Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened Status for the Mountain Plover

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF35

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed

Threatened Status for the Mountain Plover

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list the

mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) as a threatened species pursuant

to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973. The mountain plover is a

bird of shortgrass prairie and shrub-steppe landscapes at both breeding

and wintering locales. Breeding occurs in the Rocky Mountain States

from Canada south to Mexico with most breeding birds occurring in

Montana and Colorado. Most wintering birds occur on grasslands or

similar landscapes in California; fewer wintering birds occur in

Arizona, Texas, and Mexico. Breeding Bird Survey trends analyzed for

the period 1966 through 1996 document a continuous decline of 2.7

percent annually for this species, the highest of all endemic grassland

species. Between 1966 and 1991, the continental population of the

mountain plover declined an estimated 63 percent. The current total

population is estimated to be between 8,000 and 10,000 individuals.

Conversion of grassland habitat, agricultural practices, management of

domestic livestock, and decline of native herbivores are factors that

likely have contributed to the mountain plover's decline. Pesticides

may be a factor contributing to the decline of mountain plovers, but

their effects are not completely understood.

DATES: We must receive comments from all interested parties by April

19, 1999. We must receive requests for public hearings by April 2,

1999.

domestic livestock, and decline of native herbivores are factors that

likely have contributed to the mountain plover's decline. Pesticides

may be a factor contributing to the decline of mountain plovers, but

their effects are not completely understood.

DATES: We must receive comments from all interested parties by April

19, 1999. We must receive requests for public hearings by April 2,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the

Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon

Drive, South Annex A, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946. We will make

comments and materials we receive available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Leachman at the above address,

telephone 970/243-2778; facsimile 970/245-6933.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) was described by John K.

Townsend in 1837 from specimens collected near the Sweetwater River,

Fremont County, Wyoming (Coues 1874, cited in Laun 1957). This species

was originally named the Rocky Mountain plover because the first

specimens were taken within sight of those mountains (Oberholser 1974).

The mountain plover has since been known by several different

scientific names, as well as other common names. The species name

Charadrius montanus was formally adopted by the Committee on

Classification and Nomenclature of the American Ornithological Union in

1983 (R. Banks, National Biological Service, pers. comm., 1994). There

are no subspecies (Oberholser 1974).

The mountain plover is a small bird (about 17.5 centimeters (cm))

(7 inches)(in)), about the size of a killdeer (Charadrius vociferus).

It is light brown above with a lighter colored breast, but lacks the

contrasting dark breastbelt common to many other plovers. During the

breeding season it has a white forehead and a dark line between the

beak and eye, which contrasts with the dark crown

).

The mountain plover is a small bird (about 17.5 centimeters (cm))

(7 inches)(in)), about the size of a killdeer (Charadrius vociferus).

It is light brown above with a lighter colored breast, but lacks the

contrasting dark breastbelt common to many other plovers. During the

breeding season it has a white forehead and a dark line between the

beak and eye, which contrasts with the dark crown. Mountain plovers are

insectivorous, with beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, and ants their

principal food items (Stoner 1941, Baldwin 1971, and Rosenberg et al.

1991, Knopf 1998).

The mountain plover is associated with shortgrass and shrub-steppe

landscapes throughout its breeding and wintering range. Historically,

on the breeding range, it occurred on nearly denuded prairie dog towns

(Knowles et al. 1982, Olson-Edge and Edge 1987) and in areas of major

bison concentrations (Knopf 1997). Many consider nesting mountain

plovers to be strongly associated with prairie dog towns (Tyler 1968,

Knowles et al. 1982, Knowles and Knowles 1984, Shackford 1991, Samson

and Knopf 1994, Knopf 1996b). All of the endemic grassland birds

evolved within a grassland mosaic of lightly, moderately, and heavily

grazed areas, and mountain plovers are considered to be strongly

associated with sites of heaviest grazing pressure, to the point of

excessive surface disturbance (Knopf and Miller 1994, Knopf 1996b).

Currently, the mountain plover is also attracted to man-made landscapes

(e.g., sod farms, cultivated fields) that mimic the natural habitat

associations, or sites with grassland characteristics (alkali flats,

other agricultural lands).

Nesting mountain plovers are reported in some of the Rocky Mountain

and Great Plains States from Canada south to Texas, and possibly in

Mexico. Most mountain plovers breed in Colorado and Montana; breeding

also occurs in Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas. Breeding is suspected in Mexico and historic

nesting records occur from Canada

gricultural lands).

Nesting mountain plovers are reported in some of the Rocky Mountain

and Great Plains States from Canada south to Texas, and possibly in

Mexico. Most mountain plovers breed in Colorado and Montana; breeding

also occurs in Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas. Breeding is suspected in Mexico and historic

nesting records occur from Canada. Nesting habitat in Canada is

restricted to southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan.

Breeding adults, nests, and chicks have been observed on cultivated

lands in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Most

mountain plovers winter in California where they are found on

grasslands or landscapes resembling grasslands, and cultivated fields;

many fewer wintering plovers are reported from Arizona, Texas, and

Mexico.

The mountain plover is one of nine bird species endemic to the

North American grasslands (Knopf 1996a). Endemic grassland birds have

declined more rapidly than other species in North America, and the

mountain plover's decline is greater than that of the other grassland

endemics (Knopf 1994; Sauer et al. 1997). Unlike other plovers,

mountain plovers are rarely found near water.

Habitat Characteristics

Mountain plovers evolved on grasslands that were inhabited by large

numbers of nomadic grazing ungulates such as bison (Bison bison), elk

(Cervus elaphus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and burrowing

mammals such as kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.), prairie dogs (Cynomys

sp.), and badgers (Taxidea taxus) (Knopf 1996a). The herbivores

dominated the grassland landscape at both breeding and wintering sites,

and their grazing, wallowing, and burrowing activities created and

maintained a mosaic of vegetation and bare ground to which mountain

plovers became adapted (Dobkin 1994, Knopf 1996a)

wing

mammals such as kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.), prairie dogs (Cynomys

sp.), and badgers (Taxidea taxus) (Knopf 1996a). The herbivores

dominated the grassland landscape at both breeding and wintering sites,

and their grazing, wallowing, and burrowing activities created and

maintained a mosaic of vegetation and bare ground to which mountain

plovers became adapted (Dobkin 1994, Knopf 1996a).

Short vegetation, bare ground, and a flat topography are now

recognized as habitat-defining characteristics at both breeding and

wintering locales (Graul 1975, Knopf and Miller 1994, Knopf and Rupert

1995). Mountain plovers nesting

sites are dominated by short vegetation and bare ground, often with

manure piles or rocks nearby. Mountain plovers historically nested on

black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianis) towns (Flowers 1985,

Godbey 1992, Kantrud and Kologiski 1982, Knowles et al. 1982, Knowles

and Knowles 1993) or other areas heavily grazed by prairie herbivores.

Currently, in addition to nesting on prairie dog towns, mountain

plovers show a strong affiliation for sites that are heavily grazed by

domestic livestock (e.g. near stock watering tanks), and also attempt

breeding on fallow and cultivated fields which mimic natural habitats

(Knopf 1996b). In California, many of the preferred wintering sites are

grazed by domestic livestock, or are within giant kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys ingens) precincts or California ground squirrel

(Spermophilus beecheyi) colonies (Knopf and Rupert 1995). Wintering

mountain plovers in Mexico are almost entirely associated with prairie

dog towns (N. Kaufman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1998).

Since mountain plovers are usually associated with sites that are

modified by grazing and digging mammals, Knopf and Miller (1994)

suggested classifying the mountain plover as a species more closely

associated with disturbed prairie sites, rather than pristine prairie

landscapes

re almost entirely associated with prairie

dog towns (N. Kaufman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1998).

Since mountain plovers are usually associated with sites that are

modified by grazing and digging mammals, Knopf and Miller (1994)

suggested classifying the mountain plover as a species more closely

associated with disturbed prairie sites, rather than pristine prairie

landscapes.

Bison and elk are now functionally extirpated from all mountain

plover breeding habitat, and numbers of pronghorn are greatly reduced.

Similarly, prairie dog and/or kangaroo rat numbers are greatly reduced

on mountain plover breeding and wintering sites. Now, the primary

grazer on both breeding and wintering habitat is domestic livestock,

although prairie dogs and/or giant kangaroo rats influence habitat

locally at a few sites. Current domestic livestock grazing management

emphasizes rotating the animals in time and space among allotments

within fenced pastures (Dobkin 1994, Knopf 1996c). Currently accepted

domestic livestock grazing management may cause grasses to become more

dense and uniform in height, decrease the amount of bare ground,

increase the abundance of shrubs, and reduce the frequency and effects

of fire (Knopf and Rupert in press, Dobkin 1994). Therefore, some types

of domestic livestock grazing management techniques do not result in

the same habitat characteristics as those created by the native

herbivores, with which the mountain plover evolved.

Life History

niform in height, decrease the amount of bare ground,

increase the abundance of shrubs, and reduce the frequency and effects

of fire (Knopf and Rupert in press, Dobkin 1994). Therefore, some types

of domestic livestock grazing management techniques do not result in

the same habitat characteristics as those created by the native

herbivores, with which the mountain plover evolved.

Life History

Mountain plovers arrive on their breeding grounds by late March.

The nest is a simple scrape on the ground which is lined with organic

debris (Graul 1975). Nests typically occur in areas with vegetation

less than 10 cm (4 in) in height, with at least 30 percent bare ground,

and with a conspicuous object such as a manure pile, clump of forbs, or

rock nearby (Graul 1975, Knopf and Miller 1994, Olson and Edge 1985,

Knowles and Knowles 1998). Although short vegetation, bare ground, and

an object are characteristic of nest sites, the presence of some taller

vegetation to shade chicks and adults also has been reported as

necessary (Shackford and Leslie 1995a). Nest sites occur on ground with

less than 5 percent slope, which is usually heavily grazed by domestic

livestock and/or prairie dogs (Graul 1973, Kantrud and Kologiski 1982,

Knowles and Knowles 1998). Vegetation at nest sites throughout the

breeding range is variable, but usually dominated by needle-and-thread

(Stipa comata), blue gramma (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalo grass

(Buchloe dactyloides), plains prickly pear cactus (Opuntia polycantha),

June grass (Koeleria cristata), and sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) (Graul

1975, Parrish 1988, Day 1994, Knowles and Knowles 1998).

On the Colorado breeding grounds, flocks of mountain plovers begin

to form as early as mid-June prior to migration to wintering habitat.

The flocks increase in size until mid-August, and then depart for the

wintering grounds between August and October (Graul 1975)

a),

June grass (Koeleria cristata), and sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) (Graul

1975, Parrish 1988, Day 1994, Knowles and Knowles 1998).

On the Colorado breeding grounds, flocks of mountain plovers begin

to form as early as mid-June prior to migration to wintering habitat.

The flocks increase in size until mid-August, and then depart for the

wintering grounds between August and October (Graul 1975). Mountain

plovers begin to arrive on wintering grounds in California by

September, but do not appear in large numbers until November (Jurek

1973; Knopf and Rupert 1995). Two mountain plovers that were color

banded in Colorado in 1992 were seen in the San Joaquin Valley of

California the same year, representing the first direct link between

breeding and wintering habitat for the species (Knopf and Rupert 1995).

A mountain plover banded as a chick in Phillips County, Montana, in

1995, was seen in the Sulphur Springs Valley of Arizona on January 1,

1998, supporting other indications that the fall migration to wintering

habitat is less direct than migration to breeding grounds (F. Knopf,

USGS-Biological Resources Division, pers. comm. 1998, Knopf and Rupert

1995).

Historically, the mountain plover has been reported from a variety

of habitats during the wintering period, including grasslands and

agricultural fields in California (Tyler 1916; Grinnell et al. 1918;

Belding 1879 in Grinnell et al. 1918: Preston 1981 in Moore et al.

