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 (5) (A) of the Endangered
Species Act as (i) the specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the
Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to conserve the species and (II) that may
require special management considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the
time it is listed, upon determination that such areas are essential to
conserve the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened
species to the point at which listing under the Endangered Species Act
is no longer necessary. Critical habitat receives protection under
section 7 of the Endangered Species 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 with the Service 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 ``* * * a 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 Endangered
Species Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands
designated as critical habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act does not apply to activities on private or
other non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus, critical
habitat designation would not afford any additional protections under
the Endangered Species Act for such activities.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must
first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using 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 (or, in this
case, a breeding population), we designate only areas currently known
to be essential. Essential areas should already have the features and
habitat characteristics that are necessary to conserve the species. We
will not speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if
better information became available, or what 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 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, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical
habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a
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, we do not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by the species unless the best
scientific and commercial data demonstrate that the unoccupied areas
are essential for the conservation needs of the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, procedures, and guidance to ensure decisions made by
the Service represent the best scientific and
[[Page 57643]]
commercial data available. It requires Service biologists, to the
extent consistent with the Endangered Species 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 contained in 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, Tribes, and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, and biological assessments or other unpublished
materials, and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize designation of critical
habitat may not include all habitat eventually determined as necessary
to recover the species. For these reasons, all should understand 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
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 likely-to-
jeopardize 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 essential to conserve the northern Great
Plains breeding population of piping plovers, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available. We have reviewed the overall
approach to the conservation of the northern Great Plains breeding
population of piping plovers undertaken by the local, State, Tribal,
and Federal agencies operating within the species' range since its
listing in 1986, and the identified steps necessary for recovery
outlined in the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover
Recovery Plan (Service 1988b).
We also have reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species, including material received since
completion of the recovery plan. The material included data in reports
submitted during section 7 consultations and by biologists holding
section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; the 1994 Technical/Agency Review
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Piping Plovers Breeding on the Great
Lakes and Northern Great Plains (Service 1994); research published in
peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency
reports; annual survey reports; regional Geographic Information System
(GIS) coverages; and personal communications with knowledgeable
biologists.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Endangered Species 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 and
to consider physical and biological features (primary constituent
elements) that are essential to conservation of the species, and that
may require special management considerations and protection. These
include, but are not limited to--(1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing (or
development) of offspring; and (5) habitats protected from disturbance
or that are representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
Primary constituent elements for the northern Great Plains
population of piping plovers are those habitat components (physical and
biological) essential for the biological needs of courtship, nesting,
sheltering, brood-rearing, foraging, roosting, intraspecific
communication, and migration. The one overriding primary constituent
element (biological) that must be present at all sites is the dynamic
ecological processes that create and maintain piping plover habitat.
Without this biological process the physical components of the primary
constituent elements would not be able to develop. These processes
develop a mosaic of habitats on the landscape that provide the
essential combination of prey, forage, nesting, brooding and chick-
rearing areas. The annual, seasonal, daily, and even hourly
availability of the habitat patches is dependent on local weather,
hydrological conditions and cycles, and geological processes.
The biological primary constituent element, i.e., dynamic
ecological processes, creates different physical primary constituent
elements on the landscape. These physical primary constituent elements
exist on different habitat types found in the northern Great Plains,
including mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979),
rivers, reservoirs, and inland lakes. These habitat types or physical
primary constituent elements that sustain the northern Great Plains
breeding population of piping plovers are described as follows:
On prairie alkali lakes and wetlands, the physical primary
constituent elements include--(1) Shallow, seasonally to permanently
flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to gravelly,
sparsely vegetated beaches, salt-encrusted mud flats, and/or gravelly
salt flats; (2) springs and fens along edges of alkali lakes and
wetlands; and (3) adjacent uplands 200 ft (61 m) above the high water
mark of the alkali lake or wetland.
On rivers the physical primary constituent elements include--
sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on
islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface
with the river.
On reservoirs the physical primary constituent elements include--
sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches, peninsulas, islands composed of
sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with the water bodies.
On inland lakes (Lake of the Woods) the physical primary
constituent elements include--sparsely vegetated and windswept sandy to
gravelly islands, beaches, and peninsulas, and their interface with the
water body.
It is the interactive nature of the biological primary constituent
element or the dynamic ecological processes that create the physical
primary constituent elements. On the northern Great Plains, the
suitability of beaches, sandbars, shoreline, and flats as piping plover
habitat types also is dependent on a dynamic hydrological system of
wet-to-dry cycles. Habitat area, abundance and availability of insect
foods, brood and nesting cover, and lack of vegetation are all linked
to these water cycles. On rivers, one site becomes flooded and erodes
away as another is created. More importantly the high flows on rivers
create a complex of habitats for feeding, nesting, and brooding
(Pavelka 2002 and
[[Page 57644]]
Vander Lee et al. 2002). This dynamic nature of rivers, as well as
flow-management of rivers is important to long-term habitat creation
and maintenance for piping plovers. On alkali lakes, the complex of
different wetland types is especially important for providing areas for
plovers feeding, nesting, and brooding in all years, as site
availability cannot be predicted or selected at a given time, due to
varying water cycles.
Biologists have noted a relationship appears to exist between
availability of breeding habitat and wet-to-dry cycles. For example, in
dry years nesting areas on alkali wetlands lacking water may be
unsuitable for piping plovers. In subsequent years as the basins refill
there is an abundance of habitat. However, when the wet cycle peaks,
there may be a lack of exposed shoreline habitats for nesting piping
plovers. It is the dynamics of the changing cycles and the fact that
these cycles can occur differently across the landscape that provides
piping plover habitat over the long term.
Additionally, droughts on the Missouri River can produce more
available habitat as reservoir levels drop. However, by the time the
nesting season ends, vegetation has encroached on shoreline habitats.
Subsequent high water years are necessary for the long-term vegetative
maintenance of shoreline habitats.
Continued reduced flows on rivers like the Platte and Missouri
Rivers, either due to management or climatic conditions can result in
vegetative encroachment on exposed sandbars limiting available piping
plover nesting habitat. However, increased flows or high flows during
subsequent years provides for the long term maintenance of piping
plover nesting habitat by scouring vegetation from sandbars and
creating high sandbars.
These cycles are most likely interrelated throughout the northern
Great Plains landscape. For example, if Nebraska rivers or alkali
wetlands are flooded during the early part of the breeding season,
there is some evidence that piping plovers move to other rivers like
the Missouri River, to renest. Similarly the abundance of piping
plovers using the Missouri River (1988-1997) correlates strongly with
alkali wetland piping plover populations during periods of below-
average water levels in the riverine system (Licht 2002, in press).
Licht (2002 in press) also found that once water levels on the Missouri
River reached a certain point the relationship turned negative with
river populations decreasing and alkali wetland populations increasing.
Because piping plovers evolved in this dynamic and complex system,
and because they are dependent on it for their continued survival and
eventual recovery, critical habitat boundaries incorporate natural
processes inherent in the system and include sites that might not
exhibit all appropriate habitat components in all years but have a
documented history of such components over time and maintain the
ability to develop and support those components.
Critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population
of piping plovers must meet the biological and physical primary
constituent element requirements as defined above and are found on
areas that--(1) Are currently or recently used for breeding, or (2)
were documented to have been occupied historically, or (3) are not
specifically documented to have been occupied, but are deemed potential
breeding habitat since these areas are part of a riverine system with
documented nesting, and are within the historic geographic range, or
(4) include habitat complexes, including wetland and adjacent upland
areas, essential to the conservation of this species (50 CFR
424.13(d)). The critical habitat designation is effective year-round in
order to conserve habitats. Therefore, an area that contains primary
constituent elements is considered to be critical habitat even if these
elements are temporarily obscured by snow, ice, or other temporary
features. Areas found within the critical habitat boundaries that do
not conform with the above discussion and the elements of this
paragraph are not critical habitat. However, it is important to keep in
mind that, because of the nature of the northern Great Plains, some of
these designated habitats will not have these components every year but
must have them over time to be considered critical habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
The Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains
Piping Plover (Service 1988) and the Technical/Agency Review Draft
Revised Recovery Plan for Piping Plovers Breeding on the Great Lakes
and Northern Great Plains (1994) identified the specific recovery needs
of the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover,
and serve as starting points for identifying areas essential to its
conservation.
