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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 3425 Miriam Ave. Bismarck, ND 58501. We published the 90–day finding in If you use a telecommunications device the Federal Register on December 3, Fish and Wildlife Service for the deaf (TDD), please call the 2009 (74 FR 63337). On May 19, 2010, Federal Information Relay Service the Service and WildEarth Guardians 50 CFR Part 17 (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. entered into a settlement agreement. [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2009–0081] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According to the agreement, the Service [MO 92210-0-0008] will submit a 12–month finding to the Background Federal Register on or before September Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA (16 10, 2010. This notice constitutes the 12– and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for month finding on the October 9, 2008, Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as any petition to revise the Federal Lists petition to list the Sprague’s pipit as Endangered or Threatened Throughout of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife endangered or threatened. Its Range and Plants that contains substantial Species Information scientific or commercial information AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Taxonomy and Species Description Interior. that listing a species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of The Sprague’s pipit is a small ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition the date of receipt of the petition. In this passerine of the family Motacillidae, finding. finding, we determine whether the genus Anthus, endemic to the Northern SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, Great Plains (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. Wildlife Service (Service), announce a (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 1). It was first described by Audubon 12–month finding on a petition to list immediate proposal of a regulation (1844, pp. 334-336). It is one of the few the Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) implementing the petitioned action is bird species endemic to the North as endangered or threatened and to precluded by other pending proposals to American prairie. The closest living designate critical habitat under the determine whether species are relative is believed to be the yellowish Endangered Species Act of 1973, as endangered or threatened, and pipit (A. lutescens) of South America amended (ESA). After review of all expeditious progress is being made to (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 9). available scientific and commercial add or remove qualified species from The Sprague’s pipit is about 10 to 15 information, we find that listing the the Federal Lists of Endangered and centimeters (cm) (3.9 to 5.9 inches (in.)) Sprague’s pipit as endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section in length, and weighs 22 to 26 grams (g) threatened is warranted. However, 4(b)(3)(C) of the ESA requires that we (0.8 to 0.9 of an ounce (oz)), with buff listing the Sprague’s pipit is currently treat a petition for which the requested and blackish streaking on the crown, precluded by higher priority actions to action is found to be warranted but nape, and underparts. Males and amend the Lists of Endangered and precluded as though resubmitted on the females are similar in appearance. The Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon date of such finding, that is, requiring a Sprague’s pipit has a plain buffy face publication of this 12-month petition subsequent finding to be made within with a large eye-ring. The bill is finding, we will add the Sprague’s pipit 12 months. We must publish these 12– relatively short, slender, and straight, to our candidate species list. We will month findings in the Federal Register. with a blackish upper mandible. The develop a proposed rule to list Previous Federal Actions lower mandible is pale with a blackish Sprague’s pipit as our priorities allow. tip. The wings and tail have two We will make any determination on On October 10, 2008, we received a indistinct wing-bars, and the outer critical habitat during development of petition dated October 9, 2008, from retrices (tail feathers) are mostly white the proposed listing rule. In the interim WildEarth Guardians, requesting that (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 3-4). period, we will address the status of the we list the Sprague’s pipit as Juveniles are slightly smaller, but candidate taxon through our annual endangered or threatened under the similar to adults, with black spotting Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). ESA and designate critical habitat. rather than streaking (Robbins and Dale Included in the petition was supporting 1999, p. 3). DATES: The finding announced in this information regarding the species’ document was made on September 15, taxonomy and ecology, historical and Habitat Description and Characteristics 2010. current distribution, present status, and Sprague’s pipits are strongly tied to ADDRESSES: This finding is available on actual and potential causes of decline. native prairie (land which has never the Internet at http:// We acknowledged the receipt of the been plowed) throughout their life cycle www.regulations.gov at Docket Number petition in a letter to WildEarth (Owens and Myres 1973, pp. 705, 708; FWS–R6–ES–2009–0081. Supporting Guardians, dated December 5, 2008. In Davis 2004, pp. 1138-1139; Dechant et documentation we used in preparing that letter, we also stated that an al. 1998, pp. 1-2; Dieni et al. 2003, p. this finding is available for public emergency regulation temporarily 31; McMaster et al. 2005, p. 219). They inspection, by appointment, during listing the species under section 4(b)(7) are rarely observed in cropland (Koper normal business hours at the U.S. Fish of the ESA was not necessary. We also et al. 2009, p. 1987; Owens and Myres and Wildlife Service, North Dakota stated that we planned to complete the 1973, pp. 697, 707; Igl et al. 2008, pp. Field Office, 3425 Miriam Avenue, 90–day finding for this species in Fiscal 280, 284) or land in the Conservation Bismarck, ND 58501. Please submit any Year (Fiscal Year) 2009. On January 28, Reserve Program (a program whereby new information, materials, comments, 2009, we received a 60–day notice of marginal farmland is planted primarily or questions concerning this finding to intent (NOI) to sue from the petitioner with grasses) (Higgins et al. 2002, pp. the above street address. stating that the Service was in violation 46-47). Sprague’s pipits will use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the ESA by failing to take action nonnative planted grassland (Higgins et Jeffrey Towner, Field Supervisor, North under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA. On al. 2002, pp. 46-47; Dechant et al. 1998, Dakota Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by August 20, 2009, the petitioner filed a p. 3; Dohms 2009, pp. 77-78, 88). telephone at 701-250-4481; by facsimile complaint on the Service’s failure to Vegetation structure may be a better at 701-355-8513; or by postal mail to: complete the 90–day finding. predictor of occurrence than species

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56029

composition (Davis 2004, pp. 1135, pp. 464-466). They will use nonnative 1973, p. 20), and they have been sighted 1137). planted grassland if the vegetative in sunflower fields (Hagy et al. 2007, p. Native grassland is disturbance structure is suitable, but strongly prefer 66). dependant. Without disturbance, the native prairie (Dechant et al. 1998, pp. It has been estimated that only about vegetative species mix changes, and 1, 4). The species prefers to breed in 2.5 percent of the entire Chihuahuan grasslands are ultimately overgrown well-drained, open grasslands and desert region, an ecosystem extending with woody vegetation (Grant et al. avoids grasslands with excessive shrubs across the border between the United 2004, p. 808) unsuitable for Sprague’s (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 442; Grant et States and Mexico entirely within the pipits. Historical sources of disturbance al. 2004, p. 812; Sutter 1997, p. 464). were fire or grazing by bison. With fires Sprague’s pipits can be found in wintering range of the Sprague’s pipit, being less prevalent on the prairie, lightly to moderately grazed areas is protected, mostly on the U.S. side current sources of disturbance are (Dechant et al. 1998, p. 4), but in North (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 449). generally mowing or grazing by cattle. Dakota, a greater abundance of Feeding Habits While Sprague’s pipits prefer areas that Sprague’s pipits have been reported are regularly disturbed (Askins et al. from moderately to heavily grazed areas Sprague’s pipits eat a wide variety of 2007, p. 21; Madden 1996, pp. 48-59), (Kantrud 1981, p. 414). However, these insects during the breeding season and their preference for vegetation of descriptions are relative; vegetation a very small percentage of seeds (1 to 2 intermediate height means that they will described as lightly grazed in one study percent) (Maher 1974, pp. 5, 32, 58). not use a mowed or burned area until may be called heavily grazed in another the vegetation has had a chance to grow, (Madden et al. 2000, p. 388). The Breeding Phenology which may be late in the following species is rarely found in cultivated Male Sprague’s pipits have a growing season, or may take several areas (Owens and Myres 1973, p. 705). territorial flight display that takes place seasons (Dechant et al. 1998, pp. 1-2; They may avoid roads, trails, and high in the air and that can last up to Kantrud 1981, p. 414). The frequency of habitat edges (Dale et al. 2009, pp. 194, 3 hours (Robbins 1998, pp. 435-436). disturbance required for habitat 200; Koper et al. 2009, pp. 1293-1295; maintenance depends on how quickly Linnen 2008, p. 1; Sutter et al. 2000, p. Sprague’s pipits are very secretive the grasses grow following a disturbance 114). around the nest itself, sometimes not event, with precipitation rates being a flushing until a searcher is extremely Migration and Wintering Range and major driver. For example, pre-colonial close (Jones and Dieni 2007, p. 123). Habitat fire return rates are estimated to be When returning to the nest, they can approximately 6 years in North Dakota, The Sprague’s pipit’s wintering range land several meters away and run to the but 10 to 26 years in Montana and other includes south-central and southeast nest through the grass (Jones and Dieni relatively dry portions of the range Arizona, Texas, southern Oklahoma, 2007, p. 123). (Askins et al. 2007, pp. 20-21). After southern Arkansas, northwest Nests are generally constructed in bison grazed an area, they may not have Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and areas of relatively dense cover, low forb returned for 1 to 8 years (Askins et al. northern Mexico. There have been density, and little bare ground (Sutter 2007, p. 21). migration sightings in Michigan, 1997, p. 462). The nest is usually dome- western Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, Breeding Range and Habitat shaped; is constructed from woven and Gulf and Atlantic States from grasses; and is generally at the end of a The breeding range is described as Mississippi east and north to South covered, sharply curved runway up to throughout North Dakota, except for the Carolina. Sprague’s pipits also have 15 cm (5.9 in.) long which may serve as easternmost counties; northern and been sighted in California during fall heat-stress protection (Sutter 1997, p. central Montana east of the Rocky migration (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 6). 467; Dechant et al. 1998, p. 2). The Mountains; northern portions of South Migration and wintering ecology are Dakota; and northwestern Minnesota. In poorly known, but migrating and female lays four to five eggs (Allen 1951, Canada, Sprague’s pipits breed in wintering Sprague’s pipits are found in p. 379; Maher 1973, p. 25), which she southeastern Alberta, the southern half both densely and sparsely vegetated incubates for 11 to 17 days (Davis 2009, of Saskatchewan, and in southwest grassland, and pastures (Desmond et al. pp. 265, 267). Females may do most or Manitoba (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 5). 2005, p. 442; Emlen 1972, p. 324). They all of the incubation (Sutter et al. 1996, During the breeding season, Sprague’s are rarely found in fallow cropland p. 695), but both parents may feed the pipits prefer large patches of native (Wells 2007, p. 297). Sprague’s pipits young (Dohms and Davis 2009, p. 826). grassland with a minimum size exhibit a strong preference for grassland Parental care likely continues well past requirement thought to be habitat during the winter and an fledging (Harris 1933, p. 92; Sutter et al. approximately 145 ha (358.3 ac) (range avoidance of areas with too much shrub 1996, p. 695). The female will renest if 69 to 314 ha (170 to 776 ac)) (Davis encroachment (Desmond et al. 2005, p. the first nest fails, and some females 2004, p. 1134). They were not observed 442). Their use of an area is dependent have been documented successfully in areas smaller than 29 ha (71.6 acres) on habitat conditions. On their nesting two times during one breeding (Davis 2004, p. 1134). While they have wintering grounds, after a wet year, season (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694; Davis been reported to be less abundant in or when grass is denser, Sprague’s pipits 2009, p. 265). Long intervals between absent from grassland that has been were dense, compared with few renesting attempts suggest that the rate planted (Madden 1996, p. 104), recent individuals in the same areas after dry of renesting is low (Sutter et al. 1996, p. research suggests that nesting success in years when grasses were sparse (Dieni et 694). However, breeding pairs may only planted grassland is similar to nesting al. 2003, p. 31; Maci´as-Duarte et al. produce an average of 1.5 clutches per success in native habitat (Dohms 2009, 2009, p. 869). They are not found in the year (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694). Males pp. 41-81). Preferred grass height has narrow strips of grassland remaining were documented to be polygamous varied between studies, but is estimated along agricultural field borders (have two females on two nests at the to be between 10 and 30 cm (4 and 12 (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 448). In same time), but the rate of polygyny is in.) (Dieni and Jones 2003, p. 390; migration, they may be found near or on unknown (Dohms and Davis 2009, pp. Madden et al. 2000, p. 382; Sutter 1997, trails and roads or near water (Maher 826, 828).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 56030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Population Trend Information In addition to BBS surveys, the those already federally listed as Canadian Wildlife Service conducts a threatened or endangered) in greatest Due to its cryptic coloring and Grassland Bird Monitoring program need of conservation action. The list is secretive nature, the Sprague’s pipit has (GBM) using the same methodology as derived from three bird conservation been described as ‘‘one of the least the BBS. GBM surveys are conducted plans: the Partners in Flight North known birds in North America’’ along roads in areas within the mixed- American Landbird Conservation Plan, (Robbins and Dale 1999, p. 1), and grass prairie ecosystem where grassland the United States Shorebird range-wide surveys for the species have is still common (Dale et al. 2005, entire; Conservation Plan, and the North not been conducted. The population Environment Canada 2008, pp. 3-4). The American Waterbird Conservation Plan from 1990-1999 was estimated at GBM survey shows an even sharper (Service 2008, pp. iii, 1, 27, 28-34, 35, approximately 870,000, based on decline of 10.5 percent annually from 37, 41 50- 53, 58, 60, 63, 67, 76, 85). extrapolation of Breeding Bird Survey 1996-2004 in the core area of Sprague’s Sprague’s pipits’ status is listed as (BBS) data (Blancher et al. 2007, p. 27; pipit’s habitat in Canada (Environment vulnerable on the International Union of Rich et al. 2004, p. 18). The population Canada 2008, pp. iii, 3-4). The GBM Conservation Networks Red List has continued to decline since that time program decline compares with a 1.8- (Birdlife International 2008, p. 1). It has (Sauer et al. 2008, p. 13). The species percent decline for the same period a NatureServe Global Rank of G4, was described as abundant in the late from the BBS data (Environment Canada indicating that the population is 1800s in the upper Missouri River basin 2008, pp. iii, 3-4). Since the GBM survey apparently secure (NatureServe 2009, p. (Coues 1874, p. 42; Seton 1890, p. 626). is conducted in habitat that should be 1). The species is ranked as yellow on More recent long-term estimates of optimal for Sprague’s pipits in Canada, the Audubon 2007 watch list, indicating Sprague’s pipit abundance are derived it indicates a serious decline in species that it is either declining or rare. Species from the BBS, a long-term, large-scale abundance (Environment Canada 2008, on the Audubon watch list typically are survey of North American birds that p. 4). species of national conservation concern began in 1966. The BBS is generally The Christmas Bird Count (CBC) (Audubon 2007, p. 2). Partners in Flight conducted by observers driving on roads represents the only long-term data set also has placed Sprague’s pipit on its along established routes, with stops that we are aware of that includes watch list, indicating that the species is every half-mile to sample for birds. wintering information for the Sprague’s a species of conservation concern at the Because Sprague’s pipits avoid roads pipit. The CBC is an annual count global scale, a species in need of (Sutter et al. 2000, p. 114), roadside performed around the end of December management action, and a high priority surveys may not be the best measure of in which volunteers observe birds in 15- candidate for rapid status assessment abundance of Sprague’s pipits (Sutter et mile-radius ‘‘count circles.’’ The (Rich et al. 2004, p. 18). al. 2000, pp. 113-114). Nonetheless, the Sprague’s pipit CBC data from the Several states have identified the methods of the BBS have been winters of 1966/1967 through 2005/ Sprague’s pipit as a sensitive species in consistent through time, and are the best 2006 (a 40–year span) were analyzed their State wildlife action plans, following the methods described in Link including Arizona, Louisiana, available information for the breeding et al. (2006, entire) (Niven 2010, pers. Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, range at this time. The trend analysis comm.). The 40–year trend data for North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas suggests that the population is in steep Sprague’s pipit shows an annual decline (Arizona Game and Fish Department decline (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, p. for Texas (2.54 percent), Louisiana (6.21 2010, p. 3; Louisiana Department of 32), with an estimated 80-percent percent), Mississippi (10.21 percent), Wildlife and Fisheries 2005, p. 6; decrease from 1966 through 2007 in the and Arkansas (9.27 percent). The data Minnesota Department of Natural U.S. and Canadian breeding range from Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Resources 2010, p. 1; Montana Fish, (approximately 3.9 percent annually) Florida, and California indicated an Wildlife and Parks 2010, p. 2; New (Sauer et al. 2008, p. 8). The annual uncertain or stable trend (Niven 2010, Mexico Game and Fish 2010, p. 4; North population decline shows some slight pers. comm.). California and Florida are Dakota Game and Fish Department variation, but the long-term trend is outside of the described range, and the 2010, p. 3; South Dakota Game, Fish, consistently negative (95-percent number of sightings was quite low, and Parks 2010, p. 3; Texas Parks and confidence interval -5.6 to -2.2) (Sauer presumably representing a few birds Wildlife 2005, p. 6). The criteria used to et al. 2008, pp. 5-6, 8). Assuming that straying off of their normal migration determine which species are listed as the population was approximately routes or wintering areas. Oklahoma is species of greatest conservation concern 870,000 in 1995 (the mid-point between part of the migration route, so sightings varies by State, but generally include 1990 and 1999 (Rich et al. 2004, p. 18)), there in December may be somewhat known information about population and the population continues to decline varied, depending on annual weather trends on a State, regional, and national at 3.9 percent annually, the population conditions. Overall, the 40–year trend level; the importance of the State in the would have declined to approximately showed a median declining population species’ range; and often rankings on 479,000 by 2010. By 2060, the of approximately 3.23 percent annually national lists (for example Natureserve population could drop to 66,000, and in and a 73.1-percent decline for the entire and the Audubon watch list 100 years, by 2110, the population time period (Niven 2010, pers. comm.). (NatureServe 2009, p. 1; Audubon 2007, could decline to 8,970. However, this These estimates are fairly consistent p. 2)). estimate involves a number of with the decline observed on the Summary of Information Pertaining to assumptions. The original population breeding grounds, indicating that the estimate comes from the BBS data and observed decline is real, rather than an the Five Factors is characterized as ‘‘beige,’’ indicating artifact of the sampling technique. Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) that the 95-percent confidence limit Sprague’s pipit is included on a and implementing regulations (50 CFR around the average is within 20 percent number of Federal, State, and 424) set forth procedures for adding of the average itself (Blancher et al. nongovernmental organization lists as a species to the Federal Lists of 2007, p. 22). Additionally, this assumes sensitive species. Sprague’s pipit is Endangered and Threatened Wildlife that the population will continue to listed in the Birds of Conservation and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the decline in a linear fashion. Concern, a list of bird species (beyond ESA, a species may be determined to be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56031