1990; Werschkull et al. 1984 in Moore et al. 1990). More recently,

mountain plovers are reported from natural, noncultivated sites such as

alkali sink scrub, valley sink scrub, alkali playa, and annual

grasslands (S. Fitton, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in litt., 1992,

Knopf and Rupert 1995) in the Central Valley. Although cultivated land

is used by wintering mountain plovers and is more abundant than

noncultivated land, Knopf and Rupert (1995) found that mountain plovers

preferred alkali flats, burned grasslands, and grazed annual grasslands

to cultivated sites

lkali playa, and annual

grasslands (S. Fitton, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in litt., 1992,

Knopf and Rupert 1995) in the Central Valley. Although cultivated land

is used by wintering mountain plovers and is more abundant than

noncultivated land, Knopf and Rupert (1995) found that mountain plovers

preferred alkali flats, burned grasslands, and grazed annual grasslands

to cultivated sites. Grazing on such grassland sites was usually by

domestic livestock or burrowing mammals (Knopf and Rupert 1995).

Mountain plovers are gregarious on their wintering habitat. Flock

size averages from about 20 to 180 individuals, increasing in size as

spring migration approaches (Knopf and Rupert 1995). Flocks with up to

1,100 individuals have been reported from the San Joaquin Valley and

Imperial Valley (B. Radke, Service, in litt. 1992, Knopf and Rupert

1995). Mountain plovers begin leaving wintering areas by mid-March and

may make a nonstop migration to breeding grounds (Knopf and Rupert

1995). In general, mountain plovers spend about 4 months on breeding

grounds, 5 months on wintering habitat, and the remaining time mostly

in their fall migration (Knopf and Rupert 1996).

Breeding Distribution and Abundance

As discussed by Knopf (1996), the continental breeding range of the

mountain plover has been reduced from its historical extent, especially

in the eastern portion of the range. The mountain plover was formerly

common in western and central Kansas (Goss 1891), and reported as

numerous between Fort Supply, Oklahoma and Dodge City, Kansas (McCauley

1877). The species is considered to have been historically numerous in

Colorado (Bailey and Niedrach 1965) and Wyoming (Knight 1902). Mountain

plovers formerly occupied western South Dakota (South Dakota

Ornithologist's Union 1991) and Nebraska (Knopf 1996), and there is one

known breeding reference in North Dakota (Roosevelt 1885). They may

have bred in northern Mexico in 1901 (Sanford et al. 1924).

Colorado

is considered to have been historically numerous in

Colorado (Bailey and Niedrach 1965) and Wyoming (Knight 1902). Mountain

plovers formerly occupied western South Dakota (South Dakota

Ornithologist's Union 1991) and Nebraska (Knopf 1996), and there is one

known breeding reference in North Dakota (Roosevelt 1885). They may

have bred in northern Mexico in 1901 (Sanford et al. 1924).

Colorado

Mountain plovers have been studied more intensively in Weld County

than any other location throughout their range. Graul and Webster

(1976)

considered Weld County the breeding stronghold for the mountain plover,

a conclusion widely referenced by subsequent authors (e.g., Knopf and

Rupert 1996). Inventories completed by the Colorado Bird Atlas

Partnership from 1987 through 1995 reported mountain plovers from 8

percent of the survey blocks inventoried in eastern Colorado, and the

number of mountain plover sightings in some survey blocks was nearly

equal to or greater than those reported from Weld County (H. Kingery,

Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, pers. comm., 1994, in litt., 1998).

Kingery (in litt., 1997) estimated that about 7,000 mountain plovers

breed in Colorado, and that about 1,500 of those breed in Weld County.

Shackford and Leslie (1995b) reported mountain plovers seen on

cultivated fields in 14 counties in eastern Colorado from 1992 through

1995, with most birds seen in Kiowa County. Adult mountain plovers also

occur on cultivated fields in Las Animas County within the boundary of

the Comanche National Grassland in southeast Colorado (J. Cline, U.S.

Forest Service, in litt., 1994). Breeding mountain plovers also have

been reported from southeast Colorado by other researchers (Chase and

Loeffler 1978; Nelson 1993; R. Estelle, no affiliation, in litt..

1994). Carter et al. (1996) detected mountain plovers at very low

densities in 10 Colorado Counties; mountain plovers were most numerous

in Kiowa and Park Counties

Colorado (J. Cline, U.S.

Forest Service, in litt., 1994). Breeding mountain plovers also have

been reported from southeast Colorado by other researchers (Chase and

Loeffler 1978; Nelson 1993; R. Estelle, no affiliation, in litt..

1994). Carter et al. (1996) detected mountain plovers at very low

densities in 10 Colorado Counties; mountain plovers were most numerous

in Kiowa and Park Counties. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program

conducted mountain plover surveys in Park County in 1994, 1995, and

1997 (Pague and Pague 1994, Sherman et al. 1996, Hanson 1997). About

1,000 mountain plovers were estimated in Park County in 1995, and these

surveys also disclosed the vulnerability of some breeding sites to

ongoing and potential urbanization (Sherman et al. 1996). Additionally,

Service biologists have observed adults in Moffat County in July (R.

Leachman, Service, pers. comm., 1998).

The Bird Atlas Partnership survey (H. Kingery, in litt., 1998) and

the inventory of cultivated fields (Shackford and Leslie 1995b)

mentioned above resulted in observations of breeding behavior and

relative abundance, not estimates of density or productivity. Knopf

(1996) reported densities of breeding birds on the Pawnee National

Grassland (Weld County) as ranging between 2.0 and 4.7 birds/square

kilometer (km) between 1990 and 1994. In 1995, the Pawnee National

Grassland experienced exceptionally wet, cold weather through June and

few birds were found there during the breeding season (Knopf 1996).

Sherman et al. (1996) estimated 1.32 birds/square km in Park County

during 1995.

Estimates of nest success and productivity in Colorado are

available from studies on prairie habitat in Weld County and cultivated

lands in southeast Colorado. Nest success on the Pawnee National

Grassland in Weld County was highly variable among years. Percentage of

nests where at least one egg hatched varied from 26 percent (Knopf and

Rupert 1996) to 65 percent (Graul 1975)

y

during 1995.

Estimates of nest success and productivity in Colorado are

available from studies on prairie habitat in Weld County and cultivated

lands in southeast Colorado. Nest success on the Pawnee National

Grassland in Weld County was highly variable among years. Percentage of

nests where at least one egg hatched varied from 26 percent (Knopf and

Rupert 1996) to 65 percent (Graul 1975). Mountain plovers in Weld

County fledged an estimated 1.4 young/nest during 1969-1974 (Graul

1975) and also in 1992, suggesting that breeding success in Weld County

did not change much in nearly 30 years (Miller and Knopf 1993).

McCaffery et al. (1984) estimated a brood size of about 1.3 chicks/

adult in Weld County just prior to fledging. Knopf (1996) hypothesized

that reported low fledging rates were attributable to drought, which

affects the food supply and simultaneously increases predation

pressures. The only other estimate of productivity in Colorado is from

mountain plovers on cultivated fields in southeast Colorado, southwest

Kansas, and northwest Oklahoma where Shackford and Leslie (1995a)

estimated 34 percent of nests were successful and 47 percent of chicks

that hatched also fledged. In comparison, on the Pawnee National

Grassland, an estimated 50 percent of nests were successful and 47

percent of chicks that hatched also fledged (Miller and Knopf 1993).

Further studies are needed to determine if average productivity and

recruitment on cultivated land differs significantly from native

grassland. In Weld County 60 to 70 percent of the mountain plover

habitat occurs on the Pawnee National Grassland (F. Knopf, in litt.

1991). We therefore believe that areas within Weld County will be

important to any future conservation efforts because mountain plovers

have shown an affinity for this locale, independent studies over a 30

year period have confirmed successful reproduction, and the extensive

Federal ownership improves opportunities for habitat maintenance and

protection

National Grassland (F. Knopf, in litt.

1991). We therefore believe that areas within Weld County will be

important to any future conservation efforts because mountain plovers

have shown an affinity for this locale, independent studies over a 30

year period have confirmed successful reproduction, and the extensive

Federal ownership improves opportunities for habitat maintenance and

protection.

Recent reports of the mountain plover being more widely distributed

in Colorado than previously known has led to some speculation that the

population in Colorado is stable or improving. Pulliam (1988) expressed

caution that basing a species' conservation needs on where it is most

common rather than where it is most productive may lead to errors.

Although additional sightings of mountain plovers in Colorado are

encouraging, some of these sightings have occurred on cultivated lands.

We know of no productivity estimates that are available to compare

production on these cultivated areas with production estimated from

historic breeding sites.

Montana

Breeding habitat for mountain plovers in Montana is usually

characterized by grasslands and shrublands consisting commonly of

needle-and-thread, blue grama, June grass, saltbush (Atriplex

gardneri), and prickly pear cactus. Most breeding sites are grazed by

domestic livestock or prairie dogs, and the largest number of breeding

mountain plovers in Montana is found on a large complex of black-tailed

prairie dog towns in Phillips and Blaine Counties (Knowles and Knowles

1998). The prairie dog towns occur on the Charles M. Russell National

Wildlife Refuge, Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, BLM, State school

lands, and private lands. Mountain plovers in these two Counties number

fewer than 2,000 individuals, and are considered the second major

breeding population for the species (Knopf and Miller 1994, Knowles and

Knowles 1996, S. Dinsmore, Service, pers. comm., 1998)

The prairie dog towns occur on the Charles M. Russell National

Wildlife Refuge, Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, BLM, State school

lands, and private lands. Mountain plovers in these two Counties number

fewer than 2,000 individuals, and are considered the second major

breeding population for the species (Knopf and Miller 1994, Knowles and

Knowles 1996, S. Dinsmore, Service, pers. comm., 1998).

Mountain plovers also breed on land administered by the BLM in

Valley County (Little Beaver Creek), and on private land in Wheatland

and Golden Valley Counties near the Little Belt and Big Snowy Mountains

(Knowles and Knowles 1998). Surveys through 1997 now also confirm

breeding mountain plovers in Big Horn, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter,

Fergus, Jefferson, Hill, Madison, Musselshell, Petroleum, Rosebud,

Toole, Treasure, and Teton Counties (Knowles and Knowles 1996, 1998; J.

Grensten, BLM, pers. comm., 1998).

Only one mountain plover was located during a search of cultivated

fields in 17 counties in Montana in 1995, and mountain plovers appear

to use cultivated fields only for foraging and territorial display;

nesting has not been observed in cultivated fields in Montana (C.

Knowles, Fauna West, pers. comm., 1998). Shackford and Leslie (1995b)

hypothesized that more frequent disturbance of fields, a shorter

growing season, and more clayey soils in Montana compared to Colorado

(Knowles pers. comm., 1998) may explain the fact that fewer birds are

sighted nesting on cultivated fields.

With the exception of the population in Phillips and Blaine

Counties, mountain plovers total less than 800 individuals at the other

8 locations. Therefore, Knowles and Knowles (1996) estimate fewer than

2,800 mountain plovers in Montana. Selected prairie-dog towns at the

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana

the fact that fewer birds are

sighted nesting on cultivated fields.

With the exception of the population in Phillips and Blaine

Counties, mountain plovers total less than 800 individuals at the other

8 locations. Therefore, Knowles and Knowles (1996) estimate fewer than

2,800 mountain plovers in Montana. Selected prairie-dog towns at the

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana

yielded density estimates of 6.8 and 5.8 birds/square km in 1991 and

1992, respectively. The spring of 1995 was very wet in Montana, and

densities in this area were reported at 1.3 birds/square km in that

year (Knopf 1996).

Wyoming

The mountain plover is classified as common in Wyoming, with

breeding known or suspected in 20 of 28 blocks of latitude/longitude.

Six blocks in the southeast corner of the State make up the primary

breeding range (Oakleaf et al. 1982). From 1992 to 1997, nesting was

confirmed on the Thunder Basin National Grassland in northeast Wyoming

with nearly all nests found on black-tailed prairie dog towns

(Bartosiak 1992; M. Edwards, Forest Service, in litt., 1994; T. Byer,

Forest Service, in litt., 1997). Based on 1997 survey data, about 150

mountain plovers occur on the Grassland (T. Byer, in litt., 1997).

Recently, Thunder Basin National Grassland acquired an adjacent parcel

of privately-owned rangeland, which together with existing property

forms a management unit that has been identified as the next potential

site for black-footed ferret reintroduction. In addition, the current

Forest Management Plan for Thunder Basin is being revised and the new

plan will identify increased acreage to be managed specifically for

prairie wildlife, such as prairie dogs and mountain plovers (M.

Lockhart, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm., 1998).