Piping plovers are found in a variety of ecologically and
geographically distinct areas within the northern Great Plains. To
recover the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping
plover to the point where it can be delisted, it is essential to
preserve the population's genetic diversity as well as the habitat on
which it persists. The areas identified in the recovery plans as
necessary to achieve recovery of the population are generally reflected
in this designation.
However, the recovery plans did not include the most recent
comprehensive breeding survey data for the northern Great Plains and
did not identify all possible areas essential to the survival and
recovery of the species. Thus, we identified additional areas in this
proposal from surveys conducted throughout the U.S. portion of the
northern Great Plains. Data availability varied between States. Data
was obtained from surveys conducted in North Dakota from 1987 to 2001,
in Montana from 1986 to 2001, in Minnesota from 1982 to 2001, on the
Missouri River from 1986 to 2001, in Nebraska from 1986 to 2001, in
Kansas from 1996 to 2001, in Colorado from 1990 to 2001, and in Iowa
from 1986 to 2001; and from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 International
Piping Plover Censuses. We also removed some sites included in the 1994
draft recovery plan due to existing protection from current management
practices or plans. Based on the primary constituent elements, we
divided the habitat types used by the northern Great Plains breeding
population of piping plovers into alkali lakes and wetlands, rivers,
reservoirs, and inland lakes. We discuss our inclusions and exclusions
of habitat below.
Alkali Lakes and Wetlands--We mapped Montana/North Dakota alkali
lakes and wetlands where breeding piping plovers have been observed in
more than 1 year for the period of survey record (1987-2001 for North
Dakota and 1986-2001 for Montana). The survey period encompassed both
wet and dry cycles; therefore, the dynamic nature of prairie alkali
lakes and wetlands, and the resulting shift in use by piping plovers of
different habitat types, is reflected in the mapping. All alkali lakes
and wetlands mapped exhibit one or more of the primary constituent
elements. We did not include many areas that exhibited all of the
primary constituent elements but breeding piping plovers were only
observed once or were never observed. Our legal descriptions include
all sections in which alkali lakes and wetlands and associated 200-ft
(61-m) upland habitat are found.
We had proposed the inclusion of Nelson Reservoir in the proposed
rule. Nelson Reservoir, Bureau of
[[Page 57645]]
Reclamation (BOR) project, is a 4,559-ac (1845-ha) irrigation
reservoir. During the comment period we received comments from the
irrigation district and BOR requesting that Nelson Reservoir be
withdrawn from the final designation of critical habitat. Both the BOR
and the Glasgow Irrigation District recognize the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Malta and Glasgow Irrigation districts,
U.S. Department of the Interior, BOR, the Service, and Bowdoin National
Wildlife Refuge that is in place and provides for protecting the piping
plover and maintaining Nelson reservoir for its project purpose
(irrigation) and recommended that consideration be given to not listing
Nelson Reservoir as critical habitat.
We have reviewed the current MOU for Nelson Reservoir between the
agencies. We also are aware that each of the signatory agencies has
worked toward and implemented management actions that are helping with
the recovery of piping plovers in Montana. Many of the necessary
recovery actions have been the result of the BOR's implementation of a
1990 biological opinion issued to the BOR on the operation of Nelson
Reservoir. The BOR believes that the adaptive management strategies
identified in the MOU, along with their current management actions that
includes the construction of several islands that they are meeting the
conservation and recovery needs of the piping plover on Nelson
Reservoir. We concur with the BOR and are not proposing Nelson
Reservoir for this designation. Since such management actions provide a
benefit to the species, include implementation assurances and are
adaptable to future management changes at Nelson Reservoir then this
area is removed from the piping plover critical habitat designation.
The North Dakota Army National Guard (NDNG) owns portions of Lake
Coe in North Dakota mapped as critical habitat in the proposed rule.
The NDNG has completed the Camp Grafton Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan that includes Lake Coe. This plan provides a benefit
for piping plovers on Lake Coe; includes implementation assurances and
includes an opportunity for adaptive management. Therefore, the Camp
Grafton portion of Lake Coe is not in need of special management and at
the request of the NDNG, we have excluded the NDNG property on Lake Coe
from critical habitat designation.
Missouri River and Reservoirs--We mapped the Missouri River from
Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, to Ponca State Park, Nebraska. We
identified two riverine reaches (a portion of Fort Peck riverine reach
and the reach from Ponca State Park, Nebraska, to Plattsmouth,
Nebraska), two reservoir reaches (Lake Sharpe and Lake Francis Case),
and a portion of another reservoir (Fort Peck) on the Missouri River
that we are not designating as critical habitat, because they did not
meet the definition of critical habitat. See discussion to follow.
The Fort Peck riverine reach of the Missouri River from the Fort
Peck Dam to the confluence of the Milk River (river mile 1712) is
highly degraded and contains few sandbars due to sediments trapped
behind the Fort Peck Dam. Sandbar formation begins further downstream
due to sediments transported from the Milk River. The upstream section
that we have not included does not contain, and is not likely to
develop, the primary constituent elements needed for piping plover
survival and recovery in the near future.
Although piping plovers have been documented as far south as
Plattsmouth, Nebraska, on the Missouri River, very limited habitat
currently exists for piping plovers below Ponca State Park, Nebraska.
The Missouri River has little sandbar habitat in this reach due to the
channelization of the river and bank stabilization projects created to
support navigation. We are aware of efforts to restore some backwater
areas along this reach that will likely create suitable habitat for the
piping plover. We will continue to monitor these areas and may consider
proposing them as critical habitat if they obtain the primary
constituent elements needed for the piping plover in the future. Along
the Iowa reach of the Missouri River, plovers exist on fly ash sites
adjacent to the river. Nevertheless, these temporary habitats support
few birds (about 0.6 percent) and have poor productivity; therefore,
these habitats are not considered essential and do not meet the
definition of critical habitat.
Lake Sharpe was not included because this reservoir reach has only
supported a few pairs of birds on one beach since listing and,
therefore, is not considered essential and does not meet the definition
of critical habitat. However, a small peninsula/island within the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe Reservation boundary is considered an area in need of
special management. The Tribe and the Service believe this area if
managed could help restore piping plovers to this reservation. Although
this site is an area in need of special management, we cannot designate
this area at this time because it was not in the proposed rule and thus
was not subject to public comment. However, this area could be
considered in a future amendment to the critical habitat designation.
In Montana, piping plovers have been found on the Dry Arm, Duck
Creek Bay, Bear Creek Bay, and Skunk Coulee of Fort Peck Reservoir. We
are not proposing the entire Fort Peck Reservoir as plovers have never
been reported on the western arm.
Including portions of the Missouri River that may not be occupied
at this time is necessary because of the dynamic nature of the river.
Sandbar/island habitats migrate up and down the riverine sections of
the river resulting in shifts in the location of primary constituent
elements. Mainstem reservoir areas also change depending on water level
management. Piping plovers opportunistically respond to these shifts
from year to year. The entire length of mainstem reservoirs was
included though small areas of reservoirs may never contain the primary
constituent elements due to high banks and steep slopes. We did not
exclude these areas because the court ordered deadlines and staff and
budget limitations did not allow the time or funding to undertake the
work necessary to provide the appropriate detail and accuracy of such
an endeavor. However, Federal actions limited to these areas that do
not contain the primary constituent elements would not trigger a
section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or the
primary constituent elements in or adjacent to critical habitat.
In South Dakota, a 107.5-mi (172.9-km) stretch from Big Bend Dam to
Fort Randall on the Missouri River (Lake Francis Case) was included in
the proposed rule although nesting piping plovers have not been
documented in this reach in recent times. Nesting surveys of this reach
had not been conducted since the appearance of sand habitats. Based on
comments received and information obtained during the comment period we
have decided not to include Lake Francis Case in the designation. The
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks provided supporting
information for the removal of Lake Francis Case from the designation.
This information primarily indicated that nesting piping plovers have
not been documented in this reach in recent times. We reviewed
additional information from the results of the 2001 International
Piping Plover Census that found no plovers in this reach despite the
new formation of some habitat. We further interviewed Corps of
Engineers (Corps) staff concerning the operations of Lake Francis Case
and the availability of habitat during the nesting season.
