Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Mountain Plover as Threatened, 27756-27799 [2011-11056]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27756-27799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11056]



[[Page 27755]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 92

May 12, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the 
Proposed Rule To List the Mountain Plover as Threatened; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 27756]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0038; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
RIN 1018-AX26


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the 
Proposed Rule To List the Mountain Plover as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 
decision to withdraw the proposed listing of the mountain plover 
(Charadrius montanus) as a threatened species under the authority of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough 
review of all available scientific and commercial information, we have 
determined that the species is not endangered or threatened throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. We make this determination 
because threats to the species as identified in the proposed rule are 
not as significant as earlier believed and currently available data do 
not indicate that the threats to the species and its habitat, as 
analyzed under the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, are likely to endanger the species in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

DATES: The December 5, 2002 (67 FR 72396), proposal to list the 
mountain plover as a threatened species is withdrawn as of May 12, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available for viewing on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov (see Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0038) and 
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/mountainplover and 
also by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Office, 134 Union 
Boulevard, Suite 670, Lakewood, CO 80225; telephone 303-236-4773; 
facsimile 303-236-4005. Please submit any new information, materials, 
comments or questions concerning this finding to the Colorado 
Ecological Services Field Office at P.O. Box 25486, DFC (MS 65412), 
Denver, Colorado 80225.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    For a detailed description of Federal actions concerning the 
mountain plover, please refer to the February 16, 1999, proposed rule 
to list the species (64 FR 7587); the December 5, 2002, proposed rule 
to list the species with a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (67 FR 72396); and the September 9, 2003, 
withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the species (68 FR 53083).
    The document we published on September 9, 2003 (68 FR 53083), 
withdrew the entire proposed rule we published on December 5, 2002 (67 
FR 72396), including our proposal to list the mountain plover as a 
threatened species and our proposed special 4(d) rule. The September 9, 
2003, document also addressed comments we received on both the 1999 and 
2002 proposals to list the mountain plover and summarized threat 
factors affecting the species. The withdrawal of the proposed rule was 
based on our conclusion that the threats to the mountain plover 
identified in the proposed rule were not as significant as previously 
believed and that currently available data did not indicate that 
threats to the species and its habitat, as analyzed under the five 
listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, were likely to 
endanger the species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.
    On November 16, 2006, Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) 
and the Biological Conservation Alliance filed a complaint in the 
District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the 
September 9, 2003, withdrawal of the proposal to list the mountain 
plover (68 FR 53083). We entered into a settlement agreement with the 
plaintiffs, which was filed by the court on August 28, 2009. As part of 
the settlement agreement, we agreed to reconsider our decision to 
withdraw the proposed listing of the mountain plover and to submit to 
the Federal Register by July 31, 2010, a document reopening the 
December 5, 2002, proposal to list the mountain plover (67 FR 72396) 
that would also request public comments. We agreed to vacate our 2003 
withdrawal of the proposed rule upon publication of the Federal 
Register notice reopening public comment on the December 5, 2002, 
proposal to list the mountain plover (67 FR 72396). We further agreed 
to submit a final listing determination for the mountain plover to the 
Federal Register no later than May 1, 2011.
    On June 29, 2010, we published a document in the Federal Register 
notifying the public that we were reinstating that portion of our 
December 5, 2002, proposed rule to list the mountain plover as 
threatened under the Act (75 FR 37353). We did not reinstate that 
portion of the December 5, 2002, proposed rule regarding a proposed 
special rule under section 4(d) of the Act. The proposed special rule 
was designed to allow researchers to complete field research and 
analyze data for an ongoing study, and addressed agricultural 
activities only through December 31, 2004. To ensure that our review of 
the species' status was complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we requested comments on the 
proposal to list the mountain plover as a threatened species, including 
all information related to the species' status and the proposed 
listing. We invited public comments on the proposed listing, new 
information relevant to our consideration of the status of the mountain 
plover, and comments and information regarding threats to the species 
and its habitat.

Species Information

    Our February 16, 1999, and December 5, 2002, proposed rules (64 FR 
7587 and 67 FR 72396, respectively), and our September 9, 2003, 
withdrawal of our 2002 proposal to list the mountain plover (68 FR 
53083) described the species' life history, ecology, and habitat use. 
For additional background on the natural history of the mountain 
plover, see the account of the species in The Birds of North America 
(Knopf and Wunder 2006).
    While the majority of relevant information directly pertaining to 
the mountain plover that has become available since our December 5, 
2002, proposal to list (67 FR 72396) and September 9, 2003, withdrawal 
of that proposal (68 FR 53083) has resulted from local or Statewide 
studies on the mountain plover's breeding range; two recent documents 
provide extensive review of current knowledge regarding the mountain 
plover:
    (1) Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) in Birds of North America 
(Knopf and Wunder 2006); and
    (2) Conservation Plan for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius 
montanus), Version 1.0 (Andres and Stone 2009).

[[Page 27757]]