From 1979 to 1992, nesting was confirmed at the Antelope Coal Mine

in the southern Powder River Basin

n. In addition, the current

Forest Management Plan for Thunder Basin is being revised and the new

plan will identify increased acreage to be managed specifically for

prairie wildlife, such as prairie dogs and mountain plovers (M.

Lockhart, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm., 1998).

From 1979 to 1992, nesting was confirmed at the Antelope Coal Mine

in the southern Powder River Basin. Reported breeding densities of 0.9

to 2.4 birds/square km are lower than those reported for Wyoming prior

to 1965 and at other breeding sites in Montana and Colorado (Oelklaus

1989, Parrish 1988, M. Edwards, in litt., 1994). Mountain plovers

throughout the southern Powder River Basin are generally thought to be

widely scattered at low densities, with a few areas of local

concentrations (Oelklaus 1989). Knopf (in litt., 1991) found mountain

plovers on the Laramie Plains, on the Chapman Bench north of Cody, and

in the vicinity of Shirley Basin. One nest and some adults were located

on cultivated lands in Laramie County (Shackford and Leslie 1995b).

Mountain plovers also breed in shrub-steppe habitat in southwest

Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 1982). Recent survey efforts in Wyoming have

not been as intensive as those in Montana or Colorado. In 1991, Knopf

(in litt., 1991) estimated fewer than 1,500 mountain plovers nesting in

Wyoming.

New Mexico

Historic reports from New Mexico indicate that mountain plovers

numbered from several individuals (1968 to 1977 data) to 150 in a

single flock in July 1937 (Hubbard 1978). Sager (1996) conducted

mountain plover surveys in 1995 and found 152 breeding adults and 26

juveniles at 35 sites in 11 counties north of 34 degrees latitude. His

search was primarily confined to areas north of 34 degrees latitude.

However, one adult was located in Hidalgo County during 4 days of

survey effort south of 34 degrees, suggesting that occasional breeding

may occur in the southern parts of the State (Sager 1996)

plover surveys in 1995 and found 152 breeding adults and 26

juveniles at 35 sites in 11 counties north of 34 degrees latitude. His

search was primarily confined to areas north of 34 degrees latitude.

However, one adult was located in Hidalgo County during 4 days of

survey effort south of 34 degrees, suggesting that occasional breeding

may occur in the southern parts of the State (Sager 1996). Migrating

mountain plovers were also sighted in Valencia, Colfax, Union, and

Torrance Counties, with most of these seen on turf farms at Moriarty

and Los Lunas (Sager 1996). The recent surveys in New Mexico imply that

additional searching may yield more mountain plovers (S. Williams III,

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, in litt., 1997).

Oklahoma

Few breeding mountain plovers were found in Oklahoma native

shortgrass prairie and prairie dog towns in 1986. The few plovers

found, combined with the discovery of one mountain plover nest on a

maize field, stimulated additional surveys of cultivated fields in

Oklahoma (Shackford 1991). In Cimarron County in the panhandle of

Oklahoma, Shackford (1991) found that during the nesting seasons of

1986-1990, 60 percent of mountain plovers observed were in native

grassland and 40 percent were in cultivated fields. Ten of the 15 birds

observed in native grassland were on prairie-dog towns. Annual counts

of mountain plovers on cultivated fields from 1990 through 1995 have

ranged from 3 to 428 (Shackford and Leslie 1995b).

Other Breeding Areas

991) found that during the nesting seasons of

1986-1990, 60 percent of mountain plovers observed were in native

grassland and 40 percent were in cultivated fields. Ten of the 15 birds

observed in native grassland were on prairie-dog towns. Annual counts

of mountain plovers on cultivated fields from 1990 through 1995 have

ranged from 3 to 428 (Shackford and Leslie 1995b).

Other Breeding Areas

In Utah, the only site known to have breeding mountain plovers is

in Duchesne County, south of Myton, in the Uintah Basin. Counts of

breeding mountain plovers in this area from 1992 through 1997 have

ranged from 7 to 29, and broods have been found in each year except

1992 (T. Dabbs, BLM, in litt., 1997). Counts of breeding mountain

plovers on cultivated lands in western Kansas from 1992 through 1995

have ranged from 52 (6 counties searched) to 114 (4 counties searched)

(Shackford and Leslie 1995b). Surveys of cultivated fields and

rangelands within the boundary of the Cimarron National Grassland in

Kansas also have been conducted. Counts on the Grassland in 1994, 1996,

and 1997 ranged from 1 to 13, and most of the sightings were on plowed

fields (J. Chynoweth, Forest Service, in litt., 1997).

Three pairs of mountain plovers were reported near Fort Davis,

Texas, in 1992 (K. Brian, Davis Mountain State Park, pers. comm.,

1992), but more recent breeding in Texas cannot be confirmed due to

lack of permission to access private land (P. Horner, Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, in litt., 1997). An adult incubating three eggs

was found near Springerville, Apache County, Arizona, in May 1996 (T.

Cordery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm., 1998). A nesting

mountain plover was found in western Nebraska in 1990 (F. Knopf, in

litt., 1990), and two mountain plover nests were found in a fallow

field in the same vicinity in 1997 (W. Jobman, Service, in litt.,

1997). Seventeen mountain plovers were counted on 10 cultivated fields

in western Nebraska in 1992 and 1995 (Shackford and Leslie 1995b)

Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm., 1998). A nesting

mountain plover was found in western Nebraska in 1990 (F. Knopf, in

litt., 1990), and two mountain plover nests were found in a fallow

field in the same vicinity in 1997 (W. Jobman, Service, in litt.,

1997). Seventeen mountain plovers were counted on 10 cultivated fields

in western Nebraska in 1992 and 1995 (Shackford and Leslie 1995b). The

most recent nesting record in Canada is one nest in southeastern

Alberta in 1990 (C. Wershler, Sweetgrass Consultants Limited, pers.

comm., 1992). Mountain plover breeding behavior was observed in 1998 in

Nuevo Leon, Mexico, but additional surveys are needed to confirm nests

and broods (F. Knopf, in litt., 1998). The Service is not aware of any

breeding records from other locations.

Winter Distribution

Historically, mountain plovers have been observed during the winter

in California, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada; the California coastal

islands of San Clemente Island, Santa Rosa Island; and, the Farallon

Islands (Strecker 1912; Swarth 1914; Alcorn 1946; Jurek 1973 Jorgensen

and Ferguson 1984; Garrett and Dunn 1981; B. Deuel, American Birds

Editor, in litt., 1992). In Mexico, wintering mountain plovers have

been sighted in Baja, California, as well as north-central and

northeastern Mexico, specifically in Chihuahua, Coahuila, Sonora, Nuevo

Leon, and San Luis Potosi (Russell and Lamm 1978; A. Garza de Leon, The

Bird Galley, in litt., 1990; L. Stenzel, Point Reyes Bird Observatory,

in litt., 1992; R. Estelle, pers. comm., 1998). Currently, the majority

of mountain plovers appear to winter in California, with fewer reported

from Texas, Arizona, and Mexico.

The only published scientific study of mountain plovers on their

wintering habitat documented movement patterns, habitat preferences,

and winter survival rates in the San Joaquin Valley and

int Reyes Bird Observatory,

in litt., 1992; R. Estelle, pers. comm., 1998). Currently, the majority

of mountain plovers appear to winter in California, with fewer reported

from Texas, Arizona, and Mexico.

The only published scientific study of mountain plovers on their

wintering habitat documented movement patterns, habitat preferences,

and winter survival rates in the San Joaquin Valley and

Carrizo Plain Natural Area of California (Knopf and Rupert 1995). Due

to the lack of published information on wintering birds, we examined

Christmas Bird Count data, notes of California sightings compiled from

American Birds, National Wildlife Refuge records, BLM surveys, and

other information (J. Lowe, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, in

litt., 1989; B. Deuel, in litt., 1992).

California

In California, mountain plovers are most frequently reported and

found in the greatest numbers in two general locations--(1) in the

Central Valley south of Sacramento and west of U.S. Highway 99, and (2)

the Imperial Valley in southern California. Throughout these areas,

sightings occur on agricultural fields and noncultivated sites;

noncultivated sites are preferred habitat (Knopf and Rupert 1995).

Within the Central Valley, flocks of up to 1,100 birds have been seen

recently in Tulare County (Knopf and Rupert 1995). The Carrizo Plain

Natural Area in San Luis Obispo County also is recognized as an

important wintering site, with wintering birds reliably reported from

the west side of the Carrizo Plain Natural Area since 1971 (S. Fitton,

in litt., 1992). The Sacramento Valley portion of the Central Valley

also provides wintering habitat for flocks of mountain plovers within

Solano and Yolo Counties. During the 1998 census, 230 and 187 mountain

plovers were observed within each of these counties, respectively (K.

Hunting, California Department of Fish and Game, in litt., 1998).

About 2,000 mountain plovers were counted on agricultural fields in

the Imperial Valley in 1994 (B

the Central Valley

also provides wintering habitat for flocks of mountain plovers within

Solano and Yolo Counties. During the 1998 census, 230 and 187 mountain

plovers were observed within each of these counties, respectively (K.

Hunting, California Department of Fish and Game, in litt., 1998).

About 2,000 mountain plovers were counted on agricultural fields in

the Imperial Valley in 1994 (B. Barnes, National Audubon Society, in

litt.. 1994). At other locations in southern California, birds have

been seen at Harper Dry Lake, Antelope Valley, San Jacinto Lake

Wildlife Area, and the Tijuana River Valley (K. Garrett, no

affiliation, pers. comm., 1989; G. Cardiff, no affiliation, pers.

comm., 1992; T. Paulek, California Department of Fish and Game, pers.

comm., 1992; E. Copper, unaffiliated, in litt., 1992). Mountain plovers

are considered extirpated (extinct) from Orange County (B. Harper, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1990).

Arizona, Texas, Nevada and Mexico

Wintering mountain plovers also are reported from other areas, but

in much lower numbers than are reported from California. From 1983 to

1991, a total of 30 to 180 mountain plovers were reported from

southeastern Arizona (J. Witzeman, Audubon Society, pers. comm., 1992).

In Texas, up to 130 mountain plovers were reported from Guadalupe, San

Patricio, and Williamson Counties (G. Lasley, Regional Editor American

Birds, pers. comm., 1992). Mountain plovers also have been sighted

throughout the year in Texas in Val Verde, Nueces, Kleburg, Aransas,

Tom Green, Concho, and Schleicher Counties (P. Horner, in litt., 1997),

and at Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (L. Laack, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1992). In Nevada, several mountain

plovers were collected in the Lahontan Valley in 1940, with a few

observed there in the 1990's (Alcorn 1946; F. Knopf, pers. comm.,

1995). In January 1992, 148 mountain plovers were counted at the north

end of Laguna Figueroa, Baja California, Mexico (L. Stenzel, in litt

a Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (L. Laack, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1992). In Nevada, several mountain

plovers were collected in the Lahontan Valley in 1940, with a few

observed there in the 1990's (Alcorn 1946; F. Knopf, pers. comm.,

1995). In January 1992, 148 mountain plovers were counted at the north

end of Laguna Figueroa, Baja California, Mexico (L. Stenzel, in litt.

1992). About 150 mountain plovers were seen on a prairie dog town in

San Luis Potosi, Mexico, in January 1998 (R. Estelle, pers. comm.,

1998).

Total Mountain Plover Population Abundance and Trend Estimates

Historically, breeding mountain plovers were reported as locally

rare to abundant, and widely distributed in the Great Plains region

from Canada south to Texas (Coues 1878, Knight 1902, McCafferty 1930,

Bailey and Neidrach 1965). On wintering grounds in California, as many

as 10,000 mountain plovers were repeatedly counted in the San Joaquin

Valley during the 1960's (J. Engler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in

litt., 1992). In January 1994, 3,346 mountain plovers were counted

during a simultaneous survey of 17 sites throughout California (B.

Barnes, in litt., 1994). A similar coordinated survey in California in

January 1998 counted 2,179 (Hunting, in litt., 1998).