[[Page 57646]]
Natural Resource staff at the Corps' Ft. Randall Project office,
indicated that while habitat is developing in Lake Francis Case just
above the mouth of the White River, the flows on the river do not allow
for sufficient exposure time for nesting plovers (C. Wilson, pers.
comm.). Based on this information Lake Francis Case apparently does not
now provide significant nesting habitat for the piping plover, nor has
it in the last 10 years, nor is it likely to in the near future. Based
on a review of all of the information reviewed we have removed Lake
Francis Case from consideration since there is limited data reported to
support designation of critical habitat. If habitat conditions at Lake
Francis Case change over time then critical habitat designation can be
reassessed.
Inland Lakes (Lake of the Woods)--In Minnesota, piping plovers key
in on sandy points or spits in large lakes. Although many sandy beach/
large lakes exist, piping plovers are attracted to the rare combination
of windswept islands or peninsulas with a lack of adjacent tree cover.
Incidental observations have never yielded nesting observations on
large lakes such as Upper and Lower Red Lakes or Lake Winnibigoshish.
Therefore, we have limited our critical habitat designation in
Minnesota to three known sites on Lake of the Woods where the species
has been observed nesting in more than 1 year. Zippel Bay on Lake of
the Woods and Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge were not included
because breeding pairs were only observed in 1 out of 20 years at these
sites. In addition, habitat conditions have changed since those
observations which generally prevent piping plovers from using these
areas (K. Haws, pers. comm.).
Nebraska Rivers--Portions of the Platte, Niobrara, and Loup Rivers
were designated where piping plover nesting has been consistently
documented since listing.
Similar to the Missouri River, portions of the Platte River
included in the critical habitat designation may not be occupied in a
given year, but designation is necessary because of the dynamic nature
of the river. Sandbar habitats migrate up and down the rivers resulting
in shifts in the location of primary constituent elements. Based on
comments received during the comment period the length of the Platte
River included in the designation was reduced from the proposed rule.
The Elkhorn River was considered for this rule but was not included
because there is limited documented nesting on this river. We do not
consider the Elkhorn River to be essential at this time to the
conservation and recovery of the northern Great Plains breeding
population of the piping plover.
The shoreline along Lake McConaughy, Nebraska, was not included as
critical habitat due to the existence of two draft conservation
management plans developed by the Central Nebraska Public Power and
Irrigation District to satisfy a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) relicensing requirement for Project No. 1417. The ``Land and
Shoreline Management Plan'' and the ``Management Plan for Least Terns
and Piping Plovers Nesting on the Shore of Lake McConaughy'' were
developed in coordination and in agreement with the Service and the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Both plans are being implemented on
an interim basis while awaiting FERC approval. We believe that
implementation of these conservation management plans is consistent
with piping plover recovery. Therefore, this area is not in need of
special management and does not meet the definition of critical
habitat. If conservation management plans are in place and meet the
following three criteria, then we may exclude these areas from critical
habitat. These conservation plans must--(1) Provide a benefit to the
species; (2) include implementation assurances; and (3) include
features, such as an adaptive management plan, that will assure
effectiveness. Therefore, despite the presence of nesting piping
plovers at this site, it is eligible for exclusion from critical
habitat on the basis of having conservation management plans that
specifically address the conservation and recovery of the piping
plover. We have been informed that FERC will be finalizing the plans in
the near future.
Sand Pit Nesting Sites
We have thoroughly reviewed the best available and scientific
information available in regard to sandpits. Through the comment period
we were provided additional information from the Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission and various agencies that manage the sandpit areas. We
have concluded that sandpits do not support the primary biological
constituent element of dynamic ecological processes. Because sandpits
are artificial and temporary in nature, not all of the necessary
biological and physical features that are essential to the conservation
of the species are present at sandpits. We agree that sandpits have
produced piping plovers over the years but it has not been without
significant resource actions from managing agencies. Some biologists
believe that the sandpits have been successful because of their
location adjacent to the Platte River (Corn and Armbruster 1983 and E.
Kirsch pers. comm. 2001). ``Birds nesting on sandpits appear to forage
on river channel sites as well as on the sandpit shoreline, and
occasionally appear to fly up to a mile between the sandpit nest site
and the river channel foraging site (Corn and Armbruster 1993). Because
sandpits are man-made, the sand environment is machine shifted
regularly affecting vegetative growth and soil moisture. Soil moisture
at sandpit sites is lower than on river channel sites and declines
dramatically from the shoreline edge on sandpits. Corn and Armbruster
(1983) found that soil moisture was the key factor in explaining the
difference in invertebrate catch rates between rivers and sandpits.
They also found invertebrate catch rates and densities are higher on
river channel sites than on sandpits and invertebrate catch rates
increased more dramatically over the summer on river channel sites than
on sandpits. Without the dynamic ecological processes sandpit habitats
are only temporary and marginal habitats for piping plovers. Once
sandpits are abandoned, they become vegetated and too dense for piping
plovers and the physical primary constituent elements are eliminated.
Because sandpits do not meet the primary constituent elements and are
not likely to meet the primary constituent elements in the future we
have excluded them from designation.
Furthermore not all sand and gravel substrates at sand pits can be
used by piping plovers. According to Sidle and Kirsch (1993) piping
plovers will not nest on sand pits where the sand is steep sloped, near
sieves, below slurry runoff, on roads, areas frequently used by heavy
equipments, or in small areas covered by dense vegetation. Sidle and
Kirsch (1993) further speculate that where sandbar habitat is available
that plovers prefer sandbar habitats over sand pits. The percentage of
birds using sand pits was slightly lower in 1988 than in other years
because much sandbar habitat was available due to extremely low flows
from May through late July of that year (Lingle 1993).
In addition to the lack of the primary constituent elements, the
nature of sandpits is not conducive to long-term management and
recovery of the piping plover. We expect that mining will continue in
areas of Nebraska as it has for years. However, eventually the mined
areas are abandoned and usually sold for residential development.
Usually within 1 and 3 years the abandoned mines re-vegetate and all
value for piping plover nesting habitat is lost. Therefore, sandpits do
not
[[Page 57647]]
provide for piping plover recovery in the long term. This was
recognized by the recovery plan as sandpits are not listed as essential
habitat.
We do recognize that sand pits have provided alternative nesting
areas for piping plovers when other river sites were not available. We
further recognize the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership in the
Lower Platte River reach has the sand and gravel mining industry
working with conservation groups and researchers to conserve the
plovers that choose to nest on their sand pits. However, we have
decided that sand pits as nesting areas for the piping plover currently
do not meet the definition and requirements of critical habitat.
Colorado and Kansas Nesting Sites--Nesting areas on the Kansas
River in Kansas were considered for possible inclusion as critical
habitat but were not included because currently these sites are not
considered essential for reasons discussed below and, therefore, do not
meet the requirements of critical habitat. The Kansas River nesting
occurred for the first time in 1996 and is suspected to have occurred
because of habitat created by historical flood events (1993 and 1995).
We believe that a return to more normal flows will eliminate nesting
habitat on this river. In 4 years of documented nesting on the Kansas
River there was one pair of plovers the first year and never more than
four pairs. Additionally, productivity has been very limited. However,
the Corps and the Service will be monitoring the Kansas River for
piping plovers during the nesting season (Service 2000a). If nesting
birds persist on the Kansas River, then we may reevaluate this river's
contribution to conservation and recovery of the northern Great Plains
breeding population of piping plovers and the need to designate
critical habitat in the future.
Six different reservoirs (Neenoshe, Neegrande, Neeskah, John
Martin, Adobe Creek, and Verhoeff) in Bent, Otero, and Kiowa Counties,
Colorado, have been monitored for 10 years (1990-2000) and have not
been able to sustain a stable population. Although there was a high of
nine pairs in 1994 and 1995 and only four pairs in 2000, these sites
have not contributed significantly to the population. Predation and
water level fluctuations are limiting factors affecting reproductive
success. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is likely to continue
monitoring the nesting plovers on the reservoir sites. In addition, the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources approved a recovery plan for
both the piping plover and interior least tern in 1994. Therefore, we
are not proposing to include these areas in the critical habitat
designation because currently we do not consider them essential and,
therefore, do not meet the requirements of critical habitat.