    Numerous other recent documents are summarized in our June 29, 
2010, notification reinstating our December 5, 2002, proposed rule to 
list the mountain plover as threatened under the Act (75 FR 37353). 
These include over twenty peer-reviewed journal articles, and many 
other reports and summaries relevant to the status of the mountain 
plover that have become available since 2002.
    The following sections highlight and update information on the 
mountain plover with emphasis on information developed since 2002.
Taxonomy and Species Description
    The mountain plover (Charadius montanus) is a small bird in the 
order Charadriiformes, family Charadriidae. No subspecies are 
recognized. It is a migratory, terrestrial shorebird averaging 8 inches 
(21 centimeters) in body length. Mountain plover are light brown above 
and white below, but lack the contrasting dark breast band 
characteristic of several other plovers such as the more common 
killdeer (C. vociferus). Sexes are similar in appearance.
Feeding Habits
    Mountain plover feed on ground-dwelling invertebrates and flying 
invertebrates found on the ground, primarily beetles, crickets, and 
ants. They forage with a series of short runs and stops, feeding 
opportunistically as they encounter prey (Knopf and Wunder 2006, 
unpaginated).
Breeding
    Mountain plover return north to their breeding sites in the western 
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain States in spring. They arrive at their 
breeding grounds in northeastern Colorado in late March (Graul 1975, p. 
6). Arrival is earlier farther south and later in Montana and at higher 
elevations in South Park, Colorado (Knopf and Wunder 2006). Mountain 
plover are territorial during the breeding season, with males defending 
territories shortly after arrival (Knopf and Wunder 2006). Mountain 
plover are generally monogamous; they form pairs and begin courtship on 
arrival at their breeding grounds. Nests consist of a simple ground 
scrape. Egg laying in northeastern Colorado begins in late April and 
extends through mid-June (Graul 1975, p. 7). Graul (1973, p. 84) 
described mountain plover nesting as a ``rapid multi-clutch system.'' 
The female normally produces two clutches, typically three eggs each, 
at different nest sites; the male incubates the first nest site while 
the female incubates the second. If the first nest or brood is lost 
early in the breeding season, the adult may renest, so each pair can 
potentially make four attempts per year to raise a brood. This breeding 
system may increase breeding success given predation that occurs on 
mountain plover nests or broods. This breeding system, rare among bird 
species, may result in greater reproductive potential than in other 
shorebirds (Knopf and Wunder 2006). It may have developed in response 
to food fluctuations that typically occur in the shortgrass prairie, 
where insect populations likely fluctuate in response to annual, 
seasonal, and local fluctuations in precipitation (Graul 1973, p. 85).
    Average incubation period is 29 days (Graul 1975, p. 19). Chicks 
leave the nest within hours of hatching and obtain their own food. Only 
one adult normally tends each nest and brood. The minimum habitat 
requirement for mountain plover broods in Montana was 70 acres (ac) (28 
hectares (ha)) (Knopf and Rupert 1996, p. 33), and brood home ranges 
averaged 143 ac (57 ha) on rangeland in Colorado (Knopf and Rupert 
1996, p. 31). Brood home ranges appeared similar for three Colorado 
landscapes (Dreitz and Knopf 2007, p. 129). Parents stay with chicks 
until they fledge, which occurs at about 33 to 34 days (Graul 1975, p. 
25). Mountain plover breed their first spring and every year thereafter 
(Knopf and Wunder 2006).
Habitat and Range
    Although often thought of as a grassland species, the mountain 
plover may best be described as a species of disturbed prairie or semi-
desert habitat (Knopf and Miller 1994, p. 505). They are found on open, 
flat lands including xeric (extremely dry) shrublands, shortgrass 
prairie, barren agricultural fields, and other sparsely vegetated 
areas. On grasslands, they often inhabit areas with a history of 
disturbance by burrowing rodents such as prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), 
native herbivores, or domestic livestock.
    Mountain plover breed from Canada (extreme southern Alberta and 
Saskatchewan) to northern Mexico (Figure 1) with greatest apparent 
numbers in Colorado and Wyoming, and substantial numbers in Montana, 
New Mexico, and Nebraska. In Mexico, breeding populations are suspected 
in the States of Chihuahua, Cohuila, and Nuevo Leon (Andres and Stone 
2009, p. 9).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 27758]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY11.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    Mountain plover winter in similar habitat, many in California, but 
also in southern portions of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and in 
northern Mexico. While California's Sacramento, San Joaquin, and 
Imperial Valleys support the greatest documented concentrations of 
wintering mountain plover, relatively little is known about wintering 
numbers or distribution in other areas.
Breeding Habitat
    Common elements of mountain plover breeding habitat include short 
vegetation, bare ground, and flat topography. The mountain plover 
historically nested in a region impacted by a variety of herbivores, 
including prairie dogs, bison (Bison bison), and pronghorn antelope 
(Antilocapra americana), because these heavily grazed or similarly 
disturbed landscapes support reduced height and density of vegetation, 
creating favorable breeding habitat for mountain plover. While the 
mountain plover is categorized as a shorebird, it is seldom found near 
margins of freshwater or marine estuaries. Dinsmore (2003, pp. 14-17) 
described four types of breeding habitat: Short- and mixed-grass 
prairie, prairie dog colonies, agricultural lands, and semi-desert.

[[Page 27759]]

    On the plains, the mountain plover is generally considered an 
associate of the shortgrass prairie, dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua 
gracilis) and buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides) (Knopf and Miller 
1994, p. 504). In the Pawnee National Grasslands (PNG) in northern Weld 
County, Colorado, an area that formerly supported the greatest known 
concentration of breeding mountain plover, breeding habitat was 
described as restricted to flat, heavily grazed areas (Graul 1973, p. 
69). Native prairie grasslands formerly presented a diverse ecosystem, 
shaped by low precipitation, grazing, and fire. Today, prairie 
landscapes often consist of grassland fragments where current cattle 
grazing practices tend to create relatively uniform grass coverage and 
height, which is not beneficial to mountain plover (Knopf 2008, pp. 55-
57). Typical range management practices such as rotational grazing, 
limited grazing, and improving soil moisture are designed to promote 
taller grasses that limit mountain plover use. Within these landscapes, 
areas of cattle concentration (loafing areas and near water), 
disturbance caused by prairie dogs, and plowed or fallow (unseeded for 
one or more seasons) agricultural fields create conditions favorable 
for mountain plover nesting (Knopf and Wunder 2006). Mountain plover 
are also attracted to burned areas in their breeding grounds, and 
burning may be valuable as a habitat management tool (Knopf 2008, pp. 
25-26, 57-58, 61; Andres and Stone 2009, p. 34).
    Prairie dog colonies create important habitat for mountain plover, 
and are especially important to maintaining mountain plover populations 
in the northern portions of their range (Dinsmore et al. 2003, pp. 
1024-1025; Dinsmore et al. 2005, p. 1552; Augustine et al. 2008, 
unpaginated; Childers and Dinsmore 2008, p. 705; Tipton et al. 2009, 
pp. 496-497; Dreitz 2009, pp. 875-877). Active prairie dog colonies 
provide exposed soils around burrows and, because prairie dogs keep 
surrounding vegetation clipped, an area of low-growing, perennial 
vegetation that is suitable as mountain plover breeding and brood-
rearing habitat. In addition, prairie dogs give alarm calls in response 
to the approach of predators and may alert mountain plover to predator 
presence. The density of mountain plover was found to be much greater 
on black-tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus) colonies than on other 
habitats in Montana (Childers and Dinsmore 2008, pp. 705-706). In 
north-central Montana, the size of the adult mountain plover population 
closely tracked annual changes in the area occupied by black-tailed 
prairie dogs (Dinsmore et al. 2003, p. 1024). Both prairie dog and 
mountain plover numbers declined sharply in the mid-1990s in response 
to an outbreak of sylvatic plague, which caused deaths of prairie dogs 
and resultant loss of favored mountain plover habitat. Mountain plover 
later increased in concert with subsequent increases in prairie dogs 
(Dinsmore et al. 2005, pp. 1550-1552).
    In the Colorado shortgrass prairie ecosystem, mountain plover 
densities observed on black-tailed prairie dog colonies were higher 
than those on dryland agriculture and much higher than those on 
grasslands without prairie dogs (Dreitz et al. 2006, p. 702; Tipton et 
al. 2009, p. 496). Mountain plover were significantly more abundant on 
black-tailed prairie dog colonies than on other rangeland within a 
bison pasture in northeastern New Mexico (Groguen 2010, pers. comm.). 
Prairie dog colonies occupied by mountain plover were, on average, 
larger in size than colonies with no mountain plover. In Utah, mountain 
plover nested in proximity to white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus) 
colonies (Manning and White 2001, p. 226). In northeastern Mexico, 
breeding mountain plover were associated with Mexican prairie dog (C. 
mexicanus) colonies (Gonzales-Rojas et al. 2006, p. 82).
    Mountain plover have been found to regularly use fallow or plowed 
agricultural fields for nesting (Shackford et al. 1999, entire; Dreitz 
and Knopf 2007, pp. 684-685; Bly et al. 2008, p. 127; McConnell et al. 
2009, pp. 30-33). Where mountain plover have an opportunity to choose 
between agriculture and prairie, they may use both equally (Knopf and 
Rupert 1999, p. 84). Shackford et al. (1999, entire) found mountain 
plover nesting on cultivated fields in Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and 
Wyoming. Fifty percent of all nests they encountered during their 
research were on fallow or bare fields. While many nests were destroyed 
by farm machinery, they concluded that mountain plover were using 
cultivated fields successfully for nesting, especially in southern 
portions of the species' range (Shackford et al. 1999, p. 117).
    Recent studies addressed the mountain plover's nesting ecology, and 
attempted to identify the extent of breeding distribution and 
population size in Nebraska (Bly et al. 2008). They encountered 272 
nests on agricultural fields of cultivated wheat and millet (Bly et al. 
2008, p.123). Studies in Oklahoma encountered mountain plover on bare 
agricultural fields (90 percent of observations), with few (5 percent 
of observations) associated with prairie dog towns (McConnell et al. 
2009, pp. 31-32).
    It remains unknown whether Texas or Mexico crop fields support 
mountain plover breeding (Andres and Stone 2009, p. 24). Holliday 
(2010) reported that breeding season sightings of mountain plover from 
the Texas Panhandle tended to be in cultivated fields as in adjacent 
Oklahoma, although previously reported nesting in West Texas was in 
grazed, short-grass habitat.
    Knopf and Wunder (2006) described mountain plover as breeding 
``more predictably'' at semi-desert locations west of the shortgrass 
prairie in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Beauvais and Smith (2003, 
entire) developed a model of mountain plover breeding habitat in shrub-
steppe habitat of western Wyoming. They related favored patches of 
mountain plover breeding habitat to poor soils, low precipitation, and 
wind scour, features they predicted would persist over time, especially 
on public lands. In such habitats, mountain plover are less dependent 
on prairie dog colonies to create breeding habitat. A Wyoming study 
located 55 mountain plover nests in grassland or desert scrub habitat 
in six counties (Plumb et al. 2005a, p. 225). All nest sites were 
grazed by ungulates with prairie dogs present at only 36 percent of 
nest sites, mostly in grassland (Plumb et al. 2005a, pp. 226-227). In 
Montana, Childers and Dinsmore (2008, p. 107) noted that sparsely 
vegetated, hardpan clay flats provided nesting habitat.
    In summary, mountain plover require short vegetation with some bare 
ground on their breeding sites. In grasslands, this usually requires 
disturbance, such as that provided by prairie dogs, cattle grazing, 
fire, or farming. In semi-desert environments, breeding habitat may 
persist without these forms of disturbance.
Migration and Wintering Habitat
    Southbound migration of mountain plover is prolonged, with post-
breeding flocks numbering in the hundreds forming in late June with 
some remaining on breeding areas until September or October (Bly et al. 
2008, p. 123; Andres and Stone 2009, p. 10). Mountain plover migrate 
southward across the southern Great Plains in late summer and early 
fall to Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico, with many then traveling west to 
California (Knopf and Wunder 2006). During spring migration, mountain 
plover move from their