We present the above estimates of mountain plover relative density

and abundance rangewide and within each state to give the reader an

indication of the variability in information reported in published

literature and other references. The estimates of abundance provided

for each State or area are usually from different researchers, from

different times, and using different techniques. Therefore, the

estimates should not be considered comparable to one another, nor

necessarily additive. Knopf (1996b) estimated the total 1995 North

American population to be between 8,000 and 10,000 birds

hed

literature and other references. The estimates of abundance provided

for each State or area are usually from different researchers, from

different times, and using different techniques. Therefore, the

estimates should not be considered comparable to one another, nor

necessarily additive. Knopf (1996b) estimated the total 1995 North

American population to be between 8,000 and 10,000 birds. He arrived at

this estimate beginning with a one day winter count of 3,346 mountain

plovers at all known historical sites in California, assuming that at

least one-half of all mountain plovers in California were missed by

that count, and adding an estimated 1,000--3,000 birds that winter in

Texas and Mexico.

Knopf (1994) reported that between 1966 and 1991, continental

populations of the mountain plover declined an estimated 63 percent.

Breeding Bird Survey trend analysis completed for the period 1966

through 1996 yields an estimated annual rate of decline of 2.7 percent

(P = 0.02, 95 percent confidence intervals -4.7, -0.6; Sauer et al.

1997). Knopf and Rupert (in press) hypothesized that reduced

productivity as a result of tillage on cultivated lands used for

nesting may explain the annual rate of decline of this species. The

mountain plover's decline is considered a major conservation concern

(Knopf 1994, 1996b).

Previous Federal Action

On December 30, 1982, we designated the mountain plover as a

category 2 candidate species, meaning that more information was

necessary to determine whether the species status is declining, stable,

or improving (47 FR 58458). In 1990, we prepared a status report on the

mountain plover suggesting that Federal listing may have been warranted

(Leachman and Osmundson 1990). We elevated the mountain plover to a

category 1 candidate species in the November 15, 1994 Animal Candidate

Notice of Review (59 FR 58982)

tion was

necessary to determine whether the species status is declining, stable,

or improving (47 FR 58458). In 1990, we prepared a status report on the

mountain plover suggesting that Federal listing may have been warranted

(Leachman and Osmundson 1990). We elevated the mountain plover to a

category 1 candidate species in the November 15, 1994 Animal Candidate

Notice of Review (59 FR 58982). At that time, category 1 candidate

species were defined as those species for which we had sufficient

information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance

of a proposed rule to list. In 1996, we redefined candidate species and

eliminated category 2 and 3 candidate designations (61 FR 64481).

Candidate species were defined using the old category 1 definition. The

mountain plover retained its candidate species designation as reported

in the September 19, 1997, Review of Plant and Animal Taxa (62 FR

49398). On July 7, 1997, we received a petition to list the mountain

plover as threatened from Jasper Carlton of the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation. The Service responded by notifying the petitioners that

petitions for candidate species are considered second petitions,

because candidate species are species for which we have already decided

that listing may be warranted. Therefore, no 90-day finding was

required for Biodiversity Legal Foundation's petition.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated

to implement the listing provisions of the

Act set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A

species may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or

more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors

and their application to the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) are

as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range.

he

Act set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A

species may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or

more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors

and their application to the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) are

as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range.

As discussed below, mountain plover habitat is threatened by the

conversion of grasslands to croplands and urban uses, domestic

livestock management, and other land uses (e.g., prairie dog control,

mineral development) throughout mountain plover breeding and wintering

range.

Historical Conversion of Grassland in Breeding Range

Conversion of grassland to cropland within the breeding range of

the mountain plover has been extensive, with about 32 percent of the

grasslands in the Great Plains now converted (Laycock 1987, Knopf and

Rupert in press). Approximately 20 percent of Wyoming's and 80 percent

of Texas' shortgrass prairie has been lost (comparable data not

available for each State, Samson and Knopf 1994, Knopf and Samson

1997). The demand for agricultural development at the turn of century

stimulated grassland conversion to croplands at both breeding and

wintering locales. Conversions continued in later years to meet demands

during World Wars I and II. In the 1940s, some additional land was

plowed to take advantage of favorable precipitation and high wheat

prices after World War II (Laycock 1987). Under the Soil Bank Act of

1956, participating farms withdrew cropland from production for 3-10

years. At the peak of the program in 1961, 14.1 million acres (ac) in

the Great Plains were planted to grasses. Laycock (1987) suggests that

observations show that almost all of this area was plowed again

beginning in the early 1970s, along with previously unbroken grassland.

Thus, the Soil Bank Program of 1956 was successful as a wildlife

habitat conservation measure only in the short term

years. At the peak of the program in 1961, 14.1 million acres (ac) in

the Great Plains were planted to grasses. Laycock (1987) suggests that

observations show that almost all of this area was plowed again

beginning in the early 1970s, along with previously unbroken grassland.

Thus, the Soil Bank Program of 1956 was successful as a wildlife

habitat conservation measure only in the short term. Later, during the

Russian wheat sale of 1972 and authorization and implementation of

Federal water projects in California's Central Valley, conversions of

grassland continued (see Moore et al. 1990, Williams 1992). During the

1970s and 1980s, an estimated 572,000 ac (228,800 ha) and 15,000 ac

(6,000 ha) of previously unbroken grassland were plowed in Colorado and

Kansas (Laycock 1987). Simultaneously, domestic livestock replaced

native ungulates as the primary grazer at both breeding and wintering

locations, and livestock management practices that encouraged

vegetative uniformity were adopted (see Knopf 1996c, and Knopf and

Rupert in press).

Current Conversion of Grassland in Breeding Range

We investigated recent loss of native rangeland within the breeding

range of the mountain plover using the National Resources Inventory

(NRI) of the U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRI is a comprehensive database of

natural resource information on non-federal lands of the United States

that focuses on soil, water, and related resources. Although the survey

is now repeated every five years, the earliest NRI data is available

from 1982 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service

1994). The 1992 NRI Summary Report provided estimates of change in

rangeland acreage, 1982-1992, for each state

of

natural resource information on non-federal lands of the United States

that focuses on soil, water, and related resources. Although the survey

is now repeated every five years, the earliest NRI data is available

from 1982 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service

1994). The 1992 NRI Summary Report provided estimates of change in

rangeland acreage, 1982-1992, for each state. Rangeland was defined as

a land cover/use category that includes land on which the climax or

potential plant cover is composed principally of native grasses, grass-

like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing, and introduced

forage species that are managed like rangeland. We believe that this

cover type would most likely represent the vegetative elements required

by breeding mountain plovers.

Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming are the three States with the

majority of breeding mountain plovers; some breed in Kansas, Nebraska,

and Oklahoma. Using areas inventoried by Knowles and Knowles (1998) and

Shackford and Leslie (1995b), we compared the change in rangeland that

has occurred in their inventory areas between 1982 and 1992. With the

exception of Phillips and Blaine counties, Knowles and Knowles (1998)

report more mountain plovers from Broadwater, Golden Valley, Jefferson,

Madison, Valley, and wheatland counties than other locations in

Montana. The counties inventoried by Shackford and Leslie (1995b)

closely describe the area commonly reported as the mountain plover

breeding range in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. We

believe the 30 counties in the six states which we selected for review

of NRI data are a good representation of areas either currently or

historically occupied by mountain plovers.

Data were not available for all of the selected Montana counties.

From 1982 to 1992, the amount of rangeland in the selected counties of

Wyoming decreased 25,300 ac, in Colorado 466,200 ac, in Nebraska,

18,400 ac, in Kansas, 30,700 ac, and in Oklahoma 33,000 acres

selected for review

of NRI data are a good representation of areas either currently or

historically occupied by mountain plovers.

Data were not available for all of the selected Montana counties.

From 1982 to 1992, the amount of rangeland in the selected counties of

Wyoming decreased 25,300 ac, in Colorado 466,200 ac, in Nebraska,

18,400 ac, in Kansas, 30,700 ac, and in Oklahoma 33,000 acres. These

decreases occurred because of conversion to a variety of landuses,

including cropland, developed land, and other rural lands (U. S.

Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1994). These data

suggest that the conversion of grasslands remains a significant threat

to the species. Given the fact that mountain plovers are endemic to

grasslands, we believe that a similar proportion of mountain plover

habitat was likely lost during that time period. In fact, the

conversion of grasslands to cropland is reported by many authors as a

cause for the decline of mountain plovers and their habitat (e.g.,

Graul and Webster 1976, Fauna West 1991, Knopf and Rupert in press).

Mountain plovers are known to breed on private grasslands near the

Little Belt and Big Snowy mountains in Montana, on private lands within

the boundary of the Pawnee National Grassland in Colorado, and in other

areas that could be converted to croplands (Knowles and Knowles 1993,

Knopf and Rupert in press). Three mountain plover nest sites on

grasslands in central Montana were converted to cropland in 1995 under

a farm plan approved by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and

grassland conversion is occurring at other locations in Montana

(Knowles and Knowles 1996, 1998).

Cultivated Areas in Breeding Range as Potential Population Sinks

A direct loss of habitat is not the only effect of grassland

conversion in the breeding range

slands in central Montana were converted to cropland in 1995 under

a farm plan approved by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and

grassland conversion is occurring at other locations in Montana

(Knowles and Knowles 1996, 1998).

Cultivated Areas in Breeding Range as Potential Population Sinks

A direct loss of habitat is not the only effect of grassland

conversion in the breeding range. Conversion may not only destroy

existing mountain plover breeding sites (see Knowles and Knowles 1996b,

1998) and eliminate the opportunity to manage grasslands to provide

future nesting sites (e.g., through burning and grazing), it also may

create habitats that attract breeding mountain plovers which would then

be exposed to the tilling of cultivated fields to control weeds. This

tilling can destroy mountain plover nests, eggs, and chicks (Shackford

and Leslie 1995a,b; Knopf 1996b; Knopf and Rupert in press).

In the last 25 years, Great Plains' farms have become larger and

new crops have become economically feasible. Many farmers now plant

extensive areas to sunflowers and millet, as well as winter and spring

wheat. Fields may remain fallow until early May, after most mountain

plovers have started nesting. Many nests are then destroyed by farm

equipment when the fields are planted in May. Mountain plovers may

renest on these fields, but then likely

abandon nests as the grain crop becomes too tall to allow plovers to

scan their surroundings for predators (Knopf 1996b). In other

instances, fallow fields may not be planted, but may be tilled

periodically to control weeds.

During the nesting season of 1995, Shackford and Leslie (1995b)

searched 999 km around cultivated fields in 68 counties of eight

States. They observed 54 mountain plovers on a total of 29 cultivated

fields in 13 counties in five of the eight States: Colorado, Montana,

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming

instances, fallow fields may not be planted, but may be tilled

periodically to control weeds.

During the nesting season of 1995, Shackford and Leslie (1995b)

searched 999 km around cultivated fields in 68 counties of eight

States. They observed 54 mountain plovers on a total of 29 cultivated

fields in 13 counties in five of the eight States: Colorado, Montana,

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. The majority of plovers observed on

cultivated fields were in the southern portion of the range (53 of 54

birds): Laramie County, Wyoming (19 birds), southwestern Nebraska (13),

and eastern Colorado (17). Shackford and Leslie (1995b) concluded that

fewer birds are found nesting in cultivated fields in northern

latitudes because upland crops are sparse in Montana and Wyoming, there

is a shorter growing season, and spring wheat planted in northern

latitudes is disturbed more frequently than the winter wheat planted in

the south. The short intervals between disturbances for spring wheat

would not normally allow enough time for breeding, nesting, and young

rearing.

In 1993 and 1994, 48 percent of nests located on cultivated fields

in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas were destroyed by tilling (Shackford

and Leslie 1995a). Although the long-term effect of tilling on mountain

plover productivity and abundance is not known, cultivated lands may

represent a reproductive ``sink'' (Knopf 1996b; Knopf and Rupert in

press). Pulliam (1988) described a reproductive sink as habitat where

reproduction of a species is less than mortality, so that immigration

from more productive habitats (i.e., ``sources'') is needed to maintain

the species' presence at the sink. Sinks are habitats where breeding

efforts are misrepresented as recruitment into the population, but

where the mortality actually causes a population decline

ulliam (1988) described a reproductive sink as habitat where

reproduction of a species is less than mortality, so that immigration

from more productive habitats (i.e., ``sources'') is needed to maintain

the species' presence at the sink. Sinks are habitats where breeding

efforts are misrepresented as recruitment into the population, but

where the mortality actually causes a population decline. We concur

with Knopf and Rupert (in press) that the source-sink dynamics (as

described by Pulliam (1988)) are likely operating on the grassland-

cultivated sites used by mountain plovers in Colorado, Kansas, and

Oklahoma.