Tribal Land--Eight Tribes have critical habitat designated within
the boundary of their reservations on the Missouri River including--the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Ft. Peck, Montana; the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe, and the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and
Arikara Tribes) of the Ft. Berthold Reservation in North Dakota; the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and Yankton
Sioux Tribe in South Dakota; and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.
Additionally, eight Tribes have land or Tribal trust land on submerged
sites or sandbars/islands of the Missouri River. These Tribes include--
the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Ft. Peck, Montana; the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe, and the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and
Arikara Tribes) of the Ft. Berthold Reservation in North Dakota; the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton
Sioux Tribe in South Dakota; and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.
Indian trust lands are lands held by the United States in trust for
either a Tribe or an individual Indian. The Submerged Lands Act, 43
U.S.C. 1301-1356, states that lands beneath navigable water held by the
United States for the benefit of any Tribe, band, or of Indians or for
individual Indians is excepted from the confirmation and establishment
of the States' rights confirmed by 43 U.S.C. 1311. Therefore, the
Service recognizes that there are Tribal lands within the areas
designated as critical habitat on the Missouri River. These habitats on
the Missouri River within the boundary of a Tribe, or held by the
Tribe, individual Indian, or held in Trust by the United States with
the primary constituent elements, as discussed in the Missouri River
sections, are essential to the recovery of the piping plover.
Additionally, the Turtle Mountain Tribe has mineral rights to land
along the Missouri River in North Dakota that was taken by the Corps
for the Missouri River mainstem system. We also coordinated with three
additional Tribes with interest in lands on the Missouri River because
of past treaties or other issues including the Rosebud Sioux and Oglala
Sioux Tribes of South Dakota and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
The Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribes also were consulted on the
critical habitat designation. These reservation boundaries include
areas on Lake Sharpe and Lake Francis Case. Both Reservoirs were
excluded from designation. However, a small peninsula/island within the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Reservation boundary is considered an area in
need of special management. The Tribe and the Service believe this area
if managed could help restore piping plovers to this reservation.
Although this site is an area in need of special management, we cannot
designate this area at this time because it was not in the proposed
rule and thus was not subject to public comment. However, this area
could be considered in a future amendment to the critical habitat
designation.
The Ponca Tribe reservation boundary includes critical habitat
designated along the Niobrara River, but there are no trust lands
within the critical habitat designation.
Piping plovers nest on sandbars and islands of the Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes of Ft. Peck. We believe that these Tribal lands are
essential for the conservation of the piping plover and we have
designated critical habitat for the piping plover on these lands of the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Ft. Peck. However, the Ft. Peck Tribes
have expressed concerns over designation of critical habitat on their
lands because--(1) perception of burdens from the designation; (2)
their view that it has never been established that the Endangered
Species Act applies to Indian Tribes and their natural resources, and
(3) their plan to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for species
along the Missouri River including the piping plover. The Ft. Peck
Tribal land within the high banks of the Missouri River will remain in
the critical habitat designation. When the Ft. Peck Tribes have
completed a HCP the Service will review the plan for removal of their
Tribal lands from the critical habitat designation.
We initiated coordination with all Tribes on this designation under
the guidance of the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, which
requires us to coordinate with federally recognized Tribes on a
Government-to-Government basis.
We understand that some Tribes have concerns for the Service's
government to government consultation responsibilities. We acknowledge
the Tribes concerns but we believe we have carried out our
responsibilities as best as we could under the constraints of limited
staff and budgets and as court ordered time frames allowed. With the
exception of the Turtle Mountain Tribe,
[[Page 57648]]
which we only recently learned has mineral rights along the Missouri
River, we have previously corresponded with Tribes by letters to Tribal
Chairs and heads of Tribal Game and Fish Agencies on five different
occasions and also facsimiles when the proposed rule was published.
Further information and communication have occurred with various
Tribal and BOR staffs at meetings to discuss piping plover critical
habitat, including the 2001 Native American Fish and Wildlife Society
Meeting in Billings, Montana, two Inter-Tribal Great Plains Fish and
Wildlife Commission Meetings, and follow-up meetings with Yankton,
Lower Brule, Fort Peck, Assiniboine, and Sioux, and Cheyenne River
Tribes. Telephone communication also has taken place between Service
Field staff and Tribal Game and Fish field staff.
To identify and map areas essential to the conservation of the
species, we used the characteristics of essential habitat described
above, data on known piping plover locations, and criteria in the
recovery plans for reclassification of the species. We then evaluated
areas based on survey and research data and the primary constituent
elements, including hydrology, influences of ecological processes, and
topographic features.
To map areas of critical habitat, we used the Service's National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) digitized data and U.S. Geological Survey
public land surveys to develop regional GIS coverages; Environmental
Systems Research Institute wetland data (where NWI data was
unavailable); 1984 digital ortho quarter quads for all Nebraska river
reaches, and Statewide and county maps for Nebraska; Central Public
Power and Irrigation District Species Protection Zone maps of Lake
McConaughy; and data from known piping plover breeding locations.
Tribal boundary and Tribal trust information were interpreted and
provided to us by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Great Plains
regional Office. We also solicited information from knowledgeable
biologists and reviewed the available information pertaining to habitat
requirements of the species.
We could not depend solely on federally owned lands for critical
habitat designation as these lands are limited in geographic location,
size, and habitat quality within the current range of the northern
Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover. In addition to
the federally owned lands, we are designating critical habitat on non-
Federal public lands and privately owned lands, including land owned by
the States of Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota.
All non-Federal lands designated as critical habitat meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3 of the Endangered
Species Act in that they are within the geographical area occupied by
the species, are essential to the conservation of the species, and may
require special management considerations or protection.
We described critical habitat as Township, Range, and Sections
(TRS) for the legal descriptions because these are used and recognized
locally. The maps depicted the alkali lakes and wetlands and associated
uplands, and showed the TRS boundaries. We also added Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates at the center point of each site.
Due to court ordered time constraints, budget and staffing constraints,
and the use of TRS as our minimum mapping unit, in defining critical
habitat boundaries, we were unable to exclude developed areas such as
mainstem dam structures, buildings, marinas, boat ramps, bank
stabilization and breakwater structures, row cropped or plowed
agricultural areas, mines, roads and other lands (e.g., high bank
bluffs along Missouri River reservoirs) unlikely to contain primary
constituent elements essential for northern Great Plains piping plover
conservation. In addition we included the entire length of mainstem
reservoirs even though small areas of reservoirs may never contain the
primary constituent elements due to high banks and steep slopes. We did
not exclude these areas because it would require a minimum of 2 years
to collect data necessary to map at that detail and the necessary
staffing and funding to complete such an effort. These features will
not themselves contain one or more of the primary constituent elements.
Federal actions limited to those features, therefore, would not trigger
a section 7 consultation, unless they affect species and/or primary
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, in determining areas that are essential to the
conservation of the northern Great Plains 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 contained within units discussed
below constitutes our best evaluation of areas needed to conserve the
northern Great Plains breeding population of piping plovers. Critical
habitat designations may be subsequently revised if new information
becomes available after this final rule is published. A formal proposal
and opportunity for public comment would occur before any changes made
to this designation, including the addition of any areas as critical
habitat.
Table 1 provides a summary of land ownership and approximate
acreage or river miles of critical habitat for each State. Critical
habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping
plover includes approximately 183,422 ac (74,228.4 ha) of habitat in
Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota, and approximately 1,207.5 mi
(1,943.3 km) of river in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Nebraska. Table 2 provides land ownership and approximate acreage or
river miles of critical habitat for each critical habitat unit. Lands
designated as critical habitat are under private, Federal, Tribal, and
State ownership. Estimates reflect the total area or river miles within
critical habitat unit boundaries, without regard to the presence of
primary constituent elements. Therefore, the area included within the
designation is less than indicated in Tables 1 and 2.
Lands designated as critical habitat are divided into 19 critical
habitat units containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements for the northern Great Plains population of piping plovers. A
brief description of each piping plover critical habitat unit is
provided below and in Table 2.
