Mountain - Prairie Region
Endangered Species Program
|
|
Mountain - Prairie Region Endangered Species Program |
| Mountain Plover |
| Federal Register Notice - December 5, 2002 |
[Federal Register: December 5, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 234)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72396-72407]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05de02-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI45
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status
and Special Regulation for the Mountain Plover
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of new information and reopening of the
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the
comment period for our proposal to list the mountain plover (Charadrius
montanus) as a threatened species. The proposed listing action was
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7587),
and new information has become available that is pertinent to the species'
biology and the listing factors we are required to consider under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are reopening the comment
period to share new information we have acquired and provide the public
a new opportunity to provide comments on this listing proposal.
We are also proposing a special rule under the authority of section
4(d) of the Act, containing the prohibitions necessary to provide for
the conservation of the mountain plover. The prohibitions we propose do
not include a prohibition against the take of mountain plover during
certain routine farming practices until December 31, 2004, in Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Laramie and Goshen Counties, Wyoming.
During this period, research will be conducted to determine the impact
of farming practices on cultivated fields to mountain plover nesting
success within the southern portion of the breeding range. The
finalization of this rule is contingent upon a final listing of the
mountain plover as threatened.
DATES: We must receive comments from all interested parties by February
3, 2003. We must receive requests for public hearings by January 21,
2003.
ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the
Western Colorado Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764
Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946. You also may
e-mail your comments to al_pfister@fws.gov. We will make comments and
materials we receive available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the above address. You also may obtain
a copy of the 1999 proposed rule to list the mountain plover (64 FR
7587) from this office, or access it at our Web site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/mtnplover/
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Leachman, at the above address,
telephone 970-243-2778, facsimile 970-245-6933, or e-mail robert--
leachman@fws.gov. A copy of this notification and other information on
the mountain plover can be found on the World Wide Web at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/mtnplover/
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This supplementary proposed rule abbreviates the background, life
history, and listing factor discussions published in the 1999 proposed
rule. Most of the information we reported in 1999 remains substantially
valid. New information that represents a significant addition to the
mountain plover biology, abundance, and distribution as previously
reported is included in this document. We also report new information
relating to threats or existing conservation actions that significantly
influence evaluation of the listing factors. We have not reported all
new information that only affirms previously reported findings, nor do
we cite all new information that represents a continuation of ongoing
research cited in the 1999 proposed rule that has not materially
changed the knowledge of mountain plover biology, distribution,
abundance, or conservation needs. We have revised the References Cited
to include the new information we have reviewed since 1999. Our
References Cited document is available on request (see ADDRESSES). We
have retained the organization of the 1999 proposed rule in this
document to make review and comparison more efficient. Briefly, we have
summarized the text of some sections of the 1999 proposed rule followed
by pertinent new information, or simply provided a statement for other
sections that new information did not materially change findings
reported in the 1999 proposed rule. In this supplemental proposed rule
document, we also propose to amend the table at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
reflect the proposed special rule for mountain plover.
The mountain plover is similar in size and appearance to a killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus), eats primarily insects, and is associated with
short grass and shrub-steppe landscapes throughout its breeding and
wintering range. It is commonly reported on heavily grazed sites,
prairie dog colonies, and some cultivated fields. It is known to occur
from Canada south across the high plains to Mexico. During the breeding
season (late March through August), plovers can be found in Montana,
Wyoming, and Colorado, and to a lesser extent in Utah, New Mexico,
Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. Nesting also has been
reported in Canada and Mexico. During winter, plovers can be found
primarily in the Central Valley and Imperial Valley of California. A
few birds winter in Arizona, Texas, and Mexico.
New information now confirms a few breeding mountain plovers in
Mexico (Knopf and Rupert 1999a; F. Knopf, U.S. Geological Survey-
Biological Resources Division, in litt. 1999), and successful breeding
on some cultivated lands in Colorado (T. McCoy, Colorado Natural
Heritage Foundation, in litt. 2001). We also have new information
describing the population trend of the mountain plover relative to
other grassland endemics, based on new Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data.
The BBS information is provided later in this document.
Habitat Characteristics
Short vegetation, bare ground, and a flat topography are recognized
as habitat-defining characteristics of the mountain plover, at both
breeding and wintering locales. Suitable breeding and wintering habitat
characteristics can be provided by naturally occurring physiographic
features, grazing by native mammalian herbivores (e.g., prairie dogs)
or domestic livestock (e.g., sheep), or some agricultural practices. We
now report that mountain plovers also are found on white-tailed
(Cynomys leucurus) and Gunnison's (Cynomys gunnisoni) prairie dog
colonies (P. Deibert, Service, pers. comm. 2002; Hawks Aloft, Inc.
2001b). There also is new literature further describing a strong
association of mountain plovers with prairie dogs (Dinsmore 2001,
Kotliar et al. 1999). We also have learned that due to the absence of
naturally vegetated suitable habitat, irrigated farmlands and grazed
alfalfa fields have become the predominant winter habitat for mountain
plovers in the Imperial Valley of California (Wunder and Knopf In
draft). While in the Imperial Valley, plovers move onto fields for
short periods following harvest, especially where the fields are turned
over, burned, or grazed by sheep. Insect availability, furrow depth,
size of dirt clods, and the vegetation of contiguous land parcels are
believed to influence the suitability of individual cultivated fields
(E. Marquis-Brong in litt. 1999a, F. Knopf pers. comm. 2000).
Therefore, while cultivated lands are abundant throughout the Central
and Imperial Valleys of California, not all of them are suitable
wintering habitat.
Life History
We described the mountain plover's life history in 1999 by
addressing migration periods, nesting chronology, and common habitat
features. Briefly, the mountain plover arrives on its breeding grounds
from late March to late April and typically lays three eggs in a
shallow depression. Mountain plover nests are loosely congregated,
suggesting some colonialization. Chicks begin to fledge in June, and
fall migration to winter habitat is well under way in August. Important
new information includes a study completed in Montana predicting that
1.9 years is the mean lifespan of a mountain plover and that the
observed longevity record is 8 years (Dinsmore 2001). This research
also documented that 55 rcent of nests are incubated by males and 45
percent by females (Dinsmore 2001).
Breeding Distribution and Abundance
In 1999, we presented our understanding of the historic and current
distribution and abundance of mountain plovers for individual States
within their breeding range and for wintering habitat locations in
California, Arizona, and Mexico. Briefly, most mountain plovers breed
in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, and most mountain plovers spend
about 5 months on winter habitat in California. New information now
shows that the Pawnee National Grassland (Pawnee) population in
northeast Colorado has significantly declined since 1991, with fewer
than 100 individuals now present at this location (Knopf pers. comm.