endangered or threatened based on any 2007 (the most recent year data was large enough to support breeding of the following five factors: available), approximately 94,400 ha territories (Dale 2010, pers. comm.). (A) The present or threatened (233,000 acres) of virgin prairie was Prairie conversion is continuing, and destruction, modification, or broken for the first time, or is expected to continue (Fargione et al. curtailment of its habitat or range; approximately 32,000 ha (78,000 acres) 2009, p. 775; Stephens et al. 2008, pp. (B) Overutilization for commercial, annually (Stephens 2010, pers. comm.). 1320, 1325). Because of the decreased recreational, scientific, or educational To determine the amount of amount of suitable native prairie purposes; potentially suitable habitat remaining remaining throughout the United States (C) Disease or predation; within the Sprague’s pipit’s range, we and Canada, the continued conversion (D) The inadequacy of existing performed a Geographic Information of native prairie to other land uses, and regulatory mechanisms; or System (GIS) analysis for the U.S. the altered management regime in the (E) Other natural or manmade factors portion of the breeding range (Loesch native prairie that remains, we conclude affecting its continued existence. 2010, pers. comm.). We based the that ongoing habitat loss and land In considering what factors might breeding range on data from the BBS in conversion is a significant threat (i.e., a constitute threats, we must look beyond the U.S. range, and included cover types threat that, alone or in combination with the exposure of the species to the factor which were classified as grassland, other factors, is causing the species to be to determine whether the species pastureland, prairie, or temporary in danger of extinction, now or in the responds to the factor in a way that wetland (Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). foreseeable future) to Sprague’s pipit causes actual impacts to the species. If From these data, we determined that throughout its range. approximately 2.1 percent of the total there is exposure and the species Grazing responds negatively, the factor may be area (10 million ha [25 million ac]) in a threat and we then attempt to the Sprague’s pipit’s U.S. breeding range Grazing is a major driver in the prairie determine how significant a threat it is. as defined by the BBS remains in ecosystem. An appropriate level of If the threat is significant, it may drive suitable habitat, with most of the grazing can help to maintain the prairie or contribute to the risk of extinction of historic range converted to other uses. habitat, while too much or too little may the species such that the species Nonsuitable land cover types within the make the habitat unsuitable for warrants listing as endangered or Sprague’s pipit’s range include urban Sprague’s pipits. Much of the prairie is threatened as those terms are defined by areas, transportation infrastructure, now grazed more uniformly than it was the ESA. barren areas, cropland, forest, tree rows, in pre-colonial times and is often shrublands, water, and wetland areas. overgrazed, leading to a decline in Factor A. Present or Threatened Researchers predict that native species diversity and an increase in Destruction, Modification, or grassland will continue to be converted, woody structure (since cattle do not eat Curtailment of the Habitat or Range. and the rate of conversion may increase woody vegetation, it has a competitive Habitat Conversion (Fargione et al. 2009, p. 769; Stephens advantage over grass if some other et al. 2008 p. 1328). Prairie habitat loss mechanism is not used to remove trees Thirty percent of prairie habitat in the in the Missouri River Coteau is and shrubs) (Walker et al. 1981, pp. 478- Great Plains and Canada remains from estimated to be approximately 0.4 481; Towne et al. 2005, pp. 1550-1558). pre-colonial times (Samson et al. 2004, percent annually (Stephens et al. 2008, Additionally, cattle have replaced bison p. 7), but as discussed below, the pp. 1320, 1327). Even in areas that as the primary herbivore in Sprague’s amount of suitable habitat remaining in remain in native prairie, historic and pipit habitat. Substituting cattle for the Sprague’s pipit’s range is much current land management, including bison does not necessarily lead to a lower. Land conversion is accelerating increased stocking levels, fencing, change in grassland vegetation. A study in native prairie, with a conversion rate augmentation of water sources (which comparing native prairie stocked with faster than the estimated conversion rate concentrate animals, making moderate levels of cattle to native of rainforests in the Amazon (Stephens overgrazing more likely), and fire prairie stocked with moderate levels of et al. 2008, pp. 1326-1327). Much of the suppression, have all changed the bison determined that, while there were land conversion is from native prairie to grassland ecology and species mix some differences in the grazing habits of agricultural uses.. A Government (Knopf 1994, pp. 248-250; Weltzin et al. the two species, after 10 years the plant Accountability Office report on 1997, pp. 758-760). The changes in the diversity and plant density in the two agricultural conversion documented the grassland ecosystem have led to a steep areas were similar (Towne et al. 2005, continued conversion of native prairie decline in many grassland bird species, pp. 1552-1558). The authors suggest that to cropland, particularly in the Northern including the Sprague’s pipit (Knopf the vegetation differences that many Plains of Montana, North Dakota, and 1994, pp. 251-254; Grant et al. 2004, p. studies find between native prairie South Dakota (Government 812; Lueders et al. 2006, pp. 602-604). grazed by cattle and native prairie Accountability Office 2007, pp. 4, 12, As in the United States, most of the grazed by bison are due to different herd 15). A number of factors that encourage native grasslands in Canada have been management practices and grazing farmers to convert native prairie were converted to other uses, which are intensity, rather than an inherent identified, including; higher crop prices, largely not suitable for nesting of the difference in the effect of the two especially for corn; farm payment Sprague’s pipit (Environment Canada herbivore species on vegetation (Towne programs that increase expected 2008, p. 6). Analysis done with imagery et al. 2005, p. 1558). Ranchers often cropland profitability without taken around 2000 suggested that allow cattle to graze at high densities increasing risk; the advent of herbicide- approximately 94 percent of the species’ compared to the historic grazing ready crops, and no-till farming range has been lost in Canada (Dale densities of bison, which leads to a methods, which allow farmers to plant 2010, pers. comm.). Of the greater probability of overgrazing in directly into native prairie. The approximately 20 million ha (49.4 grasslands (Towne et al. 2005, p. 1558). Northern Plains is identified as an area million ac) remaining as grassland in However, one study (Lueders et al. with continued conversion of native the Sprague’s pipit’s range in Canada, 2006, p. 602) noted that Sprague’s pipits grassland (Government Accountability 15 to 20 percent (3 to 4 million ha (7.4 were more common on areas grazed by Office 2007, p. 4). From 2005 through to 9.9 million ac)) remains in patches cattle than areas grazed by bison. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 56032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