Minnesota
Unit MN-1, Rocky Point, Pine and Curry Island, and Morris Point--
This unit includes approximately 235.2 ac (95.1 ha) of unique habitat,
including sparsely vegetated windswept islands, peninsulas, and sandy
points or spits that interface with Lake of the Woods in Lake of the
Woods County. Although this unit is small in size, there have been up
to 50 plovers found during the breeding season. Numbers have declined
since the mid-1980s and there is a continued need for habitat and
predator management. This unit represents the most eastern portion of
the northern Great Plains population of breeding piping plovers and may
be an important link between the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains
breeding populations. It is the only remaining breeding site for piping
plovers in Minnesota. Approximately 100.4 ac (40.6 ha) are designated
within the 697-ac (282.3-hectare) Rocky Point Wildlife Management Area,
which is in public ownership, managed by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources. Rocky
[[Page 57649]]
Point is located just east of Arneson on Lake of the Woods. Unit 1 also
includes approximately 134.8 ac (54.5 ha) within the Pine and Curry
Island Scientific and Natural Area which is in public ownership,
managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Pine and
Curry Island Scientific and Natural Area includes approximately 112.6
ac (45.6 ha) of a sandy barrier island (Pine and Curry Island) and 22.2
ac (8.9 ha) of an adjacent peninsula (Morris Point) located at the
mouth of the Rainy River on Lake of the Woods.
Montana
Unit MT-1, Sheridan County--This unit includes approximately
19,222.9 ac (7,779.4 ha) of 20 alkali lakes and wetlands in Sheridan
County, located in the extreme northeast corner of Montana. These
alkali lakes and wetlands are characterized as follows--shallow,
seasonally to permanently flooded; mixosaline to hypersaline chemistry;
sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches, salt-encrusted mud
flats, and/or gravelly salt flats; 200 ft (61 m) of uplands above the
wetlands' high water mark including springs and fens, which provide
foraging and protective habitat for piping plovers. Sites included in
this unit are occupied by piping plovers. This unit requires special
management including increasing reproductive success through predator
exclusion devices, such as nest cages and electric fences, and reducing
vegetation encroachment on nesting beaches through prescribed burning
or grazing. Essential breeding habitat is dispersed throughout this
unit which represents the largest portion (approximately 66 percent) of
the plovers surveyed in Montana. This unit also links similar habitat
in Canada and North Dakota. Approximately 5,571 ac (2,254.5 ha) are in
private ownership and 13,651.9 ac (5,524.8 ha) are in public ownership.
Of the lands in public ownership, 13,356.8 ac (5,405.4 ha) are in
Federal ownership and 295.1 ac (119.4 ha) are in State ownership.
Federal lands designated include piping plover populations on Medicine
Lake National Wildlife Refuge and several Waterfowl Production Areas,
both owned and managed by the Service. State lands designated include
land owned and managed by the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation.
Unit MT-4, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge--This unit encompasses
approximately 3,294.5 ac (1,333.2 ha) on Bowdoin National Wildlife
Refuge with sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches, peninsulas, and
islands composed of sand gravel, or shale that interface with these
water bodies. The site is located in east-central Phillips County,
approximately 170.8 mi (275 km) west of the North Dakota border and
37.3 mi (60 km) south of Canada. This unit represents the western edge
of the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover
and requires special management including water level and predator
management. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is in public ownership
(Federal) and managed by the Service. Lake Bowdoin is an off stream
facility receiving water from the Milk River.
Nebraska
Unit NE-1, Platte, Loup, and Niobrara Rivers--This unit encompasses
approximately 440 mi (707.9 km) of river. The river habitat includes
sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands
within the high bank for nesting, temporary pools on sandbars and
islands, and the interface of sand and river where plovers forage. All
three of these rivers are occupied by and provide essential habitat for
the piping plover.
Niobrara River--The Niobrara River is a tributary of the Missouri
River, originating in Wyoming and flowing through the northern part of
the Nebraska Sandhills region. The portion of the Niobrara included in
as Critical Habitat starts at the bridge south of Norton, Nebraska, and
extends downstream 120 mi (193 km) to its confluence with the Missouri
River. The Niobrara River is one of the most undeveloped rivers in the
northern Great Plains and represents one of the last rivers with
largely untouched piping plover habitats. The source of water for this
river is largely groundwater discharge which helps to provide a year-
round base flow with few flood events which are essential to successful
plover nesting. Essential nesting habitat is dispersed throughout this
unit and this unit represents about 36 percent of Nebraska's plover
population. Five miles of the Niobrara are within the Ponca Tribe
reservation boundary.
In 1991, Congress designated 76 mi (122.3 km) of the Niobrara River
as a ``National Scenic River,'' 50 mi (80.5 km) of which are included
in the Critical Habitat designation. The National Scenic River reach
ends where Highway 137 crosses the river. The Nature Conservancy owns
and manages 9.5 mi (15.3 km) along the Niobrara River that falls within
both the National Scenic River reach and the piping plover Critical
Habitat. Other ownership and interests are principally private. The
primary land use along the Niobrara River is farming (east along the
river) and ranching (west along the river).
Loup River--The Loup River flows 68 mi (109.4 km) to its confluence
with the Platte River near Columbus. Ownership interests within this
reach of Critical Habitat are primarily private. Habitat on the Loup
River designation is part of the larger Platte River watershed and
provides productive habitat for piping plovers. The Loup River is one
of the Platte River's principal tributaries.
Platte River--The North and Middle Platte Rivers each originate in
the Rocky Mountains of Colorado with snow melt, and flow east into
Nebraska where they join forming the Platte River near the town of
North Platte. The reach included in the piping plover Critical Habitat
begins at the Lexington bridge and extends to the Platte's confluence
with the Missouri River 252 mi (405.5 km) downstream. About one-fourth
of this part of the Platte is already designated as critical habitat
for the whooping crane (Grus americana), including a 3-mi wide (4.8-km)
north-south buffer starting at a western boundary south of Lexington
east to south of Shelton. Ownership is primarily private, including
28.5 mi (45.9 km) which is managed as conservation land by The Nature
Conservancy, Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust,
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, Nebraska Public
Power District, and the National Audubon Society's Lillian Annette Rowe
Sanctuary. The State of Nebraska owns 8 mi (12.9 km) along the Platte
River, which is primarily under the jurisdiction of the Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission. Essential nesting habitat is dispersed throughout
this unit.
North Dakota
Units 1-10 in North Dakota (described below) include prairie alkali
lakes and wetlands. These alkali lakes and wetlands are characterized
as follows--shallow; seasonally to permanently flooded; mixosaline to
hypersaline chemistry; sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches,
salt-encrusted mudflats, and/or gravelly salt flats; 200 ft (61 m) of
uplands above the wetlands' high water mark, including springs and fens
which provide foraging and protective habitat for piping plovers. Sites
included in this unit are occupied (determined to have nesting piping
plovers in more than 1 year) by piping plovers. This unit requires
special management including increasing reproductive success through
predator exclusion devices, such as nest cages and electric fences, and
reducing
[[Page 57650]]
vegetation encroachment on nesting beaches through prescribed burning
or grazing.
These essential breeding habitats in North Dakota can support more
than 50 percent of the current known population of the northern Great
Plains Piping Plover. The proximity of Units 1-10 to the Missouri River
provides an important ecological link that may allow birds extra
protection from a severe drought that results in dry wetlands basins.
As birds experience drought in these units biologists believe birds
move to the river. Conversely, birds may move to these units when
Missouri River flows are high.
Unit ND-1--This unit encompasses approximately 7,456.9 ac (3,017.7
ha) of 13 alkali lakes and wetlands in Divide and Williams Counties,
located in the extreme northwestern corner of North Dakota.
Approximately 1,765.2 ac (714.3 ha) are in public ownership and 5,691.7
ac (2,303.4 ha) are in private ownership. Of the lands in public
ownership 1,337.9 ac (541.4 ha) are in Federal ownership (Waterfowl
Production Areas managed by the Service) and 427.2 ac (172.9 ha) are in
State ownership. State lands designated include 3.1 ac (1.2 ha) of
Wildlife Management Areas owned and managed by the North Dakota Game
and Fish Department and 424.1 ac (171.6 ha) of school lands owned and
managed by the North Dakota Land Department.