Many grasslands are not suitable breeding habitat, and therefore,

are not used by mountain plovers. However, conversion of these

grasslands also can be considered detrimental because such conversion

may create locally acceptable habitat (Knopf and Rupert in press) on

which mountain plovers are then exposed to tilling (i.e., creation of

sink habitat, see above). Consequently, grassland conversion may be

considered a threat to mountain plover conservation whether or not the

grasslands are presently suitable breeding habitat, particularly when

conversions are proposed within the southern portion of the bird's

breeding range.

Grasslands in the breeding range also are being converted to urban

uses. Nationwide, between 1982 and 1992, a 14 million ac (5,600,000 ha)

increase in developed land came in part from conversion of 2 million ac

of rangeland (U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service

1994). In Park County, Colorado, which may support about 1,000 mountain

plovers, the number of residential building permits has tripled between

1991 and 1997 in areas of the County known to have breeding habitat

(Hanson 1997; G. Nichols, Park County, Colorado, in litt. 1998).

Historical Conversion of Grassland in Winter Range

In the early 1900s, a great number of mountain plovers were

reported on wintering areas in California on both grasslands and

agricultural lands (Grinell et al

of residential building permits has tripled between

1991 and 1997 in areas of the County known to have breeding habitat

(Hanson 1997; G. Nichols, Park County, Colorado, in litt. 1998).

Historical Conversion of Grassland in Winter Range

In the early 1900s, a great number of mountain plovers were

reported on wintering areas in California on both grasslands and

agricultural lands (Grinell et al. 1918). Prior to extensive human

development, grasslands occupied about 8,900,000 hectares (ha) (22

million ac) throughout California, with about 20 percent occurring in

the San Joaquin Valley (Dasmann 1965 and Burcham 1982 cited in Moore et

al. 1990. During agricultural development, extensive conversion of

natural habitats occurred and proportionately more grasslands were

converted than any other cover type (Ewing et al. 1988, Moore et al.

1990). The amount and variety of mountain plover habitat has been

significantly reduced throughout the Central Valley and in southern

California. To more fully evaluate the degree of mountain plover

habitat conversion that has occurred, we reviewed the habitat

inventories completed for other declining terrestrial species in the

San Joaquin Valley. While the San Joaquin Valley encompasses only the

southern portion of the Central Valley, we believe the trend there is

representative of wintering habitat degradation elsewhere.

Grasslands in the San Joaquin Valley have been nearly extirpated,

with less than 60,700 ha (150,000 ac) in the San Joaquin Valley floor

remaining unaffected by cultivation or urbanization (Service 1997).

Consequently, habitats preferred by mountain plovers have been reduced

to less than 4 percent of their historical abundance (Knopf and Rupert

1995, Anderson et al. 1991). Research in the San Joaquin Valley

documents that wintering mountain plovers prefer Valley sink scrub and

grasslands over any of the more common cultivated land (Anderson et al.

1991; Knopf and Rupert 1995)

(Service 1997).

Consequently, habitats preferred by mountain plovers have been reduced

to less than 4 percent of their historical abundance (Knopf and Rupert

1995, Anderson et al. 1991). Research in the San Joaquin Valley

documents that wintering mountain plovers prefer Valley sink scrub and

grasslands over any of the more common cultivated land (Anderson et al.

1991; Knopf and Rupert 1995). However, the sink scrub and grasslands

occupy no more than about 26,400 ha (66,000 ac) of the San Joaquin

Valley (Anderson et al. 1991). Mountain plovers in the San Joaquin

Valley are dependent on these core areas of uncultivated lands for

early winter survival, and further loss of these areas would be

detrimental to the species (Knopf and Rupert 1995). Apparently due to

the scarcity of uncultivated wintering habitat, mountain plovers use

croplands created by annual cultivation as alternate foraging areas

(Knopf and Rupert 1995). Such use may give the appearance that

conversion to cropland is benign. However, mountain plovers may not

benefit in the long term because the cultivated lands are commonly

treated with pesticides and may become urbanized (American Farmland

Trust 1989, Moore et al. 1990, Knopf 1996b). Most of the remaining

undeveloped lands in the San Joaquin Valley are primarily in the

foothills of the Valley, and are lands that have less potential for

agricultural production (Moore et al. 1990, Service 1997). While the

Carrizo Plain Natural Area contiguous to the west side of the Valley is

recognized as a regular wintering area, only about 10 percent of its

102,792 ha (254,000 ac) has vegetation and topography suitable for

mountain plovers (U.S. BLM 1995, S. Fitton, in litt., 1992).

Effects of Range Management on Mountain Plover Habitat

Historically, mountain plover habitat at both breeding and

wintering sites was a byproduct of the nomadic behavior of bison, elk,

and pronghorn, and the fossorial (digging) behavior of numerous

rodents

nt of its

102,792 ha (254,000 ac) has vegetation and topography suitable for

mountain plovers (U.S. BLM 1995, S. Fitton, in litt., 1992).

Effects of Range Management on Mountain Plover Habitat

Historically, mountain plover habitat at both breeding and

wintering sites was a byproduct of the nomadic behavior of bison, elk,

and pronghorn, and the fossorial (digging) behavior of numerous

rodents. Today prairie dogs and kangaroo rat numbers have been reduced

on a significant portion of their former range, and the grazing effects

of the dominant herbivore (domestic livestock) are usually closely

managed by rotating the livestock within fenced pasture allotments.

Current range management practices for domestic livestock, together

with extensive eradication of prairie dogs and other burrowing rodents,

has adversely affected mountain plover habitat, as detailed below.

Some current domestic livestock grazing management emphasizes a

uniform grass cover to minimize grassland and soil disturbance (Knopf

and Rupert in press), whereas the landscape created by the native

herbivores was a mosaic of grasses, forbs, and bare ground that could

change frequently in time and location. The shift to livestock grazing

strategies that favor uniform cover is believed to be partly

responsible for the decline of mountain plovers in Oklahoma and Canada

(Flowers 1985, Wershler 1989). Mountain plovers are no longer reported

from the Lewis Ranch in central Montana since elimination of grazing

there in 1993 (Knowles and Knowles 1998). Mountain plovers on the

Pawnee National Grassland are closely associated with heavily-grazed

sites. Therefore, in order to prevent deterioration of existing

mountain plover breeding habitat, the Forest Service has deferred

implementation of new grazing management plans that would have reduced

stocking rates (Forest Service 1994b). However, similar attention to

the vegetative requirements of mountain plovers is not in place

throughout their breeding range

sociated with heavily-grazed

sites. Therefore, in order to prevent deterioration of existing

mountain plover breeding habitat, the Forest Service has deferred

implementation of new grazing management plans that would have reduced

stocking rates (Forest Service 1994b). However, similar attention to

the vegetative requirements of mountain plovers is not in place

throughout their breeding range. The decline in the cattle and sheep

industry has caused additional rangeland to be converted to cropland,

which is believed to have eliminated some of the mountain plover

habitat in Montana (Fauna west 1991, Knowles and Knowles 1998).

Range management projects to improve forage conditions for domestic

livestock are conducted on public and private lands throughout the

range of the mountain plover. Examples of these projects include

``pitting'' to increase moisture retention in the soil, introduction of

exotic grass species such as crested wheatgrass, watershed improvement

projects, and fire suppression (Graul 1980, Fauna west 1991, Knowles

and Knowles 1993). These activities enhance the development of taller

vegetation and have eliminated suitable mountain plover nesting

habitats in Montana and Colorado (Graul and Webster 1976, Knowles and

Knowles 1993).

Effects of the Decline of Burrowing Mammals on Mountain Plover Habitat

The decline of the mountain plover is partially due to the decline

of prairie dogs in plover breeding range and the decline of small

burrowing mammals in plover winter range (Knowles et al. 1982; Fitton,

in litt., 1992, Knopf 1994).

Breeding Range

Mountain plovers occur within prairie dog towns in Colorado,

Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (Knowles et al. 1982; Flowers 1985;

Shackford 1991; Godbey 1992; Nelson 1993; Edwards, in litt., 1994; T.

Byer, in litt., 1997; S. Dinsmore, pers. comm., 1998)

ge and the decline of small

burrowing mammals in plover winter range (Knowles et al. 1982; Fitton,

in litt., 1992, Knopf 1994).

Breeding Range

Mountain plovers occur within prairie dog towns in Colorado,

Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (Knowles et al. 1982; Flowers 1985;

Shackford 1991; Godbey 1992; Nelson 1993; Edwards, in litt., 1994; T.

Byer, in litt., 1997; S. Dinsmore, pers. comm., 1998). Active prairie

dog towns in Montana have shorter vegetation and more abundant mountain

plover food, and therefore are better foraging sites than adjacent

sites without prairie dogs (Olson 1985). In Phillips County, Montana,

mountain plovers were found to selectively use only those active

prairie dog towns that also were grazed by cattle; mountain plovers

were not seen on inactive or ungrazed prairie dog towns (Knowles et al.

1982). Most of the mountain plover nests found on survey transects in

Phillips County during the past 6 years were located on prairie dog

towns (S. Dinsmore, pers. comm., 1998). The largest population of

mountain plovers in Montana occurs on prairie dog colonies, and between

1992 and 1996, prairie dog occupation of these colonies was reduced by

as much as 80 percent as a result of sylvatic plague (J. Grensten,

pers. comm., 1998). Mountain plover numbers along prairie dog transect

routes within the area affected by plague declined from 80 in 1991 to

19 in 1997, but increased to 27 in 1998 following some recovery of the

prairie dog population (S. Dinsmore pers. comm. 1998). We believe that

the best information available indicates that mountain plovers in

Phillips County are dependent on the activities of prairie dogs.

Because mountain plovers breeding in Montana represent a significant

part of the species total population, eradication of prairie dogs in

Montana would not only be detrimental to local conservation of plovers

(Knowles and Knowles 1998), but also could impact their viability

range-wide

vailable indicates that mountain plovers in

Phillips County are dependent on the activities of prairie dogs.

Because mountain plovers breeding in Montana represent a significant

part of the species total population, eradication of prairie dogs in

Montana would not only be detrimental to local conservation of plovers

(Knowles and Knowles 1998), but also could impact their viability

range-wide.

In Wyoming, prairie dogs on the Thunder Basin National Grassland

effectively maintain the vegetative characteristics required by

mountain plovers. To maintain these characteristics in the absence of

prairie dogs, more intensive grazing by domestic livestock or native

ungulates, or burning, would have to be conducted (T. Byer, pers.

comm., 1998). The importance of prairie dogs to mountain plover habitat

on the Pawnee National Grassland in Colorado was recently recognized

following a significant reduction in habitat caused by record rainfall

there in 1995. Prairie dogs on the Grassland have been effective in

maintaining the vegetative structure suitable for nesting mountain

plovers, while the vegetation at similar sites without prairie dogs is

now too tall or dense to be suitable habitat for mountain plovers.

Prairie dog abundance and distribution has been reduced by up to 98

percent across the species range due to concerted efforts aimed at

eradication of prairie dogs, extensive habitat reduction and

fragmentation, and sylvatic plague (Marsh 1984, Whicker and Detling

1993, Miller et al. 1994, W. Gill, Service, in litt. 1995).

Prairie dog control continues to occur on private and public lands

throughout the mountain plover's breeding range. Prairie dog

conservation efforts now being implemented at black-footed ferret

recovery sites in southeastern Wyoming (56 FR 41473) and north-central

Montana (59 FR 42696) will prevent prairie dog control from threatening

the success of the ferret recovery efforts

n litt. 1995).

Prairie dog control continues to occur on private and public lands

throughout the mountain plover's breeding range. Prairie dog

conservation efforts now being implemented at black-footed ferret

recovery sites in southeastern Wyoming (56 FR 41473) and north-central

Montana (59 FR 42696) will prevent prairie dog control from threatening

the success of the ferret recovery efforts. Mountain plovers at these

sites will be incidentally protected by these efforts, but similar

strategies are not in place throughout the species range. Outbreaks of

sylvatic plague continue to occur, and no measures are available to

effectively prevent or minimize the negative effect of plague on

prairie dog populations.