2002). More mountain plovers than previously estimated now appear to be
in South Park, Park County, Colorado (Granau and Wunder 2001). We
provide the following summaries and new information for breeding and
wintering locations:
Colorado: We have no better estimate of breeding mountain plover
numbers in Colorado than the estimate of about 7,000 individuals
provided in the 1999 proposed rule. However, we believe it is important
to note some additional information regarding Weld County, Colorado,
which was reported in 1999 to be a historic breeding stronghold for the
mountain plover. In 1991, Knopf estimated a population of 1,280
mountain plovers on the Pawnee. As we reported in 1999, the Pawnee has
experienced several exceptionally wet, cold weather events through June
of each year since 1995, which has significantly changed the
vegetation. These vegetation conditions continued through 1996 and
1997. The number of successfully nesting mountain plovers counted on
transects monitored on the Pawnee declined from 77 in 1990 to 2 in 2001
(F. Knopf in litt. 2001). Knopf (pers. comm. 2002) currently estimates
a population of less than 100 individuals on the Pawnee. Consequently,
few adult birds and very little reproduction has been observed through
2002. Preliminary results on the Pawnee from 2002, a drought year,
indicate success at 69 percent of 13 nests on the native prairie. Fifty
nests on experimental burns were 54 percent successful (F. Knopf pers.
comm. 2002).
As we reported in 1999, mountain plover research has continued in
South Park, Park County, with the most current population estimate
there being 1,500 to 2,000 breeding adults (Granau and Wunder 2001). In
2002, 68 nests were identified, with a nest success of 90 percent (F.
Knopf pers. comm. 2002).
There also is new information about breeding mountain plovers on
short grass prairie pastures and cultivated lands. Nesting habitat was
modified by burning, and successful nesting by mountain plovers was
documented on burned pastures on the Comanche National Grassland in
Baca County in southeastern Colorado in 1999 (Svingen and Giesen 1999,
K. Giesen in litt. 1999) and in South Park for several years (Granau
and Wunder 2001). As we reported in 1999, mountain plovers are nesting
on cultivated fields in southeast Colorado and adjacent States. To
further address the implications of cultivated land to mountain plover
conservation, new research was initiated in five eastern Colorado
counties to better describe nest success and productivity on cultivated
lands (T. McCoy in litt. 2001). In 2001, 44 nests were located on
cultivated croplands in these counties, but reliable estimates of nest
success, productivity, and population recruitment will require
additional years of research (T. McCoy in litt. 2001).
During 2002, researchers continued to monitor the breeding activity
throughout eastern Colorado. The length of the breeding season varied
between 2001 and 2002, with the 2001 season ending in July and the 2002
season continuing into August. The longer 2002 season was attributable
to extreme drought conditions in the eastern half of the State. Nest
success did not vary substantially between cropland and rangeland in
2001 but did show slightly higher nest success on rangeland in 2002.
Predation was the major cause of nest failure, except in 2001, when
agricultural practices destroyed more nests on croplands. Of rangeland
nests, nest success was slightly higher on grassland with prairie dog
colonies than on grasslands without prairie dog colonies (F. Knopf
pers. comm. 2002). The researchers suggest that the direction in 2003:
(1) Focus studies more precisely on locales where plovers nest in
higher densities to maximize sample sizes, (2) rigorously test the
emerging pattern of comparable nest success between rangeland and
croplands, and (3) test the predictions that plover densities and nest
success are highest on prairie-dog towns (F. Knopf pers. comm. 2002).
There is no comprehensive science to precisely document whether the
entire Colorado population is declining, stable, or increasing. Data
collected from nesting sites in Colorado are not comparable to make
such a cumulative State-wide trend assessment. However, credible
information documents that nearly all mountain plovers have abandoned
the Pawnee, a historically recognized breeding stronghold. Graul and
Webster (1976) estimated that there may have been as many as 21,000
mountain plovers on the Pawnee in the early 1970s; Knopf (1991)
estimated about 1,280 individuals in 1991, while presently the Pawnee
population is less than 100 individuals (F. Knopf pers. comm. 2002).
Montana: Important new information is available from Montana.
Mountain plovers no longer occur in Carbon, Teton, and Toole Counties
(L. Hanebury pers. comm. 2002). Knowles and Knowles (1996) estimated
fewer than 2,000 mountain plovers in Phillips and Blaine Counties, and
fewer than 800 individuals at the other 8 occupied locations in the
State. Following 6 years of research, Dinsmore (2001) estimated a
population of 95 to 180 individual breeding mountain plovers in his
study area in southern Phillips County, and he believes it is unlikely
that there are more than 700 mountain plovers throughout all of
Phillips and Blaine Counties. Dinsmore (2001) now concludes that, while
the current mountain plover abundance in south Phillips County is
stable, it is not known whether the number of individuals can persist
in the long term, and their abundance is entirely dependent on the
viability of the resident population of black-tailed prairie dogs. He
also believes the estimate of 800 mountain plovers in other areas of
Montana made by Knowles and Knowles (1996) is reasonable. Therefore, we
believe the best information currently available indicates the total
population in Montana is less than 1,500 mountain plovers (Knowles and
Knowles 1996, Knowles and Knowles 1998, Dinsmore 2001, Dinsmore pers.
comm. 2002). Although the Montana Department of Game, Fish, and Parks
provided no data regarding mountain plover distribution and abundance
in response to the 1999 proposed rule, department officials stated
that, while the mountain plover population may fluctuate, it is still
substantial (P. Graham, Montana Game, Fish and Parks, in litt. 1999).
Wyoming: As we reported in 1999, the mountain plover is classified
as common in Wyoming, with breeding known or suspected in 20 of 28
latitude/longitude blocks and an estimated population of 1,500
individuals. Additional inventories have been conducted in Wyoming that
confirm the current presence of mountain plovers at many of the
previously reported locations. For example, surveys conducted in the
Powder River Basin in 2001 in preparation for the
Wyodak Coal Bed Methane project found 15 mountain plovers (Good et al.
2001, Keinath and Eble 2001), and surveys conducted on the Thunder
Basin National Grassland found about 20 adults in 2001 (P. Deibert,
Service, pers. comm. 2002). Knopf (in litt. 2001) reported that
mountain plovers may be more common than previously believed,
particularly in Carbon County. From 1999 and 2000, totals of 159 and
105 mountain plover adults were reported from Sweetwater and Carbon
Counties respectively, with many fewer individuals reported from
Albany, Bighorn, Fremont, Lincoln, Natrona, Park, Sublette, and
Washakie Counties (P. Deibert in litt. 2002). This is the best
available population estimate for Wyoming.