Unit ND-2--This unit encompasses approximately 20,683.8 ac (8,370.6
ha) of 14 alkali lakes and wetlands in Burke, Renville, and Mountrail
Counties, in northwestern North Dakota. Approximately 13,986.5 ac
(5,660.2 ha) are in public ownership and 6,697.3 ac (2,710.3 ha) are in
private ownership. Of the lands in public ownership, 13,251.8 ac
(5,362.9 ha) are in Federal ownership and 734.6 ac (297.3 ha) are in
State ownership. Federal lands designated include Lostwood and Upper
Souris National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Productions Areas, both
owned and managed by the Service. State lands designated include 320.1
ac (129.5 ha) of Wildlife Management Areas owned and managed by the
North Dakota Game and Fish Department and 414.4 ac (167.7 ha) of school
lands owned and managed by the North Dakota Land Department.
Unit ND-3--This unit encompasses approximately 2,524.5 ac (1,021.6
ha) of 11 alkali lakes and wetlands in Mountrail and Ward Counties in
northwestern North Dakota. Approximately 615.9 ac (249.2 ha) are in
public ownership and 1,908.5 ac (772.3 ha) are in private ownership. Of
the lands in public ownership, 615.7 ac (249.2 ha) are in Federal
ownership (Waterfowl Production Areas managed by the Service) and 0.2
ac (0.08 ha) are in State ownership. State lands designated are owned
and managed by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department as a Wildlife
Management Area.
Unit ND-4--This unit encompasses approximately 5,150.7 ac (2,084.4
ha) of eight alkali lakes and wetlands in McLean County in north-
central North Dakota. Approximately 1,292.6 ac (523.1 ha) are in public
ownership and 3,858 ac (1,561.3 ha) are in private ownership. Of the
lands in public ownership, 752.1 ac (304.3 ha) are in Federal ownership
(Waterfowl Production Areas managed by the Service) and 540.5 ac (218.7
ha) are in State ownership. State lands designated include 435.5 ac
(176.2 ha) of Wildlife Management Areas owned and managed by the North
Dakota Game and Fish Department and 104.9 ac (42.4 ha) of school lands
owned and managed by the North Dakota Land Department. The John E.
Williams Preserve, owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy
(private), also is included in this unit.
Unit ND-5--This unit encompasses approximately 3,925.6 ac (1,588.7
ha) of 10 alkali lakes and wetlands in McHenry and Sheridan Counties in
north-central and central North Dakota. Approximately 406.8 ac (164.6
ha) are in public ownership and 3,518.8 ac (1,424 ha) are in private
ownership. All public lands are in Federal ownership with 34.4 ac (13.9
ha) owned and managed by the Service as Waterfowl Production Areas and
372.4 ac (150.7 ha) owned by the BOR and managed by the North Dakota
Game and Fish Department as a Wildlife Management Area.
Unit ND-6--This unit encompasses approximately 6,075.2 ac (2,458.6
ha) of 11 alkali lakes and wetlands in Benson and Pierce Counties, in
northeastern North Dakota. Approximately 767.3 ac (310.5 ha) are in
public ownership and 5,307.9 ac (2,148 ha) are in private ownership. Of
the lands in public ownership, 724.8 ac (293.3 ha) are in Federal
ownership and 42.5 ac (17.2 ha) are in State ownership. State lands
designated include 20.7 ac (8.4 ha) of Wildlife Management Areas owned
and managed by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and 21.7 ac
(8.79 ha) of school lands owned and managed by the North Dakota Land
Department.
Unit ND-7--This unit encompasses approximately 30,125.7 ac
(12,191.7 ha) of nine alkali lakes and wetlands in Burleigh and Kidder
Counties, in south-central North Dakota. Approximately 20,012.1 ac
(8,089.8 ha) are in public ownership and 10,113.5 ac (4,092.9 ha) are
in private ownership. Of the lands in public ownership, 18,113.1 ac
(7,330.3 ha) are in Federal ownership (Waterfowl Production Areas
managed by the Service) and 1,898.9 ac (768.5 ha) are in State
ownership. State lands designated include 1,247.9 ac (505 ha) of
Wildlife Management Areas owned and managed by the North Dakota Game
and Fish Department and 650.9 ac (263.4 ha) of school lands owned and
managed by the North Dakota Land Department. Federal lands designated
include Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Waterfowl Production
Areas owned and managed by the Service.
Unit ND-8--This unit encompasses approximately 4,056.7 ac (1,641.7
ha) of three alkali lakes and wetlands in Stutsman County, in south-
central North Dakota. Approximately 3,593.6 ac (1,454.3 ha) are in
public ownership and 463.1 ac (187.4 ha) are in private ownership. Of
the lands in public ownership, 3,583.8 ac (1,450.3 ha) are in Federal
ownership and 9.7 ac (3.9 ha) are in State ownership. Federal lands
designated include Chase Lake and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuges
and Waterfowl Production Areas owned and managed by the Service. State
lands designated include 7.9 ac (3.2 ha) of school lands owned and
managed by the North Dakota Land Department and 1.8 ac (0.7 ha) of
Wildlife Management Areas owned and managed by the North Dakota Game
and Fish Department.
Unit ND-9--This unit encompasses approximately 2,658 ac (1,075.6
ha) of six alkali lakes and wetlands in Logan and McIntosh Counties in
south-central North Dakota. Approximately 732.5 ac (296.4 ha) are in
public ownership and 1,925.5 ac (779.2 ha) are in private ownership. Of
the lands in public ownership, 497.7 ac (201.4 ha) are in Federal
ownership (Waterfowl Production Areas managed by the Service) and 234.7
ac (95 ha) are in State ownership (Wildlife Management Areas managed by
the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.
Unit ND-10--This unit encompasses approximately 641.6 ac (259.6 ha)
of one alkali lake in Eddy County in northeastern North Dakota.
Approximately 6.8 ac (2.7 ha) are in public ownership as a Waterfowl
Production Area managed by the Service and 634.7 ac (256.8 ha) are in
private ownership.
Missouri River Units
Missouri River Units--Missouri River units consist of riverine and
reservoir (Fort Peck Lake, Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon, Lake Oahe,
and Lewis and Clark Lake) reaches. All reservoirs
[[Page 57651]]
except Lake Audubon are mainstem impoundments, constructed by dams, and
regulated by the Corps. Lake Audubon is a sub-impoundment of Lake
Sakakawea and is regulated by the BOR through operation of the Snake
Creek Pumping Plant. Overall the Missouri River has accounted for up to
31 percent of the northern Great Plains population of piping plovers.
All of the units are occupied.
Piping plover habitat within reservoir reaches is composed of
shorelines, peninsulas, and islands, below the top of the maximum
operating pool and is owned by the Federal government. These reservoir
habitats include sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches, peninsulas,
islands composed of sand, grave, or shale, and their interface with the
water. These reservoir reaches provide habitat for about 42 percent of
the piping plovers on the Missouri River.
Piping plover habitat within riverine reaches consists of inter-
channel islands and sandbars including their temporary pools and
interface with the river. These habitats are sparsely vegetated and
consist of sand and gravel substrates. Riverine reaches provide habitat
for about 58 percent of the piping plovers on the Missouri River.
Ownership of these sites varies by State. In Montana, islands and
sandbars are recognized as owned by the State except along the
reservation boundaries of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort
Peck. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck own land to the
mid-channel of the Missouri River adjacent to the Reservation boundary.
In North Dakota and South Dakota, islands and sandbars are
recognized as owned by the State. Four Tribes along the Missouri River
in North Dakota and South Dakota have critical habitat designated
within the boundary of their reservation including the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe, and the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and
Arikara Tribes) of the Ft. Berthold Reservation, the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Additionally, these Tribes
have land or Tribal trust land on submerged sites or sandbars/islands
within the critical habitat designation of the Missouri River in North
and South Dakota. In Nebraska, islands and sandbars are owned by the
adjacent landowner including the Santee Sioux Tribe.
