Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) 

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Doug Backlund, Wild Photos Photography ©
2 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
i

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) 

Conservation Plan

Stephanie L. Jones

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6, 

Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator,

Denver, CO

Cover Image: Sprague’s Pipit

Photo Credit: Doug Backlund, Wild Photos Photography ©
ii Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan

Author contact information:

Stephanie L. Jones

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator

P. O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225-0486

Phone: 303-236-4409

Email: Stephanie_Jones@fws.gov

For additional copies or information, contact:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator

P. O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225-0486

Recommended citation:

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s Pipit

(Anthus spragueii) conservation plan. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C.
Table of Contents iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. viii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................. ix

Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Legal Status ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

Global ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Canada ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

United States ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

México ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Description ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Range ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Canada ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

United States ................................................................................................................................................ 6

México ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Historical Changes ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Biology .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Breeding ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

 Arrival ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

 Breeding Display ................................................................................................................................... 9

 Territoriality .......................................................................................................................................... 9

 Foraging Behavior ................................................................................................................................ 9

 Diet ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

 Nest Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 9

 Nesting Behavior .................................................................................................................................. 9

 Incubation .............................................................................................................................................. 9

 Clutches per Year .................................................................................................................................. 9

 Clutch Size ........................................................................................................................................... 10

 Nesting Stage ...................................................................................................................................... 10

 Fledging ............................................................................................................................................... 10

 Nest Success ........................................................................................................................................ 10

 Predation .............................................................................................................................................. 10

 Nest Parasitism ................................................................................................................................... 10

 Mortality Other Than Predation ....................................................................................................... 10

 Return Rates ........................................................................................................................................ 10 

Habitat ................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Breeding ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

 Nests and Nest Sites ........................................................................................................................... 11

 Patch Size .............................................................................................................................................. 11

 Management ......................................................................................................................................... 11
iv Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan

Migration ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Wintering ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

 United States ........................................................................................................................................ 12

 México ....................................................................................................................................................12

Population Trends and Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 13

Trends .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Breeding Bird Survey ............................................................................................................................... 13

 Rangewide ............................................................................................................................................ 13

 Canada .................................................................................................................................................. 13

 United States ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Christmas Bird Count ............................................................................................................................... 15 

 United States ....................................................................................................................................... 15

 México ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Historic ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

Population Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 15

 Breeding ............................................................................................................................................... 15

 Wintering .............................................................................................................................................. 15

Densities ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

 Breeding ................................................................................................................................................15

 Wintering .............................................................................................................................................. 15

Monitoring Activities ................................................................................................................................. 16

 Grassland Bird Monitoring-Canada ................................................................................................. 16

 Other-Canada ...................................................................................................................................... 16

 Grassland Bird Monitoring-United States ....................................................................................... 16

 Other-United States ............................................................................................................................ 16

 Mexican Plateau Monitoring-México ................................................................................................ 16

Threats .................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Breeding ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

 Regulatory Protection .........................................................................................................................17

 Habitat ...................................................................................................................................................17

 Burning ................................................................................................................................................. 18

 Grazing .................................................................................................................................................. 18

 Fire and Grazing, Combined .............................................................................................................. 18

 Mowing .................................................................................................................................................. 18

 Introduced Vegetation .........................................................................................................................19

 Pesticides ...............................................................................................................................................19

 Fragmentation ...................................................................................................................................... 19

 Roads ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

 Depredation .......................................................................................................................................... 19

 Nest Parasitism ................................................................................................................................... 20

 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................... 20

 Drought ................................................................................................................................................. 20

 Energy Development .......................................................................................................................... 20

 Industrial Noise ................................................................................................................................... 20

Winter .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

United States .............................................................................................................................................. 21

México .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Management ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Patch size ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

Preclude Woody Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... 22

Invasive Grass and Forb Species ............................................................................................................. 22
Name of Section v

Mowing ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Prescribed Fire ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Grazing .........................................................................................................................................................23

Restoration .................................................................................................................................................. 23

Roads ............................................................................................................................................................23

Conservation ......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Other Species Covered .............................................................................................................................. 24

Canada ......................................................................................................................................................... 24

United States and México ......................................................................................................................... 24

Conservation Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 32

 Habitat Protection and Restoration .................................................................................................. 32

 Management ......................................................................................................................................... 32

 Monitoring, Surveys and Assessment ...............................................................................................32

 Research ................................................................................................................................................32

 Education and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 32

Completed and Ongoing Conservation Actions ................................................................................................... 33

Completed Actions ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Current and Ongoing Actions .................................................................................................................. 33 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 34

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Table of Contents v
vi Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

List of Figures

Figure 1. Current and potential historical range for Sprague’s Pipit .................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Relative abundances of Sprague’s Pipits in their breeding range; data from the Breeding Bird 

Survey for 1996-2007 (Sauer et al. 2008) ................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit, percent change per year; data from the Breeding Bird Survey for 1996-

2007 (Sauer et al. 2008). These trends do not necessarily reflect statistical significance (see Table 1) ...........13

Figure 4. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit for different time periods, data from the Breeding Bird Survey (J. R. 

Sauer, pers. comm.). Trends do not reflect statistical significance (see Sauer et al. 2008) .................................14

Figure 5. Christmas Bird Count data showing yearly variation in Sprague’s Pipit densities for the U.S. 

(National Audubon Society 2009)................................................................................................................................14

vi Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section List of Tables vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Status and trends of Sprague’s Pipits throughout their range. “Status” definitions from 

NatureServe Explorer (2009). BCC=Birds of Conservation Concern-2008 (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2008c); COSEWIC= Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2002); ESA=Endangered 

Species Act (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b); BBS=Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2008); 

IUCN=International Union for Conservation of Nature. ..................................................................................... 3

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague’s Pipit (SPPI). “Lead for current work”

represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three 

countries; “Potential” refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. 

“Critical” habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and 

México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization 

abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS 

Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = U. 

S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau 

of Land Management; USDOD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC 

= Commission for Environmental Cooperation; RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = 

Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía; CONANP = 

Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes 

Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals 

abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD = Stephen K. Davis, University 

of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. 

Jones, FWS.) ............................................................................................................................................................... 25
viii Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Executive Summary

Apparently widespread during early European 

settlement, Sprague’s Pipits breeding distribution 

has contracted sharply from its historical range. 

Sprague’s Pipits were recorded as abundant during 

early European exploration; currently, they are 

common only in remnant large grassland patches 

in the northern mixed-grass native prairie of North 

America. Much of the decline of Sprague’s Pipits 

occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as 

the short- and mixed-grass prairies were converted 

to agriculture. Since ca. 1900, approximately 75% of 

native Canadian prairie and 80% of aspen parkland 

have been converted from native grassland; in the 

United States, approximately 60% of native mixedgrass prairie has been converted to cropland.

Sprague’s Pipits are short distance migrants, moving 

from breeding grounds in the northern prairies of 

southern Canada and northern United States to the 

wintering grounds in southern United States and 

northern México. The breeding range in Canada has 

contracted from the eastern and northern portions 

of the historic range in Alberta and Manitoba. 

Similarly, the breeding range in the United States 

has contracted to the north and west in North Dakota 

and Minnesota, and north in Montana. There are 

no details on the historical distribution of Sprague’s 

Pipits on the wintering range in the southern United 

States and México. 

In 1999, Sprague’s Pipits were listed as “Threatened” 

in Canada by the Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC); 

the status was re-examined and confirmed in 

May 2000. Sprague’s Pipits were officially listed 

under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) 

as “Threatened” on 5 June 2003. They are also 

protected under provincial Wildlife Acts in British 

Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In 

the United States, Sprague’s Pipits were petitioned 

for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. 

On 14 September 2010 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service determined that this petition presented 

substantial information that listing Sprague’s Pipits 

as “Endangered” or “Threatened” was warranted 

but precluded by higher listing priorities. Sprague’s 

Pipits are listed as a “Species of Conservation 

Concern” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Division of Migratory Bird Management and 

classified as “Endangered” by the state of Minnesota. 

Sprague’s Pipits are a protected migratory bird 

species in México; they have no other official or legal 

designation there.

The principal causes for the declines in Sprague’s 

Pipit populations are habitat conversion to 

seeded pasture, hayfield, and cropland, as well as 

overgrazing by livestock. Moreover, management 

favoring intensive cattle grazing and reduced fire 

frequency may lead to the degradation of remaining 

suitable grassland tracts over much of their range. 

Without proper fire intervals, shrubs and excessive 

vegetative litter may reduce habitat quality; in 

addition, grasslands may even eventually succeed 

to shrubland or savannah. Energy development, 

introduced plant species, nest predation and 

parasitism, drought, and fragmentation of grasslands 

are all threats that currently impact Sprague’s Pipits 

populations throughout their present range. 

Management for Sprague’s Pipits consists of 

protecting, maintaining, and restoring native mixedgrass prairie in suitably large expanses. Converting 

cultivated land adjacent to native prairie to perennial 

cover, including seeding with a native grass mix, or 

one that includes a prostrate (versus erect) form of 

legume, could make smaller land tracts attractive 

to Sprague’s Pipits. Management through fire, 

grazing, or mowing may assist in maintaining native 

grasslands in many areas; however, the intensity

and frequency of disturbance is dependent upon 

soil productivity and climate factors, and thus the 

geographic area. Therefore, recommendations on 

fire, grazing and haying frequency and intensity 

should be area-specific.

The goals for the conservation of Sprague’s Pipit 

populations are to maintain or increase the current 

population size, distribution and viability. This can 

be achieved by simply preventing further loss and 

degradation of native prairie within their historic 

range. To achieve this goal, management strategies 

and recommendations must be researched and 

developed that are specific to particular geographic 

regions. To this end, this Conservation Plan includes 

a prioritized list of actions and needs that will begin 

to achieve long-term range-wide conservation of 

Sprague’s Pipits. In addition, several states and 

provinces have developed objectives and actions 

designed to address state-wide conservation of 

Sprague’s Pipits. Updated information on life history 

and population status are included here in support 

of this goal. Implementing effective conservation 

measures will require the cooperation of a coalition of 

local, regional, national, and international partners. 

viii Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section ix

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Nongame Migratory Bird Program, 

Region 6. I thank Patricia Worthing for her 

research, editorship, and reviews of this document 

and Christopher M. Rustay for his assistance in 

explaining the planning process and work on the 

action plan. I am also grateful to Brad A. Andres, 

Carol Aron, Brenda C. Dale, Alfonso Banda, J. Scott 

Dieni, Brush Freeman, William H. Howe, Suzanne 

D. Fellows, Nicola Koper, Scott Larson, Elizabeth 

M. Madden, Jeffery S. Marks, David Mehlman, 

Brent Ortego, Janet R. Ruth, Robert P. Russell, 

Christopher M. Rustay, Dan Svingen, and Catherine 

Wightman for their reviews and helpful comments 

on early drafts of this document. Thanks to Michael 

Artmann of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who 

created the range map using base maps from 

NatureServe, and to John R. Sauer for the figures 

from the Breeding Bird Survey used here. I am 

indebted to Brush Freeman, William H. Howe, Mark 

Howery, Brent Ortego, Robert P. Russell, Eileen 

Dowd-Stukel, and Dan Svingen for lending their 

expertise on the current and historical distribution of 

Sprague’s Pipits. I thank Doug Backlund for the use 

of his photographs of this unique grassland species.

Acknowledgements ix
x Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
Name of Section 1

Taxonomy

Class: Aves

Order: Passeriformes

Family: Motacillidae

Scientific Name: Anthus spragueii Audubon 1844

Common Name: Sprague’s Pipit

French: Pipit des Prairies; Pipit de Sprague

Spanish: Bisbita Ilamera

There are no unsettled taxonomic issues. There are 

no subspecies designated (American Ornithologists’ 

Union 1957, Pyle 1997a). Sprague’s Pipits were 

named Alauda spragueii by Audubon after Isaac 

Sprague. The first (type) specimen was documented 

as collected near Fort Union, North Dakota in 1843 

by Audubon, although the location that John Bell and 

Edward Harris shot the first bird could have been in 

or near Montana (J. Marks, pers. comm.).

Molecular data indicate that the closest living 

relatives to the Sprague’s Pipit are the Yellowish 

Pipit (A. lutescens) and the Short-billed Pipit (A. 

furcatus) of South America; these species form a 

clade to the other South American pipits. Thus, the 

Sprague’s Pipit may only be distantly related to the 

American Pipit (A. rubescens) and other Old World 

pipits (Robbins and Dale 1999).

Taxonomy 1
2 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Legal Status

Global

Sprague’s Pipits (pipits) are federally protected in 

the United States, Canada, and México under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 

U.S.C. 703-711: 40 Stat. 755; U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2008a). They are listed on the International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red 

List as Vulnerable (Hilton-Taylor 2000), but are not 

listed on the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species list (Inskipp and Gillett 2005; 

Table 1).

The species’ conservation status includes “Species 

of Special Concern/Watch List Species” by Partner’s 

in Flight and National Audubon Society (Rich et al.

2004, Butcher et al. 2007). The Nature Conservancy 

has assigned it a global rank of “apparently secure”, 

and rare (Table 1; NatureServe Explorer 2009). 

Sprague’s Pipit is also considered a Species of 

Highest Tri-National Concern by Partners in Flight 

(Berlanga et al. 2010).

Canada 

Sprague’s Pipits were listed in 1999 by the 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 

in Canada (COSEWIC) as “Threatened”; the 

status was re-examined and confirmed in May 

2000 (Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada 2002), based on status reports 

(Prescott 1997, Prescott and Davis 1998). Sprague’s 

Pipits were officially listed under the Species at 

Risk Act (SARA) as “Threatened” on 5 June 2003 

(Environment Canada 2008). Although this species 

remains relatively common in suitable habitat, 

numbers have declined significantly and there 

is evidence of a contraction of its range on the 

periphery (Prescott and Davis 1998, Environment 

Canada 2008).

Sprague’s Pipits are protected under provincial 

Wildlife Acts in British Columbia, Alberta, 

Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (Table 1). In Alberta, 

Sprague’s Pipits are a “Species of Special Concern”: 

a species that without human intervention may soon 

become threatened with extinction in the province. 

This designation was made on the basis of rapidly 

declining populations and a lack of research into the 

biology and management of the species (Prescott 

and Davis 1998). Sprague’s Pipits have no legal 

designation in Saskatchewan and are listed as 

“Threatened” in Manitoba. Pipits are included on 

the “Red List” of species considered to be candidates 

for designation as “Threatened” or “Endangered” in 

British Columbia. However, the very small number 

of reports for Sprague’s Pipits in British Columbia 

suggests that its occurrence there is accidental or 

casual, and it may be removed from the “Red” list in 

the future (Prescott 1997). 

United States 

Sprague’s Pipits are a Candidate for listing 

as “Endangered” or “Threatened” under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2008b, 2010). After being been petitioned for listing 

in 2008 (WildEarth Guardians 2008), the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that the 

petition presented substantial information indicating 

that listing the Sprague’s Pipit is warranted but 

precluded by higher listing priorities (U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2010). Sprague’s Pipits were 

listed as a “Species of Conservation Concern” by the 

USFWS Migratory Bird Management Office in 2008 

(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008c). Sprague’s 

Pipits are classified as “Endangered” in Minnesota 

(Table 1). They are considered a “Sensitive Species” 

in Region 1 (Northern Region) of the U. S. Forest 

Service (U. S. Forest Service 2005).

México

Sprague’s Pipits are a protected migratory bird 

species in México; they have no other official or 

legal designation (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales 2002).

Table 1 is a summary of the legal status of Sprague’s 

Pipit in the states and provinces where it occurs.

2 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section 3

Table 1. Status and trends of Sprague’s Pipits throughout their range. “Status” definitions from NatureServe Explorer (2009). BCC=Birds of Conservation Concern-2008 

(U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 2008c); COSEWIC=Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2002); ESA=Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 2008b); BBS=Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2008); IUCN=International Union for Conservation of Nature.Area Status State or Province Status

BBS Trend(1966-2007)

BBS Trend(1980-2007) Species Status

United States N4B, N4N

Candidate 1 (ESA), BCC National 

Concern -2.4 (

p=0.35; 

n=49) -3.1 (

p=0.47; 

n=45)

Regular breeder, migrant and winter resident

Montana S2B

Species of Greatest Conservation Need1 -0.6 (

p=0.85; 

n=21) -0.3 (

p=0.90; 

n=20) Regular breeder and migrant

North Dakota S3B Species of Conservation Priority -2.0 (

p=0.62; 

n=25) -2.4 (

p=0.75; 

n=23) Regular breeder and migrant

South Dakota S2B

Species of Greatest Conservation Need1 -12.7 (

p=0.36; 

n=3)2 -3.5 (

p=0.75; n=2)2 Regular breeder and migrant

Minnesota S1B Endangered3 Rare breeder

Wyoming S4N None Rare migrant

Kansas SNA None

Uncommon to rare migrant and casual winter resident

Nebraska SNRN None Uncommon spring and fall migrant

USFWS Region 6 n/a BCC Regional Concern -2.4 (

p=0.35; 

n=49) -3.1 (

p=0.46; 

n=45) Regular breeder and migrant

Arizona S2N None Regular winter resident and migrantNew Mexico S2N

Species of Greatest Conservation Need1 Regular winter resident and migrant

Texas S3N None Regular winter resident

Oklahoma SNRN

Species of Greatest Conservation Need1 Uncommon to rare migrant and casual winter resident

USFWS Region 2 n/a BCC Regional Concern Regular winter resident and migrant

Canada N4B Threatened (COSEWIC)

-4.3 (

p=0.00;

n=120)

+3.2 (

p=0.05; 

n=111) Regular breeder

Alberta S4B Species of Special Concern4 -4.1 (

p=0.01; 

n=61) -3.1 (

p=0.23; 

n=58) Regular breeder

Saskatchewan S4B None -4.2 (

p=0.05; 

n=45) -3.0 (

p=0.13; 

n=40) Regular breeder

Manitoba S2B Threatened -4.6 (

p=0.31; 

n=14) -10.2 (

p=0.18;

n=13) Regular breeder

BBS survey-wide G4 Vulnerable (IUCN)5 -3.9 (

p=0.00; 

n=169) -3.7 (

p=0.03; 

n=156) Regular breeder

México n/a None n/a n/a Regular winter resident

Other records: State/province (NatureServe Explorer 2009): Alabama (SNR), Arkansas (SNA), British Columbia (none), California (none), Colorado (SNA), Georgia (S3), Louisiana (S3S4N), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA)1State Wildlife Action Plan2Reflects data with an important deficiency3Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ets/birds.html) 4Alberta Species at Risk (http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/WildSpecies/Birds/Songbirds/SpraguesPipit.aspx)5IUCN Red List (Hilton-Taylor 2000)

Legal Status 3
4 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Sprague’s Pipits are grassland specialists endemic 

to the mixed-grass prairie in the northern Great 

Plains of North America (Robbins and Dale 1999). 

Sprague’s Pipits are a passerine about 14 cm in 

length (range: 10-18 cm). The wings and tail are 

dark brown with two pale indistinct wing-bars and 

mostly white outer retrices, the crown, nape and 

upperparts are buffy with blackish streaking and the 

face is buffy with a pale eye-ring creating a largeeyed appearance. The underparts are whitish, the 

breast has fine blackish streaks, and the breast and 

flanks are often faintly washed with buff. The bill is 

relatively slender, short, and straight, with a blackish 

upper mandible and a pale lower mandible with a 

blackish tip. The tarsi are yellow to pale pinkish 

brown and are relatively long with an elongated hind 

claw (Pyle 1997a, 1997b).

Molt and Juvenile Plumage.—Hatching year 

individuals may be separated from adults by the 

primary coverts which appear tapered and worn 

compared with the broader, less worn basic primary 

coverts of adults (Pyle et al. 2008). Knowledge of the 

molts of this species is preliminary and based on a 

small number of specimens (Pyle 1997a, 1997b; Pyle 

et al. 2008). 

Description

4 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section 5

Range

Range 

Figure 1. Current and potential historical range for Sprague’s Pipit.
6 Spragues’s Pipit ( Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan

Sprague’s Pipits are short to medium distance 

migrants, moving from breeding grounds in the 

northern prairies of southern Canada and northern 

United States to the wintering grounds in southern 

United States and northern México (Fig. 1; Robbins 

and Dale 1999). Sprague’s Pipits migrate through 

the Great Plains states of the United States (Fig. 1). 

Canada 

Breeding.—Sprague’s Pipits are largely confined to 

the grassland and aspen parkland regions of the 

prairie provinces (Fig. 1; Godfrey 1986, Prescott and 

Davis 1998) and breed in southeast Alberta west to 

the Rocky Mountain foothills, throughout southern 

Saskatchewan (Robbins and Dale 1999) and westcentral (Prescott and Davis 1998) and southwestern 

Manitoba (Robbins and Dale 1999). Historically 

common in Manitoba (Coues 1874, Carey et al. 2003), 

their range has contracted and Sprague’s Pipits 

are now rare, though locally they may be numerous 

(Carey et al. 2003). In south-central British 

Columbia a single breeding record was recorded in 

1991, the first breeding record in that province; no 

subsequent breeding has been documented, although 

pipits have occasionally been observed (Prescott and 

Davis 1998). Historically, they probably bred near 

Kimberly, British Columbia in 1959 (Prescott and 

Davis 1998).

Migration.—Sprague’s Pipits generally arrive in 

Canada in the spring in mid-Apr and depart in the fall 

by mid-Oct. 

Winter.—Sprague’s Pipits do not winter in Canada.

United States

Breeding.—Sprague’s Pipits breed in the northern Great 

Plains, with their highest numbers occurring in the 

central mixed-grass prairie (Fig. 2). Their breeding 

range is primarily in north-central and eastern 

Montana, to North Dakota through to northwestern 

and north-central South Dakota (Fig. 1). They occur 

casually in northwestern Minnesota and locally in 

southern South Dakota (Stewart 1975, South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union 1991, American Ornithologists 

Union 1998, Robbins and Dale 1999, Tallman et al. 

2002).

Migration.—Spring migration primarily occurs 

through the central Great Plains in Apr and May 

(Johnsgard 1979, Thompson and Ely 1992), with two 

early Nebraska reports from 17 Mar (Sharpe et al. 

2001). The latest date they were observed in Texas 

is 14 May (B. Freeman, pers. comm.). Fall migration 

primarily occurs through the Great Plains from late 

Sep through early Nov, with a few sightings from 

30 Aug (Sharpe et al. 2001), and extending in some 

Figure 2. Relative abundances of Sprague’s Pipits in the

fSf

(S

Figure 2. Relative abundances of Sprague’s Pipits in their breeding range; data from the Breeding Bird 

Survey for 1996-2007 (Sauer et al. 2008).
Name of Section 7

years through the first week of Dec in New Mexico 

(W. H. Howe, pers. comm.). Sprague’s Pipits are 

rarely seen on migration, which has been attributed 

to a number of reasons, including: 1) many shortdistance grassland species migrate high and at night 

without using stopover sites, potentially including 

Sprague’s Pipits (Thompson and Ely 1992; SLJ),

however, it is uncertain whether their night flight 

calls that were recorded in Nebraska and Kansas 

came from migrants or from birds flushed from the 

ground (W. Evans, pers. comm.); 2) they have solitary 

and cryptic behavior during the non-breeding season 

(Prescott and Davis 1998); 3) many observers are 

largely unfamiliar with the flight call notes (Seyffert 

2001; W. H. Howe, pers. comm.); and 4) there are few 

migration studies in grasslands (J. M. Ruth, pers. 

comm.) or few observers in remote grassland areas 

(M. Howery, pers. comm.). 

Sprague’s Pipits are generally described as being 

an uncommon migrant immediately south of the 

breeding range (Fig 1). They are described as 

“accidental” in Iowa, “a rare migrant” in Wyoming 

and Illinois, and generally uncommon in Oklahoma. 

They are occasionally found from late Sep through 

Nov in eastern New Mexico, but the later records 

are probably late migrants (W. H. Howe and J. M. 

Ruth, pers. comm.). In Oklahoma, Sprague’s Pipits 

have been documented in the central and western 

two-thirds of the main body of the state, and in 

the southern portion of the panhandle. They are 

undocumented in the eastern third of Oklahoma (M. 

Howery, pers. comm.). Sprague’s Pipits are found in 

all months except Jun through Aug in Texas; those 

seen inland and north of the primary wintering areas 

are probably migrants, although some individuals 

may linger into the winter there (Freeman 1999). 

Sprague’s Pipits are a rare migrant in California and 

a casual fall migrant in the eastern United States 

(Robbins and Dale 1999). 

Winter.—Sprague’s Pipits winter in the United 

States from the southeast corner of Arizona, 

southern New Mexico, central and southern coastal 

prairies in Texas, through southern Oklahoma. 

There are regular sightings in southern Louisiana 

and Arkansas (Root 1988) and occasional sightings 

in southern Kansas and Missouri, Tennessee, 

northwestern Mississippi, and other portions of 

Texas (Fig. 1; American Ornithologists’ Union 1998). 

Winter distribution data show highest densities in 

Texas (National Audubon Society 2009).

México 

Breeding.—There are no breeding occurrences in 

México.

Migration.—There is no migration information from 

México. 

Winter.—Sprague’s Pipits winter in northern México 

from northeastern Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and 

Nuevo León south to northern Michoacán, Puebla, 

central Veracruz, and perhaps Guerrero (Fig. 1; 

Howell and Wilson 1990, Howell and Webb 1995, 

American Ornithologists’ Union 1998). Christmas 

Bird Count (CBC; National Audubon Society 2009) 

data show Sprague’s Pipits occur every year in 

northern Chihuahua and some years in Coahuila. 

There is very limited data from México documenting 

the status and distribution of Sprague’s Pipits. 

Historical Changes 

Canada.—The eastern and northern portions of the 

historical breeding range of Sprague’s Pipits has 

contracted in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan 

(Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 

in Canada 2002). Range contractions may occur 

temporarily due to climatic conditions, however; 

there are suspected long-term range contractions 

for Sprague’s Pipits in the Canadian provinces that 

are their primary range. In the 1980s and 1990s, 

Pipits were not recorded from the Peace parkland 

of northwestern Alberta; this may not represent a 

“dramatic” reduction in the breeding range as they 

were probably never widespread here (Prescott and 

Davis 1998). In Saskatchewan, Sprague’s Pipits were 

described in the 1930s as “not uncommon”, by the 

1950s, the species was described as being “rather 

rare” (Prescott and Davis 1998). In Manitoba, 

Sprague’s Pipits have declined dramatically. 

Sprague’s Pipits were once one of the commonest 

prairie birds in the western portion of the province 

(Carey et al. 2003). Their range has contracted 

several hundred kilometers south from areas north 

and east of Winnipeg in Manitoba; they are now 

considered “fairly rare” or “virtually absent” from 

areas where they were once a regular, but uncommon 

summer resident. Pipits are still fairly numerous, 

although localized, in parts of southwest Manitoba 

(Carey et al. 2003).

United States.—The range for Sprague’s Pipits 

in the United States has contracted notably on its 

periphery. Changes and declines in abundance have 

contracted the range west and north in North Dakota 

and Minnesota and to the north in Montana. Data on 

South Dakota are inconclusive. 

As he traveled near present-day Lostwood National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in northwestern North 

Dakota in 1873, Elliot Coues remarked on the 

“...trio of the commonest birds...” encountered: 

Baird’s Sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), Sprague’s 

Pipits, and Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius 

ornatus), stating “...Sprague’s Pipits were 

sometimes so numerous that the air seemed full of 

them...” (Coues 1878, Madden et al. 1999). After 

fewer than 100 years of settlement and agricultural 

development, Sprague’s Pipits in North Dakota 

have declined to the point that they are no longer 

among the 15 most common birds and are currently 

absent in the easternmost counties (Stewart 1975). 

In Montana, there have been no breeding records 

in the southern and south-central counties since 

Range 7
8 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

1991 or earlier (Lenard et al. 2003), although some 

singing males have been noted in Jun (C. Wightman, 

pers. comm.). In South Dakota, pipits are absent 

in the eastern portion of the state and considered 

a rare and local summer resident (South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union 1991, Tallman et al. 2002). 

The only breeding records are a nest found in 1907 

and fledglings in 1996 (Tallman et al. 2002). The 

species was recorded in the summer months during 

the first South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas (1988-

1993) in McPherson, Dewey, Corson, Perkins and 

Pennington counties. There are also summer records 

in Edmunds and Harding counties in the 2000’s (R.P. 

Russell, pers. comm.). Sprague’s Pipits may always 

have been local and uncommon breeders in South 

Dakota, but historical data is lacking. 

In Minnesota, Sprague’s Pipits range has contracted 

substantially since European settlement and since 

the 1920s there has been a steady decline in numbers 

and breeding numbers and occurrence in the state. 

Currently, it is only a casual visitor and unknown as 

a breeding species (R. P. Russell, pers. comm.). Prior 

to 1890, the species could be found throughout the 

southwestern and south-central parts of Minnesota, 

breeding as far south as Pipestone and adjacent 

counties and as far east as Ottertail County (Roberts 

1932). It was a common breeder in Kittson County 

in the northwest corner of the state in 1898, then 

no other data until 1928 when a dedicated trip to 

the Red River Valley found that it was only a casual 

summer resident on virgin prairie areas of the 

northwest valley (Roberts 1932). In recent years, a 

few birds have been observed on fall migration with 

Sep records from Dakota County in the southeast 

and Duluth in the northeast and Oct records from 

Cottonwood and Wilkin counties in the west. Likely 

these are birds straying eastward from breeding 

populations to the west or northwest of Minnesota 

(R. P. Russell, pers. comm.). The Minnesota County 

Biological Survey recorded a few birds at one site in 

Roseau County in 1991 and a single bird at another 

site in the same county in 2009 (S. Stucker, pers. 

comm.). 

México.--There is no information on historical range 

in México.

8 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section 9

Breeding

Arrival.—Sprague’s Pipits arrive on the breeding 

grounds from the third week of Apr to mid-May (Maher 

1973, Stewart 1975, SLJ); some individuals linger on 

the wintering grounds into early May. Pair formation 

begins shortly after arrival on the breeding grounds and 

eggs are laid between the second week of May through 

early Aug (Sutter 1996, Davis 2003, Jones et al. 2010). 

In Montana, the median nest initiation date was 25 May; 

the earliest date a nest was initiated was 7 May, while 

the latest date a nest was initiated was 31 Jul (Jones et 

al. 2010). Nest initiation dates tended to differ among 

years, and did not appear to be influenced by arrival 

dates (Davis 2003, SLJ). 

Breeding Display.—Sprague’s Pipits are unique in 

being so easy to hear yet so difficult to see with their

“...prolonged and unique aerial display...” (Robbins 

1998). The male’s flight song is delivered high above 

the prairie in a series of high-pitched jingling notes 

that are audible>300 m. Males often hurry from 

view immediately after returning to the ground at the 

end of the display. Sprague’s Pipit display bouts are 

prolonged, and persistent male display occurs from the 

time of arrival (approximately the third week of Apr) 

through the third week of May at Lostwood NWR in 

North Dakota (Robbins 1998). This was followed by a 

period of two to three weeks where display rates were 

reduced, followed by another period of elevated display 

rates (Robbins 1998) with some display into mid-Aug 

(Robbins and Dale 1999). This bimodal display regime 

is probably related to the breeding cycle, with display 

rates decreasing once a first clutch of eggs is laid and 

copulation opportunities decrease (Robbins 1998, 

Robbins and Dale 1999). This display is also observed,

although rarely, during early migration in late Apr or 

very early May in Texas (Freeman 1999).

Territoriality.—Sprague’s Pipit breeding territories 

are used for both nesting and feeding. These territories 

are presumably established and maintained through the 

aerial display. Occasionally, territorial males interrupt 

aerial displays and give chase to other presumed 

males that pass through the territory (Robbins and 

Dale 1999). Mapping of territory boundaries in 2007 

indicated pipit territories rarely crossed trails (Dale et 

al 2009); territories were reported as 2.5±0.5 (SD) ha 

(n=30; Davis and Fisher 2009). In North Dakota, males 

were not uniformly distributed; all territories were 

located in elevated areas with short grass and relatively 

low sedge and forb densities (Robbins 1998).

 

 Foraging Behavior.--Sprague’s Pipits typically forage 

alone throughout the day in all seasons. They walk or 

run while gleaning food from the ground surface or 

grasses, typically in grass that is several centimeters 

tall (Robbins and Dale 1999).

Diet.—The diet of Sprague’s Pipits during the breeding 

season is almost entirely comprised of arthropods with 

a small amount of vegetable matter (Robbins and Dale 

1999). Sprague’s Pipits feed primarily on arthropods 

during migration and on wintering grounds, with the 

addition of seeds during the later part of the winter 

(Emlen 1972, Robbins and Dale 1999).

Nest Characteristics.—Sprague’s Pipits build ground 

nests in grasslands primarily with native grasses of 

intermediate height and density, with little bare ground 

and few shrubs; many times the nest is at the base of 

a dense tussock of grass (Sutter 1997, Dieni and Jones 

2003). Coarse and fine dried grasses (about 5-15 cm 

in length) were woven into a cup; long grass growing 

adjacent to the nest is sometimes interwoven with 

loose grass forming a dome (Sutter 1997). This canopy 

can range from almost a complete dome to almost full 

exposure (Harris 1933, Sutter 1997). Nest entrances 

frequently have runways that extend up to 15 cm in 

length (Harris 1933, Sutter 1997). Nests were usually 

<100 m from roads and far (mean 20.7 m) from the 

nearest perch (shrubs and rocks) (Sutter 1996, 1997).

Nesting Behavior.—The female remains on the nest 

until an approaching observer is close. Once flushed, 

she flies low for a few meters then lands in the grass 

or climbs in an undulating flight to circle the area. 

When undisturbed, she approaches the nest by flying 

low to within a few meters and then walks to the nest. 

Incubation and brooding is primarily by females; 

although males will incubate and brood at an unknown 

rate (SLJ). Adult pipits responded aggressively to 

researcher presence if nestlings or dependent young 

were nearby (Davis and Fisher 2009), and during late 

incubation or with taped call playback (SLJ). 

Incubation.—In Montana, the mean incubation time 

was 12.2±0.12 days (range: 7-15 days, n=85; Jongsomjit 

et al. 2007, Jones et al. 2010). In Saskatchewan 

from 1996-2000 the incubation period was 13 days 

(Davis 2003); mean incubation from Manitoba and 

Saskatchewan combined was 13.4±0.3 days (n=9; Davis 

2009). 

Clutches per Year.—The hatching rate for Sprague’s 

Pipits in Montana was 85% (Jones et al. 2010). Renesting and second broods have been occasionally 

Biology

Biology 9
10 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

documented for Sprague’s Pipit (n=4; Sutter 1996; 

n=1; Davis 2009), as has polygyny (n=1; Dohms and 

Davis 2009). 

Clutch Size.—Mean clutch size was 4.6±0.17 eggs 

(n=123; Jongsomjit et al. 2007, Jones et al. 2010) 

in Montana; 4.4 eggs (n=49; Maher 1973), 4.6 eggs 

(n=51; Sutter 1996), and 4.8 eggs (n=57; Davis 2003) in 

Saskatchewan. Sprague’s Pipits clutch size generally 

increased during the first month of the breeding season 

(Davis 2003, Jones et al. 2010).

Nestling Stage.—In Montana, the mean nestling period 

was 13.1 days (range: 9 17 days, n=17; Jongsomjit et 

al. 2007, Jones et al. 2010). In Saskatchewan, Sprague’s 

Pipit young left the nest 11-13 days after hatching 

(Robbins and Dale 1999); mean nestling period was 

11 days (Davis 2003). The average nesting period for 

Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined was 12.1±0.2 

days (n=43; Davis 2009). In Montana, the mean 

number of nestlings per all nests initiated was 4.0±0.26 

nestlings (n=97; Jones et al. 2010).

Fledging.—Fledging dates ranged from 13 Jun 

through the last week of Aug, with 50% of pipits 

fledging between late Jun and mid-Jul at Matador, 

Saskatchewan (Maher 1973). Fledging ranged from 11 

Jun to 19 Aug with 50% of fledging dates after mid-Jul 

at Last Mountain Lake and other sites in Saskatchewan 

(Dale 1983). A brood fledged as late as 31 Aug near 

Winnipeg, Manitoba (Harris 1933). At Bowdoin NWR 

in northcentral Montana, the earliest date for fledging 

was 6 Jun and the latest 24 Aug (Jones et al. 2010, SLJ). 

Fledglings spent the first two days sitting in relatively 

tall (20-30 cm high) grasses and remained motionless 

when approached; by day 9, fledglings flew at least 25 m 

when approached, and by day 11, young pipits were able 

to make longer distance flights of 50-60 m (Davis and 

Fisher 2009). In Saskatchewan from 1996 - 2000, the 

mean number of young fledged per successful nest was 

3.4±0.32 (n=20; Davis 2003). In Montana from 1997–

2007, the mean number fledged per successful nest was 

3.4±0.35 (n=49) and the mean number fledged per pair 

was 1.3±1.07 (Jones et al. 2010).

Nest Success.—Mayfield nest success (Mayfield 1975) 

was reported to be 24% (n=65) in Saskatchewan (Davis 

2003) and 27.7% (n=120) in Montana (Jones et al. 

2010). Predation was the primary cause of nest failure 

in Saskatchewan from 1996-2000 (Davis 2003) and from 

1997-2007 in Montana (Jones and Dieni 2007, Jones 

et al. 2010). Nest predation was highest during the 

nestling stage with daily survival rates typically lower 

than those of the incubation period (Davis 2003, Jones 

et al. 2010). Predation may influence nest site choice, 

but nest age appears to be a stronger predictor of nest 

survival than nest site (Davis 2005, Davis et al. 2006; 

SLJ).

Predation.—Documented and suspected nest predators 

are diverse and include: mammals, such as Richardson’s

ground squirrel (Spermophilus richarsonii), American 

badger (Taxidea taxus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela 

frenata), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and coyote (Canis 

latrans); mice and voles (Zapus, Reithrodontomys, 

Peromyscus, and Microtus spp.); and snakes, such as 

bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), garter snakes 

(Thamnophis spp.), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus 

viridis). Potential avian predators, such as Merlin 

(Falco columbarius), gulls (Larus spp.), Short-eared 

Owl (Asio flammeus), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus), Black-billed Magpie (Pica hudsonia) 

and American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) have 

been observed within the immediate vicinity of pipit 

nests (Jones and Dieni 2007). Documented nest 

predators from camera data in Saskatchewan and 

Montana are Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), 

Black-billed Magpie, Western Meadowlark (Sturnella 

neglecta), garter snakes, mice, 13-lined ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), deer (Cervidae), 

striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and coyote (Davis et 

al. in prep.).

Nest Parasitism.—Brown-headed Cowbirds 

(Molothrus ater; cowbirds) parasitize Sprague’s Pipit 

nests; pipits accept cowbird eggs and their nesting 

season largely overlaps with that of cowbirds (Davis 

2003). Parasitism of Sprague Pipit nests by cowbirds 

is low compared with other grassland species (Davis 

2003, Jones et al. 2010) and appears to be lower in more 

extensive prairies than in fragmented ones (Dechant 

et al. 2003). The rate of cowbird parasitism on pipit 

nests varied regionally: 18% (southwestern Manitoba: 

n=17; Davis and Sealy 2000), 15.4% (Saskatchewan: 

n=54; Davis 2003), and 2.4% (Montana: n=128; Jones 

et al. 2010). Sprague’s Pipits failed to fledge cowbird 

young in Montana (Jones et al. 2010) and Saskatchewan 

(Davis 2003); in Manitoba, one cowbird young was 

fledged (Davis 2003), suggesting Sprague’s Pipits are a 

poor quality cowbird host. However, in Manitoba and 

Saskatchewan, the presence of cowbird eggs/nestlings 

resulted in reducing clutch size and hatching success of 

Sprague’s Pipits, with an overall cost of 1.3–1.6 young 

per parasitized nest (Davis and Sealy 2000, Davis 2003).

Mortality Other Than Predation.—High mortality 

rates in nestlings occurred due to prolonged periods 

of cold wet weather, flooding, trampling by cattle (Bos

spp.), exposure, and desertion (Davis and Fisher 2009; 

SLJ). During the 2004–2006 breeding seasons at Last 

Mountain Lake, Saskatchewan, over 90% of active nests 

failed during periods of cool wet weather, due to flooding 

and exposure or starvation (Environment Canada 2008).

Return Rates.—Sprague’s Pipits have low return rates 

(2.1%, n=48; Jones et al. 2007). Low site fidelity rates 

are typical of many passerines breeding in northern 

grasslands where habitat suitability varies with annual 

weather patterns, but may also be in response to fire 

frequency and grazing intensity (Andersson 1980, 

Jones et al. 2007). Sprague’s Pipits respond to their 

unpredictable environment by settling in the most 

suitable habitats they encounter each spring (Andersson 

1980, Jones et al. 2007).

10 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Habitat 11

Breeding

Sprague’s Pipits are closely associated with native 

grassland throughout their range (Sutter 1996, 1997; 

Sutter and Brigham 1998; Madden et al. 2000; Grant 

et al. 2004) and are less abundant (or absent) in areas 

of introduced grasses than in areas of native prairie 

(Kantrud 1981, Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Dale et al. 

1997, Madden et al. 2000, Grant et al. 2004). Generally, 

pipits prefer to breed in well-drained native grasslands 

with high plant species richness and diversity. They 

prefer higher grass and sedge cover, less bare ground, 

and an intermediate average grass height when 

compared to the surrounding landscape, <5-20% shrub 

and brush cover, no trees at the territory scale, and 

litter cover <12 cm (Sutter 1996, Madden et al. 2000, 

Dechant et al. 2003, Dieni and Jones 2003, Grant et al. 

2004). The amount of residual vegetation remaining 

from the previous years’ growth also appears to be a 

strong positive predictor of Sprague’s Pipits occurrence 

(Madden 1996, Sutter 1996, Prescott and Davis 1998, 

Sutter and Brigham 1998) and where they put their 

nests (Dieni and Jones 2003, Davis 2005). 

Sprague’s Pipits prefer breeding sites in grasslands 

with a range of vegetative structure, which may vary 

geographically. In Saskatchewan, in native pastureland, 

Sprague’s Pipits occurred more frequently in areas 

with <10% bare soil and <10% clubmoss (Selaginella 

densa; Davis et al. 1999). In Montana, nest abundance 

was positively associated in sites with ≤ 22% clubmoss 

cover and dominated by native grass (Stipa, Bouteloua, 

Koeleria, and Schizachyrium spp.); abundance was 

negatively associated with prickly pear cactus (Opuntia

spp.) cover, and density of low-growing shrubs (Dieni 

and Jones 2003). In North Dakota, Sprague’s Pipits 

were negatively impacted by increasing tall shrub 

(>1 m) and brush (<1 m) cover and increasing litter 

depth >12 cm (Grant et al. 2004). They had a negative 

reaction to tall shrub cover in the landscape and, with 

other grassland endemics, preferred areas with <20% 

shrubs; however, they were not woodland-sensitive at 

the landscape scale but were negatively associated with 

trees at the territory scale (Grant et al. 2004). 

Sprague’s Pipits rarely occur in cultivated lands, and 

are uncommon on non-native planted pasturelands 

(Owens and Myres 1973, Sutter 1996, Davis et al.

1999, McMaster and Davis 2001). They have not been 

documented to nest in cropland (Owens and Myres 1973, 

Koper et al. 2009), in land in the Conservation Reserve 

Program (Higgins et al. 2002) or in dense nesting cover 

planted for waterfowl habitat (Prescott 1997). However, 

territorial displays have been recorded in non-native 

Habitat

grasslands where the structure of the vegetation was 

similar to that of native vegetation (Dale et al. 1997, 

Sutter and Brigham 1998, Davis et al. 1999, Higgins 

et al. 2002, Dohms 2009). In Saskatchewan, Sprague’s 

Pipits have been documented nesting in non-native 

hayfields at Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area 

(Dale 1983); conversely, they were not associated with 

hayfields in the Missouri Coteau (Dechant et al. 2003).

Nests and Nest Sites.—In Montana, Sprague’s Pipit 

nest sites were in grasslands primarily with native 

grasses of intermediate height and density, with little 

bare ground or clubmoss and few shrubs, and in nest 

patches with greater litter cover and depth, while 

avoiding areas with prickly pear cactus cover (Dieni and 

Jones 2003). They tended to nest in patches that had 

little or no clubmoss cover, nor was clubmoss ever used 

as a nesting substrate (Dieni and Jones 2003). These

nest site data were consistent with findings reported 

from Saskatchewan (Sutter 1997), except there was no 

evidence of selection against forb cover (Dieni and Jones 

2003). Selection for vertical habitat characteristics 

by this species appears to be occurring at the scale 

of the nest site rather than the nest (Dieni and Jones 

2003, Grant et al. 2004). In Saskatchewan, Sprague’s 

Pipits nest sites were most abundant in areas with 

intermediate cover values, higher grass and sedge cover, 

higher maximum height, lower forb and shrub cover, 

lower bare ground cover, and lower forb density than 

random sites; average vegetation characteristics at nest 

sites were: 52.7% grass and sedge cover, 10.5% forb and 

shrub cover, 15.2% litter cover, 16.8% bare ground cover, 

55.6 forb contacts per m2, 27.7 cm maximum vegetation 

height, 2.4 cm litter depth, and vegetation density of 1.1 

contacts above 10 cm and 3 contacts below 10 cm (Davis 

et al. 1999). 

Patch Size.—-Sprague’s Pipits are likely influenced 

by the size of grassland patches and the amount of 

grassland in the landscape (Davis 2004). In southern 

Saskatchewan, Davis (2004) found that Sprague’s 

Pipits abundance was influenced by the size and 

configuration of suitable grassland patches and the 

amount of grassland in the landscape. Pipits also had a 

50% probability of occurring on patches ≥ 145 ha (95% 

CI=69-314 ha); pipits were absent from grassland 

patches <29 ha (Davis 2004). A smaller edge:area ratio 

had higher pipit abundances, and was an important 

predictor of their occurrence (Davis 2004). No 

consistent effect of patch size was found on nest success 

(Winter et al. 2006; SLJ).

Management.—Grazing, fire, and mowing are the most 

common management techniques used in grasslands to 
12 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

create or restore suitable habitat for Sprague’s Pipits 

or to prevent further degradation. The effects will vary 

with intensity and frequency, as well as environmental 

conditions, such as moisture, soil type, plant species 

composition and geography (see Threats, below; Maher 

1973, Owens and Myres 1973, Karasiuk et al 1977, 

Kantrud 1981, George et al. 1992). 

Migration

No data. Migration habitats are poorly known. Where 

pipits have been seen during migration, the habitats 

used are similar to those documented on the breeding 

and wintering grounds, including pastures, prairie-dog 

(Cynomys spp.) towns, fallow cropland, and short-, 

mixed- and heavily grazed tall-grass prairies (Thompson 

and Ely 1992). 

Winter

United States.—Winter habitats are similar to breeding 

habitats; i.e., large grasslands areas that may or may 

not primarily consist of native grass (Dieni et al. 2003, 

Desmond et al. 2005). In southern Texas, Sprague’s 

Pipits were located almost exclusively in grass-forb 

prairie (27 individuals/km2

), and rarely in shrub 

grassland (2 individuals/km2; Emlen 1972). Sprague’s 

Pipits southern distribution is coincident with the 

occurrence of Andropogon spp. grasses (Root 1988), 

although this may be due to limited sample sizes. In 

Arizona and New Mexico they are found in extensive 

areas of well developed desert grasslands (MerolaZwartjes 2005). 

In Texas, Sprague’s Pipits winter in heavily 

grazed grasslands dominated by little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium) and Andropogon spp, 

and in large, over-grazed pastures (Grzybowski 1982); 

they are often found in patches where the grass is very 

short (Freeman 1999). Large numbers were also found 

on approximately 2000 ha (~5000 acres) of former 

rice fields, that had been re-planted to Bermuda grass 

(Cynodon spp.) a decade or more earlier and heavily 

grazed; in these fields, pipits occurred most frequently 

on the saline outcroppings where there was little 

vegetation (B. Ortego, pers. comm.). The 2nd highest 

densities of wintering pipits in Texas were observed 

on grasslands at the Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR 

in Colorado County and the Mad Island complex in 

Matagorda County These areas each consists of > 4000 

ha (~10,000 acres) of native grasslands with moderate 

grazing and with the dominant grasses being normally 

about 0.2 m high. Pipits were also found frequently on 

turf grass farms, golf courses, heavily gazed Bermuda 

grass (Freeman 1999; B. Ortego, pers. comm.) and areas 

of burned pasture (Freeman 1999).

In both Texas and México, Sprague’s Pipits are often 

observed using roads through appropriate habitat 

(Freeman 1999; B. Ortego, pers. comm.). These are 

typically either paved or unpaved secondary or tertiary 

roads with grass shoulders in agricultural settings 

without much traffic (Freeman 1999; B. Ortego, pers. 

comm.).

México.—In northwestern Chihuahua, Sprague’s 

Pipits showed strong association with open grasslands, 

both densely and sparsely vegetated, and were not 

found in grassy agricultural borders or overgrazed 

ejido lands, and they were negatively associated with 

shrub abundance (Desmond et al. 2005). Comparisons 

of avian species assemblages on ejido land and an 

adjacent private ranch found that overgrazed ejido

land did not support Sprague’s Pipits (Desmond et al. 

2005). A seasonal study of bird distribution in Cuatro 

Ciénegas, Coahuila, México (Contreras-Balderas et al. 

1997) noted that Sprague’s Pipits were found in three 

vegetation types: 1) scrub dominated by creosote bush 

(Larrea tridentata); 2) mesquite dominated by catclaw 

acacia (Acacia greggi); and 3) alkali scrub dominated 

by Atriplex sp., salt-tolerant grasses (Sporobolus, 

Distichlis, and Monanthochloe spp.) and mesquite 

(Prosopis laevigata). 

In north-central México (Sonora, Chihuahua, Durango, 

Coahuila, and portions of Nuevo León and San Luis 

Potosí), Sprague’s Pipits were a widespread winter 

resident in Chihuahuan desert grasslands (Panjabi et al.

2010). Densities have some annual variation, however,

estimates of global densities were similar across years 

(2007–2009; Panjabi et al. 2010). Shrub cover had a 

strong negative influence on pipit abundance, with grass 

and other cover variables important positive predictors 

(Panjabi et al. 2010). 

12 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Population Trends and Estimates Name of Section 13

Trends

Breeding Bird Survey

Rangewide.—Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data show 

Sprague’s Pipit populations experiencing a statistically 

significant rangewide decline of 3.9% per year (1967-

2007, n=169, p=0.00; Table 1; Sauer et al. 2008). The 

most dramatic population decreases occurred in Canada 

(6.0% per year between 1966 and 1996; n=37, p=0.09; 

Sauer et al. 2008). On a continental scale, most areas 

show declining populations over the past 30 years, 

with non-significant increases occurring only in the 

southwestern portion of the breeding range (Fig. 3; 

Sauer et al. 2008). Population monitoring in Sprague’s 

Pipits is complicated by their nomadic behavior in 

response to annual weather conditions (Fig. 4; Root 

1988, Jones et al. 2007). 

Population Trends and Estimates

Canada.—Sprague’s Pipit experienced a 4.8% annual 

decline between 1966 and 2005; pipit populations in all 

jurisdictions and physiographic strata experienced their 

largest declines between 1966 and 1979 (Environment 

Canada 2008). A recent analysis of BBS routes within 

the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture indicates a 4.5% 

annual decline between 1970 and 2005; 2.8% annual 

decline in the prairie region compared with a 6.4% 

decline in the northern parkland region (Environment 

Canada 2008). Trend results for Grassland Bird 

Monitoring-Canada (1996–2004) show a decline of 

10.5% annually in the prairie region compared with 

a 1.8% annual decline measured by the BBS in Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 11 for the same period (B. 

Dale and B. Collins, pers. comm.). 

Declines in Alberta, where the species reaches its 

highest continental abundance, have been more rapid 

(10% per year) over the same period (Environment 

Canada 2008). Declines are also steep in Saskatchewan, 

Figure 3. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit, percent change per year; data from the Breeding Bird Survey for 1996-

Figure 3 2007 (Sauer et al. 2008). These trends do not necessarily reflect statistical significance (see Table 1) . Trends for Sprague’s Pipit, percent change pe

Bird Survey for 1996-2007 (Sauer et al. 2008). These tre

statistical significance (see Table 1).
14 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Figure 5. Christmas Bird Count data showing yearly variation in Sprague’s P

densities for the U.S. (National Audubon Society 2009).

Figure 5. Christmas Bird Count data showing yearly variation in Sprague’s Pipit densities for the U.S. (National 

Audubon Society 2009).

Sprague’s Pipit, US, From Count 66 to 99

14 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan

SPRAGUE’S PIPIT TRENDS

 1966-1996 1966-1976

 1977-1986 1987-1996

Figure 4. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit for different time periods, data from the Breeding Bird Survey (J. R. Sauer, written comm.). Trends do 

not reflect statistical significance (see Sauer et al. 2008). 

SPRAGUE’S PIPIT TRENDS

 1966-1996 1966-1976

 1977-1986 1987-1996

Figure 4. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit for different time periods, data from the Breeding Bird Survey (J. R. Sauer, written comm.). Trends do 

not reflect statistical significance (see Sauer et al. 2008). 

SPRAGUES PIPIT TRENDS

 1966-1996 1966-1976

 1977-1986 1987-1996

Figure 4. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit for different time periods, data from the Breeding Bird Survey (J. R. Sauer, written comm.). Trends do 

not reflect statistical significance (see Sauer et al. 2008). 

Figure 4. Trends for Sprague’s Pipit for different time periods, data from the Breeding Bird Survey (J. R. 

Sauer, pers. comm.). Trends do not reflect statistical significance (see Sauer et al. 2008).
Name of Section 15

4.2% per year (n=45, p=0.05) for the survey period 

(1966–2007; Environment Canada 2008). Sprague’s 

Pipits populations in Saskatchewan have declined 

4.8% per year since 1966, and 7.9% per year since 1980 

(Prescott 1997). 

United States.—In the United States trends are largely 

non-significant (Table 1; Sauer et al. 2008). There was 

no change in the population size of Sprague’s Pipits in 

North Dakota between 1967 and 1993 (Igl and Johnson 

1997). 

Christmas Bird Count

United States.—CBC data show large yearly swings 

in numbers (Fig. 5; National Audubon Society 2009), 

and in general, the abundance of pipits was too low and 

sporadic for CBC data to yield meaningful information 

(Root 1988). Some of this variation may be due to 

measurement error, or to Sprague’s Pipits nomadic 

behavior in response to annual weather conditions (Root 

1988). There is also some annual variation in the areas 

of the highest winter densities; however, while poorer 

quality sites are inconsistent in the number of pipits 

from year to year, the higher quality sites consistently 

have high numbers of pipits each winter (B. Ortego, 

pers. comm.).

In another analysis of CBC data (National Audubon 

Society 2009), the 40-year (winters of 1996 through 

2005) trend data for Sprague’s Pipits showed a decline 

for Texas (2.54%), Louisiana (6.21%), Mississippi 

(10.2%), and Arkansas (9.27%), although abundances 

were very low and variable (U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2010). Overall, the 40-year trend showed a 

median declining population of approximately 3.23%

annually; however, no tests of statistical significance 

were given (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). 

México.—CBC data (National Audubon Society 2009) 

data show Sprague’s Pipits occurring every year in 

northern Chihuahua (Ejido San Pedro) and some years 

in Coahuila. Few individuals have been observed, with 

only one pipit documented in 1979, 1980, and 1986. 

Beginning in 1989, pipits were observed in northern 

México in all years. The highest number of individuals 

was in 1996, with 54 reported on one circle, and in 2004, 

with 48 individuals reported on five circles (National 

Audubon Society 2009). Generally, there is limited 

CBC data from México and therefore, CBC data could 

be misleading in the relative importance of México to 

wintering populations (J. M. Ruth, pers. comm.). 

Historic

Anecdotal accounts from early naturalists suggest 

that Sprague’s Pipits were one of the most common 

grassland songbirds in the northern Great Plains. Since 

its discovery, the Sprague’s Pipit has suffered greatly 

throughout its breeding range from conversion of 

short- and mid-grass prairie to agriculture by EuroAmericans. There have been dramatic declines in 

pipits as prairie has disappeared through cultivation, 

overgrazing, and invasion by exotic plants (see 

Historical Changes, above; Prescott and Davis 1998). 

Population estimates

Breeding.—Using BBS data, a global population 

estimate of 870,000 birds was derived (Sauer et al. 

2003, Rich et al. 2004); however, this was calculated 

using a standard set of assumptions and calculations 

(Rosenberg 2004) that are unverified with the existing 

data and is a rough estimate with unknown, but 

potentially large, error. Similarly, populations have 

been estimated for the sub-regions of the U.S. states 

and Canadian provinces (Blancher et al. 2007). These 

estimates range from 400,000 (47.9% of the global 

population) in Alberta to 3000 (0.3% of the global 

population) in South Dakota (Blancher et al. 2007). 

Wintering.—CBC data show that the highest wintering 

densities of Sprague’s Pipits are recorded in northcentral Texas (Prescott and Davis 1998, Sauer et al. 

2008); however, this data has noteworthy biases (B. 

Ortego, pers. comm.). Grzybowski (1982) described 

the highest numbers in the central coastal prairie 

region of Texas and the highest numbers reported on 

a CBC route was 196 individuals at Corpus Christi in 

the winter of 1966-1967; currently, either Matagorda or 

Attwater Prairie Chicken CBC routes have the highest 

tallies with ca. 36 individuals (B. Ortego, pers. comm.). 

The small numbers of individual pipits on the CBC in 

southern Oklahoma and northern Texas may be due in 

part to the sometimes slow migration these birds exhibit 

during the dates of the CBC period; in mid to late Jan, 

the Sprague’s Pipits are difficult to locate north of the 

coastal plain and become more common in southern 

Texas (B. Freeman, pers. comm.). The largest wintering 

populations in the Unites States were in coastal shortgrass prairie in southern Texas, where “...many 

hundreds...” were observed in a single day in a 154 km2

(60 sq. mile) area; the numbers of individuals peaked 

in Mar and early Apr (B. Freeman, pers. comm.). 

However, since abundance data is largely lacking from 

México, it is unknown how much of the population 

generally winters in México.

Densities

Breeding.—Densities of 21.5-41.2 pairs/100 ha were 

reported on native prairie in Saskatchewan (Maher 

1973). A partially randomized survey of Saskatchewan 

grasslands found Sprague’s Pipits on 18% of 1858 halfcircles in native pasture (Antsey et al. 1995). In 1996-

1997, a BBS-type study reported Sprague’s Pipits on 

32.5% of 1650 point counts in southwest Saskatchewan 

and southeast Alberta (Dale et al. 1997). In Alberta 

in 1994 and 1995, Sprague’s Pipits were encountered 

on 54.1% of 741 point counts (Robbins and Dale 1999). 

In Montana, from 2001-2007, 49.8–71.3% of point 

counts (n=1410 points) detected Sprague’s Pipits (C. 

Wightman, pers. comm.).

Wintering.—Densities of wintering pipits in the coastal 

prairies of Texas were 64 to 90 birds/100 ha (Grzybowski 

Population Trends and Estimates 15
16 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

1982) and 4.4 individuals/km2 in southern Texas (n=23; 

Emlen 1972). The highest concentrations were in 

southwest Texas, where the maximum abundance was 

0.68 individual/party hour (n=56 circles; Root 1988). 

In portions of northern México adjacent to Texas, 

Sprague’s Pipits were recorded on 11.2% of survey 

points (Prescott and Davis 1998). Densities of Sprague’s 

Pipits from 1 to 11 birds per km2 were documented 

throughout northern México (Chihuahua, Sonora, 

Coahuila, Durango, and Nuevo León). Densities of 10 

individuals/km2 were found at Cuchillas de la Zarca in 

Durango and Valle Colombia in Coahuila; densities of 

5-10 individuals/km2 were found in El Tokio in Coahuila/

Nuevo León and Sonorita in Sonora. Sprague’s Pipits 

were also regularly found at lower densities at Janos 

and Valle Centrales in Chihuahua (A. O. Panjabi, unpubl. 

data). The Janos Valley in Chihuahua may represent a 

northern limit of regular wintering by large numbers of 

Sprague’s Pipits (Dieni et al. 2003).

Monitoring Activities

Grassland Bird Monitoring-Canada.—Grassland Bird 

Monitoring-Canada (GBM-Canada) started in 1996 

in prairie Canada (Dale et al. 2003). GBM-Canada 

uses the same methodology as the BBS but additional 

random routes were added to the regular BBS routes 

to target grassland cover within the mixed-grass prairie 

region. Originally 30 routes were selected in Canada, 

and the Canadian Wildlife Service continues to run 

about 15 per year. GBM-Canada results in a higher 

number of grassland birds per route compared to BBS 

routes within grasslands. Population trends differ 

between GBM-Canada and BBS as well, both positively 

and negatively – the combined trends are probably the 

most accurate (Dale et al. 2003). 

Other-Canada.—Priority grassland bird surveys 

on Canadian federal lands (e.g., National Wildlife 

Areas, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration 

(PFRA) pastures, and Grasslands National Park) in 

Saskatchewan and Alberta are conducted to monitor 

local populations and refine the status, distribution, 

and abundance of pipits in these areas (Environment 

Canada 2008). The Manitoba Conservation Data Centre 

has collected and collated Sprague’s Pipit occurrence 

data from 1987 to 2006. A federal database has been 

established to manage and distribute Sprague’s Pipit 

data collected by various agencies across the prairie 

region in Canada and the United States (Environment 

Canada 2008). Pipit populations are monitored by 

staff at Suffield National Wildlife Area in southeast 

Alberta (Dale et al. 2003). Demographic monitoring 

was initiated at Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife 

Area in central Saskatchewan in 2004 and has recently 

expanded to nearby PFRA pastures (Environment 

Canada 2008).

Grassland Bird Monitoring-United States.—In 

2009, USFWS Region 6 started a GBM-US program 

in southwestern North Dakota, northwestern South 

Dakota, and eastern Montana expanding the GBMCanada in the mixed-grass prairie regions of the 

United States (Jones and Niemuth 2009). GBM-US 

will add new BBS routes in degree blocks with >50% 

grass in Montana. These new routes will be selected 

in conjunction with the methods established by GBMCanada program. Additionally, GBM-US will target 

running all BBS routes in the priority GBM-US area 

and habitat (Jones and Niemuth 2009). 

Other-United States.—Priority areas and species 

are the focus of state agency projects. These include 

the second South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas (2008-

2012; E. Dowd-Stukel, pers. comm.) and monitoring 

projects in Montana, one ongoing from 2001, and the 

other started in 2009 (C. Wightman, pers. comm.). The 

Bureau of Land Management and Montana Natural 

Heritage Program have conducted surveys of breeding 

birds, including Sprague’s Pipits, from 2001 - 2007 in 

northern Valley County, Montana (C. Wightman, pers. 

comm.).

Mexican Plateau Monitoring-México—In January 

2007, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory initiated 

a study to inventory, research, and monitor wintering 

birds in Chihuahuan Desert Grassland Priority 

Conservation Areas (GPCA) in México (Levandoski et 

al. 2008, Panjabi et. al 2010). The project assessed key 

vegetation and habitat parameters at selected sites 

considered important in determining grassland bird use, 

including use by Sprague’s Pipits. Variation in densities 

and richness of wintering grassland birds across GPCAs 

and changes in regional distribution between 2007 and 

2008, suggested plasticity in wintering range for pipits 

(Levandoski et al. 2008, Panjabi et al. 2010). 

16 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Threats 1717

Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, 

inappropriate management, nest predation and 

parasitism, energy development, climate change, and 

drought are threats that currently or potentially effect 

Sprague’s Pipits populations throughout their range.

Breeding

Regulatory Protection.—Current regulations appear 

to provide Sprague’s Pipit individuals with adequate 

protection throughout its breeding range. Sprague’s 

Pipits are federally protected in Canada and the United 

States under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711: 40 Stat. 755; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2008a). 

Sprague’s Pipits are protected as “Threatened” in 

Canada (Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada 2002). In Canada, a national 

recovery strategy for Sprague’s Pipits has been 

prepared with guidance on recovery efforts required 

to mitigate threats (Environment Canada 2008); this 

recovery strategy provides some protection for their 

habitat. 

Sprague’s Pipits are proposed for listing as 

“Endangered” or “Threatened” in the United States, 

but further action is precluded by higher listing 

priorities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). No 

current protection for Sprague’s Pipit habitat exists 

in the United States, except on public lands, and lands 

under grassland easements; many tribal lands have 

lower rates of conservation. Incentive programs such 

as the U.S. Farm Bill Grassland Reserve Program

and the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program 

offer some breeding habitat protection in upland 

easements that are held in perpetuity. Most native 

grassland habitat suitable for Sprague’s Pipit is owned 

primarily by private landowners and is afforded little 

or no protection from alteration and disturbance from 

human activities. There are currently no specific 

requirements in state agency regulatory systems that 

protect Sprague’s Pipits habitat (U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2010), although many state and provicial lands 

are protected from cropland conversion. Although 

not protected specifically for pipits, large grassland 

tracts are protected by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, National Parks, Bureau of Land Management,

and Forest Service lands in the United States and the 

Grasslands National Park in Canada; however, these 

areas would not be enough to sustain pipit populations 

throughout their lifecycle. 

Habitat.—The conversion, degradation, fragmentation, 

and loss of native prairie are the primary threats 

to Sprague’s Pipit populations. The once abundant 

grasslands of the Great Plains have been drastically 

reduced, altered, and fragmented by intensive 

agriculture, roads, tree plantings, encroachment by 

woody vegetation, invasion of exotic plants, and other 

human activities, including the removal of native 

grazers and a change in the natural fire regime (Igl 

and Johnson 1997, Dechant et al. 2003, U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2010). It has been estimated that at 

least 75% of native grasslands in the Canadian prairies 

have been lost primarily to cultivation, succession, road 

construction, gravel extraction, petroleum exploration 

and extraction, and settlement (i.e., urban and rural 

expansion) (Environment Canada 2008). Mixed-grass 

prairie has declined 60 - 99% in acreage in the prairie 

provinces of Canada with over 90% of the converted 

grasslands in Canada being used for agriculture 

(Robbins and Dale 1999). In the United States, about 

60% of native mixed-grass prairies in Montana, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota have been converted to 

cropland (Higgins et al. 2002). Data from South Dakota 

indicate that 1.4 million hectares (3.5 million acres) of 

rangelands (a 14% decrease) were converted to cropland 

and other developments from 1977 to 1997 (Higgins et 

al. 2002).

Grassland conversion has greatly reduced the quality 

and availability of suitable habitat for Sprague’s Pipits. 

Land cover images of the Great Plains in Canada and 

the United States indicate that only 30% of native 

prairie remains from pre-colonial times (Samson and 

Knopf 1994). However, due to expected demographic 

change in human populations and subsequent 

landowner changes, it is likely that more grassland will 

be lost in the near future (Prescott and Davis 1998, 

Environment Canada 2008). Since pipits rarely use land 

enrolled in the Permanent Cover Program in Canada 

or the Conservation Reserve Program in the United 

States or seeded cover planted for waterfowl production 

(Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Prescott and Davis 1998) 

these programs will not mitigate the effects of prairie 

conversion for Sprague’s Pipits. 

Although Sprague’s Pipits will use non-native replanted 

grasslands, their abundance is lower than in native 

grasslands (Dale et al. 1997, Sutter and Brigham 1998, 

Davis et al. 1999), and they are generally associated 

with native prairie (Sutter 1996, Madden et al. 2000, 

Davis 2004, Grant et al. 2004, McMaster et al. 2005). 

Pipits may nest in non-native grassland sites that 

were previously cultivated if the vegetation structure 

is appropriate (Dale et al. 1997, Sutter and Brigham 

1998, Davis et al. 1999). Abundances are lower in these 

Threats
18 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

habitats than in native grasslands (McMaster and Davis 

2001); however, nest survival is similar (Dohms 2009).

Since most native grasslands in the mixed-grass prairie 

in both Canada and the United States are grazed by 

livestock, Sprague’s Pipits are susceptible to habitat 

degradation as a result of high-intensity grazing (see 

Grazing, below; Prescott and Davis 1998, Madden et al.

2000). Other grassland changes can alter the structure 

of vegetation so that it is no longer attractive to pipits. 

These changes include increased woody vegetation in 

the form of tree plantings and shrub encroachment, 

and invasive grasses and forbs (Johnson and Igl 1995, 

Dechant et al. 2003, Environment Canada 2008). 

Sprague’s Pipits nested in patches that had little or 

no clubmoss cover, nor was clubmoss ever used as a 

nesting substrate (Dieni and Jones 2003) although at 

the territory scale, pipits were positively correlated 

with ≤22% clubmoss cover (Dieni and Jones 2003). 

The potential for clubmoss to increase during drought 

sometimes makes it a management target; generally 

accepted methods of clubmoss removal, e.g., burning, 

grazing, mechanical and chemical treatments (Crane 

1990), may themselves alter grassland conditions 

making the area unsuitable for nesting Sprague’s 

Pipits, particularly in the short-term. 

Burning.—Sprague’s Pipits have evolved with periodic 

fires on the prairies, and may be limited by reduced fire 

frequencies that have accompanied human settlement. 

Reduced fire frequency allows encroachment by woody 

vegetation and invasive grasses and forbs, excessive 

growth of vegetation, and excessive accumulation 

of litter (Madden 1996, Environment Canada 2008), 

degrading breeding habitat in many geographic areas 

(Environment Canada 2008). 

Large increases in Sprague’s Pipit populations were 

recorded two years after a burn in Saskatchewan 

(Environment Canada 2008). Sprague’s Pipits did not 

occur on North Dakota grasslands that had not been 

burned for over eight years; breeding abundances were 

highest two to seven years after a fire (Madden 1996). 

In more arid regions, Sprague’s Pipits were common on 

native pastures that had not been burned for more than 

15 years (Sutter 1996, Dale et al. 1997) and 26 years 

(Dieni and Jones 2003, Jones et al. 2010). Thus, the 

effects of burning likely vary with frequency, soil type, 

and moisture regimes, and land productivity. In the 

arid regions of the mixed-grass prairie, fire frequency 

recommendations are 8-20 years (Askins et al. 2007). 

Burning can have adverse short-term effects on 

Sprague’s Pipits abundance and occurrence; however, 

it may have long-term benefits through improved 

habitat quality, if it occurs in an appropriate periodicity 

(Prescott and Davis 1998, Environment Canada 2008).

Grazing.—Livestock grazing can greatly influence 

vegetation structure, and, therefore, influence 

Sprague’s Pipits occurrence and abundance (Prescott 

and Davis 1998). The effects of cattle grazing on 

Sprague’s Pipits distribution depend on a variety of 

factors, including grazing intensity and frequency, as 

well as environmental conditions, such as moisture, 

soil type, and plant species composition (Maher 1973, 

Owens and Myres 1973, Karasiuk et al. 1977, Kantrud 

1981, George et al. 1992). Therefore, the response of 

Sprague’s Pipits to grazing intensity and frequency 

likely varies with geography. 

While Sprague’s Pipits generally avoid heavily-grazed 

pastures (Maher 1973, Owens and Myres 1973, Prescott 

and Wagner 1996, Sutter 1996, Davis et al. 1999), lightlyto moderately-grazed pastures have been identified 

as optimal habitat for pipits throughout much of their 

breeding range (Owens and Myres 1973, Davis et al. 

1999, Robbins and Dale 1999, Dechant et al. 2003). 

In North Dakota, a greater abundance of Sprague’s 

Pipits was reported from moderately to heavily grazed 

pastures (Kantrud 1981). Intensive grazing, however, 

may render some grassland habitat unsuitable, both 

indirectly through impacts to vegetation structure and 

directly through reproductive failure due to disturbance 

and trampling of nests (Environment Canada 2008). 

In the eastern portion of Sprague’s Pipits range, in the 

mesic mixed-grass prairie, disturbance (primarily fire 

at appropriate intervals, and secondarily grazing, at 

appropriate rates) can be used to create and maintain 

healthy pipit habitat (Kantrud 1981, Madden et al.

1999). In the drier, less densely-vegetated mixed-grass 

prairie particularly in the southwestern portions of 

Sprague’s Pipits range, it has been documented that the 

number of Sprague’s Pipits decreased significantly with 

increased grazing intensity (Maher 1973, Dale 1983, 

Robbins and Dale 1999). During 1994-2007, a small 

but consistent breeding population was documented at 

Bowdoin NWR in north-central Montana in idle mixedgrass prairie (Dieni and Jones 2003, Jones and Dieni 

2007, Jones et al. 2007, Jones et al. 2010). 

The effects of grazing must also take into account 

vegetation potential in the form of structure (i.e., 

vertical and horizontal density) as well as plant species 

composition, which varies within and across geographic 

locales. Cattle presence can also result in increased 

abundances of cowbirds (Duffy 2000, Danley et al. 2004).

Fire and Grazing, Combined.—In units that were 

burned, and then grazed, pipit numbers were similar to 

those in units that were only burned; Sprague’s Pipits 

had lower abundances the first year after treatment, 

and increased in the second and third year, whether 

grazing was added or not (Danley et al. 2004). However, 

cowbirds occurred 2.4 times more frequently on burned 

and grazed units then those only burned (Danley et al. 

2004). The implications of increased cowbird abundance 

on pipit populations are currently unmeasured.

Mowing.—Haying in native prairie may have negative 

impacts on Sprague’s Pipits populations (Prescott 

and Davis 1998, Robbins and Dale 1999, McMaster 

et al. 2005). Sprague’s Pipits are not common on 

planted hayfields, and haying native prairie during the 

nesting season may substantially lower reproductive 

18 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Threats 19

success through mechanical destruction of nests and 

adults, or by reducing vegetative cover and exposing 

nests to predators and inclement weather (Dale et al. 

1997, Davis 2005). Mowing has been found to destroy 

approximately 50% of ground nests and the productivity 

of breeding birds in hayfields is below that required to 

maintain stable populations (Dale et al. 1997, Prescott 

and Davis 1998). In Manitoba, native hayland was 

more attractive to Sprague’s Pipits than brome/

alfalfa hayland or idle native grassland, but it was less 

attractive than non-native pasture. In Alberta, hayed 

native fescue was less attractive to Sprague’s Pipits 

than idle fescue, but more attractive than grazed fescue 

(Robbins and Dale 1999). In Saskatchewan, Sprague’s 

Pipits were significantly more common in idle native 

grassland than in either annually or periodically hayed 

exotic grasses (Robbins and Dale 1999, McMaster et al. 

2005). 

Introduced Vegetation.—Sprague’s Pipits have a 

strong negative response to exotic grasses (Sutter 1996, 

Madden et al. 2000, Grant et al. 2004). Consequently, 

the introduction of Eurasian plant species has had 

a negative effect on Sprague’s Pipit populations. 

In Manitoba, Sprague’s Pipits were significantly 

more abundant in native prairie than in introduced 

vegetation (Wilson and Belcher 1989). Singing males 

were two to three times more abundant in native grass 

than in crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)

and four to 25 times more abundant in native grass 

than in brome-dominated grassland in south-central 

Saskatchewan (Prescott and Wagner 1996). They 

were more than twice as abundant in native grass than 

crested wheatgrass or absent from crested wheatgrass 

in southern Alberta sites (Prescott and Wagner 1996). 

Greater Sprague’s Pipit densities were significantly 

correlated with native grasses at Lostwood NWR in 

North Dakota (Madden 1996). Exotic plant species 

planted for the Conservation Reserve Program and for 

nesting cover for waterfowl are generally not used by 

Sprague’s Pipits (see Threats, Breeding, Habitat, above; 

Robbins and Dale 1999).

Pesticides.—Use of pesticides to control grasshoppers 

may impact Sprague’s Pipit populations, since 

grasshoppers are an important food item for the adults 

and nestlings during the breeding season (George 

et al. 1992, Environment Canada 2008). Anecdotal 

observations suggest that Sprague’s Pipits may 

occasionally forage in cropland and thus could be 

exposed to pesticides (Environment Canada 2008). The 

amount of time pipits could be exposed to pesticides 

during the breeding and non-breeding season is 

unknown.

Fragmentation.—Fragmentation of native prairie has 

likely contributed to the decline of Sprague’s Pipit 

populations through a reduction in average patch size, 

increased isolation of habitat patches, an increase in the 

ratio of edge:area to interior habitat (Davis 2004, Davis 

et al. 2006) and potentially, an increase in parasitism 

(Davis and Sealy 2000). In fragmented landscapes, 

habitat interior species such as Sprague’s Pipits (Davis 

2004) may experience lower reproductive success 

when nesting near habitat edges, where they are more 

susceptible to nest predators and brood parasites 

(Prescott and Davis 1998, Davis et al. 2006). Sprague’s 

Pipit abundance was inversely correlated with distance 

to cropland and to water (Koper and Schmiegelow 

2006a, 2006b; Koper et al. 2009). Pipits had higher 

densities by at least 0.3 individuals per point count per 

km away from cropland, and the average number of 

individuals per point count increased by at least 0.4 per 

km away from water, with distance to road having no 

effect (Koper and Schmiegelow 2006b). 

Roads.—Sprague’s Pipits may avoid roads and trails 

during the breeding season (Sutter et al. 2000) and 

the increased roads densities associated with energy 

development effects Sprague’s Pipits habitat (Dale 

et al. 2009, Linnen 2008). The type of road (e.g.,

secondary or tertiary, the presence of deep ditches on 

the sides, heavily graveled) and the level of traffic are 

the potential issues in determining the degree of effect 

roads and trails have on Sprague’s Pipit populations (N. 

Koper, pers. comm.; SLJ; see Winter, below). 

In Saskatchewan, Sprague’s Pipits were significantly 

more abundant along trails (wheel ruts visually 

indistinct from surroundings) than along roadsides 

(fenced surfaced roads with adjacent ditches), which 

may be attributed to the 20 - 30% reduction of suitable 

habitat associated with the road right-of-way (Sutter 

et al. 2000). Sprague’s Pipits avoidance of roads in this 

study may be due to the roadside habitat which also 

tended to have non-native vegetation, dominated by 

smooth brome (Bromus inermis) (Sutter et al. 2000). 

Other data found that there was no significant effect of 

roads (Koper et al. 2009); there was no effect of trails on 

pipit nest survivorship in Montana (SLJ). 

Linnen (2008) examined the effects of oil and gas 

disturbances, including road establishment and 

suggested that Sprague’s Pipits tended to occur in 

lower numbers and at fewer sites near natural gas wells 

and trails than in interior habitat patches; however, 

the relationship was not statistically significant 

(Linnen 2008). Dale et al. (2009) documented that pipit 

territories rarely crossed trails. However, the method 

used to map the breeding territories was not detailed 

and no tests of statistical significance were reported 

(Dale et al. 2009), thus sampling error was never 

eliminated as a possible explanation. 

Depredation.—Predation is the primary factor 

influencing nest survival throughout the species’ range 

(Davis and Sealy 2000, Davis 2003, Jones and Dieni 

2007, Jones et al. 2010) and in some years, predation can 

result in near complete nesting failures (Davis 2005). It 

is difficult to determine whether current predation rates 

are higher than historic levels; changes in predator 

communities, habitat structure, and composition 

and configuration of current grassland habitat could 

increase the risk of predation; however, little data are 

available. 
20 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Nest Parasitism.—Cowbird parasitism rates on 

Sprague’s Pipit nests vary throughout their range. 

Habitat fragmentation potentially increases the rate 

of cowbird parasitism, and the degree of impact from 

parasitism on nest survival (Davis and Sealy 2000). 

However, pipits do not seem to be a good host for 

cowbirds; the cost of parasitism to pipit populations 

overall is unknown (see Parasitism, above; Davis 2003, 

Jones et al. 2010). 

Climate Change.—Sprague’s Pipits are susceptible to 

climate change (Price 1995). Modeling and predictions 

of climate change indicate that pipits will become 

extirpated as a breeding species in the United States 

and the lower third of Canada due to increasing 

temperature (Price 1995). It is also predicted that 

Sprague’s Pipits may shift their range north, as 

southern areas become too warm (Price 1995). The 

impact of climate change at a population level is 

unknown. Prolonged periods of cool and wet weather 

may impact local Sprague’s Pipit populations by 

reducing productivity (Environment Canada 2008). In 

addition, predictions for harsher, drier temperatures in 

México, changes in frequency and intensity of drought 

could impact wintering Sprague’s Pipit populations 

further. These predictions may also affect migration 

areas (C. M. Rustay, pers. comm.). 

Drought.—Drought can be a significant factor affecting

Sprague’s Pipits nesting habitat and possibly food 

supply at the local level (Environment Canada 2008) and 

also affecting wintering habitats (Dieni et al. 2003, J. 

M. Ruth, pers. comm.). Sprague’s Pipits disappeared or 

declined from many transects in North Dakota during a 

severe drought in 1988 (George et al. 1992, Niemuth et 

al. 2008); pipits rebounded once the drought cycle was

reversed (George et al. 1992). The effects of drought 

could be exacerbated by the impact of grazing and fire, 

particularly in the xeric areas of their range (Askins et 

al. 2007).

Energy Development.—Energy exploration and 

extraction are expected to continue to be a threat 

to Sprague’s Pipits habitat and populations into the 

future as demands for resources increase globally 

(Environment Canada 2008). Sprague’s Pipits 

abundance decreases within 300 m of oil wells (Linnen 

2008). A substantial amount of new oil and gas 

production is predicted to occur throughout Sprague’s 

Pipits’ breeding range, particularly in Alberta 

(Environment Canada 2008). Currently, no regulatory 

mechanisms exist for many of these activities to ensure 

that drilling and associated activities avoid nesting 

habitat. In the United States, much of the Sprague’s 

Pipit’s breeding range overlaps major areas of oil 

production in eastern Montana, western North Dakota 

and northwestern South Dakota. Areas with a high 

density of oil production may also decrease migration 

and wintering habitats available. 

Wind energy has been increasing in recent years; 

more than 45% in 2007 and more than 50% in 2008 (A.

Manville, pers. comm.). Area and patch size (Davis 

2004) are important habitat attributes for Sprague’s 

Pipits, and habitat fragmentation a threat to their 

populations. Wind projects can fragment native 

prairie habitat through the construction of roads, 

turbines, electrical grids, and associated facilities; 

several of the states where Sprague’s Pipits breed or 

winter are the top states potential for wind energy 

development (Elliott et al. 1991). Sprague’s Pipits 

negatively respond to shrub and tree densities, and it 

is likely that they exhibit negative responses to other 

vertical structures in their habitat (e.g., wind turbines, 

telecommunication towers, power line towers), although 

specific data are limited.

The effects of increased biofuel production (converting 

native prairie to agriculture) would likely further 

decrease breeding habitat. 

Industrial Noise.—Industrial noise caused reduced 

pairing success and influenced age structure in some 

breeding bird species (Environment Canada 2008, 

Barber et al. 2009). Expanding energy development 

(wind energy and oil and gas) in grassland regions 

may result in increased noise levels and subsequently 

interfere with male song in Sprague’s Pipits. The effect 

of anthropogenic noise on Sprague’s Pipit breeding 

success is unmeasured.

Winter

Sprague’s Pipits are federally protected on their 

winter range in the United States and México under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2008a). Enforcement of regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to protect individuals in 

México; no regulatory mechanism currently protects 

Sprague’s Pipit habitats on their winter range. 

Specific threats on the winter range in the United 

Sates or México are many of the same issues identified 

as threats on the breeding range, (e.g., overgrazing, fragmentation, degrading, and conversion 

of grasslands, invasive species, and climate change)

although the level of each threat may be different.

 Protected Sprague’s Pipit habitat exists in the United 

States largely on public lands. Although not protected 

specifically for pipits, large grassland tracts are 

protected by the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

National Parks, Bureau of Land Management and 

Forest Service lands in the southern United States. 

Smaller areas of grassland are protected by The 

Nature Conservancy and other private land owners 

committed to managing lands for conservation. In 

México, few truly protected areas of grassland exist. A 

few private reserves containing pipit habitat (e.g., the 

Reserva Ecológíca El Uno in northern Chihuahua) have 

been established. Few national or state-level protected 

areas exist in México for Sprague’s Pipits and those 

that do, such as the Janos Biosphere Reserve, offer 

limited protection against landscape-level disturbance. 

These protected areas would not be enough to sustain 

pipit populations throughout their winter cycle.

20 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Threats 21

Although large numbers of Sprague’s Pipits 

frequent heavily grazed pastures on the Texas coast 

during winter (Freeman 1999), this is in contrast to 

observations in México that heavy grazing is a threat 

to pipits (Desmond 2004; below). This apparent conflict 

may be due to a number of causes, including the level 

of grazing, as “heavy” is largely undefined; differences

in the environmental conditions, such as moisture, soil 

type, and plant species composition, or to lack of data, 

as most information from the wintering range is limited 

in scope. 

United States

In general, there are few data from the wintering 

range in the United States, and little is known about 

the level of the threats here. Sprague’s Pipits occur 

on the largest patches of grasslands in Texas, but are 

also found on turf-grass farms, grassy roadsides, and 

other areas with short grass, and on heavily grazed 

areas (Freeman 1999). They will also use areas with 

introduced Bermuda grass, with high concentrations 

of pipits found in saline openings in a large exotic 

grassland that were heavily grazed (B. Ortego, pers. 

comm.). Overgrazing, conversion of grasslands, 

drought, climate change, energy development, and fire 

suppression are all potential threats to grasslands in 

the southern United States, but the relative levels are

unknown. 

Sprague’s Pipits appear to use roads frequently on the 

wintering grounds (Freeman 1999; B. Ortego, pers. 

comm., SLJ) and during migration (SLJ). The loss of 

native coastal prairie in Texas is extensive; however, 

Sprague’s Pipit do use introduced grasses at some level 

during the winter period.

México

Overgrazing by domestic livestock and agricultural 

practices are the most extensive land uses thought to 

threaten habitat for Sprague’s Pipits in Chihuahua, 

México (Desmond 2004). In addition, large-scale habitat 

alterations are occurring throughout the Chihuahua 

Desert (Desmond 2004). These include conversion 

of grasslands to agriculture and the large-scale 

conversion of desert grasslands to shrub dominated 

systems. These changes are occurring from current 

and historic overgrazing by domestic livestock, loss 

of native herbivores, fire suppression, drought, and 

climate change (Desmond 2004). Shrub encroachment 

into areas of extensive grasslands is also occurring 

and may have contributed to reduced numbers of 

grassland obligate passerines, including Sprague’s 

Pipits (Desmond 2004). Sprague’s Pipits were found in 

significant numbers after a wet year in Chihuahua, but 

were local and rare in dry years (Dieni et al. 2003). The 

relative levels of the threats to Sprague’s Pipits on the 

winter range are unknown. 

Doug Backlund, Wild Photos Photography ©
22 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Management

Management for Sprague’s Pipit consists primarily 

of protecting, maintaining, and restoring native 

mixed-grass prairie in large expanses (Stewart 1975; 

Sutter 1996, 1997; Davis 2004). In general, Sprague’s 

Pipit abundances are higher in native grass then in 

non-native fields. The breeding habitat attributes 

important to Sprague’s Pipits abundance include prairie 

dominated by native grass, with a particular structure, 

and area size (see Habitat above; Sutter 1996, 1997, 

Davis et al. 1999, Table in Dechant et al. 2003, Dieni 

and Jones 2003). Converting cultivated land adjacent 

to native prairie to perennial cover, including seeding 

with a native grass mix or one that includes a prostrate 

(versus erect) form of legume could make smaller 

tracts attractive to pipits (Winter et al. 2006). The 

conservation value of large prairie tracts is obvious, but 

several small habitat patches surrounded by treeless 

landscape might offer similar conservation value for 

grassland passerines as a single large prairie patch 

(Davis 2004, Winter et al. 2006). 

Successful management of many grassland habitats 

often requires some form of disturbance. In many 

cases, management through fire, grazing, mowing or 

herbicides can assist in maintaining native grasslands 

appropriate for Sprague’s Pipits; however, the intensity 

and frequency of disturbance is dependent upon soil 

productivity, geographic area, and climate. Idling 

grassland habitat can reduce its suitability for Sprague’s 

Pipits in the mesic portions of their range (e.g., moist 

mixed grasslands and aspen parkland regions), while 

disturbance can reduce habitat suitability if the timing, 

frequency, intensity, or duration of disturbance is 

inappropriate, particularly in the drier portions of their 

range (Askins et al. 2007). The following discussion 

is primarily for the breeding range, unless otherwise 

mentioned; there is little data on migration or wintering 

habitat and their management. 

Patch Size.—Large native prairie grasslands are 

needed for Sprague’s Pipit conservation. Native 

grassland tracts of ≥145 ha should be retained for 

breeding (Davis 2004, Anonymous 2007) although some 

high quality smaller patches (≤ 29 ha) could provide 

conservation value, if the landscape is neutral (e.g., no 

trees or other vertical structure) for Sprague’s Pipits, 

rather than hostile (e.g., development) (Winter et al. 

2006). 

Preclude Woody Vegetation.—Optimal breeding habitat 

for Sprague’s Pipits will require the removal of woody 

vegetation from the interior of grassland patches (Grant 

et al. 2004). In native and planted grasslands this can 

be accomplished through burning, grazing, mowing, 

herbicides, or manual removal, as long as the treatment 

does not result in long-term damage to the grassland 

(Anonymous 2007) or cause excessive vegetation 

disturbance, increases in small mammal predators due 

to leaving slash piles, or excess removal of litter. Avoid 

planting trees and/or shrubs within 100 m of native 

grasslands (Anonymous 2007). 

Invasive Grass and Forb Species.—Removing exotic 

plant species, especially smooth brome, sweet clover 

(Melilotus sp.), and alfalfa (Medicago sp.) in native 

grasslands will improve habitat for pipits. Monitor 

roadsides for invasive species, and remove these species 

before they move into native prairie (Anonymous 2007). 

Mowing.—Mow haylands on a rotational schedule 

of every other year. Although hayfields are limited 

in their use by pipits, mowed hayfields can provide 

better habitat than those idled (Denchant et al. 2003, 

Anonymous 2007). Delaying mowing until after 15 Aug, 

should allow >70% of Sprague’s Pipit nests to fledge. 

Minimum dates for mowing of hayfields are after 15 

Jul in the dry mixed-grass prairie, after 21 Jul in the 

xeric mixed-grass prairie, and southern aspen parkland 

and after 31 Jul in the northern aspen parklands 

(Anonymous 2007).

Prescribed Fire.—In general, prescribed burning 

reduces shrub encroachment as well as residual grass 

cover and may reduce or restrict invasion of exotic 

plants (Robbins and Dale 1999). Fire is important to 

maintain Sprague’s Pipits’ breeding habitat, especially 

in the eastern portion of the species’ range. In 

Saskatchewan, Sprague’s Pipits were most abundant 

two to three years, and sometimes up to seven years, 

post-fire; none were present on native prairie that 

had not been burned or grazed for more than eight 

years (Anonymous 2007). In North Dakota, burning 

grasslands every two to four years over a 15-year period 

resulted in the highest abundance when compared to 

unburned areas or areas burned only once or twice 

in 15 years (Madden et al. 1999). Recommendations 

for timing of burns in the aspen parklands in Canada 

are 5-10 year intervals, 10 - 15 year intervals in moist 

mixed-grass regions, and as much as 20-26 year 

intervals in the mesic mixed-grass prairies or not 

at all if the vegetation structure can be maintained 

(Anonymous 2007, Askins et al. 2007). Optimal burning 

intervals will vary with local and climatic conditions, 

such as during a drought (where the interval may be 

significantly longer).

On the wintering grounds, in the coastal prairie of 

Texas, herbicides are used to control invading mesquite 

22 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Management 23

(Prosopis spp.) and huisache (Acacia smallii) in the 

prairie. The burn intensity and frequency needed to 

control mature brush is generally not practical in Texas

and burning tends to only control the small brush at 

lower intensities (B. Ortego, pers. comm.). 

Grazing.—Grazing reduces residual grass cover and 

may stimulate growth of native plants and prevent or 

slow invasion by exotic plants (Robbins and Dale 1999). 

Grazing during the breeding season should be light 

to moderate (Dechant et al. 2003), although intensity 

varies geographically. Moderate intensity grazing 

should be used in the aspen parklands, low to moderate 

grazing intensities in the mesic mixed-grass prairie, 

and low grazing intensities or no grazing in the xeric 

or semi-arid mixed-grass prairie, where disturbance 

is rarely needed to make the habitat attractive to 

Sprague’s Pipits (Anonymous 2007). However, these 

terms are relative and difficult to quantify. Local focus 

should be on getting absolute, rather than relative, 

measures of vegetation as inherent problems exist in 

defining, for example, ‘‘heavy’’ or “moderate” or ‘‘low’’ 

grazing levels (Madden et al. 2000).

There is little data on optimum grazing levels on the 

wintering grounds, and some conflicting information 

from the United States and México. It seems likely 

that different grazing management prescriptions 

would be needed for Sprague’s Pipits in the desert 

grasslands of the arid southwestern United States and 

northern México then in areas of Texas coastal prairie. 

However, information is so limited it is difficult to make 

recommendations. 

Both fire and grazing should be conducted on smaller 

habitat patches rather than over large areas to achieve 

an increased vegetation mosaic and to provide a mix of 

native habitats (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). Grazing, fire 

and herbicides could be used together, in conjunction, 

and in rotation, to achieve the desired conditions 

(Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). 

Restoration.—Restoration programs can be used to 

enhance the attractiveness and reproductive potential of 

irregular shaped grassland patches by focusing efforts 

on increasing patch size and minimizing the amount of 

edge habitat (Davis 2004). Seed with finer grasses in 

forage mixes, and seed herbaceous species that grow 

well in a stand with other species. Do not seed with 

coarse, tall, or dense growing grasses like smooth 

brome, or with aggressive competitors, like crested 

wheatgrass, where litter levels are too low and bare 

ground coverage is too high (Anonymous 2007).

Roads.—Construction of built-up roads (e.g., dikes) in 

native or planted grasslands should be avoided. Use 

native grasses and forbs to re-vegetate pipelines, roads, 

and other linear development (Anonymous 2007). 

Doug Backlund, Wild Photos Photography ©
24 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Conservation

This Conservation Plan (Plan) is designed to highlight 

actions needed to achieve conservation for Sprague’s 

Pipits. This Plan includes a prioritized list of actions 

and needs that will begin to address the requirements 

to achieve the long-term rangewide conservation of 

Sprague’s Pipits; actions are prioritized within each 

major group (Table 2). 

The goals for the conservation of Sprague’s Pipits are to 

increase and maintain population size and distribution 

throughout the pipit’s historic range and to prevent 

further loss and degradation, including fragmentation, 

of native prairie within its historic range. In addition, 

the restoration of currently unsuitable habitat is a 

conservation priority. 

No current recovery strategy exists for Sprague’s 

Pipits in United States or México. Implementing these 

strategies will encompass different issues in each of 

the three countries. Canada currently has a recovery 

plan (Environment Canada 2008) and the United States 

has completed a status review (U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2010). In México, implementation will be 

primarily dependent on NGOs and will require gathering 

basic baseline data and developing educational programs.

Other Species Covered

Other species that could benefit by habitat management, 

modification and protection for Sprague’s Pipits, 

in the portions of their breeding and wintering 

ranges that overlap, include Northern Bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus), Marbled Godwit (Limosa 

fedoa), Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), 

Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Grasshopper 

(Ammodramus savannarum), Baird’s, LeConte’s (A.

leconteii), and Savannah (Passerculus sandwichensis) 

sparrows, Dickcissel (Spiza americana) and Western 

and Eastern (Sturnella magna) meadowlarks.

Species that could be negatively affected by proposed 

Sprague’s Pipit habitat management include species that 

use tree and brush vegetation in a grassland savannah, 

including Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludociianus) and 

Clay-colored Sparrows (Spizella pallida). Grassland 

species requiring tall and dense or short and sparse 

grass, including Mountain Plovers (Charadrius 

montanus) and McCown’s Longspurs (Rhynchophanes 

mccownii), may be negatively affected locally by habitat 

management for Sprague’s Pipits.

Canada

In Canada, conservation goals will be accomplished 

through grassland conservation initiatives, such as 

stewardship and management agreements, conservation 

easements, policy reform, and tax incentives (Environment 

Canada 2008). Voluntary stewardship agreements have 

been widely used by conservation groups as a means of 

establishing and building relationships with producers, 

and this will be one of Canada’s main tools (Environment 

Canada 2008). Management agreements are typically 

short-term (10–15 years) formal agreements that are 

legally binding and represent an agreement between a 

producer and conservation organization. Incentives are 

provided (e.g., watering system development, fencing 

materials, forage seed, etc.) to encourage landowners to 

alter current management regimes for species at risk, 

including Sprague’s Pipits (Environment Canada 2008). 

The Canadian recovery strategy lists the primary 

actions required to effectively recover Sprague’s Pipit 

populations (Environment Canada 2008). Action plans 

are scheduled for development by 31 Mar 2011, to cover 

jurisdictions within the range of Sprague’s Pipits in 

Canada (Environment Canada 2008). Critical habitat 

determinations in Canada are scheduled for development 

in 2010 (Environment Canada 2008).

United States and México 

Knowledge of the response of breeding Sprague’s 

Pipits to invasive species, and the effects of both timing 

and method of eradication actions are needed to make 

informed management recommendations. Grazing, 

haying, and prescribed burning are all recommended 

management tools for maintaining native prairie 

grasslands for breeding Sprague’s Pipits (Hagen et 

al. 2005). Determining the best timing and intensity 

of these management tools are important to maximize 

benefits and reduce disturbance both to breeding pipits 

and their habitat. However, recommendations can vary 

across the pipit’s range, and management of other high 

priority wildlife species (e.g., prairie-dogs or Mountain 

Plovers) could conflict with recommendations developed 

for Sprague’s Pipits. This reinforces the need for local 

evaluation of management actions that can then be 

integrated into a rangewide perspective. 

Although data is available on timing and breeding 

distribution, identifying all of the important sites used by 

wintering Sprague’s Pipits, particularly in México, has 

not been completed. As a general strategy, conservation 

will initially require identifying important migration 

and wintering areas, assessing their functional ability 

to support Sprague’s Pipits, and then, if warranted, 

developing conservation actions and evaluation measures 

for these areas. The effects of energy development 

24 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Conservation 25

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the 

three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDOD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística yGeografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDOD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation 

activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, 

FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to 

native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information fromMéxico.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study ongoing on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.
26 Spragues’s Pipit ( Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan Table 2, continued

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological 

Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDoD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDoD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information from México.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study on-going on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information fromMéxico.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study ongoing on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities 

of SPPI should be identified.

5

Assess wintering areas in s. U S and n. México to identify 

and protect areas with high value for SPPI populations.

RMBO, TNC JV-LCC

1.C Identify important habitat components

1.C.b Breeding

1

Determine influence of exotic vegetation and confirm whether suitable habitat includes only native vegetation on the breeding range. SKD

2

Determine influence of wetlands and topography on density and reproductive success. Determine whether high-density 

wetland landscapes are source SPPI habitat. NK

1.C.w Wintering and Migration

1

Determine the extent of SPPI use of grazed rangelands on the wintering range, and how SPPI respond to various 

grazing regimes. MD

2

Determine habitat needs on wintering range, including influence of non-native vegetation, precipitation, and diet and seed resources. MD

SPPI seem to use non-native quite readily in some locations, on the wintering range.

3

Determine influence of exotic vegetation and confirm suitable habitat types on the wintering range.

2 Management

1

Implement best management practices, and determine whether current recommendations are valid, for different geographic areas and seasons.

FWS, USFS, USBLM

2

Identify and implement appropriate restoration and management tools to improve and maintain the quality of habitat used by SPPI in all seasons. 

FWS, USFS, USBLM

Determine how various habitat management practices for grasslands in different regions of the range effect this 

5

Assess wintering areas in s. U S and n. México to identify and protect areas with high value for SPPI populations.

RMBO, TNC JV-LCC

1.C Identify important habitat components1.C.b Breeding

1

Determine influence of exotic vegetation and confirm whether suitable habitat includes only native vegetation on the breeding range. SKD

2

Determine influence of wetlands and topography on density and reproductive success. Determine whether high-density wetland landscapes are source SPPI habitat. NK

1.C.w Wintering and Migration

1

Determine the extent of SPPI use of grazed rangelands on the wintering range, and how SPPI respond to various grazing regimes. MD

2

Determine habitat needs on wintering range, including influence of non-native vegetation, precipitation, and diet 

and seed resources. MD

SPPI seem to use non-native quite readily in some locations, on the wintering range.

3

Determine influence of exotic vegetation and confirm suitable habitat types on the wintering range.

2 Management

1

Implement best management practices, and determine whether current recommendations are valid, for different geographic areas and seasons.

FWS, USFS, USBLM

2

Identify and implement appropriate restoration and management tools to improve and maintain the quality of habitat used by SPPI in all seasons. 

FWS, USFS, USBLM

D

t

i

h

i

h

bit

t 

t 

ti

f
Name of Section Conservation 27

Table 2, continued

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological 

Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDoD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDoD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information from México.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study on-going on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.

2

Determine habitat needs on wintering range, including influence of non-native vegetation, precipitation, and diet and seed resources. MD

SPPI seem to use non-native quite readily in some locations, on the wintering range.

3

Determine influence of exotic vegetation and confirm suitable habitat types on the wintering range.

2 Management

1

Implement best management practices, and determine whether current recommendations are valid, for different geographic areas and seasons.

FWS, USFS, USBLM

2

Identify and implement appropriate restoration and management tools to improve and maintain the quality of habitat used by SPPI in all seasons. 

FWS, USFS, USBLM

3

Determine how various habitat management practices for 

grasslands in different regions of the range effect this species. Test and monitor a variety of existing grassland restoration projects within the range of this species for its benefits to SPPI. NK

FWS, USFS, USBLM

4

Implement techniques to recover SPPI populations in areas that have experienced declines and range contractions.

CWS, FWS, JV-LCC

5

Remove woody vegetation from existing open grasslands. 

Identify geographic regions where woody vegetation 

encroachment is prevalent and the relative importance of woody vegetation to SPPI during breeding. NK

6

Convert shrub-encroached grasslands back to more open grasslands (e.g., removal of mesquite) on the wintering 

grounds.

JV-LCC, USBLM, TNC, ProNatura

7

Identify areas where haying of SPPI habitat is common; establish and implement guidelines for haying during the breeding season. Determine whether incentives are required to offset costs to producers. NK

Probably an issue in sw.Manitoba more than the other areas of Canada; not known to be an big issue in other portions of the range.

3 Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment

1

Increase grassland bird monitoring using the Grassland Bird Monitoring programs in Canada and the U.S. CWS

FWS-MBNG, 

FWS-HAPET

2

Encourage and solicit increased participation in the BBS and increase the number of trained observers and routes in grassland habitat. CWS

FWS-MBNG, FWS-HAPET USGS USGS

3

Evaluate the existing inventory and monitoring data for both populations and habitat to identify data gaps, particularly on the wintering range. USGS

4

Determine the quantity and quality of grassland habitat, and monitor changes in quantity and quality over time. CWS

FWSHAPET, FWS-ES, PPJV

PPP-LCC, TNC, JV-LCC

Targeting grassland conservation: an estimate of land–use conversion risk in the Northern Great Plains (parts of ND, SD, and MT).

Inventory and monitor the distribution and habitat use for 

6

Convert shrub-encroached grasslands back to more open grasslands (e.g., removal of mesquite) on the wintering grounds.

JV-LCC, USBLM, TNC, ProNatura

7

Identify areas where haying of SPPI habitat is common; establish and implement guidelines for haying during the breeding season. Determine whether incentives are required to offset costs to producers. NK

Probably an issue in sw.Manitoba more than the other areas of Canada; not known to be an big issue in other portions of the range.

3 Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment

1

Increase grassland bird monitoring using the Grassland Bird Monitoring programs in Canada and the U.S. CWS

FWS-MBNG, FWS-HAPET

2

Encourage and solicit increased participation in the BBS and increase the number of trained observers and routes in grassland habitat. CWS

FWS-MBNG, 

FWS-HAPET USGS USGS

3

Evaluate the existing inventory and monitoring data for both populations and habitat to identify data gaps, particularly on the wintering range. USGS

4

Determine the quantity and quality of grassland habitat, and monitor changes in quantity and quality over time. CWS

FWSHAPET, FWS-ES, PPJV

PPP-LCC, TNC, JV-LCC

Targeting grassland conservation: an estimate of land–use conversion risk in the Northern Great Plains (parts of ND, SD, and MT).

Inventory and monitor the distribution and habitat use for 
28 Spragues’s Pipit ( Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan Table 2, continued

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological 

Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDoD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDoD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information from México.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study on-going on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.

7

breeding season. Determine whether incentives are required to offset costs to producers. NK

to be an big issue in other portions of the range.

3 Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment

1

Increase grassland bird monitoring using the Grassland Bird Monitoring programs in Canada and the U.S. CWS

FWS-MBNG, FWS-HAPET

2

Encourage and solicit increased participation in the BBS and increase the number of trained observers and routes in grassland habitat. CWS

FWS-MBNG, FWS-HAPET USGS USGS

3

Evaluate the existing inventory and monitoring data for both populations and habitat to identify data gaps, particularly on the wintering range. USGS

4

Determine the quantity and quality of grassland habitat, and monitor changes in quantity and quality over time. CWS

FWSHAPET, FWS-ES, 

PPJV

PPP-LCC, 

TNC, JV-LCC

Targeting grassland conservation: an estimate of land–use conversion risk in 

the Northern Great Plains (parts of ND, SD, and MT).

5

Inventory and monitor the distribution and habitat use for SPPI on the wintering grounds. FWS-R2 RMBO,TNC

6

Collect location and abundance information and establish a database with this data. Create maps showing locations of SPPI and areas of high density and persistence. CRT RMBO

7

Use existing programs (e.g., avian checklist, bird atlas, eBird, Natural Heritage programs), and collated sightings 

from bird enthusiasts, to refining the extent distribution in all seasons, particularly on the winter range and during migration.

8

Establish long-term study plots throughout the breeding range to monitor demographic parameters.

NK, SKD SLJ

4 Research

4.A Demographics

1

Increase demographic information for SPPI throughout different geographic areas; conduct studies to target unknown aspects of basic biology for SPPI.

NK, SKD

SLJ

2

Conduct analysis on the extent and direction of road bias in surveys and on nest survival for SPPI. SLJ

3

Conduct an analysis on changes in arrival dates due to changes in weather on survivorship. SLJ

4

Develop and assess techniques to recover SPPI 

populations in areas that have experienced declines and range contractions.

5 Do a population viability analysis. SLJ

6

Conduct research to determine site fidelity, return rates and survivorship.

4.B Habitat and Management

Increase basic knowledge on the effects of haying, grazing, burning and brush control, and other management actions 
Name of Section Conservation 29

Table 2, continued

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological 

Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDoD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDoD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information from México.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study on-going on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.

2

Conduct analysis on the extent and direction of road bias in surveys and on nest survival for SPPI. SLJ

3

Conduct an analysis on changes in arrival dates due to changes in weather on survivorship. SLJ

4

Develop and assess techniques to recover SPPI populations in areas that have experienced declines and range contractions.

5 Do a population viability analysis. SLJ6

Conduct research to determine site fidelity, return rates and survivorship.

4.B Habitat and Management

1

Increase basic knowledge on the effects of haying, grazing, burning and brush control, and other management actions on demographic parameters, e.g., parasitism rates, survivorship. Make recommendations for management. NK

2

Determine the fire regimes that create suitable SPPI habitat in different geographic areas. Determine at what levels fire may be a threat to SPPI habitat, if any. NK

3

Determine the grazing levels and seasons that create suitable SPPI habitat in different geographic areas and seasons. Determine what levels grazing becomes a threat to SPPI habitat. 

4

Determine the impact of cattle grazing on Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism rates.

5

Determine the relative effects of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, pesticide exposure, predation, etc. on continuing declines. NK

6

Determine whether non-native grassland habitats act as ecological sources or sinks and whether management (and if so, what type of management) improves habitat suitability, reproductive success, and survival of SPPI, in all seasons. SKD

4.C Wintering and Migration

1

Describe migration and wintering distribution, habitats, and abundance.Conduct research to determine wintering habitat 

2

Conduct analysis on the extent and direction of road bias in surveys and on nest survival for SPPI. SLJ

3

Conduct an analysis on changes in arrival dates due to changes in weather on survivorship. SLJ

4

Develop and assess techniques to recover SPPI 

populations in areas that have experienced declines and range contractions.

5 Do a population viability analysis. SLJ

6

Conduct research to determine site fidelity, return rates and 

survivorship.

4.B Habitat and Management

1

Increase basic knowledge on the effects of haying, grazing, burning and brush control, and other management actions on demographic parameters, e.g., parasitism rates, survivorship. Make recommendations for management. NK

2

Determine the fire regimes that create suitable SPPI habitat in different geographic areas. Determine at what levels fire may be a threat to SPPI habitat, if any. NK

3

Determine the grazing levels and seasons that create suitable SPPI habitat in different geographic areas and seasons. Determine what levels grazing becomes a threat to SPPI habitat. 

4

Determine the impact of cattle grazing on Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism rates.

5

Determine the relative effects of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, pesticide exposure, predation, etc. on continuing declines. NK

6

Determine whether non-native grassland habitats act as ecological sources or sinks and whether management (and if so, what type of management) improves habitat suitability, reproductive success, and survival of SPPI, in all seasons. SKD

4.C Wintering and Migration

1

Describe migration and wintering distribution, habitats, and abundance.
30 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

2

may be a threat to SPPI habitat, if any. NK

3

Determine the grazing levels and seasons that create suitable SPPI habitat in different geographic areas and seasons. Determine what levels grazing becomes a threat to SPPI habitat. 

4

Determine the impact of cattle grazing on Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism rates.

5

Determine the relative effects of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, pesticide exposure, predation, etc. on continuing declines. NK

6

Determine whether non-native grassland habitats act as ecological sources or sinks and whether management (and if so, what type of management) improves habitat suitability, reproductive success, and survival of SPPI, in all seasons. SKD

4.C Wintering and Migration

1

Describe migration and wintering distribution, habitats, and abundance.

2

Conduct research to determine wintering habitat components that are important, including distribution, amount, and protection status of nonbreeding habitat.

3

Determine degree of wintering habitat threats, and limiting factors. 

4 Determine site fidelity on wintering range.2

in different geographic areas. Determine at what levels fire may be a threat to SPPI habitat, if any. NK

3

Determine the grazing levels and seasons that create suitable SPPI habitat in different geographic areas and seasons. Determine what levels grazing becomes a threat to SPPI habitat. 

4

Determine the impact of cattle grazing on Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism rates.

5

Determine the relative effects of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, pesticide exposure, predation, etc. on continuing declines. NK

6

Determine whether non-native grassland habitats act as ecological sources or sinks and whether management (and if so, what type of management) improves habitat suitability, reproductive success, and survival of SPPI, in all seasons. SKD

4.C Wintering and Migration

1

Describe migration and wintering distribution, habitats, and abundance.

2

Conduct research to determine wintering habitat components that are important, including distribution, amount, and protection status of nonbreeding habitat.

3

Determine degree of wintering habitat threats, and limiting factors. 

4 Determine site fidelity on wintering range.

4.D. Threats

1

Determine the relative level of the threats identified, on both breeding and wintering ranges, and their relative importance to continuing declines and range contractions. NK WWF, TNC

2

Effects of tall structures (e.g., buildings, towers, wind 

developments) on both habitat components (e.g., invasive 

plant species, fragmentation) and on mortality and survivorship rates.

3

Energy Development. Determine the direct and indirect effects oil and gas, solar, and wind energy development have on presence, abundance, survival, and productivity of SPPI. Establish appropriate guidelines to mitigate these effects. These issues will apply to all geographic area in SPPI's range, and to all seasons. 

4

Climate Change. Gain an understanding of the consequences of changing weather patterns, including annual variation in population size and resiliency of SPPI to climate change. Use existing climate change models to evaluate possible changes in grassland habitats. SLJ

4.E Area-sensitive 

1

Determine the suitability of small grassland patches as SPPI breeding habitat, including variability of SPPI responses temporally and spatially.

NK, SKD USGS

D

t

i

th

f

ti

lit

f 

ll 

l

d 

t

h

d 

30 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan Table 2, continued

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological 

Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDoD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDoD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information from México.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study on-going on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.
Name of Section 31

1

to continuing declines and range contractions. NK WWF, TNC

2

Effects of tall structures (e.g., buildings, towers, wind developments) on both habitat components (e.g., invasive plant species, fragmentation) and on mortality and survivorship rates.

3

Energy Development. Determine the direct and indirect effects oil and gas, solar, and wind energy development have on presence, abundance, survival, and productivity of SPPI. Establish appropriate guidelines to mitigate these effects. These issues will apply to all geographic area in SPPI's range, and to all seasons. 

4

Climate Change. Gain an understanding of the consequences of changing weather patterns, including annual variation in population size and resiliency of SPPI to climate change. Use existing climate change models to evaluate possible changes in grassland habitats. SLJ

4.E Area-sensitive 

1

Determine the suitability of small grassland patches as SPPI breeding habitat, including variability of SPPI responses temporally and spatially.

NK, SKD USGS

2

Determine the functionality of small grassland patches, and the effects of the surrounding landscape. SKD

5 Education and Outreach

1

Publish and distribute land use guidelines and practices that benefit SPPI, in different geographic areas. Where BMPs for SPPI already exist, make them readily available. NK FWS-MBNG

2

Outreach to Mexican NGOs and government agencies to work on SPPI populations and habitats.

TNC, ProNatura, JV-LCC

3

Develop of education and outreach tools for SPPI to for public and landowner education and outreach on the value of conserving intact native prairie. Develop education and communication programs targeted at youth, land managers, 

and the general public increasing awareness of SPPI and their habitat requirements. 

4

Integrate Sprague’s Pipit recovery needs into land management programs and grassland conservation initiatives. JVs

1

g 

g 

g

, 

p

to continuing declines and range contractions. NK WWF, TNC

2

Effects of tall structures (e.g., buildings, towers, wind developments) on both habitat components (e.g., invasive plant species, fragmentation) and on mortality and survivorship rates.

3

Energy Development. Determine the direct and indirect effects oil and gas, solar, and wind energy development have on presence, abundance, survival, and productivity of SPPI. Establish appropriate guidelines to mitigate these effects. These issues will apply to all geographic area in SPPI's range, and to all seasons. 

4

Climate Change. Gain an understanding of the consequences of changing weather patterns, including annual variation in population size and resiliency of SPPI to climate change. Use existing climate change models to evaluate possible changes in grassland habitats. SLJ

4.E Area-sensitive 

1

Determine the suitability of small grassland patches as SPPI breeding habitat, including variability of SPPI responses temporally and spatially.

NK, SKD USGS

2

Determine the functionality of small grassland patches, and the effects of the surrounding landscape. SKD

5 Education and Outreach

1

Publish and distribute land use guidelines and practices that benefit SPPI, in different geographic areas. Where BMPs for SPPI already exist, make them readily available. NK FWS-MBNG

2

Outreach to Mexican NGOs and government agencies to work on SPPI populations and habitats.

TNC, ProNatura, JV-LCC

3

Develop of education and outreach tools for SPPI to for public and landowner education and outreach on the value of conserving intact native prairie. Develop education and communication programs targeted at youth, land managers, and the general public increasing awareness of SPPI and their habitat requirements. 

4

Integrate Sprague’s Pipit recovery needs into land 

management programs and grassland conservation initiatives. JVs

5

Produce outreach documents to inform and influence land use decisions and policies that affect grassland habitat. JVs

Table 2, continued

Table 2. Prioritized conservation plan and actions for Sprague's Pipit (SPPI). "Lead for current work" represents groups and individuals currently working on this aspect of SPPI biology in each of the three countries; "Potential" refers to partners with the knowledge and potential to collaborate in this area. "Critical" habitat is used for Canada under the SARA listing as threatened; for the United States and México, it is used in the non-legal sense, meaning important habitat types and areas. Organization abbreviations: CRT = Canada Recovery Team; CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS-ES = FWS Bismarck Ecological 

Services Office; FWS-MBNG = FWS Migratory Birds, Nongame, Region 6; FWS-HAPET: FWS HAPET Office, Regions 6 and 3; USGS = 

U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division; USFS = U. S. Forest Service; USBLM = U. S. Bureau of Land Management; USDoD = U. S. Department of Defense; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; CEC = Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

RMBO = Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; NCC = Nature Conservancy of Canada; INEGI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y

Geografía; CONANP = Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas; WWF = World Wildlife Fund; PLJV = Playa Lakes Joint Venture; PPJV = Prairie Potholes Joint Venture; PPP-LCC = Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative; JV-LCC = Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Individuals abbreviations: NK = Nicola Koper, University of Alberta, Edmonton; SKD =Stephen K. Davis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan; MD = Martha Desmond, New Mexico State University; SLJ = Stephanie L. Jones, FWS. 

Lead for current work

Priority

Subpriority Section Sub- section Description Canada United States México Potential Comments

1 Habitat

1.A Protect and restore larger tracts of native grasslands.

1

Use conservation easements (voluntary and paid) or purchase of larger tracts of land with native grassland protecting large tracts of existing native grasslands from conversion and fragmentation. NCC TNC, FWS

TNC, ProNatura

USBLM, USFS, State Agencies, USDoD, WWF

No specific easement programs have yet been planned for SPPI; existing grassland easement programs can be used.

2

Identify priority areas to target habitat conservation activities.

CRT, NCC

FWS-ES, FWS-HAPET TNC, WWF TNC, CEC

Evaluate the potential to convene regional groups to establish priorities, maybe through TNC.

3

Convert non-native uplands, including hay and pasture, to native vegetation; join tracts of restored and native grasslands to form larger tracts. FWS, TNC

4 Establish protected natural areas.

Parks Canada

FWS, FS, USBLM CONANP

Janos Biosphere Reserve recently declared in Chihuahua, México.

1.B Identify important (critical) habitat

1

Use current technology and other data to document and map the existing grassland habitat critical for SPPI. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV TNC, WWF PPP-LCC

TNC, states, and others may have information from México.

2

Update land cover data with ground-truthing to verify current and future model predictions, and to confirm habitat suitability and SPPI use. CRT PLJV INEGI

States, FWS, JV-LCC

Texas & other states will be completing a land cover classification in the next couple of years.

3

Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence and abundance using existing data to identify potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in all seasons. CRT

FWSHAPET, PPJV PPP-LCC

Study on-going on landscapes and spatial analysis linking populations to habitat (Montana).

4

Conduct field surveys to verify predictive models and collect SPPI location and abundance data on the breeding range. High-ranking sites confirmed to have high densities of SPPI should be identified.

Conservation 31
32 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

on Sprague’s Pipits are not fully understood, but any 

prairie conversion and fragmentation of suitable habitats 

will further decrease their breeding populations. Preproject investigations should be made a priority in areas 

suggested for wind power or oil and gas development. 

Recommended conservation actions are prioritized as 

follows: 

1. Identify essential habitat throughout Sprague’s Pipits’ 

range.

2. Identify essential winter areas and Sprague’s Pipits

distributions throughout their wintering range. 

3. Identify the types and intensity of current threats

during the breeding, migration, and wintering seasons.

4. Determine factors limiting Sprague’s Pipit 

populations, and the causes of breeding range 

contractions. Identify the relative importance of factors 

during the breeding, and wintering seasons to limit 

populations. Assess which environmental factors could 

be limiting Sprague’s Pipits population growth, during all 

seasons.

5. Determine if Sprague’s Pipits are positively 

responding to management actions designed for their 

conservation in local areas.

Conservation Strategies 

The conservation action plan is divided into major 

sections, addressing priority actions that contribute and 

enhance this Plan. The specific actions are prioritized 

and described in Table 2.

1. Habitat Protection and Restoration

The primary cause of Sprague’s Pipits historical declines 

are the loss, conversion, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native grasslands.

1A. Protect and restore larger tracts of native 

grasslands.—The 1st priority action to stem these 

declines is to protect and restore the remaining native 

prairie and grasslands.

1B. Identify important source habitat.—Identify 

geographic areas that are important as source habitat 

for pipit populations. Identify those priority areas and 

essential habitats to preserve.

2. Management

Recommendations for management actions should be 

primarily designed to improve and restore grasslands 

for Sprague’s Pipit nesting and wintering populations. 

These recommendations should be evaluated and refined 

to create habitat in specific geographic area.

3. Monitoring, Surveys and Assessment

Monitoring and assessment will play important roles 

in the adaptive management process by ensuring 

that critical information gaps are filled and enabling 

recovery activities and goals to be evaluated. On the 

breeding grounds, Sprague’s Pipit populations seem to 

be adequately monitored for trends by the BBS, but no 

large-scale program monitors native grassland habitat. 

Determining the quantity and quality of grassland 

habitat and monitoring changes in quantity and quality 

over time are required to assess whether recovery efforts 

are successful. 

4. Research

Sprague’s Pipits are one of the least studied avian species 

(Robbins and Dale 1999), and past research has focused 

primarily on distribution, habitat use, area requirements, 

demographics, and productivity. Currently, ongoing 

research is focusing on demographics and management.

4A. Demographics.—The primary factors causing 

population declines and range contractions in different 

regions are unknown. Demographic data throughout the 

range and across the full annual cycle are necessary to 

determine potential source and sinks areas. Complete 

a population viability assessment across the range of 

breeding demographic data

4B. Habitat.—Although pipits are most abundant on 

native grassland, they will breed in planted pastures in 

some regions; however, the conditions under which this 

occurs are unknown. Further work is needed on whether 

these anthropogenic habitats act as an ecological source 

or sink or whether management can improve habitat 

suitability, reproductive success, and survival of pipits.

4C. Wintering and Migration.—The current status 

of migration and wintering distribution and habitats 

are unknown, along with the factors that threaten the 

quantity and quality of these habitats.

4D. Threats.—A priority is to identify of degree and 

intensity of current threats on breeding, migration, 

and wintering grounds. It will be necessary to identify 

exactly where and what level of risk perceived threats 

pose to Sprague’s Pipit populations.

5. Education and Outreach

Development of education and outreach tools were 

recurring themes in every category of the recommended 

conservation actions. Sprague’s Pipit conservation will 

require public and landowner education and outreach 

on the value of conserving intact native prairie. In 

addition, education and communication programs 

targeted at youth, land managers, and the general public 

are needed to increase awareness of pipits and their 

habitat requirements. Education and outreach activities 

will enhance, and explain many of the actions above. 

Integrating Sprague’s Pipit recovery needs into land 

management programs, and getting recommendations 

included in local, state, provincial, NGO and federal 

agency plans is crucial to success.

32 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Completed and On-Going Conservation Actions Name of Section 33

Completed actions

• Completion of conservation action plan by the Region 

6 Migratory Bird Office, Nongame (this document).

• Publication of results of demographic studies in 

Saskatchewan (Davis 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009; Davis et 

al. 2006; Davis and Fisher 2009; Dohms and Davis 2010) 

and Montana (Dieni and Jones 2003, Jones and Dieni 

2007, Jones et al. 2007, Jones et al. 2010). 

• Publication of the results of management studies in 

Canada (Koper and Schmiegelow 2006a, 2006b; Koper et 

al. 2009).

• Increased monitoring and evaluation of Sprague’s 

Pipits using the GBM-Canada (Dale et al. 2003) and 

GBM-US (Jones and Niemuth 2009) programs. 

• Evaluation of Sprague’s Pipits populations and 

habitats for current listing actions from Canada 

(Environment Canada 2008) and the United States (U.

S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

Current and Ongoing Actions 

Current and ongoing actions are focusing on landscape 

composition, habitat, and population densities for 

Sprague’s Pipit in all three countries. However, much 

research is still needed. Some of the ongoing programs 

include:

• Demographic information, including nesting success, 

juvenile and adult survival, and other parameters 

are being conducted on native (Davis et al. in prep., 

SLJ) and non-native grasslands, along with effects of 

management actions on demographic parameters. 

• Identification of predators over a larger geographic 

area using camera data (Davis et al. in prep.), along with 

demographic parameters from cameras (SLJ). 

• Research using stable isotope analyses is being 

conducted to identify connectivity to Sprague’s Pipit 

wintering grounds, determine its molting patterns, 

and assess levels of dispersal and recruitment in 

grassland- and cropland-dominated landscapes in central 

Saskatchewan (Crawford et al. 2009). 

• Research in Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan 

is determining the effect of grazing on pipit abundance 

and reproductive success (Koper et al. 2009; Koper et al.

in prep.). 

• Surveys in northern México are ongoing, determining 

distribution, habitat and densities (Levandoski et al.

2008, Panjabi et al. 2010). 

• The Bureau of Land Management and Montana 

Natural Heritage Program have been conducting 

surveys of breeding birds in north Valley County, 

Montana from 2001-2007 (n=1410 point counts) and 

these are continuing (C. Wightman, pers. comm.).

• Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks are funding 

a monitoring program in the Montana portions of 

Sprague’s Pipit’s range. The program began in 2009, 

and involves point count and vegetation surveys. 

Surveys are continuing (C. Wightman, pers. comm.).

Completed and Ongoing Conservation Actions
34 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Conclusion

Developing a specific Action Plan by a coalition of 

partners is necessary to implement the conservation 

strategies recommended here. The Action Plan 

should relate to a sub-portion of each strategy and 

should include the identification of the partners that 

might undertake each sub-strategy. However, there 

are currently no specific funding sources available 

for Sprague’s Pipit conservation in the United States 

and México. Therefore, implementing effective 

conservation measures will require the cooperation of 

a coalition of local, regional, national, and international 

partners. In addition to this Action Plan, several states 

and provinces have developed objectives and actions 

designed to address conservation of Sprague’s Pipits, 

and many states and provinces have developed actions 

as part of their wildlife programs (e. g., Hagen et al. 

2005, Environment Canada 2008). The conservation 

of Sprague’s Pipits will be an action for a wide group 

of partners, and will require implementation in three 

countries, three provinces, many U. S. and Mexican 

states, and by public and private organizations.

34 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section 35

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. Check-list 

of North American birds. 5th ed. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list 

of North American birds. 7th ed. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Andersson, M. 1980. Nomadism and site tenacity as 

alternative reproductive tactics in birds. Journal of 

Animal Ecology 49:175–184.

Anonymous. 2007. Prairie Species-at-Risk Beneficial 

Management Practices Project. Draft Agricultural 

Beneficial Management Practices for Sprague’s 

Pipit (Anthus spragueii) on the Canadian Prairies. 

Alberta Provincial Papers. No publisher, no contact 

information available. <http://www.fws.gov/

mountain-prairie/species/birds/spraguespipit/

Sprague’s-pipit-DRAFT-BMP-document.pdf> (23 

June 2010).

Antsey, D.A., S.K. Davis, D.C. Duncan, and M. Skeel. 

1995. Distribution and habitat requirements 

of eight grassland songbird species in southern 

Saskatchewan. Unpublished report. Saskatchewan 

Wetland Conservation Corporation, Regina, 

Saskatchewan, Canada.

Askins, R.A., F. Chavez-Ramirez, B.C. Dale, C.A. 

Haas, J.R. Herkert, F.L. Knopf, and P.D. 

Vickery. 2007. Conservation of grassland birds 

in North America: understanding ecological 

processes in different regions. Report of the 

AOU Committee on Conservation. Ornithological 

Monographs 64. 

Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M. Fristrup. 2009. 

The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial 

organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

25:180-189.

Berlanga, H., J.A. Kennedy, T.D. Rich, M.C. 

Arizmendi, C.J. Beardmore, P.J. Blancher, 

G.S. Butcher, A.R. Couturier, A.A. Dayer, 

D.W. Demarest, and others. 2010. Saving our 

shared birds: Partners in Flight tri-national 

vision for landbird conservation. Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

<http://www.savingoursharedbirds.org/> 

(13 July 2010).

Literature Cited

Blancher, P.J., K.V. Rosenberg, A.O. Panjabi, 

B. Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, G.S. Butcher, 

D. Demarest, R. Dettmers, E.H. Dunn, and 

others. 2007. Guide to the Partners in Flight 

population estimates database. Version: North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004. 

Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 5, Brighton, 

Colorado.

Butcher, G.S., D.K. Niven, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, 

and K.V. Rosenberg. 2007. WatchList: the 2007 

WatchList for United States birds. American Birds 

61:18-25. <http://web1.audubon.org/science/

species/watchlist/techReport.php> 

(16 October 2009).

Carey, B., W. Christianson, C.E. Curtis, L. Demarch, 

G.E. Holland, R.F. Koes, R.W. Nero, R.J. Parsons, 

P. Taylor, M. Waldron, and G. Walz. 2003. The 

birds of Manitoba. Manitoba Naturalist’s Society, 

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 

in Canada (COSEWIC). 2002. COSEWIC 

assessment and update status report on 

the Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii in Canada. 

Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. <http://www.npwrc.

usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/sppi/sppi.htm> 

(26 January 2009).

Contreras-Balderas, A.J., J.A. Garcia-Salas, and 

J.I. Gonzalez-Rojas. 1997. Seasonal and ecological 

distribution of birds from Cuatrocienegas, 

Coahuila, Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 

42:224-244.

Coues, E. 1874. Birds of the Northwest. U.S. Geological 

Survey Territorial Miscellaneous Publication No. 3. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Coues, E. 1878. Field notes on birds observed in 

Dakota and Montana along the forty-ninth parallel 

during the seasons of 1873 and 1874. Article XXV. 

Pages 545-661 in Bulletin of the U. S. Geological 

and Geographical Survey Vol. IV. U. S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Crane, M.F. 1990. Selaginella densa. In Fire Effects 

Information System. U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/> 

(16 September 2010).

Literature Cited 35
36 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Crawford, N.G., M.B. Peters, C. Hagen, T.C. Glenn, 

S.K. Davis, and C. M. Somers. 2009. Polymorphic 

microsatellite loci from Sprague’s pipit (Anthus 

spragueii), a grassland endemic passerine bird. 

Molecular Ecology Resources 9:315-317. 

Dale, B.C. 1983. Habitat relationships of seven 

species of passerine birds at Last Mountain Lake,

Saskatchewan. M.S. thesis, University of Regina, 

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. 

Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds 

in Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

25:616–626.

Dale, B.C., T. S. Wiens, and L. E. Hamilton. 2009. 

Abundance of three grassland songbirds in an 

area of natural gas infill drilling in Alberta, 

Canada. Pages 194-204 in T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, 

D.W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, editors. 

Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in 

Flight Conference. 13–16 February 2008. McAllen, 

Texas. <http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/

McAllenProc/index.cfm> (9 July 2010).

Dale, B.C., M. Norton, C. Downes, and B. Collins. 2003. 

Monitoring as a means to focus research and 

conservation — the Grassland Bird Monitoring 

example. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, 

Albany, California.

Danley, R.F., R.K. Murphy, and E.M. Madden. 2004. 

Species diversity and habitat of grassland 

songbirds during grazing of prescribe-burned, 

mixed-grass prairie. Western North American 

Naturalist 64:72-77.

Davis, S.K. 2003. Nesting ecology of mixed-grass 

prairie songbirds in southern Saskatchewan.

Wilson Bulletin 115:119-130.

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland 

passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, 

and vegetation structure on bird abundance and 

occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. 

Auk 121:1130-1145.

Davis, S.K. 2005. Nest-site selection patterns and 

the influence of vegetation on nest survival of

mixed-grass prairie passerines. Condor 107:605-616.

Davis, S.K. 2009. Renesting intervals and duration 

of the incubation and nestling periods of Sprague’s 

Pipits. Journal of Field Ornithology 80:265-269.

Davis, S.K., D.C. Duncan, and M. Skeel. 1999. 

Distribution and habitat associations of three

endemic grassland songbirds in southern 

Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 111: 389–396.

Davis, S.K., and R.J. Fisher. 2009. Post-fledging 

movements of Sprague’s Pipits. Wilson Journal of 

Ornithology 121:198-202.

Davis, S.K., and S.G. Sealy. 2000. Cowbird parasitism 

and nest predation in fragmented grasslands of 

southwestern Manitoba. Pages 220-228 in J.N.M. 

Smith, T.L. Cook, S.K. Robinson, S.I. Rothstein, 

and S.G. Sealy, editors. Ecology and management 

of cowbirds and their hosts: studies in the 

conservation of North American passerine birds. 

University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. 

Davis, S.K., R.M. Brigham, T.L. Shaffer, and P.C. James. 

2006. Mixed-grass prairie passerines exhibit weak 

and variable responses to patch size. Auk 123:807-821.

Davis, S.K., K.M. Dohms, S.L. Jones, and T.G. 

Donald. In prep. Identification of Sprague’s Pipit 

nest predators in southern Saskatchewan and 

Montana. Studies in Avian Biology. 

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, 

L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and 

B.R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management 

practices on grassland birds: Sprague’s Pipit. U. S. 

Department of Interior, Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North 

Dakota. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

literatr/grasbird/sppi/sppi.htm> (13 May 2009).

Desmond, M.J. 2004. Effects of grazing practices and 

fossorial rodents on a winter avian community in 

Chihuahua, Mexico. Biological Conservation 

116:235-242. 

Desmond, M.J., K.E. Young, B.C. Thompson, R. Valdez, 

and A. Lafon-Terrazas. 2005. Habitat associations 

and conservation of grassland birds in 

the Chihuahuan desert region: two case studies 

in Chihuahua. Pages 439-451 in J.E. Cartron, 

G. Ceballos, and R.S. Felger, editors. Biodiversity, 

ecosystems and conservation in Northern Mexico. 

Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Dieni, J.S., and S.L. Jones. 2003. Grassland songbird 

nest site selection patterns in northcentral

Montana. Wilson Bulletin 115:32–40.

Dieni, J.S., W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, P. ManzanoFischer, and C.P. Melcher. 2003. New information 

on wintering birds of Northwestern Chihuahua. 

American Birds 103:26-31.

Dohms, K.M. 2009. Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) nestling provisioning 

and growth rates in native and planted 

grasslands. M.S. thesis, University of Regina, 

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

36 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Literature Cited 37

Dohms, K.M., and S.K. Davis. 2009. Polygyny and 

male parental care by Sprague’s Pipits. Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology 121:826-830.

Duffy, A.M., Jr. 2000. Cowbird brood parasitism 

on a little-used host: the Yellow-headed Blackbird. 

Pages 115-119 in J.N.M. Smith, T.L. Cook, S.K. 

Robinson, S.I. Rothstein, and S.G. Sealy, editors. 

Ecology and management of cowbirds and their 

hosts: studies in the conservation of North 

American passerine birds. University of Texas 

Press, Austin, Texas. 

Elliott, D.L., L.L. Wendell, and G.L. Gower. 1991. 

An assessment of the available windy land area 

and wind energy potential in the contiguous United 

States. U. S. Department of Energy, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Emlen, J.T. 1972. Size and structure of a 

wintering avian community in southern Texas. 

Ecology 53:317-329.

Environment Canada. 2008. Recovery strategy 

for the Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) in 

Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy 

series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. <http://

www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/dspText_e.

cfm?ocid=6183> (23 October 2009).

Freeman, B. 1999. Finding Sprague’s Pipits in Texas. 

Texas Ornithological Society 1:50-51.

Fuhlendorg, S.D., W.C. Harrell, D.M. Engle, 

R.G. Hamilton, C.A. Davis, and D.M. Leslie, 

Jr. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for 

conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and 

grazing. Ecological Applications 16:1706-1716. 

George, T.L., A.C. Fowler, R.L. Knight, and 

L.C. McEwen. 1992. Impacts of a severe drought 

on grassland birds in western North Dakota. 

Ecological Applications 2:275–284.

Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised ed. 

National Museum of Natural Science, Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada.

Grant, T.S., E. Madden, and G.B. Berkey. 2004. 

Tree and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass 

prairie: implications for breeding grassland birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807-818.

Grzybowski, J.A. 1982. Population structure in 

grassland bird communities during winter. Condor 

84:137-152.

Hagen, S.K., P.T. Isakson, and S.R. Dyke. 2005. 

North Dakota comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy. North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department. Bismarck, North Dakota <http://

gf.nd.gov/conservation/cwcs.html> 

(12 October 2006).

Harris, R.D. 1933. Observations on a nest of Sprague’s 

Pipit (Anthus spragueii). Canadian FieldNaturalist 47:91–95.

Higgins, K.F., D.E. Naugle, and K.J. Forman. 2002. 

A case study of changing land use practices in the 

Northern Great Plains, U.S.A.: an uncertain future 

for waterbird conservation. Waterbirds 25: Special 

Publication 2:45-50. 

Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler). 2000. 2000 IUCN Red 

List of Threatened Species, vol. 3.1. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, 

Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

<http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/

categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria> 

(1 April 2010)

Howell, S.N.G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the 

birds of México and Northern Central America. 

Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Howell, S.N.G., and R.G.Wilson. 1990. 

Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus) 

and other migrants of note in Guerrero, Mexico.

Aves Mexicanas 2:7–8.

Igl, L.D., and D.H. Johnson. 1997. Changes in 

breeding bird populations in North Dakota: 

1967-1992-93. Auk 114:74-92.

Inskipp, T., and H.J.Gillett, editors. 2005. 

Checklist of CITES species and annotated CITES

appendices and reservations. UNEP-WCMC 

Species Database: CITES-Listed Species. CITES 

Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland and Cambridge, 

England. <http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/

species.html> (7 October 2009).

Johnsgard, P.A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains. 

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Johnson, D.H., and L.D. Igl. 1995. Contributions 

of the Conservation Reserve Program to 

populations of breeding birds in North Dakota. 

Wilson Bulletin 107:709-718.

Johnson, D.H., and M.D. Schwartz. 1993. 

The Conservation Reserve Program: habitat for 

grassland birds. Great Plains Research 3:273–295.

Jones, S.L., and J.S. Dieni. 2007. The relationship 

between predation and nest concealment in mixedgrass prairie passerines: an analysis using program 

MARK. Studies in Avian Biology 34:117-123.

Jones, S.L., and N.D. Niemuth. 2009. Expanding 

the grassland bird monitoring and prairie potholes 

breeding shorebird survey program in the mixedgrass prairie region of the U.S. Unpublished 

report, U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.
38 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Jones, S.L., J.S. Dieni, and P.J. Gouse. 2010. 

Reproductive biology of a grassland songbird 

community in north-central Montana. Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology 122:455-464.

Jones, S.L., J.S. Dieni, M. T. Green, and 

P.J. Gouse. 2007. Annual return rates of breeding 

grassland songbirds. Wilson Journal of 

Ornithology 119:89-94.

Jongsomjit, D., S.L. Jones, T. Gardali, G.R. Geupel, 

and P.J. Gouse. 2007. A guide to nestling 

development and aging in altricial passerines. 

U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/

BTP-R6008-2007, Washington, D.C. <http://library.

fws.gov/BTP/altricialpasserines07.pdf> 

(13 May 2009).

Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on 

the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native

grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404–417.

Karasiuk, D., H. Vriend, J.G. Stelfrox, and J.R. 

McGillis. 1977. Study results from Suffield, 1976.

Pages E33–E44 in J.G. Stelfox, compiler. 

Effects of livestock grazing on mixed prairie range 

and wildlife within PFRA pastures, Suffield 

Military Reserve. Range-Wildlife Study

Committee, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada.

Koper, N., and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2006a. 

A multi-scaled analysis of avian response to habitat 

mount and fragmentation in the Canadian dry 

mixed-grass prairie. Landscape Ecology 

21:1045–1059.

Koper N., and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2006b. 

Effects of habitat management for ducks on 

target and non-target species. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70:823–834.

Koper, N., D.J. Walker, and J. Champagne. 2009. 

Nonlinear effects of distance to habitat edge 

on Sprague’s pipits in southern Alberta, Canada. 

Landscape Ecology 24:1287–1297.

Lenard, S., J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 

2003. P.D. Skaar’s Montana bird distribution.

6th ed. Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana.

Levandoski, G., A.O. Panjabi, and R. Sparks. 2008. 

Wintering bird inventory and monitoring in 

priority conservation areas in Chihuahuan desert 

grasslands in Mexico: 2008 results. Unpublished 

report I-MXPLAT-08. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, Colorado. 

Linnen, C.G. 2008. Effects of oil and gas development 

on grassland birds. Unpublished report, prepared 

for Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada. 

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and 

bird-habitat relationships on prescribe-burned,

mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota. M.S. thesis, 

Montana State University, Bozeman.

Madden, E.M., A.J. Hansen, and R.K. Murphy. 1999. 

Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat and 

abundance of passerine birds in northern mixedgrass prairie. Canadian-Field Naturalist 

113:627-640.

Madden, E.M., R.K. Murphy, A. J. Hansen, and 

L. Murray. 2000. Models for guiding management 

of prairie bird habitat in northwestern North 

Dakota. American Midland Naturalist 144:377–392.

Maher, W.J. 1973. Birds: I. Population dynamics. 

Canadian Committee for the International

Biological Programmme (Matador Project). 

Technical Report no. 34. University of 

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

Mayfield, H.F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest 

success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456–466.

McMaster, D.G., and S.K. Davis. 2001. An evaluation 

of Canada’s Permanent Cover Program: habitat for 

grassland birds? Journal of Field Ornithology 

72:195–210.

McMaster, D.G., J.H. Devries, and S.K. Davis. 2005. 

Grassland birds nesting in haylands of southern 

Saskatchewan: landscape influences and 

conservation priorities. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 69:211–221.

Merola-Zwartjes, M. 2005. Birds of southwestern 

grasslands: status, conservation and management. 

Pages 71-140 in D.M. Finch, editor. Assessment 

of grassland ecosystem conditions in the 

southwestern United States: wildlife and fish 

– vol. 2. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTW-135-vol.2. 

Fort Collins, Colorado. <http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/

pubs/rmrs_gtr135_1/rmrs_gtr135_1_049_085.pdf> 

(10 June 2010)

National Audubon Society. 2009. Christmas bird count 

historical results. <http://www.audubon.org/bird/

cbc/bird/cbc> (13 May 2009).

NatureServe Explorer. 2009. An online encyclopedia 

of life, version 7. Arlington, Virginia. <http://www.

natureserve.org/explorer> (7 October 2009).

Niemuth, N.D., J. W. Solberg, and T.L. Shaffer. 2008. 

Influence of moisture on density and distribution 

of grassland birds in North Dakota. Condor 

110:211-222.

38 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Literature Cited 39

Owens, R.A., and M.T. Myers. 1973. Effects of 

agriculture upon populations of native passerine

birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 51:697-713.

Panjabi, A.O., G. Levandoski, and R. Sparks.

2010. Wintering bird density and habitat use in 

Chihuahuan desert grasslands. Unpublished report 

I-MXPLAT-08-02. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, Colorado. 

Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Status of Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) in Alberta. Alberta 

Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management 

Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 10, Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada. <http://www.assembly.ab.ca/

lao/library/egovdocs/alen/1997/42208.pdf> 

(17 November 2009).

Prescott, D.R.C., and S.K. Davis. 1998. Status 

Report on the Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii

in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Prescott, D.R.C., and G.M. Wagner. 1996. 

Avian responses to implementation of a

complimentary/rotational grazing system by 

the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan in southern Alberta: the Medicine Wheel 

project. NAWMP-018, Alberta NAWMP Centre, 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Price, J.T. 1995. Potential impacts of global climate 

change on the summer distributions of some 

North American grassland birds. Ph.D. Dissertation, 

Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

Pyle, P. 1997a. Identification guide to North American 

birds. Part 1. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California.

Pyle, P. 1997b. Molt limits in North American 

passerines. North American Bird Bander 22:49-90.

Pyle, P., S.L. Jones, and J.M. Ruth. 2008. Molt and 

aging criteria for four North American grassland 

passerines. U. S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical 

Publication, FWS/BTP-R6011-2008, 

Washington, D.C. <http://library.fws.gov/BTP/

grasslandpasserines08.pdf> (1 May 2009).

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, 

M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, 

E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, and 

others. 2004. Partners in Flight North American 

landbird conservation plan. Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

Robbins, M.B. 1998. Display behavior of male 

Sprague’s Pipits. Wilson Bulletin 110:435-438.

Robbins, M.B., and B.C. Dale. 1999. Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. 

The Birds of North America, No. 439. Academy 

of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Roberts, T.S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota. Vol. 2. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota.

Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds: 

an analysis of Christmas Bird Count data.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Rosenberg, K.V. 2004. Partners in Flight continental 

priorities and objectives defined at the state and 

bird conservation region levels. Part 1: Users’

Guide: methods and assumptions. Unpublished 

report, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

New York. <http://fishwildlife.org/allbird_pif_

usersg uide.html> (16 September 2010).

Samson, F.B., and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation 

in North America. Bioscience 44:418-421.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Fallon, and R. Johnson. 2003. 

Use of North American breeding bird survey data 

to estimate population change for bird conservation 

regions. Journal of Wildlife Management 

67:372-389.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. E. Fallon. 2008. 

The North American breeding bird survey, results 

and analysis 1966–2007, v. 5.15 USGS Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. 

<http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/> 

(7 October 2009).

Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.

2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-

ECOL-2001, Protección ambiental – especies 

nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres – 

categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su 

inclusión, exclusión o cambio – lista de especies 

en riesgo. Distrito Federal, México. <http://

www.sedarh.gob.mx/vidasilvestre/archivos/NOM059-ecol-2001.pdf> (23 August 2006).

Seyffert, K.D. 200l. Birds of the Texas Panhandle: their 

status, distribution, and history. Texas A&M 

University Press, College Station, Texas.

Sharpe, R.S., W.R. Silcock, and J.G. Jorgensen. 

2001. Birds of Nebraska. Their distribution and 

temporal occurrence. University of Nebraska 

Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. 1991. 

The birds of South Dakota. South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. Northern State University, 

Aberdeen, South Dakota.
40 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. 

Tri-college Center for Environmental Studies, 

Fargo, North Dakota.

Sutter, G.C. 1996. Habitat selection and prairie drought 

in relation to grassland bird community structure 

and the nesting ecology of Sprague’s Pipit, Anthus 

spragueii. Ph.D. dissertation University of Regina, 

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest-site selection and nest-entrance 

orientation in Sprague’s Pipit. Wilson Bulletin 

109:462–469.

Sutter, G.C., and R.M. Brigham. 1998. Avifaunal 

and habitat changes resulting from conversion 

of native prairie to crested wheat grass: patterns 

at songbird community and species levels. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:869-875.

Sutter, G.C., S.K. Davis, and D. C. Duncan. 2000. 

Grassland songbird abundance along roads and 

trails in southern Saskatchewan. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 71:110-116.

Sutter, G.C., D.J. Sawatzky, D. M. Cooper, and R. M. 

Brigham. 1996. Renesting intervals in Sprague’s 

Pipit, Anthus spragueii. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

110:1–4.

Tallman, D.A., D.L. Swanson, and J. S. Palmer. 2002. 

Birds of South Dakota. South Dakota 

Orninthologist’s Union, Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

Thompson, M.C., and C. Ely. 1992. Birds in Kansas. 

Vol. 2. University of Kansas Museum of Natural 

History, Lawrence, Kansas.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

<http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/

treatlaw.html#mbta> (22 December 2008).

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Endangered 

Species Act. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. <http://www.

fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html> 

(22 December 2008).

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2008. Administrative 

Report, Office of Migratory Bird Management, 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C. <http://www.fws.

gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/

SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf> 

(1 May 2009).

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-Month 

finding on a petition to list Sprague’s Pipit as 

endangered or threatened throughout its range. 

Ecological Services, U. S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

<http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/

birds/spraguespipit/75FR56028.pdf> 

(16 September 2010).

U. S. Forest Service. 2005. USFS Region 1 Sensitive 

Species List - Wildlife (Final). Unpublished 

report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Missoula, Montana. <http://www.fs.fed.

us/r1/projects/wwfrp/sens-species/Sens%20Spp%20

List%20Wildlife.pdf> (8 July 2010). 

WildEarth Guardians. 2008. Petition to list the 

Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) under the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report submitted to 

Ecological Services, U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Wilson, S.D., and J.W. Belcher. 1989. Plant and bird 

communities of native prairie and introduced 

Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. 

Conservation Biology 3:39-44. 

Winter, M., D.H. Johnson, J.A. Shaffer, T.M. Donovan, 

and W.D. Svedarsky. 2006. Patch size and 

landscape effects on density and nesting success 

of grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70:158-172.

40 Spragues’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) Conservation Plan
Name of Section Tables 41
42 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern Tables 42
Name of Section 43
44 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern

Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

http://www.fws.gov 

October 2010