New Mexico: The 1999 proposed rule reported that most current
mountain plover records were from northern New Mexico locations.
Additional surveys have confirmed mountain plovers in the locations
previously reported (Reeves 1998, 1999, 2000), which included 11
plovers on Navajo Nation Tribal lands. Surveys conducted by Hawks Aloft
(2001a, b) found mountain plovers in previously unsurveyed areas of
Cibola and Sandoval Counties, and in Taos County. Five of the confirmed
breeding sites in Taos County were on Gunnison's prairie dog towns
(Hawks Aloft 2001b). Hawks Aloft (2001b) concluded that there is
potential for large numbers of mountain plovers in Taos County.
Nebraska: In 2002, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory located 64
sites along 320 km (200 mi) of roads and private holdings with 116
adults (F. Knopf pers. comm. 2002). The Observatory estimates that
there are approximately 100 nests in the area, and upgrades the
estimate of the Nebraska mountain plover population estimate to
probably 200 birds.
Other Breeding Areas
Mountain plover breeding was confirmed on a Mexican prairie dog
town in 1999, in Nuevo Leon, Mexico (F. Knopf in litt. 1999). We have
no substantive additional information to provide regarding other
breeding areas reported in the 1999 proposed rule.
Winter Distribution
The 1999 proposed rule provides detailed information regarding the
distribution and abundance of mountain plovers on their winter habitat.
We concluded that mountain plovers are most numerous in the Central and
Imperial Valleys of California. All new information we have reviewed
confirms the findings in the 1999 proposed rule. Some of the additional
inventories include Wunder and Knopf (in draft) reporting 4,037
mountain plovers in the Imperial Valley in 2001, and a total of 3,421
mountain plovers found during a 9-day survey in the Imperial Valley
beginning in late January 2002 (S. Myers, AMEC-Earth and Environmental,
pers. comm. 2002).
Total Mountain Plover Population Abundance and Trend Estimates
As previously reported, Knopf (1996b) estimated the North American
mountain plover population to be between 8,000 and 10,000 birds. At the
time of his estimate, only a 1994 count from California was available.
Applying the same assumptions using the more recent winter counts would
yield a similar estimate (Hunting et al. (in press), Shuford et al.
2000, Wunder and Knopf (in draft), S. Myers pers. comm. 2002). We are
not aware of any other total population estimates. It now appears that
more mountain plovers are wintering in the Imperial Valley than the
Central Valley, which is probably the result of habitat loss at other
California historic wintering areas (Wunder and Knopf (in draft)).
Edson and Hunting (1999) reviewed recent search efforts and records for
the Central Valley in California, and classified the mountain plover as
rare and local, exceedingly rare, or accidental, for all locations, but
admitted that the difficulty in locating mountain plovers may partially
contribute to the lack of records.
New research now reports that mountain plover numbers at two
historically recognized breeding strongholds (i.e., Phillips County,
Montana, and the Pawnee in Colorado) are now small or nearly absent
(Dinsmore 2001, F. Knopf pers. comm 2002).
Breeding on Cultivated Fields
The mountain plover is attracted to manmade landscapes (e.g., sod
farms and cultivated fields) that mimic their natural habitat
associations, or sites with little vegetative cover (e.g., other
agricultural lands and alkali flats). Land management practices on
cultivated fields may include periods when fields are fallow, idle, or
barren. If these fields remain fallow, idle, or barren during April and
May, mountain plovers may choose these fields for nesting. Agricultural
fields with residual cover less than 10 centimeters (4 inches) tall
from March through May also may be attractive to plovers. Spring
tilling practices to plant crops or control weeds may then destroy
mountain plover nests and eggs (Tim McCoy, Colorado Natural Heritage
Program, in litt. 2001; Shackford and Leslie 1995; Shackford et al.
1999; Knopf 1996; Knopf and Rupert 1999). Because adults are able to
escape from farm machinery, adult survival is considered to be high.
While mountain plovers may re-nest on these fields, re-nesting by birds
is rarely as successful as first attempts, and mountain plovers will
likely abandon nests when the crop grows too tall (Knopf 1996).
Breeding adults, nests, and chicks have been observed on cultivated
fields in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming (T. McCoy
in litt. 2001, Shackford and Leslie 1995, Shackford et al. 1999).
Between 1986 and 1995, Shackford et al. (1999) inventoried cultivated
fields in 8 States within the breeding range of the mountain plover; 97
percent of all nests observed were in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and
southeastern Wyoming. During this inventory, 52 nests were found in
these 4 States, with 50 percent of the nests on fallow or bare fields,
23 percent on wheat fields, and the remainder on milo, forb, and corn
fields. Although mountain plovers are nesting on cultivated fields in
eastern Colorado and adjacent States, a study (Shackford et al. 1999)
of 46 nests on cultivated fields found that 31 nests failed. The fate
of the remaining 15 nests was undetermined. Of the 31 failed nests, 22
nests (48 percent of total) were destroyed by farm machinery. None of
the nesting attempts could be documented as successful.
As a result of the inventory, Shackford et al. (1999) concluded
that fewer birds nest in cultivated fields in northern latitudes
because cropland acreage is relatively sparse in Montana and all but
the southeastern corner of Wyoming, there is a shorter growing period,
and spring wheat planted in northern latitudes is disturbed more
frequently than the winter wheat planted in the south. They also noted
that the short intervals between disturbances for spring wheat in the
north would not normally allow enough time for breeding, nesting, and
rearing young. Therefore, it appears that little risk to mountain
plovers is posed by farming practices in Montana or Wyoming (except
southeastern Wyoming), or by farming practices for dryland winter wheat
or irrigated crops at other locations (J. Shackford pers. comm. 1999,
F. Knopf pers. comm. 1999).
Previous Federal Action
We addressed the previous Federal actions in the 1999 proposed
rule.
Higher priority listing actions precluded listing work on the mountain
plover during Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. On October 16, 2001,
Earthjustice (representing the Biodiversity Legal Foundation,
Biodiversity Associates, and Center for Native Ecosystems) submitted a
60-day Notice of Intent to sue to the Secretary of the Department of
the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director for
failure to meet listing deadlines for the mountain plover, as required
by section 4(b)(6)(A) of the Act. The Service responded to Earthjustice
on December 21, 2001, with a commitment to reopen the comment period on
the listing proposal by September 30, 2002. This date was subsequently
extended to November 30, 2002.