Montana
Unit MT-2--This unit encompasses approximately 125.4 mi (201.8 km)
from just west of Wolf Point, McCone County, Montana, at RM 1712.0
downstream to the Montana/North Dakota border, Richland County,
Montana, and McKenzie County, North Dakota, at RM 1586.6. The Missouri
River in this unit flows through reservation land of the Assiniboine
and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck (81.7 mi (131.5 km)), State land, and
privately owned land.
Unit MT-3, Fort Peck Reservoir--This unit encompasses approximately
77,370 ac (31,311 ha) of Fort Peck Reservoir, located entirely within
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge which is in Federal
ownership, managed by the Service.
North Dakota
Unit ND-11, Missouri River--Approximately 354.6 mi (570.6 km) from
the Montana/North Dakota border just west of Williston, McKenzie
County, North Dakota, at RM 1586.6 downstream to the North Dakota/South
Dakota border in Sioux and Emmons Counties, North Dakota, and Corson
and Campbell Counties, South Dakota, at RM 1232.0. Lake Sakakawea, Lake
Audubon, and Lake Oahe are included in this unit, along with a free-
flowing stretch of the Missouri River from RM 1389 to 1302 (Garrison
Reach). The North Dakota Game and Fish Department manages the north
half of Audubon Reservoir and the Service manages the south half of
Audubon Reservoir. The Missouri River and associated reservoirs in this
unit include 6.83 mi (11 km) of shoreline (right and left bank) of
trust land and 77 liner rm (123.9 km) within the reservation boundary
of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold and 23.22 mi (37.37 km)
of shoreline on trust land and 38 linear rm (61.16 km) within the
reservation boundary of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and 20 mi (32.19 km)
of shoreline on trust land. A mix of State and privately owned lands
also are included in this unit.
South Dakota
Unit SD-1 Missouri River--Approximately 159.7 mi (257 km) from the
North Dakota/South Dakota border northeast of McLaughlin, Corson
County, South Dakota, at RM 1232.0 downstream to RM 1072.3, just north
of Oahe Dam (Oahe Reservoir). The Missouri River and associated
reservoirs in this unit include 3.22 mi (5.18 km) of shoreline (right
bank) on trust land and 41 linear mi (65.98 km) within the reservation
boundary of the Standing Rock Sioux and 23.44 mi (37.72 km) of
shoreline (right bank) on trust land and 77 linear mi (123.92 km)
within the reservation boundary of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. A mix of
State and privately owned lands also are included in this unit.
Unit SD-2, Missouri River--Approximately 127.8 mi (204.4 km) from
RM 880.0, at Fort Randall Dam, Bon Homme and Charles Mix Counties,
South Dakota, downstream to RM 752.2 near Ponca, Dixon County,
Nebraska. One mainstem Missouri River reservoir, Lewis and Clark Lake,
and two riverine reaches (Fort Randall and Gavins Point) are included
in this unit. In addition to the 127.8 mi (204.4 km) that border South
Dakota on the left bank there are approximately 7.8 mi (12.4 km) of
river bordering South Dakota on the right bank. All islands and
sandbars in South Dakota are in State ownership with the exception of
60.36 mi (97.14 km) of shoreline (left bank) on trust land and 34
linear miles (54.72 km) within the reservation boundary of the Yankton
Sioux Tribe. Approximately 120 mi (192 km) (right bank) of river border
Nebraska. Sandbars and islands in Nebraska (State line extends to mid-
channel) belong to the adjacent landowner. Approximately 16 linear mi
(25.75 km) (right bank) of river below Ft. Randall Dam are within the
boundary of the Santee Sioux Reservation, including 0.05 mi (0.08 km)
of shoreline on trust land.
[[Page 57652]]
Table 1.--Critical Habitat Units for the Piping Plover in United States Great Plains States Summarized by Federal, State, County, Private, and Other
Ownership
[Ownership--linear river miles and acres]
(Percentage within each State)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal (Reservation
Federal State boundary) Private Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota......................... 0 235.2 ac 0 0 235.2 ac
(95.2 ha) (95.2 ha)
(100%)
Montana........................... 94,021.4 ac 295.1 ac 0 5,571.0 ac 99,887.5 ac
(38,049.2 ha) (119.4 ha) (2,254.5 ha) (40,423.1 ha)
(94.1%) (0.3%) (5.6%)
--Ft. Peck Reservoir (Missouri 77,370.0 ac ...................... ...................... ..................... .....................
River). (31,310.6 ha)
--All other habitat............... 16,651.4 ac ...................... ...................... ..................... .....................
6,738.6 ha)
North Dakota...................... 39,291.2. ac 3,888.7 ac 0 40,119.4 ac 83,299.3 ac
(15,900.95 ha) (1,573.8 ha) (16,236.1 ha) (33,710.8 ha)
(47.2%) (4.7%) (48.1%)
Missouri River \1\ \2\............ 460.2 mi 307.3 mi 503.7 mi \2\ 0 767.5 mi
(740.6 km) (494.6 km) (810.6 km) (1,235.2 km)
Nebraska.......................... 0 13.0 mi 5.0 427.0 mi 440.0 mi
(20.9 km) (8.05 km) (687.2 km) (708.1 km)
(2.8%) (0.01%) (97%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Missouri River includes portions of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Ownership of these sites varies by State. The Federal
government owns the reservoir shorelines below the maximum operating pool. In Montana, islands and sandbars are recognized as owned by the State
except along the reservation boundaries of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck own land to
the mid-channel of the Missouri River adjacent to the Reservation boundary. In North Dakota and South Dakota, islands and sandbars are recognized as
owned by the State. However, Tribal trust lands in these States under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301-1356) are recognized as held by the
United States for benefit of the Tribe In Nebraska, islands and sandbars are owned by the adjacent landowner.
\2\ Missouri River uses linear miles and opposite banks can be shared by States or Tribes. The overall total miles of river (767.5) is correct but
percentages were not calculated because of the shared linear mileage.
Table 2.--Location, Ownership, and Estimated Length (or area) of Piping Plover Critical Habitat Areas Mapped
Within The United States Great Plains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit and Location County Land ownership Est length (mi) or area (ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN-1:
Rocky Point................. Lake of the Woods.. State.............. 112.6 ac (45.6 ha)
Morris Point................ ................... State.............. 22.2 ac (9.0 ha)
Pine & Curry Island......... ................... State.............. 100.4 ac (40.6 ha)
MT-1:
Sheridan 1.................. Sheridan........... State, Private..... 734.0 ac (297.0 ha)
Sheridan 2.................. ................... Private............ 270.9 ac (109.6 ha)
Sheridan 3.................. ................... State, Private..... 280.9 ac (113.7 ha)
Sheridan 4.................. ................... Private............ 452.9 ac (183.3 ha)
Sheridan 5.................. ................... Private, Federal... 107.1 ac (43.4 ha)
Sheridan 6.................. ................... State, Private..... 507.1 ac (205.2 ha)
Sheridan 7.................. ................... Private, Federal... 100.1 ac (40.5 ha)
Sheridan 8.................. ................... State, Private, 500.2 ac (202.4 ha)
Federal.
Sheridan 9.................. ................... Private, Federal... 88.1 ac (35.7 ha)
Sheridan 10................. ................... State, Private, 562.1 ac (227.5 ha)
Federal.
Sheridan 11................. ................... Private............ 431.4 ac (174.6 ha)
Sheridan 12................. ................... State, Private..... 375.8 ac (152.1 ha)
Sheridan 13................. ................... State, Private, 1,327.2 ac (537.1 ha)
Federal.
Sheridan 14................. ................... Private, Federal... 482.7 ac (195.4 ha)
Sheridan 15................. ................... Private............ 362.7 ac (146.8 ha)
Sheridan 16................. ................... Federal............ 112.1 ac (45.4 ha)
Sheridan 17................. ................... Private, Federal... 565.7 ac (228.9 ha)
Sheridan 18................. ................... State, Federal..... 388.9 ac (157.4 ha)
Sheridan 19................. ................... Federal............ 151.9 ac (61.5 ha)
Sheridan 20................. ................... Private, Federal... 11,421 ac (4,622 ha)
MT-2:
Missouri River.............. McCone, Richland, State, Tribal...... 125.4 mi (201.8 km)
Roosevelt.
