[Federal Register: December 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63337-63343]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03de09-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0081; MO 922105 0082-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List Sprague's Pipit as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing the Sprague's pipit may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the
species to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure
that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific
and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based
on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition,
which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before February 1, 2010. After this
date, you must submit information directly to the North Dakota Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note
that we may not be able to address or incorporate information that we
receive after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket FWS-R6-ES-2009-0081 and then follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2009-0081; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey K. Towner, Field Supervisor,
North Dakota Field Office, 3425 Miriam Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota
58501-7926, telephone (701) 250-4481, extension 508. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on
Sprague's pipit from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We
seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species or its
habitat.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
[[Page 63338]]
(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.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the
Sprague's pipit is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore,
within the geographical range currently occupied by the Sprague's
pipit, we request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species'';
(2) Where these features are currently found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section
3(5)(A) and section 4(b) of the Act.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http:/
/www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information contained in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise readily available in our
files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding
within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of
this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial
information was presented, we are required to promptly review the
status of the species, which is subsequently summarized in our 12-month
finding.
Petition History
On October 10, 2008, we received a petition dated October 9, 2008,
from WildEarth Guardians (hereinafter referred to as the
``petitioner'') requesting that the Sprague's pipit be listed as
endangered under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioner, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a December 5, 2008,
letter to the petitioner, we responded that we had reviewed the
petition and determined that an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted.
We also stated that we had received a draft budget allocation to
complete the 90-day finding for this species in 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
Act by failing to take action under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act. On
August 20, 2009, the petitioner filed a complaint on the Service's
failure to complete the 90-day finding. This finding addresses the
October 10, 2008, petition.
Previous Federal Actions
There have been no previous Federal actions concerning this
species.
Species Information
The Sprague's pipit is a small passerine of the family Motacillidae
that is endemic to the Northern Great Plains (Robbins and Dale 1999, p.
1). The genus Anthus contains over 21 species. It is one of the few
endemic birds of the North American grasslands. The Sprague's pipit is
about 10-15 centimeters (cm) (3.9-5.9 inches (in.)) in length, and
weighs 22-26 grams (g) (0.8-0.9 ounce (oz)), with buff and blackish
streaking on the crown, nape, and underparts. It 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).
Sprague's pipits are generally ground feeders, eating primarily
arthropods, although they may feed on seeds during migration and the
wintering period (Audubon 2007, p. 3). When flushed, they have an
undulating flight. The males have a territorial flight display that can
last up to 3 hours (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 22).
The nest is generally constructed in dense, relatively tall grass
with a low forb density and little bare ground (Sutter 1997, p. 462).
The nest is usually dome shaped. It 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. 2003, p. 2). The female lays four to five
eggs (Wells 2007, p. 297), which she incubates for 11 to 17 days. It is
thought that females do most or all of the incubation (Sutter et al.
1996, p. 695), but both parents may feed the young (Wells 2007, p.
297). Parental care may continue well past fledging (Sutter et al.
1996, p. 695). The female will renest if
[[Page 63339]]
the first nest fails and some females have been documented to double
brood (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694). However, long intervals between
nesting attempts suggest that the breeding pairs produce an average of
only 1.5 clutches per year (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694).
During the breeding season, Sprague's pipits prefer large patches
of native grassland with a minimum size of approximately 72 acres (29
hectares) (Davis 2004, pp. 1130, 1134-1135). They are much less common
or not present in areas with introduced grasses than in areas
containing native prairie (Madden 1996, p. 104). Nests are located in
areas with relatively tall, dense cover (Dieni and Jones 2003, p. 392),
dominated by grasses and sedges (Sutter 1997, p. 464). They will use
nonnative replanted grassland if the vegetative structure is suitable,
but strongly prefer native prairie (Dechant et al. 2003, pp. 1, 4). The
species prefers to breed in well-drained open grasslands, and avoids
grasslands that contain even low densities of shrubs (Wells 2007, p.
297). Sprague's pipits can be found in light to moderately grazed areas
(Dechant et al. 2003, 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 appear to avoid roads, presumably because the ditches are
often replanted with non-native species (Sutter et al. 2000, p. 114).
Migration and wintering ecology are poorly known, but migrating and
wintering Sprague's pipits are found in grassland, pastures, and fallow
cropland (Wells 2007, p. 297).