[[Page 27760]]

wintering sites in early March and proceed quickly to breeding sites in 
eastern Colorado by mid-March and in Montana by mid-April (Knopf and 
Wunder 2006). Mountain plover are generally thought to use habitats 
similar to those on the breeding and wintering grounds during 
migration. During migration, they have also been reported using 
alkaline or mud soils, and sod farms (Knopf and Wunder 2006). Few 
studies have been conducted on stopover habitat, and little is known 
about stopover ecology or food resources exploited (Andres and Stone 
2009, pp. 14, 21, 37).
    In winter, mountain plover use habitats similar to those on their 
breeding grounds. Mountain plover are found wintering in California 
mostly on fallow and cultivated agricultural fields, but also on 
grasslands and grazed pastures (Hunting et al. 2001, p. 39; Knopf and 
Wunder 2006).
    Throughout the Central Valley of California, the field types used 
by mountain plover vary seasonally, from uncultivated lands in October 
and November, shifting toward cultivated lands over the winter (Hunting 
and Edson 2008, pp. 183-184). Mountain plover wintering in the San 
Joaquin Valley of California used tilled fields, grazed pastures, 
alkali flats, and burned fields, but they preferred native valley sink 
scrub (low vegetation dominated by alkali-tolerant shrubs) and 
nonnative grazed or burned grasslands over any of the more common 
cultivated land types (Knopf and Rupert 1995, pp. 747-749). Winter 
habitat availability in California's Carrizo Plain seems linked to a 
combination of livestock grazing and precipitation, with heavy grazing 
and dry conditions creating conditions most favorable to the mountain 
plover. Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) precincts (colonies) are 
also used, especially when wet years produce tall vegetation elsewhere 
(Sharum 2010, pers. comm.).
    Mountain plover exclusively used cultivated sites in the Imperial 
Valley of California (Wunder and Knopf 2003, pp. 74-75). While 
cultivated lands are abundant throughout the Imperial Valley, not all 
provide suitable feeding habitat. Mountain plover were found to favor 
irrigated farmland, including burned bermudagrass (Cynodan dactylon); 
harvested, grazed, or sprouting alfalfa (Medicago spp.) fields; and 
newly cultivated fields (Wunder and Knopf 2003, pp. 75-76; AMEC Earth 
and Environment 2003, p. 12). Fallow fields were used mostly for 
roosting, and melon and vegetable fields were rarely or never used 
(Wunder and Knopf 2003, pp. 75-76). Insect availability, furrow depth, 
size of dirt clods, and the vegetation on contiguous land parcels were 
all believed to influence the suitability of agricultural fields to 
mountain plover.
    In California, annual climatic variability, especially abundant 
rainfall, influences field conditions and can reduce mountain plover 
use of traditionally occupied wintering sites. For example, mountain 
plover became virtually absent from cultivated fields in the Imperial 
Valley during the rainy winter of 2004-2005 (Knopf and Wunder 2006). 
Movement patterns of wintering mountain plover in California are shown 
to be highly variable, with birds on several occasions moving more than 
34 miles (mi) (55 kilometers (km)) in a week (Knopf and Wunder 2006).
    In Arizona, mountain plover winter on sod farms and grazed 
pastures, and are observed using the same sites yearly. Their use of 
farm fields and other potential habitats is generally unknown, and 
these areas are rarely surveyed (Robertson 2010, p. 1). A few mountain 
plover have wintered in recent years on mowed grasses at Gila Bend Air 
Force Auxiliary Field (Mendelsohn 2010).
    In Texas, winter reports of mountain plover were correlated with 
barren fields and grazed pastures (Holliday 2010). In Williamson and 
Bell Counties, Texas, mountain plover winter only on large, flat, 
plowed fields, especially those with some corn or sorghum stubble 
(Fennel 2002, p. 29). In the Texas coastal bend area (Nueces and San 
Patricio Counties), wintering plover are largely limited to plowed 
fields rather than grasslands or fallow fields, with mountain plover 
often following tractors while feeding (Cobb 2009, pers. comm.). 
Wintering mountain plover in Texas have also been reported using burned 
fields (Knopf and Wunder 2006), sod farms (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.), 
coastal prairies, and alkaline flats (Andres and Stone 2009, p. 12).
    In Mexico, mountain plover are found wintering in grassland areas 
with high densities of prairie dogs (both black-tailed and Mexican) and 
on heavily grazed pastures (Andres and Stone 2009, p. 12; Macias-Duarte 
and Panjabi 2010, pp. 5, 7). Consistent with other areas, open habitat 
with low grass cover and sparse or no shrub cover are elements common 
to areas used by mountain plover in Mexico. However, significant 
mountain plover use of crop fields in Mexico has not been reported 
(Macias-Duarte and Punjabi 2010, p. 7).
    Wunder (2007) studied geographic population structure in mountain 
plover through color-banding and stable isotope concentrations in 
feathers. He concluded that there is widespread mixing of mountain 
plover populations in winter and that birds may use alternate wintering 
sites in different years (Wunder 2007, p. 118). While mountain plover 
appear annually at some favored wintering sites, site fidelity by 
individual birds appears low. Mountain plover can move long distances 
and use various sites even within a given winter.
Survival, Lifespan, and Site Fidelity
    A long-term study on mountain plover breeding grounds in Phillips 
County, Montana, provides much of what is known regarding population 
dynamics of the species. The annual survival rate of adult mountain 
plover of both sexes in Phillips County ranged from 0.74 to 0.96 yearly 
(Dinsmore 2008, p. 50). The annual survival rate for juvenile mountain 
plover (survival to 1 year of age) was 0.06 at hatching, but for those 
chicks that reached fledging age was 0.62 (Dinsmore 2008, p. 51). 
Survival estimates did not account for permanent emigration (birds 
surviving but returning in subsequent years to sites outside of the 
study area), so the actual annual survival may have been higher.
    Previous estimates of survival rates and of estimated mean lifespan 
of 1.92 years (Dinsmore et al. 2003, pp. 1020-1021) supported our 
December 5, 2002, conclusion that the mountain plover had a shorter 
lifespan than other plovers (Charadriidae) (67 FR 72397) and that this 
might impact its opportunity to reproduce. These conclusions 
underestimated adult mountain plover survival. The longer study of the 
same population over years with varying weather and habitat conditions 
modified the earlier conclusions regarding the mountain plover's 
longevity. Mountain plover of 5 to 7 years of age were frequently 
encountered, and a longevity record over 10 years was established 
(Dinsmore 2008, p. 52). Based on this additional research, survival 
rates for mountain plover appear comparable to those reported for other 
plovers, and the mountain plover is now considered a relatively long-
lived species (Dinsmore et al. 2010, unpaginated). We no longer believe 
that the mountain plover's lifespan is a liability that could 
contribute to the negative impact of natural or manmade events 
affecting the species.
    Mountain plover have a high nest survival rate compared to other 
ground-nesting species (Dinsmore et al. 2010), but nest success in 
mountain plover has varied greatly from study to study. Successful 
hatching (of at least one egg) ranged from 26 percent (Knopf and