management regimes (i.e., fire regimes, grassland species. We do not have nesting Sprague’s pipits. A number of grazing densities) and sampling information to suggest that the change studies have found that Sprague’s pipits intensities of studies conducted on the in fire regime is a significant threat to appear to avoid non-grassland features two areas were quite disparate, the species. in the landscape, including roads, trails, precluding firm conclusions. oil wells, croplands, woody vegetation, Mowing While improperly timed or overly and wetlands (Dale et al. 2009, pp. 194, heavy or light grazing negatively Like grazing and fire, mowing is a 200; Koper et al. 2009, pp. 1287, 1293, impacts Sprague’s pipits’ ability to use management technique that can be used 1294, 1296; Greer 2009, p. 65; Linnen an area, we do not believe that grazing as a source of disturbance to prevent 2008, pp. 1, 9-11, 15; Sutter et al. 2000, is a major threat to Sprague’s pipits. woody species from invading into pp. 112-114). The extent to which While some areas are undoubtedly grassland habitat. However, mowing Sprague’s pipits avoids roads varies poorly managed, we believe this is a (i.e., haying) in the breeding range could between studies. One study found that local rather than a rangewide problem. negatively impact Sprague’s pipits by of 46 mapped Sprague’s pipit territories, There is not enough information at this directly destroying nests, eggs, only 5 (11 percent) crossed a trail or time to determine conclusively how nestlings, and young fledglings, and by pipeline (in Dale et al. 2009, p. 200). grazing or substituting cattle for bison reducing the amount of nesting habitat However, other studies found that throughout much of the range impacts available in the short term. Nest success Sprague’s pipits avoid roads but not the Sprague’s pipit, but from the of ground-nesting birds is already low, trails, presumably because of the available information, we do not believe with an estimated 70 percent of nests difference in structure in the road right- that grazing is a significant threat to the destroyed by predators (Davis 2003, p. of-way (Sutter et al. 2000, p. 110), and species. 119). While Sprague’s pipits one study did not document avoidance occasionally will renest if the first nest Fire of roads, although it did document fails or if nestlings from the first clutch avoidance of other changes in habitat Like grazing, fire is a major driver on fledge early enough in the season, long structure (Koper et al. 2009, pp. 1287, the prairie ecosystem. While there are intervals between nesting attempts 1293). Sprague’s pipits may be still some controlled and wild prairie suggest that renesting is relatively particularly sensitive to habitat burns, fire is no longer a widespread uncommon (Sutter et al. 1996, p. 694). fragmentation because their high flight regular phenomenon as it was in pre- Thus, early mowing can negatively display affords them a wide view of the colonial times. Fire suppression has impact reproductive success for the area, and thus they may select their allowed suites of plants, especially year. Even mowing done later in the territories based on landscape, rather woody species, to flourish (Knopf 1994, season after chicks have fledged may than site-specific features (Koper et al. p. 251; Samson et al. 1998, p. 11). Fire impact the availability of breeding 2009, p. 1298). suppression since European settlement habitat the following year because The effect of a non-grassland feature throughout the Sprague’s pipit’s range Sprague’s pipits will not use areas with (e.g., shrubs, trees, roads, human-made has impacted the composition and short grass until later in the season structures) in the landscape can be structure of native prairie, favoring the when the grass has grown, possibly due much larger than its actual footprint. incursion of trees and shrubs in areas to dense revegetation and the lack of Sprague’s pipits are sensitive to patch that were previously grassland (Knopf litter (Dechant et al. 1998, p. 3; Owens size (i.e., the amount of contiguous 1994, p. 251). This change of structure and Myres 1973, p. 708; Kantrud 1981, native grassland available (Davis 2004, negatively impacts Sprague’s pipits, p. 414). On the other hand, as noted pp. 1134, 1135-1137; Davis et al. 2006, which avoid trees and are negatively above, mowing can improve Sprague’s pp. 812-814; Greer 2009, p. 65)), and associated with shrub cover on both pipit habitat in the long term by they avoid edges between grassland and their breeding and wintering grounds removing trees and shrubs (Owens and other habitat features that are (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 442; Grant et Myres 1973, p. 700). structurally different than grassland al. 2004; p. 812; Sutter 1997, p. 464). There is not sufficient information (Davis 2004, p. 1134; Koper et al. 2009, Eliminating fire from the landscape has available about the extent, timing, and pp. 1287, 1293-1296). Sprague’s pipits likely changed the overall composition frequency of mowing throughout the were not found in patches less than 29 of the prairie (Towne et al. 2005, pp. species’ range to make firm conclusions ha (71.7 ac), and the minimum size 1557-1558). Trees and shrubs can be about how much of a threat mowing requirement is thought to be 145 ha controlled to some extent through poses. Since mowing can play both a (358.3 ac) (range 69 to 314 ha (170 to grazing or eliminated by regular positive and negative role in the 776 ac)) (Davis 2004, p. 1134), with even mowing, although these management maintenance of Sprague’s pipit habitat, larger patches preferred (Davis 2004, pp. practices may result in selection for yet the impacts of mowing are mixed. In 1134-1135, 1138; Greer 2009, p. 65). another suite of grassland plant species some parts of the range where large The shape of the patch also is (Owens and Myres 1973, pp. 700-701). portions of the remaining grasslands are important. Since Sprague’s pipits have The lack of widespread fire in current mowed annually or grass growth is slow been shown to avoid edges (Linnen prairie management has contributed to or both, mowing may be negatively 2008, pp. 1, 9-11, 15), grassland areas land conversion to landcover types not impacting the population. However, at with a low edge-to-area ratio provide suitable for the pipit. Some form of this time, we do not have information to optimal habitat (Davis 2004, pp. 1139- disturbance is necessary to maintain the indicate that mowing is a significant 1140). Thus, a linear patch may not be grassland ecosystem, and grazing and threat to the species rangewide. suitable for a Sprague’s pipit’s territory, mowing are generally used today. While even if it is sufficiently large. Koper et the lack of widespread fires as a Habitat Fragmentation on the Breeding al. (2009, p. 1295) noted that conversion management technique has led to Grounds of one quarter section (64 ha (158 ac)) changes in the grassland ecosystem, we Whereas direct conversion of native in the middle of a grassland patch believe that other methods of habitat prairie results in an obvious loss of reduced the utility of an additional 612 maintenance are substituting for the role habitat, fragmentation of the remaining ha (1,512 ac) of grassland. that fire historically played, albeit while native prairie can make large portions of Because of the Sprague’s pipit’s selecting for a different suite of otherwise suitable habitat unusable for selection for relatively large grassland

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56033

areas and avoidance of edges, habitat regarding the location of the roads 145 ha (358.3 ac), described as the fragmentation is a threat throughout the constructed by the energy companies to minimum size requirement for breeding population’s breeding range. As more access their wells or towers was not Sprague’s pipits (Davis 2004, p. 1134), roads, oil and gas development, wind available, we estimated new road declined to 1.55 percent of the historic farms, and other features are construction by having the GIS program breeding range (Figure 1) (Loesch 2010, constructed in the Northern Great measure the shortest distance from the pers. comm.). If we include habitat Plains, the fragmentation of the native nearest road to the energy feature patches 29 ha (71.6 ac) or larger, the prairie is expected to increase, further (Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). Topography smallest patch size where Sprague’s decreasing the amount of suitable may preclude building a road following pipits were observed (Davis 2004, p. habitat in large enough patches to be the most direct route, so this is a 1134), the amount of potentially suitable used by breeding pairs. conservative estimate of the miles of habitat increases marginally to 1.86 In order to determine the potential new roads constructed. We buffered the cumulative impact of human features on roads, wind towers, and oil and gas well percent of the historic breeding range in Sprague’s pipits, we performed a GIS pads by 350 m (1148 ft) based on an the United States (Loesch 2010, pers. analysis. We used the BBS to map the estimate of Sprague’s pipits’ avoidance comm.). If energy development breeding distribution of the species. The of oil pads and associated roads (Linnen continues as projected, the amount of BBS uses inverse distancing to smooth 2008, pp. 1, 9-11). suitable habitat will decline even the data by using route relative As noted above, approximately 2 further. abundance to estimate presence beyond percent of the U.S. breeding range FIGURE 1: Current grassland habitat the end of a survey road (Sauer et al. remains in a habitat type that is patches for Sprague’s pipits of 145 ha 2008, pp. 17-19). We overlaid layers of potentially suitable for Sprague’s pipit (358.3 ac) or larger in areas of the north- suitable Sprague’s pipit habitat, the road nesting. When we overlaid current and central United States where the species system, permitted oil and gas wells, and approximated roads, oil and gas wells, has been encountered by the BBS existing wind towers in the U.S. and wind development, the amount of (Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). breeding range. Since GIS information suitable habitat in patches larger than

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 56034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

A similar GIS analysis of remaining Energy Development especially at high densities, decrease the suitable breeding habitat in Canada, Energy development (oil, gas, and amount of habitat available for breeding including oil and gas wells, roads, and wind) and associated roads and territories. We calculated that each well trails leading to each well, determined facilities increase the fragmentation of and associated road has impacted that about 5.6 percent of the Canadian grassland habitat. Much of the Sprague’s approximately 21 ha (51 acres), range is suitable (having a greater than pipit’s breeding range overlaps with including the area that Sprague’s pipits 50 percent probability of occupancy) for major areas of oil and gas development, avoid (Loesch 2010, pers. comm.). Thus, Sprague’s pipits (Dale 2010, pers. which have been increasing rapidly in an additional 19,860 wells could impact comm.). A similar estimate (5 to 6 some portions of the Sprague’s pipit’s 400,000 ha (1 million acres) just in the percent) was independently reached by range. In North Dakota, the number of Sprague’s pipit range in North Dakota. another researcher also analyzing land drilling permits nearly doubled between Each oil and gas well pad requires cover data for the Canadian range (Davis 2007 and 2008, from 494 permits issued some amount of associated new road 2010, pers. comm.). in 2007 to 946 in 2008 (North Dakota construction. As discussed above, there Our analysis shows that the remaining Petroleum Council 2009, p. 2). This is evidence that Sprague’s pipits avoid suitable habitat continues to be trend is expected to increase; up to roads and trails on the breeding grounds 1,850 wells could be drilled annually (Linnen 2008, pp. 1, 9-11; Dale et al. converted and fragmented, a trend that for a total of up to 19,860 additional 2009, p. 200). Oil and gas development we expect to increase. With only 1.55 to wells in North Dakota over the next 20 has been shown to double the density of 1.86 percent of the U.S. historic years (North Dakota Department of roads on range lands (Naugle et al. 2009, breeding habitat and only Mineral Resources Undated, pp. 7-17). pp. 11, 46). In areas with ranching, approximately 15 to 20 percent of the Oil officials anticipate that production tillage agriculture, and oil and gas Canadian breeding habitat still suitable will continue to expand at record levels development, 70 percent of the land was for Sprague’s pipit nesting, the areas (MacPherson 2010; entire). Much of the within 100 m (109 yards (yd)), and 85 where birds can relocate to as more oil activity is occurring in areas of percent of the land was within 200 m habitat becomes fragmented and native prairie, a trend that we expect to (218 yd), of a human feature (Naugle et unsuitable for Sprague’s pipit nesting is continue (Loesch 2010, pers. comm). al. 2009, p. 11). Researchers estimated drastically diminished. As development The Bakken formation that is currently that in those areas, every square km continues, we expect the potential area being drilled lies entirely within the (0.39 square miles) of land may be both for Sprague’s pipits to nest to decline U.S. and Canadian breeding range bounded by a road and bisected by a further. The existing and ongoing (USGS 2008, p. 1; Robbins and Dale powerline (Naugle et al. 2009, p. 11). fragmentation of suitable habitat makes 1999, p. 5). Sprague’s pipits avoid oil With increased oil and gas development the long-term observed decline of wells, staying up to 350 meters (m) in much of the Sprague’s pipit’s range, Sprague’s pipit likely to continue into (1148 feet (ft)) away (Linnen 2008, pp. this level of fragmentation is likely to be the future. 1, 9-11), magnifying the effect of the occurring over a large percentage of the well feature itself. Oil and gas wells, range. As discussed above, habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS EP15SE10.019 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56035