The native prairie habitat that Sprague's pipits use is disturbance
dependant. Without disturbance (historically grazing by bison or fire,
today more often grazing by cattle or mowing for hay), the species mix
changes and grasslands are ultimately overgrown with woody vegetation
(Grant et al. 2002, p. 808). While Sprague's pipits prefer areas that
are regularly disturbed (Madden 1996, p. 48), 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 breeding season (Dechant et al. 2003, pp. 1-2.
Kantrud 1981, p. 414).
Historic and Current Distribution
The species was described as abundant in the late 1800's (Coues
1874, p. 42; Seton 1890, p. 626). Currently in the United States,
Sprague's pipits breed throughout North Dakota, except for the
easternmost counties; in northern and central Montana east of the Rocky
Mountains; in northern portions of South Dakota; and in northeastern
Minnesota. In Canada, Sprague's pipits breed in southeastern Alberta,
the southern half of Saskatchewan, and in southwest Manitoba. Their
wintering range includes south-central and southeast Arizona, Texas,
southern Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, northwest Mississippi, southern
Louisiana, and northern Mexico. There have been sightings in Michigan,
western Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Gulf and Atlantic States from
Mississippi east and north to South Carolina. Sprague's pipits have
also been sighted in California during fall migration (Robbins and Dale
1999, p. 6).
Sprague's pipit is included on a number of Federal, State, and
nongovernmental organization lists as a sensitive species. For example,
its status is listed as vulnerable on the International Union of
Conservation Networks Red List (International Union of Conservation
Networks 2008). It has a NatureServe Global Rank of G4, indicating that
the population is apparently secure (NatureServe 2008). The species is
ranked as yellow on the Audubon 2007 watch list, indicating that it is
``either declining or rare. These typically are species of national
conservation concern'' (Audubon 2007, p. 2). Partners in Flight also
has placed Sprague's pipit on its yellow 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).
The petitioner reported that several States have identified the
Sprague's pipit in various rankings indicating that it is sensitive
including: Arizona (species of greatest conservation need), Minnesota
(endangered), Montana (species of concern), New Mexico (species of
greatest conservation need, vulnerable), North Dakota (Level I species
in greatest need of conservation), and South Dakota (Level III--modest
conservation priority but low abundance score) (WildEarth Guardians
2008, pp. 31-32).
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 specific range-wide
surveys for the species have not been conducted. However, long-term
estimates of Sprague's pipit abundance have come from the Breeding Bird
Survey (BBS), a long-term, large-scale survey of North American birds
that began in 1966. The BBS is generally conducted by observers driving
along set routes, stopping every half-mile to sample for birds. Since
there is some evidence that 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. Nonetheless, the methods of the BBS have
been consistent through time, and the BBS provides the best available
trend information at this time. The available information suggests that
the population is in steep decline (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, p. 32),
with a 79 percent decrease from 1966 through 2005 rangewide
(approximately 4.1 percent annually) (Wells 2007, p. 296).
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or
removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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 making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the Sprague's pipit, as presented in the petition
and other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation
of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition outlines numerous assertions regarding the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Sprague's
pipit's habitat or range, including:
[[Page 63340]]
(1) The loss of native prairie throughout the Northern Great Plains
range of the species as a result of agricultural conversion, invasion
of exotic plants, haying practices, livestock grazing, and fire
suppression;
(2) Changes in prairie management since European colonization that
have allowed shrub, tree, and weed encroachment throughout the prairie;
(3) The infrastructure associated with oil and gas exploration and
extraction;
(4) The proliferation of roads throughout the Sprague's pipit's
range, which reduce the amount of suitable habitat available for their
use; and
(5) Ongoing fragmentation of prairie habitat that may leave
grassland areas too small for Sprague's pipit use.
Response
We generally find that the information presented by the petitioner
appears to be reliable and substantial in regard to the amount of
habitat modification and alteration that has occurred within the range
of the Sprague's pipit. Sprague's pipits do not nest in cropland (Owens
and Myres 1973, p. 697; Wells 2007, p. 297), so widespread conversion
from prairie to cropland negatively impacts the species because it
reduces the amount of habitat available for nesting. Between 2006 and
2007 alone, as corn prices increased by more than one dollar a bushel,
approximately 15 million additional acres (6 million hectares) were
planted in corn in the United States, although this was not necessarily
all newly plowed areas and not all within the range of the Sprague's
pipit (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009, p. 2).
Land cover images of the Great Plains in the United States and
Canada indicate that only 30 percent of prairie habitat remains from
pre-colonial times (Samson et al. 2004, p. 7); this remnant prairie
habitat is not all necessarily located within the range of the
Sprague's pipit. Although Sprague's pipit will use nonnative replanted
grassland under some circumstances (Higgins et al. 2002, pp. 46-47;
Dechant et al. 2003, p. 3), the species is generally closely associated
with native prairie (Owens and Myres 1973, p. 705; Davis 2004, pp.
1138-1139; McMaster et al. 2005, p. 219).
Sprague's pipits are strongly tied to native prairie (land which
has never been plowed) (Owens and Myres 1973, p. 708), in general
avoiding cropland and land in the Conservation Reserve Program (a
program whereby marginal farmland is replanted with grass) (Higgins et
al. 2002, pp. 46-47). However, it is not clear that they avoid areas
with exotic plant species. While Sprague's pipits appear to favor large
grassland areas, vegetation structure is a better predictor than
species composition of songbird occurrence (Davis 2004, pp. 1135,
1137). Other studies also have suggested that the vegetation structure,
rather than its specific composition, may influence which species are
present (Naugle et al. 2000, p. 2; Ribic et al. 2009, p. 239).
Even in areas that remain in native prairie, management changes,
including fencing, augmentation of water sources, replacing bison with
cattle as the primary herbivore, and fire suppression, all have changed
the landscape (Knopf 1994, pp. 248-250; Weltzin et al. 1997, pp. 758-
760). Much of the prairie is now grazed more uniformly and is often
overgrazed, leading to a decline in species diversity and an increase
in woody structure (Walker et al. 1981, pp. 478-481; Towne et al. 2005,
pp. 1550-1558). Fire suppression has allowed suites of plants,
especially woody species, to flourish, especially in the winter range
(Knopf 1994, p. 251; Samson et al. 1998, p. 11). These changes have led
to steep declines 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).
It should be noted that substituting cattle for bison alone does
not necessarily lead to a change in grassland vegetation. In a study
comparing native prairie stocked with moderate levels of cattle or
bison, Towne et al. (2005, pp. 1552-1558) found that while there were
some differences in the grazing habits of the two species, after 10
years the diversity and plant density in the two areas were similar.
They suggest that the vegetation differences many studies find between
cattle and bison are due to different herd management and grazing
intensity, rather than an inherent difference in the effect of the two
herbivores on vegetation. Ranchers currently allow cattle to graze at
high densities compared to the historic grazing densities of bison,
which could lead to a greater probability of overgrazing in grasslands.
However, one study (Lueders et al. 2006, p. 602) found that Sprague's
pipits were more common on areas grazed by cattle. The management
regimes (i.e., fire regimes, grazing densities) and sampling
intensities of studies conducted on the two areas were quite disparate,
precluding firm conclusions.
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 grasslands containing
even moderate densities of shrubs (Wells 2007, p. 297). Fire and
grazing may differentially affect the vegetative species composition of
grasslands, so eliminating fire from the landscape has likely changed
the overall composition of the prairie. Trees and shrubs can be
eliminated through grazing or regular mowing, although these management
practices may result in selection for yet a different suite of
grassland plant species (Owens and Myres 1973, pp. 700-701).
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 available nesting
habitat for a certain amount of time. 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 nests have hatched 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
(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).
Nest success of ground-nesting birds is already low, with an estimated
70 percent of nests destroyed by predators (cited in Davis 2003, p.
119). In addition to nest and egg loss due to predation, some Sprague's
pipit nests are parasitized by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater)
dropping the percent of successful nests even further (Davis 1994, p.
15; Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, p. 39).
In the United States, approximately 5 percent of Sprague's pipit
breeding, migratory, and wintering range (not including Texas for which
data are not available) is encroached on by oil and gas wells or active
leases (WildEarth Guardians 2008, p. 20). Much of the Sprague's pipit's
breeding range overlaps with major areas of oil production in Montana
and North Dakota. Oil production spiked in 2007 (the most recent year
for which this information is available), with 494 drilling permits
issued in 2007 in North
[[Page 63341]]
Dakota, compared with only 146 permits issued in 2006 (North Dakota
Petroleum Council 2008). Sprague's pipits have shown avoidance of oil
wells up to 300 meters (984 feet) (Linnen 2008, pp. 1, 9-11), so wells,
especially at high density, may decrease the amount of habitat
available for nesting.
Each well pad requires associated new road construction, often
involving several miles (kilometers) of new road for each pad. Several
researchers have noted that Sprague's pipits avoid roadsides (Sutter et
al. 2000, p. 114; Linnen 2006, pp. 1, 6-9; Linnen 2008, pp. 9-13). This
observed avoidance may be due to the shortness of mowed vegetation, or
the reduction of suitable vegetation along the right-of-way (Sutter et
al. 2000, p. 114).
Birds that nest near a habitat edge, such as a road, may 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). Roads enable the
spread of exotic species as propagules can be inadvertently transported
along roads while the ground disturbance provides sites where they can
readily germinate (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 24; Simmers 2006, p.
7). Furthermore, the dust and chemical runoff from roads selects for
tolerant species to grow nearby, changing the plant composition even if
the right-of-way was not actually disturbed and reseeded (Trombulak and
Frissell 2000, p. 23). Simmers (2006, p. 24) found that even 20 years
after reclamation, the nonnative seeds generally used on the reclaimed
roadbed were still dominant in the area. Furthermore, these nonnatives
spread into the nearby prairie, suggesting long-term impacts of road
construction extending beyond the original footprint of the roadway
(Simmers 2006, p. 24).
Wind energy development has been exponentially increasing 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, wind projects may
fragment the native habitat with turbines, roads, transmission
infrastructure, and associated facilities. A recent white paper
examining the potential impacts of the wind industry on fish and
wildlife determined that wind farms may adversely impact grassland
songbirds, a group that is already in decline (Casey 2005, p. 4,
Manville 2009, p. 1). Several of the States where the Sprague's pipit
nests or winters are listed in the top 20 States for wind energy
potential (American Wind Energy Association 1991).
Sprague's pipits appear to be area sensitive, preferring larger
grassland patches, although the exact amount of habitat required is not
known (Davis 2004, pp. 1135-1139). Davis (2004, p. 1139) found that the
strongest predictor of Sprague's pipit presence was the amount of
grassland within an 800-meter (2,500-foot) radius circle. An increase
in all of the factors discussed above (i.e., cropland, trees and
shrubs, oil and gas facilities, and roads) may negatively influence
Sprague's pipits' use of an area.
Summary of Factor A
Sprague's pipits have undergone a sharp decline in the past 50
years as much of the once vast prairie habitat has been converted to
other uses. One of the major causes of decline seems to be the loss of
native grassland habitat throughout the species' range. On the basis of
our evaluation, we determined that the petition presents substantial
information that listing the Sprague's pipit as a threatened or
endangered species may be warranted due to present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that there is no evidence that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is a threat at this time.
Response
As noted above, Sprague's pipit has not been extensively studied
for scientific purposes (e.g., Robbins and Dale 1999). A review of the
literature provided in the petition or readily available in our files
suggests that while a limited number of studies involve 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), most research that includes the Sprague's
pipit relies on passive sampling (i.e., point counts) rather than
active manipulation. Such passive sampling is unlikely to have negative
impacts on Sprague's pipits.
Summary of Factor B
On the basis of our evaluation, we determined that the petition
does not present substantial information indicating that listing the
Sprague's pipit as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted
due to the overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Additionally, we do not have substantial
information in our files to suggest that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may
threaten the Sprague's pipit. However, we will evaluate all factors,
including threats from overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes, when we conduct our status review.
C. Disease and Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
(1) The petitioner asserts that while disease does not appear to be
a major threat at this time, it may become a threat due to changes in
habitat distribution resulting from climate change and ensuing
concentration of birds.
(2) The petitioner asserts that predation and cowbird nest
parasitism cause up to 70 percent of grassland bird nest failures,
including nest failures of Sprague's pipits. Cowbird parasitism may be
generally lower for Sprague's pipits than for other grassland birds
because of Sprague's pipit's tendency to avoid edge habitat. However,
if Sprague's pipits are forced to use more edge habitat due to habitat
fragmentation, cowbird parasitism may increase in the future.