[[Page 27761]]

Rupert 1996, pp. 29-30) to 65 percent (Graul 1975, p. 18). Dinsmore et 
al. (2002, pp. 3485-3486) found differences in nest success between 
nests incubated by males (49 percent) and females (33 percent). Dreitz 
and Knopf (2007, p. 684) found nest success of 37 percent with no 
appreciable difference between nests on agricultural fields and on 
native rangeland.
    There have been relatively few studies of chick survival (hatching 
to fledging) and results vary greatly. Dreitz (2009, p. 6) estimated 
that 30-day survival of chicks of mountain plover from prairie dog 
colony nesting habitat was 75 percent, and that 30-day survival on 
other grasslands and on agricultural fields was less than 25 percent. 
Following similar methodology, research on crop fields in Nebraska 
found 95 percent survival of chicks accompanying 31 adult mountain 
plover that were radio-tracked for the 36 days after eggs hatched 
(Blakesley and Jorgensen 2010). Radio contact was lost with other 
adults (due to birds leaving the area or transmitter failure), but even 
if assuming all chicks associated with these adults perished, chick 
survival was at least 58 percent (Blakesley and Jorgensen 2010). Dreitz 
et al. (2010) studied post-hatching chick survival (hatching to 
fledging) via radio-tracking in Colorado and Montana. The study 
targeted factors affecting survival, including landscape 
characteristics, with an objective of informing conservation and 
management efforts. Field studies in 2010 were hampered by unusually 
cold and wet weather. Of 93 chicks radio-tracked over three habitat 
types in Colorado, only 9 were confirmed to survive to 30 days (Dreitz 
et al. 2010, p. 3). Thirty-eight confirmed mortalities included 13 from 
avian predators, 8 from mammalian predators, and 17 from unknown 
predation, weather, and undetermined factors. Contact with other chicks 
was lost, and their fates were unknown. Results did not reflect higher 
chick survival on prairie dog towns than on other grasslands or 
agricultural fields. In Montana, only 1 of 39 chicks monitored on 
black-tailed prairie dog colonies was confirmed to survive to 30 days. 
Nineteen mortalities were documented, with 13 from heavy rains (Dreitz 
et al. 2010, p. 4). Sources of mortality differed among habitats in 
Colorado, with avian predation higher at black-tailed prairie dog towns 
(Dreitz et al. 2010, p. 6). However, results of the study are 
considered preliminary, and future work is planned.
    Few studies have estimated seasonal adult survival rates. Dreitz 
(2010, unpaginated) found 89 percent survival of adults with broods for 
the 30 days after hatching. A study of overwintering mountain plover in 
California showed nearly 95 percent survival of wintering birds from 
November 1 to March 15 (Knopf and Rupert 1995, p. 746). Since survival 
of adults during stationary periods is believed to be relatively high, 
and there is no estimate for adult survival during spring and fall 
migration, there is potential that losses of adults during migration 
may be significant and efforts to increase adult survival might be 
focused on migration periods (Dinsmore et al. 2003, p. 1023; Andres and 
Stone 2009, p. 1; Dinsmore et al. 2010). However, there is no 
scientific information available to indicate that high mortality during 
migration is occurring.
    A life stage-specific model based on data from three breeding 
areas, two in Colorado and one in Montana, found that mean adult 
survival was the parameter that most influenced modeled population 
growth (Dinsmore et al. 2010). The importance of adult survival was 
characterized as typical of long-lived bird species, for which repeated 
reproductive attempts throughout life are less important to population 
growth, as evidenced by low chick survival, than adult survival 
(Dinsmore et al. 2010). Nest survival was comparable to, or higher 
than, other ground-nesting shorebirds and was less important to 
population growth than survival of chicks, juveniles, and adults. Large 
variation in estimates of chick survival led to the conclusion that to 
improve population viability on breeding areas, management to increase 
chick survival should be a priority. The authors believed such 
management should be emphasized over past efforts to decrease nest 
losses and increase hatching success (Dinsmore et al. 2010). However, 
the authors conceded that management to improve chick survival is more 
difficult than improving hatching success and might require large-scale 
habitat improvement.
    Mountain plover were thought to have high site fidelity to nesting 
locations, returning to same area where they hatched each year (Graul 
1973, p. 71). Skrade and Dinsmore (2010, p. 672) quantified mountain 
plover dispersal on breeding sites in Montana and reported juvenile 
(natal) dispersal (hatching year to return at age 1) averaged 8.1 mi 
(13.0 km) for males and 6.3 mi (10.2 km) for females. Only 4 of 38 
banded chicks returning as adults arrived back at the same black-tailed 
prairie dog colony where they were banded. Knopf and Wunder (2006) 
noted a chick that had dispersed over 30 mi (50 km) in Colorado.
    The previous year's nesting success influences adult dispersal; 
unsuccessful adults disperse farther than successfully breeding adults 
(Skrade and Dinsmore 2010, p. 671). While adults rarely move far from 
the area where they nested the previous year, evidence of potential for 
year-to-year dispersal in adults is exemplified by an adult mountain 
plover banded on a breeding area in Colorado in 2009, that was found 
nesting approximately 25 mi (40 km) away in Nebraska in 2010 (Bly 
2010b, pers. comm.).
    Results from genetic studies suggest that gene flow among breeding 
areas is sufficient to offset genetic effects of small populations and 
reported adult fidelity to breeding areas (Oyler-McCance et al. 2008, 
pp. 496-497).
Population Size and Trends
    Mountain plover are difficult to detect because they are 
cryptically colored and in general are widely distributed at low 
densities (Knopf and Wunder 2006). Based on historical observations of 
mountain plover and extensive habitat changes, there is general 
agreement that the mountain plover is currently greatly reduced in 
numbers and range compared to their numbers and range prior to European 
settlement (Graul and Webster 1976, p. 265; Knopf and Wunder 2006). The 
mountain plover's historical breeding range is believed to have 
differed from that currently occupied primarily in its eastern extent, 
which may have encompassed the western thirds of North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and Nebraska, and more of western Kansas and the Texas 
Panhandle than is currently occupied (Graul and Webster 1976, p. 265, 
Knopf and Wunder 2008).
    Population estimates for the species, both historical and recent, 
appear imprecise. Graul and Webster (1976, p. 266) estimated that 
mountain plover populations in Montana, Wyoming, eastern Colorado, and 
New Mexico then totaled 214,200 to 319,220 birds, with 20,820 in the 
population stronghold of Weld County, Colorado. However, Knopf and 
Wunder (2008) cited Graul (pers. comm.) as saying that the estimates 
may have been off (i.e., high) by an order of magnitude (a factor of 
10).
    Knopf (1996, p. 12) estimated the total population of mountain 
plover to be about 8,000 to 10,000, based on a 1994 wintering survey in 
California and on assumptions regarding proportion of the wintering 
population observed (i.e., that only half of birds wintering in 
California had been counted and that 1,000 to 3,000 birds wintered in 
Texas and other areas). We cited this estimate in our

[[Page 27762]]

December 5, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 72396). In our September 9, 
2003, withdrawal of our proposed listing (68 FR 53083), we again cited 
the Knopf estimate above and, using similar assumptions and newer 
California winter survey data (1998-2002), provided a rangewide 
estimate of 5,000 to 11,000 mountain plover. More recent studies, which 
estimated populations present on specific portions of the breeding 
range, have resulted in a higher rangewide estimate of the mountain 
plover breeding population. After investigating Wyoming populations, 
Plumb et al. (2005b, p. 15) estimated a minimum of 3,393 mountain 
plover in Wyoming (up from previous estimates of 500 to 1,500) and 
estimated a rangewide total of 11,000 to 14,000 mountain plover. Based 
on newer information, including an upward revision of estimated 
mountain plover numbers on the eastern Colorado plains (a conservative 
estimate of 8,577 birds), Tipton et al. (2009, p. 497) provided a 
rangewide estimate of 15,000 to 20,000 mountain plover. Andres and 
Stone (2009, p. 8) reviewed available data and provided a coarse, 
minimum rangewide estimate of 18,000 breeding mountain plover. Knopf 
and Dreitz (in press) concluded that the continental breeding 
population is ``certainly larger'' than the 17,500 birds estimated in 
Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, citing small populations in contiguous 
States, a potentially significant population in New Mexico, and an 
unknown population in Mexico. Based on our review of recent data, 
including those from Nebraska (Van der Berg et al. 2010) and New Mexico 
(see Breeding Range below), we estimate that the current rangewide 
mountain plover breeding population exceeds 20,000 birds. This was 
supported by Knopf (2009, pers. comm.). We have no information to 
indicate that this estimate reflects an actual increase in rangewide 
mountain plover numbers over previous, lower estimates. Instead, it 
likely reflects the limitations of those earlier rangewide estimates 
(based on mountain plover wintering in California that largely 
discounted birds wintering elsewhere) and more accurate recent 
estimates of breeding populations.
    Accurate trend information for mountain plover numbers is generally 
lacking. Interpreting trends from the two long standing surveys, the 
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and the National Audubon Society's Christmas 
Bird Count (CBC), suffer from a variety of problems, including the 
inherent difficulties associated with using a survey of only a small 
portion of a total population to infer rangewide trends (Knopf and 
Wunder 2004, p. 1).
    The BBS is a large-scale survey of North American birds that began 
in 1966, and is conducted during the breeding season by observers 
driving along roads over established routes. Knopf (1996, p. 12) cited 
BBS data from 1966 through 1993 as indicative of a steep decline in 
mountain plover numbers across their breeding range (3.7 percent per 
year, a decline of approximately two-thirds over the period). However, 
Knopf and Wunder (2004, p. 1) suggested that the timing of surveys 
(which occur mostly in June when mountain plover are less conspicuous) 
and the low densities at which mountain plover occur prevent reliable 
trend estimates.
    Based on recent BBS data analysis (Sauer 2010a), the mountain 
plover has declined rangewide at an estimated rate of 2.6 percent per 
year for the period from 1966 to 2009 (95 percent confidence interval 
(CI) -6.7 to +0.6). However, for the period from 1999 through 2009, the 
estimated rate of decline decreased to 1.1 percent per year (95 percent 
CI -5.8, +9.6) (Figure 2). While neither estimate varies statistically 
from a stable population (at a 95 percent CI), the probability that the 
estimated long-term trend (1966 through 2009) is less than or equal to 
zero is 95 percent. The probability that the estimated short-term trend 
(1999 through 2009) is less than or equal to zero is 68 percent. The 
estimated long-term decline is consistent with the generally accepted 
conclusion that the mountain plover's rangewide population is currently 
smaller than it was in the 1960s. The more recent (1999 through 2009) 
estimated decline and associated CI lead us to conclude that most or 
all of the long-term decrease took place before 1999, that any recent 
declines are modest, and that the mountain plover population may be 
near stable.

[[Page 27763]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY11.001

    Sauer (2011, pers. comm.) concluded that limited regional data from 
the BBS (i.e., the low numbers of routes reporting the species and low 
numbers of mountain plover observed) resulted in imprecise trend 
estimates within individual States and for the time periods of 
interest. He also concluded that BBS data only provide an imprecise 
summary of mountain plover population dynamics, and the limited sample 
size likely reflects the limitations of the roadside sampling frame in 
sampling mountain plover breeding populations.
    We conclude that, while the BBS is the only long-term trend 
information available for the mountain plover on its breeding range, it 
is an imprecise indicator of mountain plover population trends. Given 
the wide confidence interval and the conclusion by Sauer (2011, pers. 
comm.) above, the data provide limited support for any recent (1999 
through 2009) trend in mountain plover numbers. Even so, we acknowledge 
that this is the best available information on trends for this species 
and BBS survey results suggest a recent (1999 through 2009) moderated 
rate of decline (Figure 2). We provide long-term and recent BBS trend 
estimates for three States where the sample size allowed for analysis 
(see Conservation Status and Local Populations below), but with the 
same reservations regarding precision.
    The CBC is an annual count performed around the end of December in 
which volunteers observe birds in 15-mi (24-km) radius count circles. 
While CBCs can be used to infer species population trends, spatial 
coverage is limited (Knopf and Wunder 2004, p. 1) and established count 
circles commonly coincide with populated areas where volunteers are 
available. The CBC data estimated an annual decrease of 2.8 percent in 
mountain plover observed from 1966 through 2007, but reliability was 
described as low (Butcher and Niven 2007, Appendix 1).
    The vast majority of mountain plover reported in CBCs come from 
California and, within California, from the South Salton Sea count. 
Pandolfino (2009, unpaginated) submitted his analysis of CBC data for 
California and recognized the data's limitations, but concluded that 
the data reflected long-term and recent declines in mountain plover 
numbers wintering in California. The CBC data on mountain plover 
numbers is highly variable from year to year. The Salton Sea South CBC, 
the only CBC in the Imperial Valley, is limited in scope and does not 
include portions of the valley where most mountain plover have been 
seen (Wunder and Knopf 2003, p. 76). Inherent limitations in data 
collection methods (volunteers surveying small areas relative to total 
winter range) and lack of sufficient detections of mountain plover in 
California count circles (Hunting et al. 2001, p. 40) render trend 
analysis uncertain. CBC data from other States and Mexico is even less 
representative

[[Page 27764]]

of wintering populations and provides no insight into possible trends 
for the mountain plover.
    We conclude, based on observations across the mountain plover's 
range and BBS trend data, that a historical decline of the mountain 
plover has occurred since the 1960s. However, we agree with the 
conclusion of Andres and Stone (2009, p. 3) that precise and accurate 
information on recent trends in mountain plover numbers is lacking. The 
recent (1999 through 2009) decline estimate from BBS data is modest 
(1.1 percent per year) and any difference from a stable population 
estimate (slope of 0.0) is statistically insignificant. However, we 
acknowledge that the BBS data is the best available information on 
trends for the mountain plover and that BBS results suggest a recent 
(1999 through 2009) moderated rate of decline (Figure 2). The CBC 
wintering data are highly variable and come mostly from California, but 
also suggest a long-term decline. No comprehensive trend data across 
the mountain plover's wintering range are available. The discussion 
below provides information on populations and trends within States, 
Canada, and Mexico, where available.
Conservation Status and Local Populations
    The mountain plover is listed as endangered in Canada, as a 
sensitive species in Alberta, and as a threatened species in Mexico 
(Andres and Stone 2009, p. 13; Gober 2010). The mountain plover is 
identified by the Service as a Bird of Conservation Concern (Service 
2008), is considered ``highly imperiled'' in the U.S. Shorebird 
Conservation Plan (2004, p. 2), a category assigned to species listed 
as threatened or endangered nationally, and all species with 
significant population declines and either low populations or some 
other high risk factor. It is also identified as ``G3-vulnerable'' by 
NatureServe (2010). The species is listed as a sensitive species by the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (2010) and by the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) (2000a, 2006, 2010a). It is identified as a species of global 
conservation concern in the American Bird Conservancy and National 
Audubon Watchlist, and it is listed as ``near threatened'' by the 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (BirdLife 
International 2010). The designations discussed above may, in part, 
reflect population estimates at the time those designations were 
established. The IUCN previously (from 2004 to 2007) listed the species 
as ``vulnerable,'' a higher level of concern than ``near threatened,'' 
but changed its rating as higher rangewide population estimates 
emerged. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan provided a rangewide 
estimate of 9,000 mountain plover until 2006, when the estimate was 
revised upward to 12,500 (Morrison et al. 2006, p. 69).
    All States within the range of the mountain plover have included 
the species in their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy or 
Wildlife Action Plans or both (State Plans) (Arizona Game and Fish 
Department 2006; University of California 2005; Colorado Division of 
Wildlife 2006; Wasson et al. 2005; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 
2005; Schneider et al. 2005; New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 
2006; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 2005; Texas Parks 
and Wildlife 2005; Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005) as either 
``Species of concern'' or ``Species of greatest conservation need.'' 
Each State categorizes species under these designations based on 
available information about the status, distribution, and trend of the 
species in their State. They are not regulatory classifications, but 
rather are intended to guide resource managers in making proactive 
decisions regarding species conservation and data collection 
priorities. The State Plans are not intended to be specific action 
plans for any species. These designations do not result in any 
protection for the species. However, the mountain plover is identified 
as threatened in the State of Nebraska, the only State where the 
species is listed as endangered or threatened.
Breeding Range
Colorado
    In Eastern Colorado, the shortgrass prairie ecosystem provides 
flat, dry breeding habitat for the mountain plover. The species 
occupies grasslands within prairie dog colonies, grasslands without 
prairie dog colonies, and dry land agricultural fields (Dreitz et al. 
2005, pp. 129-130; Tipton et al. 2009, p. 496).
    Knopf and Miller (1994, p. 504) noted the PNG, Weld County, 
Colorado, as a breeding stronghold for the species, but in the mid-
1990s the population fell dramatically. The PNG now supports relatively 
few breeding mountain plover. In 2009, Knopf provided an overview of 
mountain plover studies on the PNG from 1986 through 2007. He suggested 
that mountain plover numbers on the PNG had been in decline since the 
late 1930s and early 1940s, and that the dramatic decline in the mid-
1990s was the abrupt endpoint of a process of deteriorating habitat, 
exacerbated by other factors such as wet spring weather, increased 
predation, and the relocation of breeding mountain plover to better 
habitats elsewhere (Knopf 2008, p. 61).
    Despite the virtual loss of the PNG population, over half of all 
mountain plover are thought to breed in Colorado (Andres and Stone 
2009, p. 15). A recent study reported a conservative estimate of 8,577 
breeding mountain plover in eastern Colorado (95 percent CI 7,511 to 
35,130) (Tipton et al. 2009, p. 497). A separate, higher elevation 
population in South Park, Park County, Colorado, was estimated at 2,310 
adults (Wunder et al. 2003, p. 661). Surveys through 2006 suggested a 
stable population in South Park, with any variation largely 
attributable to wet years and dry years affecting breeding conditions 
(Wunder 2010a). Small numbers of mountain plover also occur in 
Colorado's San Luis Valley (Hicks-Anderson and VerCauteren 2006, 
entire). Andres and Stone (2009, p. 8) provided population estimates 
for the United States, Canadian provinces, and Mexican States based on 
their review of all available information. Their estimate of 11,000 
mountain plover breeding in Colorado appears appropriate given 
information available.
    The BBS data from Colorado, 1966 through 2009 (-0.9 percent decline 
annually, 95 percent CI (-7.0 to 3.5)) and 1999 through 2009 (0.3 
percent increase annually, 95 percent CI (-5.5 to 14.7)) (Sauer 2010a), 
suggest little long-term or recent change in breeding numbers in 
Colorado. Based on these data, we conclude that the current breeding 
population in Colorado, which likely supports half or more of all 
breeding mountain plover, is relatively stable.
Wyoming
    Wyoming has the highest estimated number of breeding mountain 
plover outside of Colorado. The mountain plover is locally common and 
has been detected in every county of Wyoming (Smith and Keinath 2004, 
p. 3). A projected 20.5 million ac (8.3 million ha) of mountain plover 
habitat exists in Wyoming, with 59 percent occurring on public lands 
(Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) 2010; Emmerich 2010).
    Nesting of mountain plover in Wyoming occurs in both grassland, 
mostly in the eastern part of the State, and desert-shrub (Plumb et al. 
2005b, p. 20). Mountain plover densities were comparable across habitat 
types with overall density only slightly higher in grassland than in 
desert-shrub (Plumb et