fragmentation is one of the major threats states, with the area of habitat that Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana (U.S. facing the species. Sprague’s pipits avoid from one turbine Department of Energy 2009, entire). Wind energy development has been overlapping the avoidance area from Mandates for ‘‘green’’ energy in States increasing rapidly in recent years, with another. We also assume that each without Sprague’s pipits are likely to increases of more than 45 percent in turbine, road and associated area makes fuel increases in wind development in 2007, and more than 50 percent in 2008 approximately 16.4 ha (40.5 acres) of the Sprague’s pipits’ range because (Manville 2009, p. 1). Like oil habitat unsuitable for nesting. wind power generated in these wind- development, wind projects built in 3) Turbines would be evenly rich areas are generally transmitted out- native grassland fragment the habitat distributed across the Sprague’s pipit of-State (e.g. Great River Energy 2010, p. with turbines, towers, roads, range in the U.S. This assumption is 1). We anticipate the number of turbines transmission infrastructure, and likely conservative in terms of effects to throughout the Sprague’s pipit range to associated facilities. We estimate that habitat because the areas with the continue to dramatically increase. each turbine and associated road highest wind potential in these states Oil and gas extraction is ongoing impacts approximately 34.5 ha (85.3 are largely within the remaining suitable throughout much of the Sprague’s acres) of land, including an area around prairie habitat. Major wind development pipit’s range in Canada, and is expected the road that Sprague’s pipits avoid is likely to occur in the remaining to increase into the future (Dale 2010, (Linnen 2008, p. 9-10; Loesch 2010, suitable Sprague’s pipit habitat (U.S. pers. comm.). Similarly, wind pers. comm.). However, because most Department of Energy 2010a, p. 1; development is increasing throughout turbines are placed close enough Loesch, pers. comm. 2010). the Canadian range of the Sprague’s together for the avoidance areas to Using the above assumptions, we pipit (Canadian Wind Energy overlap, we calculated the impact of estimate that a minimum of 4.8 million Association 2010, entire; Canadian each individual turbine to be less, hectares (12 million acres) could Environmental Assessment Agency – approximately 16.4 ha (40.5 acres) per become unsuitable for nesting within Canadian Environmental Assessment turbine on average. To date, we estimate the range in North Dakota and a Registry 2010, entire). that 12,400 ha (30,522 ac) have been minimum of 2.1 million ha (5.1 million Because of wide-scale energy impacted by 752 wind turbines and acres) could become unsuitable in South development across the Sprague’s associated roads within the Sprague’s Dakota, while in Montana from 6.6 to pipits’ range, we believe that oil, gas, pipit U.S. range. We anticipate the 8.8 million hectares (16.4 to 21.8 and wind development represents a number of wind farms to continue to million acres) could be impacted. While serious threat to the continued existence increase dramatically throughout the full development of the wind potential of the Sprague’s pipit. Sprague’s pipits species’ range. For example, in North in Sprague’s pipit habitat is not likely, avoid features in the landscape that are Dakota alone, we are aware of a plan to these figures indicate that even a structurally different than grassland, so construct 4,194 new turbines within the fraction of full development could result the construction of energy-related Sprague’s pipit’s range (Ellsworth 2010, in significant losses of Sprague’s pipit structures negatively impacts the pers. comm.). This proposed habitat. This estimate only includes the species’ use of a wide area. The amount development has the potential to make impacts from the turbines and and extent of energy development has 69,200 to 145,000 ha (170,000 to associated roads. The potential impacts been increasing rapidly and is expected 358,000 acres) of land unsuitable for from other associated infrastructure (e.g. to continue to increase, so energy pipit nesting, depending on how the power lines) is not known, but may development will be an ongoing and turbines are spaced. This likely impact the species (e.g. from power-line increasing threat into the future. strikes). The areas with the highest wind represents a fraction of potential habitat Roads loss from wind energy development, potential often overlap with the areas of because we typically are not informed of remaining native prairie, making it In addition to fragmenting the habitat, wind projects until sites are selected. likely that wind development will focus roads enable the spread of exotic species North Dakota and South Dakota each on the remaining suitable Sprague’s because vegetative propagules (parts have the potential wind-energy capacity pipit habitat (U.S. Department of Energy that can sprout independently) can be of at least 4 mega-watts (MW) of wind 2010a, p. 1; Loesch, pers. comm. 2010). inadvertently transported along roads, power per km2, while Montana has been There is some information suggesting while the ground disturbance associated projected to have the potential for 3 to that wind farms adversely impact with road construction provides sites 4 MW of wind power per km2 (National grassland songbirds, a group that is where propagules can readily germinate Research Council 2007, p. 45). We already in decline (Casey 2005, p. 4; (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 24; calculated how much of the Sprague’s Manville 2009, p. 1). The entire U.S. Simmers 2006, p. 7). Furthermore, the pipit’s U.S. range this amount of range of the Sprague’s pipit is within an dust and chemical runoff from roads development may impact, using the area with high potential for wind allow only tolerant plant species to following assumptions: development (American Wind Energy grow nearby, changing the plant 1) Each turbine would provide 2 MW Association 1991, p. 1; U.S. Department composition even if the right-of-way of power. Onshore turbines are of Energy 2010a, p. 1). Thousands of were not actually disturbed and constructed between 700 kW to 2.5 MW acres of Sprague’s pipit habitat have reseeded (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, (American Wind Energy Association already been fragmented by wind p. 23). Even 20 years after reclamation, 2010, p. 3), with most industrial projects development (Loesch 2010, pers. the nonnative seeds used on reclaimed that we are aware of in the 1.5 MW comm.), a trend which is presumably roadbeds can still dominate the area range. However, wind industry is consistent throughout the range as the (Simmers 2006, p. 24). These nonnative working toward developing larger number of wind farms increases (U.S. species spread into the nearby prairie, turbines , so we believe that in the Department of Energy 2010b, entire). indicating that long-term impacts of future turbine size is likely to be 2 MW Thirty-three States and the District of road construction extend beyond the or greater. Columbia have requirements or original footprint of the roadway 2) Future wind projects would be voluntary goals for renewable energy to (Simmers 2006, p. 24). Even if vehicles constructed at approximately the same make up a percentage of their energy are cleaned before entering an area, they density as existing wind farms in these needs, including North Dakota, South pick up nonnative seeds when visiting

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 area is related to rainfall the previous collectively, to the present and disturbed areas, transporting nonnative year (Dieni et al. 2003, p. 31; Maci´as- threatened destruction, modification, species throughout the landscape (Dale Duarte 2009, p. 901), pipits move to and curtailment of the habitat and range et al. 2009, p. 195). In addition, as different parts of the wintering range of the Sprague’s pipit. Only discussed under Factor C, roads serve as annually, with densities dependent on approximately 1.55 to 1.86 percent of pathways for predators (Pitman et al. local conditions. Therefore, it is likely the breeding range remains in large 2005, p. 1267). Thus, a secondary necessary for sufficient suitable habitat enough patches to be used for breeding impact of habitat fragmentation may be to be available throughout the wintering in the United States and only an increase in predation. range so that areas that are too dry one approximately 5 to 6 percent remains The increase in roads throughout the year may be used when conditions suitable in Canada. Land conversion Sprague’s pipit’s range represents a improve but are poor elsewhere. With and fragmentation of remaining serious and ongoing threat to the conversion of grassland habitat on the grassland habitat are accelerating species. Because every new energy wintering grounds, the amount of throughout the species’ breeding range. feature requires at least some new road suitable habitat available to Sprague’s Grassland on the wintering range also is construction, the impacts of energy pipits is shrinking (Maci´as-Duarte 2009, rapidly being converted to uses not development on the species are closely p. 896; Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. suitable for the species. We anticipate tied to the impacts of road development. 3820). Even grassland that is not that conversion and fragmentation will Both further fragment the remaining actively converted is becoming continue to occur, and are likely to suitable habitat, leaving remnant unsuitable for Sprague’s pipits due to increase, on both the breeding and patches that may be too small for the widespread changes in grassland wintering range. As discussed above, nesting of Sprague’s pipit. Roads management and resulting changes in the Sprague’s pipit population is negatively affect the structure and make- grassland structure. These changes are experiencing a long-term decline. As up of the prairie, and also make caused by overgrazing, shrub more habitat becomes unsuitable, we grassland habitat more accessible to encroachment, and an increase in the expect the population decline to predators, likely decreasing Sprague’s biomass of annual grasses, among other continue or to accelerate. pipits’ reproductive success. causes (Drilling 2010, pp. 9-10; We have evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available Migration and Wintering Habitat Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, pp. 3819- 3821; Walker et al. 1981, pp. 473-474). regarding the present or threatened Although there have been few studies The Sprague’s pipit’s wintering destruction, modification, or of non-breeding Sprague’s pipits, habitat has undergone widespread curtailment of the Sprague’s pipit’s Sprague’s pipits appear to be strongly conversion to farmland and degradation habitat or range. Based on the current tied to native prairie habitat during the from management changes since pre- and ongoing habitat issues identified winter (Desmond et al. 2005, p. 442; colonial times. These changes are likely here, their synergistic effects, and their Emlin 1972, p. 324). They are negatively impacting the Sprague’s pipit likely continuation in the future, we occasionally observed in other habitat population as a whole. As conversion have determined that this factor poses a types, especially during migration and degradation continue, we expect significant threat to the species. (Maher 1973, p. 20; Robbins and Dale wintering habitat to be more limiting. Factor B. Overutilization for 1999, pp. 13-14). Several researchers However, there have not been specific Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or have noted the rapid conversion rate to studies examining Sprague’s pipits’ Educational Purposes. cropland and extremely limited area habitat use during migration or on the protected in the Chihuahuan desert wintering grounds, so it is not possible We are not aware of any commercial, region along the border between the to determine if the changes to the recreational, or educational uses of the United States and Mexico (Desmond et migration and wintering grounds species. Sprague’s pipit has not been al. 2005; pp. 448-449; Maci´as-Duarte et already constitute a threat to the species extensively studied for scientific al. 2009, p. 902; Manzano-Fischer et al. that may be placing the species at risk purposes (e.g., Robbins and Dale 1999, 2006, p. 3820). In the Chihuahuan of extinction now or in the future. p. 1; Davis 2009, p. 265). A limited Desert Region (United States and However, we think the magnitude of number of studies have involved close Mexico), an estimated 7 percent of loss on the breeding grounds is observation or handling of Sprague’s grassland habitat remained in 2005 sufficient to determine that the species pipit adults, nests, or young (e.g., Sutter (Desmond et al. 2005, pp. 439, 448). is at risk of extinction now or in the et al. 1996, pp. 694-696; Davis 2003, pp. Between 2005 and 2008, an estimated future even in the absence of specific 119-128; Dieni and Jones 2003, pp. 388- 30,000 ha (74,000 ac) of this grassland information on the wintering grounds. 389; Jones et al. 2007; Dohms and Davis was converted (Macias-Duarte et al. 2009, pp. 826-830). Work involving 2009, p. 902). In many places where Summary of Factor A radio-transmitter attachment on native grassland remains, a variety of The Sprague’s pipit is a grassland Sprague’s pipit nestlings found no factors have led to shrub encroachment, obligate species that is sensitive to evidence that the devices impacted including overgrazing, elimination of fragmentation and that requires survival, although the transmitter may prairie dogs, changes in stream flow and relatively large grassland patches to temporarily impact the birds’ balance the water table due to irrigation, and form breeding territories. As identified and movement (Davis and Fischer 2009, changes in climate patterns (Desmond et above in our Factor A analysis, the p. 199; Fischer et al. 2010, pp. 1, 3-5). al. 2005, p. 448; Manzano-Fischer et al. native prairie habitat on which Most research that includes the 2006, p. 3820; Walker et al. 1981, p. Sprague’s pipits depend has been Sprague’s pipit relies on passive 493). Reversing the pattern of woody drastically altered since European sampling (e.g., point counts) rather than species invasion is very difficult settlement, with most of the native active handling. The studies that because once established, woody prairie converted to other uses. Habitat involve active handling of adults, species tend to be stable in the conversion, fragmentation, improperly nestlings, or nests may impact the landscape (Whitford et al. 2001, p. 9). timed mowing, and energy development individuals involved, but are small Because Sprague’s pipit’s presence on and associated facilities are all enough in scale that they are unlikely to the wintering grounds in a particular contributing, individually and affect the population as a whole. Passive

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56037

sampling techniques are unlikely to routes for predators (Pitman et al. 2005, parasitism, and we believe that have negative impacts on Sprague’s p. 1267). The Sprague’s pipit’s predation may become a more serious pipits. preference for larger patches of factor affecting the species. However, at unfragmented prairie may reduce their this time, based on the available Summary of Factor B susceptibility to predation. However, as information we conclude that disease or We do not have any evidence of risks fewer large patches of grassland are predation is a not significant threat to to Sprague’s pipits from overutilization available, predation risk to Sprague’s the species now and is not likely to for commercial, recreational, scientific, pipits may increase. become so in the future. or educational purposes, and we have Cowbird Parasitism no reason to believe this factor will Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing become a threat to the species in the Cowbird parasitism also leads to Regulatory Mechanisms. Sprague’s pipit nest failures, because future. Therefore, we find that Federal Mechanisms overutilization for commercial, the cowbirds remove or damage host recreational, scientific, or educational eggs and cowbird young out-compete There are numerous Federal laws, purposes is not a significant threat to the hosts for resources (Davis 2003, pp. acts, and policies in addition to the ESA the Sprague’s pipit now or in the 119, 127). Limited evidence suggests that encourage coordination of activities foreseeable future. that Sprague’s pipit nests that are that may impact wildlife and promote parasitized do not produce any pipit Factor C. Disease or Predation. conservation of wildlife. Some of the young (Davis and Sealy 2000, p. 226). most frequently encountered Federal Disease Both nest predation and cowbird regulatory mechanisms that may parasitism generally are higher in small We are not aware of any information influence Sprague’s pipit management remnant grassland plots near habitat are described below. to indicate that disease poses a edges (Johnson and Temple 1990, pp. significant threat to Sprague’s pipits at 106, 108; Davis 1994, p. i; Davis and The Sprague’s pipit is protected under this time. The Intergovernmental Panel Sealy 2000, p. 226), so the Sprague’s the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, p. 51) pipit’s preference for larger tracts of 16 U.S.C. 703-712), which prohibits the suggests that the distribution of some grassland, when these are available, may direct take of migratory birds native to disease vectors may change as a result make the species less susceptible to the United States, their eggs, or their of climate change. However, the Service cowbird parasitism than some other active nests. Unlike the ESA, the MBTA currently has no information to suggest grassland species. As with predation, does not protect species’ habitat. that any specific disease may become the continued loss and fragmentation of Upland habitat for migratory birds can problematic to Sprague’s pipit. native grassland (see discussion under be legally destroyed as long as it does Predation Factor A) means that the remaining not result in the direct take of birds, habitat is more fragmented, likely eggs, or active nests. As discussed under Predation is thought to destroy up to leading to increased levels of cowbird Factor A, habitat loss and fragmentation 70 percent of grassland bird nests (Davis parasitism and predation. is a main reason for the species’ decline. 2003, p. 119). The predation rate on We are concerned that continued Therefore, even if all public and private Sprague’s pipits may be lower due to landscape fragmentation will increase activities are designed and carried out to their well-concealed nests and secretive the effects of predation on this species, avoid direct take of Sprague’s pipits, the behavior (Davis 2003, pp. 124; Davis potentially resulting in a further magnitude of the loss of breeding (and and Sealy 2000, p. 223; Jones and Dieni reduction in Sprague’s pipit possibly migration and wintering) 2007, pp. 117-122). The species’ productivity and abundance in the habitat would still constitute a tendency to choose taller vegetation and future. However, there is very limited significant threat to the species. to build covered nests with a runway information on the extent to which such The National Environmental Policy presumably is at least in part an attempt effects might be occurring. to avoid being seen by predators (Sutter Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 1997, p. 467), although a covered nest Summary of Factor C requires all Federal agencies to examine may not reduce predation (Jones and We do not find evidence that disease the environmental impacts of their Dieni 2007, p. 123). Predation has been is currently impacting the Sprague’s actions, incorporate environmental documented to be the main cause of pipit, nor do we have information to information, and utilize public mortality of nestling and fledgling indicate that disease outbreaks will participation in the planning and Sprague’s pipits (Davis and Fisher 2009, increase in the future. We find that implementation of all actions. NEPA entire). disease is not a threat to the Sprague’s requires disclosure of actions, but does We do not believe that the natural pipit now and is not expected to become not require mandatory minimization level of predation presents a threat to so in the future. While the level of measures for, or protection of, the the species. Rather, the predation risk predation for all grassland birds is high, species or its habitat. NEPA would not for the Sprague’s pipit may be we do not have information at this time protect Sprague’s pipit habitat from unnaturally increased by the to suggest that predation or cowbird conversion and is insufficient to address fragmentation of habitat discussed parasitism is impacting Sprague’s pipits the threats to the Sprague’s pipit. above under Factor A. Songbird at a level that threatens the species. As noted under Factor A, favorable predators tend to travel along habitat Because Sprague’s pipits select large market prices often encourage farmers to edges, avoiding prairie areas where grassland patches for nesting, when plow new land for crop production. escape is more difficult (Johnson and larger habitat patches are available There are no Federal laws or regulations Temple 1990, p. 110). Birds that may Sprague’s pipits may be less susceptible prohibiting conversion of uplands from nest near a habitat edge, such as a road, to cowbird parasitism than other native habitat to cropland, and we are could experience lower nest success grassland species. However, the not aware of any State regulatory because they may be more likely to be increased fragmentation of habitat, as mechanisms that govern conversion of parasitized by cowbirds (Davis 1994, p. discussed under Factor A, may lead to native grassland to cropland when i) and because roads may serve as travel increased predation and cowbird migratory birds will be impacted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 56038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Wind Farms and Federal Mechanisms Department of Environmental Quality Wintering Grounds in the United States 2009, p. 1). and Mexico The Service has developed interim guidelines for siting wind farms (Service Canadian Regulatory Mechanisms The species benefits from protections 2003, pp. 1-57) to reduce impacts to In Canada, the Sprague’s pipit is on U.S. National Wildlife Refuge lands, wildlife and wildlife habitat, but they listed as threatened under the Species protected lands in Mexico, and lands are voluntary and are not consistently At Risk Act (SARA), providing it with purchased by nonprofit organizations on applied (or applied at all) on private many similar protections as would be the wintering grounds, but these lands land where there is not a Federal nexus afforded by the ESA if the species were are a relatively small portion of the (Manville 2009, p. 1). As previously listed as an endangered or threatened wintering range and may not be discussed, the MBTA does not protect species (SARA: Government of Canada sufficient to support the species (Emlen habitat. Even where a Federal regulatory 2010, entire). Once a species is listed 1972, pp. 302, 304; Wells 2007, pp. 296- mechanism exists, migratory bird under SARA, it becomes illegal to ‘‘kill, 298). Habitat conservation and habitat can, and is, being converted to harass, capture, or harm it in any way.’’ restoration for the federally endangered industrial uses. Wind turbines can be, The SARA also protects critical habitat Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken and are being, constructed on National from destruction (Fisheries and Oceans (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) also Wildlife Refuge System easements Canada 2009, pp. 1-2). Critical habitat should benefit the Sprague’s pipit along (Wind Energy Advisory Group 2007, has not yet been designated for the the eastern coast of Texas. However, entire). Sprague’s pipit under SARA (Davis Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken’s habitat is a very small portion of the State Regulatory Mechanisms 2010, pers. comm.), so at this time, habitat is only protected during the Sprague’s pipit wintering range. As discussed above, a number of nesting season. If Canada designates Furthermore, the recovery plan for the States have identified the Sprague’s critical habitat in that country, the Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken notes pipit as a species of conservation emphasis would be placed on Canadian that efforts to protect habitat are concern (Arizona Game and Fish Federal lands, and a SARA permit hampered by rapid urbanization Department 2010, p. 3; Louisiana would be required to destroy critical (Service 2010, pp. 2, 28-29). As Department of Wildlife and Fisheries habitat. On provincial or private lands, discussed under Factor A, Sprague’s 2005, p. 6; Minnesota Department of the province’s laws would apply to pipits likely move widely throughout Natural Resources 2010, p. 1; Montana critical habitat. If there is a potential the wintering region in response to Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2010, p. 2; New serious impact to critical habitat and the precipitation patterns and local habitat Mexico Game and Fish 2010, p. 4; North province is not willing to stop the conditions. Therefore, relatively few, Dakota Game and Fish Department project, the Canadian government can scattered, protected areas may not 2010, p. 3; South Dakota Game, Fish, intercede. provide sufficient habitat over the long term to provide for the species’ needs. and Parks 2010, p. 3; Texas Parks and Under SARA, an environmental Wildlife 2005, p. 6). While the State review is conducted for projects on Other than some limited protected wildlife agencies work with partners to Canadian Federal land, for projects that lands in Mexico, we are not aware of protect the species, there are no State require a Canadian Federal permit or any regulatory mechanisms protecting regulations protecting habitat (Baker authorizations, and for projects that the Sprague’s pipit in Mexico. 2010, pers. comm.; Francis 2010, pers. receive Canadian Federal funding. The Summary of Factor D comm.; Gilbert 2010, pers. comm.; applicant must demonstrate that they Glusenkamp 2010, pers. comm.; have considered reasonable alternatives The MBTA currently provides Federal Johnson 2010, pers. comm.; Michon and have taken all feasible measures to protection from direct take of migratory 2010, pers. comm.; Ode 2010, pers. minimize potential project impacts, and birds native to the United States, their comm.; Wightman 2010, pers. comm.). that the project will not jeopardize the active nests, and their eggs, but it does In Montana, much of the prime survival or recovery of the species. On not provide protection for habitat. As Sprague’s pipit habitat is managed as provincial land, provincial legislation discussed under Factor A, remaining school trust land, and as such may be protects the species under the habitat in both the breeding and sold or converted at any time to generate province’s environmental review wintering range is rapidly being income for State schools (McDonald process. Provinces can invite the converted and fragmented. While most 2010, pers. comm.). Thus, the States do Canadian Federal government to of the States in the Sprague’s pipit’s not have regulations that would protect comment on their projects. Similarly, on range have identified the Sprague’s pipit Sprague’s pipit habitat from further private land with no Federal as a species of conservation concern, conversion or fragmentation. involvement, provincial laws would this designation does not provide protection of remaining habitat. Because Wind Energy and State Mechanisms apply. The SARA provides significant the main threat to the species is habitat Some States have permit requirements protection to the species in Canada, and loss, we find that existing U.S. for wind farm construction. However, as is likely sufficient to address many of regulatory mechanisms do not protect discussed above, except for Minnesota, the threats facing the species in Canada. the species from the threat of habitat there are no requirements to avoid Approximately 75 percent of the loss. Sprague’s pipit habitat. A State permit population is estimated to breed in In Canada, the Sprague’s pipit is is required in South Dakota for wind Canada (Blancher et al. 2007, p. 27). listed as a threatened species farms larger than 100 megawatts (South Given the lack of protection in the (Environment Canada 2008, p. 1). While Dakota Public Utilities Commission United States as well as the concurrent this listing provides considerable 2010, p. 1), and in North Dakota for decline in habitat on the wintering protection to the species, the population wind farms larger than 60 megawatts grounds in the United States and would be unlikely to reverse its decline (North Dakota Public Service Mexico, we do not think that the without additional protection on the Commission 2010, p. 3). No State permit protection in Canada alone is sufficient U.S. breeding portion of the range as is required in Montana (Montana to halt or reverse the species’ decline. well as on its wintering grounds.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56039

Other than some limited protected Afterward, temperature projections relative descriptor and not constant areas, we are not aware of any increasingly depend on specific between studies. regulatory mechanisms protecting emission scenarios (IPCC 2007, p. 19). Sprague’s pipits prefer areas with Sprague’s pipits’ habitat in Mexico. A Various emissions scenarios suggest that grassy cover and a low amount of bare large portion of the wintering range is in by the end of the 21st century, average ground (Dieni and Jones 2003, p. 392; Mexico, and the literature suggests that global temperatures are expected to Sutter 1997, p. 464). Extreme drought habitat is rapidly being converted increase 0.6 to 4.0 °C (1.1 to 7.2 °F), may lead to poor grass growth and thus (Desmond et al. 2005, pp. 448-449; with the greatest warming expected over less optimal habitat (Dieni and Jones Maci´as-Duarte et al. 2009, p. 902; land (IPCC 2007, p. 20). 2003, pp. 393-395). While the species Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. 3820). The IPCC (2007, pp. 22, 27) report can increase in abundance after a short- While the lack of regulatory outlines several scenarios that are term drought ends, climate change may mechanisms preventing habitat virtually certain or very likely to occur lead to drier conditions in much of the conversion on the wintering range in the in the 21st century, including: Sprague’s pipit’s breeding range United States and Mexico is likely (1) Over most land, there will be (Johnson et al. 2005, pp. 869-871), contributing to the decline of the warmer and fewer cold days and nights, which may have more lasting impacts species, we have limited information at and warmer and more frequent hot days on the habitat and thus the Sprague’s this time regarding whether the lack of and nights; pipit (George et al. 1992, pp. 281-283). regulatory mechanisms on the wintering (2) Areas affected by drought will Temperatures in the wintering range grounds alone is a significant threat to increase; and also are expected to rise, while precipitation is projected to decline the continued existence of the species. (3) The frequency of warm spells and (U.S. Global Change Research Program Based on our review of the best heat waves over most land areas will Southwest 2009, p. 125). Therefore, scientific and commercial information likely increase. substantial landscape changes are available, we conclude that existing The IPCC predicts that the resiliency expected in the wintering range (U.S. regulatory mechanisms are inadequate of many ecosystems is likely to be Global Change Research Program to protect the species and its habitat. exceeded this century by an Southwest 2009, p. 131). These changes The inadequacy of existing regulatory unprecedented combination of climate mechanisms therefore is a significant in temperature and precipitation change-associated disturbances (e.g., throughout the species’ range may have threat to the species, now and in the flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects) foreseeable future. a large impact on ecosystems (U.S. and other global drivers. With medium Global Change Research Program Great E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors confidence, IPCC predicts that Plains 2009, p. 126; U.S. Global Change Affecting Its Continued Existence. approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant Research Program Southwest 2009, p. and animal species assessed so far are Climate Change 131) and thus the Sprague’s pipit. likely to be at an increased risk of In the arid areas where Sprague’s No information on the direct extinction if increases in global average pipits migrate and winter, the amount of relationship between climate change temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C (3 to ° grass is driven by precipitation the and Sprague’s pipit population trends is 5 F). Given the large amount of land previous year. The grass structure, in available; however, climate change conversion that has already taken place turn, influences migratory bird use of an could potentially impact the species. throughout North America, it is not area (Maci´as-Duarte et al. 2009, p. 901). According to the IPCC (2007, p. 6), clear that the Sprague’s pipit’s range As climate patterns change, the ‘‘warming of the climate system is could shift into new areas in response available suitable habitat in the unequivocal, as is now evident from to changes in climate. migration and wintering areas may observations of increases in global There is some variability between become less suitable for Sprague’s average air and ocean temperatures, models in projecting the effect of future pipits. widespread melting of snow and ice, climate change on Sprague’s pipit If, as predicted, climate change causes and rising global average sea level.’’ breeding habitat. One model projected shifts in large-scale weather patterns, Average Northern Hemisphere that the Sprague’s pipit’s breeding range this would likely alter the optimal areas temperatures during the second half of would experience a wetter climate by for the Sprague’s pipit’s breeding and the 20th century were very likely higher the end of this century (U.S. Global wintering grounds. Since there is than during any other 50–year period in Change Research Program Great Plains already limited grassland remaining, it the last 500 years and likely the highest 2009, p. 125). In contrast, another model is unlikely that there would be suitable in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC suggested that much of the remaining habitat available elsewhere. However, 2007, p. 6). It is very likely that over the suitable habitat for Sprague’s pipit there is not sufficient information at this past 50 years cold days, cold nights, and nesting would likely become drier due time to determine the likely effects of frosts have become less frequent over to climate change (Johnson et al. 2005, climate change on the Sprague’s pipit. most land areas, and hot days and hot p. 871). nights have become more frequent (IPCC In a 3–year study looking at a drought Chemical Use and Harassment in 2007, p. 6). It is likely that heat waves and post-drought period in western Agricultural Fields have become more frequent over most North Dakota, Sprague’s pipit numbers The Sprague’s pipit is primarily land areas, and the frequency of heavy declined in periods of drought, although associated with grassland, but it is precipitation events has increased over they rebounded once the drought ended occasionally observed in cropland (Igl et most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 6). (George et al. 1992, pp. 275, 278-279). al. 2008, pp. 280, 284). Agricultural Changes in the global climate system By contrast, a study comparing numbers practices on the wintering grounds may during the 21st century are likely to be from the BBS to moisture levels in impact Sprague’s pipits. The pesticide larger than those observed during the eastern and northern North Dakota flowable carbofuran (brand name 20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). For the found that Sprague’s pipit numbers Furidan) was reportedly used in Mexico next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.2 actually increased during dry periods to protect crops against insects Celsius (°C) (0.4 Fahrenheit (°F)) per (Niemuth et al. 2008, pp. 213-217). (Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. 3821). decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 19). However, amount of moisture was a This practice not only reduces the prey

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 insecticide use is having a substantial This loss of suitable habitat will likely linked with the mortality of passerines impact on the species at this time. We continue and accelerate for the nearby (Manzano-Fischer et al. 2006, p. do not believe that poisoning and foreseeable future with the increase in 3821). The use of carbofuran is harassment in agricultural fields pose a energy development throughout much prohibited in the United States, and significant threat to Sprague’s pipit of the species’ range. We estimate that cancellation is being considered in population persistence. We conclude habitat will likely continue to be Canada (Environmental Protection that the best scientific and commercial converted from native prairie at a rate of Agency 2010, p. 1; Health Canada 2009, information available indicates that approximately 32,000 ha (78,000 ac) p. 1). The use of carbofuran is currently other natural or manmade factors are annually, with a total potential legal in Mexico (Doucoure 2010, pers. not a significant threat to the Sprague’s conversion of 640,000 ha (1.6 million comm.). However, since Sprague’s pipit. ac) in 20 years within the U.S. breeding pipits rarely use cropfields, carbofuran range. In addition, wind power has the Finding is unlikely to be causing major impacts potential to impact a substantial amount to the species, even in places where it As required by the ESA, we of the suitable habitat remaining within is still used. conducted a review of the status of the the range. With limited exceptions, Sprague’s pipits primarily feed on species and considered the five factors existing regulatory mechanisms do not arthropods, and have been sighted in in assessing whether the Sprague’s pipit protect the species’ habitat from sunflower fields, although their use of is endangered or threatened throughout development. crop fields is rare (Igl et al. 2008, pp. all or a significant portion of its range. The evidence we have at this time 280-284; Hagy et al. 2007, p. 66; Wells We examined the best scientific and suggests that while grazing, mowing, 2007, p. 297). The poisoning of commercial information available overutilization, predation, cowbird sunflower fields with grain bait used to regarding the past, present, and future parasitism, harassment and chemical kill blackbirds (Family: Icteridae) may threats faced by the Sprague’s pipit. We use may have some impacts on impact Sprague’s pipits (Hagy et al. reviewed the petition, information Sprague’s pipits, these effects are 2007, p. 66). As discussed above, available in our files, and other unlikely to be influencing the Sprague’s pipits do not generally use available published and unpublished population as a whole. Climate change crop fields, so the impacts of poisoning information, and we consulted with may lead to large-scale population level are limited. Sprague’s pipit and grassland bird impacts if it causes changes in the Some sunflower growers harass birds, experts and other Federal, State, and remaining suitable habitat. The primarily several species of blackbirds Canadian resource agencies. available information strongly suggests that feed on their crops. Harassment of In this review of the status of the that changes in the global climate birds on cropland may negatively species, we identified a number of system are likely to impact rainfall and impact their energy stores during threats under the five-factor analysis temperature throughout the Sprague’s migration, when they may already be including: habitat fragmentation on the pipits’ range, but the nature and low on reserves (Hagy et al. 2007, pp. breeding grounds, energy development, magnitude of these changes on the 62, 69). Any Sprague’s pipits that are roads, and inadequacy of existing Sprague’s pipit population is unknown present in sunflower fields could be regulatory mechanisms. at this time. While there are some broad incidentally harassed out of those fields Native prairie is one of the most estimates of how climate change will along with blackbirds and any other imperiled habitats worldwide, with loss impact the central region of North species present. rates approximating 70 percent in the America, many uncertainties remain. We acknowledge the potential for United States and Canada, and prairie Land conversion, fragmentation of negative impacts on Sprague’s pipit loss is accelerating. The remaining habitat, and inadequacy of regulatory from harassment and poisoning in prairie is being converted to other land mechanisms to halt habitat loss are agricultural fields. Such impacts are uses and is being increasingly causing a significant decline in the likely minimal and localized as fragmented, largely due to the Sprague’s pipit population, such that Sprague’s pipits spend limited time in development of wind, oil, and gas- listing is warranted. agricultural fields. Therefore, we generating facilities and associated Both the BBS and the CBC data show determine the potential impacts of roads and infrastructure. Land long-term, sustained declines in the harassment and poisoning on Sprague’s conversion is likely impacting the Sprague’s pipit population of 3.23 to 3.9 pipits to be low at this time. Thus, we species throughout its range, but the percent annually and a 73 to 80 percent have determined that pesticide use and effects of fragmentation most strongly decline over the past 40 years. These harassment is not a significant threat to impact the species on the breeding surveys provide an indication of the Sprague’s pipit. grounds. Because Sprague’s pipits avoid population trends. The evidence for unsuitable landscape features in decline is particularly strong because Summary of Factor E breeding territories, the effect of a these two lines of independent evidence Due to the large level of uncertainty, change in the landscape is magnified both point to the same conclusion. Even we do not find climate change to be a beyond the simple footprint of the though the surveys take place in significant threat to the species at this disturbance. Only approximately 2 different parts of the species’ range time. However, the IPCC states that percent of the species’ historical U.S. (breeding and wintering) and use warming of the climate is unequivocal range remains in potentially suitable different methodologies, the resulting (2007, p. 15). Additional information habitat. When we included the effects of estimates for population trend are would improve our understanding of its fragmentation and disturbance, the remarkably similar. The only available effects on the species. remaining suitable habitat declined population estimate comes from the While chemical use to control insects even further to 1.55 to1.86 percent of BBS data, estimating the population at likely has both direct and indirect the historical breeding habitat in the approximately 870,000 in 1995 effects on the Sprague’s pipit, we have United States and between 5 and 6 (Blancher et al. 2007 p. 27). The limited information regarding the scope percent of the historical breeding range population trend since that time has of its use. Therefore, we do not have in Canada remaining in large enough continued to decline, suggesting that the information to determine whether patches to support nesting territories. population is approximately 479,000