Prairie dog towns also are threatened by land use conversion

(Knowles and Knowles 1993). Further loss of prairie dog towns within

the current breeding range of the mountain plover would be detrimental

to plover conservation. Conversely, the conservation of the mountain

plover can be enhanced by implementing strategies to increase the

distribution and abundance of prairie dogs on breeding habitat.

Wintering Range

Some wintering habitat in California continues to be maintained in

suitable conditions by the activities of giant kangaroo rats and

California ground squirrels (Knopf and Rupert 1995). We estimate that

the federally listed giant kangaroo rat occupies less than about 2

percent of its former range due primarily to conversion of grassland

habitat to agriculture and urbanization, and secondarily to other

incidental human activities and control of California ground squirrels

(52 FR 283). Further loss of giant kangaroo rat colonies within the

current winter range would be detrimental to plover conservation.

Conversely, the conservation of the mountain plover can be enhanced by

implementing strategies to increase the distribution and abundance of

giant kangaroo rats on wintering habitats

other

incidental human activities and control of California ground squirrels

(52 FR 283). Further loss of giant kangaroo rat colonies within the

current winter range would be detrimental to plover conservation.

Conversely, the conservation of the mountain plover can be enhanced by

implementing strategies to increase the distribution and abundance of

giant kangaroo rats on wintering habitats.

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development in Mountain Plover Breeding Habitat

Oil and gas leasing and development commonly occur throughout the

breeding range of the mountain plover. Ongoing development of natural

gas resources in southwest Wyoming now exceeds the rate of development

projected 3 years ago, and the volume of natural gas suspected to occur

could make the rate of development the highest in the Nation (R.

Amidon, BLM, pers. comm., 1998). Oil and gas

development requires construction of individual well pads, access

roads, travel corridors, and pipelines (Brockway 1992). Roads present a

direct hazard for a variety of reasons. Mountain plovers nest on nearly

level ground (often near roads), adults and chicks often feed on or

near roads, and roads may be used as travel corridors by mountain

plovers, all of which make plovers susceptible to being killed by

vehicles (McCafferty 1930, Laun 1957, Godbey 1992, Knowles and Knowles

1996). Chicks and adults are vulnerable to stress caused by human

disturbance, and chicks require shading by adults to avoid heat (Graul

1975). Because adults may abandon chicks during distraction displays

(Graul 1975), any human activity that elicits distraction displays is

likely to increase the vulnerability of chicks to stress. Thus,

development of oil and gas resources could adversely affect mountain

plover habitat or cause the death of individuals (Brockway 1992).

Mineral resources found within the range of the mountain plover

include coal, uranium-vanadium, bentonite, and hard rock minerals

aul 1975), any human activity that elicits distraction displays is

likely to increase the vulnerability of chicks to stress. Thus,

development of oil and gas resources could adversely affect mountain

plover habitat or cause the death of individuals (Brockway 1992).

Mineral resources found within the range of the mountain plover

include coal, uranium-vanadium, bentonite, and hard rock minerals. Many

of these resources occur on public lands and are commonly mined using

surface mining techniques. Up to 25 percent of the mountain plover

habitat at the Antelope Coal Mine in Converse County, Wyoming, has been

affected by mining disturbance in the past (K. Edwards, in litt.,

1994), but mountain plover sightings at the coal mine have remained

fairly stable in recent years, and the habitat impacts may not have

affected population levels (B. Postovit, Powder River Eagle Surveys,

pers. comm., 1998). However, other surface coal mining is proposed in

Wyoming that may impact mountain plovers or their habitat (M. Jennings,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific Educational

Purposes

Prior to the passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1916,

mountain plovers were commercially hunted for food. There is no recent

evidence that mountain plovers are overutilized for any purpose.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease-related factors are not known to be a problem to the

species. Mountain plovers are most vulnerable to terrestrial and avian

predators as eggs and chicks, and are only rarely killed as adults.

Potential avian and terrestrial predators include the prairie falcon

(Falco mexicanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanjus ludovicianus), swift fox

(Vulpes velox), ground squirrels (Spermophilus sp.), and coyote (Canis

latrans) (Graul 1975). Nest predation at the Pawnee National Grassland

has ranged between 15 to 74 percent from 1969 to 1994 (Graul 1975,

Miller and Knopf 1993, Knopf and Rupert 1996)

Potential avian and terrestrial predators include the prairie falcon

(Falco mexicanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanjus ludovicianus), swift fox

(Vulpes velox), ground squirrels (Spermophilus sp.), and coyote (Canis

latrans) (Graul 1975). Nest predation at the Pawnee National Grassland

has ranged between 15 to 74 percent from 1969 to 1994 (Graul 1975,

Miller and Knopf 1993, Knopf and Rupert 1996). A high rate of nest

predation by swift fox at the Pawnee National Grassland in 1993 and

1994 may have been due to temporarily reduced prey resources, and is

not believed to be a factor in the long-term decline of the mountain

plover population (Knopf and Rupert 1996).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Protecting the mountain plover and its habitat is complicated

because its breeding and wintering habitats occur over a wide

geographic area, which includes private and public land, and numerous

State and Federal authorities. Federal laws that provide protection of

mountain plovers include the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, Endangered Species Act,

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To various degrees,

these laws address Federal candidate species, migratory birds, or

declining species when evaluating potential effects of federally

authorized, funded, or permitted actions. Further, some Federal

agencies have adopted policies requiring consideration of declining

species during project review, to ensure that Federal actions do not

cause a trend toward Federal listing. However, the effectiveness of

these existing Federal regulations and policies are highly variable and

may not be sufficient to reverse the species' decline throughout its

range

r permitted actions. Further, some Federal

agencies have adopted policies requiring consideration of declining

species during project review, to ensure that Federal actions do not

cause a trend toward Federal listing. However, the effectiveness of

these existing Federal regulations and policies are highly variable and

may not be sufficient to reverse the species' decline throughout its

range.

The Forest Service has adopted an interim mountain plover

management strategy for oil and gas activities on the Pawnee National

Grassland because of the potential impact these activities would have

on the species (U.S. Forest Service 1994). The BLM has adopted the same

strategy for oil and gas activities under its administration at the

same location (U.S. BLM 1994). Spatial buffers to protect mountain

plovers have also been adopted on Forest Service and Bureau lands in

Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah (M. Ball, Forest Service, in litt., 1997;

T. Byer, in litt., 1997; T. Dabbs, in litt., 1997). However, many of

the mineral resources occur as split estate ownership, where the

surface is owned by the Federal government but the subsurface minerals

are owned by private parties. Strategies adopted by Federal agencies to

protect mountain plovers are not as effective on split estate lands

because the Federal Government has less regulatory authority over

private surface activities. In southwest Wyoming the ``checkerboard''

pattern of alternating private and public land (Federal and State

sections) also reduces the effectiveness of Federal plover conservation

measures.

Land exchange or disposal by Federal agencies may also involve

mountain plover habitat. For example, land exchanges on the Thunder

Basin National Grassland in Wyoming have resulted in transfer of known

nesting habitat to private ownership, as well as transfer of nesting

habitat on private land to Forest Service ownership (T. Byer, pers.

comm., 1998)

of Federal plover conservation

measures.

Land exchange or disposal by Federal agencies may also involve

mountain plover habitat. For example, land exchanges on the Thunder

Basin National Grassland in Wyoming have resulted in transfer of known

nesting habitat to private ownership, as well as transfer of nesting

habitat on private land to Forest Service ownership (T. Byer, pers.

comm., 1998). In Colorado, the BLM has identified numerous parcels of

public land that are available for exchange or disposal to the public,

including parcels in Park County known to be mountain plover habitat

(L. Deike, BLM, in litt., 1997). Disposal of these lands requires

review by the BLM, yet the candidate status of the mountain plover may

not be effective as a mechanism to retain all breeding sites in public

ownership (E. Brekke,BLM, pers. comm., 1998). While federal ownership

of mountain plover habitat is not necessary to insure conservation,

retaining known habitat in federal ownership reduces the burden of

conservation on private landowners.

The mountain plover is now classified as endangered in Canada,

threatened in Nebraska, a ``species of special interest or concern'' in

Montana, Oklahoma, and California, and designated a ``species in need

of conservation'' in Kansas (Wershler and Wallis 1986; Flath 1984; E.

Hunt, California Department of Fish and Game, in litt., 1990; Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission 1992; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife

Conservation 1992; Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 1992). The

mountain plover is currently believed to be extirpated from North

Dakota and South Dakota (Faanes and Stewart 1982). Only California and

Nebraska have laws requiring evaluation of State-listed species through

a consultation process. States other than those identified above have

not given the mountain plover any special designation

ation 1992; Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 1992). The

mountain plover is currently believed to be extirpated from North

Dakota and South Dakota (Faanes and Stewart 1982). Only California and

Nebraska have laws requiring evaluation of State-listed species through

a consultation process. States other than those identified above have

not given the mountain plover any special designation. In 1995,

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming,

designated the mountain plover as a ``species of management concern''

under the Partners in Flight Program (Service, in litt., 1995). It is

not known if the bird has any official designation in Mexico.

State listing can encourage State agencies to use existing

authorities to achieve recovery, stimulate research,

and allow redirection of priorities within State natural resource

departments. However, without measures to protect the species' habitat,

such State laws are generally inadequate to ensure conservation of the

species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

Natural Factors Affecting Nesting

Mountain plover nests are often found grouped in localized areas,

which suggests a loose colonialism during the breeding season (Graul

1975). Results of studies conducted in Colorado and Montana suggest a

high degree of site fidelity in mountain plovers, with both males and

females returning to nest within several hundred meters of the previous

year's nest site, and banded chicks returning as adults the following

year to nest at their natal areas (Graul 1973, Knopf 1996b).

The mountain plover's narrow range of habitat requirements combined

with its site fidelity increases its vulnerability to impacts at

traditional breeding locales. Although mountain plovers or their

habitat may be affected by localized climatic events (Graul 1973,

1975), we do not believe such events have contributed to the historic

decline of the species

may mean that birds who return to that

area for nesting must expend additional time and energy locating a

suitable alternative area. This search may result in a decreased

reproductive success for that year. The long-term effect of such

naturally occurring catastrophes on mountain plover viability is not

known, but populations at low abundance are more vulnerable to

extirpation by such events. Naturally occurring events can increase the

risk of extirpation at local breeding sites.

Manmade Factors Affecting Nesting

In addition to loss of habitat, human disturbance during the

nesting period may directly impact mountain plovers due to their

sensitivity to stress (Wershler and Wallis 1986). Mountain plover

chicks less than 2 weeks old may die in 15 minutes if shade is not

available on days when the temperature exceeds 27 deg. C (81 deg. F)

(Graul 1975). Adults have been known to abandon eggs after being

disturbed on the nest, and adults also may die from stress (Graul

1975). Consequently, any human activity that significantly modifies

behavior by adults will not only increase the exposure of chicks to

natural elements, but also will increase the vulnerability of adults to

stress-related mortality.

Grasshoppers that occur throughout the breeding range of the

mountain plover can reach population levels considered a threat to

agriculture, and stimulate grasshopper control measures. Although

cooperative grasshopper control programs between the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and private land owners have been

abandoned, federally-subsidized control can be implemented if a severe

grasshopper outbreak occurs and congressional funding is provided (L.

McEwen, Colorado State University, pers. comm., 1998). Grasshopper

control methods can reduce the abundance of grasshoppers by more than

90 percent, as well as reduce the abundance of nontarget insects (Fair

et al. 1995)

nd private land owners have been

abandoned, federally-subsidized control can be implemented if a severe

grasshopper outbreak occurs and congressional funding is provided (L.

McEwen, Colorado State University, pers. comm., 1998). Grasshopper

control methods can reduce the abundance of grasshoppers by more than

90 percent, as well as reduce the abundance of nontarget insects (Fair

et al. 1995). Although control is designed to reduce rather than

eradicate grasshoppers, mountain plover productivity may be influenced

by a reduction in prey abundance (Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service 1987, Graul 1973, Knopf 1996b, Knopf and Rupert 1996).