In the February 16, 1999, proposed rule (64 FR 7587) and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to the development of a
final rule. The comment period for the proposed rule was scheduled to
end on April 19, 1999, but was extended to June 21, 1999 (64 FR 19108)
to ensure all interested parties had an opportunity to submit comments
on the proposal. Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties
were contacted and requested to comment. Several newspaper articles
appeared in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado following our distribution
of background materials to print media. The Service also solicited the
expert opinions of three independent specialists regarding pertinent
scientific or commercial data and issues relating to the biological and
ecological information for the mountain plover. We received a total of
194 written comments on the 1999 proposed rule. We have reviewed each
of these comments and will consider them in developing a final rule.
Public hearings were requested in Nebraska by the U.S. Forest
Service; in Montana by the Phillips County Prairie Ecosystem Action
Council, the Phillips County Board of County Commissioners, and Erin
Crowder; and in Wyoming by the Park County Board of County
Commissioners, Wheatland Irrigation District, Wyoming Farm Bureau
Federation, Laramie County Conservation District, Platte County
Resource District, Antelope Grange, Mountain Valley Livestock, Inc.,
Ultra Resources, and John and Phyllis Thalken.
Public hearings were held at the following locations and dates:
[sbull] Billings, Montana, May 26, 1999.
[sbull] Malta, Montana, May 25, 1999.
[sbull] Greeley, Colorado, May 25, 1999.
[sbull] Lamar, Colorado, May 26, 1999.
[sbull] Casper, Wyoming, June 2, 1999.
Notifications of these public hearings were advertised in the
following newspapers:
[sbull] Greeley Tribune, Greeley, Colorado, May 5, 1999.
[sbull] Lamar Daily News, Lamar, Colorado, May 6, 1999.
[sbull] Pueblo Chieftain, Pueblo, Colorado, May 6, 1999.
[sbull] Billings Gazette, Billings, Montana, May 7, 1999.
[sbull] Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Bozeman, Montana, May 7, 1999.
[sbull] Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Montana, May 7, 1999.
[sbull] Independent Record, Helena, Montana, May 7, 1999.
[sbull] Lewistown News Argus, Lewistown, Montana, May 5, 1999.
[sbull] Phillips County News, Malta, Montana, May 5, 1999.
[sbull] Wyoming Tribune Eagle, Cheyenne, Wyoming, May 3, 1999.
[sbull] Casper Star-Tribune, Casper, Wyoming, May 7, 1999.
We received written and verbal comments from State and Federal
elected officials, State and Federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and private citizens. Those who have submitted comments
on this subject do not need to resubmit their comments. We will respond
to all comments received when we issue a final rule.
Peer Review
In compliance with the July 1, 1994, Service Peer Review Policy (59
FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinions of three independent
specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and
issues relating to the supportive biological and ecological information
for the mountain plover proposed listing rule published in 1999. We
considered the responses received from the reviewers in developing this
document. To satisfy our peer review policy for this document, and to
implement a pilot process adopted by us on August 21, 2000, we have
solicited the assistance of Sustainable Ecosystems Institute of
Portland, Oregon, to provide the required independent peer review. The
purpose of such peer review is to ensure listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send
these peer reviewers copies of this supplemental proposed rule
immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will
invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment
period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the
proposed listing and special regulations.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
60-day comment period on this supplemental proposed rule in a final
decision on the listing action. Accordingly, the final determination
may differ from the proposed rule and this document.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations promulgated to implement the
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424), 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). We addressed each of these
factors in the 1999 proposed rule. Here, we provide only new pertinent
information for each of these factors.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Historical and Current Conversion of Grassland in Breeding Range
In the 1999 proposed rule, we provided statistics from the NRCS to
show rangeland conversion from 1982 to 1992. We have now reviewed the
most current records of rangeland conversions from 1992 to 1997 also
available from the NRCS (http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI; K. Musser,
NRCS, in litt. 2000). Rangeland decreased during this period by 28,531
ha (70,500 ac) in Colorado; 2,428 ha (6,000 ac) in Kansas; 45,730 ha
(113,000 ac) in Montana; 6,880 ha (17,000 ac) in Nebraska; 3,157 ha
(7,800 ac) in Oklahoma; and 7,851 ha (19,400 ac) in Wyoming (Service in
litt. 2000). Further, a moratorium on sodbusting on State school lands
in Montana was rescinded in 1998, which may promote additional
conversions in an effort to maximize revenue on State school lands, and
meet the objective for acres in production recommended by the
Governor's Vision 2005 Task Force on Agriculture (L. Hanebury pers.
comm. 2002). The total conversion reported for 1992 to 1997 is small
(about 0.07 percent) relative to the total rangeland reported from the
above States, and the area of mountain plover habitat converted is
unknown due to the lack of vegetative and topographic details regarding
each grassland parcel that was converted. While we cannot quantify the
acres of mountain plover habitat that have been converted, the records
we examined show that grassland conversion continues at present. For example,
grassland conversion in Blaine County, Montana, has recently occurred, with about
809 ha (2,000 ac) converted in 2000, and another 809 to 1,012 ha (2,000
to 2,500 ac) scheduled for conversion in 2002 (J. Peters, BLM, pers.
comm. 2002). While mountain plovers were not known to occur on any of
the parcels converted in Blaine County in 2000, the conversions
occurred contiguous to grasslands with known nesting sites. Knowles
(pers. comm. 2001) reports that a total of 13 percent of the land area
in his Central Montana study area has been sod-busted from 1991 to
1999, and that mountain plovers have abandoned all but one of the sites
that were converted.
In 1999, we also provided information regarding the conversion of
grasslands to housing subdivisions, citing South Park, Park County,
Colorado, as an example. We now have new information that increases our
concern that housing development in South Park is a potential threat to
mountain plovers and their habitat. Park County is one of the fastest
growing counties in Colorado; population growth may double between 1998
and 2005, and may reach 102,600 people by 2020 (Granau and Wunder
2001). The population of mountain plovers in South Park is now
estimated to be from 1,500 to 2,000 individuals, making this one of the
largest remaining populations of mountain plovers known throughout
their breeding range. Sixty-eight percent of mountain plover habitat is
privately owned, and 32 percent of this has already been subdivided
(Granau and Wunder 2001). The number of residential building permits in
Park County tripled between 1991 and 1997. Most of these permits were
issued in areas of Park County that are not occupied by mountain
plovers, but some were issued in known breeding habitat (Hanson 1997;
G. Nichols, Park County, Colorado, in litt. 1998). However, beginning
in 1999, the number of building permits issued in areas considered to
be mountain plover habitat (i.e., South Park) exceeded those issued in
other parts of the county (Granau and Wunder 2001). Both Sherman et al.