Response
We are not aware of information to indicate that disease poses a
significant threat to Sprague's pipits at this time. The petitioner
suggests that botulism may pose a risk if habitat fragmentation and
climate change cause birds to be more concentrated on the remaining
habitat. While habitat fragmentation may negatively impact Sprague's
pipit as discussed in Factor A, botulism is primarily associated with
waterfowl (United States Geological Survey 1999, p. 274), and so would
not be expected to impact Sprague's pipit. Other diseases, such as
avian influenza and West Nile virus may impact the Sprague's pipit, but
we are not aware of any information indicating that those diseases pose
a risk at this time.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007, p. 51)
suggests that the distribution of some disease vectors may change as a
result of climate change. However, the Service has no information at
this time to suggest that any specific disease may become problematic
to Sprague's pipit.
Predation is thought to destroy up to 70 percent of grassland bird
nests (in Davis 2003, p. 119). We assume that the
[[Page 63342]]
predation rate of Sprague's pipits is similar. The species' tendency to
choose taller vegetation and to build a covered nest with a runway
presumably is at least in part an attempt to avoid being seen by
predators (Sutter 1997, p. 467). Cowbird parasitism also leads to nest
failures, because the cowbirds remove or damage host eggs and cowbird
young outcompete the hosts for resources (Davis 2003, pp. 119, 127).
Cowbird parasitism generally is thought to be higher in small remnant
grassland plots near habitat edges (Davis 1994, p. i; in Linnen 2008,
p. 4), 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. However, continued loss and
fragmentation of native grassland may be causing increased levels of
cowbird parasitism that is as yet undetected.
Summary of Factor C
On the basis of our evaluation, we determined that the petition
does not present substantial information indicating that listing the
Sprague's pipit as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted
due to disease or predation. 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, they may be less
susceptible to cowbird parasitism than other grassland species.
Additionally, we do not have substantial information in our files to
suggest that disease or predation threaten the Sprague's pipit.
However, we will evaluate all factors, including threats from disease
and predation, when we conduct our status review.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the regulatory mechanisms to protect
the Sprague's pipit in the United States are inadequate.
(1) Sprague's pipits are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which prohibits hunting, taking,
capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation,
carriage, or export of any such bird, or any part, nest or egg thereof,
unless specifically permitted (i.e., for waterfowl hunting). The
petitioner indicates that the MBTA does not protect bird habitat.
(2) The petitioner reports that Sprague's pipit is listed as a
State endangered species in Minnesota, and the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada listed the Sprague's pipit as a
threatened species in 2000. The species is on a number of watch lists
from nongovernmental and quasi-governmental (supported by the
government but privately managed) organizations. The petitioner states
that, while these lists highlight concerns about the species, they do
not provide substantial protection. The species enjoys no special
protection throughout most of its range.
Response
As the petitioner points out, while the Sprague's pipit is
protected under the MBTA, this protection does not extend to the
species' habitat. Habitat can be legally destroyed as long as it does
not result in the direct take of birds protected by the MBTA.
As discussed under Factor A, a substantial amount of new oil and
gas production is occurring in the breeding range of the Sprague's
pipit. Currently, no regulatory mechanisms exist for many of these
activities to ensure that drilling and associated activities avoid
nesting habitat. In addition, we know of no regulatory mechanisms that
protect this species' habitat outside of the breeding season.
Similarly, few regulations exist regarding the siting of wind farms
in relation to wildlife resources. While the Service has developed
interim guidelines for siting wind farms (Service 2003, pp. 1-57) to
reduce impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, the guidelines are
voluntary and are not consistently applied (or applied at all) on
private land with no Federal nexus (Manville 2009, p.1). Special
permits are required for wind energy development on National Wildlife
Refuge System wetland and grassland easements. State permits are not
required for wind farms in North Dakota or South Dakota unless they are
larger than 100 megawatts, and no State permit is required in Montana
(Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007). We are aware of no specific requirements in these State
regulatory systems that protect migratory birds or their habitats.
As noted in Factor A, favorable market prices often encourage
farmers to plow new land for crop production. There are no regulatory
mechanisms that govern conversion of native grassland to cropland when
migratory birds will be impacted.
Summary of Factor D
On the basis of our evaluation, we find that there is substantial
information in the petition and readily available in our files to
indicate that listing the Sprague's pipit as a threatened or endangered
species may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, particularly regarding the effects of habitat loss and
fragmentation due to energy development and farming practices.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that several other factors may affect the
Sprague's pipit's continued existence including the following:
(1) The Sprague's pipit is sensitive to drought throughout its
range;
(2) Climate change is likely to increase drought, changing the
habitat to make it less suitable for the Sprague's pipit; and
(3) Activities to eradicate and harass birds in croplands,
particularly programs to reduce the impacts of blackbirds on sunflower
fields, are a threat to the Sprague's pipit.
Response
In a short-term (3-year) study looking at drought and post-drought
period in western North Dakota, George et al. (1992, pp. 275, 278-279)
found that Sprague's pipit numbers declined in periods of drought,
although they rebounded once the drought ended. 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. pp. 213-217). However,
amount of moisture was a relative descriptor and not constant between
studies. There is generally more precipitation in eastern versus
western North Dakota (Niemuth et al. p. 216), so a dry period in the
eastern part of the State may be roughly equivalent to a normal period
in the western part.
Sprague's pipits prefer areas with relatively tall grass. 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 short-term drought ends, climate change may lead to
drier conditions in much of the Sprague's pipit's range (Johnson et al.
2005, pp. 869-871), which may have more lasting impacts on the habitat
and thus the population (George et al. 1992, pp. 281-283).
[[Page 63343]]
There is some variability between models in projecting the effect
of future climate change on Sprague's pipit habitat. One model
projected that the Sprague's pipit's breeding range would experience a
wetter climate by the end of this century (United States 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). Temperatures in the wintering range are also
expected to rise, while precipitation is projected to decline (United
States Global Change Research Program: Southwest 2009, p. 125).
Substantial landscape changes are therefore expected in the wintering
range (United States 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 (United States
Global Change Research Program Great Plains 2009, p. 126; United States
Global Change Research Program: Southwest 2009, p. 131) and thus the
Sprague's pipit.
Long-term effects of global climate change on Sprague's pipit
habitat could have significant, deleterious effects, and should be
monitored in the future. However, the climate change models are based
on projections with some uncertainty (Johnson et al. 2005, p. 869), and
current data may not be reliable enough at the local level for us to
draw conclusions regarding the degree to which climate change would
affect Sprague's pipit and its habitat.
The petitioner states that harassment of birds from cropland may
negatively impact the birds' energy stores during migration, when they
may already be low on reserves (Hagy et al. 2007, pp. 62, 69). Also,
the petitioner contends that poisoning of sunflower fields with grain
bait used to kill blackbirds may impact Sprague's pipits, which have
been documented in sunflower fields during migration (Hagy et al. 2007,
p. 66). Sprague's pipits primarily feed on arthropods, including those
in sunflower fields (Hagy et al. 2007, p. 66). However, the impacts of
harassment and poisoning on Sprague's pipits are unlikely to be
substantial. Some sunflower growers harass birds, primarily several
species of blackbirds that feed on their crops. 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.
There have been experimental efforts in the past to selectively poison
blackbirds that feed on sunflowers; however, these efforts have been
limited to date and not applied on a systematic, widespread basis.
Therefore, we deem the potential impacts of harassment and poisoning on
Sprague's pipits to be primarily speculative and likely minimal at this
time.
Summary of Factor E
We find the information presented in the petition and readily
available in our files on the subject of climate change to be
insufficiently specific to the Sprague's pipit; however, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that warming of
the climate is unequivocal (IPCC 2007, p. 15). We intend to investigate
the effects of climate change on the Sprague's pipit and its habitat
further in the status review for the species.
While all of the following factors may negatively impact the
Sprague's pipit, on the basis of our evaluation of the material
provided in the petition and available in our files, we determined that
the petition does not present substantial evidence indicating that
listing the Sprague's pipit may be warranted based on drought, climate
change, harassment, or poisoning of cropland.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
Sprague's pipit throughout all or a significant portion of its range
may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under
Factors A and D. Because we have found that the petition presents
substantial information that listing the Sprague's pipit may be
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing the Sprague's pipit under the Act is warranted. We will issue a
12-month finding as to whether the petitioned action is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
We encourage interested parties to continue gathering data that
will assist with the conservation and monitoring of the Sprague's
pipit. You may submit information regarding the Sprague's pipit by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section until the date shown in
the DATES section of this document. After this date, you must submit
information directly to the North Dakota Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may not be able
to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above
requested date. The petitioner requested we designate critical habitat
for this species. If we determine in our 12-month finding that listing
the Sprague's pipit is warranted, we will address the designation of
critical habitat at the time of the proposed listing rulemaking.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://regulations.gov and upon request from the North Dakota Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
North Dakota Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 19, 2009.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-28868 Filed 12-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P