In addition, mountain plovers are at risk from increased metabolism

of DDE residues if their foraging behavior is altered to compensate for

this reduced insect abundance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) 1975, Fair et al. 1995). Grasshopper control subsidized by APHIS

is designed to minimize impacts to wildlife species; however, due to

the reduction in Federal programs to control grasshopper infestations,

private landowners may choose control methods that increase the

contaminant risk to mountain plovers. Therefore, grasshopper control on

breeding habitat is considered a potential threat to mountain plovers.

Manmade Factors--Wintering

In California, pesticides are applied to cultivated fields during

the 5 months that mountain plovers occupy these wintering habitats

(Knopf 1996b). Birds are exposed to pesticides by adsorption through

the skin, preening, ingestion, and inhalation (Driver et. al. 1991). To

investigate the potential threat of pesticides to mountain plovers,

adults were collected from wintering habitats and eggs were collected

from breeding habitats (F. Knopf, in litt., 1991). The adults and eggs

were analyzed for concentration of organochlorines (hydrocarbon

pesticides), selenium, and heavy metals

n through

the skin, preening, ingestion, and inhalation (Driver et. al. 1991). To

investigate the potential threat of pesticides to mountain plovers,

adults were collected from wintering habitats and eggs were collected

from breeding habitats (F. Knopf, in litt., 1991). The adults and eggs

were analyzed for concentration of organochlorines (hydrocarbon

pesticides), selenium, and heavy metals. Forty whole-body samples of

adults from the San Joaquin Valley had residues of DDE (a principal

environmental metabolite of DDT) ranging from near 1 to 10 parts per

million ( L. Carlson, Service, in litt., 1992; A. Archuleta, Service,

pers. comm.. 1995). Twenty-two of the 54 eggs collected in Colorado and

Montana had DDE residues similar to those found in the wintering birds.

Although these DDE residues in eggs do not appear detrimental to

mountain plover reproduction, residues found in adults may cause death

to some individuals if they are mobilized to the brain (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency 1975). While average selenium

concentrations found in samples from winter habitats are below

thresholds that would cause concern for population level effects,

individual mountain plovers may be at risk in some locations (J.

Skorupa, Service, pers. comm., 1993; A. Archuleta, pers. comm., 1995).

Heavy metal concentrations were within acceptable thresholds (A.

Archuleta, pers. comm., 1995).

We have confirmed that the field application of 27 pesticides is

responsible for killing numerous species of birds throughout the Nation

(R. Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1992). Diazinon,

dimethoate, mevinphos, and chlorpyrifos are included on this list of 27

pesticides, and are commonly applied to a variety of agricultural crops

in Imperial County and the Central Valley of California from November

through February (California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in

litt., 1998). Ten other pesticides identified by the Service (R

and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1992). Diazinon,

dimethoate, mevinphos, and chlorpyrifos are included on this list of 27

pesticides, and are commonly applied to a variety of agricultural crops

in Imperial County and the Central Valley of California from November

through February (California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in

litt., 1998). Ten other pesticides identified by the Service (R. Smith,

in litt., 1992) as toxic to birds also are used in Imperial County and

the Central Valley, but primarily during times when mountain plovers

are absent. Studies conducted in the San

Joaquin Valley, California, to determine exposure of mountain plovers

to organophosphates and carbamates were inconclusive. Cholinesterase

activity levels of mountain plovers from the exposed site were

consistently higher than those at the reference site, yet significant

cholinesterase inhibition was not detected in any mountain plover (W.

Iko, USGS-Biological Resources Division, in litt., 1997).

Conclusion

In summary, threats to mountain plovers occur at both breeding and

wintering locales. Conversion of rangeland to croplands has been

significant on breeding habitat with about 30 percent of rangeland in

the Great Plains now converted to crops. The cultivated lands now

interspersed with prairie in the southern part of the plover's breeding

range are hypothesized to represent a reproductive sink, which may

significantly impact maintenance of a viable population. Similarly in

the San Joaquin Valley, a significant wintering area, only 60,700 ha

(150,000 ac) of the valley bottom remain currently uncultivated, and

less than half of that may qualify as preferred habitat. Throughout the

breeding range, bison are functionally extinct, prairie dogs have been

considerably reduced, and current domestic livestock grazing management

does not always promote the vegetative and bare ground structure

required by mountain plovers

, only 60,700 ha

(150,000 ac) of the valley bottom remain currently uncultivated, and

less than half of that may qualify as preferred habitat. Throughout the

breeding range, bison are functionally extinct, prairie dogs have been

considerably reduced, and current domestic livestock grazing management

does not always promote the vegetative and bare ground structure

required by mountain plovers. Similarly, the native herbivores that

once maintained wintering habitats in California are either

functionally or virtually extirpated. Oil and gas development occurs on

core breeding sites on the Pawnee National Grassland, and is presently

developing rapidly in southwest Wyoming. Rangeland grasshopper control

may impact mountain plover productivity on breeding habitat, and

mountain plovers are exposed to pesticide use while on wintering

habitat.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats

faced by the mountain plover in determining to issue this proposed

rule. The present distribution and abundance of mountain plovers is at

risk given the potential for these impacts to continue. Federal listing

under authority of the Act is the only mechanism we can presently

identify that ensures protection to the mountain plover throughout its

life cycle and throughout its range, on both public and private lands.

Therefore, based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list

the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) as a threatened species.

While not in immediate danger of extinction, we believe the mountain

plover is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable

future unless measures are taken to reverse the decline resulting from

the above described threats.

Critical Habitat

ds.

Therefore, based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list

the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) as a threatened species.

While not in immediate danger of extinction, we believe the mountain

plover is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable

future unless measures are taken to reverse the decline resulting from

the above described threats.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(a) of the Act as: (I)

the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species,

at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require special management

considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. The term ``conservation'' as defined in section 3(3) of

the Act means ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures

necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at

which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer

necessary,'' i.e., the species is recovered and can be removed from the

list of endangered and threatened species.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical

habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations

exist--(1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity,

and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the

degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical

habitat would not be beneficial to the species

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical

habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations

exist--(1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity,

and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the

degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical

habitat would not be beneficial to the species. We find that

designation of critical habitat for the plover is not prudent because

there would be no additional benefit to the species beyond that

conferred by listing it as threatened. The reasons for this conclusion,

including the factors considered in weighing the potential benefits

against the risks of designation, are provided below.

Potential benefits of critical habitat designation derive from

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in

consultation with us, to ensure that their actions are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or to result in

the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such

species. Critical habitat, by definition, applies only to Federal

agency actions. The 50 CFR 402.02 defines ``jeopardize the continued

existence of'' as meaning to engage in an action that would reasonably

be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the

wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that

species. ``Destruction or adverse modification'' of critical habitat is

defined 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

r adverse modification'' of critical habitat is

defined 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. Thus, in the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, the

jeopardy analysis focuses on potential effects on the species'

populations, whereas the destruction or adverse modification analysis

focuses on the value of habitat to the species. However, both

jeopardizing the continued existence of a species and adversely

modifying critical habitat have similar standards and similar

thresholds for violation of section 7 of the Act. Biological opinions

that conclude that a Federal agency action is likely to adversely

modify critical habitat but is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species for which critical habitat has been designated

are extremely rare historically; none have been issued in recent years.

The mountain plover's distribution and biology are particularly

relevant to the not prudent determination, as it relates to the section

7 consultation process discussed above. The mountain plover is a

neotropical migratory bird found in 11 different States in the western

and southwestern United States and Mexico. It occupies grasslands or

sites with grassland characteristics, including manmade landscapes such

as sod farms and cultivated fields, and areas heavily grazed by cattle.

Mountain plovers commonly occur on public lands at both breeding and

wintering locales. The best-documented mountain plover breeding areas

include lands managed by either the BLM or Forest Service in Montana

and Colorado. Breeding and wintering mountain plovers occur on other

Federal lands in each of these States, as well as in Wyoming, Utah, New

Mexico, and California

vily grazed by cattle.

Mountain plovers commonly occur on public lands at both breeding and

wintering locales. The best-documented mountain plover breeding areas

include lands managed by either the BLM or Forest Service in Montana

and Colorado. Breeding and wintering mountain plovers occur on other

Federal lands in each of these States, as well as in Wyoming, Utah, New

Mexico, and California. The habitat in the other locations may be

managed by the above agencies, or in a few cases by the

Service or the Department of Defense. In addition to their occurrence

on Federal lands, mountain plovers also occur on private lands which

may be enrolled in Federal programs that support commodity production.

Federally sponsored activities on private land will receive the benefit

of section 7 consultation, regardless of whether or not critical

habitat is designated.

As stated above, the mountain plover is a migratory bird that has a

wide distribution throughout its breeding and winter range. While

mountain plovers demonstrate a degree of fidelity to breeding

locations, specific nest site locations can vary from year to year

depending on availability of essential habitat elements. Studies of

mountain plovers on winter habitat in California have shown that winter

site fidelity is poorly developed, and flocks of birds may travel over

55 km (33 miles (mi)) between alternate foraging sites. Further, the

mountain plover demonstrates an affinity for sites with a mosaic of

short vegetation and bare ground. These attributes are subject to

change annually in proportion and distribution due to either natural

(e.g., fire, succession, seasonal precipitation) or human-caused (e.g.,

grazing intensity, range management) events. It would be impractical to

designate specific geographic locations as critical habitat when the

essential elements of that habitat may shift temporally and spatially

across the landscape

ibutes are subject to

change annually in proportion and distribution due to either natural

(e.g., fire, succession, seasonal precipitation) or human-caused (e.g.,

grazing intensity, range management) events. It would be impractical to

designate specific geographic locations as critical habitat when the

essential elements of that habitat may shift temporally and spatially

across the landscape.

Designation of critical habitat may provide a minor benefit in that

it may assist in securing funding or acquiring land for conservation.

In some cases, the designation of critical habitat may provide some

benefits to a species by identifying areas important to the species'

conservation, including habitat that is not presently occupied and that

may require restoration efforts to support recovery. In some cases, the

designation of critical habitat serves to notify Federal agencies of

the presence of a listed species on land they administer. However, in

this case, the Service, the BLM, and the Forest Service are all aware

of the presence of the mountain plover on their lands, and in some

cases currently perform affirmative management actions for this

species.

Listing of the mountain plover as a threatened species also

publicizes the present vulnerability of this species. Any designation

of critical habitat for this species could reasonably be expected to

increase the potential threat of vandalism or intentional destruction

of the species habitat. In light of the vulnerability of this species

to vandalism, the intentional destruction of its habitat (for example

tilling nests, tilling grassland habitat), or disturbance caused by

birders, the designation of critical habitat and the publication of

maps providing locations and descriptions, as required for the

designation of critical habitat, would reasonably be expected to

increase the degree of threat to the species and its habitat, increase

the difficulties of law enforcement, and further contribute to the

decline of the mountain plover

at), or disturbance caused by

birders, the designation of critical habitat and the publication of

maps providing locations and descriptions, as required for the

designation of critical habitat, would reasonably be expected to

increase the degree of threat to the species and its habitat, increase

the difficulties of law enforcement, and further contribute to the

decline of the mountain plover.

Therefore, because the mountain plover is widely distributed on

Federal lands and also may occur on private lands enrolled in Federal

programs, the designation of critical habitat would provide little

additional benefit beyond that provided by the jeopardy standard under

section 7 regulations. In addition, the mountain plover's affinity for

habitat elements that are likely to change frequently at both breeding

and wintering locales strongly suggest that the biological value of any

critical habitat designation would be short lived. Lastly, designation

brings about the potential for an increased risk of intentional

destruction of birds or their habitat. Consequently, we have determined

that the designation of critical habitat for the United States

population of the mountain plover is not prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

Potential conservation measures to reverse the declining trend for

this species might include incentives to landowners to leave some

cultivated areas unplanted until plover eggs have hatched, grazing

plans for native range that encourage high grazing intensity in plover

nesting areas, haying and grazing on existing Conservation Reserve

Program tracts to manage for the grass height and density required by

nesting plovers, and seeding criteria for new Conservation Reserve

Program tracts that would encourage establishment of native shortgrass

prairie species in preference to taller grasses

plans for native range that encourage high grazing intensity in plover

nesting areas, haying and grazing on existing Conservation Reserve

Program tracts to manage for the grass height and density required by

nesting plovers, and seeding criteria for new Conservation Reserve

Program tracts that would encourage establishment of native shortgrass

prairie species in preference to taller grasses. The Service is

initiating discussions with the Natural Resources Conservation Service

to explore ways, such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,

that these measures might be implemented on private land.