[[Page 27765]]

al. 2005b, p. 20). Mountain plover appear to have less association with 
prairie dog habitat in Wyoming than elsewhere (Plumb et al. 2005a, p. 
226). Little of the mountain plover breeding range in Wyoming 
(approximately 12 percent) is on cropland Knopf and Rupert 1999, p. 
85).
    Plumb et al. (2005b, pp. 19-20) estimated a minimum population of 
3,393 mountain plover in Wyoming in 2002 and 2003. Andres and Stone 
(2009, p. 8) provide an estimate of 3,400 mountain plover breeding in 
Wyoming. This number is based on Plumb et al.'s estimate and, like that 
estimate, it reflects the minimum number likely present. Given that 
Plumb et al. (2005b, pp. 19-20) provided a conservative estimate, the 
actual breeding population is likely larger; however, we have no basis 
to provide a more accurate estimate.
    The BBS data from Wyoming (Sauer 2010a), 1966 through 2009 (-1.2 
percent decline annually, 95 percent CI (-5.7 to 3.3)) and 1999 through 
2009 (-2.3 percent decline annually, 95 percent CI -13.9 to 4.5)), 
suggest that both long-term and recent declines in breeding mountain 
plover numbers in Wyoming may have occurred.
Montana
    Primary breeding habitat for mountain plover in Montana is in the 
north-central portion of the State where mountain plover are highly 
dependent on black-tailed prairie dog colonies for habitat. Montana 
Fish, Wildlife and Parks modeled suitable mountain plover habitat in 
the State. Mapping indicated that the greatest area of highly suitable 
habitat occurs in Phillips, Blain, Valley, and Fergus Counties with 
patchy distribution though the central and southeast portions of the 
State. The total area of suitable habitat estimated was 18.5 million ac 
(7.5 million ha) (McDonald 2010).
    Childers and Dinsmore (2008, p. 706) reported an estimate of 1,028 
mountain plover in Phillips and Valley Counties in 2004 (95 percent CI 
(903 to 1,153)). In 2010, standardized census areas in southwest, 
central, and northeast Montana produced fewer sightings than previous 
surveys (1992-2000, 2004); however, McDonald (2010) stated that results 
were negatively influenced by above average rainfall, increased 
vegetation height, and limited private land access; therefore, results 
cannot be relied upon. Other than apparent confirmation of a previously 
documented decline in the southwest census area (FaunaWest Wildlife 
Consultants 2004, pp. 4-5), no trends could be inferred from the 2010 
survey.
    Andres and Stone (2009, p. 8) used the above estimate by Childers 
and Dinsmore (2008, p. 706) and previous estimates of about 600 
mountain plover elsewhere in Montana and provided a Statewide estimate 
of approximately 1,600 mountain plover. BBS observations of mountain 
plover on routes in Montana were insufficient to provide estimates of 
population trend.
New Mexico
    Most breeding season reports of mountain plover in New Mexico have 
come from the northeast and western counties. Sager (1996, pp. 8-9) 
found 152 presumed breeding adults at 35 sites in 11 counties in 
northern New Mexico. Marguilies et al. (2004, p. 3) estimated 200 
mountain plover in Union County alone throughout the summer and located 
46 nests. In a limited effort, they also found 22 mountain plover and 
six nests on public lands in Taos and Colfax Counties.
    At BLM's North Unit, Taos County, point counts in 2005 through 2007 
estimated 176 mountain plover on 8,400 ac (3,400 ha) of the 50,000-ac 
(20,000-ha) unit considered to be favorable mountain plover breeding 
habitat, based on past observation of mountain plover (Hawks Aloft 
2007, pp. 9-11). If the entire unit was occupied at the same density, 
an estimated 1,000 mountain plover might have been present on the North 
Unit. Manderson (2010, pers. comm.) inspected habitat away from survey 
routes in 2010, and suggested that, based on habitat quality, 500 or 
more mountain plover could be present on the entire unit. Mountain 
plover numbers seen on the same survey routes in 2010 were comparable 
to those in earlier (2005 through 2007) surveys (Hawks Aloft 2010, p. 
13), suggesting this population may be stable.
    Goguen (2010, pers. comm.) estimated a minimum of 40 to 50 breeding 
mountain plover on the Vermejo Ranch, Colfax and Taos Counties. 
Mountain plover were also recently reported present in El Malpais 
National Conservation Area, Cibola County (Hawks Aloft 2008, entire).
    We found no Statewide breeding surveys or estimates of Statewide 
breeding populations for mountain plover in New Mexico, other than 
Andres and Stone's (2009, p. 8) conservative estimate of 500. Given the 
above data from Union County, the BLM's North Unit in Taos County, the 
Vermejo Ranch in Colfax and Taos Counties, and likely mountain plover 
occurrence in several other counties, we believe that at least 1,000 
and potentially significantly more mountain plover breed in New Mexico.
    BBS data from New Mexico (Sauer 2010a), 1966 through 2009 (-5.0 
percent decline annually, 95 percent CI (-8.6 to -1.2)) and 1999 
through 2009 (-4.8 decline annually, 95 percent CI (-12.1 to 2.7)), 
demonstrate a long-term decline and also suggest a short-term decline 
in breeding mountain plover numbers in New Mexico. New Mexico is the 
only State for which the long-term BBS trend statistically differs from 
zero.
Nebraska
    In our December 5, 2002, proposal to list the mountain plover we 
estimated 200 mountain plover in Nebraska (67 FR 72399). Recent studies 
attempted to identify the extent of breeding distribution and 
population size in Nebraska (Bly et al. 2008, entire). Most nests were 
found on agricultural fields in Kimball County, in extreme southwestern 
Nebraska, but mountain plover were also found in nearby Cheyenne and 
Blain Counties. The minimum breeding population was estimated to be 80 
adults in 2007, based on nests found, and the total estimate of 
breeding birds ranged upward to 360 (Bly et al. 2008, p. 127). Van der 
Burg et al. (2010, pp. 50-53) reported on monitoring in the same three 
counties (Kimball, Cheyenne, and Blain) in southwestern Nebraska and 
estimated that mountain plover breeding numbers of 1,650, 1,617, and 
1,558 over 3 years of the study (2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively). 
The authors attributed past low estimates in Nebraska to: (1) Low 
detection probabilities; (2) clumped spatial distribution of mountain 
plover, which their estimation methodology corrected for; and (3) 
``chronic undersampling.'' Given the above estimates from Van der Burg 
et al. (2010, pp. 50-53), an estimate by Andres and Stone (2009, p. 8) 
of 500 breeding mountain plover in Nebraska appears low.
    Nebraska is the only State that has regulatory mechanisms in place 
to conserve the mountain plover and its habitat, which likely protect 
relatively few individuals. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 
lists the mountain plover as a ``threatened'' species. Listing of 
endangered and threatened species identifies those animals and plants 
whose continued existence in Nebraska is in jeopardy. Efforts can then 
be made to restore the species or to prevent extirpation or extinction. 
Once a species is listed, a State law, titled the Nebraska Nongame and 
Endangered Species Conservation Act, automatically prohibits take, 
exportation, and possession, and imposes severe penalties on violators 
(Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

[[Page 27766]]

2011). Proposed projects that would be authorized, funded, or carried 
out by Nebraska State agencies are reviewed as part of a mandatory 
consultation process designed to prevent a State action from 
jeopardizing the existence of an endangered or threatened species. 
Recovery plans for endangered or threatened species are developed; 
these recovery plans identify, describe, and schedule the actions 
necessary to restore populations of these animals and plants to a more 
secure status. Given that most mountain plover in Nebraska occur on 
private agricultural lands, there are not many State projects that are 
reviewed under the law. It is generally implemented only 4 or 5 times 
per year, primarily on transportation, transmission, and energy 
development projects (Lackey 2011, pers. comm.). While this law may 
provide protection for some individual mountain plover in Nebraska, we 
believe that it would only have minimal positive effects on the entire 
population in Nebraska, or on the rangewide population.
Oklahoma
    Recent studies to determine the breeding distribution and 
population size in Oklahoma detected mountain plover in Cimarron and 
Texas Counties in the Oklahoma panhandle, mostly on fallow or barren 
agricultural fields (McConnell et al. 2009, pp. 30-33). Randomized 
point counts were used to derive a Statewide population estimate of 68 
to 91 birds (McConnell et al. 2009, pp. 32-33). Andres and Stone (2009, 
p. 8) estimated 200 mountain plover breeding in Oklahoma. Given results 
of McConnell et al. (2009, pp. 32-33), we believe that Andres and 
Stone's (2009, p. 8) estimate may be slightly high. The range of the 
mountain plover in Oklahoma was described as stable over the past 100 
years, with the suggestion that populations may have changed little 
(Hatcher 2010).
Kansas
    The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (2005) stated that 
mountain plover breed only on dry upland in the shortgrass prairie of 
western Kansas. While conversion to agriculture has left little native 
breeding habitat, Cable and Seltman (2010, pp. 50-51) reported mountain 
plover are an uncommon but regular breeding species in western Kansas 
and that they also use idle cropland. Morton County may also serve as a 
staging area for migration in late summer (Cable and Seltman 2010, p. 
51). Andres and Stone (2009, p. 8) estimated 200 breeding mountain 
plover in Kansas. No comprehensive surveys of breeding mountain plover 
in Kansas have been attempted; however, given their apparent use of 
both prairie and cropland, and a substantial population in nearby 
Colorado, the estimate may be appropriate.
Texas
    The mountain plover likely breeds in Texas, but there are no 
confirmed reports of breeding since 1993 (Andres and Stone 2009, p. 
16). Holliday (2010) described breeding season sight reports of 
mountain plover from the Texas Panhandle near known Oklahoma breeding 
sites. Holliday (2004) also mapped potential breeding habitat, much of 
it on private land that has not been surveyed. Andres and Stone (2010) 
did not provide an estimate of breeding mountain plover in Texas. We 
believe that at least minimal numbers of mountain plover breed in 
Texas.
Arizona
    The only known mountain plover nesting in Arizona is in Apache 
County in east-central portion of the State, with at maximum perhaps a 
dozen breeding birds (Gardner 2010, pers. comm.). Breeding has occurred 
on grasslands where cattle were concentrated and at Gunnison prairie 
dog (C. gunnisoni) colonies (Corman 2005, pp. 591-591; Gardner 2010). 
However, hundreds of square miles of potential breeding habitat in 
northern and western Arizona have never been surveyed, and there are 
reports of potential breeding mountain plover on Tribal lands in Navajo 
County (Corman 2005, pp. 591-591; Gardner 2010, pers. comm.). Andres 
and Stone (2009, p. 8) estimated 100 breeding mountain plover in 
Arizona. This estimate acknowledges potential for a more substantial 
breeding population than limited observations have documented.
Utah
    The mountain plover has been a historically rare breeder in shrub-
steppe habitat in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. Manning and 
White (2001, p. 225) described a small breeding population that 
averaged about 15 adults yearly. Mountain plover breeding in the area 
subsequently declined, and no birds have been found during surveys of 
the area since 2003 (Maxfield 2010, pers. comm.). Andres and Stone 
(2009, p. 8) estimated fewer than 50 breeding mountain plover in Utah. 
Based on no recent records of breeding mountain plover, this estimate 
may be optimistic.
North Dakota and South Dakota
    The mountain plover once bred in these States, with higher numbers 
present in South Dakota, but there are no recent breeding records in 
either North Dakota or South Dakota (North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department 2010; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 2010).
Canada
    A review of breeding records for Canada (Knapton et al. 2006, p. 
33) concluded that the mountain plover is a peripheral species in 
Canada with no evidence that it was ever a common or regular breeder. 
The first breeding record was documented in 1979 and the most recent in 
2007 (Knapton et al. 2006, pp. 32-33; Holroyd 2010, pers. comm.). Most 
sightings and breeding records come from extreme southeastern Alberta, 
with at least one incidence of confirmed breeding in Saskatchewan. 
Holroyd (2010, pers. comm.) provided updated records of sightings 
through 2009, mostly from Alberta. Andres and Stone (2009, p. 8) 
estimated fewer than 100 mountain plover breeding in Canada. We are not 
aware of any attempts to systematically survey all potential breeding 
areas in the Canadian range. However, given the low number and limited 
distribution of reported recent sightings (Holroyd 2010, pers. comm.), 
we believe that actual breeding numbers are fewer than 100.
Mexico
    Breeding records of mountain plover in Mexico have been documented 
in southeastern Coahuila and Nuevo Leon, following a history of 
breeding season observations in Mexican prairie dog colonies (Desmond 
and Chavez-Ramirez 2002 entire; Gonzalez-Rojas 2006, pp. 81-84). 
Nesting is suspected in San Luis Potosi, 130 mi (200 km) south of the 
above records (Luevano et al. 20