(1996) and Granau and Wunder (2001) identified the vulnerability of
known breeding sites to ongoing and residential development. The
mountain plover is one of the species addressed during current
conservation planning efforts in Park County, but full build-out of
those sites currently subdivided would be detrimental to mountain
plovers (Granau and Wunder 2001).
Cultivated Areas in Breeding Range as Potential Population Sinks
In the 1999 proposed rule, we stated that we believed that certain
cultivated lands created population sinks for the mountain plover,
which contributed to species decline. In an effort to better define the
implications to mountain plover survival by nesting attempts in
cultivated fields, research has been initiated on cultivated fields and
rangelands in five counties in eastern Colorado (T. McCoy in litt.
2001). Field research completed in 2001 found 44 nests on cultivated
fields and 48 nests on rangeland, confirming the Shackford et al.
(1999) finding that croplands may represent suitable nesting habitat
for mountain plovers. Analysis of research results will begin in 2003,
following completion of field data collection, and evaluation of
implications to mountain plover survival will be available in 2004.
Because current agricultural practices conflict with the mountain
plover nesting cycle, we believe they may represent a threat to
mountain plover reproduction.
Historical Conversion of Grassland in Winter Range
We provided important details of grassland conversion in California
in the 1999 proposed rule. We have learned that since 1997, an
additional 3,966 ha (9,800 ac) of grasslands have been converted to
dairy farming, orchards, and vineyards in the Central Valley (C. Davis,
Service, in litt. 1999). Most of the conversion reported by Davis (in
litt. 1999) occurred in the eastern part of the Central Valley, where
historically fewer mountain plover sightings have occurred. However, we
believe the anticipated urbanization of the Central Valley (see Hunting
et al. (in press)) will result in the loss of habitat currently
occupied by wintering mountain plovers.
We also have learned that the Imperial Valley of California is
likely an example of the shift of mountain plover wintering use
following loss of grassland habitat. Wunder and Knopf (in draft)
believe that greater than 50 percent of all mountain plovers now winter
in the Imperial Valley. They believe this shift to agricultural lands
in the Imperial Valley probably followed the rapid and nearly complete
loss of grassland habitat at historic wintering sites at California's
interior and coastal locations. Much of the deterioration of natural
habitat was ongoing while the Imperial Valley was being converted to
agriculture, and migrating mountain plovers began exploiting the newly
available cultivated lands in the Imperial Valley, rather than
continuing west to historic wintering locales (i.e., they were
``shortstopped'' (Wunder and Knopf (in draft)). Mountain plovers in the
Imperial Valley now exclusively use alfalfa fields grazed by domestic
livestock, or fallow fields, burned sod farms, and sprouting wheat
fields. Water conservation, water transfer projects, burning
restrictions, and urbanization associated with the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) may result in changes to agricultural practices
(S. Vissman, Service, in litt. 2001). NAFTA is expected to generate
increased trade growth in the Imperial Valley, and highway projects are
now being planned to improve transportation efficiency (California
Department of Transportation 2001). As a result of NAFTA, the Imperial
County population is expected to nearly double by 2020 (California
Department of Transportation 2001). As a result of the anticipated
population growth and impacts to prime farmland, the American Farmland
Trust designated Imperial County as 1 of the top 20 threatened major
land resource areas in the nation (California Department of
Transportation 2001). Between 1982 and 1992, 7,689 ha (19,000 ac) of
land in Imperial County were converted to urban uses. The loss of
farmland associated with the current level of urbanization in Imperial
County has had no measurable impact to wintering mountain plovers, but
we believe anticipated growth will result in additional loss of
farmland and influence agricultural practices on remaining farmlands
(S. Vissman in litt. 2001). Wunder and Knopf (in draft) believe that
the modification of agricultural practices, cessation of domestic
livestock grazing, or addition of more restrictions on agricultural
burning would be detrimental to mountain plovers in the Imperial
Valley.
Effects of Range Management on Mountain Plover Habitat
In 1999, we stated that currently accepted domestic livestock
grazing management can be detrimental to mountain plover breeding
habitat. We have learned mountain plover winter habitat on the Carrizo
Plain Natural Area in California also has been adversely impacted by
the failure to continue domestic livestock grazing activities.
Historically, as much as 50 percent (50,587 ha (125,000 ac)) of these
lands were suitable wintering habitat. Following consolidation of
properties to establish the Carrizo Plain, livestock grazing rates were
adjusted to promote restoration of native plant communities.
Following an increase in rainfall associated with El Ni[ntilde]o events
in recent years, the density of vegetation and dry residual matter now
exceeds the limits tolerated by mountain plovers. The resistance to
livestock grazing expressed by some segments of the public and the
emphasis on native plant conservation have adversely affected
opportunities to enhance mountain plover habitat. Recently, grazing has
been restored to some areas of the Carrizo Plain and mountain plovers
have begun to reoccupy these sites (S. Fitton pers. comm 2002).
However, there probably is little more than 10 percent (10,117 ha
(25,000 ac)) of the Carrizo Plain Area that is currently suitable
habitat for mountain plovers (E. Marquis-Brong, BLM, in litt. 1999a).
Mountain plovers on the Pawnee in Colorado are closely associated
with heavily grazed, drier sites. The Forest Service is beginning to
review grazing management plans for the Pawnee to identify actions that
would benefit the mountain plover (J. Sidle, Forest Service, pers.
comm. 2002). Currently, there is no schedule for adoption or
implementation of revised grazing management prescriptions.
Effects of the Decline of Burrowing Mammals on Mountain Plover Habitat
The 1999 proposed rule cited published literature to describe a
strong association of mountain plovers with prairie dogs and kangaroo
rats at numerous locations in their breeding and wintering range, and
reported the historic losses and potential threats to prairie dogs and
kangaroo rats. All new information we have describing the association
of mountain plovers and prairie dogs confirms a strong association of
mountain plovers with prairie dogs at numerous locations. We also now
report that mountain plovers are found on white-tailed and Gunnison's
prairie dog colonies (P. Deibert, Service, pers. comm. 2002; Hawks
Aloft, Inc. 2001a).
On July 31, 1998, we were petitioned by the National Wildlife
Federation to list the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened
species. On February 4, 2000, we published our 12-month finding on this
petition (65 FR 5476) and estimated the historic and current population
of the black-tailed prairie dog in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. This
document supports our previous findings regarding the historic decline
of prairie dogs. Sylvatic plague now appears to be the greatest threat
to prairie dogs and mountain plover habitat, as the amount of prairie
dog control and land use conversion impacting prairie dogs have
appeared to decline.
We have no new information relating to burrowing rodents on
mountain plover wintering range.
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development in Mountain Plover Breeding Habitat
We addressed the potential for development of mineral resources and
the associated impacts to mountain plovers in the 1999 proposed rule.
We are now aware of nine authorized or proposed active natural gas and
coal bed methane projects in Wyoming that occupy either known or
potential mountain plover nesting habitat (e.g., Continental Divide/
Wamsutter II Natural Gas Project, Seminoe Road Coal Bed Methane) (P.
Deibert in litt. 2002). We also have more thoroughly reviewed mountain
plover nesting records from existing mining locations, and have
determined they are not adequate to determine the effects of mine
development and operation on mountain plover nesting success (P.
Deibert pers. comm 2002). It also is conceivable that construction of
drill pads and roads could possibly create additional mountain plover
habitat, but only when human activities at the sites are compatible
with mountain plover nesting behavior. Due to the anticipated rate of
growth in this industry, we continue to believe that oil and gas
development if not adequately mitigated, represents a potential threat
to breeding mountain plovers.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
There is no new information relating to this listing factor.
C. Disease or Predation
There is no new information substantially changing the information
presented in the 1999 proposed rule.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There is no new substantial information relating to the value of
other regulatory mechanisms to the conservation of the mountain plover.
We have learned that the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan now
assigns its highest conservation category score (5) to the mountain
plover, one of five shorebirds receiving this ranking (Brown et al.
2001). The mountain plover also is designated as threatened by Mexico
(S. Jewell, Service, in litt. 2000).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Natural Factors
New literature now reports that the predicted mean lifespan of a
mountain plover is 1.92 years, and females can produce more than one
clutch of eggs each year (Dinsmore 2001). The mountain plover's entire
lifespan appears to be shorter than that of either the snowy plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus) (Page et al. 1995) or piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) (Haig 1992), but there is no mean lifespan
prediction for any other shorebird (S. Haig, Clemson University, pers.
comm. 2002). We are not aware of the implications of total lifespan for
species persistence, but we believe a mean lifespan of less than 2
years influences opportunities to reproduce, seek alternate breeding
and wintering sites, and engage in intraspecific behavior that may
influence population recruitment. Further, the mountain plover's narrow
range of habitat requirements combined with high degree of site
fidelity (see the 1999 proposed rule) increases its vulnerability to
impacts at traditional breeding locales. For example, Graul (1973,
1975) discussed the influence of climatic events on nesting mountain
plovers during his research on the Pawnee. While he attributed as much
as a 14 percent loss of nests to weather, and also reported the death
of chicks to heat, he did not note any population level effects.
However, because the average life span of a mountain plover is less
than 2 years, and breeding does not occur until 1 year of age, an
individual mountain plover will likely have only one breeding season to
contribute to population recruitment. An individual mountain plover's
contribution to recruitment may therefore be reduced or completely
negated by the loss of nest, eggs, or young by natural or manmade
events. Consequently, a short lifespan may aggravate the events that
influence mountain plover conservation.
Manmade Factors
We have no new substantial information to provide relating to
manmade factors.
Critical Habitat
In the 1999 proposed rule, we concluded that designation of
critical habitat for the mountain plover was not prudent. Several court
cases rendered since 1999 regarding critical habitat now require us to
reevaluate the merits of critical habitat for the mountain plover. If
designation of critical habitat is prudent, we will develop a proposal
to designate critical habitat for the mountain plover as soon as feasible,
considering our workload priorities and available funding.
Available Conservation Measures
We summarized the potential conservation measures for the mountain
plover in the 1999 proposed rule to include: Management of cultivated
lands, implementing grazing plans, changing management of Conservation
Reserve Program tracts, modifying seeding criteria for Conservation
Reserve Program tracts, and providing habitat modification incentives
to private landowners. Also as we reported in 1999, we are coordinating
with the NRCS to explore ways to implement these measures on private
land. We also summarized other conservation opportunities available
under sections 4, 7, 9, and 10 of the Act, listed those Federal
agencies we believe are most likely to be affected by a listing action
(including the types of actions that may require section 7
consultation), and gave examples of some actions that either may be
allowed, or prohibited, under section 9.
Special Rule
When a wildlife species is listed as threatened, the general
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 apply the section 9 prohibitions of the
Act, including the take prohibitions, to the species. These
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' any listed wildlife
species (i.e., to harass, harm pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
or collect any threatened or endangered species or attempt to engage in
any such conduct) (16 U.S.C. 1532 (19)).
Section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) provides that, whenever a
species is listed as a threatened species, the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior will issue regulations deemed necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. This can be
accomplished through a ``special rule'' tailored to meet the needs of a
particular threatened species. In that case, the general regulations
applying most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply
to that species, and the special rule contains the prohibitions
necessary and appropriate to conserve that species.
Such regulations generally are issued and published as special
rules in the Federal Register along with or following a listing. In
this case, we have chosen to concurrently publish this proposed special
rule along with the reopening of the comment period for our proposal to
list the mountain plover as threatened. We are proposing this special
rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act containing the
prohibitions necessary to provide for the conservation of the mountain
plover. The prohibitions we propose do not include the take of mountain
plover during certain routine farming practices until December 31,
2004, in the southern portion of the breeding range. During this
period, ongoing research will be completed to determine the impact of
farming practices on cultivated fields to mountain plover nesting
success within the southern portion of the breeding range. The
finalization of this special rule is contingent upon the results of
research now under way and the final listing of the mountain plover as
a threatened species. If this proposed special rule is finalized, the
general regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 would not apply to the mountain
plover. However, almost all of the prohibitions contained in the
general regulations are included in this proposed special rule. Our
rationale for a proposed special rule follows.
The February 16, 1999, proposal to list the mountain plover as a
threatened species (64 FR 7587) identifies the take of mountain plovers
on cultivated fields as one of many possible reasons for the decline of
the mountain plover population. The proposed listing rule cites
literature describing the loss of mountain plovers to spring tilling
practices (see 64 FR 7587). Briefly, the mountain plover is attracted
to manmade landscapes that mimic its natural habitat associations. Land
management practices on cultivated fields in their breeding range may
include periods when fields are fallow, idle, or barren. If these
fields remain fallow, idle, or barren during April and May, mountain
plovers may choose these fields for nesting, and subsequent spring
tilling practices may then destroy mountain plover nests and eggs
(Shackford and Leslie 1995, Knopf 1996, Shackford et al. 1999, Knopf
and Rupert 1999, T. McCoy in litt. 2001).
Because mountain plover nests, eggs, and chicks are being taken by
spring tilling practices, but the implications of this loss to the
mountain plover population are not known, the USGS-BRD, in coordination
with the Service, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Colorado
Farm Bureau, initiated scientific research in 2001 on cultivated fields
and rangelands. Field research will not be completed until 2003, and
analysis of results will not be initiated until 2004.
Justification
We have had numerous discussions with Dr. Fritz Knopf with the U.S.
Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division and agricultural
producers regarding the significance of spring tilling losses to the
mountain plover population. The reasons for our identification of
spring tilling as a potential threat are: The general observation by
many farmers that the birds are nesting on their fields, the widespread
application of these farming practices throughout the southern portion
of the mountain plover's breeding range, and the observation of
mountain plovers being taken by routine farming practices (T. McCoy in
litt. 2001, Shackford et al. 1999). However, because there is no
current literature comparing mountain plover productivity on
noncultivated, traditionally used grasslands with productivity on
cultivated fields, the influence of tilling practices on mountain
plover recruitment cannot be estimated at this time.
The Colorado Farm Bureau, the Wildlife Management Institute, the
U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division, and the Service
recognize that nest success on cultivated fields deserves further study
(R. Leachman pers. comm. 2000). Consequently, the USGS-BRD initiated
field research in 2001 to evaluate the effects of farming practices on
mountain plovers by comparing productivity on cultivated fields with
that occurring at noncultivated, traditionally used grassland sites (T.
McCoy in litt 2001). In order to generate sufficient data for analysis,
the research will continue for 3 consecutive years. We are proposing
that incidental take of nesting mountain plovers on cultivated fields
in the southern portion of the plover's breeding range be exempt from
the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act while the research is being
conducted, and for 1 year following to allow data analysis. We believe
this interim exemption will allow completion of research to help define
the influence of agriculture on nesting mountain plovers, encourage
private landowners to participate in research directed at a declining
species (e.g., allow researchers access to privately owned land), and
contribute to the conservation of the species on private land by
further defining farming practices that can have positive or negative
effects on the species.
This proposed special rule will allow us to work with the Colorado
Farm Bureau, local agricultural producers, and local government
representatives to determine the specific types of agricultural practices
occurring within the breeding range of the mountain plover, determine which of these
practices have an effect on mountain plover nesting success, and
identify mechanisms that can be implemented to minimize or preclude the
impact of the take on the species.
During 2002, researchers continued to monitor the breeding activity
of mountain plovers throughout eastern Colorado. The length of the
breeding season varied between 2001 and 2002 with the 2001 season
ending in July and the 2002 season continuing into August. The longer
2002 season was attributable to extreme drought conditions in eastern
Colorado. Nest success did not vary substantially between cropland and
rangeland in 2001, but did show slightly higher nest success on
rangeland in 2002. Predation was the major cause of nest failure,
except in 2001, when agricultural practices destroyed more nests on
croplands. Of rangeland nests, nest success was slightly higher on
grassland with prairie dog colonies than on grasslands without prairie
dog colonies. The researchers suggest that direction in 2003: (1) Focus
studies more precisely on locales where plovers nest in higher
densities to maximize sample sizes, (2) rigorously test the emerging
pattern of comparable nest success between rangeland and croplands, and
(3) test the predictions that plover densities and nest success are
highest on prairie-dog towns (F. Knopf in litt 2002).
Provisions of the Proposed Rule
Term
We propose to exempt specific types of agricultural practices from
the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.31 until December 31, 2004.
During this time, the research now ongoing will be continued to
determine the effects of different types of farming practices on
mountain plover nesting productivity. The finalization of this special
rule is contingent upon a final listing of the mountain plover and the
results of the scientific research.
Take Prohibitions
We propose that virtually all of the prohibitions under section 9
of the Act that apply to threatened species continue to apply to the
mountain plover, to the same extent that they apply to other threatened
species under our general regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, except that
certain activities would be exempted.
Exempted Activities
We propose to include in this rule the following exemptions from
take until December 31, 2004:
The incidental take of mountain plovers during routine farming
practices by non-Federal entities on existing summer fallow, cropland
idle, or cropland harvested (as defined by U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) 1997
Census of Agriculture--Appendix (1)), from April 1 to June 30 in
Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Laramie and Goshen Counties,
Wyoming.
During the term of this special rule, research will be ongoing on
existing summer fallow, cropland idle, and cropland harvested (as
defined by U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) 1997 Census of Agriculture--Appendix
(1)) to compare productivity at these sites with that at noncultivated,
traditionally used grassland sites to determine the influence that
different farming practices have on mountain plover reproductive
success. We are targeting these types of activities because previous
researchers (Shackford et al. 1999, Knopf and Rupert 1999, T. McCoy in
litt. 2001) have demonstrated some loss of mountain plover nests on
cultivated fields due to agricultural activities.
This special rule would allow us to develop a better understanding
of potential conflicts between agricultural practices and nesting
mountain plovers, as well as assist in the development of management
recommendations that can either preclude or mitigate the effects of
these agricultural practices. Situations where mountain plovers coexist
with ongoing agriculture may provide valuable insight into habitat
conditions required by them, and the specific types of agricultural
practices that are compatible with or enhance successful mountain
plover reproduction.
We have maintained records of known occurrences of mountain
plovers, as well as information on areas that may have high potential
for habitat enhancement to improve nesting success throughout their
breeding range. We have accumulated information regarding the historic
and current distribution of mountain plovers. This information,
combined with the information gained from the research discussed in
this proposed rule, will assist in development of conservation actions
that make the best use of the mountain plover's demonstrated nest site
fidelity and in identification of those lands that have the highest
potential for habitat enhancement. With this knowledge, our ability to
implement an effective long-term recovery program will be enhanced.
Application of Research Results
The proposed exemptions in this proposed special rule would provide
for the development of meaningful long-term conservation efforts for
the mountain plover on private land. We are optimistic that this rule
would invite participation by State and local governments, agricultural
interests, and the general public to help minimize risks to the
mountain plover. The 3-year research project will provide information
that may eventually lead to one or more of the following possibilities:
(1) Extension of the exemption of take resulting from farming
practices covered by this rule beyond December 31, 2004;
(2) Identification of management recommendations that avoid
``take'' under 50 CFR 17.31;
(3) Modification of the scope of exemptions under the 4(d) rule
(such as changes to the area covered by the exemption, the seasonal
time periods during which the exemption is in effect, or the farming
practices covered by the exemption);
(4) Development of Habitat Conservation Plans or Safe Harbor
Agreements under section 10 of the Act; or,
(5) Expiration of this 4(d) rule without renewal (i.e., no special
regulations providing exemptions to the take prohibitions).
We will provide notice in the Federal Register of any such
outcomes, and we will propose further rulemaking if appropriate.
Effects of the Special Rule
Future Section 7 Consultations
This special rule does not change the obligation of Federal
agencies to consult with us under section 7 of the Act concerning
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect listed
species, including the mountain plover.
We believe that the exemption proposed in this special rule will
allow completion of scientific research to help define the influence of
agriculture on the mountain plover population, encourage private
landowners to participate in research efforts directed at this
declining species, and contribute to the conservation of the species on
private land by further defining farming practices that can have
negative and positive effects on the species.
Once completed, this research will assist us in the implementation
of available conservation strategies, such as Habitat Conservation Plans,
Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, or Safe Harbor
agreements. The research findings will help identify farming practices
that may either enhance or prove detrimental to mountain plover nesting
success. We intend to pursue and encourage the development of these
conservation strategies using recommendations derived from this
research.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizes us to issue permits for the take of
listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities such as
agriculture, surface mining, and urban development. Incidental take
permits must be supported by a Habitat Conservation Plan that
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement
to conserve the species, usually on the permittee's lands. Such
conservation measures may include, for example, no-till practices that
leave stubble too tall to be attractive to breeding mountain plovers.
On summer fallow, cropland idle, or cropland harvested, the type of
farm implement used and the timing of the use may be significant in
reducing harm to plovers. These and other techniques to avoid take of
plovers or protect plovers can be examined by producers in the
development of a Habitat Conservation Plan, Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances, or Safe Harbor agreement. A key element in
our review of each of these conservation strategies is a determination
of the plan's effect upon the long-term conservation of the species. We
would approve a Habitat Conservation Plan, and issue a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit, as appropriate, if the plan would minimize and
mitigate the impacts of the take 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 document will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we are again
seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this document, 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, 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 and 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, short grass 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;
(10) Information regarding the benefits of critical habitat
designation;
(11) Comments regarding the adverse or beneficial consequences of
adopting special regulations regarding take of the mountain plover on
cultivated lands in their breeding range;
(12) The types of agricultural practices on cultivated fields that
are compatible with maintenance of mountain plover breeding habitat;
(13) Any evidence of successful and/or unsuccessful nesting by
mountain plovers on cultivated fields;
(14) Any evidence indicating that additional areas of cultivated
lands should be considered for inclusion in this rule;
(15) Any evidence of mountain plovers nesting on cultivated fields
on Native American Tribal lands; and
(16) Information regarding grazing practices on Federal lands
within the range of the mountain plover and the impacts of this on the
plover.
In addition to the information solicited above, we are seeking
private landowners interested in participating in the research
discussed in the section of this document that explains the proposed
special rule. As discussed previously, finalization of the special rule
is contingent upon the results of continuing research. Permission from
private landowners to allow access to their lands is a critical
component of conducting this research project.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we
will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with
applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations, or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the address in ADDRESSES.
Final promulgation of the protective 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.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be made at least 15 days prior to the close
of the public comment period.
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices 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
or 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 proposed 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
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
Required Determinations
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 in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). We also have
determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact
Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(d) when they accompany
listing actions. The proposed special regulation for the mountain
plover is being developed as an integral component of the mountain
plover listing action we proposed in 1999 (64 FR 7587), and for which
we are giving notification of the reopening of the comment period
today. Consequently, we have determined that neither an Environmental
Assessment nor Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for this
proposed special regulation to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act and 516 DM.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act and
assigned Office of Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094,
which expires July 31, 2004. 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 number. For additional information
concerning permit and associated requirements for endangered species,
see 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.22.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (Executive
Order 13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action and no Statements of Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
As we stated above, we have a complete list of all references cited
in this document, as well as others, that are pertinent to the mountain
plover. You may request this list from the Assistant Field Supervisor
at the Grand Junction, Colorado Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
Numerous Service biologists contributed to this document. You
should direct any questions to Robert Leachman (see ADDRESSES).
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
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Plover, mountain................ Charadrius montanus U.S.A. (western).. Entire............ T ........... NA 17.41(c)
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.41 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Special rules-birds.
* * * * *
(c) Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus).
(1) What activities are restricted or not allowed to protect the
mountain plover? All of the prohibitions of Sec. 17.31 (a) and (b) and
exemptions of Sec. 17.32 are applicable to take of the mountain plover
except where identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) What activities are allowed under this special rule for the
mountain plover? The take prohibitions of Sec. 17.31 will not apply to
the following:
(i) The incidental take of mountain plovers during routine farming
practices on summer fallow, cropland idle, or cropland harvested
between April 1 and June 30 in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
and Laramie and Goshen Counties, Wyoming, while the rule in this
paragraph (c) is in effect; and,
(ii) Activities covered under a valid permit issued by the Fish and
Wildlife Service for conducting research, educational purposes,
scientific purposes, enhancement of or propagation for survival of the
mountain plover, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes
in accordance with Sec. 17.32 and under a cooperative agreement with a
State under section 6 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1535), if applicable.
(3) How long is this special rule in effect? The rule in this
paragraph (c) is effective until December 31, 2004.
(4) Does this special rule apply to mountain plovers throughout
their range? This special rule applies only to mountain plovers in
certain areas of the southern portion of their breeding range (see
paragraph (c)(2) of this section). It does not apply to wintering
range.
(5) What types of agricultural activities are covered under this
rule? Agricultural activities conducted on summer fallow, cropland
idle, or cropland harvested are covered under the rule in this
paragraph (c). Agricultural activities include mechanical practices
such as tilling and other machinery-type activities that are used to
prepare soil, plant crops, and control weeds.
Dated: November 29, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-30801 Filed 12-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
|