Conservation measures provided to a species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and leads to the

implementation of conservation actions by Federal, State, County, and

private agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States, and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. Such

actions are initiated by us following listing. The protection required

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat, if

any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Endangered Species Act are codified at 50

CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to

confer informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction

or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat

s being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Endangered Species Act are codified at 50

CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to

confer informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction

or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(1) provides that all Federal agencies

shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purpose of the

Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of species listed

pursuant to the Act. Further, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or

carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such

a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a

Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with us.

Consequently, Federal listing will cause all Federal agencies to

consider mountain plover conservation needs during their review of

activities they may fund, authorize, or carry out.

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act allows for the incidental taking of

federally listed species on private lands, where no Federal agency

action exists, provided the applicant adopts a habitat conservation

plan (HCP) to minimize the degree of take while furthering the

conservation of the species. We anticipate that HCPs will be requested

should the mountain plover become a federally listed species. We

encourage and will participate in the development of HCPs to ensure

that mountain plovers can be conserved throughout their range while

authorizing incidental take associated with otherwise lawful

activities. We believe that habitat modification techniques shown to be

effective for the mountain plover can be incorporated into HCPs that

may be implemented at breeding or wintering locales.

We

encourage and will participate in the development of HCPs to ensure

that mountain plovers can be conserved throughout their range while

authorizing incidental take associated with otherwise lawful

activities. We believe that habitat modification techniques shown to be

effective for the mountain plover can be incorporated into HCPs that

may be implemented at breeding or wintering locales.

A unique Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed in 1995 by the

Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Governor of

Colorado. The purpose of the MOA is to address the conservation needs

of declining species in Colorado, with a goal of preventing their

decline to a point at which Federal listing could be needed. The

mountain plover is mentioned specifically in this MOA, and a work group

now exists to address its needs. We have participated diligently with

the work group to pursue the goals of the MOA and believe that the MOA

can be an effective vehicle to promote and implement mountain plover

conservation actions in Colorado, and perhaps encourage similar

conservation actions in adjoining States.

Mountain plovers occur on lands administered by the Service, Forest

Service, BLM, and other agencies. For all public lands where mountain

plovers occur, the Act would require the appropriate land management

agency to evaluate potential impacts to mountain plovers that may

result from activities they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Act

requires consultation under section 7 of the Act for activities on

private lands, including tribal lands, that may impact the survival and

recovery of the mountain plover, if such activities are funded,

authorized, or permitted by Federal agencies. The Federal agencies that

may be involved as a result of this proposed rule include the Service,

BLM, Forest Service, APHIS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Farm Services Agency, Department of Defense,

Department of Energy, Department of Justice, and the EPA

y of the mountain plover, if such activities are funded,

authorized, or permitted by Federal agencies. The Federal agencies that

may be involved as a result of this proposed rule include the Service,

BLM, Forest Service, APHIS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Farm Services Agency, Department of Defense,

Department of Energy, Department of Justice, and the EPA.

Federal agency actions that may require conference and/or

consultation as described in the preceding paragraphs include:

(1) Removing, thinning or altering vegetation. Mountain plover nest

sites have short vegetation, while taller vegetation may be required by

chicks for shade and hiding cover;

(2) Modifying topography and soils at breeding sites. Mountain

plover nest sites are on land with less than 5 percent slope, and

usually have at least 30 percent bare ground. Any activity that alters

one of these characteristics would likely be detrimental;

(3) Domestic livestock grazing management. The current state of

knowledge indicates that domestic livestock grazing intensity

influences the quality of mountain plover habitat. Review of grazing

management proposals would be necessary to determine their

compatibility with the mountain plover and its habitat. Those proposals

that adversely affect a species or its habitat (e.g., altering

vegetative structure or composition that destroys suitable habitat

characteristics) would require reasonable and prudent alternatives or

reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take;

(4) Controlling burrowing rodents. Prairie dogs, giant kangaroo

rats, and California ground squirrels are known to create suitable

conditions for mountain plovers;

s or its habitat (e.g., altering

vegetative structure or composition that destroys suitable habitat

characteristics) would require reasonable and prudent alternatives or

reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take;

(4) Controlling burrowing rodents. Prairie dogs, giant kangaroo

rats, and California ground squirrels are known to create suitable

conditions for mountain plovers;

(5) Conversion of untilled grassland to tilled land. While mountain

plovers are found on grasslands, they are attracted to cultivated lands

for foraging opportunities and nesting, which makes them vulnerable to

effects from tilling and pesticide application. Therefore, cultivated

lands are likely a reproductive sink. Therefore, Federal programs that

encourage conversion of grasslands to cultivated land could be

detrimental to the conservation of the mountain plover;

(6) Human activities near nesting mountain plovers. Federal

proposals or permits for activities that would create disturbance

during the nesting period could interfere with normal nesting behavior

and result in the death of eggs, chicks and/or adults;

(7) Registration of pesticides. We have documented that numerous

pesticides are toxic to birds during field application and some of

these pesticides are used while mountain plovers occupy breeding and

wintering habitats;

(8) Oil, gas, or mineral development on known nesting or wintering

habitat.

The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and

17.31 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that

apply to all threatened wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR

17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt

any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the

course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate

or foreign commerce any such species

t 50 CFR

17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt

any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the

course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate

or foreign commerce any such species. It also is illegal to possess,

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has

been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service

and conservation agencies.

Under certain circumstances, permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife species.

Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such

permits are available for scientific purposes, enhancement of

propagation or survival of the species, educational purposes,

zoological exhibition, incidental take in connection with otherwise

lawful activities, and/or other special purposes consistent with the

purposes of the Act. Requests for copies of the regulations regarding

listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the Permits Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O.

Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0207

(telephone 303/275-2370; facsimile 303/275-2371).

We adopted a policy on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to

the maximum extent practicable, at the time a species is proposed for

listing, those activities that would or would not constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within a species' range. We believe that the actions

listed below would probably not result in a violation of section 9:

ent practicable, at the time a species is proposed for

listing, those activities that would or would not constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within a species' range. We believe that the actions

listed below would probably not result in a violation of section 9:

(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal

agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, range

management, rodent control, mineral development, oil and gas

development, road construction, human recreation, and pesticide

application) when such activity is conducted in accordance with any

reasonable and prudent measures given by us in accordance with section

7 of the Act;

(2) Within the breeding range, normal farming practices on

cultivated lands, prescribed burns, and construction/maintenance

activities (e.g., fences, power lines, pipelines, and utility lines)

conducted when mountain plovers are not present on breeding habitat.

The period when activities would not impact mountain plovers may vary

at specific locations, but would usually fall between August 10 and

April 1;

(3) Within the wintering range, normal winter farming practices on

sod farms and tilled cropland;

(4) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback at

breeding and wintering habitats (e.g., waterfowl hunting, bird

watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, and hiking);

(5) Normal, routine domestic livestock grazing, herding, and

inspecting, including maintenance of livestock improvement structures;

and

(6) Application of pesticides in accordance with label restrictions

or County Bulletins that have resulted from Endangered Species Act

consultation.

We believe that the actions listed below might potentially result

in a violation of section 9; however, possible

violations are not limited to these actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species;

ovement structures;

and

(6) Application of pesticides in accordance with label restrictions

or County Bulletins that have resulted from Endangered Species Act

consultation.

We believe that the actions listed below might potentially result

in a violation of section 9; however, possible

violations are not limited to these actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species;

(2) The unauthorized destruction of mountain plovers including

adults, nests, eggs, and/or young by any human activity, or any human

activity resulting in actual death or injury to the species by

significantly modifying essential behavioral patterns (e.g., breeding,

feeding, sheltering). Examples of human activities may include discing

or tilling on cultivated land during the breeding season; land

leveling, conversion of grassland to cropland, road construction, water

development, range management, mineral development, or off-highway

vehicle use, in any season on non-cultivated lands that serve as

nesting habitat;

(3) Application of pesticides in violation of County Bulletins or

label restrictions; and

(4) Interstate or foreign commerce (commerce across State or

international boundaries) and import/export (as discussed earlier in

this section) without having obtained a threatened species permit.

Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes of

scientific research and enhancement of propagation or survival of the

species.

Questions regarding whether specific activities, such as changes in

land use, will constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed

to the Assistant Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

The prohibition against intentional and unintentional ``take'' of

listed species applies to all landowners regardless of whether or not

their lands are within critical habitat (see 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1),

1532(1a), and 50 CFR 17.3)

ific activities, such as changes in

land use, will constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed

to the Assistant Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

The prohibition against intentional and unintentional ``take'' of

listed species applies to all landowners regardless of whether or not

their lands are within critical habitat (see 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1),

1532(1a), and 50 CFR 17.3). Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizes us to issue

permits for the taking of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful

activities such as agriculture, surface mining, and urban development.

Incidental take permits must be supported by an HCP that identifies

conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement to

conserve the species, usually on the permittee's lands. For example,

no-till practices that leave tall stubble may successfully cause

plovers to avoid cropland. On fallow ground, the type of farm implement

used and the timing of the use may be significant in producing more

plovers. These and other techniques to avoid plovers or produce plovers

can be examined by producers in the development of an HCP. A key

element in our review of an HCP is a determination of the plan's effect

upon the long-term conservation of the species. We would approve an

HCP, and issue a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, if the plan would minimize

and mitigate the impacts of the taking and would not appreciably reduce

the likelihood of the survival and recovery of that species in the

wild.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or

suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any other interested party

concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.

We are seeking comments particularly concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to the mountain plover;

ve as possible. Therefore, comments or

suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any other interested party

concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.

We are seeking comments particularly concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to the mountain plover;

(2) The location of any additional breeding, wintering, or

migration sites, including areas in Mexico and Canada;

(3) Additional information concerning mountain plover distribution,

population size and/or population trend;

(4) Information regarding current or planned land uses, and their

possible beneficial or negative impact to the mountain plover or its

habitat (e.g., agricultural conversions, oil and gas development, land

exchanges, range management, habitat conservation plans, conservation

easements);

(5) Information regarding mountain plovers on their wintering

habitats (e.g., preferential use of natural versus agricultural

habitats, habitat distribution and abundance, daily routines, night

roosts, site fidelity, population abundance);

(6) Additional biological or physical elements that best describe

mountain plover habitat, that could be considered essential for the

conservation of the mountain plover (e.g., burrowing rodent colonies,

vegetation, food, topography);

(7) Information relative to mountain plover distribution and

productivity on cultivated lands, shortgrass prairie, and shrub-steppe

habitats;

(8) Alternative farming practices that will reduce or eliminate the

take of mountain plovers;

(9) Other management strategies that will conserve the species

throughout its range; and

er (e.g., burrowing rodent colonies,

vegetation, food, topography);

(7) Information relative to mountain plover distribution and

productivity on cultivated lands, shortgrass prairie, and shrub-steppe

habitats;

(8) Alternative farming practices that will reduce or eliminate the

take of mountain plovers;

(9) Other management strategies that will conserve the species

throughout its range; and

(10) Information regarding the benefits of critical habitat

designation.

Final promulgation of the regulations on this species will take

into consideration the comments and any additional information received

by us. Such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs

from this proposal.

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of

publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must

be made in writing and addressed to the Assistant Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section).

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make

this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)

Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with

its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided

into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier

to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department

of the Interior, room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240

ns? (5) Is the description of the rule in

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier

to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department

of the Interior, room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

You may also e-mail the comments to this address: E[email protected].

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental

Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared concerning

regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act of 1973, as

amended. A notice outlining our reasons for this determination was

published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain any new collections of information other

than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget

clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to a collection of information,

unless it displays a currently valid control number. For additional

information concerning permit and associated requirements for

threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.32.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,

is available upon request from the Assistant Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert Leachman

(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend 50 CFR Part 17, as set forth

below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

sor (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert Leachman

(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend 50 CFR Part 17, as set forth

below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1554; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under ``BIRDS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

Birds

* * * * * * *

Plover, mountain................. Charadrius montanus. U.S.A. (western)... Entire............. T NA NA

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: December 23, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-3628 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P