MT-3:
Fort Peck Reservoir......... Garfield, McCone, Federal............ 77,370.0 ac (31,311.0
Valley.
MT-4:
Bowdoin NWR................. Phillips........... Federal............ 3,294.5 ac (1,333.3 ha)
[[Page 57653]]
ND-1:
Divide 1.................... Divide............. Private............ 429.1 ac (173.6 ha)
Divide 2.................... ................... Private, Federal... 355.0 ac (143.6 ha)
Divide 3.................... ................... Private, Federal... 485.2 ac (196.4 ha)
Divide 4.................... ................... Private............ 526.7 ac (213.2 ha)
Divide 5.................... ................... Private............ 421.9 ac (170.7 ha)
Divide 6.................... ................... Private, Federal... 1,278.0 ac (517.2 ha)
Divide 7.................... ................... Private............ 543.1 ac (219.8 ha)
Divide 8.................... ................... Private, Federal... 130.1 ac (52.7 ha)
Divide 9.................... ................... Private, Federal... 1,028.8 ac (416.3 ha)
Divide 10................... ................... Private............ 855.5 ac (346.2 ha)
Williams 1.................. Williams........... Private............ 149.0 ac (60.3 ha)
Williams 2.................. ................... State, Private..... 586.1 ac (237.2 ha)
Williams 3.................. ................... Private, Federal... 668.4 ac (270.5 ha)
ND-2:
Burke 1..................... Burke.............. Private, Federal... 505.6 ac (204.6 ha)
Burke 2..................... ................... Private, Federal... 1,017.5 ac (411.8 ha)
Burke 3..................... ................... Federal............ 61.4 ac (24.8 ha)
Mountrail 1................. Mountrail.......... Private, Federal... 726.2 ac (293.9ha)
Mountrail 2................. ................... State, Private, 1,633.9 ac (661.2 ha)
Federal.
Mountrail 3................. ................... Private............ 2,829.0 ac (1,144.9 ha)
Mountrail 4................. ................... Private, Federal... 227.1 ac (91.9 ha)
Mountrail 5................. ................... Private, Federal... 475.4 ac (192.4 ha)
Mountrail 6................. ................... State, Private, 1,122.9 ac (454.4 ha)
Federal.
Mountrail 7................. ................... State, Private, 457.5 ac (185.1 ha)
Federal.
Mountrail 8................. ................... Private, Federal... 362.8 ac (146.8 ha)
Mountrail 9................. ................... Private, Federal... 503.0 ac (203.6 ha)
Mountrail 10................ ................... Private, Federal... 289.2 ac (117.0 ha)
Renville 1.................. Renville........... Federal............ 10,472.4 ac (4,238.1 ha)
ND-3:
Mountrail 11................ Mountrail.......... Private, Federal... 436.5 ac (176.7 ha)
Ward 1...................... Ward............... Private, Federal... 270.6 ac (109.5 ha)
Ward 2...................... ................... Private............ 287.1 ac (116.2 ha)
Ward 3...................... ................... Private............ 69.7 ac (28.2 ha)
Ward 4...................... ................... Private............ 138.2 ac (55.9 ha)
Ward 5...................... ................... State, Private, 135.5 ac (54.8 ha)
Federal.
Ward 6...................... ................... Private............ 446 ac (180.5 ha)
Ward 7...................... ................... Private............ 56.9 ac (23.0 ha)
Ward 8...................... ................... Private, Federal... 235.1 ac (95.2 ha)
Ward 9...................... ................... Federal............ 134.7 ac (54.5 ha)
Ward 10..................... ................... Private, Federal... 314.2 ac (127.2 ha)
ND-4:
McLean 1.................... McClean............ Private, Federal... 310.9 ac (125.8 ha)
McLean 2.................... ................... Private............ 245.2 ac (99.2 ha)
McLean 3.................... ................... State, Private, 542.5 ac (219.5 ha)
Federal.
McLean 4.................... ................... Private, Federal... 476.7 ac (192.9 ha)
McLean 5.................... ................... State, Private, 2,705.2 ac (1,094.8
Federal.
McLean 6.................... ................... State, Private, 620 ac (250.9 ha)
Federal.
McLean 7.................... ................... State, Private..... 62.1 ac (25.1 ha)
McLean 8.................... ................... Private, Federal.. 188.3 ac (76.2 ha)
ND-5:
McHenry 1................... McHenry............ Private............ 690.9 ac (279.6 ha)
McHenry 2................... ................... Private............ 400.0 ac (161.9 ha)
McHenry 3................... ................... Private............ 149.5 ac (60.5 ha)
McHenry 4................... ................... Private............ 238.8 ac (96.6ha)
Sheridan 1.................. Sheridan........... Private............ 488.2 ac (197.6 ha)
Sheridan 2.................. ................... Private, Federal... 466.6 ac (188.8 ha)
Sheridan 3.................. ................... Private, Federal... 1,119.3 ac (453 ha)
Sheridan 4.................. ................... Federal............ 231.5 ac (93.7 ha)
Sheridan 5.................. ................... Federal............ 22.8 ac (9.2 ha)
Sheridan 6.................. ................... Federal............ 118.1 ac (47.8 ha)
ND-6:
Benson 1.................... Benson............. State, Private, 500.4 ac (202.5 ha)
Federal.
Benson 2.................... ................... Private, Federal... 172.0 ac (69.6 ha)
Benson 3.................... ................... Private, Federal... 282.9 ac (114.5 ha)
Benson 4.................... ................... State, Private, 474.5 ac (192.0 ha)
Federal.
Benson 5.................... ................... Private, Federal... 92.9 ac (37.6 ha)
Benson 6.................... ................... Private, Federal... 254.5 ac (103.0 ha)
Benson 7.................... ................... Private, Federal... 1,899.6 ac (768.7 ha)
Pierce 1.................... ................... Private, Federal... 323.9 ac (131.1 ha)
[[Page 57654]]
Pierce 2.................... ................... Private............ 546.5 ac (221.2 ha)
Pierce 3.................... ................... Private............ 443.2 ac (179.4 ha)
Pierce 4.................... ................... Private, Federal... 1,084.9 ac (439.1 ha)
ND-7:
Burleigh 1.................. Burleigh........... State, Private, 1,061 ac (429.4 ha)
Federal.
Burleigh 2.................. ................... Private, Federal... 285.4 ac (115.5 ha)
Burleigh 3.................. ................... State, Private, 2,162.1 ac (875.0 ha)
Federal.
Burleigh 4.................. ................... State, Private..... 10,558.7 ac (4273.1
Kidder 1.................... Kidder............. State, Private..... 5,375.1 ac (2,175.3
Kidder 2.................... ................... State, Private, 629.2 ac (254.6 ha)
Federal.
Kidder 3.................... ................... Private, Federal... 1,251 ac (506.3 ha)
Kidder 4.................... ................... Private............ 11,44.2 ac (463.1 ha)
Kidder 5.................... ................... Private, Federal... 7,658.9 ac (3099.5 ha)
ND-8:
Stutsman 1.................. Stutsman........... Federal............ 1,117.6 ac (452.3 ha)
Stutsman 2.................. ................... Federal............ 2,370.2 ac (959.2 ha)
Stutsman 3.................. ................... State, Private, 569 ac (230.3 ha)
Federal.
ND-9:
Logan 1..................... Logan.............. Private............ 295.1 ac (119.4 ha)
Logan 2..................... ................... Private, Federal... 998.6 ac (404.1 ha)
Logan 3..................... ................... Private, Federal... 254.4 ac (103.0 ha)
Logan 4..................... ................... State, Private..... 250.8 ac (101.5 ha)
ND-10:
McIntosh 1.................. McIntosh........... Private, Federal... 501.9 ac (203.1 ha)
McIntosh 2.................. ................... Private............ 357.2 ac (144.5 ha)
Eddy 1...................... Eddy............... Private, Federal... 641.6 ac (259.7 ha)
ND-11:
Missouri River:
Fort Peck Reach............. McKenzie, Williams. State.............. 18.6 mi (29.9 km)
Lake Sakakawea & Lake Dunn, McKenzie, Federal, Tribal.... 179.0 mi (288.0 km)
Audubon. McLean, Mercer,
Mountrial,
Williams.
--Garrison Reach.....