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56041

today, assuming a continued population due to native prairie conversion to other are imminent. These threats include the decline of 3.9 percent annually. uses and fragmentation from energy (oil, present or threatened destruction, Prairie habitat loss and fragmentation gas, and wind) development. modification, or curtailment of its has resulted in only 1.55 to1.86 percent On the basis of the best scientific and habitat and the inadequacy of existing of the historical breeding habitat in the commercial information available, we regulatory mechanisms. This is the United States and between 5 and 6 find that the petitioned action, listing highest priority that can be provided to percent of the historical breeding range the Sprague’s pipit as endangered or a species under our guidance. Our in Canada remaining in patches large threatened, is warranted. We will make rationale for assigning the Sprague’s enough to support nesting. We expect a determination on the status of the pipit an LPN 2 is outlined below. current habitat loss and fragmentation to species as endangered or threatened Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, continue into the future. Farm policy when we prepare a proposed listing the magnitude of threat is the first and practices continue to provide determination. However, as explained criterion we look at when establishing a economic incentives for farmers to in more detail below, an immediate listing priority. The guidance indicates convert native prairie into cropland, proposal of a regulation implementing that species with the highest magnitude while advances in farming (herbicide this action is precluded by higher of threat are those species facing the resistant crops and the advent of no-till priority listing actions, and progress is greatest threats to their continued planting) contribute to decisions to being made to add or remove qualified existence. These species receive the convert prairie to cropland. The historic species from the Lists of Endangered highest listing priority. The threats that primary impact to the Sprague’s pipit and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. the Sprague’s pipit faces are high in population has been land conversion to We reviewed the available magnitude because the major threats cropland. While land conversion to information to determine if the existing (habitat conversion and fragmentation, cropland is ongoing and remains a and foreseeable threats render the energy development, inadequacy of chronic threat, the major threat in the species at risk of extinction now such regulatory mechanisms) occur future is further fragmentation and that issuing an emergency regulation throughout all of the species’ range. degradation of native prairie habitat temporarily listing the species under Based on an evaluation of suitable from the rapid expansion of oil and gas section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is warranted. habitat remaining in the species’ production and wind farm We determined that issuing an breeding range, we determined that less development. While there are emergency regulation temporarily than 2 percent of the U.S. range and approximately 10 million ha (25 million listing the species is not warranted for ac) of native prairie remaining in the this species at this time, because while only about 6 percent of the Canadian U.S. range, only approximately 7 the population shows a long-term range remain in a suitable habitat type million ha (17 million ac) of this habitat sustained decline, there is sufficient for the Sprague’s pipit to breed. Habitat remains in large enough patches to be habitat remaining to prevent the species’ loss through grassland conversion was used by breeding Sprague’s pipits. numbers from plummeting drastically in historically a major threat to the species, Similarly, in the Canadian range, only the short term. Additionally, while we with approximately 98 percent of the approximately 3 to 4 million ha (7.4 to believe that both the U.S. and Canadian U.S. breeding range lost to habitat 9.9 million ac) remains in patches large portions of the breeding range are conversion. On the remaining 2 percent enough to be used by breeding necessary for the long-term survival of of U.S. breeding range, grassland Sprague’s pipits. Even this remaining the species, the protections afforded in conversion is still occurring at a rate of habitat is becoming increasingly Canada under SARA should somewhat approximately 32,000 ha (78,000 ac) per fragmented through continued buffer the species’ decline. However, if year. While conversion continues to conversion and fragmentation, at any time we determine that issuing an reduce the amount of habitat available, especially due to energy development. emergency regulation temporarily energy development is the current and As the amount of suitable habitat listing the Sprague’s pipit is warranted, projected future major threat to the declines, the quality is also reduced, we will initiate the action at that time. species. The amount of oil and gas and wind development has been increasing because the remaining habitat is Listing Priority Number increasingly fragmented, with more rapidly (Manville 2009, p. 1; edge effects and greater impact from The Service adopted guidelines on Macpherson 2010, p. 1), and is expected predators, cowbirds, and weed September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to to continue to do so into the foreseeable incursion. We anticipate the current rate establish a rational system for utilizing future. Wind development alone has the of population decline (3.23 to 3.9 available resources for the highest potential to impact from 14 to 16 percent annually) to continue, and priority species when adding species to million ha (33 to 39 million ac) in the possibly increase, into the future due to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened U.S. breeding range. In North Dakota the current and future loss of suitable Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying alone, oil and gas development could breeding habitat. Given the current and species listed as threatened to impact approximately 570,000 ha (1.4 anticipated decline in suitable habitat endangered status. These guidelines, million ac) within the Sprague’s pipit on both the breeding and wintering titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened range in 20 years. Both oil and gas and grounds, the inadequacy of existing Species Listing and Recovery Priority the wind development are land regulatory mechanisms to protect Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and intensive, causing wide-scale remaining habitat, and the long-term, magnitude of threats, and the level of fragmentation and degradation of the ongoing population decline, we find taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning remaining grassland making it that listing the Sprague’s pipit priority in descending order to unsuitable for this species. There is less throughout its range (United States, monotypic genera (genus with one specific information available on the Canada, and Mexico) is warranted. species), full species, and subspecies (or wintering grounds, but the data This status review identified threats equivalently, distinct population available indicate that large areas of the to the Sprague’s pipit attributable to segments of vertebrates). We assigned wintering grounds are being converted Factors A and D. The primary threat to the Sprague’s pipit an LPN of 2 based from grassland habitat. The the species is from habitat conversion on our finding that the species faces documented, long-term, continuous and fragmentation (Factor A), especially threats that are of high magnitude and population decline indicates that loss of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 56042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

habitat is having a population-level priority than subspecies or DPSs, but a available and conducting analyses used effect. lower priority than species in a as the basis for our decisions; writing Adequate regulations are not in place monotypic genus. and publishing documents; and at the local, State, or Federal level to The Sprague’s pipit faces high obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating adequately minimize the threat of magnitude, imminent threats, and is a public comments and peer review habitat degradation and fragmentation. valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in comments on proposed rules and Regulatory mechanisms do not exist to accordance with our LPN guidance, we incorporating relevant information into prevent large-scale changes to prairie have assigned the Sprague’s pipit an final rules. The number of listing habitat. Energy development (oil, gas, LPN of 2. actions that we can undertake in a given and wind) and associated infrastructure We will continue to monitor the year also is influenced by the is projected to increase throughout the threats to the Sprague’s pipit, and the complexity of those listing actions; that Sprague’s pipit’s range, further species’ status on an annual basis, and is, more complex actions generally are precluding the species’ use of large should the magnitude or the imminence more costly. The median cost for portions for breeding or wintering of the threats change, we will revisit our preparing and publishing a 90–day activities. There are not adequate assessment of the LPN. finding is $39, 276; for a 12–month regulations related to placement and Work on a proposed listing finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule spacing of these energy features to avoid determination for the Sprague’s pipit is with critical habitat, $345,000; and for impacts to remaining unfragmented precluded by work on higher priority a final listing rule with critical habitat, grassland habitat. We believe the ability listing actions with absolute statutory, the median cost is $305,000. court-ordered, or court-approved of the Sprague’s pipit population to We cannot spend more than is deadlines and final listing stabilize or increase over the long term appropriated for the Listing Program determinations for those species that is highly diminished given the without violating the Anti-Deficiency were proposed for listing with funds landscape-level changes that are Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In from Fiscal Year 2009. This work occurring. Thus, we believe that the addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal available information indicates that the includes all the actions listed in the tables below under expeditious year since then, Congress has placed a magnitude of threats is high. statutory cap on funds which may be Under our LPN Guidance, the second progress. expended for the Listing Program, equal criterion we consider in assigning a Preclusion and Expeditious Progress to the amount expressly appropriated listing priority is the immediacy of for that purpose in that fiscal year. This threats. This criterion is intended to Preclusion is a function of the listing cap was designed to prevent funds ensure that the species that face actual, priority of a species in relation to the appropriated for other functions under identifiable threats are given priority resources that are available and over those for which threats are only competing demands for those resources. the Act (for example, recovery funds for potential or that are intrinsically Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), removing species from the Lists), or for vulnerable but are not known to be multiple factors dictate whether it will other Service programs, from being used be possible to undertake work on a for Listing Program actions (see House presently facing such threats. The th threats are imminent because we have proposed listing regulation or whether Report 105-163, 105 Congress, 1st factual information that the threats are promulgation of such a proposal is Session, July 1, 1997). identifiable and that the species is warranted but precluded by higher- Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget currently facing them throughout all priority listing actions. has included a critical habitat subcap to portions of its breeding range and in The resources available for listing ensure that some funds are available for large portions of its wintering range. actions are determined through the other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The These actual, identifiable threats are annual Congressional appropriations critical habitat designation subcap will covered in detail under the discussion process. The appropriation for the ensure that some funding is available to of Factors A and D of this finding and Service Listing Program is available to address other listing activities’’ (House currently include habitat conversion support work involving the following Report No. 107 - 103, 107th Congress, 1st and fragmentation and inadequate listing actions: Proposed and final Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and regulatory mechanisms. In addition to listing rules; 90–day and 12–month each year until FY 2006, the Service has their current existence, we expect these findings on petitions to add species to had to use virtually the entire critical threats to continue and likely intensify the Lists of Endangered and Threatened habitat subcap to address court- in the foreseeable future. State agency Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change mandated designations of critical representatives, energy industry the status of a species from threatened habitat, and consequently none of the spokesmen, and researchers anticipate to endangered; annual determinations critical habitat subcap funds have been that the amount of wind and oil and gas on prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ available for other listing activities. In development will increase in the petition findings as required under FY 2007, we were able to use some of northern Great Plains for the foreseeable section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical the critical habitat subcap funds to fund future. Since both oil and gas and wind habitat petition findings; proposed and proposed listing determinations for development are occurring in areas that final rules designating critical habitat; high-priority candidate species. In FY remain in native prairie, we believe that and litigation-related, administrative, 2009, while we were unable to use any the impacts of increased development and program-management functions of the critical habitat subcap funds to will further reduce the remaining (including preparing and allocating fund proposed listing determinations, suitable Sprague’s pipit habitat. budgets, responding to Congressional we did use some of this money to fund The third criterion in our LPN and public inquiries, and conducting the critical habitat portion of some guidance is intended to devote public outreach regarding listing and proposed listing determinations so that resources to those species representing critical habitat). The work involved in the proposed listing determination and highly distinctive or isolated gene pools preparing various listing documents can proposed critical habitat designation as reflected by taxonomy. The Sprague’s be extensive and may include, but is not could be combined into one rule, pipit is a valid taxon at the species limited to: Gathering and assessing the thereby being more efficient in our level, and therefore receives a higher best scientific and commercial data work. In FY 2010, we are using some of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 specific date; section 4 (of the Act) species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate actions with statutory deadlines. listing actions with absolute statutory species have had the highest priority to Thus, through the listing cap, the deadlines; essential litigation-related, receive funding to work on a proposed critical habitat subcap, and the amount administrative, and listing program- listing determination. As we work on of funds needed to address court- management functions; and high- proposed and final listing rules for those mandated critical habitat designations, priority listing actions for some of our 40 candidates, we apply the ranking Congress and the courts have in effect candidate species. In 2009, the criteria to the next group of candidates determined the amount of money responsibility for listing foreign species with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the available for other listing activities. under the Act was transferred from the next set of highest priority candidate Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, Division of Scientific Authority, species. other than those needed to address International Affairs Program, to the To be more efficient in our listing court-mandated critical habitat for Endangered Species Program. Starting process, as we work on proposed rules already listed species, set the limits on in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is for the highest priority species in the our determinations of preclusion and being used to work on the actions next several years, we are preparing expeditious progress. described above as they apply to listing multi-species proposals when Congress also recognized that the actions for foreign species. This has the appropriate, and these may include availability of resources was the key potential to further reduce funding species with lower priority if they element in deciding, when making a 12– available for domestic listing actions. overlap geographically or have the same month petition finding, whether we Although there are currently no foreign threats as a species with an LPN of 2. would prepare and issue a listing species issues included in our high- In addition, available staff resources are proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted priority listing actions at this time, also a factor in determining high- but precluded’’ finding for a given many actions have statutory or court- priority species provided with funding. species. The Conference Report approved settlement deadlines, thus Finally, proposed rules for accompanying Public Law 97-304, increasing their priority. The allocations reclassification of threatened species to which established the current statutory for each specific listing action are endangered are lower priority, since as deadlines and the warranted-but- identified in the Service’s FY 2010 listed species, they are already afforded precluded finding, states (in a Allocation Table (part of our the protection of the Act and discussion on 90–day petition findings administrative record). implementing regulations. that by its own terms also covers 12– We assigned the Sprague’s pipit an month findings) that the deadlines were Based on our September 21, 1983, LPN of 2, based on our finding that the ‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to guidance for assigning an LPN for each species faces immediate and high delay commencing the rulemaking candidate species (48 FR 43098), we magnitude threats from the present or process for any reason other than that have a significant number of species threatened destruction, modification, or the existence of pending or imminent with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, curtailment of its habitat and from the proposals to list species subject to a we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 inadequacy of existing regulatory greater degree of threat would make to 12, depending on the magnitude of mechanisms. Under our 1983 allocation of resources to such a petition threats (high vs. moderate to low), Guidelines, a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent [that is, for a lower-ranking species] immediacy of threats (imminent or high-magnitude threats is assigned an unwise.’’ nonimminent), and taxonomic status of LPN of 1, 2, or 3 depending on its In FY 2010, expeditious progress is the species (in order of priority: taxonomic status. Because the Sprague’s that amount of work that can be monotypic genus (a species that is the pipit is a species, we assigned it an LPN achieved with $10,471,000, which is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of 2 (the highest category available for amount of money that Congress of a species (subspecies, distinct a species). Therefore, work on a appropriated for the Listing Program population segment, or significant proposed listing determination for the (that is, the portion of the Listing portion of the range)). The lower the Sprague’s pipit is precluded by work on Program funding not related to critical listing priority number, the higher the higher priority candidate species; listing habitat designations for species that are listing priority (that is, a species with an actions with absolute statutory, court already listed). However these funds are LPN of 1 would have the highest listing ordered, or court-approved deadlines; not enough to fully fund all our court- priority). Because of the large number of and final listing determinations for ordered and statutory listing actions in high-priority species, we have further those species that were proposed for FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of ranked the candidate species with an listing with funds from previous fiscal our critical habitat subcap funds in LPN of 2 by using the following years. This work includes all the actions order to work on all of our required extinction-risk type criteria: listed in the tables below under petition findings and listing International Union for the expeditious progress. determinations. This brings the total Conservation of Nature and Natural As explained above, a determination amount of funds we have for listing Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, that listing is warranted but precluded actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our Heritage rank (provided by must also demonstrate that expeditious process is to make our determinations of NatureServe), Heritage threat rank progress is being made to add or remove preclusion on a nationwide basis to (provided by NatureServe), and species qualified species to and from the Lists ensure that the species most in need of currently with fewer than 50 of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife listing will be addressed first and also individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. and Plants. (Although we do not discuss because we allocate our listing budget Those species with the highest IUCN it in detail here, we are also making on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 rank (critically endangered), the highest expeditious progress in removing is being used to fund work in the Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage species from the Lists under the following categories: compliance with threat rank (substantial, imminent Recovery program, which is funded by court orders and court-approved threats), and currently with fewer than a separate line item in the budget of the settlement agreements requiring that 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 Endangered Species Program. As petition findings or listing populations, originally comprised a explained above in our description of determinations be completed by a group of approximately 40 candidate the statutory cap on Listing Program

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 56044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

funds, the Recovery Program funds and expeditious progress in adding qualified progress in FY 2010 in the Listing actions supported by them cannot be species to the Lists is a function of the Program. This progress included considered in determining expeditious resources available and the competing preparing and publishing the following progress made in the Listing Program.) demands for those funds. Given that determinations: As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, limitation, we find that we are making

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Threatened Final Listing 74 FR 52013-52064 Species Throughout Its Range Threatened

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the Black Hills Notice of 90–day 74 FR 55177-55180 of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered Petition Finding, Not substantial

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the Upper Mis- Notice of Intent to 74 FR 55524-55525 souri River System Conduct Status Review

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Proposed Listing 74 FR 56757-56770 Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule. Threatened

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout Its Proposed Listing 74 FR 56770-56791 Range with Special Rule Threatened

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Notice of Intent to 74 FR 61100-61102 Conduct Status Review

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Notice of 12–month 74 FR 63343-63366 Threatened or Endangered petition finding, Not warranted

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or En- Notice of 90–day 74 FR 63337-63343 dangered Petition Finding, Substantial

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Mussels From Texas Notice of 90–day 74 FR 66260-66271 as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat Petition Finding, Substantial

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the South- Notice of 90–day 74 FR 66865-66905 western United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habi- Petition Finding, tat Not substantial and Substantial

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Listing of the Distinct Notice of 12–month 74 FR 66937-66950 Population Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico petition finding, Warranted but precluded

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Through- Proposed Listing 75 FR 605-649 out Their Range Endangered

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed Listing 75 FR 286-310 Endangered

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel Proposed rule, 75 FR 310-316 withdrawal

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth’s Shearwater as Final Listing 75 FR 235-250 Threatened Throughout Their Ranges Threatened

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana and Solanum Notice of Intent to 75 FR 3190-3191 conocarpum Conduct Status Review

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened Notice of 12–month 75 FR 6437-6471 or Endangered petition finding, Not warranted

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert Population of Notice of 12–month 75 FR 8601-8621 the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Seg- petition finding, Not ment warranted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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/ Co- Withdrawal of Proposed 75 FR 8621-8644 lumbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout Rule to List (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave salamander as Endan- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 13068-13071 gered Petition Finding, Substantial

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut Mussel Notice of 90–day 75 FR 13717-13720 (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened Petition Finding, Not substantial

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened Notice of 90–day 75 FR 13720-13726 Petition Finding, Substantial

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse Notice of 12–month 75 FR 13910-14014 (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered petition finding, Warranted but precluded

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake Notice of 12–month 75 FR 16050-16065 (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Crit- petition finding, ical Habitat Warranted but precluded

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as or Notice of 90–day 75 FR 17062-17070 Endangered Petition Finding, Substantial

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in the Big Notice of 12–month 75 FR 17352-17363 Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened petition finding, Not warranted

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a Notice of 90–day 75 FR 17363-17367 Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Petition Finding, Habitat Not substantial

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt From Threat- Notice of 12–month 75 FR 17667-17680 ened to Endangered Throughout Its Range petition finding, Warranted but precluded

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and Des- Final Listing 75 FR 18959-19165 ignation of Critical Habitat Endangered

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Contig- Notice of Initiation of 75 FR 19591-19592 uous United States Status Review

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as En- Notice of 12–month 75 FR 19592-19607 dangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat petition finding, Not warranted

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Notice of 90–day 75 FR 19925-19935 Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endan- Petition Finding, gered or Threatened with Critical Habitat Substantial

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys Notice of Initiation of 75 FR 20547-20548 macrolepidotus) Status Review

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered Notice of 90–day 75 FR 21568-21571 Petition Finding, Substantial

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making Caddisfly Notice of 12–month 75 FR 22012-22025 (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered petition finding, Not warranted

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel as En- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 22063-22070 dangered with Critical Habitat Petition Finding, Substantial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 Threat- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 23654-23663 ened or Endangered Petition Finding, Substantial

6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis Notice of 90–day 75 FR 30313-30318 Petition Finding, Substantial

6/1/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as En- Notice of 12–month 75 FR 30338-30363 dangered or Threatened petition finding, Not warranted

6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as En- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 32728-32734 dangered orThreatened. Petition Finding, Substantial

6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yel- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 34077-34088 low-faced Bees as Endangered Petition Finding, Substantial

6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least Chub as Threatened or Notice of 12–month 75 FR 35398-35424 Endangered petition finding, Warranted but precluded

6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird Notice of 90–day 75 FR 35746-35751 as Endangered Petition Finding, Substantial

6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as Endangered Through- Proposed Listing 75 FR 35721-35746 out Its Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) Endangered and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Proposed Listing Their Range Threatened

6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian Final Listing 75 FR 35990-36012 Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges Endangered

6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Proposed Listing 75 FR 36035-36057 Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges Endangered

6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened Reinstatement of 75 FR 37353-37358 Proposed Listing Threatened

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as Notice of 90–day 75 FR 42033-42040 Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat Petition Finding, Substantial

7/20/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Amargosa Toad as Threatened Notice of 12–month 75 FR 42040-42054 or Endangered petition finding, Not warranted

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse Earthworm Notice of 90–day 75 FR 42059-42066 (Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened or Endangered Petition Finding, Substantial

7/27/2010 Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg as Endangered Final Listing 75 FR 43844-43853 Throughout its Range; Final Rule Endangered

7/27/2010 Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch (Camarhynchus pauper) as En- Final Listing 75 FR 43853-43864 dangered Throughout Its Range Endangered

8/3/2010 Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin Species Final Listing 75 FR 45497-45527 Threatened

8/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endan- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 46894-46898 gered Subspecies With Critical Habitat Petition Finding, Substantial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 Endan- Notice of 90–day 75 FR 48294-48298 gered with Critical Habitat Petition Finding, Substantial

8/17/2010 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America and the Caribbean Final Listing 75 FR 50813-50842 as Endangered Throughout Their Range Endangered

8/17/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian Head Mountainsnail as Notice of 90–day 75 FR 50739-50742 Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat Petition Finding, Not substantial

8/24/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid as Notice of 90–day 75 FR 51969-51974 Endangered or Threatened Petition Finding, Substantial

9/1/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-Sided Jackrabbit as Notice of 12–month 75 FR 53615-53629 Threatened or Endangered petition finding, Not warranted

9/8/2010 Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender Salamander as Endangered Proposed Listing 75 FR 54561-54579 Endangered

9/8/2010 Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Popu- Notice of 12–month 75 FR 54707-54753 lation Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threatened petition finding, Warranted but precluded

9/9/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jemez Mountains Salamander Notice of 12–month 75 FR 54822-54845 (Plethodon neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical petition finding, Habitat Warranted but precluded

Our expeditious progress also timelines, that is, timelines required they overlap geographically or have the includes work on listing actions that we under the Act. Actions in the bottom same threats as the species with the funded in FY 2010 but have not yet section of the table are high-priority high priority. Including these species been completed to date. These actions listing actions. These actions include together in the same proposed rule are listed below. Actions in the top work primarily on species with an LPN results in considerable savings in time section of the table are being conducted of 2, and selection of these species is and funding, as compared to preparing under a deadline set by a court. Actions partially based on available staff separate proposed rules for each of them in the middle section of the table are resources, and when appropriate, in the future. being conducted to meet statutory include species with a lower priority if

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 Final listing determination dace)

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 12–month petition finding petition

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium 12–month petition finding friscanum) from 206 species petition

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, 12–month petition finding Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 12–month petition finding species petition)

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 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 = Proposed listing 8)

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 Proposed listing (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 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 determine if a change in status is from the North Dakota Field Office (see listing actions as efficient and timely as warranted, including the need to make ADDRESSES). possible, given the requirements of the prompt use of emergency listing Author relevant law and regulations, and procedures. constraints relating to workload and We intend that any proposed listing The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the North Dakota personnel. We are continually action for the Sprague’s pipit will be as considering ways to streamline Field Office. accurate as possible. Therefore, we will processes or achieve economies of scale, continue to accept additional Authority such as by batching related actions information and comments from all together. Given our limited budget for The authority for this section is concerned governmental agencies, the implementing section 4 of the Act, these section 4 of the Endangered Species Act actions described above collectively scientific community, industry, or any of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et constitute expeditious progress. other interested party concerning this seq.). finding. The Sprague’s pipit will be added to Dated: September 2, 2010 the list of candidate species upon References Cited Paul R. Schmidt publication of this 12–month finding. Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service We will continue to monitor the status A complete list of references cited is of this species as new information available on the Internet at http:// [FR Doc. 2010–22967 Filed 9–14– 10; 8:45 am] becomes available. This review will www.regulations.gov and upon request BILLING CODE 4310–55–S

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Sep 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS