56028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2009–0081] 

[MO 92210-0-0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as 

Endangered or Threatened Throughout 

Its Range 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12–month finding on a petition to list 

the Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) 

as endangered or threatened and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). After review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

Sprague’s pipit as endangered or 

threatened is warranted. However, 

listing the Sprague’s pipit is currently 

precluded by higher priority actions to 

amend the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 

publication of this 12-month petition 

finding, we will add the Sprague’s pipit 

to our candidate species list. We will 

develop a proposed rule to list 

Sprague’s pipit as our priorities allow. 

We will make any determination on 

critical habitat during development of 

the proposed listing rule. In the interim 

period, we will address the status of the 

candidate taxon through our annual 

Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 15, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R6–ES–2009–0081. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, North Dakota 

Field Office, 3425 Miriam Avenue, 

Bismarck, ND 58501. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Towner, Field Supervisor, North 

Dakota Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by 

telephone at 701-250-4481; by facsimile 

at 701-355-8513; or by postal mail to: 

3425 Miriam Ave. Bismarck, ND 58501. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing a species may be warranted, 

we make a finding within 12 months of 

the date of receipt of the petition. In this 

finding, we determine whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

endangered or threatened, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the ESA requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12– 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 10, 2008, we received a 

petition dated October 9, 2008, from 

WildEarth Guardians, requesting that 

we list the Sprague’s pipit as 

endangered or threatened under the 

ESA and designate critical habitat. 

Included in the petition was supporting 

information regarding the species’ 

taxonomy and ecology, historical and 

current distribution, present status, and 

actual and potential causes of decline. 

We acknowledged the receipt of the 

petition in a letter to WildEarth 

Guardians, dated December 5, 2008. In 

that letter, we also stated that an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species under section 4(b)(7) 

of the ESA was not necessary. We also 

stated that we planned to complete the 

90–day finding for this species in Fiscal 

Year (Fiscal Year) 2009. On January 28, 

2009, we received a 60–day notice of 

intent (NOI) to sue from the petitioner 

stating that the Service was in violation 

of the ESA by failing to take action 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA. On 

August 20, 2009, the petitioner filed a 

complaint on the Service’s failure to 

complete the 90–day finding. 

We published the 90–day finding in 

the Federal Register on December 3, 

2009 (74 FR 63337). On May 19, 2010, 

the Service and WildEarth Guardians 

entered into a settlement agreement. 

According to the agreement, the Service 

will submit a 12–month finding to the 

Federal Register on or before September 

10, 2010. This notice constitutes the 12– 

month finding on the October 9, 2008, 

petition to list the Sprague’s pipit as 

endangered or threatened. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

The Sprague’s pipit is a small 

passerine of the family Motacillidae, 

genus Anthus, endemic to the Northern 

Great Plains (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 

1). It was first described by Audubon 

(1844, pp. 334-336). It is one of the few 

bird species endemic to the North 

American prairie. The closest living 

relative is believed to be the yellowish 

pipit (A. lutescens) of South America 

(Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 9). 

The Sprague’s pipit is about 10 to 15 

centimeters (cm) (3.9 to 5.9 inches (in.)) 

in length, and weighs 22 to 26 grams (g) 

(0.8 to 0.9 of an ounce (oz)), with buff 

and blackish streaking on the crown, 

nape, and underparts. Males and 

females are similar in appearance. The 

Sprague’s pipit has a plain buffy face 

with a large eye-ring. The bill is 

relatively short, slender, and straight, 

with a blackish upper mandible. The 

lower mandible is pale with a blackish 

tip. The wings and tail have two 

indistinct wing-bars, and the outer 

retrices (tail feathers) are mostly white 

(Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 3-4). 

Juveniles are slightly smaller, but 

similar to adults, with black spotting 

rather than streaking (Robbins and Dale 

1999, p. 3). 

Habitat Description and Characteristics 

Sprague’s pipits are strongly tied to 

native prairie (land which has never 

been plowed) throughout their life cycle 

(Owens and Myres 1973, pp. 705, 708; 

Davis 2004, pp. 1138-1139; Dechant et 

al. 1998, pp. 1-2; Dieni et al. 2003, p. 

31; McMaster et al. 2005, p. 219). They 

are rarely observed in cropland (Koper 

et al. 2009, p. 1987; Owens and Myres 

1973, pp. 697, 707; Igl et al. 2008, pp. 

280, 284) or land in the Conservation 

Reserve Program (a program whereby 

marginal farmland is planted primarily 

with grasses) (Higgins et al. 2002, pp. 

46-47). Sprague’s pipits will use 

nonnative planted grassland (Higgins et 

al. 2002, pp. 46-47; Dechant et al. 1998, 

p. 3; Dohms 2009, pp. 77-78, 88). 

Vegetation structure may be a better 

predictor of occurrence than species 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56029 

composition (Davis 2004, pp. 1135, 

1137). 

Native grassland is disturbance 

dependant. Without disturbance, the 

vegetative species mix changes, and 

grasslands are ultimately overgrown 

with woody vegetation (Grant et al. 

2004, p. 808) unsuitable for Sprague’s 

pipits. Historical sources of disturbance 

were fire or grazing by bison. With fires 

being less prevalent on the prairie, 

current sources of disturbance are 

generally mowing or grazing by cattle. 

While Sprague’s pipits prefer areas that 

are regularly disturbed (Askins et al. 

2007, p. 21; Madden 1996, pp. 48-59), 

their preference for vegetation of 

intermediate height means that they will 

not use a mowed or burned area until 

the vegetation has had a chance to grow, 

which may be late in the following 

growing season, or may take several 

seasons (Dechant et al. 1998, pp. 1-2; 

Kantrud 1981, p. 414). The frequency of 

disturbance required for habitat 

maintenance depends on how quickly 

the grasses grow following a disturbance 

event, with precipitation rates being a 

major driver. For example, pre-colonial 

fire return rates are estimated to be 

approximately 6 years in North Dakota, 

but 10 to 26 years in Montana and other 

relatively dry portions of the range 

(Askins et al. 2007, pp. 20-21). After 

bison grazed an area, they may not have 

returned for 1 to 8 years (Askins et al. 

2007, p. 21). 

Breeding Range and Habitat 

The breeding range is described as 

throughout North Dakota, except for the 

easternmost counties; northern and 

central Montana east of the Rocky 

Mountains; northern portions of South 

Dakota; and northwestern Minnesota. In 

Canada, Sprague’s pipits breed in 

southeastern Alberta, the southern half 

of Saskatchewan, and in southwest 

Manitoba (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 5). 

During the breeding season, Sprague’s 

pipits prefer large patches of native 

grassland with a minimum size 

requirement thought to be 

approximately 145 ha (358.3 ac) (range 

69 to 314 ha (170 to 776 ac)) (Davis 

2004, p. 1134). They were not observed 

in areas smaller than 29 ha (71.6 acres) 

(Davis 2004, p. 1134). While they have 

been reported to be less abundant in or 

absent from grassland that has been 

planted (Madden 1996, p. 104), recent 

research suggests that nesting success in 

planted grassland is similar to nesting 

success in native habitat (Dohms 2009, 

pp. 41-81). Preferred grass height has 

varied between studies, but is estimated 

to be between 10 and 30 cm (4 and 12 

in.) (Dieni and Jones 2003, p. 390; 

Madden et al. 2000, p. 382; Sutter 1997, 

pp. 464-466). They will use nonnative 

planted grassland if the vegetative 

structure is suitable, but strongly prefer 

native prairie (Dechant et al. 1998, pp. 

1, 4). The species prefers to breed in 

well-drained, open grasslands and 

avoids grasslands with excessive shrubs 

(Desmond et al. 2005, p. 442; Grant et 

al. 2004, p. 812; Sutter 1997, p. 464). 

Sprague’s pipits can be found in 

lightly to moderately grazed areas 

(Dechant et al. 1998, p. 4), but in North 

Dakota, a greater abundance of 

Sprague’s pipits have been reported 

from moderately to heavily grazed areas 

(Kantrud 1981, p. 414). However, these 

descriptions are relative; vegetation 

described as lightly grazed in one study 

may be called heavily grazed in another 

(Madden et al. 2000, p. 388). The 

species is rarely found in cultivated 

areas (Owens and Myres 1973, p. 705). 

They may avoid roads, trails, and 

habitat edges (Dale et al. 2009, pp. 194, 

200; Koper et al. 2009, pp. 1293-1295; 

Linnen 2008, p. 1; Sutter et al. 2000, p. 

114). 

Migration and Wintering Range and 

Habitat 

The Sprague’s pipit’s wintering range 

includes south-central and southeast 

Arizona, Texas, southern Oklahoma, 

southern Arkansas, northwest 

Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and 

northern Mexico. There have been 

migration sightings in Michigan, 

western Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, 

and Gulf and Atlantic States from 

Mississippi east and north to South 

Carolina. Sprague’s pipits also have 

been sighted in California during fall 

migration (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 6). 

Migration and wintering ecology are 

poorly known, but migrating and 

wintering Sprague’s pipits are found in 

both densely and sparsely vegetated 

grassland, and pastures (Desmond et al. 

2005, p. 442; Emlen 1972, p. 324). They 

are rarely found in fallow cropland 

(Wells 2007, p. 297). Sprague’s pipits 

exhibit a strong preference for grassland 

habitat during the winter and an 

avoidance of areas with too much shrub 

encroachment (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 

442). Their use of an area is dependent 

on habitat conditions. On their 

wintering grounds, after a wet year, 

when grass is denser, Sprague’s pipits 

were dense, compared with few 

individuals in the same areas after dry 

years when grasses were sparse (Dieni et 

al. 2003, p. 31; Maci ́as-Duarte et al. 

2009, p. 869). They are not found in the 

narrow strips of grassland remaining 

along agricultural field borders 

(Desmond et al. 2005, p. 448). In 

migration, they may be found near or on 

trails and roads or near water (Maher 

1973, p. 20), and they have been sighted 

in sunflower fields (Hagy et al. 2007, p. 

66). 

It has been estimated that only about 

2.5 percent of the entire Chihuahuan 

desert region, an ecosystem extending 

across the border between the United 

States and Mexico entirely within the 

wintering range of the Sprague’s pipit, 

is protected, mostly on the U.S. side 

(Desmond et al. 2005, p. 449). 

Feeding Habits 

Sprague’s pipits eat a wide variety of 

insects during the breeding season and 

a very small percentage of seeds (1 to 2 

percent) (Maher 1974, pp. 5, 32, 58). 

Breeding Phenology 

Male Sprague’s pipits have a 

territorial flight display that takes place 

high in the air and that can last up to 

3 hours (Robbins 1998, pp. 435-436). 

Sprague’s pipits are very secretive 

around the nest itself, sometimes not 

flushing until a searcher is extremely 

close (Jones and Dieni 2007, p. 123). 

When returning to the nest, they can 

land several meters away and run to the 

nest through the grass (Jones and Dieni 

2007, p. 123). 

Nests are generally constructed in 

areas of relatively dense cover, low forb 

density, and little bare ground (Sutter 

1997, p. 462). The nest is usually domeshaped; is constructed from woven 

grasses; and is generally at the end of a 

covered, sharply curved runway up to 

15 cm (5.9 in.) long which may serve as 

heat-stress protection (Sutter 1997, p. 

467; Dechant et al. 1998, p. 2). The 

female lays four to five eggs (Allen 1951, 

p. 379; Maher 1973, p. 25), which she 

incubates for 11 to 17 days (Davis 2009, 

pp. 265, 267). Females may do most or 

all of the incubation (Sutter et al. 1996, 

p. 695), but both parents may feed the 

young (Dohms and Davis 2009, p. 826). 

Parental care likely continues well past 

fledging (Harris 1933, p. 92; Sutter et al. 

1996, p. 695). The female will renest if 

the first nest fails, and some females 

have been documented successfully 

nesting two times during one breeding 

season (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694; Davis 

2009, p. 265). Long intervals between 

renesting attempts suggest that the rate 

of renesting is low (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 

694). However, breeding pairs may only 

produce an average of 1.5 clutches per 

year (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694). Males 

were documented to be polygamous 

(have two females on two nests at the 

same time), but the rate of polygyny is 

unknown (Dohms and Davis 2009, pp. 

826, 828). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Population Trend Information 

Due to its cryptic coloring and 

secretive nature, the Sprague’s pipit has 

been described as ‘‘one of the least 

known birds in North America’’ 

(Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 1), and 

range-wide surveys for the species have 

not been conducted. The population 

from 1990-1999 was estimated at 

approximately 870,000, based on 

extrapolation of Breeding Bird Survey 

(BBS) data (Blancher et al. 2007, p. 27; 

Rich et al. 2004, p. 18). The population 

has continued to decline since that time 

(Sauer et al. 2008, p. 13). The species 

was described as abundant in the late 

1800s in the upper Missouri River basin 

(Coues 1874, p. 42; Seton 1890, p. 626). 

More recent long-term estimates of 

Sprague’s pipit abundance are derived 

from the BBS, a long-term, large-scale 

survey of North American birds that 

began in 1966. The BBS is generally 

conducted by observers driving on roads 

along established routes, with stops 

every half-mile to sample for birds. 

Because Sprague’s pipits avoid roads 

(Sutter et al. 2000, p. 114), roadside 

surveys may not be the best measure of 

abundance of Sprague’s pipits (Sutter et 

al. 2000, pp. 113-114). Nonetheless, the 

methods of the BBS have been 

consistent through time, and are the best 

available information for the breeding 

range at this time. The trend analysis 

suggests that the population is in steep 

decline (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, p. 

32), with an estimated 80-percent 

decrease from 1966 through 2007 in the 

U.S. and Canadian breeding range 

(approximately 3.9 percent annually) 

(Sauer et al. 2008, p. 8). The annual 

population decline shows some slight 

variation, but the long-term trend is 

consistently negative (95-percent 

confidence interval -5.6 to -2.2) (Sauer 

et al. 2008, pp. 5-6, 8). Assuming that 

the population was approximately 

870,000 in 1995 (the mid-point between 

1990 and 1999 (Rich et al. 2004, p. 18)), 

and the population continues to decline 

at 3.9 percent annually, the population 

would have declined to approximately 

479,000 by 2010. By 2060, the 

population could drop to 66,000, and in 

100 years, by 2110, the population 

could decline to 8,970. However, this 

estimate involves a number of 

assumptions. The original population 

estimate comes from the BBS data and 

is characterized as ‘‘beige,’’ indicating 

that the 95-percent confidence limit 

around the average is within 20 percent 

of the average itself (Blancher et al. 

2007, p. 22). Additionally, this assumes 

that the population will continue to 

decline in a linear fashion. 

In addition to BBS surveys, the 

Canadian Wildlife Service conducts a 

Grassland Bird Monitoring program 

(GBM) using the same methodology as 

the BBS. GBM surveys are conducted 

along roads in areas within the mixedgrass prairie ecosystem where grassland 

is still common (Dale et al. 2005, entire; 

Environment Canada 2008, pp. 3-4). The 

GBM survey shows an even sharper 

decline of 10.5 percent annually from 

1996-2004 in the core area of Sprague’s 

pipit’s habitat in Canada (Environment 

Canada 2008, pp. iii, 3-4). The GBM 

program decline compares with a 1.8- 

percent decline for the same period 

from the BBS data (Environment Canada 

2008, pp. iii, 3-4). Since the GBM survey 

is conducted in habitat that should be 

optimal for Sprague’s pipits in Canada, 

it indicates a serious decline in species 

abundance (Environment Canada 2008, 

p. 4). 

The Christmas Bird Count (CBC) 

represents the only long-term data set 

that we are aware of that includes 

wintering information for the Sprague’s 

pipit. The CBC is an annual count 

performed around the end of December 

in which volunteers observe birds in 15- 

mile-radius ‘‘count circles.’’ The 

Sprague’s pipit CBC data from the 

winters of 1966/1967 through 2005/ 

2006 (a 40–year span) were analyzed 

following the methods described in Link 

et al. (2006, entire) (Niven 2010, pers. 

comm.). The 40–year trend data for 

Sprague’s pipit shows an annual decline 

for Texas (2.54 percent), Louisiana (6.21 

percent), Mississippi (10.21 percent), 

and Arkansas (9.27 percent). The data 

from Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, 

Florida, and California indicated an 

uncertain or stable trend (Niven 2010, 

pers. comm.). California and Florida are 

outside of the described range, and the 

number of sightings was quite low, 

presumably representing a few birds 

straying off of their normal migration 

routes or wintering areas. Oklahoma is 

part of the migration route, so sightings 

there in December may be somewhat 

varied, depending on annual weather 

conditions. Overall, the 40–year trend 

showed a median declining population 

of approximately 3.23 percent annually 

and a 73.1-percent decline for the entire 

time period (Niven 2010, pers. comm.). 

These estimates are fairly consistent 

with the decline observed on the 

breeding grounds, indicating that the 

observed decline is real, rather than an 

artifact of the sampling technique. 

Sprague’s pipit is included on a 

number of Federal, State, and 

nongovernmental organization lists as a 

sensitive species. Sprague’s pipit is 

listed in the Birds of Conservation 

Concern, a list of bird species (beyond 

those already federally listed as 

threatened or endangered) in greatest 

need of conservation action. The list is 

derived from three bird conservation 

plans: the Partners in Flight North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan, 

the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, and the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(Service 2008, pp. iii, 1, 27, 28-34, 35, 

37, 41 50- 53, 58, 60, 63, 67, 76, 85). 

Sprague’s pipits’ status is listed as 

vulnerable on the International Union of 

Conservation Networks Red List 

(Birdlife International 2008, p. 1). It has 

a NatureServe Global Rank of G4, 

indicating that the population is 

apparently secure (NatureServe 2009, p. 

1). The species is ranked as yellow on 

the Audubon 2007 watch list, indicating 

that it is either declining or rare. Species 

on the Audubon watch list typically are 

species of national conservation concern 

(Audubon 2007, p. 2). Partners in Flight 

also has placed Sprague’s pipit on its 

watch list, indicating that the species is 

a species of conservation concern at the 

global scale, a species in need of 

management action, and a high priority 

candidate for rapid status assessment 

(Rich et al. 2004, p. 18). 

Several states have identified the 

Sprague’s pipit as a sensitive species in 

their State wildlife action plans, 

including Arizona, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department 

2010, p. 3; Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries 2005, p. 6; 

Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources 2010, p. 1; Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks 2010, p. 2; New 

Mexico Game and Fish 2010, p. 4; North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department 

2010, p. 3; South Dakota Game, Fish, 

and Parks 2010, p. 3; Texas Parks and 

Wildlife 2005, p. 6). The criteria used to 

determine which species are listed as 

species of greatest conservation concern 

varies by State, but generally include 

known information about population 

trends on a State, regional, and national 

level; the importance of the State in the 

species’ range; and often rankings on 

national lists (for example Natureserve 

and the Audubon watch list 

(NatureServe 2009, p. 1; Audubon 2007, 

p. 2)). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA, a species may be determined to be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56031 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the exposure of the species to the factor 

to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure and the species 

responds negatively, the factor may be 

a threat and we then attempt to 

determine how significant a threat it is. 

If the threat is significant, it may drive 

or contribute to the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined by 

the ESA. 

Factor A. Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range. 

Habitat Conversion 

Thirty percent of prairie habitat in the 

Great Plains and Canada remains from 

pre-colonial times (Samson et al. 2004, 

p. 7), but as discussed below, the 

amount of suitable habitat remaining in 

the Sprague’s pipit’s range is much 

lower. Land conversion is accelerating 

in native prairie, with a conversion rate 

faster than the estimated conversion rate 

of rainforests in the Amazon (Stephens 

et al. 2008, pp. 1326-1327). Much of the 

land conversion is from native prairie to 

agricultural uses.. A Government 

Accountability Office report on 

agricultural conversion documented the 

continued conversion of native prairie 

to cropland, particularly in the Northern 

Plains of Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota (Government 

Accountability Office 2007, pp. 4, 12, 

15). A number of factors that encourage 

farmers to convert native prairie were 

identified, including; higher crop prices, 

especially for corn; farm payment 

programs that increase expected 

cropland profitability without 

increasing risk; the advent of herbicideready crops, and no-till farming 

methods, which allow farmers to plant 

directly into native prairie. The 

Northern Plains is identified as an area 

with continued conversion of native 

grassland (Government Accountability 

Office 2007, p. 4). From 2005 through 

2007 (the most recent year data was 

available), approximately 94,400 ha 

(233,000 acres) of virgin prairie was 

broken for the first time, or 

approximately 32,000 ha (78,000 acres) 

annually (Stephens 2010, pers. comm.). 

To determine the amount of 

potentially suitable habitat remaining 

within the Sprague’s pipit’s range, we 

performed a Geographic Information 

System (GIS) analysis for the U.S. 

portion of the breeding range (Loesch 

2010, pers. comm.). We based the 

breeding range on data from the BBS in 

the U.S. range, and included cover types 

which were classified as grassland, 

pastureland, prairie, or temporary 

wetland (Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). 

From these data, we determined that 

approximately 2.1 percent of the total 

area (10 million ha [25 million ac]) in 

the Sprague’s pipit’s U.S. breeding range 

as defined by the BBS remains in 

suitable habitat, with most of the 

historic range converted to other uses. 

Nonsuitable land cover types within the 

Sprague’s pipit’s range include urban 

areas, transportation infrastructure, 

barren areas, cropland, forest, tree rows, 

shrublands, water, and wetland areas. 

Researchers predict that native 

grassland will continue to be converted, 

and the rate of conversion may increase 

(Fargione et al. 2009, p. 769; Stephens 

et al. 2008 p. 1328). Prairie habitat loss 

in the Missouri River Coteau is 

estimated to be approximately 0.4 

percent annually (Stephens et al. 2008, 

pp. 1320, 1327). Even in areas that 

remain in native prairie, historic and 

current land management, including 

increased stocking levels, fencing, 

augmentation of water sources (which 

concentrate animals, making 

overgrazing more likely), and fire 

suppression, have all changed the 

grassland ecology and species mix 

(Knopf 1994, pp. 248-250; Weltzin et al. 

1997, pp. 758-760). The changes in the 

grassland ecosystem have led to a steep 

decline in many grassland bird species, 

including the Sprague’s pipit (Knopf 

1994, pp. 251-254; Grant et al. 2004, p. 

812; Lueders et al. 2006, pp. 602-604). 

As in the United States, most of the 

native grasslands in Canada have been 

converted to other uses, which are 

largely not suitable for nesting of the 

Sprague’s pipit (Environment Canada 

2008, p. 6). Analysis done with imagery 

taken around 2000 suggested that 

approximately 94 percent of the species’ 

range has been lost in Canada (Dale 

2010, pers. comm.). Of the 

approximately 20 million ha (49.4 

million ac) remaining as grassland in 

the Sprague’s pipit’s range in Canada, 

15 to 20 percent (3 to 4 million ha (7.4 

to 9.9 million ac)) remains in patches 

large enough to support breeding 

territories (Dale 2010, pers. comm.). 

Prairie conversion is continuing, and 

is expected to continue (Fargione et al. 

2009, p. 775; Stephens et al. 2008, pp. 

1320, 1325). Because of the decreased 

amount of suitable native prairie 

remaining throughout the United States 

and Canada, the continued conversion 

of native prairie to other land uses, and 

the altered management regime in the 

native prairie that remains, we conclude 

that ongoing habitat loss and land 

conversion is a significant threat (i.e., a 

threat that, alone or in combination with 

other factors, is causing the species to be 

in danger of extinction, now or in the 

foreseeable future) to Sprague’s pipit 

throughout its range. 

Grazing 

Grazing is a major driver in the prairie 

ecosystem. An appropriate level of 

grazing can help to maintain the prairie 

habitat, while too much or too little may 

make the habitat unsuitable for 

Sprague’s pipits. Much of the prairie is 

now grazed more uniformly than it was 

in pre-colonial times and is often 

overgrazed, leading to a decline in 

species diversity and an increase in 

woody structure (since cattle do not eat 

woody vegetation, it has a competitive 

advantage over grass if some other 

mechanism is not used to remove trees 

and shrubs) (Walker et al. 1981, pp. 478- 

481; Towne et al. 2005, pp. 1550-1558). 

Additionally, cattle have replaced bison 

as the primary herbivore in Sprague’s 

pipit habitat. Substituting cattle for 

bison does not necessarily lead to a 

change in grassland vegetation. A study 

comparing native prairie stocked with 

moderate levels of cattle to native 

prairie stocked with moderate levels of 

bison determined that, while there were 

some differences in the grazing habits of 

the two species, after 10 years the plant 

diversity and plant density in the two 

areas were similar (Towne et al. 2005, 

pp. 1552-1558). The authors suggest that 

the vegetation differences that many 

studies find between native prairie 

grazed by cattle and native prairie 

grazed by bison are due to different herd 

management practices and grazing 

intensity, rather than an inherent 

difference in the effect of the two 

herbivore species on vegetation (Towne 

et al. 2005, p. 1558). Ranchers often 

allow cattle to graze at high densities 

compared to the historic grazing 

densities of bison, which leads to a 

greater probability of overgrazing in 

grasslands (Towne et al. 2005, p. 1558). 

However, one study (Lueders et al. 

2006, p. 602) noted that Sprague’s pipits 

were more common on areas grazed by 

cattle than areas grazed by bison. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

management regimes (i.e., fire regimes, 

grazing densities) and sampling 

intensities of studies conducted on the 

two areas were quite disparate, 

precluding firm conclusions. 

While improperly timed or overly 

heavy or light grazing negatively 

impacts Sprague’s pipits’ ability to use 

an area, we do not believe that grazing 

is a major threat to Sprague’s pipits. 

While some areas are undoubtedly 

poorly managed, we believe this is a 

local rather than a rangewide problem. 

There is not enough information at this 

time to determine conclusively how 

grazing or substituting cattle for bison 

throughout much of the range impacts 

the Sprague’s pipit, but from the 

available information, we do not believe 

that grazing is a significant threat to the 

species. 

Fire 

Like grazing, fire is a major driver on 

the prairie ecosystem. While there are 

still some controlled and wild prairie 

burns, fire is no longer a widespread 

regular phenomenon as it was in precolonial times. Fire suppression has 

allowed suites of plants, especially 

woody species, to flourish (Knopf 1994, 

p. 251; Samson et al. 1998, p. 11). Fire 

suppression since European settlement 

throughout the Sprague’s pipit’s range 

has impacted the composition and 

structure of native prairie, favoring the 

incursion of trees and shrubs in areas 

that were previously grassland (Knopf 

1994, p. 251). This change of structure 

negatively impacts Sprague’s pipits, 

which avoid trees and are negatively 

associated with shrub cover on both 

their breeding and wintering grounds 

(Desmond et al. 2005, p. 442; Grant et 

al. 2004; p. 812; Sutter 1997, p. 464). 

Eliminating fire from the landscape has 

likely changed the overall composition 

of the prairie (Towne et al. 2005, pp. 

1557-1558). Trees and shrubs can be 

controlled to some extent through 

grazing or eliminated by regular 

mowing, although these management 

practices may result in selection for yet 

another suite of grassland plant species 

(Owens and Myres 1973, pp. 700-701). 

The lack of widespread fire in current 

prairie management has contributed to 

land conversion to landcover types not 

suitable for the pipit. Some form of 

disturbance is necessary to maintain the 

grassland ecosystem, and grazing and 

mowing are generally used today. While 

the lack of widespread fires as a 

management technique has led to 

changes in the grassland ecosystem, we 

believe that other methods of habitat 

maintenance are substituting for the role 

that fire historically played, albeit while 

selecting for a different suite of 

grassland species. We do not have 

information to suggest that the change 

in fire regime is a significant threat to 

the species. 

Mowing 

Like grazing and fire, mowing is a 

management technique that can be used 

as a source of disturbance to prevent 

woody species from invading into 

grassland habitat. However, mowing 

(i.e., haying) in the breeding range could 

negatively impact Sprague’s pipits by 

directly destroying nests, eggs, 

nestlings, and young fledglings, and by 

reducing the amount of nesting habitat 

available in the short term. Nest success 

of ground-nesting birds is already low, 

with an estimated 70 percent of nests 

destroyed by predators (Davis 2003, p. 

119). While Sprague’s pipits 

occasionally will renest if the first nest 

fails or if nestlings from the first clutch 

fledge early enough in the season, long 

intervals between nesting attempts 

suggest that renesting is relatively 

uncommon (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694). 

Thus, early mowing can negatively 

impact reproductive success for the 

year. Even mowing done later in the 

season after chicks have fledged may 

impact the availability of breeding 

habitat the following year because 

Sprague’s pipits will not use areas with 

short grass until later in the season 

when the grass has grown, possibly due 

to dense revegetation and the lack of 

litter (Dechant et al. 1998, p. 3; Owens 

and Myres 1973, p. 708; Kantrud 1981, 

p. 414). On the other hand, as noted 

above, mowing can improve Sprague’s 

pipit habitat in the long term by 

removing trees and shrubs (Owens and 

Myres 1973, p. 700). 

There is not sufficient information 

available about the extent, timing, and 

frequency of mowing throughout the 

species’ range to make firm conclusions 

about how much of a threat mowing 

poses. Since mowing can play both a 

positive and negative role in the 

maintenance of Sprague’s pipit habitat, 

the impacts of mowing are mixed. In 

some parts of the range where large 

portions of the remaining grasslands are 

mowed annually or grass growth is slow 

or both, mowing may be negatively 

impacting the population. However, at 

this time, we do not have information to 

indicate that mowing is a significant 

threat to the species rangewide. 

Habitat Fragmentation on the Breeding 

Grounds 

Whereas direct conversion of native 

prairie results in an obvious loss of 

habitat, fragmentation of the remaining 

native prairie can make large portions of 

otherwise suitable habitat unusable for 

nesting Sprague’s pipits. A number of 

studies have found that Sprague’s pipits 

appear to avoid non-grassland features 

in the landscape, including roads, trails, 

oil wells, croplands, woody vegetation, 

and wetlands (Dale et al. 2009, pp. 194, 

200; Koper et al. 2009, pp. 1287, 1293, 

1294, 1296; Greer 2009, p. 65; Linnen 

2008, pp. 1, 9-11, 15; Sutter et al. 2000, 

pp. 112-114). The extent to which 

Sprague’s pipits avoids roads varies 

between studies. One study found that 

of 46 mapped Sprague’s pipit territories, 

only 5 (11 percent) crossed a trail or 

pipeline (in Dale et al. 2009, p. 200). 

However, other studies found that 

Sprague’s pipits avoid roads but not 

trails, presumably because of the 

difference in structure in the road rightof-way (Sutter et al. 2000, p. 110), and 

one study did not document avoidance 

of roads, although it did document 

avoidance of other changes in habitat 

structure (Koper et al. 2009, pp. 1287, 

1293). Sprague’s pipits may be 

particularly sensitive to habitat 

fragmentation because their high flight 

display affords them a wide view of the 

area, and thus they may select their 

territories based on landscape, rather 

than site-specific features (Koper et al. 

2009, p. 1298). 

The effect of a non-grassland feature 

(e.g., shrubs, trees, roads, human-made 

structures) in the landscape can be 

much larger than its actual footprint. 

Sprague’s pipits are sensitive to patch 

size (i.e., the amount of contiguous 

native grassland available (Davis 2004, 

pp. 1134, 1135-1137; Davis et al. 2006, 

pp. 812-814; Greer 2009, p. 65)), and 

they avoid edges between grassland and 

other habitat features that are 

structurally different than grassland 

(Davis 2004, p. 1134; Koper et al. 2009, 

pp. 1287, 1293-1296). Sprague’s pipits 

were not found in patches less than 29 

ha (71.7 ac), and the minimum size 

requirement is thought to be 145 ha 

(358.3 ac) (range 69 to 314 ha (170 to 

776 ac)) (Davis 2004, p. 1134), with even 

larger patches preferred (Davis 2004, pp. 

1134-1135, 1138; Greer 2009, p. 65). 

The shape of the patch also is 

important. Since Sprague’s pipits have 

been shown to avoid edges (Linnen 

2008, pp. 1, 9-11, 15), grassland areas 

with a low edge-to-area ratio provide 

optimal habitat (Davis 2004, pp. 1139- 

1140). Thus, a linear patch may not be 

suitable for a Sprague’s pipit’s territory, 

even if it is sufficiently large. Koper et 

al. (2009, p. 1295) noted that conversion 

of one quarter section (64 ha (158 ac)) 

in the middle of a grassland patch 

reduced the utility of an additional 612 

ha (1,512 ac) of grassland. 

Because of the Sprague’s pipit’s 

selection for relatively large grassland 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56033 

areas and avoidance of edges, habitat 

fragmentation is a threat throughout the 

population’s breeding range. As more 

roads, oil and gas development, wind 

farms, and other features are 

constructed in the Northern Great 

Plains, the fragmentation of the native 

prairie is expected to increase, further 

decreasing the amount of suitable 

habitat in large enough patches to be 

used by breeding pairs. 

In order to determine the potential 

cumulative impact of human features on 

Sprague’s pipits, we performed a GIS 

analysis. We used the BBS to map the 

breeding distribution of the species. The 

BBS uses inverse distancing to smooth 

the data by using route relative 

abundance to estimate presence beyond 

the end of a survey road (Sauer et al. 

2008, pp. 17-19). We overlaid layers of 

suitable Sprague’s pipit habitat, the road 

system, permitted oil and gas wells, and 

existing wind towers in the U.S. 

breeding range. Since GIS information 

regarding the location of the roads 

constructed by the energy companies to 

access their wells or towers was not 

available, we estimated new road 

construction by having the GIS program 

measure the shortest distance from the 

nearest road to the energy feature 

(Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). Topography 

may preclude building a road following 

the most direct route, so this is a 

conservative estimate of the miles of 

new roads constructed. We buffered the 

roads, wind towers, and oil and gas well 

pads by 350 m (1148 ft) based on an 

estimate of Sprague’s pipits’ avoidance 

of oil pads and associated roads (Linnen 

2008, pp. 1, 9-11). 

As noted above, approximately 2 

percent of the U.S. breeding range 

remains in a habitat type that is 

potentially suitable for Sprague’s pipit 

nesting. When we overlaid current and 

approximated roads, oil and gas wells, 

and wind development, the amount of 

suitable habitat in patches larger than 

145 ha (358.3 ac), described as the 

minimum size requirement for breeding 

Sprague’s pipits (Davis 2004, p. 1134), 

declined to 1.55 percent of the historic 

breeding range (Figure 1) (Loesch 2010, 

pers. comm.). If we include habitat 

patches 29 ha (71.6 ac) or larger, the 

smallest patch size where Sprague’s 

pipits were observed (Davis 2004, p. 

1134), the amount of potentially suitable 

habitat increases marginally to 1.86 

percent of the historic breeding range in 

the United States (Loesch 2010, pers. 

comm.). If energy development 

continues as projected, the amount of 

suitable habitat will decline even 

further. 

FIGURE 1: Current grassland habitat 

patches for Sprague’s pipits of 145 ha 

(358.3 ac) or larger in areas of the northcentral United States where the species 

has been encountered by the BBS 

(Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

A similar GIS analysis of remaining 

suitable breeding habitat in Canada, 

including oil and gas wells, roads, and 

trails leading to each well, determined 

that about 5.6 percent of the Canadian 

range is suitable (having a greater than 

50 percent probability of occupancy) for 

Sprague’s pipits (Dale 2010, pers. 

comm.). A similar estimate (5 to 6 

percent) was independently reached by 

another researcher also analyzing land 

cover data for the Canadian range (Davis 

2010, pers. comm.). 

Our analysis shows that the remaining 

suitable habitat continues to be 

converted and fragmented, a trend that 

we expect to increase. With only 1.55 to 

1.86 percent of the U.S. historic 

breeding habitat and only 

approximately 15 to 20 percent of the 

Canadian breeding habitat still suitable 

for Sprague’s pipit nesting, the areas 

where birds can relocate to as more 

habitat becomes fragmented and 

unsuitable for Sprague’s pipit nesting is 

drastically diminished. As development 

continues, we expect the potential area 

for Sprague’s pipits to nest to decline 

further. The existing and ongoing 

fragmentation of suitable habitat makes 

the long-term observed decline of 

Sprague’s pipit likely to continue into 

the future. 

Energy Development 

Energy development (oil, gas, and 

wind) and associated roads and 

facilities increase the fragmentation of 

grassland habitat. Much of the Sprague’s 

pipit’s breeding range overlaps with 

major areas of oil and gas development, 

which have been increasing rapidly in 

some portions of the Sprague’s pipit’s 

range. In North Dakota, the number of 

drilling permits nearly doubled between 

2007 and 2008, from 494 permits issued 

in 2007 to 946 in 2008 (North Dakota 

Petroleum Council 2009, p. 2). This 

trend is expected to increase; up to 

1,850 wells could be drilled annually 

for a total of up to 19,860 additional 

wells in North Dakota over the next 20 

years (North Dakota Department of 

Mineral Resources Undated, pp. 7-17). 

Oil officials anticipate that production 

will continue to expand at record levels 

(MacPherson 2010; entire). Much of the 

oil activity is occurring in areas of 

native prairie, a trend that we expect to 

continue (Loesch 2010, pers. comm). 

The Bakken formation that is currently 

being drilled lies entirely within the 

U.S. and Canadian breeding range 

(USGS 2008, p. 1; Robbins and Dale 

1999, p. 5). Sprague’s pipits avoid oil 

wells, staying up to 350 meters (m) 

(1148 feet (ft)) away (Linnen 2008, pp. 

1, 9-11), magnifying the effect of the 

well feature itself. Oil and gas wells, 

especially at high densities, decrease the 

amount of habitat available for breeding 

territories. We calculated that each well 

and associated road has impacted 

approximately 21 ha (51 acres), 

including the area that Sprague’s pipits 

avoid (Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). Thus, 

an additional 19,860 wells could impact 

400,000 ha (1 million acres) just in the 

Sprague’s pipit range in North Dakota. 

Each oil and gas well pad requires 

some amount of associated new road 

construction. As discussed above, there 

is evidence that Sprague’s pipits avoid 

roads and trails on the breeding grounds 

(Linnen 2008, pp. 1, 9-11; Dale et al. 

2009, p. 200). Oil and gas development 

has been shown to double the density of 

roads on range lands (Naugle et al. 2009, 

pp. 11, 46). In areas with ranching, 

tillage agriculture, and oil and gas 

development, 70 percent of the land was 

within 100 m (109 yards (yd)), and 85 

percent of the land was within 200 m 

(218 yd), of a human feature (Naugle et 

al. 2009, p. 11). Researchers estimated 

that in those areas, every square km 

(0.39 square miles) of land may be both 

bounded by a road and bisected by a 

powerline (Naugle et al. 2009, p. 11). 

With increased oil and gas development 

in much of the Sprague’s pipit’s range, 

this level of fragmentation is likely to be 

occurring over a large percentage of the 

range. As discussed above, habitat 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP15SE10.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56035 

fragmentation is one of the major threats 

facing the species. 

Wind energy development has been 

increasing rapidly in recent years, with 

increases of more than 45 percent in 

2007, and more than 50 percent in 2008 

(Manville 2009, p. 1). Like oil 

development, wind projects built in 

native grassland fragment the habitat 

with turbines, towers, roads, 

transmission infrastructure, and 

associated facilities. We estimate that 

each turbine and associated road 

impacts approximately 34.5 ha (85.3 

acres) of land, including an area around 

the road that Sprague’s pipits avoid 

(Linnen 2008, p. 9-10; Loesch 2010, 

pers. comm.). However, because most 

turbines are placed close enough 

together for the avoidance areas to 

overlap, we calculated the impact of 

each individual turbine to be less, 

approximately 16.4 ha (40.5 acres) per 

turbine on average. To date, we estimate 

that 12,400 ha (30,522 ac) have been 

impacted by 752 wind turbines and 

associated roads within the Sprague’s 

pipit U.S. range. We anticipate the 

number of wind farms to continue to 

increase dramatically throughout the 

species’ range. For example, in North 

Dakota alone, we are aware of a plan to 

construct 4,194 new turbines within the 

Sprague’s pipit’s range (Ellsworth 2010, 

pers. comm.). This proposed 

development has the potential to make 

69,200 to 145,000 ha (170,000 to 

358,000 acres) of land unsuitable for 

pipit nesting, depending on how the 

turbines are spaced. This likely 

represents a fraction of potential habitat 

loss from wind energy development, 

because we typically are not informed of 

wind projects until sites are selected. 

North Dakota and South Dakota each 

have the potential wind-energy capacity 

of at least 4 mega-watts (MW) of wind 

power per km2, while Montana has been 

projected to have the potential for 3 to 

4 MW of wind power per km2 (National 

Research Council 2007, p. 45). We 

calculated how much of the Sprague’s 

pipit’s U.S. range this amount of 

development may impact, using the 

following assumptions: 

1) Each turbine would provide 2 MW 

of power. Onshore turbines are 

constructed between 700 kW to 2.5 MW 

(American Wind Energy Association 

2010, p. 3), with most industrial projects 

that we are aware of in the 1.5 MW 

range. However, wind industry is 

working toward developing larger 

turbines , so we believe that in the 

future turbine size is likely to be 2 MW 

or greater. 

2) Future wind projects would be 

constructed at approximately the same 

density as existing wind farms in these 

states, with the area of habitat that 

Sprague’s pipits avoid from one turbine 

overlapping the avoidance area from 

another. We also assume that each 

turbine, road and associated area makes 

approximately 16.4 ha (40.5 acres) of 

habitat unsuitable for nesting. 

3) Turbines would be evenly 

distributed across the Sprague’s pipit 

range in the U.S. This assumption is 

likely conservative in terms of effects to 

habitat because the areas with the 

highest wind potential in these states 

are largely within the remaining suitable 

prairie habitat. Major wind development 

is likely to occur in the remaining 

suitable Sprague’s pipit habitat (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2010a, p. 1; 

Loesch, pers. comm. 2010). 

Using the above assumptions, we 

estimate that a minimum of 4.8 million 

hectares (12 million acres) could 

become unsuitable for nesting within 

the range in North Dakota and a 

minimum of 2.1 million ha (5.1 million 

acres) could become unsuitable in South 

Dakota, while in Montana from 6.6 to 

8.8 million hectares (16.4 to 21.8 

million acres) could be impacted. While 

full development of the wind potential 

in Sprague’s pipit habitat is not likely, 

these figures indicate that even a 

fraction of full development could result 

in significant losses of Sprague’s pipit 

habitat. This estimate only includes the 

impacts from the turbines and 

associated roads. The potential impacts 

from other associated infrastructure (e.g. 

power lines) is not known, but may 

impact the species (e.g. from power-line 

strikes). The areas with the highest wind 

potential often overlap with the areas of 

remaining native prairie, making it 

likely that wind development will focus 

on the remaining suitable Sprague’s 

pipit habitat (U.S. Department of Energy 

2010a, p. 1; Loesch, pers. comm. 2010). 

There is some information suggesting 

that wind farms adversely impact 

grassland songbirds, a group that is 

already in decline (Casey 2005, p. 4; 

Manville 2009, p. 1). The entire U.S. 

range of the Sprague’s pipit is within an 

area with high potential for wind 

development (American Wind Energy 

Association 1991, p. 1; U.S. Department 

of Energy 2010a, p. 1). Thousands of 

acres of Sprague’s pipit habitat have 

already been fragmented by wind 

development (Loesch 2010, pers. 

comm.), a trend which is presumably 

consistent throughout the range as the 

number of wind farms increases (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2010b, entire). 

Thirty-three States and the District of 

Columbia have requirements or 

voluntary goals for renewable energy to 

make up a percentage of their energy 

needs, including North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2009, entire). 

Mandates for ‘‘green’’ energy in States 

without Sprague’s pipits are likely to 

fuel increases in wind development in 

the Sprague’s pipits’ range because 

wind power generated in these windrich areas are generally transmitted outof-State (e.g. Great River Energy 2010, p. 

1). We anticipate the number of turbines 

throughout the Sprague’s pipit range to 

continue to dramatically increase. 

Oil and gas extraction is ongoing 

throughout much of the Sprague’s 

pipit’s range in Canada, and is expected 

to increase into the future (Dale 2010, 

pers. comm.). Similarly, wind 

development is increasing throughout 

the Canadian range of the Sprague’s 

pipit (Canadian Wind Energy 

Association 2010, entire; Canadian 

Environmental Assessment Agency – 

Canadian Environmental Assessment 

Registry 2010, entire). 

Because of wide-scale energy 

development across the Sprague’s 

pipits’ range, we believe that oil, gas, 

and wind development represents a 

serious threat to the continued existence 

of the Sprague’s pipit. Sprague’s pipits 

avoid features in the landscape that are 

structurally different than grassland, so 

the construction of energy-related 

structures negatively impacts the 

species’ use of a wide area. The amount 

and extent of energy development has 

been increasing rapidly and is expected 

to continue to increase, so energy 

development will be an ongoing and 

increasing threat into the future. 

Roads 

In addition to fragmenting the habitat, 

roads enable the spread of exotic species 

because vegetative propagules (parts 

that can sprout independently) can be 

inadvertently transported along roads, 

while the ground disturbance associated 

with road construction provides sites 

where propagules can readily germinate 

(Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 24; 

Simmers 2006, p. 7). Furthermore, the 

dust and chemical runoff from roads 

allow only tolerant plant species to 

grow nearby, changing the plant 

composition even if the right-of-way 

were not actually disturbed and 

reseeded (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, 

p. 23). Even 20 years after reclamation, 

the nonnative seeds used on reclaimed 

roadbeds can still dominate the area 

(Simmers 2006, p. 24). These nonnative 

species spread into the nearby prairie, 

indicating that long-term impacts of 

road construction extend beyond the 

original footprint of the roadway 

(Simmers 2006, p. 24). Even if vehicles 

are cleaned before entering an area, they 

pick up nonnative seeds when visiting 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

infested sites, and carry them to newly 

disturbed areas, transporting nonnative 

species throughout the landscape (Dale 

et al. 2009, p. 195). In addition, as 

discussed under Factor C, roads serve as 

pathways for predators (Pitman et al. 

2005, p. 1267). Thus, a secondary 

impact of habitat fragmentation may be 

an increase in predation. 

The increase in roads throughout the 

Sprague’s pipit’s range represents a 

serious and ongoing threat to the 

species. Because every new energy 

feature requires at least some new road 

construction, the impacts of energy 

development on the species are closely 

tied to the impacts of road development. 

Both further fragment the remaining 

suitable habitat, leaving remnant 

patches that may be too small for the 

nesting of Sprague’s pipit. Roads 

negatively affect the structure and makeup of the prairie, and also make 

grassland habitat more accessible to 

predators, likely decreasing Sprague’s 

pipits’ reproductive success. 

Migration and Wintering Habitat 

Although there have been few studies 

of non-breeding Sprague’s pipits, 

Sprague’s pipits appear to be strongly 

tied to native prairie habitat during the 

winter (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 442; 

Emlin 1972, p. 324). They are 

occasionally observed in other habitat 

types, especially during migration 

(Maher 1973, p. 20; Robbins and Dale 

1999, pp. 13-14). Several researchers 

have noted the rapid conversion rate to 

cropland and extremely limited area 

protected in the Chihuahuan desert 

region along the border between the 

United States and Mexico (Desmond et 

al. 2005; pp. 448-449; Maci ́as-Duarte et 

al. 2009, p. 902; Manzano-Fischer et al. 

2006, p. 3820). In the Chihuahuan 

Desert Region (United States and 

Mexico), an estimated 7 percent of 

grassland habitat remained in 2005 

(Desmond et al. 2005, pp. 439, 448). 

Between 2005 and 2008, an estimated 

30,000 ha (74,000 ac) of this grassland 

was converted (Macias-Duarte et al. 

2009, p. 902). In many places where 

native grassland remains, a variety of 

factors have led to shrub encroachment, 

including overgrazing, elimination of 

prairie dogs, changes in stream flow and 

the water table due to irrigation, and 

changes in climate patterns (Desmond et 

al. 2005, p. 448; Manzano-Fischer et al. 

2006, p. 3820; Walker et al. 1981, p. 

493). Reversing the pattern of woody 

species invasion is very difficult 

because once established, woody 

species tend to be stable in the 

landscape (Whitford et al. 2001, p. 9). 

Because Sprague’s pipit’s presence on 

the wintering grounds in a particular 

area is related to rainfall the previous 

year (Dieni et al. 2003, p. 31; Maci ́asDuarte 2009, p. 901), pipits move to 

different parts of the wintering range 

annually, with densities dependent on 

local conditions. Therefore, it is likely 

necessary for sufficient suitable habitat 

to be available throughout the wintering 

range so that areas that are too dry one 

year may be used when conditions 

improve but are poor elsewhere. With 

conversion of grassland habitat on the 

wintering grounds, the amount of 

suitable habitat available to Sprague’s 

pipits is shrinking (Maci ́as-Duarte 2009, 

p. 896; Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. 

3820). Even grassland that is not 

actively converted is becoming 

unsuitable for Sprague’s pipits due to 

widespread changes in grassland 

management and resulting changes in 

grassland structure. These changes are 

caused by overgrazing, shrub 

encroachment, and an increase in the 

biomass of annual grasses, among other 

causes (Drilling 2010, pp. 9-10; 

Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, pp. 3819- 

3821; Walker et al. 1981, pp. 473-474). 

The Sprague’s pipit’s wintering 

habitat has undergone widespread 

conversion to farmland and degradation 

from management changes since precolonial times. These changes are likely 

negatively impacting the Sprague’s pipit 

population as a whole. As conversion 

and degradation continue, we expect 

wintering habitat to be more limiting. 

However, there have not been specific 

studies examining Sprague’s pipits’ 

habitat use during migration or on the 

wintering grounds, so it is not possible 

to determine if the changes to the 

migration and wintering grounds 

already constitute a threat to the species 

that may be placing the species at risk 

of extinction now or in the future. 

However, we think the magnitude of 

loss on the breeding grounds is 

sufficient to determine that the species 

is at risk of extinction now or in the 

future even in the absence of specific 

information on the wintering grounds. 

Summary of Factor A 

The Sprague’s pipit is a grassland 

obligate species that is sensitive to 

fragmentation and that requires 

relatively large grassland patches to 

form breeding territories. As identified 

above in our Factor A analysis, the 

native prairie habitat on which 

Sprague’s pipits depend has been 

drastically altered since European 

settlement, with most of the native 

prairie converted to other uses. Habitat 

conversion, fragmentation, improperly 

timed mowing, and energy development 

and associated facilities are all 

contributing, individually and 

collectively, to the present and 

threatened destruction, modification, 

and curtailment of the habitat and range 

of the Sprague’s pipit. Only 

approximately 1.55 to 1.86 percent of 

the breeding range remains in large 

enough patches to be used for breeding 

in the United States and only 

approximately 5 to 6 percent remains 

suitable in Canada. Land conversion 

and fragmentation of remaining 

grassland habitat are accelerating 

throughout the species’ breeding range. 

Grassland on the wintering range also is 

rapidly being converted to uses not 

suitable for the species. We anticipate 

that conversion and fragmentation will 

continue to occur, and are likely to 

increase, on both the breeding and 

wintering range. As discussed above, 

the Sprague’s pipit population is 

experiencing a long-term decline. As 

more habitat becomes unsuitable, we 

expect the population decline to 

continue or to accelerate. 

We have evaluated the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

regarding the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Sprague’s pipit’s 

habitat or range. Based on the current 

and ongoing habitat issues identified 

here, their synergistic effects, and their 

likely continuation in the future, we 

have determined that this factor poses a 

significant threat to the species. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes. 

We are not aware of any commercial, 

recreational, or educational uses of the 

species. Sprague’s pipit has not been 

extensively studied for scientific 

purposes (e.g., Robbins and Dale 1999, 

p. 1; Davis 2009, p. 265). A limited 

number of studies have involved close 

observation or handling of Sprague’s 

pipit adults, nests, or young (e.g., Sutter 

et al. 1996, pp. 694-696; Davis 2003, pp. 

119-128; Dieni and Jones 2003, pp. 388- 

389; Jones et al. 2007; Dohms and Davis 

2009, pp. 826-830). Work involving 

radio-transmitter attachment on 

Sprague’s pipit nestlings found no 

evidence that the devices impacted 

survival, although the transmitter may 

temporarily impact the birds’ balance 

and movement (Davis and Fischer 2009, 

p. 199; Fischer et al. 2010, pp. 1, 3-5). 

Most research that includes the 

Sprague’s pipit relies on passive 

sampling (e.g., point counts) rather than 

active handling. The studies that 

involve active handling of adults, 

nestlings, or nests may impact the 

individuals involved, but are small 

enough in scale that they are unlikely to 

affect the population as a whole. Passive 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56037 

sampling techniques are unlikely to 

have negative impacts on Sprague’s 

pipits. 

Summary of Factor B 

We do not have any evidence of risks 

to Sprague’s pipits from overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes, and we have 

no reason to believe this factor will 

become a threat to the species in the 

future. Therefore, we find that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not a significant threat to 

the Sprague’s pipit now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation. 

Disease 

We are not aware of any information 

to indicate that disease poses a 

significant threat to Sprague’s pipits at 

this time. The Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, p. 51) 

suggests that the distribution of some 

disease vectors may change as a result 

of climate change. However, the Service 

currently has no information to suggest 

that any specific disease may become 

problematic to Sprague’s pipit. 

Predation 

Predation is thought to destroy up to 

70 percent of grassland bird nests (Davis 

2003, p. 119). The predation rate on 

Sprague’s pipits may be lower due to 

their well-concealed nests and secretive 

behavior (Davis 2003, pp. 124; Davis 

and Sealy 2000, p. 223; Jones and Dieni 

2007, pp. 117-122). The species’ 

tendency to choose taller vegetation and 

to build covered nests with a runway 

presumably is at least in part an attempt 

to avoid being seen by predators (Sutter 

1997, p. 467), although a covered nest 

may not reduce predation (Jones and 

Dieni 2007, p. 123). Predation has been 

documented to be the main cause of 

mortality of nestling and fledgling 

Sprague’s pipits (Davis and Fisher 2009, 

entire). 

We do not believe that the natural 

level of predation presents a threat to 

the species. Rather, the predation risk 

for the Sprague’s pipit may be 

unnaturally increased by the 

fragmentation of habitat discussed 

above under Factor A. Songbird 

predators tend to travel along habitat 

edges, avoiding prairie areas where 

escape is more difficult (Johnson and 

Temple 1990, p. 110). Birds that may 

nest near a habitat edge, such as a road, 

could experience lower nest success 

because they may be more likely to be 

parasitized by cowbirds (Davis 1994, p. 

i) and because roads may serve as travel 

routes for predators (Pitman et al. 2005, 

p. 1267). The Sprague’s pipit’s 

preference for larger patches of 

unfragmented prairie may reduce their 

susceptibility to predation. However, as 

fewer large patches of grassland are 

available, predation risk to Sprague’s 

pipits may increase. 

Cowbird Parasitism 

Cowbird parasitism also leads to 

Sprague’s pipit nest failures, because 

the cowbirds remove or damage host 

eggs and cowbird young out-compete 

the hosts for resources (Davis 2003, pp. 

119, 127). Limited evidence suggests 

that Sprague’s pipit nests that are 

parasitized do not produce any pipit 

young (Davis and Sealy 2000, p. 226). 

Both nest predation and cowbird 

parasitism generally are higher in small 

remnant grassland plots near habitat 

edges (Johnson and Temple 1990, pp. 

106, 108; Davis 1994, p. i; Davis and 

Sealy 2000, p. 226), so the Sprague’s 

pipit’s preference for larger tracts of 

grassland, when these are available, may 

make the species less susceptible to 

cowbird parasitism than some other 

grassland species. As with predation, 

the continued loss and fragmentation of 

native grassland (see discussion under 

Factor A) means that the remaining 

habitat is more fragmented, likely 

leading to increased levels of cowbird 

parasitism and predation. 

We are concerned that continued 

landscape fragmentation will increase 

the effects of predation on this species, 

potentially resulting in a further 

reduction in Sprague’s pipit 

productivity and abundance in the 

future. However, there is very limited 

information on the extent to which such 

effects might be occurring. 

Summary of Factor C 

We do not find evidence that disease 

is currently impacting the Sprague’s 

pipit, nor do we have information to 

indicate that disease outbreaks will 

increase in the future. We find that 

disease is not a threat to the Sprague’s 

pipit now and is not expected to become 

so in the future. While the level of 

predation for all grassland birds is high, 

we do not have information at this time 

to suggest that predation or cowbird 

parasitism is impacting Sprague’s pipits 

at a level that threatens the species. 

Because Sprague’s pipits select large 

grassland patches for nesting, when 

larger habitat patches are available 

Sprague’s pipits may be less susceptible 

to cowbird parasitism than other 

grassland species. However, the 

increased fragmentation of habitat, as 

discussed under Factor A, may lead to 

increased predation and cowbird 

parasitism, and we believe that 

predation may become a more serious 

factor affecting the species. However, at 

this time, based on the available 

information we conclude that disease or 

predation is a not significant threat to 

the species now and is not likely to 

become so in the future. 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms. 

Federal Mechanisms 

There are numerous Federal laws, 

acts, and policies in addition to the ESA 

that encourage coordination of activities 

that may impact wildlife and promote 

conservation of wildlife. Some of the 

most frequently encountered Federal 

regulatory mechanisms that may 

influence Sprague’s pipit management 

are described below. 

The Sprague’s pipit is protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 

16 U.S.C. 703-712), which prohibits the 

direct take of migratory birds native to 

the United States, their eggs, or their 

active nests. Unlike the ESA, the MBTA 

does not protect species’ habitat. 

Upland habitat for migratory birds can 

be legally destroyed as long as it does 

not result in the direct take of birds, 

eggs, or active nests. As discussed under 

Factor A, habitat loss and fragmentation 

is a main reason for the species’ decline. 

Therefore, even if all public and private 

activities are designed and carried out to 

avoid direct take of Sprague’s pipits, the 

magnitude of the loss of breeding (and 

possibly migration and wintering) 

habitat would still constitute a 

significant threat to the species. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

requires all Federal agencies to examine 

the environmental impacts of their 

actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and utilize public 

participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. NEPA 

requires disclosure of actions, but does 

not require mandatory minimization 

measures for, or protection of, the 

species or its habitat. NEPA would not 

protect Sprague’s pipit habitat from 

conversion and is insufficient to address 

the threats to the Sprague’s pipit. 

As noted under Factor A, favorable 

market prices often encourage farmers to 

plow new land for crop production. 

There are no Federal laws or regulations 

prohibiting conversion of uplands from 

native habitat to cropland, and we are 

not aware of any State regulatory 

mechanisms that govern conversion of 

native grassland to cropland when 

migratory birds will be impacted. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Wind Farms and Federal Mechanisms 

The Service has developed interim 

guidelines for siting wind farms (Service 

2003, pp. 1-57) to reduce impacts to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, but they 

are voluntary and are not consistently 

applied (or applied at all) on private 

land where there is not a Federal nexus 

(Manville 2009, p. 1). As previously 

discussed, the MBTA does not protect 

habitat. Even where a Federal regulatory 

mechanism exists, migratory bird 

habitat can, and is, being converted to 

industrial uses. Wind turbines can be, 

and are being, constructed on National 

Wildlife Refuge System easements 

(Wind Energy Advisory Group 2007, 

entire). 

State Regulatory Mechanisms 

As discussed above, a number of 

States have identified the Sprague’s 

pipit as a species of conservation 

concern (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 2010, p. 3; Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

2005, p. 6; Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources 2010, p. 1; Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2010, p. 2; New 

Mexico Game and Fish 2010, p. 4; North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department 

2010, p. 3; South Dakota Game, Fish, 

and Parks 2010, p. 3; Texas Parks and 

Wildlife 2005, p. 6). While the State 

wildlife agencies work with partners to 

protect the species, there are no State 

regulations protecting habitat (Baker 

2010, pers. comm.; Francis 2010, pers. 

comm.; Gilbert 2010, pers. comm.; 

Glusenkamp 2010, pers. comm.; 

Johnson 2010, pers. comm.; Michon 

2010, pers. comm.; Ode 2010, pers. 

comm.; Wightman 2010, pers. comm.). 

In Montana, much of the prime 

Sprague’s pipit habitat is managed as 

school trust land, and as such may be 

sold or converted at any time to generate 

income for State schools (McDonald 

2010, pers. comm.). Thus, the States do 

not have regulations that would protect 

Sprague’s pipit habitat from further 

conversion or fragmentation. 

Wind Energy and State Mechanisms 

Some States have permit requirements 

for wind farm construction. However, as 

discussed above, except for Minnesota, 

there are no requirements to avoid 

Sprague’s pipit habitat. A State permit 

is required in South Dakota for wind 

farms larger than 100 megawatts (South 

Dakota Public Utilities Commission 

2010, p. 1), and in North Dakota for 

wind farms larger than 60 megawatts 

(North Dakota Public Service 

Commission 2010, p. 3). No State permit 

is required in Montana (Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

2009, p. 1). 

Canadian Regulatory Mechanisms 

In Canada, the Sprague’s pipit is 

listed as threatened under the Species 

At Risk Act (SARA), providing it with 

many similar protections as would be 

afforded by the ESA if the species were 

listed as an endangered or threatened 

species (SARA: Government of Canada 

2010, entire). Once a species is listed 

under SARA, it becomes illegal to ‘‘kill, 

harass, capture, or harm it in any way.’’ 

The SARA also protects critical habitat 

from destruction (Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 2009, pp. 1-2). Critical habitat 

has not yet been designated for the 

Sprague’s pipit under SARA (Davis 

2010, pers. comm.), so at this time, 

habitat is only protected during the 

nesting season. If Canada designates 

critical habitat in that country, the 

emphasis would be placed on Canadian 

Federal lands, and a SARA permit 

would be required to destroy critical 

habitat. On provincial or private lands, 

the province’s laws would apply to 

critical habitat. If there is a potential 

serious impact to critical habitat and the 

province is not willing to stop the 

project, the Canadian government can 

intercede. 

Under SARA, an environmental 

review is conducted for projects on 

Canadian Federal land, for projects that 

require a Canadian Federal permit or 

authorizations, and for projects that 

receive Canadian Federal funding. The 

applicant must demonstrate that they 

have considered reasonable alternatives 

and have taken all feasible measures to 

minimize potential project impacts, and 

that the project will not jeopardize the 

survival or recovery of the species. On 

provincial land, provincial legislation 

protects the species under the 

province’s environmental review 

process. Provinces can invite the 

Canadian Federal government to 

comment on their projects. Similarly, on 

private land with no Federal 

involvement, provincial laws would 

apply. 

The SARA provides significant 

protection to the species in Canada, and 

is likely sufficient to address many of 

the threats facing the species in Canada. 

Approximately 75 percent of the 

population is estimated to breed in 

Canada (Blancher et al. 2007, p. 27). 

Given the lack of protection in the 

United States as well as the concurrent 

decline in habitat on the wintering 

grounds in the United States and 

Mexico, we do not think that the 

protection in Canada alone is sufficient 

to halt or reverse the species’ decline. 

Wintering Grounds in the United States 

and Mexico 

The species benefits from protections 

on U.S. National Wildlife Refuge lands, 

protected lands in Mexico, and lands 

purchased by nonprofit organizations on 

the wintering grounds, but these lands 

are a relatively small portion of the 

wintering range and may not be 

sufficient to support the species (Emlen 

1972, pp. 302, 304; Wells 2007, pp. 296- 

298). Habitat conservation and 

restoration for the federally endangered 

Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) also 

should benefit the Sprague’s pipit along 

the eastern coast of Texas. However, 

Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken’s 

habitat is a very small portion of the 

Sprague’s pipit wintering range. 

Furthermore, the recovery plan for the 

Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken notes 

that efforts to protect habitat are 

hampered by rapid urbanization 

(Service 2010, pp. 2, 28-29). As 

discussed under Factor A, Sprague’s 

pipits likely move widely throughout 

the wintering region in response to 

precipitation patterns and local habitat 

conditions. Therefore, relatively few, 

scattered, protected areas may not 

provide sufficient habitat over the long 

term to provide for the species’ needs. 

Other than some limited protected 

lands in Mexico, we are not aware of 

any regulatory mechanisms protecting 

the Sprague’s pipit in Mexico. 

Summary of Factor D 

The MBTA currently provides Federal 

protection from direct take of migratory 

birds native to the United States, their 

active nests, and their eggs, but it does 

not provide protection for habitat. As 

discussed under Factor A, remaining 

habitat in both the breeding and 

wintering range is rapidly being 

converted and fragmented. While most 

of the States in the Sprague’s pipit’s 

range have identified the Sprague’s pipit 

as a species of conservation concern, 

this designation does not provide 

protection of remaining habitat. Because 

the main threat to the species is habitat 

loss, we find that existing U.S. 

regulatory mechanisms do not protect 

the species from the threat of habitat 

loss. 

In Canada, the Sprague’s pipit is 

listed as a threatened species 

(Environment Canada 2008, p. 1). While 

this listing provides considerable 

protection to the species, the population 

would be unlikely to reverse its decline 

without additional protection on the 

U.S. breeding portion of the range as 

well as on its wintering grounds. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56039 

Other than some limited protected 

areas, we are not aware of any 

regulatory mechanisms protecting 

Sprague’s pipits’ habitat in Mexico. A 

large portion of the wintering range is in 

Mexico, and the literature suggests that 

habitat is rapidly being converted 

(Desmond et al. 2005, pp. 448-449; 

Maci ́as-Duarte et al. 2009, p. 902; 

Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. 3820). 

While the lack of regulatory 

mechanisms preventing habitat 

conversion on the wintering range in the 

United States and Mexico is likely 

contributing to the decline of the 

species, we have limited information at 

this time regarding whether the lack of 

regulatory mechanisms on the wintering 

grounds alone is a significant threat to 

the continued existence of the species. 

Based on our review of the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, we conclude that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to protect the species and its habitat. 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms therefore is a significant 

threat to the species, now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence. 

Climate Change 

No information on the direct 

relationship between climate change 

and Sprague’s pipit population trends is 

available; however, climate change 

could potentially impact the species. 

According to the IPCC (2007, p. 6), 

‘‘warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal, as is now evident from 

observations of increases in global 

average air and ocean temperatures, 

widespread melting of snow and ice, 

and rising global average sea level.’’ 

Average Northern Hemisphere 

temperatures during the second half of 

the 20th century were very likely higher 

than during any other 50–year period in 

the last 500 years and likely the highest 

in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 

2007, p. 6). It is very likely that over the 

past 50 years cold days, cold nights, and 

frosts have become less frequent over 

most land areas, and hot days and hot 

nights have become more frequent (IPCC 

2007, p. 6). It is likely that heat waves 

have become more frequent over most 

land areas, and the frequency of heavy 

precipitation events has increased over 

most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 6). 

Changes in the global climate system 

during the 21st century are likely to be 

larger than those observed during the 

20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). For the 

next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.2 

Celsius (°C) (0.4 Fahrenheit (°F)) per 

decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 19). 

Afterward, temperature projections 

increasingly depend on specific 

emission scenarios (IPCC 2007, p. 19). 

Various emissions scenarios suggest that 

by the end of the 21st century, average 

global temperatures are expected to 

increase 0.6 to 4.0 °C (1.1 to 7.2 °F), 

with the greatest warming expected over 

land (IPCC 2007, p. 20). 

The IPCC (2007, pp. 22, 27) report 

outlines several scenarios that are 

virtually certain or very likely to occur 

in the 21st century, including: 

(1) Over most land, there will be 

warmer and fewer cold days and nights, 

and warmer and more frequent hot days 

and nights; 

(2) Areas affected by drought will 

increase; and 

(3) The frequency of warm spells and 

heat waves over most land areas will 

likely increase. 

The IPCC predicts that the resiliency 

of many ecosystems is likely to be 

exceeded this century by an 

unprecedented combination of climate 

change-associated disturbances (e.g., 

flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects) 

and other global drivers. With medium 

confidence, IPCC predicts that 

approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant 

and animal species assessed so far are 

likely to be at an increased risk of 

extinction if increases in global average 

temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C (3 to 

5 °F). Given the large amount of land 

conversion that has already taken place 

throughout North America, it is not 

clear that the Sprague’s pipit’s range 

could shift into new areas in response 

to changes in climate. 

There is some variability between 

models in projecting the effect of future 

climate change on Sprague’s pipit 

breeding habitat. One model projected 

that the Sprague’s pipit’s breeding range 

would experience a wetter climate by 

the end of this century (U.S. Global 

Change Research Program Great Plains 

2009, p. 125). In contrast, another model 

suggested that much of the remaining 

suitable habitat for Sprague’s pipit 

nesting would likely become drier due 

to climate change (Johnson et al. 2005, 

p. 871). 

In a 3–year study looking at a drought 

and post-drought period in western 

North Dakota, Sprague’s pipit numbers 

declined in periods of drought, although 

they rebounded once the drought ended 

(George et al. 1992, pp. 275, 278-279). 

By contrast, a study comparing numbers 

from the BBS to moisture levels in 

eastern and northern North Dakota 

found that Sprague’s pipit numbers 

actually increased during dry periods 

(Niemuth et al. 2008, pp. 213-217). 

However, amount of moisture was a 

relative descriptor and not constant 

between studies. 

Sprague’s pipits prefer areas with 

grassy cover and a low amount of bare 

ground (Dieni and Jones 2003, p. 392; 

Sutter 1997, p. 464). Extreme drought 

may lead to poor grass growth and thus 

less optimal habitat (Dieni and Jones 

2003, pp. 393-395). While the species 

can increase in abundance after a shortterm drought ends, climate change may 

lead to drier conditions in much of the 

Sprague’s pipit’s breeding range 

(Johnson et al. 2005, pp. 869-871), 

which may have more lasting impacts 

on the habitat and thus the Sprague’s 

pipit (George et al. 1992, pp. 281-283). 

Temperatures in the wintering range 

also are expected to rise, while 

precipitation is projected to decline 

(U.S. Global Change Research Program 

Southwest 2009, p. 125). Therefore, 

substantial landscape changes are 

expected in the wintering range (U.S. 

Global Change Research Program 

Southwest 2009, p. 131). These changes 

in temperature and precipitation 

throughout the species’ range may have 

a large impact on ecosystems (U.S. 

Global Change Research Program Great 

Plains 2009, p. 126; U.S. Global Change 

Research Program Southwest 2009, p. 

131) and thus the Sprague’s pipit. 

In the arid areas where Sprague’s 

pipits migrate and winter, the amount of 

grass is driven by precipitation the 

previous year. The grass structure, in 

turn, influences migratory bird use of an 

area (Maci ́as-Duarte et al. 2009, p. 901). 

As climate patterns change, the 

available suitable habitat in the 

migration and wintering areas may 

become less suitable for Sprague’s 

pipits. 

If, as predicted, climate change causes 

shifts in large-scale weather patterns, 

this would likely alter the optimal areas 

for the Sprague’s pipit’s breeding and 

wintering grounds. Since there is 

already limited grassland remaining, it 

is unlikely that there would be suitable 

habitat available elsewhere. However, 

there is not sufficient information at this 

time to determine the likely effects of 

climate change on the Sprague’s pipit. 

Chemical Use and Harassment in 

Agricultural Fields 

The Sprague’s pipit is primarily 

associated with grassland, but it is 

occasionally observed in cropland (Igl et 

al. 2008, pp. 280, 284). Agricultural 

practices on the wintering grounds may 

impact Sprague’s pipits. The pesticide 

flowable carbofuran (brand name 

Furidan) was reportedly used in Mexico 

to protect crops against insects 

(Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. 3821). 

This practice not only reduces the prey 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

base in the area, but also has been 

linked with the mortality of passerines 

nearby (Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. 

3821). The use of carbofuran is 

prohibited in the United States, and 

cancellation is being considered in 

Canada (Environmental Protection 

Agency 2010, p. 1; Health Canada 2009, 

p. 1). The use of carbofuran is currently 

legal in Mexico (Doucoure 2010, pers. 

comm.). However, since Sprague’s 

pipits rarely use cropfields, carbofuran 

is unlikely to be causing major impacts 

to the species, even in places where it 

is still used. 

Sprague’s pipits primarily feed on 

arthropods, and have been sighted in 

sunflower fields, although their use of 

crop fields is rare (Igl et al. 2008, pp. 

280-284; Hagy et al. 2007, p. 66; Wells 

2007, p. 297). The poisoning of 

sunflower fields with grain bait used to 

kill blackbirds (Family: Icteridae) may 

impact Sprague’s pipits (Hagy et al. 

2007, p. 66). As discussed above, 

Sprague’s pipits do not generally use 

crop fields, so the impacts of poisoning 

are limited. 

Some sunflower growers harass birds, 

primarily several species of blackbirds 

that feed on their crops. Harassment of 

birds on cropland may negatively 

impact their energy stores during 

migration, when they may already be 

low on reserves (Hagy et al. 2007, pp. 

62, 69). Any Sprague’s pipits that are 

present in sunflower fields could be 

incidentally harassed out of those fields 

along with blackbirds and any other 

species present. 

We acknowledge the potential for 

negative impacts on Sprague’s pipit 

from harassment and poisoning in 

agricultural fields. Such impacts are 

likely minimal and localized as 

Sprague’s pipits spend limited time in 

agricultural fields. Therefore, we 

determine the potential impacts of 

harassment and poisoning on Sprague’s 

pipits to be low at this time. Thus, we 

have determined that pesticide use and 

harassment is not a significant threat to 

the Sprague’s pipit. 

Summary of Factor E 

Due to the large level of uncertainty, 

we do not find climate change to be a 

significant threat to the species at this 

time. However, the IPCC states that 

warming of the climate is unequivocal 

(2007, p. 15). Additional information 

would improve our understanding of its 

effects on the species. 

While chemical use to control insects 

likely has both direct and indirect 

effects on the Sprague’s pipit, we have 

limited information regarding the scope 

of its use. Therefore, we do not have 

information to determine whether 

insecticide use is having a substantial 

impact on the species at this time. We 

do not believe that poisoning and 

harassment in agricultural fields pose a 

significant threat to Sprague’s pipit 

population persistence. We conclude 

that the best scientific and commercial 

information available indicates that 

other natural or manmade factors are 

not a significant threat to the Sprague’s 

pipit. 

Finding 

As required by the ESA, we 

conducted a review of the status of the 

species and considered the five factors 

in assessing whether the Sprague’s pipit 

is endangered or threatened throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

We examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the Sprague’s pipit. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

Sprague’s pipit and grassland bird 

experts and other Federal, State, and 

Canadian resource agencies. 

In this review of the status of the 

species, we identified a number of 

threats under the five-factor analysis 

including: habitat fragmentation on the 

breeding grounds, energy development, 

roads, and inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Native prairie is one of the most 

imperiled habitats worldwide, with loss 

rates approximating 70 percent in the 

United States and Canada, and prairie 

loss is accelerating. The remaining 

prairie is being converted to other land 

uses and is being increasingly 

fragmented, largely due to the 

development of wind, oil, and gasgenerating facilities and associated 

roads and infrastructure. Land 

conversion is likely impacting the 

species throughout its range, but the 

effects of fragmentation most strongly 

impact the species on the breeding 

grounds. Because Sprague’s pipits avoid 

unsuitable landscape features in 

breeding territories, the effect of a 

change in the landscape is magnified 

beyond the simple footprint of the 

disturbance. Only approximately 2 

percent of the species’ historical U.S. 

range remains in potentially suitable 

habitat. When we included the effects of 

fragmentation and disturbance, the 

remaining suitable habitat declined 

even further to 1.55 to1.86 percent of 

the historical breeding habitat in the 

United States and between 5 and 6 

percent of the historical breeding range 

in Canada remaining in large enough 

patches to support nesting territories. 

This loss of suitable habitat will likely 

continue and accelerate for the 

foreseeable future with the increase in 

energy development throughout much 

of the species’ range. We estimate that 

habitat will likely continue to be 

converted from native prairie at a rate of 

approximately 32,000 ha (78,000 ac) 

annually, with a total potential 

conversion of 640,000 ha (1.6 million 

ac) in 20 years within the U.S. breeding 

range. In addition, wind power has the 

potential to impact a substantial amount 

of the suitable habitat remaining within 

the range. With limited exceptions, 

existing regulatory mechanisms do not 

protect the species’ habitat from 

development. 

The evidence we have at this time 

suggests that while grazing, mowing, 

overutilization, predation, cowbird 

parasitism, harassment and chemical 

use may have some impacts on 

Sprague’s pipits, these effects are 

unlikely to be influencing the 

population as a whole. Climate change 

may lead to large-scale population level 

impacts if it causes changes in the 

remaining suitable habitat. The 

available information strongly suggests 

that changes in the global climate 

system are likely to impact rainfall and 

temperature throughout the Sprague’s 

pipits’ range, but the nature and 

magnitude of these changes on the 

Sprague’s pipit population is unknown 

at this time. While there are some broad 

estimates of how climate change will 

impact the central region of North 

America, many uncertainties remain. 

Land conversion, fragmentation of 

habitat, and inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms to halt habitat loss are 

causing a significant decline in the 

Sprague’s pipit population, such that 

listing is warranted. 

Both the BBS and the CBC data show 

long-term, sustained declines in the 

Sprague’s pipit population of 3.23 to 3.9 

percent annually and a 73 to 80 percent 

decline over the past 40 years. These 

surveys provide an indication of 

population trends. The evidence for 

decline is particularly strong because 

these two lines of independent evidence 

both point to the same conclusion. Even 

though the surveys take place in 

different parts of the species’ range 

(breeding and wintering) and use 

different methodologies, the resulting 

estimates for population trend are 

remarkably similar. The only available 

population estimate comes from the 

BBS data, estimating the population at 

approximately 870,000 in 1995 

(Blancher et al. 2007 p. 27). The 

population trend since that time has 

continued to decline, suggesting that the 

population is approximately 479,000 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56041 

today, assuming a continued population 

decline of 3.9 percent annually. 

Prairie habitat loss and fragmentation 

has resulted in only 1.55 to1.86 percent 

of the historical breeding habitat in the 

United States and between 5 and 6 

percent of the historical breeding range 

in Canada remaining in patches large 

enough to support nesting. We expect 

current habitat loss and fragmentation to 

continue into the future. Farm policy 

and practices continue to provide 

economic incentives for farmers to 

convert native prairie into cropland, 

while advances in farming (herbicide 

resistant crops and the advent of no-till 

planting) contribute to decisions to 

convert prairie to cropland. The historic 

primary impact to the Sprague’s pipit 

population has been land conversion to 

cropland. While land conversion to 

cropland is ongoing and remains a 

chronic threat, the major threat in the 

future is further fragmentation and 

degradation of native prairie habitat 

from the rapid expansion of oil and gas 

production and wind farm 

development. While there are 

approximately 10 million ha (25 million 

ac) of native prairie remaining in the 

U.S. range, only approximately 7 

million ha (17 million ac) of this habitat 

remains in large enough patches to be 

used by breeding Sprague’s pipits. 

Similarly, in the Canadian range, only 

approximately 3 to 4 million ha (7.4 to 

9.9 million ac) remains in patches large 

enough to be used by breeding 

Sprague’s pipits. Even this remaining 

habitat is becoming increasingly 

fragmented through continued 

conversion and fragmentation, 

especially due to energy development. 

As the amount of suitable habitat 

declines, the quality is also reduced, 

because the remaining habitat is 

increasingly fragmented, with more 

edge effects and greater impact from 

predators, cowbirds, and weed 

incursion. We anticipate the current rate 

of population decline (3.23 to 3.9 

percent annually) to continue, and 

possibly increase, into the future due to 

the current and future loss of suitable 

breeding habitat. Given the current and 

anticipated decline in suitable habitat 

on both the breeding and wintering 

grounds, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to protect 

remaining habitat, and the long-term, 

ongoing population decline, we find 

that listing the Sprague’s pipit 

throughout its range (United States, 

Canada, and Mexico) is warranted. 

This status review identified threats 

to the Sprague’s pipit attributable to 

Factors A and D. The primary threat to 

the species is from habitat conversion 

and fragmentation (Factor A), especially 

due to native prairie conversion to other 

uses and fragmentation from energy (oil, 

gas, and wind) development. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action, listing 

the Sprague’s pipit as endangered or 

threatened, is warranted. We will make 

a determination on the status of the 

species as endangered or threatened 

when we prepare a proposed listing 

determination. However, as explained 

in more detail below, an immediate 

proposal of a regulation implementing 

this action is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions, and progress is 

being made to add or remove qualified 

species from the Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is warranted. 

We determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species is not warranted for 

this species at this time, because while 

the population shows a long-term 

sustained decline, there is sufficient 

habitat remaining to prevent the species’ 

numbers from plummeting drastically in 

the short term. Additionally, while we 

believe that both the U.S. and Canadian 

portions of the breeding range are 

necessary for the long-term survival of 

the species, the protections afforded in 

Canada under SARA should somewhat 

buffer the species’ decline. However, if 

at any time we determine that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the Sprague’s pipit is warranted, 

we will initiate the action at that time. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to 

establish a rational system for utilizing 

available resources for the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying 

species listed as threatened to 

endangered status. These guidelines, 

titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened 

Species Listing and Recovery Priority 

Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and 

magnitude of threats, and the level of 

taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning 

priority in descending order to 

monotypic genera (genus with one 

species), full species, and subspecies (or 

equivalently, distinct population 

segments of vertebrates). We assigned 

the Sprague’s pipit an LPN of 2 based 

on our finding that the species faces 

threats that are of high magnitude and 

are imminent. These threats include the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. This is the 

highest priority that can be provided to 

a species under our guidance. Our 

rationale for assigning the Sprague’s 

pipit an LPN 2 is outlined below. 

Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, 

the magnitude of threat is the first 

criterion we look at when establishing a 

listing priority. The guidance indicates 

that species with the highest magnitude 

of threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. The threats that 

the Sprague’s pipit faces are high in 

magnitude because the major threats 

(habitat conversion and fragmentation, 

energy development, inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms) occur 

throughout all of the species’ range. 

Based on an evaluation of suitable 

habitat remaining in the species’ 

breeding range, we determined that less 

than 2 percent of the U.S. range and 

only about 6 percent of the Canadian 

range remain in a suitable habitat type 

for the Sprague’s pipit to breed. Habitat 

loss through grassland conversion was 

historically a major threat to the species, 

with approximately 98 percent of the 

U.S. breeding range lost to habitat 

conversion. On the remaining 2 percent 

of U.S. breeding range, grassland 

conversion is still occurring at a rate of 

approximately 32,000 ha (78,000 ac) per 

year. While conversion continues to 

reduce the amount of habitat available, 

energy development is the current and 

projected future major threat to the 

species. The amount of oil and gas and 

wind development has been increasing 

rapidly (Manville 2009, p. 1; 

Macpherson 2010, p. 1), and is expected 

to continue to do so into the foreseeable 

future. Wind development alone has the 

potential to impact from 14 to 16 

million ha (33 to 39 million ac) in the 

U.S. breeding range. In North Dakota 

alone, oil and gas development could 

impact approximately 570,000 ha (1.4 

million ac) within the Sprague’s pipit 

range in 20 years. Both oil and gas and 

the wind development are land 

intensive, causing wide-scale 

fragmentation and degradation of the 

remaining grassland making it 

unsuitable for this species. There is less 

specific information available on the 

wintering grounds, but the data 

available indicate that large areas of the 

wintering grounds are being converted 

from grassland habitat. The 

documented, long-term, continuous 

population decline indicates that loss of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

habitat is having a population-level 

effect. 

Adequate regulations are not in place 

at the local, State, or Federal level to 

adequately minimize the threat of 

habitat degradation and fragmentation. 

Regulatory mechanisms do not exist to 

prevent large-scale changes to prairie 

habitat. Energy development (oil, gas, 

and wind) and associated infrastructure 

is projected to increase throughout the 

Sprague’s pipit’s range, further 

precluding the species’ use of large 

portions for breeding or wintering 

activities. There are not adequate 

regulations related to placement and 

spacing of these energy features to avoid 

impacts to remaining unfragmented 

grassland habitat. We believe the ability 

of the Sprague’s pipit population to 

stabilize or increase over the long term 

is highly diminished given the 

landscape-level changes that are 

occurring. Thus, we believe that the 

available information indicates that the 

magnitude of threats is high. 

Under our LPN Guidance, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species that face actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. The 

threats are imminent because we have 

factual information that the threats are 

identifiable and that the species is 

currently facing them throughout all 

portions of its breeding range and in 

large portions of its wintering range. 

These actual, identifiable threats are 

covered in detail under the discussion 

of Factors A and D of this finding and 

currently include habitat conversion 

and fragmentation and inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms. In addition to 

their current existence, we expect these 

threats to continue and likely intensify 

in the foreseeable future. State agency 

representatives, energy industry 

spokesmen, and researchers anticipate 

that the amount of wind and oil and gas 

development will increase in the 

northern Great Plains for the foreseeable 

future. Since both oil and gas and wind 

development are occurring in areas that 

remain in native prairie, we believe that 

the impacts of increased development 

will further reduce the remaining 

suitable Sprague’s pipit habitat. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. The Sprague’s 

pipit is a valid taxon at the species 

level, and therefore receives a higher 

priority than subspecies or DPSs, but a 

lower priority than species in a 

monotypic genus. 

The Sprague’s pipit faces high 

magnitude, imminent threats, and is a 

valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in 

accordance with our LPN guidance, we 

have assigned the Sprague’s pipit an 

LPN of 2. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to the Sprague’s pipit, and the 

species’ status on an annual basis, and 

should the magnitude or the imminence 

of the threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

Work on a proposed listing 

determination for the Sprague’s pipit is 

precluded by work on higher priority 

listing actions with absolute statutory, 

court-ordered, or court-approved 

deadlines and final listing 

determinations for those species that 

were proposed for listing with funds 

from Fiscal Year 2009. This work 

includes all the actions listed in the 

tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

competing demands for those resources. 

Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 

multiple factors dictate whether it will 

be possible to undertake work on a 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Service Listing Program is available to 

support work involving the following 

listing actions: Proposed and final 

listing rules; 90–day and 12–month 

findings on petitions to add species to 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change 

the status of a species from threatened 

to endangered; annual determinations 

on prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ 

petition findings as required under 

section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical 

habitat petition findings; proposed and 

final rules designating critical habitat; 

and litigation-related, administrative, 

and program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. The median cost for 

preparing and publishing a 90–day 

finding is $39, 276; for a 12–month 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

the median cost is $305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107 - 103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2009, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56043 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding, when making a 12– 

month petition finding, whether we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97-304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states (in a 

discussion on 90–day petition findings 

that by its own terms also covers 12– 

month findings) that the deadlines were 

‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to 

delay commencing the rulemaking 

process for any reason other than that 

the existence of pending or imminent 

proposals to list species subject to a 

greater degree of threat would make 

allocation of resources to such a petition 

[that is, for a lower-ranking species] 

unwise.’’ 

In FY 2010, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

achieved with $10,471,000, which is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). However these funds are 

not enough to fully fund all our courtordered and statutory listing actions in 

FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of 

our critical habitat subcap funds in 

order to work on all of our required 

petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our 

process is to make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 

is being used to fund work in the 

following categories: compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

candidate species. In 2009, the 

responsibility for listing foreign species 

under the Act was transferred from the 

Division of Scientific Authority, 

International Affairs Program, to the 

Endangered Species Program. Starting 

in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is 

being used to work on the actions 

described above as they apply to listing 

actions for foreign species. This has the 

potential to further reduce funding 

available for domestic listing actions. 

Although there are currently no foreign 

species issues included in our highpriority listing actions at this time, 

many actions have statutory or courtapproved settlement deadlines, thus 

increasing their priority. The allocations 

for each specific listing action are 

identified in the Service’s FY 2010 

Allocation Table (part of our 

administrative record). 

Based on our September 21, 1983, 

guidance for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098), we 

have a significant number of species 

with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, 

we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 

to 12, depending on the magnitude of 

threats (high vs. moderate to low), 

immediacy of threats (imminent or 

nonimminent), and taxonomic status of 

the species (in order of priority: 

monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). Because of the large number of 

high-priority species, we have further 

ranked the candidate species with an 

LPN of 2 by using the following 

extinction-risk type criteria: 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate 

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, as we work on proposed rules 

for the highest priority species in the 

next several years, we are preparing 

multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, available staff resources are 

also a factor in determining highpriority species provided with funding. 

Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, since as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. 

We assigned the Sprague’s pipit an 

LPN of 2, based on our finding that the 

species faces immediate and high 

magnitude threats from the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat and from the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Under our 1983 

Guidelines, a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent 

high-magnitude threats is assigned an 

LPN of 1, 2, or 3 depending on its 

taxonomic status. Because the Sprague’s 

pipit is a species, we assigned it an LPN 

of 2 (the highest category available for 

a species). Therefore, work on a 

proposed listing determination for the 

Sprague’s pipit is precluded by work on 

higher priority candidate species; listing 

actions with absolute statutory, court 

ordered, or court-approved deadlines; 

and final listing determinations for 

those species that were proposed for 

listing with funds from previous fiscal 

years. This work includes all the actions 

listed in the tables below under 

expeditious progress. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species to and from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. (Although we do not discuss 

it in detail here, we are also making 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the Lists under the 

Recovery program, which is funded by 

a separate line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. As 

explained above in our description of 

the statutory cap on Listing Program 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

funds, the Recovery Program funds and 

actions supported by them cannot be 

considered in determining expeditious 

progress made in the Listing Program.) 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists is a function of the 

resources available and the competing 

demands for those funds. Given that 

limitation, we find that we are making 

progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 

Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication 

Date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Threatened 

Species Throughout Its Range 

Final Listing 

Threatened 

74 FR 52013-52064 

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the Black Hills 

of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Not substantial 

74 FR 55177-55180 

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the Upper Missouri River System Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Status Review 

74 FR 55524-55525 

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen 

Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule. 

Proposed Listing 

Threatened 

74 FR 56757-56770 

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout Its 

Range with Special Rule 

Proposed Listing 

Threatened 

74 FR 56770-56791 

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Status Review 

74 FR 61100-61102 

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

74 FR 63343-63366 

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

74 FR 63337-63343 

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Mussels From Texas 

as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

74 FR 66260-66271 

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Not substantial and 

Substantial 

74 FR 66865-66905 

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Listing of the Distinct 

Population Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

74 FR 66937-66950 

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 605-649 

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 286-310 

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel Proposed rule, 

withdrawal 

75 FR 310-316 

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth’s Shearwater as 

Threatened Throughout Their Ranges 

Final Listing 

Threatened 

75 FR 235-250 

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana and Solanum 

conocarpum 

Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Status Review 

75 FR 3190-3191 

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened 

or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 6437-6471 

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert Population of 

the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 8601-8621 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56045 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication 

Date Title Actions FR Pages 

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/ Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened 

Withdrawal of Proposed 

Rule to List 

75 FR 8621-8644 

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave salamander as Endangered Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 13068-13071 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut Mussel 

(Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Not substantial 

75 FR 13717-13720 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 13720-13726 

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

75 FR 13910-14014 

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake 

(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

75 FR 16050-16065 

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as or 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 17062-17070 

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in the Big 

Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 17352-17363 

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a 

Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical 

Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Not substantial 

75 FR 17363-17367 

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt From Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

75 FR 17667-17680 

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat Final Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 18959-19165 

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Contiguous United States Notice of Initiation of 

Status Review 

75 FR 19591-19592 

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 19592-19607 

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the 

Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 19925-19935 

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys 

macrolepidotus) 

Notice of Initiation of 

Status Review 

75 FR 20547-20548 

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 21568-21571 

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making Caddisfly 

(Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 22012-22025 

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel as Endangered with Critical Habitat Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 22063-22070 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication 

Date Title Actions FR Pages 

5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 23654-23663 

6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 30313-30318 

6/1/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or Threatened Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 30338-30363 

6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as Endangered orThreatened. Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 32728-32734 

6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 34077-34088 

6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least Chub as Threatened or 

Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

75 FR 35398-35424 

6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird 

as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 35746-35751 

6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as Endangered Throughout Its Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) 

and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout 

Their Range 

Proposed Listing 

Endangered 

Proposed Listing 

Threatened 

75 FR 35721-35746 

6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian 

Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges 

Final Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 35990-36012 

6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky 

Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges 

Proposed Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 36035-36057 

6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened Reinstatement of 

Proposed Listing 

Threatened 

75 FR 37353-37358 

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as 

Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 42033-42040 

7/20/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Amargosa Toad as Threatened 

or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 42040-42054 

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse Earthworm 

(Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 42059-42066 

7/27/2010 Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg as Endangered 

Throughout its Range; Final Rule 

Final Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 43844-43853 

7/27/2010 Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch (Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its Range Final Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 43853-43864 

8/3/2010 Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin Species Final Listing 

Threatened 

75 FR 45497-45527 

8/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered Subspecies With Critical Habitat Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 46894-46898 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56047 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication 

Date Title Actions FR Pages 

8/10/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Arctostaphylos franciscana as Endangered with Critical Habitat Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 48294-48298 

8/17/2010 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America and the Caribbean 

as Endangered Throughout Their Range 

Final Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 50813-50842 

8/17/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian Head Mountainsnail as 

Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Not substantial 

75 FR 50739-50742 

8/24/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid as 

Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 51969-51974 

9/1/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-Sided Jackrabbit as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 53615-53629 

9/8/2010 Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender Salamander as Endangered Proposed Listing 

Endangered 

75 FR 54561-54579 

9/8/2010 Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threatened Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

75 FR 54707-54753 

9/9/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jemez Mountains Salamander 

(Plethodon neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical 

Habitat 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded 

75 FR 54822-54845 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 but have not yet 

been completed to date. These actions 

are listed below. Actions in the top 

section of the table are being conducted 

under a deadline set by a court. Actions 

in the middle section of the table are 

being conducted to meet statutory 

timelines, that is, timelines required 

under the Act. Actions in the bottom 

section of the table are high-priority 

listing actions. These actions include 

work primarily on species with an LPN 

of 2, and selection of these species is 

partially based on available staff 

resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination 

African penguin Final listing determination 

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination 

Mountain plover4 Final listing determination 

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination 

Sacramento splittail 12–month petition finding 

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding 

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Wolverine 12–month petition finding 

Agave eggergsiana 12–month petition finding 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding 

Sprague’s pipit 12–month petition finding 

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding 

Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly3 12–month petition finding 

Hermes copper butterfly3 12–month petition finding 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle Final listing determination 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail Final listing determination 

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination 

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel 

dace) 

Final listing determination 

Salmon crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination 

CA golden trout 12–month petition finding 

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding 

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding 

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding 

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding 

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding 

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding 

3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly(Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species 

petition 

12–month petition finding 

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium 

friscanum) from 206 species petition 

12–month petition finding 

2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 species petition 12–month petition finding 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, 

Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition 

12–month petition finding 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding 

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding 

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56049 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 

species petition) 

12–month petition finding 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 474 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding 

Berry Cave salamander1 12–month petition finding 

Striped Newt1 12–month petition finding 

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mountain Range1 12–month petition finding 

Mohave Ground Squirrel1 12–month petition finding 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Western gull-billed tern 12–month petition finding 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 12–month petition finding 

HI yellow-faced bees 12–month petition finding 

Giant Palouse earthworm 12–month petition finding 

Whitebark pine 12–month petition finding 

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis)1 12–month petition finding 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover1 90–day petition finding 

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding 

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding 

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding 

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding 

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90–day petition finding 

Red knot roselaari subspecies 90–day petition finding 

Peary caribou 90–day petition finding 

Plains bison 90–day petition finding 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90–day petition finding 

Spring pygmy sunfish 90–day petition finding 

Bay skipper 90–day petition finding 

Unsilvered fritillary 90–day petition finding 

Texas kangaroo rat 90–day petition finding 

Spot-tailed earless lizard 90–day petition finding 

Eastern small-footed bat 90–day petition finding 

Northern long-eared bat 90–day petition finding 

Prairie chub 90–day petition finding 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
56050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90–day petition finding 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles 90–day petition finding 

Golden-winged warbler 90–day petition finding 

Sand-verbena moth 90–day petition finding 

404 Southeast species 90–day petition finding 

High-Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) Proposed listing 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 

8) 

Proposed listing 

Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard)3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

2 Arizona springsnails2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) Proposed listing 

New Mexico springsnail2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

2 mussels2 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) Proposed listing 

2 mussels2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) Proposed listing 

Altamaha spinymussel2 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell 

(LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow 

pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 

Proposed listing 

1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing 

priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds. 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The Sprague’s pipit will be added to 

the list of candidate species upon 

publication of this 12–month finding. 

We will continue to monitor the status 

of this species as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the Sprague’s pipit will be as 

accurate as possible. Therefore, we will 

continue to accept additional 

information and comments from all 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the North Dakota Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the North Dakota 

Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: September 2, 2010 

Paul R. Schmidt 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FR Doc. 2010–22967 Filed 9–14– 10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS